Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review its decision giving a meaning to Title VII that Congress never intended. The Sixth Circuit decided to change a 50-year old understanding of Title VII to accommodate to the demands of LGBTQ activists, by barring employment discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” Our brief explained the radical nature of recent the Hively and Zarda cases where courts chose to amend Title VII under the guise of re-interpretation of the statute. This follows on the two briefs we filed in Zarda, and the earlier brief we filed in the Harris Funeral Home case when it was in the Sixth Circuit.
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.
American Thinker published our analysis of the Carpenter v. United States decision, issued yesterday.
Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado against an order of a Colorado Administrative agency which would compel a Christian baker to facilitate and participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding.
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.
Bloomberg BNA carried an article discussing the brief we filed in U.S. v. Robinson on July 24, 2017.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sitting en banc, where we are opposing efforts by radical homosexuals to convince liberal judges in New York to re-write the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment.
Currently, the 1964 federal law bars discrimination in employment on the basis of “sex” and “race.” However, in Zarda, lawyers for a homosexual skydiving instructor (since deceased from a skydiving accident) are claiming “sex” includes “sexual orientation,” and that Zarda was fired from his job because he was gay.
Today we filed a brief in the Sixth Circuit supporting a Christian Funeral Home in a suit by the EEOC on behalf of a man employed by that funeral home who would like to dress in women’s clothing for one year as he “transitions.” The EEOC made the naked assertion that the claim for this employee was supported by the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but failed to explain it. (The provision relating to “sex” was inserted into the bill by Virginia Congressman Howard W. Smith to prohibit discrimination against women, as a poison pill to kill the bill, but it passed anyway.) The EEOC relied solely on the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which was said to prohibit “sexual stereotyping.” Our brief explains the weaknesses in that decision, and why it does not apply here. Lastly, we explained why the EEOC provision would undermine the funeral home’s Christian witness.
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.
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.
Today our firm filed a brief supporting a Fourth Amendment challenge to the warrantless use of cell site location information.
The brief was filed on behalf of DownsizeDC.org, Downsize DC Foundation, United States Justice Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Institute on the Constitution.
Today, Herb Titus spoke at a Conference on Eminent Domain and Land Value Litigation sponsored by the American Law Institute in San Francisco, California.
Herb’s topic was the reemergence of the private property principle in the Fourth Amendment, as reflected in two recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In United States v. Jones and Jardines v. Florida, the Court ruled that the rights protected by the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is foremost a protection against trespass against property interests in one’s person, house, paper and effect without regard for the property owner’s expectation of privacy, reasonable or otherwise.
Bob Unruh’s article discusses the tragedy of the U.S. Supreme Court denial of Chris Hedges’ petition for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. NDAA 2012 allows the U.S. military to arrest and detain, without charges, counsel, or trial, anyone thought by the government to be a threat based on vague standards.
Attempting to deflect public wrath, those Republicans and Democrats in Congress who passed the law, and the Obama Administration which wanted it, have changed their public position repeatedly as to how the law would apply to American citizens. Of course, when legislators want to make a law clear, they know how to do it. When they try to make it murky, that too is on purpose.
This morning, the American Thinker published an article by Herb Titus and Bill Olson refuting the President’s claims of authority to kill American citizens off the battlefield.
Our article is a legal rebuttal of the U.S. Department of Justice’s White Paper purporting to defend President Obama’s position.
This Washington Post blog article “Del. Marshall, again, urges McDonnell to sign detention bill” by Anita Kumar discusses the memorandum written by Herb Titus for Delegate Bob Marshall on H.B. 1160 — A bill to Prevent Virginia from Aiding the U.S. Military in the Detention of Virginians under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Delegate Bob Marshall sent this legal analysis of H.B. 1160 to Govenor Bob McDonnell.
Herb Titus wrote a memorandum for Delegate Bob Marshall on H.B. 1160 — A bill to Prevent Virginia from Aiding the U.S. Military in the Detention of Virginians under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The memorandum discusses the interplay between Virginia H.B. 1160 and the federal law that it addresses, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
Delegate Bob Marshall sent this legal analysis of H.B. 1160 to Governor Bob McDonnell, as discussed in this Washington Post blog article “Del. Marshall, again, urges McDonnell to sign detention bill” by Anita Kumar.
Herb Titus and Bill Olson wrote the article “The Proposed Enemy Expatriation Act: Sending American Citizens into Exile” published on AmericanThinker.com today. An excerpt from the article follows:
“Introduced as S. 1698 in the Senate and as H.R. 3166 in the House of Representatives, the Enemy Expatriation Act is expressly designed to ‘add engaging or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.’ These bills are inconsistent with current law and Supreme Court precedent. They appear to be tailored to cow the American people, without regard for the 14th-Amendment guarantee prohibiting Congress from divesting an American citizen of his citizenship.”