Grace v. District of Columbia

admin Firearms Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Today, we filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in support of a challenge to the D.C. Concealed Carry statute which was brought by Matthew Grace and others.  Our brief argues that the District of Columbia Council based its argument on the notion of hidden exceptions to the Bill of Rights, and a flawed understanding of the difference between the restricted nature of firearms rights in England versus the unrestricted nature of firearms rights in the Colonies.  Our brief also argues that it is illegitimate for the Court to engage in judicial balancing tests of any type, as they were barred by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.  Lastly, we argued that the government does not have the authority to make predictive judgments as to who may violate the law and restrict liberties to prevent crimes that it fears may someday occur.

Read More

America’s Lawyers Face “Knockout Blow” for LGBT Dissent — Scales of justice tipped to “purify” profession

admin Press Coverage

World Net Daily’s Bob Unruh published a timely story exposing the true nature of the ABA proposed ethics change, published on the eve of the meeting of the ABA House of Delegates in San Francisco.

Read More

Article: “‘PC’ Politics Drove ABA’s Proposed Rules Change — A push for new classes of “harassment” in professional ethics reflects hubris and elitism”

admin Publications

We were grateful that the National Law Journal published the fourth article in the U.S. Justice Foundation’s series on the proposed ABA Ethics Changes.  This Op Ed was the lead in the National Law Journals email to subscribers sent out on August 8, 2016.

Read More

Article: Exposing the Extreme Liberal Slant of a Quasi-Governmental Power: The ABA

admin Publications

CNSNews.com published the third article in the U.S. Justice Foundation’s expose on the American Bar Association.  This article focused on the quasi-governmental role that the ABA plays — in reviewing federal judges and in recommending changes to the Model Rules of Practice, a/k/a “ethics.”

Read More

Article: “The ABA’s Plan to Impose Political Correctness on the Practice of Law”

admin Publications

The U.S. Justice Foundation engaged our firm to publish a series of articles exposing the “politically correct” ethics proposals being considered by the American Bar Association at its annual meeting in San Francisco.  The American Thinker published the first article in the series.

Read More

Citizens United v. State Department — CU Opposition to State’s Motion for 27 Month Delay

admin FOIA Law

In one of the FOIA cases we have filed for Citizens United seeking emails relating to Hillary Clinton’s time at the U.S. Department of State, today we filed an Opposition to State’s last minute effort to avoid compliance with the court-ordered schedule to produce documents that it itself had earlier proposed.  The State Department now wants the Court to allow it a remarkable 27 additional months to provide the requested documents.  Our proposed form of order is also attached.

Read More

Steven Fish v. Kris Kobach

admin Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit in support of the right of Kansas to require that persons registering to vote under the National Voter Registration Act of 1994 submit documentary proof of citizenship. Our brief supported the position taken by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Read More

Comments: Gun Owners of America & Gun Owners Foundation File Comments Opposing Social Security Administration Efforts to Disarm the Disabled

admin Administrative Law

Today our firm filed comments on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation opposing proposed regulations issued by the Obama Social Security Administration to add more names to the NICS system which would prevent many persons with disabilities from buying firearms.

Read More

State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

admin Press Coverage

The Daily Caller carried a story today about U.S. State Department request for extraordinary delays in making public disclosure of certain of Hillary Clinton’s emails, in a case brought by our firm for Citizens United.

Read More

Article: Whole Woman’s Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence
Article: Justice Thomas Exposes Supreme Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence
Article: Whole Woman’s Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence

admin Publications

Our article discussing the flawed logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health, and extolling the excellent dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas was published by The American Thinker, and run by CNS News and Restoring Liberty.

Read More

Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission

admin Election Law, U. S. District Court, District of Columbia

Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of The Independence Institute, in its challenge to certain federal election law and Federal Election Commission regulations governing electioneering communications.  Under these regulations, Section 501(c)(3) organizations must report on their broadcast issue ads which mention the name of incumbent Congressmen.  The required reports include certain information on donors to the nonprofit organizations.  Our brief explains why these laws and regulations violate First Amendment principles of anonymity long recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read More

Wrenn v. District of Columbia

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in support of a challenge to the District of Columbia’s requirement that a person must demonstrate a “good reason” in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  Our brief noted that before Heller, the federal courts perpetuated the charade that the right of “the People” was a collective rather than an individual right.  Now, we argued, the lower courts are perpetuating a new charade — that rights which “shall not be infringed” can indeed be infringed so long as the government strongly desires to do so, and judges believe the regulations are reasonable.  Our brief argued that use of such “interest-balancing” tests permits judges to come to whatever result they prefer, as this case uniquely indicates.

