Today we filed our Jurisdictional Statement in the Supreme Court in Paul v. FEC.
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Public Advocate of the United States, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Help and Caring Ministries, Inc., and Citizens United Foundation in support of the State of Texas urging the Court to uphold the the Texas Homosexual Conduct Statute.
Petitioners challenging the Texas law ask the Court, in effect, to amend the U.S. Constitution to create a new constitutional right for adults to engage in consentual sodomy. Our brief defends principles of federalism, and explains how petitioners’ arguments were misleading and flawed, and their position has no support in either the text of the 14th Amendment, or prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gun Owners of America, Inc., English First, and U.S. Justice Foundation in support of respondents Christine Beaumont, et al. urging the Court to affirm the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (FECA’s) ban on contributions by certain incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups in federal elections as unconstitutional.
Our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Target Advertising, Inc., Eberle Communications Group, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and Citizens United Foundation in support of respondents Telemarketing Associates, Inc., et al.
On Tuesday, January 8, 2002, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Edgar Morales and four other residents of Texas seeking review of the constitutionality of Census 2000. At issue is whether Congress has the power to require, under penalty of law, that the American people answer questions on race, employment, housing and other subjects invading their privacy and totally unrelated to the two express constitutional purposes for the decennial census — apportionment of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the imposition of direct taxes.
On October 15, 2001, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to review whether the First Amendment guarantee of anonymous speech barred the Village of Stratton, Ohio, from enforcing a permit system which required “canvassers, solicitors, peddlars [or] hawkers” to identify themselves before going from door to door of private residences for the “purpose of advertising, promoting, selling and/or explaining any product, service, organization or cause.” (Emphasis added).
On Monday, September 10, 2001, nearly six years after he refused to put on the United Nations uniform and to submit to the command and control of a foreign military officer, Michael New has taken his fight for justice to the United States Supreme Court.
At the heart of his appeal is New’s right to his day in court. In a petition for writ of certiorari, New is asking the High Court to overrule the judgment of three military courts which essentially refused to deal with his claims that the Constitution does not allow the President unilaterally to order American soldiers to fight for a foreign government.
Our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, which comes on a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where a bare majority ruled that Section 109 of the clean air act violated Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution which vests legislative power in Congress. The case generated a number of opinions, the majority insisting that there were still meaningful constitutional limits on Congressional delegation of powers, and the dissent contending that the doctrine was no longer taken seriously as a limit on Congressional power.
Our firm filed the brief of Free Speech Defense and Education Fund as amici curiae in support of petitioner in American Target Advertising, Inc. v. Francine A. Giani, Division Director, Utah Division of Consumer Protection in the United States Supreme Court. The brief argues that Utah’s Charitable Solicitations Act is unconstitutional. The Free Speech Defense and Education Fund was joined by 47 co-amici.
Our firm filed a second brief in the United States Supreme Court in the Boy Scout case — this time after certiorari was granted — on the merits of the Boy Scouts’ arguments for reversal.
Today we filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of eight members of Congress (Hon. John T. Doolittle, Hon. George Radanovich, Hon. Tom Tancredo, Hon. Bob Stump, Hon. Barbara Cubin, Hon. Tom A. Coburn, Hon. Wally Herger, and Hon. John E. Perterson) and four nonprofit organizations (Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Gun Owners Foundation, Citizens United Foundation, and Concerned Women for America).
The Olson law firm filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Public Advocate of the United States and the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education defending the right of the Boy Scouts to determine their own leadership.
This brief urges that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari and review the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court which compels the Boy Scouts there to retain a homosexual activist as a scoutmaster, under the New Jersey state “Law Against Discrimination.” (The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari.)
Our firm filed an amicus brief for the National Citizens Legal Network, U.S. Border Control, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, English First Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center in the case ofClinton v. Glavin in the United States Supreme Court in support of appellees.
Representing Congressman Dickinson, this brief successfully urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to resolve the distinction between permissible and impermissible uses by unions of agency fees paid by those working men and woman who choose not to join unions but who are required to pay those fees under law.
This brief represents Public Service Research Council regarding whether Congress, in enacting the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, created a federal private right of action for employees of a municipally owned transit system for an alleged breach of a local collective bargaining agreement.