TY 2022 Form 990EZ

(a) Name and title	(b) Average hours per week devoted to position	(c) Reportable compensation (Forms W-2/1099-MISC) (if not paid, enter -0-)	(d) Health benefits, contributions to employee benefit plans, and deferred compensation	(e) Estimated amount of other compensation
MICHAEL ROTHFELD VICE-CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR	1.00	0	0	0
BAKER A SMITH SECRETARY/TREASURER/DIRECTOR	1.00	0	0	0
GREG MOURAD CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR	1.00	0	0	0

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2022

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC

Employer identification number

58-1539320

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990).)

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An agricultural research organization described in 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) operated in conjunction with a land-grant college or university or a non-land grant college of agriculture. See instructions. Enter the name, city, and state of the college or university:

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 33 1/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 33 1/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box on lines 12a through 12d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 12e, 12f, and 12g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ...............................

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization failed to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2018	(b) 2019	(c) 2020	(d) 2021	(e) 2022	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") ..	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	67,500
2	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....
3	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
4	Total. Add lines 1 through 3	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	67,500
5	The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f) ..						21,150
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						46,350

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2018	(b) 2019	(c) 2020	(d) 2021	(e) 2022	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	13,500	67,500
8	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...
9	Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.)..
11	Total support. Add lines 7 through 10						67,500

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here ........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2022 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

68.670 %

Public support percentage for 2020 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

68.670 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2022. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2021. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2022. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ............ right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2021. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line 15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ............ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2018	(b) 2019	(c) 2020	(d) 2021	(e) 2022	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2	Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose
3	Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 .....
4	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge
6	Total. Add lines 1 through 5
7a	Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons
b	Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c	Add lines 7a and 7b..
8	Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2018	(b) 2019	(c) 2020	(d) 2021	(e) 2022	(f) Total
9	Amounts from line 6...
10a	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b	Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c	Add lines 10a and 10b.
11	Net income from unrelated business activities not included on line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) ..
13	Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here................................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2022 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2021 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2022 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2021 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

33 1/3% support tests-2022. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2021. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 12 of Part I. If you checked box 12a, of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked box 12b, of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked box 12c, of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked box12d, of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer lines 3b and 3c below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked box 12a or 12b in Part I, answer lines 4b and 4c below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer lines 5b and 5c below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described on line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons, as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined on line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined on line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described on lines 11b and 11c below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described on 11a above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described on line 11a or 11b above? If “Yes” to 11a, 11b, or 11c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the officers, directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in line 2 above, did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer lines 2a and 2b below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described on line 2a, above constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer lines 3a and 3b below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations?If "Yes" or "No", provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970 (explain in Part VI). See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	Section A - Adjusted Net Income		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Net short-term capital gain	1
2	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	2
3	Other gross income (see instructions)	3
4	Add lines 1 through 3	4
5	Depreciation and depletion	5
6	Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions)	6
7	Other expenses (see instructions)	7
8	Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4)	8

	Section B - Minimum Asset Amount		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year):	1
a	Average monthly value of securities	1a
b	Average monthly cash balances	1b
c	Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets	1c
d	Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c)	1d
e	Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI):
2	Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets	2
3	Subtract line 2 from line 1d	3
4	Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions).	4
5	Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3)	5
6	Multiply line 5 by 0.035	6
7	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	7
8	Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6)	8

	Section C - Distributable Amount		Current Year
1	Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A)	1
2	Enter 85% of line 1	2
3	Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A)	3
4	Enter greater of line 2 or line 3	4
5	Income tax imposed in prior year	5
6	Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions)	6

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations(continued)

Section D - Distributions		Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes	1
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity	2
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations	3
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets	4
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI)	5
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions	6
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.	7
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions	8
9 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6	9
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount	10

Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions)		(i) Excess Distributions	(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2022	(iii) Distributable Amount for 2022
1 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2022 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions.
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2022:
a From 2017.......
b From 2018.......
c From 2019.......
d From 2020.......
e From 2021.......
fTotal of lines 3a through e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2022 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2017 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f.
4Distributions for 2022 from Section D, line 7:
$
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2022 distributable amount
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2022, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
6 Remaining underdistributions for 2022. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2023. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a Excess from 2018.....
b Excess from 2019.....
c Excess from 2020.....
d Excess from 2021.....
e Excess from 2022.....

