United States v. Seerden

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia

Today we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in defense of a service member whose cell phone was searched and seized by the military in an unlawful manner.  As we have in the Jones case, the Graham case, the Zodhiates case, and others we explain how the Fourth Amendment first and foremost protects property rights, not some vague “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Read More

Bill Olson on NewsmaxTV.com

Michael Harless Press Coverage

Bill Olson was interviewed by Steve Malzberg today on NewsmaxTV about the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari filed in Hedges v. Obama. Our firm filed three amicus briefs in the Hedges case, one in district court, one in the court of appeals, and one in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Second Circuit’s opinion leaves standing Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 authorizing the U.S. Military to arrest and indefinitely detain American Citizens without charges, without an attorney, and without trial. (Note: Newsmax used the wrong photo on screen for the interview.) Read More

Article: WorldNetDaily Covers Our Amicus Brief in Chris Hedges Challenge to NDAA

Michael Harless Press Coverage

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. Read More

Chris Hedges v. Barack Obama Amicus Brief urges Supreme Court to bar NDAA Military Detentions of Citizens

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today our firm has filed our third amicus brief in support of Chris Hedges and the other journalists and political activists who are challenging Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf), and its authorization of the military detention of civilians based on vague standards of providing “support” for an adversary of the United States. Read More

Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al. Amicus Brief for U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman, et al. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

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

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Christopher Hedges v.Barack Obama, et al. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of appellees and affirmance. This lawsuit challenges the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) of 2012’s illegal detention provision. Our firm also filed an amicus brief earlier in this case with the district court. Read More

Michael G. New v. United States Reply Brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, Armed Forces

On July 16, 2012, we filed Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Writ-Appeal Petition for Review of Army Court of Criminal Appeals Deceision on Application for Extraordinary Relief in the Form of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Read More

Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al. Amicus Brief for Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Today our firm filed an amicus brief in the case of Christopher Hedges v.Barack Obama, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in support of plaintiffs. This lawsuit challenges the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012’s illegal detention provision. Anotice of motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief and supporting documents were filed with the amicus brief. Read More

Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. Additional Pleadings Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, Litigation, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following additional pleadings in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling,et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein: Read More

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

Michael Harless Publications

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. Read More

Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, Litigation, U. S. District Court, Southern District of California

Today our firm joined with other co-counsel to file the following documents in the case of Sergeant Gary A. Stein v. Colonel C.S. Dowling, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of plaintiff Sergeant Gary A. Stein: Read More

Herb Titus Law Review Article, “The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal: Breaching the Constitutional Ramparts” (December 27, 2011)

Michael Harless Publications

In a hard hitting essay first published in the Fall 2011 issue of the William & Mary Journal of Women in the Law, Herb Titus critically tracks the process by which the 111th Congress repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Titus maintains that from start to finish, the Democratic leadership chose to bring about repeal, utilizing an unconstitutional strategy that breached House rules, divested Congress of its legislative powers, and upended the legislative process by entrusting unelected bureaucrats with the power to prescribe the rules of governing sexual behavior in the nation’s land and naval forces. Titus concludes that, by disregarding the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, an irresponsible legislature has set a precedent that will threaten powers reserved to the States over their own militia, and increase the unconstitutional law-making powers already usurped by the courts. Read More