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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today we filed an amicus brief in the United Sates Supreme Court on the merits to help protect the Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) of California from a California law which mandates that the CPCs provide information about the availability of abortions. We had earlier filed an amicus brief in support of NIFLA’s petition for certiorari.
Our brief was filed on behalf of Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, One Nation Under God Foundation, Pass the Salt Ministries, Eberle Associates, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, and The Transforming Word Ministries.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving a warrantless search of a motorcycle under a tarp located in the “curtilage” of a home, or the area immediately surrounding it. Under the deeply flawed rule the Virginia Supreme Court applied, the Fourth Amendment has no bearing at all whenever an automobile or anything that resembles an automobile is being searched, irrespective of where the automobile is located.
In our brief, we challenged the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had concluded that there was no privacy interests of other students implicated by members of the opposite sex using their restrooms. This, we argued, rejected out of hand the long standing and universal practice of restroom separation by sex, based on nothing more than the judges’ own policy preferences. Moreover, we argued, the court’s opinion was utterly oblivious to the numerous adverse consequences that would flow from its decision, applying not just to restrooms but to school locker rooms and showers as well, which will lead to all manner of disruption and injury to students.
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado against an order of a Colorado Administrative agency which would compel a Christian baker to facilitate and participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding.
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Court to review a decision of the Fourth Circuit which would strip the Second Amendment rights of Marylanders.
Today we filed our sixth brief in support of the Trump Immigration Executive Orders. Three of those prior briefs were in the Ninth Circuit; one in the In the Fourth Circuit; and one in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this brief, we set out four major arguments, on the critical issues which will be decided by the High Court..
First, we explain that as written and as applied the Establishment Clause only applies to efforts to “establish” a religion, and not supposedly disfavor a religion. (That is why it is sometimes called the “no establishment” clause.) We then explain the sources of the President’s authorities to restrict immigration and refugee admission. We discuss the vast power of the President over refugees. Lastly, we discuss the phony finding of animus as a rationale for judicial usurpation of the power of the political branches. (We even explain how the theories of Saul Alinsky could have helped fashion the complaint against President Trump.
Today, we filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court on the merits, arguing that the government may not seize and search your cell phone’s cell site location information without a warrant. This brief follows two briefs that we filed on this same issue in United States v Graham, and one in United States v. Zodhiates.
Today we filed in the U.S. Supreme Court an amicus brief supporting President Trump’s challenge to the Fourth Circuit decision which approved a Maryland judge’s injunction against his Executive Order. Our brief supports both President Trump’s application to stay this injunction, and supports his petition for certiorari. The brief addressed three broad points.
First, we explain how the rationale underlying the district and circuit court decision undermines the President’s inherent and statutory authority to control immigration into the United States. We ask the Court to consider whether this rationale could also be applied to enjoin Presidentially ordered military operations against Islamic nations.
Today, we filed our reply brief, responding to the arguments made by the
Indiana government’ opposition to our petition for certiorari.
Today, our firm was honored to have filed its 100th amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court. This brief supported a petition for certiorari filed by the state of Arizona. Arizona is seeking to have the Supreme Court review and reject a Ninth Circuit opinion which struck down Arizona’s decision not to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who are part of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of a petition to protect the Crisis Pregnancy Centers in California. The California Reproductive FACT Act requires these pro-life centers to disseminate to those who seek its services, information explaining the easy availability of taxpayer subsidized abortion. Our brief explains that this state law violates the Declaration of Independence’s recognition of protected “unalienable rights,” violates the law of our Creator, violates the Constitution’s Free Speech protections, and violates the Free Exercise Clause. Lastly, we explain that the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding this law has no limiting principle, and therefore could next be used to ban entirely Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the state.