Schedule A (Form 990) (2022)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990) 2022

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC

Employer identification number

58-1539320

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990-EZ, PART I, LINE 16 - OTHER EXPENSES	DESCRIPTION: LITIGATION ACTIVITIES. AMOUNT: 20,031. DESCRIPTION: LEGAL DEFENSE INFORMATION SERVICES AND REPORTS. AMOUNT: 2,500. DESCRIPTION: MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES. AMOUNT: 2,231. TOTAL TO FORM 990-EZ, LINE 16: 24,762.
PART III, LINE 28	FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. V. COLMENERO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NO. 23-50627. AMICUS BRIEF FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2023, SUPPORTING THE VALIDITY OF TEXAS' LAW REQUIRING PROTECTIONS TO KEEP MINORS FROM ACCESSING ONLINE PORN. THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AUSTIN DIVISION, HELD THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, CONCLUDING THAT PROTECTING MINORS FROM PORNOGRAPHY "IS NOT ENOUGH FOR A LAW TO SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY," A JUDICIALLY CREATED BALANCING TEST THAT OFTEN LEADS JUDGES TO DECLARE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. OUR BRIEF HAS PROVIDED SOME "MISSING BACKGROUND TO REVEAL HOW WE HAVE COME TO PRIZE ADULT ACCESS TO PORNOGRAPHY SO HIGHLY THAT FEDERAL COURTS ARE WILLING TO MISUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OVERRIDE STATE POLICE POWER, ALL WHILE KNOWING THAT THEIR RULINGS WILL HARM OUR CHILDREN." AMICUS BRIEF, P. 10.
PART III, LINE 28	CONSUMER FINANCE PROTECTION BOARD V. TOWNSTONE FINANCIAL, INC., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT NO. 23-1654 (CHEVRON DEFERENCE, CRITICAL RACE THEORY). AMICUS BRIEF FILED AUGUST 21, 2023, SUPPORTING TOWNSTONE. THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CFPB'S COMPLAINT AGAINST TOWNSTONE BECAUSE THE CFPB'S REGULATIONS EXCEEDED ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE WITH RESPECT TO "APPLICANTS" FOR CREDIT. THE REGULATIONS ATTEMPT TO REGULATE "PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS," ESSENTIALLY SUBJECTING ALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND ADVERTISING TO CFPB OVERSIGHT. THE CFPB CHERRY PICKED A FEW REMARKS IN TOWNSTONE'S PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, APPLIED DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICAL INFORMATION TO THEM, AND DECLARED THEM RACIST AND THUS IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS. THE DISTRICT COURT LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, WHICH USES THE TERM "APPLICANT," DECLARED THAT THE STATUTE WAS CLEAR ON ITS FACE, AND DECLARED THAT THE CFPB REGULATION CONCERNING "PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS" EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF CFPB'S AUTHORITY. THE CFPB APPEALED TO THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE CFPB WAS EXCEEDING ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND ITS ENFORCEMENT ACTION COULD BEST BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXERCISE IN CRITICAL RACE THEORY.
PART III, LINE 28	MISSOURI V. BIDEN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NO. 23-30445. AMICUS BRIEF FILED AUGUST 7, 2023, IN SUPPORT OF MISSOURI, LOUISIANA, AND FIVE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS ALLEGING "A GARGANTUAN FEDERAL 'CENSORSHIP ENTERPRISE' ... [THAT] HAS STIFLED DEBATE AND CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT SOME OF THE MOST PRESSING ISSUES OF OUR TIME." THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAD PRESSURED SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO PROMOTE GOVERNMENT-APPROVED SPEECH AND CENSOR SPEECH CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS POLICIES, INCLUDING WITH REGARD TO COVID, ELECTION INTERFERENCE, AND POSTS CRITICAL OF BIDEN PERSONALLY. AMICUS BRIEF AT 1-2 (CITATIONS OMITTED). OUR BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO PRESSURE SOCIAL MEDIA TO CENSOR OR SUPPRESS SPEECH. THAT IS SIMPLY A POWER NOT GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. WE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF ILLEGALLY INFLUENCED THE 2020 ELECTIONS BY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FBI PRESSURING TWITTER TO VIEW THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP AS PART OF A RUSSIAN 'HACK AND LEAK' OPERATION. AMICUS BRIEF AT 11. ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2023, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ISSUED ITS DECISION. IT UPHELD BUT NARROWED THE KEY PROVISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE MOST OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS THE WHITE HOUSE, CDC AND FBI, WHILE LETTING OFF THE HOOK NIAID, CISA, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. THE SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION WAS NARROWED TO BANNING COMMUNICATIONS WHICH WERE "THREATENING, PRESSURING, OR COERCING" SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES. OUR ATTORNEYS EXPRESSED THE VIEW, "ALL IN ALL, THIS WAS A NICE WIN, AND WILL REALLY ANNOY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THOSE BEHIND THE DEEP STATE CENSORSHIP MACHINE."
