Today, we filed an Amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit supporting a challenge brought by Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho to the U.S. Department of Education’s April 29, 2024 Final Rule. That Rule expanded the meaning of the Title IX ban on discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Our brief argued that the Rule destroys personal privacy for women and girls; destroys women’s and girls’ sports; and censors the free speech rights of teachers and students. We argue that the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision should neither control nor inform a decision in this case. Finally, we point out that the DOE Rule presupposes that biological sex is not an immutable reality, but rather a social construct, changeable at will.
Link to brief
Link to prior Title IX amicus brief, Tennessee v. Cardona
Kennedy v. Biden — Amicus Brief
Today’s amicus brief was filed in the 5th Circuit supporting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense in their fight against the Government’s Censorship Enterprise. The Government interprets the Supreme Court’s recent Murthy v. Missouri decision to make it impossible for Americans whose voices have been secretly throttled or even extinguished by the Government to get their day in court. We explain why the Kennedy Plaintiffs have standing under Murthy. Government promises to behave cannot be trusted. Future offenses can be expected that should be enjoined, as the same FBI which censored stories about the Hunter Biden laptop to elect Biden-Harris can be expected to do so again to try to elect Harris-Waltz. We call out how the Government’s ongoing censorship, backed by threats, of social media platforms, which they euphemistically described as “content moderation.”
Link to brief
United States v. Idaho — Amicus Brief
Today, we filed an Amicus brief to oppose the Biden Administrations effort to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to undermine Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act.” We argue that the Biden Administration has been exceedingly hostile to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and is working to circumvent it. The HHS Secretary had no statutory authority to issue the guidance documents to require elective abortions to be performed. We argue that the guidance documents constitute an unconstitutional usurpation of the states’ police power and exceeds federal spending power.
Link to brief
Law Matters — Episode 6
In Episode 6, we discuss our 11th Circuit amicus brief in Doe v Ladapo, supporting Florida’s “Let Kids Be Kids” law protecting children from harmful puberty blockers, hormone-altering drugs, and mutilating surgeries.
Doe v. Ladapo — Amicus Brief
The district court invalidated a Florida statute designed to protect minors from the current fad of transgenderism, for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Our amicus brief rejected the district court’s assumption that a law based on transgender status was equivalent to racism. We also showed that the district court erroneously relied on medical “standards” recommended by an
Tennessee v. Cardona — Amicus Brief
On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Final Rule which directed that under Title IX, discrimination ” on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Our brief argued that the DOE Rule does not implement, but rather undermines Title IX. The Rule destroys
Rhode v. Bonta — Amicus Brief in Second Appeal
Today, our firm filed our third amicus brief in the case challenging California’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases — our first amicus brief was filed in the prior appeal well before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and the second
U.S. v. Daniels — Amicus brief on remand
Today, our firm filed a second brief in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), this time on remand from the Supreme Court after it issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi. Our brief argued that Rahimi did not change the Bruen test that the Fifth Circuit had previously applied, and thus Rahimi would not change the outcome previously reached by the Fifth Circuit.
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari filed by a coalition of parents of schoolchildren in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The parents are challenging a policy of the school district to assist children with sexual transitioning without telling the parents of those children. The lower courts dismissed the claims, concluding that the parents did not have standing to
Fouts v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of a challenge to California’s ban on billy clubs. Applying Bruen, our brief explained that billy clubs are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Even if historical analogues were review, California failed to provide any relevant precedent for its ban on sticks.
Lake v. Hobbs — Amicus Brief in support of motion to recall mandate
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of Arizona candidates Kari Lake and Mark Finchem’s motion to recall the mandate for fraud on the court. Our amicus brief discussed the key role the judiciary plays in protecting free and fair elections. When an elected official in charge of supervising elections is then a candidate in another election, the courts must take a particularly
Nguyen v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, supporting a challenge to California’s law limiting firearm purchases to one per month. Our brief demonstrated that California’s law violates the Second Amendment by applying Bruen’s text and history test. The acquisition of firearms is clearly protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and the California
Baird v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in a challenge to California’s near-complete ban on open carry of firearms. Our brief exposed how the district court rewrote the issues of the case so that it could reach its own predetermined decision, criticized and then rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller and Bruen, and upheld yet another California law violating
U.S. v. Texas — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ SB4, which allows law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of unlawfully being in the United States and Texas. The Biden Administration filed suit against Texas seeking to have SB4 enjoined. Our amicus brief argued that Texas has the authority under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 and as a sovereign entity to defend itself and
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Maryland’s handgun license requirement. Our brief set out the history of the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of the Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment, and demonstrated that the permit requirement violates the Second Amendment as well as the Bruen test. Our brief concluded by providing examples of individuals
U.S. v. Abbott — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of Texas Governor Abbott’s installation of floating barriers on the Rio Grande. Our brief argued that Texas has the inherent power as a sovereign entity to defend its people against invasion across its borders. Our brief also demonstrated that Texas’ actions are consistent with Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 as it is under an “actual
Miller v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in an appeal on whether California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban violates the Second Amendment. Our brief described the various ways in which California has demonstrated its hostility to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decisions. We argue that the assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment using the Bruen test.
Duncan v. Bonta — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed its fifth amicus brief in the Duncan saga, a case challenging California’s high-capacity magazine ban. Our brief argued that the case was not properly before the en banc panel for initial hearing en banc. We showed how California has a history of hostility to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decisions on that amendment. Finally, we explain how the magazine
American First Legal Foundation v. Department of Agriculture — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United in an appeal challenging the Biden Administration’s withholding of agency reports in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. President Biden issued Executive Order 14019 on March 6, 2021, directing every executive branch agency to provide a report to the White House on ways
Brandt v. Griffin — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in defense of Arkansas’s law protecting minors from life-altering “gender transition” procedures. Our brief revealed serious shortcomings in the district court’s findings of fact, upon which the injunction was based. Our brief also explained how the district court relied on the opinions
FSC v. Paxton — Amicus Brief filed to support of Texas Porn Age Verification Law
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit to help defend a Texas law enacted to require age verification for pornographic websites. An adult entertainment association and others challenged the law, and a federal district judge issued an injunction against the law, preventing it from taking effect.
Our amicus brief argued that the district court employed an interest balancing test
CFPB v. Townstone Financial — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in defense of a Chicago-area mortgage company which had been sued by one of the most activist left-wing federal agencies in Washington — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The mortgage company’s radio show criticized the prevalence of crime in Chicago and surrounding areas, causing the CFPB to accuse it of racial discrimination
Koons v. Platkin — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a New Jersey law prohibiting concealed carry of a firearm in a large number of so-called “sensitive places.” Our brief explained how New Jersey’s effort to justify the law under the Supreme Court’s Bruen analysis of Second Amendment challenges falls woefully short.
Missouri v. Biden — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana. The challengers sought and received a preliminary injunction against certain members of the Biden Administration, prohibiting them from continuing to pressure social media companies to censor speech that they oppose. Our brief argued that the federal government has an improper view of its