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.
Today we co-counseled the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Patriotic Veterans, a nonprofit organization based in Illinois. This Petition brings to the High Court a First Amendment challenge to an Indiana law barring most nonprofit organizations from using automated dialing equipment to conduct issue advocacy and grassroots lobbying. Our Petition explains that the First Amendment, as reaffirmed by a long line of Supreme Court decisions, vests in each homeowner the right to decide whether to receive a visitor at a door, and that same principle applies to receiving a message delivered by telephone. State legislators are often annoyed when constituents learn what bills are pending, and what is going on behind closed doors in the legislature. They are particularly annoyed when constituents besiege them with messages telling them how they want them to vote. However, state legislators have no right to enact laws to shut down issue advocacy and grassroots lobbying, intruding themselves between nonprofit organizations like Patriotic Veterans and the people of Indiana.
Today we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a deeply flawed decision of the Virginia Supreme Court involving the Fourth Amendment. The cased involved different ways that courts evaluate the constitutionality of searches and seizures. The search in this case was of a motorcycle under a tarp located what is known as 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.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of a petition for writ of certiorari, asking the Court to review a California ban on mental health providers pro-hetrosexual therapies to minors. Interestingly, the California law, SB 1172, does not ban pro-homosexual therapies. We reject the notion that the Free Exercise Clause was written to give special rights to religious people. We explain that SB 1172 violates the Free Exercise Clause, which operates as a jurisdictional barrier to the power of States, barring California’s encroachment upon matters of opinion outside its civil jurisdiction. We also demonstrated that the State’s inherent police power does not permit it to conditioning licensing in order to suppress politically correct and morally unpopular medical treatments under the guise of protecting minors.
Today we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the petition for certiorari filed in the Peruta challenge to California concealed carry laws. Our brief, however, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to review a broader issue than that sought by the petitioners, and based on a more robust understanding of the protections afforded by Second Amendment than that urged by petitioners.
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a school board whose policy is that students should use the bathroom associated with their fixed biological sex, rather than the one that corresponds to their subjective “gender identity.”
The Obama Administration’s Department of Education had joined the lawsuit in support of a troubled young woman who thinks that she “is” a man, and who demanded to use the boy’s bathroom at her school.
Today we filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeal filed by the Independent Institute challenging the disclosure requirements imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) as applied to genuine issue ads. BCRA compels the disclosure of donors to such ads over $1,000, with substantial civil and criminal penalties for failure to report this information publicly.
Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a petition for certiorari in a case involving a Fourth Amendment violation where a person’s whereabouts were tracked for months by seizing his cell site location information. We argued against the Supreme Court’s “third-party doctrine,” which holds that a person does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” if he voluntarily gives information to third parties. Further, the brief relied on the Court’s recently reinvigorated property rights basis of the Fourth Amendment, urging the Court to consider a person’s cell phone data and location as his property even though not a physical object.
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.
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.
On March 7, 2016, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell’s challenge to his conviction on federal corruption charges.
Our brief argues that setting and enforcing ethical standards applicable to state and local government officials is not among the enumerated powers vested in Congress. Rather, such matters belong exclusively to the States and to the People of each State. This exclusive state authority is protected not only by the Tenth Amendment, but also is secured to the States by the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government. It is the responsibility of elected State government officials to set the standards that govern communications and relationships between state and local officials and their constituents. It is not for unelected federal prosecutors to have the power to bring down state and local officials. If federal prosecutors are allowed to exercise such powers, what State official could be counted upon to do his duty to resist an overreach of federal power.
There must be something special about LEAP DAY.
Today, for the first time in a decade, Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question during the oral argument of Voisine v. United States in the U.S. Supreme Court. And, his question was drawn from an amicus brief we filed in that case!!! And ours was the only amicus brief filed in support of Voisine.
The Voisine case involves the infamous Lautenberg Amendment — under which a person who commits a certain type of misdemeanor may suffer a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Our brief challenged the power of Congress to abolish a person’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the commission of a misdemeanor.
Today we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the High Court to reverse decisions from the Supreme Court of North Dakota and Minnesota which authorized police to force drivers to submit to warrantless blood and breath tests. We urge the Court to apply to principles of its prior decisions in United States v. Jones, and Florida v. Jardines, which re-established the property basis of the Fourth Amendment. We oppose reliance on the modern notion that the Fourth Amendment only protected a nontextual “expectation of privacy” — a false notion on which the two state supreme courts relied.
With our brief in Stormans, our firm has now made its 100th filing in the U.S. Supreme Court. Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending a Christian-owned pharmacy from attack by the Washington State Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission due to that pharmacy’s refusal to stock and sell abortifacient drugs.
Although the Pharmacy Commission is a government agency, its steps were largely directed by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.
Our brief explained why the Pharmacy Commission had no basis for its rule narrowly designed to prevent pharmacies from acting on their moral and religious objections to stocking and dispensing certain types of pharmaceuticals. Additionally, our brief demonstrated the real-world consequences of government taking sides in each political debate, so as to render unlawful any resistance to the agenda of a Secular Humanist state.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting two Texas laws requiring that abortions be performed only at certain types of facilities by physicians with hospital admission privileges. We set out why the pro-abortion petitioners, and the Obama Administration as amicus curiae, misrepresent to the Court its own abortion jurisprudence. However, even more importantly, our brief explains why Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
Today our firm filed a brief supporting a challenge to the contraceptive/abortifacient imposed by Obamacare. Our brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to expand the scope of its review, which is now narrowly limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) issue, to also include the First Amendment issue.
The brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Eberle Communications Group, Public Advocate of the United States, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, Southwest Prophecy Ministries, Daniel Chapter One, and Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall.
Today we made our 10th filing in 10 years opposing various applications of what is known as the so-called “Lautenberg Amendment,” which purports to impose a lifetime ban on firearms ownership on those who commit certain misdemeanors. The anti-gun lobby seeks to strip gun ownership from as many persons as possible, even if the misdemeanor was a minor matter, involving neither firearms nor violence.
Today we filed our sixth brief opposing Obamacare, five of which briefs have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe this will be the case that will have this terrible law struck down as the unconstitutional monstrosity it has been since it was enacted in 2010.