PART III, LINE 28	LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V. RAIMONDO, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22-451 (CHEVRON DEFERENCE). AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES FILED JULY 24, 2023. FOUR NEW ENGLAND HERRING FISHING FAMILIES CHALLENGED A RULE ADOPTED BY THE NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ("NEFMC"), AN AGENCY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ("DOC"), REQUIRING FISHERMEN TO PAY THE COSTS OF ON-BOARD MONITORS THAT ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FISHING REGULATIONS. THE FAMILIES CONTEND THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CHARGING FISHERMEN; THEREFORE, THE REGULATION USURPS CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND IS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS. PETITIONERS (THE FISHING FAMILIES) LOST IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS GRANTED THEIR PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO AGENCY POLICY-MAKING DECISIONS, AS OCCURRED HERE, IS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS INASMUCH AS COURTS TURN OVER THEIR OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE "WHAT THE LAW IS" TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE SUPREME COURT HAS SIGNALED THAT IT IS INTERESTED IN REVIEWING THE QUESTION OF JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO AGENCY ACTION AND COULD USE THIS CASE TO DO JUST THAT. OVER 40 AMICUS BRIEFS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE.
PART III, LINE 28	BLANKENSHIP V. NBC UNIVERSAL, LLC, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22-1125 (DEFAMATION POLITICAL CANDIDATE SEEKING TO OVERTURN OR MODIFY NY TIMES V. SULLIVAN, A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR A "PUBLIC FIGURE" TO WIN A LIBEL CASE). OUR AMICUS BRIEF WAS FILED ON JUNE 20, 2023, AND WAS THE ONLY AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN SUPPORT OF BLANKERSHIP. NBC AND THE OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS WAIVED THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THE PETITION, BUT THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED THEM TO FILE A RESPONSE BY AUGUST 10, 2023. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON DECEMBER 10, 2023. JUSTICE THOMAS, WHO CONCURRED IN THE DENIAL, INDICATED THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO RECONSIDER NY TIMES V. SULLIVAN, BUT THIS WAS THE WRONG CASE TO DECIDE IT "BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT BLANKENSHIP'S CLAIMS ARE INDEPENDENTLY SUBJECT TO AN ACTUAL-MALICE STANDARD AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW."
PART III, LINE 28	CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU V. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22-448, A CASE CHALLENGING THE CFPB'S INDEPENDENCE FROM CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT THROUGH THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, 9, CL. 7 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THE CFPB DRAWS ITS OPERATING FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE, WHICH IS ALSO ESTABLISHED TO OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF CONGRESS. THE CFPB IS CHARGED WITH "IMPLEMENT[ING] AND "ENFORCE[ING]" CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS TO "ENSUR[E] THAT ALL CONSUMERS HAVE ACCESS TO MARKETS FOR CONSUMER FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES" THAT "ARE FAIR, TRANSPARENT, AND COMPETITIVE." 12 U.S.C. 5511(A). THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HELD THE CFPB'S FUNDING MECHANISM VIOLATED THE APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. CMTY. FIN. SERVS. ASS'N OF AM. V. CONSUMER FIN. PROT. BUREAU, 51 F.4TH 616, 638 (5TH CIR. 2022). THE CFPB FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON NOVEMBER 14, 2022, AND THE COURT GRANTED THE PETITION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2023. OUR AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS WAS FILED ON JULY 10, 2023. THE CASE WAS ARGUED ON OCTOBER 3, 2023. WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION.
