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.
Our firm was retained as appellate counsel for a nonprofit, pro-life organization under attack by the Attorney General of North Dakota.
This brief explains the circumstances of the case, as well as the statutory and constitutional issues involved in overreaching by the Attorney General and the North Dakota trial 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).
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).
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.)
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.
Our firm filed an amicus brief for the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, et al. in the case of American Target Advertising, Inc.v. Francine A. Giani in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in support of appellant.
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.
On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. we filed comments with the Internal Revenue Service regarding the proposed regulations relating to the excise taxes on excess benefit transactions.
On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. we filed comments with the Department of Treasury regarding the proposed regulations relating to the excise taxes on excess benefit transactions.
Today our firm filed a Brief for Appellants explaining how the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act violates the First Amendment.
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.