admin Healthcare



There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution which authorizes the federal government to have any role in healthcare, but that certainly has not discouraged the Obama Administration from attempting a federal takeover of healthcare with Obamacare.

Further, the lack of Constitutional authority has not discouraged the Federal Trade Commission, often working with the Food and Drug Administration, and even the Securities Exchange Commission, from attempting to narrow the healthcare choices of the American public.

Healthcare choices are personal choices. There are a variety of schools of medicine, and each American should have the right to decide for himself which type of treatment he would desire. However, with billions of dollars at stake, establishment medical interests, led by the pharmaceutical industry, have worked for decades to convince those in government to restrict the choices available to Americans to those that enrich the clients of the lobbyists.

CLDEF has filed many briefs against Obamacare, and has worked to support the right of each American to make his own healthcare choices.

Below are some of the Healthcare matters in which CLDEF has been involved.

admin Firearms Law

Firearms Law


“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

One of CLDEF’s highest priorities is protecting and defending the Second Amendment.  Our work focuses on building on the victories achieved in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases, and rolling back draconian gun control laws across the land.  CLDEF opposes all gun registration and licensing requirements, regulation of firearms dealers, weapons bans, ammunition bans, etc.

CLDEF urges state and federal courts and agencies to apply the Second Amendment by looking to the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court identified in Heller.  This standard stands in stark contrast to the judge-empowering “balancing tests” (e.g., strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis) that many courts prefer to apply in cases to uphold all manner of restrictions on firearms.  As Justice Scalia explained, the Founders did the balancing.  It does not matter what modern federal judges think as to the wisdom of the Second Amendment.

Many politicians and liberals claim that firearms ownership should be subject to “reasonable regulation,” but we do not concede that.  First, what Senator Diane Feinstein thinks is “reasonable” is somewhat different than what others may think.  Second, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” — not that it may be reasonably regulated.

CLDEF fights to protect citizens’ rights to keep and bear all types of “arms,” including what are pejoratively described as “assault weapons,” “large capacity magazines,” and “armor piercing ammunition.”  The “arms” described in the Second Amendment referred to modern military weapons of that time — which now includes all modern military weapons of this time.

Below are some of the Firearms Law matters in which CLDEF has been involved.

Duncan v. Bonta

admin Firearms Law

Today, CLDEF joined Gun Owners of America, Inc., and others in filing an amicus brief attacking the constitutionality of a California ban on standard capacity magazines, which the California law mislabels as “Large Capacity Magazines.” The District Court and Ninth Circuit panel both ruled for that the laws were unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Our brief defends the decision reached by the courts below, but urges the Ninth Circuit to reject its atextual “two-step” test and simply apply the “text, history, and tradition” of the Second Amendment to reach a decision.

Link to brief

admin Religious Liberties

Religious Liberties


CLDEF has worked on a number of cases involving Religious Liberties.

Below are some of the Religious Liberties Cases in which CLDEF has been involved.

admin Searches and Seizures

Searches and Seizure


“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
– Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Fourth Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to protect one’s private property interests in his “person[], houses, papers, and effects.”  Any government intrusion upon such property is per se “unreasonable,” unless the government has a superior property interest in the person or things to be searched or seized.

Thus, even if the government has probable cause and a warrant, a search or seizure of property is unreasonable unless the government can show that the thing to be seized is:  (i) the fruit of a crime; (ii) the instrumentality of a crime; or (iii) contraband.  If the only interest of the government is to obtain “evidence,” that would be an impermissible (“unreasonable”) seizure.  For many years, this was the law of the land, known as the “mere evidence rule.”

Additionally, even if the government may search for and seize such property, it must first establish to the satisfaction of a member of the judicial branch that there is probable cause, supported by a sworn affidavit, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the property to be seized.  The warrant requirement ensured that the government was not engaging in an unjustified search, but required an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the presence of one of the three types of property that could be seized.  Should the affidavit be false, the person who signed it could be sued for trespass, as could the government officials wrongfully carrying out the search.

All aspects of the Fourth Amendment have been eroded during the Twentieth Century, to the point that the government now asserts the right to search and seize: (i) on many occasions, without any warrant; (ii) on other occasions with a warrant from someone other than a judge; and (iii) on all occasions, seeking anything whatsoever it wants if it has a warrant.  The mere evidence rule has been abandoned.  The warrant requirement is riddled with exceptions.  And the property basis of the Fourth Amendment has been undermined by an atextual standard known as “reasonable expectation of privacy.”  The first legal writing in America about a right of privacy did not occur until the 1890’s, and thus it could not be said that the Founders were referring to privacy in crafting the Fourth Amendment.