PART III, LINE 28	BOLAND V. BONTA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 23-55276. AMICUS BRIEF FILED JUNE 2, 2023, CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA'S APPROVED HANDGUN LIST UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE LIST RESULTS FROM CALIFORNIA'S UNSAFE HANDGUN ACT, A "CONSUMER PROTECTION" LAW OSTENSIBLY ENACTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM "UNSAFE" GUNS. UNDER THAT LAW, CALIFORNIA DETERMINES WHAT HANDGUNS CITIZENS MAY BUY AND WHAT HANDGUNS THEY MAY NOT BUY. WE SAY IN RESPONSE: CALIFORNIA[] TREATS HANDGUNS AS IF THEY WERE JUST ANY CONSUMER PRODUCT, WHERE THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND OWN IS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE AND WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS BROAD POLICE POWER TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER. THIS APPROACH DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE RICH HISTORY OF AND PURPOSE OF GUN RIGHTS A RIGHT THAT WAS NOT CONFERRED BY GOVERNMENT, AND THUS WHICH MAY NOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY GOVERNMENT. AMICUS BRIEF AT 23. THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT ON AUGUST 23, 2023. WE ARE AWAITING A DECISION.
PART III, LINE 28	NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION V. VULLO, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22-842. NEW YORK STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, WHICH REGULATES BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, ADVISED THOSE ENTITIES NOT TO DEAL WITH THE NRA, LEST THEY SUFFER "REPUTATIONAL RISK," ESSENTIALLY BLACKLISTING THE NRA. ACCORDING TO THE NRA'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, "NUMEROUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PERCEIVED [NY'S] ACTIONS AS THREATENING AND, THEREFORE, CEASED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE NRA OR REFUSED NEW ONES." PETITION AT 3. OUR AMICUS BRIEF, FILED MAY 24, 2023, ARGUES THAT NY ABRIDGES THE NRA'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ADVOCATE FOR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THUS INFRINGING TWO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE POLITICALLY DISFAVORED GUN RIGHTS GROUP IN COMPLIANCE ACTIONS, DRIVING AWAY INSURANCE COMPANIES. WE ARGUE THAT "REGULATORS MAY NOT ABUSE THEIR GOVERNMENT POWERS TO SILENCE THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS. AMICUS BRIEF AT 6.
PART III, LINE 28	B.P.J. VS. WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NO. 23-1078, A CASE BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A BOY CLAIMING TO BE A "TRANSGENDER GIRL" CHALLENGING A WEST VIRGINIA LAW THAT PRESERVES GIRL SPORTS TEAMS FOR GIRLS AND BARS BOYS SUFFERING FROM GENDER DISPHORIA FROM PLAYING ON GIRLS TEAMS. THE DISTRICT COURT HAD UPHELD THE LAW. ON FEBRUARY 22, 2023, THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW PENDING THE APPEAL, AND ON APRIL 6, 2023, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIED AN EMERGENCY APPEAL TO VACATE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT'S INJUNCTION. THE CASE PROCEEDED IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. OUR AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING WEST VIRGINIA, FILED ON MAY 3, 2023, ARGUES: (1) PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS PREDICATED ON FALSEHOODS AND FEELINGS; (2) TITLE IX WAS DESIGNED TO REMEDY, NOT REQUIRE, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEMALES IN EDUCATION; (3) GENDER IDEOLOGY HARMS BOTH TRANSGENDER IDENTIFYING PERSONS AND THE REST OF SOCIETY ALIKE; AND (4) COURTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REINTERPRET STATUTORY TEXT TO CREATE RIGHTS OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.
PART III, LINE 28	TINGLEY V. FURGUSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22-942. AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED APRIL 27, 2023. THE PETITION WAS DENIED ON DECEMBER 11, 2023, WITH DISSENTS FROM JUSTICES THOMAS AND ALITO, SO THE CASE IS OVER. THIS CASE CHALLENGES A WASHINGTON STATE LAW WHICH PREVENTS LICENSED CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS FROM PROVIDING BIBLICAL COUNSELING ABOUT SEXUAL MORALITY TO YOUNG PEOPLE. THE FACT THAT THE LAW EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE COUNSELED IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO EMBRACE HOMOSEXUALITY AND TRANSGENDERISM DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS LAW WAS ENACTED IN SUPPORT OF A RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL AGENDA WHICH COULD FAIRLY BE DESCRIBED AS ANTI-CHRISTIAN. THE CHRISTIAN COUNSELING UNDER ATTACK IS PURE SPEECH, NOT CONDUCT, BUT EVEN IF VIEWED AS CONDUCT UNDER THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S PROFESSIONAL SPEECH EXCEPTION, THE CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS' WORDS ARE PROTECTED BY THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE AS PROSELYTIZING, EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED BY EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
