Altitude Express v. Zarda

admin Statutory Construction, U. S. Supreme Court

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. Read More

Gundy v. United States

admin Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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.

Link to brief

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of U. California

admin Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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.

Link to brief

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra

admin Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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. Read More

Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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. Read More

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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.

Welch v. Brown

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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.

Lund v. Rowan County

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Today we filed a brief in support of the practice by the Rowan County Board of Commissioners to begin sessions with prayer. Predictably, the plaintiffs are deeply offended to hear the name of God mentioned, but their subjective feelings does not cause the public prayer by government officials to be transformed into a prohibited “establishment” of religion.

Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, opposing attempts by a girl with feelings of gender “dysphoria” to use Title IX to gain access to the boy’s bathrooms at her school.  Our brief argued that one’s sex is a scientific constant, and determined by the Creator.  Allowing a person’s feelings at any given time to define his gender permits individuals to decide whether and how the law applies to them.  Our brief pointed out that the ruling of the district court below is not limited to bathrooms, but could be applied broadly to grant access to opposite sex locker rooms, housing, athletic teams, and other gender-restricted areas.  Finally, our brief argued that the district court’s ruling sanctions sexual anarchy, and the day is not far away when a white male will “identify” as a black female in order, for example, to gain preferential treatment through reverse-discrimination (i.e., affirmative action) college admission policies.  Our brief was filed on behalf of Public Advocate of the United States, United States Justice Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Today,we filed our third brief opposing NSA’s program of “Upstream” Internet surveillance of Americans.  Our brief urges the Fourth Circuit to reverse the decision of the District Court in Maryland which found that neither Wikimedia Foundation — which runs Wikipedia — nor the other plaintiffs in the case, had standing to challenge that surveillance.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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.

Zubik v. Burwell
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

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. Read More

John Albert Dummett, Jr. & Edward C. Noonan v. Alejandro Padilla — Petition for Certiorari

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, Election Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today our firm filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court Review of two decisions of the California Courts which held that the California Secretary of State had no duty to determine whether a candidate for President of the United States is eligible to serve, if elected, before placing his name on the official state election ballot. Read More

Kolbe v. O’Malley — Amicus brief

Michael Harless Firearms Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protected every citizen’s right to “keep and bear arms” in its 2008 Heller decision, lower federal courts have sought to evade the application of that rule. That pattern is now continuing in Maryland where a district judge has upheld the Maryland 2013 Firearms Safety Act (“Act”) which bans (i) so-called “assault weapons” and (ii) so-called “large-capacity magazines” that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Read More