United States v. Kettler — Reply Brief

Jeremiah Morgan Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Today, we filed a reply brief responding to the Government’s brief in opposition on behalf of Jeremy Kettler.  Mr. Kettler was convicted in federal district court of possessing a firearm noise suppressor that was not registered to him pursuant to the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).  Read our previous discussion of the case and opening brief here.

Read Reply Brief here.

 

United States v. Kettler

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

Today, we filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as co-counsel for the defendant, Jeremy Kettler. Mr. Kettler was convicted in federal district court of possessing a firearm noise suppressor that was not registered to him pursuant to the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).

In purchasing his suppressor, Mr. Kettler had relied on the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act which states that a firearm or firearm accessory (such as a suppressor) that is manufactured, owned, and kept entirely within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law. When Mr. Kettler revealed that he purchased such a suppressor, however, agents from the Obama Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) swooped in to make an example of Mr. Kettler, and his co-defendant Mr. Cox. Read More

Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission

Michael Harless Alabama Supreme Court, Constitutional Law

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed Roy S. Moore, the elected Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, based on spurious grounds related to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in favor of same sex marriage.  Today, we filed a brief in support of the Chief Justice’s appeal of that decision to the Alabama Supreme Court.

In our 55-page brief, in addition to other issues, our brief takes on the distinctly unconstitutional notion that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court constitute the Supreme Law of the Land. Read More

United States v. Texas

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the challenge filed by Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s DAPA amnesty program.  (We had earlier filed an amicus brief in support of Texas in this case in the Fifth Circuit, where Texas prevailed.)  Our brief explains why the Executive Branch had no authority (through DAPA or otherwise) to grant unilaterally “lawful presence” to approximately 4 million illegal aliens.  It also explains that such unilateral Executive Action violates the federal separation of powers.  Lastly, it explains why the sovereign States have the right to seek federal judicial review of such unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions as they constitute a constitutional “controversy” that must be decided by federal courts in accordance with Article III, Section 2, and that the traditional rules of standing do not apply. Read More

McDonnell v. United States

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

On March 7, 2016, our firm filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell’s challenge to his conviction on federal corruption charges.

Our brief argues that setting and enforcing ethical standards applicable to state and local government officials is not among the enumerated powers vested in Congress.  Rather, such matters belong exclusively to the States and to the People of each State.  This exclusive state authority is protected not only by the Tenth Amendment, but also is secured to the States by the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government.  It is the responsibility of elected State government officials to set the standards that govern communications and relationships between state and local officials and their constituents.  It is not for unelected federal prosecutors to have the power to bring down state and local officials.  If federal prosecutors are allowed to exercise such powers, what State official could be counted upon to do his duty to resist an overreach of federal power. Read More