PART III, LINE 28	LAKE V. HOBBS, ARIZONA SUPREME COURT NO. CV-23-0046-PR, AMICUS BRIEF FILED MARCH 16, 2023, SHORTENED AND REFILED MARCH 20, 2023, IN SUPPORT OF KARI LAKE, PETITIONER, APPEALING THE DISMISSAL OF HER CHALLENGE TO IRREGULARITIES THAT OCCURRED IN THE 2022 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION AND THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION. THE TRIAL COURT REQUIRED LAKE TO PROVE BY "CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE" THAT THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES "DID, IN FACT, CHANGE THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION." OUR BRIEF TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE LESSER "PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE" STANDARD THAT RENDERS THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION "UNCERTAIN" IS THE PROPER TEST. AMICUS BRIEF AT 3-5. WE ALSO SUPPORTED LAKE'S CLAIM THAT SIGNATURE VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT PROPERLY FOLLOWED. AMICUS BRIEF AT 16. ON MARCH 22, 2023, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REMANDED ONLY THE SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ISSUE TO THE TRIAL COURT, DENYING REVIEW OF ALL OTHER CLAIMS. AMICI GOT HONORABLE MENTION BY THE COURT: "THE COURT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED BRIEFING OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER." ON MAY 22, 2023, THE TRIAL COURT, HAVING HELD AN EVIDENTIARY TRIAL, RULED ON BOTH A "CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND A "PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE" TEST THAT LAKE HAD FAILED TO PROVE A VIOLATION OF THE SIGNATURE VERIFICATION RULES, AND CONFIRMED THE ELECTION OF LAKE'S OPPONENT, KATIE HOBBS, AS GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA. THE CASE IS OVER.
PART III, LINE 28	STATE OF TENNESSEE V. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NO. 22-5807. AMICUS BRIEF FILED JANUARY 31, 2023, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S NEW "INTERPRETATION" OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972, EXTENDING " 'TITLE IX'S PROHIBITION ON SEX DISCRIMINATION ... TO ENCOMPASS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY' IN LIGHT OF THE [SUPREME COURT'S] BOSTOCK DECISION." THE EEOC ADOPTED SIMILAR "GUIDANCE." THE AGENCIES WARNED OF AGGRESIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND THE DENIAL OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NONCOMPLIANT INSTITUTIONS. TENNESSEE AND 19 OTHER STATES SUED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AS TO PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS CREATED RIGHTS WELL BEYOND WHAT THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED IN BOSTOCK, AS WELL AS TITLE IX, OR IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS, AND THAT THE AGENCIES FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE APA'S NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RULEMAKINGS. SEE TENN. V. U.S. DEP'T OF EDUCATION, 2022 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 125684 (E. DIST. TENN. 2022). DEFENDANTS APPEALED. OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARGUED (1) THE BIDEN DOE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BOSTOCK, BUT RATHER ARE YET ANOTHER EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE MORALITY OF THE NATION; (2) DOE'S GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS WOULD HARM CHILDREN AND JEOPARDIZE THE SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION TARGETING FEMALES IN TITLE IX; (3) DOE'S GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS WOULD ENDANGER ALL STUDENTS; AND (4) THE BIDEN GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ELEVATE THE RELIGION OF SECULAR HUMANISM OVER BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. THE CASE WAS ARGUED ON APRIL 26, 2023. THE PARTIES ARE AWAITING A DECISION.
PART III, LINE 28	GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 21-1333. AMICUS BRIEF FILED DECEMBER 7, 2022, IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, 47 U.S.C. SECTION 230, WHICH PROVIDES PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY TO INTERNET PROVIDERS FOR CONTENT CREATED AND PLACED BY THIRD PARTY USERS. DOES THAT PROTECTION SURVIVE, HOWEVER, IF THE GOVERNMENT WORKS WITH INTERNET PROVIDERS TO CENSOR INFORMATION PLACED BY THIRD PARTIES? OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT SECTION 230 WAS NOT DESIGNED TO INSULATE GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS FROM TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS OR CONTENT WHICH IS NOT DESIRED BY THE RULING PARTY. BUT MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES HAVE PRESSURED PROVIDERS TO BAN OPPOSING POLITICAL MESSAGES. MOREVER, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE THREATENED AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF SECTION 230 IN ORDER TO COERCE TECH COMPANIES TO CENSOR OR REMOVE CONTENT WHICH THOSE POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES CONSIDER UNDESIRABLE. WHEN THESE COMPANIES SURRENDER THEIR OPERATIONS TO GOVERNMENT CONTROL, THEY ARE NO LONGER ACTING VOLUNTARILY OR IN GOOD FAITH AS SECTION 230 REQUIRES, AND THUS ARE NO LONGER ENTITLED TO THE LIABILITY SHIELD PROVIDED BY THAT SECTION. DURING THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, CANDIDATES BIDEN AND HARRIS THREATENED FACEBOOK WITH LOSS OF SECTION 230 PROTECTION IF IT DID NOT CENSOR THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS' VIEWS. TWITTER CENSORED CANDIDATE TRUMP'S TWEETS QUESTIONING MAIL-IN BALLOTING AND BALLOT HARVESTING. IN 2021, HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEES HELD HEARINGS HELD HEARINGS TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT DEMOCRATS CALLED THE RISE OF MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION ALLOWED BY TECH COMPANIES, TARGETING TWITTER AND FACEBOOK SPECIFICALLY. TWITTER AND FACEBOOK BOTH CAVED TO GOVERNMENTAL PRESSURE TO CENSOR POSTINGS ABOUT COVID-19 THAT WERE AT ODDS WITH OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POSITIONS. THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WENT SO FAR AS TO TRY TO CREATE A SO-CALLED "DISINFORMATION GOVERNANCE BOARD" ("DGB") IN APRIL 2022. CRITICS FROM ALL POINTS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ATTACKED THE DGB AS AN ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED THE DGB IN AUGUST, BUT CONTINUED ITS CENSORSHIP EFFORTS BEHIND THE SCENES. ON DECEMBER 2, 2022, NEW OWNER ELON MUSK ARRANGED FOR THE RELEASE OF TWITTER RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DIRECTED TWITTER TO REMOVE CONTENT WHICH WAS CRITICAL OF DEMOCRATS OR THEIR AGENDA. ON MAY 18, 2023, THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO ADDRESS THE SECTION 230 ISSUES, INSTEAD VACATING THE DECISION BELOW AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN TWITTER, INC. V. TAAMNEH, ___ U. S. ___ (2023), ALSO DECIDED ON MAY 18, A CASE HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH SECTION 230. CONSEQUENTLY, OUR INTEREST IN GONZALEZ IS CONCLUDED.
PART III, LINE 28	WARD V. THOMPSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22A350. CONGRESSMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL, ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO T-MOBILE FOR, INTER ALIA, TELEPHONE AND TEXT MESSAGE RECORDS OF DR. KELLI WARD, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY. BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 24, 2022, T-MOBILE ADVISED DR. WARD OF THE SUBPOENA, CAUSING HER TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH IN DISTRICT COURT SUPPORTED BY TWO DECLARATIONS WHICH WAS DENIED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2022. THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO DENIED DR. WARD'S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL. THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY A SPLIT PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT. DR. WARD FILED AN EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY AND INJUNCTION WITH THE SUPREME COURT ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 24. WE FILED OUR AMICUS BRIEF ON OCTOBER 28, 2022, IN SUPPORT OF WARD'S EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY, ARGUING THAT THE SUBPOENA HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND HAD NO VALID PREDICATE. THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT DR. WARD VIOLATED ANY LAW. ALL SHE DID WAS INVOKE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO SPEAK WHEN THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT HER DEPOSITION. BUT THERE THERE WAS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS WORKING IN LEAGUE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO DEVELOP CRIMINAL CASES IN CONNECTION WITH JANUARY 6 EVENTS. OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE SUBPOENA INFRINGED ON FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION, AND THE PRESS. ANYONE WHO QUESTIONED THE LEGITIMACY OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS SUBJECT TO BEING INVESTIGATED IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE JANUARY 6 RIOT. THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT NARROWLY TAILORED BUT INSTEAD SOUGHT ALL PHONE RECORDS FOR A THREE MONTH PERIOD. THE COMMITTEE BASED ITS INVESTIGATION ON THE PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSION THAT DONALD TRUMP'S CLAIMS OF ELECTION IRREGULARITIES WERE "BASELESS AND "FALSE CLAIMS" WHILE, IN FACT NUMEROUS STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS IN SWING STATES DEFIED STATE ELECTION LAWS RELATING TO ABSENTEE BALLOTING, LIKELY LEADING TO AN INACCURATE VOTE COUNT. THE COMMITTEE WAS CONDUCTING MORE OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TO HELP THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF A LEGISLATIVE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION. WE URGED THE COURT TO STAY THE RULING OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT, ENJOINING T-MOBILE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA. ON OCTOBER 28, 2022, THE COURT DENIED WARD'S APPLICATION FOR A STAY WITHOUT EXPLANATION. ONLY JUSTICES THOMAS AND ALITO WOULD HAVE GRANTED THE STAY.
