Today an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court defending a Christian-owned pharmacy from attack by the Washington State Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission due to that pharmacy’s refusal to stock and sell abortifacient drugs. Although the Pharmacy Commission is a government agency, its steps were largely directed by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
Today, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting two Texas laws requiring that abortions be performed only at certain types of facilities by physicians with hospital admission privileges. The brief set out why the pro-abortion petitioners, and the Obama Administration as amicus curiae, misrepresent to the Court its own abortion jurisprudence. However, even more importantly, the brief explains why Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Harris Thomas More Law Center v. Harris
Today, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF, the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, the Free Speech Coalition and other nonprofits in the Ninth Circuit, attacking a new interpretation of law by the the California Attorney General. Under this new interpretation, as a per-condition to soliciting contributions in California, each charity must provide provide the Attorney General with its IRS Form 990 Schedule B which identifies the charity’s largest donors.
Jewel v. NSA
(opposing the NSA’s mass internet surveillance system)
Several customers of AT&T sued the NSA because of the NSA’s mass internet dragnet surveillance. The district court first dismissed the case for lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the plaintiffs had shown a particularized injury. Despite the government’s admission of its surveillance program, the case was dismissed because the district court concluded once again that the plaintiffs did not have standing because, using secret information filed by the government and not provided to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs failed to explain the secret operational details of the surveillance program.
Peruta v. San Diego
(opposing San Diego’s “good cause” policy on concealed carry permits)
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously handed down an opinion striking down San Diego County’s policy under which “self-defense” was not considered to be a “good cause” allowing the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Now, the Ninth Circuit decided to re-hear the case en banc. The Peruta case was consolidated with another case, Richards v. County of Yolo, which challenged Yolo County’s “good cause” policy. Our brief addressed issues in both cases.
Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(opposing disclosure of donors for pure issue ads mentioning a candidate)
CLDEF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Independence Institute in its challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s regulations requiring the public disclosure of the names and addresses of donors to nonprofits sponsoring pure issue ads. If an issue ad mentions the name of a candidate during specified periods and to a targeted audience, then it technically meets the criteria defining “Independent Expenditures,” and donors must be disclosed to the FEC – and the public. CLDEF’s brief explains the corrupt motivation of Congress in wanting this information to be made public.
City of Los Angeles v. Patel
(opposing L.A.’s ordinance requiring warrantless disclosure of hotel guest registers)
A group of Los Angeles hotel owners challenged a Los Angeles city ordinance which authorizes police to search through hotels’ guest registers without a warrant. The City claimed that hotel owners have no expectation of privacy in a business record that they are required by the City to keep. And the City claimed it has a significant interest in fighting crimes committed in and around the hotel property. Thus, the City asserted that, in such a highly regulated industry, there is no need for probable cause, much less a warrant. In short, Los Angeles argued that the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
King v. Burwell
(challenging the tax credits provided to those who purchase health care through a federally established exchange)
The Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare, was designed to provide tax credits only to individuals who purchase health insurance through an “Exchange” established by a state. These tax credits were intended to be incentives for states to create these Exchanges. Nevertheless, many states resisted and refused to create state Exchanges. In response, the IRS issued a rule granting that same tax credit to those individuals who purchase health insurance through Exchanges not established by a state — but by the federal government. Suit was brought and the lower courts sustained the federal government’s position. The U.S. Supreme Court then heard the case.
Henderson v. United States
(opposing government confiscation of gun collections after conviction)
Tony Henderson was a lawful firearms owner until he was convicted of a felony unrelated to his firearms. While his trial was pending, he turned his firearms collection over to the government as a condition of bond. After his conviction, the government would not let Henderson sell his firearms to an unrelated third party because the government claimed this would amount to unlawful “constructive possession” — even though the government physically possessed the firearms.
Rodriguez v. United States
(opposing extended traffic stop without reason or warrant as an unlawful seizure)
Rodriguez is a Fourth Amendment case involving a search and seizure after the predicate traffic stop had ended. In this case, the police stopped a vehicle, and the officer wrote the driver a warning for momentarily veering onto the shoulder. However, even though the stop had ended, the officer continued to talk to the occupants and asked them if they minded him searching the vehicle with his drug dog. When the driver declined, the cop seized the car and occupants, ordering them not to move. He then performed a dog-sniff drug search.
Kolbe v. O’Malley
(opposing the Maryland gun law)
A federal district judge upheld the Maryland 2013 Firearms Safety Act which bans (i) so-called “assault weapons” and (ii) so-called “large-capacity magazines” that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The district judge first acknowledged that the Maryland Act was an “infringement” on Second Amendment rights, but upheld the law anyway, in utter disregard of the Second Amendment text commanding that those rights “shall not be infringed.”