CLDEF focuses on restoring the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment.  The first breakthrough occurred when the position advanced in CLDEF’s amicus curiae brief in United States v. Jones, was largely adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court — bringing back the property basis of Fourth Amendment.

These important Fourth Amendment principles were set out in a 2013 Law Review article by CLDEF lawyers Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, entitled
“U.S. v. Jones: Reviving the Property Foundation of the Fourth Amendment,” published in the Case Western Reserve University School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet.

Below are some of the Searches and Seizures matters in which CLDEF has been involved.

admin Immigration Law

Immigration Law


CLDEF has fought for strong enforcement of immigration laws in order to protect our nation from de facto invasions by foreign nations.

Below are some of the Immigration Law matters in which CLDEF has been involved.

admin Other Constitutional Cases

Other Constitutional Cases


CLDEF has worked on a number of other important constitutional and statutory issues, such as misuse of the treaty power and other illegal actions of the Obama Administration.

Below are some of the Other Constitutional Cases in which CLDEF has been involved.

CLDEF Files Brief For Former Attorney General Ed Meese Supporting Gen Flynn

admin Other Constitutional Cases

CLDEF joined with former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese to file an amicus brief today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supporting General Michael Flynn. The brief explains that the Attorney General of the United States has responsibility to ensure that no persons are prosecuted for federal crimes which do not exist. We also argue that judges are responsible to obey the requirements of Deuteronomy 1:17, to judge impartially, but they are not responsible for the entire criminal justice system.

Link to brief

Link to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief

Article Discusses CLDEF Brief Filed For Former Attorney General Ed Meese Supporting Gen. Flynn

admin Other Constitutional Cases, Press Coverage

The article begins: ” Edwin Meese, former attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, filed his own brief along with the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in support of Flynn. The conservatives’ brief highlights an indelible moment between Flynn and Sullivan in 2018, when the judge said to the defendant in open court, “Arguably, you sold your country out.” Meese argued that the motion to dismiss was unusual, but not extraordinary, and that it is Attorney General William Barr’s responsibility to “terminate a baseless prosecution in the interest of justice.”

Link to article

CLDEF Files Comments Opposing FDA increasing Regulation of Homeopathy

admin Healthcare

CLDEF’s Center for Medical Freedom joined with The Senior Citizens League to oppose the FDA’s latest proposal to impose new controls over homeopathy. The FDA has statutory authority to regulate pharmaceutical “drugs,” but homeopathic remedies are not drugs. Homeopathy is a highly effective, low cost, and no-side-effect alternative method of stimulating the body to cure itself. Homeopathy has been used world wide for two centuries, and is currently being successfully used by millions of Americans, and increasing numbers of senior citizens.

Link to comments

admin Family and Life

Family & Life


The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, but activist federal judges have misused the Constitution to effect social changes that they believe would be good for the country. The Supreme Court has distorted the rights guaranteed to us by the Fourteenth Amendment both to authorize the murder of unborn children and, more recently, to compel recognition of unnatural sexual coupling as if it was morally comparable to Biblically defined marriage.

CLDEF has actively worked to defend against this distortion of the Constitution to fight against the onslaught on the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.

In a recent article, we discussed what is probably Justice Clarence Thomas’ best dissent ever.  Justice Thomas discusses the flawed nature of much of modern constitutional law.  CLDEF’s briefs have brought this same message to the U.S. Supreme Court in dozens of briefs filed over the last 15 years.

Below are some of the Family & Life matters in which CLDEF has been involved.

admin First Amendment

First Amendment


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund believes that the First Amendment’s directive that “Congress shall make no law…” provides the clearest standard for the protection of the liberties listed therein.  Judges take away from these liberties when they use “judge-empowering” tests to determine whether those liberties are more important than governmental interests.  Unsurprisingly, judges frequently consider those governmental interests — essentially the judge’s idea of “the common good” — more important than the abridgement of the individual liberties the Founders desired to protect, thus erasing the jurisdictional barriers erected by the several guarantees of the First Amendment.

Below are some of the Freedoms of Speech and Press/Free Exercise of Religion matters in which CLDEF has been involved.