Today, our firm file a supplemental amicus brief for the Fifth Circuit’s rehearing en banc of a challenge to the ATF’s bump stock rule. (We previously file an amicus brief in support of the petition for rehearing en banc.) Our brief argued that the bump stock rule was politically motivated and that bump
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to help defend a decision of the district court of Hawaii striking down two state restrictions on firearms purchase. Hawaii law requires that even after obtaining a permit to purchase a specific handgun, the permit expired after 10 days, and then the firearm must be physically carried to a police station for inspection.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge brought by Texas and other states against Obama’s DACA policy. Our brief explained that the Texas states have standing to bring this challenge to DACA. Further, our brief argued that DACA presents several constitutional violations, including the separation of the powers as it is an exercise of legislative power, and that it violates
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc in a case challenging the bump stock ban. Our brief explained that bump stocks do not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun, and that only Congress has the power to amend the text of statutes. Finally, we explained that the district court’s and the court of appeals panel’s conclusions contradicted
Today, our firm filed its third amicus brief in the Jewel litigation, this time in support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Ninth Circuit. A panel of the Ninth Circuit once again ruled in support of the federal government, holding that the Jewel plaintiffs had failed to set forth sufficient evidence to establish standing and also affirming the district court’s exclusion of such
Today, we filed an amicus brief attacking the constitutionality of a
California ban on standard capacity magazines, which the California law
mislabels as “Large Capacity Magazines.” The District Court and Ninth
Circuit panel both ruled for that the laws were unconstitutional, and
the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Our brief defends the
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a California law which requires background checks for persons seeking to buy ammunition. Our brief explained the history of how the 9th Circuit has employed various legal tests and other techniques to allow certain judges hostile to gun rights to evade application of the Second Amendment, as written.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to a series of district court decisions within the Ninth Circuit striking down a recent HHS regulation. The regulation issued by the Trump Administration was designed to protect healthcare workers from being required to performing certain procedures, such as abortions, euthanasia, and sex change surgeries.
Today we filed an amicus brief for former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese III supporting the dismissal of criminal charges against General Michael Flynn. In our brief we argue that the Attorney General of the United States, not a federal district judge, has the primary responsibility for ensuring that criminal charges are brought only for violations of actual federal crimes. In the
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit defending President Trump’s and his Department of Health and Human Services’ effort to protect healthcare workers from being forced to participate in abortions, sterilizations, and euthanasia. Our brief explains that Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs are still pursuing an Eugenics Agenda. Our brief explains how the
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a complaint filed by Coral Ridge Ministries Media, which has been unfairly classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We explain in our brief that the SPLC defames organizations like Coral Ridge Ministries by adding them to a “hate map,” which is used
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in a challenge to a California law limiting the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. We explain that the two-step test used by the lower federal courts undermines the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald. And we explain that weapons useful in military service are exactly the type of weapons covered by the Second Amendment under United States v. Miller and Heller.
Today our firm filed its second amicus brief in a challenge to the most sweeping Fourth Amendment violations ever committed by the U.S. government. (Our last brief was filed over four years ago.) This suit seeks to stop three different mass surveillance programs operated by the federal government — programs which have seized Internet (email, internet searches, etc.) and telephone communications
Today our firm filed our ninth amicus brief opposing Obamacare. This briefs supports challenge to Obamacare brought by the State of Texas and other states based on the fact it is unconstitutional since the penalty for the individual mandate was zeroed out by Congress in December 2017. Earlier, we filed the only amicus brief supporting the Texas challenge in district court in Texas. This brief
Today our firm filed an amicus brief opposing a strained reading of the Federal Election Campaign Act disclosure requirement which CREW has urged a federal court to be forced on the FEC. FEC rules have long required the disclosure by non-political committees of donors giving to support specific Independent Expenditures (IEs). Reversing that established rule, the U.S. District Court for the District
Today we filed an amicus brief opposing a request for rehearing by the State of Hawaii of a Ninth Circuit decision which overturned Hawaii’s virtual ban on citizens bearing weapons. We opposed Hawaii’s argument that its laws against carrying firearms were long-standing, explaining that those laws existed when Hawaii was a monarchy where the reigning king or queen was sovereign —
Today we filed another amicus brief in support of Americans for Prosperity’s challenge to the California Attorney General’s demand for its confidential donor information as a condition of raising money in the state. This brief urged the Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to reverse an earlier panel decision. The brief was filed for Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Free
Today we filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit in support of a petition for rehearing en banc, asking the Court to reconsider its decision which misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2006 (June 22, 2018). The trial court allowed the government to introduce evidence of “Cell Site Location Information” (“CSLI”) obtained
Today we filed our second amicus brief in the Ackerman case. Our first brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, and today’s brief was filed in the Tenth Circuit. This case involves the power of the government to conduct searches and seizures of email and attachments to email. The District Court decision upholding the search was entirely based on the “reasonable expectation of privacy” atextual judicial construct. When this case was before the Tenth Circuit previously, that Court raised the property basis of the Fourth Amendment set out in United States v. Jones in 2012, but this issue was not addressed by the District Court.
In the third section of our brief, we explain the history of the property foundation of the Fourth Amendment from before its ratification, through its abandonment, and now through its return to primacy in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. (Now-Justice Gorsuch authored the earlier Tenth Circuit opinion focusing on the property principle.)
Today, we filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting a challenge against the California Attorney General’s demands for the large donor lists (IRS Form 990 Schedule B) of charitable organizations who wish to register to solicit donations in that state. We argued that the AG’s requirement creates a condition precedent that violates the right to peacably assemble. We also explained that the new rule does not only risk public dissemination of donor information, as has already happened in California, but also the risk that politicized Attorney Generals in New York and California — Kamala Harris, Xavier Becerra, and Eric Schneiderman — would misuse the information. We also raised the distinct possibility that the AG is committing the federal crime of solicitation of taxpayer information because it is conditioning the ability to raise funds in California on the “voluntary” provision of the confidential donor lists. Finally, we argued that 9th Circuit precedent in similar cases improperly relied on election law cases, requiring that IFS’ case be heard en banc.
Just before midnight tonight, we filed our fourth brief defending President Trump’s rescission of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program. This brief was filed in the Second Circuit, which is considering an appeal from a “nationwide” or “universal” injunction issued by one Democrat lawyer currently serving as an unelected federal district judge in Brooklyn, who had been appointed in 2000 by President Clinton — Nicholas G. Garaufis.
Today we filed an amicus brief supporting efforts by the State of Texas to outlaw unbelievably cruel and barbaric dismemberment abortions.
Today, we filed our seventh amicus brief in support of President Trump’s immigration actions, this time, in support of his September 24, 2017 Proclamation. Our brief challenged the purported standing of the plaintiffs below, where the district court based standing on the Establishment Clause, but then granted the injunction based on statutory grounds. Our brief argued that the question
Today we filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the City of Chicago’s buffer zone ordinance, which was designed to prevent pro-life sidewalk counselors from speaking to pregnant women at the last opportunity before they enter an abortion clinic. Our brief argued that the case should be decided as any other First Amendment case — and the First Amendment rules should not be bent because this case involves an abortion clinic. We discuss how the courts have allowed a separate abortion rights jurisprudence to have precedence over legal principles of general applicability. We also explain that the Chicago ordinance violates the often ignored First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.”