We began the year with a brief opposing abortion in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our brief defends a Louisiana statute requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. The Louisiana statute is similar to the Texas statute considered in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The law was challenged by an abortion clinic and abortion doctors, claiming that the statute creates an “undue burden” on the court-created right to an abortion. Our brief argued that the clinic and the doctors did not have standing to assert the rights of women who were not part of the case. Instead, we argued, the “undue burden” test is flawed and should be abandoned. Finally, we explained that for decades the Supreme Court has applied its terrible “super-precedent” of Roe v. Wade, to corrupt any legal principle that would stand in the way of abortion rights. We asked the Court to continue to reject what we termed its “abortion-predilection” jurisprudence that began with National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (“NIFLA”). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on March 4, 2020.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra & Thomas More v. Becerra
Today we filed our fourth amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 22 organizations and fundraisers opposing a California requirement that nonprofits surrender the names of their large donors before soliciting contributions in that state. Now, we are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Ninth Circuit.This is the sixth brief we filed defending the right of nonprofits to withhold IRS Form 990 Schedules B, protecting the anonymity of their donors. In our brief, we address four issues —why such disclosure demands are unconstitutional for four reasons: freedom of association under NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Alabama; blanket restrictions of charitable solicitation under Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates; breach of anonymity under Watchtower v. Village of Stratton and Talley v. California; and lastly, because in addition to retaliation by the public, government officials could retaliate against those donors funding nonprofits working to oppose government policies.
Remington Arms v. Soto
Today we filed our second amicus brief in the defense of a firearms manufacturer who was sued in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook shooting. Our prior brief was in the Connecticut Supreme Court. This brief supports the manufacturer’s effort to obtain review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the plaintiffs’ theories were rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but it allowed the case to proceed based on advertising that supposedly would have appealed to young males to conduct shootings. Our brief explains why the Connecticut Court erred in its creation of a huge exception to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a statute designed specifically to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from suits such as this one.
DHS v. Regents of the University of California
Today we file our fourth amicus brief in support of President Trump’s authority to rescind President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA policy. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to review the lower court orders which have prevented President Trump from changing policy, and we address the issues in our merits amicus brief. We explain why the decision to end DACA was not judicially reviewable, and that DACA itself was unlawful. Our prior briefs were filed February 2, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court, March 14, 2018 in the Second Circuit, and December 6, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bostock v. Clayton County & Altitude Express v. Zarda
Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of Altitude Express from a case brought by a homosexual skydiving instructor who was fired for speaking inappropriately at work about his sexual orientation. The Altitude Express case has been consolidated with a case from the Eleventh Circuit — Bostock. As in the Harris Funeral Case, we explain that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Ac does not apply to sexual orientation.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
Today we filed our third amicus brief in support of a Christian employer, Harris Funeral Homes, against a case brought by a male who demanded his employer allow him to dress like a woman. We explained why Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act could never be interpreted to apply to such claims.
Veronica Price v. City of Chicago
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief challenging the City of Chicago’s “bubble zone” ordinance, designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. As we did in our first brief in the Seventh Circuit, we argue here that this case should be handled not as an abortion rights case, but as a First Amendment case — and that the legal principles that apply to First Amendment cases should not be bent merely because this case involves the issue of abortion.
Johnson v. United States
Today we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to re-examine its Terry v. Ohio, stop-and-frisk doctrine. Although Terry stop and frisks were limited to a search for weapons, in this case one was used to justify seizing a bullet. Since that decision in 1968, both Fourth and Second Amendment law has changed. The property basis of the Fourth Amendment has been re-established, and the Second Amendment has been recognized as protecting an individual right.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York (Merits)
Today we filed our second amicus brief in support of a challenge to New York City’s near prohibition on transporting firearms. This is the first Second Amendment case that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard since Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Our brief details the lower courts’ open prejudice against gun rights and its disregard for the Supreme Court’s protection of Second Amendment rights since those earlier cases.
Doe v. Woodard
Today our firm filed an amicus brief involving a challenge to a Fourth Amendment violation by a social worker who strip-searched a four-year-old girl, without consent of the child or her mother, in search of tell-tale signs of child abuse. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the case, ruling that the social worker was not liable under the Supreme Court’s doctrine of qualified immunity. Our brief argues for limitations on the qualified immunity doctrine, and explains why the doctrine does not apply in this case.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of the Department of Commerce’s decision to add a citizenship question for the 2020 Census. A federal court in New York issued an injunction against the administration from adding the citizenship question, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari before a judgment of the Second Circuit. Our brief explained that the purpose of the decennial census is for apportionment of representation of our nation’s citizens in the House of Representatives and that the district court’s decision was based on a globalist worldview.