Read More

Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit defending the right of the State of Arizona to refuse to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens who enjoy temporary protection from deportation based on President Obama’s  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program.

Read More

Article: Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Decree Appears to Violate Multiple Federal Laws
Article: Obama’s Threat to Defund Schools Over Trans Bathroom Issue Violates Federal Law

Michael Harless Publications

Our article explaining the illegality of the Obama transgender bathroom directive was published by the Western Journalism Center, CNSNews.com and has been picked up by Yahoo News, and Lucianne.Com.

Read More

Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, opposing attempts by a girl with feelings of gender “dysphoria” to use Title IX to gain access to the boy’s bathrooms at her school.  Our brief argued that one’s sex is a scientific constant, and determined by the Creator.  Allowing a person’s feelings at any given time to define his gender permits individuals to decide whether and how the law applies to them.  Our brief pointed out that the ruling of the district court below is not limited to bathrooms, but could be applied broadly to grant access to opposite sex locker rooms, housing, athletic teams, and other gender-restricted areas.  Finally, our brief argued that the district court’s ruling sanctions sexual anarchy, and the day is not far away when a white male will “identify” as a black female in order, for example, to gain preferential treatment through reverse-discrimination (i.e., affirmative action) college admission policies.  Our brief was filed on behalf of Public Advocate of the United States, United States Justice Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Read More

Manuel v. City of Joliet

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending the right of a person who was unlawfully incarcerated for several weeks to be able to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Read More

U.S. Justice Foundation FOIA Requests for All Withheld Portions of Congressional Report on 9-11

Michael Harless FOIA Law

Today, our firm filed three FOIA requests on behalf of the U.S. Justice
Foundation to the CIA, Department of State, and Department of Homeland
Security, seeking all redacted portions of the Congressional Joint
Report on the events of 9-11 issued in December 2002.

Read More

Hamilton v. Pallozzi

Michael Harless Firearms Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting the right of a Maryland resident to purchase and possess firearms despite a prior conviction. Hamilton had been convicted of a non-violent felony in Virginia and served his sentence. Later, Virginia restored his civil rights, and then a Virginia Court specifically restored his firearms rights.

Read More

United States v. Texas

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the challenge filed by Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s DAPA amnesty program.  (We had earlier filed an amicus brief in support of Texas in this case in the Fifth Circuit, where Texas prevailed.)  Our brief explains why the Executive Branch had no authority (through DAPA or otherwise) to grant unilaterally “lawful presence” to approximately 4 million illegal aliens.  It also explains that such unilateral Executive Action violates the federal separation of powers.  Lastly, it explains why the sovereign States have the right to seek federal judicial review of such unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions as they constitute a constitutional “controversy” that must be decided by federal courts in accordance with Article III, Section 2, and that the traditional rules of standing do not apply.

Read More

Colorado Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court as to Some Colorado Gun Restrictions

Michael Harless Litigation

Our firm has been pleased to be co-counsel on a state constitutional challenge to the 2013 Colorado firearms gun control laws restricting possession of “high capacity” magazines and requiring background checks for private sales.  The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that we were entitled to a hearing on the magazine issue, but affirmed the background check issue.  Notably, one of the judges filed an important dissent.  Judge Graham’s opinion adopted our arguments that the Second Amendment is to be analyzed by a “text, history, tradition” analysis, not according to interest balancing tests such as in a pre-Heller Colorado case that used a “reasonableness” analysis.

Read More

Article: Forbes discusses Justice Thomas reliance on our Voisine Brief

Michael Harless Press Coverage

Forbes contributor George Leef’s article “Justice Thomas Asks:  Why are Second Amendment Rights So Easily Taken Away,” discusses Justice Thomas’ questions, and our brief in the Voisine case.  (See page 2 of 3.)

Read More