Chenoweth, et al. v. Clinton, et al.

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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). Read More

John Hay Hooker v. FEC

Michael Harless Election Law, Litigation, U. S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee

Our firm represented Presidential candidate Howard Phillips and The Constitution Party, who were named defendants in the case of Hooker v. FEC.   On December 15, 1999, we filed a Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which was granted on April 12, 2000.  John Jay Hooker v. Federal Election Commission, et al., 92 F.Supp.2d 740 (2000). Read More

Boy Scout Brief (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari)

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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.) Read More

Free Speech Coalition Comments to FEC on Membership

Michael Harless Administrative Law, Election Law

On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, we filed comments with the Federal Election Commission supporting the proposed changes to revise the definition of a “member” of a membership organization, so long as the changes set forth in FSC’s comments are incorporated into the adopted regulations.  The first change is that membership organizations be permitted to waive the dues criterion for membership in appropriate instances according to predetermined specific criteria (such as financial hardship) approved by the organization’s governing body, restoring the pre-1993 status quo. Next, FSC requests that the expanded requirements imposed on membership organizations to state expressly the rights, qualifications, obligations, and requirements for membership in its articles, bylaws and other formal organizational documents and to make these documents freely available to its members be stricken from the final regulations.  The last change is that certain proposed sections which reject the state law definitions of “membership organizations” and “member” be removed from the final regulations. Read More

Michel v. Anderson Amicus Brief

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

Our firm filed an amicus brief for the Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc. in the case of Michel v. Anderson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia supporting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The U.S. House of Representatives had adopted a rule change permitting non-Member Delegates from the District of Columbia and the United States territories and the Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico to vote in violation of Article I of the Constitution.  Our amicus brief argued the exercise of voting rights by delegates would constitute an illegal and unconstitutional exercise of legislative power. Read More