PART III, LINE 28	KLEIN V. OREGON BUREAU OF LABOR & IND., U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 22-204. AMICUS BRIEF FILED OCTOBER 7, 2022. MELISSA AND AARON KLEIN, OWNERS OF A SPECIALTY CAKE SHOP IN OREGON KNOWN AS "SWEET CAKES BY MELISSA," IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DEEPLY AND SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT THEY CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN A "SAME-SEX" MARRIAGE CEREMONY, DECLINED TO DESIGN AND CREATE A CAKE TO CELEBRATE A SAME-SEX "WEDDING". IN 2015, THE OREGON BUREAU OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES ("BOLI") FINED THEM $135,000. IN 2017, THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BOLI'S DECISION. THE KLEINS' FIRST PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS PENDING WHEN, ON JUNE 4, 2018, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. V. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM'N., 138 S. CT. 1719 (2018) AND REMANDED THE KLEINS' CASE "FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF" ITS MASTERPIECE DECISION. ON JANUARY 26, 2022, THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN AFFIRMED THE BOLI'S DECISION, REMANDING THE MATTER TO BOLI WITH INSTRUCTIONS ONLY TO RECONSIDER THE FINE. ON REMAND, BOLI SIMPLY RE-EXAMINED THE PRIOR RECORD IN ITS CASE AND REDUCED THE FINE TO $30,000 ON JULY 12, 2022. THE KLEINS FILED THEIR SECOND PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ARGUING THAT BOLI HAD DEMONSTRATED ANTIRELIGIOUS HOSTILITY AND THAT THEIR RIGHTS OF FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND FREE SPEECH RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. OUR AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTED THE KLEINS, PRESENTING HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL REASONS THEY SHOULD PREVAIL AND ARGUING THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BASIS. RATHER THAN DECIDE THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ISSUE, ON JUNE 30, 2023, THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, VACATED THE JUDGMENT BELOW, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF 303 CREATIVE LLC V. ELENIS, 600 U. S. ___ (2023), A CASE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED ON THE SAME DAY. WHILE THE RESULT IS GOOD, WE DID NOT OBTAIN THE RELIGIOUS EXERCISE DECISION WE HAD HOPED FOR.
PART III, LINE 28	FEDS FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM V. BIDEN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NO. 22-40043, AMICUS BRIEF FILED SEPTEMBER 2, 2022. U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 23-60. THIS CASE CONCERNS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A NATIONWIDE COVID INJECTION MANDATE FOR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HAD ISSUED A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT A COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT MATTER AND THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE MANDATE. A PANEL FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED ON APRIL 7, 2022, HOLDING THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MUST APPEAL ADVERSE AGENCY EMPLOYMENT DETERMINATIONS TO THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, WHOSE DECISIONS MAY BE REVIEWED ONLY IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT; THUS, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. APPELLEES FILED FOR REHEARING EN BANC, WHICH WAS GRANTED. OUR AMICUS BRIEF ARGUED THAT THE MANDATE VIOLATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (SOME HAD RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE VACCINE), VIOLATED UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL INTERVENTION, AND VIOLATES THE NUREMBERG CODE, TEN PRINCIPLES GOVERNING MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN SUBJECTS (REFERRING TO OUR COUNTRY'S LONG AND SAD HISTORY OF CONDUCTING EXPERIMENTS ON ITS PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE "TUSKEGEE STUDY OF UNTREATED SYPHILIS IN THE NEGRO MALE," CONDUCTED BETWEEN 1932 AND 1972 BY THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE). IN ESSENCE, PRESIDENT BIDEN'S MANDATE ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTES ECONOMIC COERCION THE POLAR OPPOSITE OF VOLUNTARY CONSENT WHICH THE NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES WERE ENSHRINED TO PROTECT. