Today, ATF published in the Federal Register its final regulations imposing a total ban on private ownership of bumpstocks, overruling numerous prior ATF decisions. Later that same day, our firm filed a chellenge to this regulation on behalf of Gun Owners of America, Guy Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizen Defense League, and three individuals — Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen and Rachel Malone.
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (Bladensburg Cross Merits)
Today we filed our second brief in support of the Bladensburg Cross in Maryland. We earlier filed a brief at the petition stage on July 27, 2018. Our brief attacks existing Supreme Court Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and calls upon the Court not to end the judicial assault on Christianity.
American Thinker: Why Did Michael Cohen Plead Guilty to Campaign Finance Crimes That Aren’t Campaign Finance Crimes?
Jeremiah Morgan wrote this interesting take on why Michael Cohen would plead guilty to a non-crime. First, he explains why there is no campaign finance law violation here, and then discusses how this case provides a precedent to support the ever-increasing criminalization of politics in America.
World Net Daily: Hawaii: Gun-Carry Ban Legitimate Because It’s Century Old
World Net Daily carried a story discussing the amicus brief we filed in Young v. Hawaii on November 19, 2018.
DHS v. Regents of the University of California & Nielsen v. Vidal (DACA)
Today, we filed our third brief in support of President Trump’s rescission of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program. We urge the Supreme Court to review the three pending injunctions against the rescission issued by Democrat judges. We asked the High Court to determine the legality of “universal injunctions” by district judges, as well as the constitutionality of the original DACA program.
Article: State’s treatment of Christian baker likened to fascism
Bob Unruh wrote an article in World Net Daily about our amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to protect the religious liberties of businesses.
Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
Today we filed an amicus brief supporting the owners of a small bakery in Oregon (Sweetcakes by Melissa) who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding because of their religious convictions. For this, they were fined $135,000 and ordered to cease and desist following their religious convictions. This case is similar to Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop, a case in which we filed two briefs, but which was not decided on the central issue — the extent to which public accommodation can restrict the Free Exercise of Religion.
Young v. Hawaii
Today we filed an amicus brief opposing a request for rehearing by the State of Hawaii of a Ninth Circuit decision which overturned Hawaii’s virtual ban on citizens bearing weapons. We opposed Hawaii’s argument that its laws against carrying firearms were long-standing, explaining that those laws existed when Hawaii was a monarchy where the reigning king or queen was sovereign — not as in the United States where the people are sovereign.
First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa v. Doe
Today we filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to correct a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court which gave state courts jurisdiction over a matter of church policy — public baptism.
Commissioner v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of an Indiana law which prevents eugenic abortion. Our brief challenges the “right” to eugenic abortion claimed by Planned Parenthood, an issue which we believe the U.S. Supreme Court should address.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York
Today we filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to New York City’s near prohibition on transporting firearms. The New York City law only allows transportation of firearms from their permitted location to and from gun ranges within the city limits.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra
Today we filed another amicus brief in support of Americans for Prosperity’s challenge to the California Attorney General’s demand for its confidential donor information as a condition of raising money in the state. This brief urged the Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to reverse an earlier panel decision. The brief was filed for Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Free Speech Coalition, and Free Speech Defense and Education Fund.
United States v. Zodhiates
Today we filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit in support of a petition for rehearing en banc, asking the Court to reconsider its decision which misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2006 (June 22, 2018). The trial court allowed the government to introduce evidence of “Cell Site Location Information” (“CSLI”) obtained without a warrant, which the Carpenter decision affirmed was protected by the Fourth Amendment. (This is our second amicus brief that we filed in this case, the first being filed on July 26, 2017)
Link to brief in support of rehearing
Link to motion for leave
Article: Washington Examiner — “Brett Kavanaugh will be very good for property rights”
This article by Dick Patten of the American Business Defense Council in the Washington Examiner about the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh references our article in Case Western School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet. There, we discussed Judge Kavanaugh’s important dissent to the denial of a petition for rehearing en banc in a case that became United States v. Jones in the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyzed Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in our amicus brief in Jones, and Justice Scalia’s decision embraced the originalist property-based foundation for the Fourth Amendment.
Law 360 Article Discusses our Harris Funeral Home Brief
Bill Olson was quoted in an article by Braden Campbell called “States, Faith Groups Tell Justices To Hear Trans Bias Case,” in Law 360: “’We have a lower federal judiciary that’s spinning out of control as circuits race toward political correctness, and if the Supreme Court doesn’t restore order, it’s hard to know where this is going to end,’ Olson said, referencing other rulings interpreting Title VII to cover gay workers.”
Rogers v. EOUSA — Reply to Plaintiffs Cross Motion
Today we filed our Reply to the Government’s Opposition fo our Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
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.
Citizens United v. Department of State (Case No. 1:18-cv-01862)
Today, on behalf of Citizens United, we filed a Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act against the Justice Department, seeking certain records relating to the October 2016 briefing at the U.S. Department of State involving Christopher Steele. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Article: Trump Administration Rift on LGBT Worker Rights Nears Showdown
Chris Opfer of BNA News wrote an article about the Zarda case where we filed a brief and other similar cases.where LGBTQ? advocates are asking judges to re-write the 1964 Civil Rights Act to grant them special rights.
The Article quotes Bill Olson, saying “Not only is it an effort to have a societal sanction for an immoral lifestyle, but it’s being accomplished by unelected judges who are admitting they are changing the law,”
American Legion v. American Humanist Association (Bladensburg Cross)
Today our firm filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block a Fourth Circuit decision which found that the Bladensburg (Maryland) War Memorial, which includes a 40-foot cross, violates the Establishment Clause. The Fourth Circuit opinion discusses the relief being sought by a few Maryland residents to be either razing the Cross, or defacing it by cutting off its arms, and making it into an Egyptian obelisk.
Our brief argued that the Court should take the case to revisit the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been roundly criticized since it was decided. We urged the Court to apply an interpretive test suited to the Establishment Clause’s original text. Our brief proposes the proper test that the Court should adopt, which focuses not on whether the monument uses religious symbolism, but the use of the religious symbol , which here was to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, not to proselytize. As we have done in many prior briefs, we explain that the Religion Clauses establish a jurisdictional barrier to the the actions of federal government, including the federal judges.
Rogers v. EOUSA — Motion for Summary Judgment
Today we filed our Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Altitude Express v. Zarda
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.
The facts of the case involve a homosexual skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired for his sexual orientation. Our brief explains that he was fired not because he was a homosexual, but because of his inappropriate behavior towards female clients. But even if he had been fired for his “sexual orientation,” that is not a basis to bring a suit under Title VII which only sanctions discrimination based on “sex.”
Article: Rob Olson & Herb Titus on SCOTUS Upholding Travel Ban
American Thinker published our analysis of the Trump v. Hawaii decision, issued yesterday.