Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a January 6 defendant. Our brief argued that, since the government claimed the election protest on January 6 was an insurrection, it should have charged many defendants with that crime, but instead it charged no one with insurrection, preferring use of a Sarbanes-Oxley provision (which does not apply) to get a
United States v. Rahimi — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in defense of the proper Second Amendment interpretation recognized in D.C. v. Heller in 2008 and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. This case involves the federal firearms ban on individuals who have certain types of restraining orders issued against them, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). To try to prevent the Bruen
O’Handley v. Weber — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in a challenge to California’s efforts to coerce social media companies to censor a user on Twitter. The petitioner had a tweet deleted and then his account suspended by Twitter, at the direction of California and its Office of Elections Cybersecurity. Our brief disputed California’s censorship of “false
Loper Bright v. Raimondo — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in a case requesting the Supreme Court to overturn its Chevron doctrine, a judicially created rule to defer to executive branch agency interpretations of statutes instead of the courts actually interpreting the statutes. Our amicus brief described the confusion caused by Chevron deference, both in the D.C. Circuit in this case and as demonstrated in the various
Guedes v. ATF — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari challenging the ATF’s reclassification of bumpstocks as machineguns. Our amicus brief explained that the bumpstock ban was a reversal of position for the ATF, and was not based on new analysis, but rather at the direction of the President. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion below was based on marketing
CFPB v. Community Financial Services — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of a challenge to the unconstitutional funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The CFPB is funded through the Federal Reserve, not through constitutional congressional appropriations. Our brief demonstrated that the Federal Reserve is also not funded by congressional appropriations, which is another
Blankenship v. NBCUniversal — Amicus supporting petition for certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Our brief explained how Justice Brennan’s opinion in that case radically changed libel law by immunizing most libel against public figures. Brennan’s opinion was based neither on the First Amendment text nor a
NRA v. Vullo — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of NRA’s Petition for Certiorari challenging New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) threats to banks and insurance companies doing business with the NRA because it is pro-gun. Our amicus brief explained that the Second Circuit, ruling in favor of New York, relied on a “reputational risk” justification that was once
Tingley v. Ferguson — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge against Washington State’s ban on licensed counselors from providing biblical counsel on sexual morality to young people. Our brief argued that the state’s censorship law violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause and the free exercise of religion clause. We explained how the Washington Legislature, district
Biden v. Nebraska — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Biden v. Nebraska, a case challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness vote buying scheme. Our brief, filed on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and The Presidential Coalition, LLC, explained that the Framers of the Constitution structured the national government with a separation of powers
Gonzalez v. Google — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that the Supreme Court has granted review in to consider the scope of immunity granted to technology companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was enacted in the nascent days of the Internet revolution to prevent liability from third-party behavior from crippling innovation in Internet technologies.
Ward v. Thompson — Amicus Supporting Stay of Jan 6 Committee Subpoena
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of an emergency application for stay of a subpoena for phone records issued by the House January 6 Committee. Our brief was filed on behalf of America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
United States v. Texas — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of Texas and Louisiana and their challenge to the Biden Administration’s written policy not to enforce certain immigration laws. Our amicus brief argued that the States have standing to challenge the unlawful federal actions, both under the doctrine of “special solicitude” standing and parens patriae standing.
Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of two owners of a specialty cake shop in Oregon. The owners were targeted because they are Christians and were fined by the state of Oregon for declining to design and create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. Our brief argued that Oregon’s public accommodations law defies the jurisdictional limit on government imposed by the
Moore v. Harper — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief for America’s Future in the U.S. Supreme Court which is considering whether state courts may usurp the constitutional role of state legislatures to set the “Times, Places and Manner” for holding Congressional elections under Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1. Our brief answered that question in the negative, arguing that the U.S. Constitution assigns
Torcivia v. Suffolk County — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a Second Circuit decision which upheld an illegal search and seizure of firearms in his home by police after Petitioner was taken for a mental health examination. The police now assert that the “special needs exception” to the Fourth Amendment permitted the search and seizure.
Our brief urges the Supreme Court to grant
Missouri v. Biden — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Missouri and nine other states challenging the CMS vaccine mandate for workers healthcare at certain facilities. Our brief argued that the vaccine mandate is not permitted under either the Spending Clause or the Commerce Clause. Our brief also argued that the vaccine mandate impermissible commandeers state employees
303 Creative v. Elenis — Merits Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on the merits in 303 Creative. We previously filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for certiorari. Our amicus brief argued that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act empowers militant, homosexual activists to use the legal system to attack and destroy Christian business owners.
Heltzel v. Youngkin — Amicus brief supporting petition for certiorari
In Heltzel, a group of plaintiffs are challenging the removal by former Governor Ralph Northam of the Robert E. Lee Monument, which had stood in Richmond for 120 years. The Heltzel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court which sanctioned that removal. Today, our firm filed the only amicus brief in support of the Lee Monument and against
Jewel v. NSA — Amicus Supporting Petition for Certiorari
In Jewel, a group of plaintiffs are seeking a federal injunction against the widespread, warrantless surveillance of communications involving Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA). The case has been litigated for over a decade, most recently with the Ninth Circuit denying relief in a dismissive, one-page opinion. The Jewel plaintiffs are now seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention to
Coral Ridge Ministries v. Southern Poverty Law Center — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm file an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by Coral Ridge Ministries. In the courts below (where we filed an amicus brief), Coral Ridge’s defamation complaint against SPLC was dismissed under the Supreme Court’s decision
NFIB v. OSHA — Amicus Supporting Stay of Vaccine Mandate
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support applications of stay of the OSHA Vaccine Mandate and a petition for certiorari before judgment. Numerous parties sought court review and a stay of the OSHA Vaccine Mandate after it was issued on November 5, 2021. After the Sixth Circuit allowed the mandate to take effect, requests for stay were sought in the Supreme Court as well as petitions for
303 Creative v. Elenis
Today, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a Petition for Certiorari filed by small business owner who provides website design services. She would like to begin offering custom wedding websites, but the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (the same law used against Jack Phillips and Masterpiece
FBI v. Fazaga — FISA & State Secrets Privilege
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of certain Muslims in Los Angeles who were surveilled electronically and otherwise by the FBI and a confidential informant. The FBI has asserted the state secrets doctrine to seek dismissal of most claims, including a FISA claim under which the district court could conduct an ex parte in camera review of the surveillance to determine if there were