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.
Today, on behalf of Citizens United, we filed a Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act against the Department of Labor, seeking email communications sent to or received by email addresses which have been publicly reported to be associated with Obama’s Labor Secretary Tom Perez. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
National Public Radio ran a story about the Trump Administration’s regulation to ban bump stocks, and the legal challenge we filed for Gun Owners of America, in which Rob Olson of our firm was interviewed.
Today, we filed a Petition for Certiorari on behalf of Jeremy Kettler, who was convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor. Our petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision, and to determine whether the National Firearms Act continues to be an appropriate exercise of Congress’s taxing power due to the many changes that have been made to the NFA over the last eight decades. Additionally, if the NFA is still justifiable under the taxing power, we have asked the Court to determine whether firearm accessories such as suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment and whether the NFA is impermissible as a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right.
Today, our firm filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to stop the Bumpstock regulations from going into effect on March 26, as planned.
(Plaintiffs’) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (December 26, 2018)
(Plaintiffs’) Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (December 26, 2018)
(Plaintiffs’) Party Declarations (December 26, 2018)
(Plaintiffs’) Richard Vasquez Declaration (December 26, 2018)
Today, ATF published in the Federal Register its final regulations imposing a total ban on private ownership of bumpstocks, overruling numerous prior ATF decisions. Later that same day, our firm filed a chellenge to this regulation on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Guy Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizen Defense League, and three individuals — Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen and Rachel Malone. The challange was filed in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan.
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.
Jeremiah Morgan wrote this interesting take on why Michael Cohen would plead guilty to a non-crime. First, he explains why there is no campaign finance law violation here, and then discusses how this case provides a precedent to support the ever-increasing criminalization of politics in America.
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.
The Article quotes Bill Olson, saying “Not only is it an effort to have a societal sanction for an immoral lifestyle, but it’s being accomplished by unelected judges who are admitting they are changing the law,”
Our brief argued that the Court should take the case to revisit the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been roundly criticized since it was decided. We urged the Court to apply an interpretive test suited to the Establishment Clause’s original text. Our brief proposes the proper test that the Court should adopt, which focuses not on whether the monument uses religious symbolism, but the use of the religious symbol , which here was to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, not to proselytize. As we have done in many prior briefs, we explain that the Religion Clauses establish a jurisdictional barrier to the the actions of federal government, including the federal judges.
The facts of the case involve a homosexual skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired for his sexual orientation. Our brief explains that he was fired not because he was a homosexual, but because of his inappropriate behavior towards female clients. But even if he had been fired for his “sexual orientation,” that is not a basis to bring a suit under Title VII which only sanctions discrimination based on “sex.”