Today, an amicus brief was filed, on behalf of CLDEF, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in support of a challenge to the District of Columbia’s requirement that a person must demonstrate a “good reason” in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The brief noted that before Heller, the federal courts perpetuated the charade that the right of “the People” was a collective rather than an individual right. Now, the brief argued, the lower courts are perpetuating a new charade — that rights which “shall not be infringed” can indeed be infringed so long as the government strongly desires to do so, and judges believe the regulations are reasonable. The brief argued that use of such “interest-balancing” tests permits judges to come to whatever result they prefer, as this case uniquely indicates.
Hamilton v. Pallozzi
Today, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting the right of a Maryland resident to purchase and possess firearms despite a prior conviction. Hamilton had been convicted of a non-violent felony in Virginia and served his sentence. Later, Virginia restored his civil rights, and then a Virginia Court specifically restored his firearms rights.
United States v. Texas
Today an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the challenge filed by Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s DAPA amnesty program. (An earlier amisuc brief was filed in support of Texas in this case in the Fifth Circuit, where Texas prevailed.) The 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.
Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency
Today, a third amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF opposing NSA’s program of “Upstream” Internet surveillance of Americans. This brief urges the Fourth Circuit to reverse the decision of the District Court in Maryland which found that neither Wikimedia Foundation — which runs Wikipedia — nor the other plaintiffs in the case, had standing to challenge that surveillance.
Birchfield v. North Dakota
Today an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the High Court to reverse decisions from the Supreme Court of North Dakota and Minnesota which authorized police to force drivers to submit to warrantless blood and breath tests. The brief urges the Court to apply to principles of its prior decisions in United States v. Jones, and Florida v. Jardines, which re-established the property basis of the Fourth Amendment. The brief opposes reliance on the modern notion that the Fourth Amendment only protected a nontextual “expectation of privacy” — a false notion on which the two state supreme courts relied.
Stormans, Inv. v. Wiesman
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.