Zodhiates v. United States
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari challenging the government’s ability to track citizens through Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) obtained without a warrant. In this case, the trial court allowed the government to introduce 28 months of CSLI obtained by a prosecutor using a mere Grand Jury Subpoena. We argue that the Carpenter v. United States decision, issued in 2018, affirms the protection of CSLI under the Fourth Amendment, and the third-party doctrine does not apply. Our brief explains why the “good faith” exception applies only to police, and not prosecutors. This brief, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, is our third amicus brief in support of Philip Zodhiates.
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (Bladensburg Cross Merits)
Today we filed our second brief in support of the Bladensburg Cross in Maryland. We earlier filed a brief at the petition stage on July 27, 2018. Our brief attacks existing Supreme Court Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and calls upon the Court not to end the judicial assault on Christianity.
DHS v. Regents of the University of California & Nielsen v. Vidal (DACA)
Today, we filed our third brief in support of President Trump’s rescission of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program. We urge the Supreme Court to review the three pending injunctions against the rescission issued by Democrat judges. We asked the High Court to determine the legality of “universal injunctions” by district judges, as well as the constitutionality of the original DACA program.
Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
Today we filed an amicus brief supporting the owners of a small bakery in Oregon (Sweetcakes by Melissa) who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding because of their religious convictions. For this, they were fined $135,000 and ordered to cease and desist following their religious convictions. This case is similar to Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop, a case in which we filed two briefs, but which was not decided on the central issue — the extent to which public accommodation can restrict the Free Exercise of Religion.
First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa v. Doe
Today we filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to correct a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court which gave state courts jurisdiction over a matter of church policy — public baptism.
Commissioner v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of an Indiana law which prevents eugenic abortion. Our brief challenges the “right” to eugenic abortion claimed by Planned Parenthood, an issue which we believe the U.S. Supreme Court should address.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to New York City’s near prohibition on transporting firearms. The New York City law only allows transportation of firearms from their permitted location to and from gun ranges within the city limits.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review its decision giving a meaning to Title VII that Congress never intended. The Sixth Circuit decided to change a 50-year old understanding of Title VII to accommodate to the demands of LGBTQ activists, by barring employment discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” Our brief explained the radical nature of recent the Hively and Zarda cases where courts chose to amend Title VII under the guise of re-interpretation of the statute. This follows on the two briefs we filed in Zarda, and the earlier brief we filed in the Harris Funeral Home case when it was in the Sixth Circuit.
American Legion v. American Humanist Association (Bladensburg Cross)
Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block a Fourth Circuit decision which found that the Bladensburg (Maryland) War Memorial, which includes a 40-foot cross, violates the Establishment Clause. The Fourth Circuit opinion discusses the relief being sought by a few Maryland residents to be either razing the Cross, or defacing it by cutting off its arms, and making it into an Egyptian obelisk.
Altitude Express v. Zarda
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a petition for certiorari to review a circuit court decision giving homosexuals the right to sue employers, even though Congress never authorized such suits. Ten liberal Second Circuit judges joined a decision to rewrite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment. This follows a similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit.
Gundy v. United States
Today, we filed an amicus merits brief in the Supreme Court addressing the 80-year old anti-delegation doctrine. Our brief explains why the “intelligible principle” test that was adopted by the Court has failed to uphold the constitution’s structural integrity. We explain that separation of powers is essential to preserve the liberty of the American people. And we explain why it is particularly problematic for Congress to delegate to an unelected bureaucrat the power to criminalize behavior.
Trump v. Hawaii
Today, we filed our eighth brief in support of President Trump’s efforts to bar those coming from terror-prone areas of the world to travel to the United States. This brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, on the merits.
Ulbricht v. United States
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court addressing important Fourth And Sixth Amendment issues. The investigation into Ross WilliamUlbricht, the founder of the “Silk Road” website, involved numerous Fourth Amendment violations in the search and seizure of his Internet Communications records. Additionally, Ulbricht had been sentenced to life imprisonment, and there is now no parole in the federal system, based on a judge’s findings of fact based on the preponderance of the evidence, in violation of his right to a jury trial.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of U. California (DACA)
Today we filed another brief relating to President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA policy — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This brief supported the Trump Administration’s to obtain U.S. Supreme Court before judgment review of a nationwide injunction issued by District Judge William H. Alsup.