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2022. ON MARCH 23, 2023, THE EN BANC FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION IMPOSING THE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. THIS WAS A GREAT VICTORY FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FOUND A WAY TO TORPEDO THE VICTORY IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. FIRST, IT FAILED TO SEEK A REVIEW ON THE MERITS. NEXT, PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED PLANS TO REVOKE THE MANDATE EFFECTIVE MAY 11, 2023. THEN, ON JULY 21, 2023, THE ADMINISTRATION FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT ASKING THE COURT TO VACATE THE DECISION BELOW BECAUSE THE CASE WAS "MOOT." THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES OPPOSED THE ADMINISTRATION'S PETITION ARGUING, AMONG OTHER THINGS (1) THAT A VIOLATOR'S VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF ILLEGAL ACTION DOES NOT NORMALLY JUSTIFY VACATUR AND A FINDING OF MOOTNESS, AND (2) THE GOVERNMENT COULD REIMPOSE SUCH A MANDATE IN THE FUTURE AND LITIGATE THE ISSUES ALL OVER AGAIN WITHOUT CONCERN ABOUT THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DECISION, WHICH IS VALUABLE TO THE PUBLIC. NONETHELESS, ON DECEMBER 11, 2023, THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE ADMINISTRATION'S PETITION, VACATED THE JUDGMENT, AND REMANDED THE CASE WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT "TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE AS MOOT ITS ORDER GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION." INTERESTINGLY, JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTED SAYING, "IN MY VIEW, THE PARTY SEEKING VACATUR HAS NOT ESTABLISHED EQUITABLE ENTITLEMENT TO THAT REMEDY."
PART III, LINE 28	MISSOURI V. BIDEN, U.S. SUPREME COURT NO. 21-1463. AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MISSOURI'S PETITION TO THE FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT FILED JUNE 21, 22. THIS CASE CHALLENGED A NEW RULE OF THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES ("CMS") REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYEES, VOLUNTEERS, AND THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTORS EMPLOYED BY OR WORKING AT CMS-COVERED FACILITIES TO RECEIVE THE COVID-19 "VACCINATION" AS A CONDITION OF THE FACILITY RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS. THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE ON NOVEMBER 29, 2021, THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT VACATED THE INJUNCTION AND REMANDED ON APRIL 11, 2022, AND THE PLAINTIFFS FILED THEIR PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT ON MAY 12. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION ON OCTOBER 3, 2022. CONSISTENT WITH THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION, THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE PARTIES ARE NOW LITIGATING THE MERITS OF THE CASE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT.
PART III, LINE 28	303 CREATIVE LLC, ET AL. V. AUBREY ELENIS, ET AL., U.S. SUPREME COURT (NO. 21-476). AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 303 CREATIVE'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED ON OCTOBER 28, 2021; MERITS AMICUS BRIEF FILED JUNE 2, 2022. AS EXPLAINED IN THE BRIEFS, LORIE SMITH IS OWNER OF A SMALL BUSINESS, 303 CREATIVE LLC, WHICH OFFERS WEBSITE DESIGN SERVICES. MS. SMITH WANTS TO EXPAND HER BUSINESS TO DESIGN CUSTOM WEBSITES FOR COUPLES PLANNING WEDDINGS. SHE HAS WRITTEN AND WANTS TO POST A MESSAGE ON HER WEBSITE THAT SAYS THAT SHE WILL WORK ONLY FOR OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES HAVING TRADITIONAL WEDDINGS, AND NOT CREATE SUCH WEBSITES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES. 303 CREATIVE ET AL. FILED SUIT TO ENJOIN COLORADO FROM BRINGING AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION BASED ON ITS MARKETING PLAN VIOLATING COLORADO'S PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS STATUTETHE COLORADO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT ("CADA"). AS THE PETITION EXPLAINS, CADA BOTH 'REQUIRES HER TO CREATE WEBSITES CELEBRATING SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND BANS HER EXPLANATORY STATEMENT' AS TO WHAT TYPE OF WEDDINGS WOULD BE SERVED. APPELLANTS BROUGHT CLAIMS BASED ON THE FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS, AND FREE EXERCISE CLAUSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. IN 2017, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED CLAIMS AGAINST CADA'S 'ACCOMMODATION CLAUSE' WHICH PREVENTS BUSINESSES FROM REFUSING SERVICE, FOR LACK OF STANDING. IT ALLOWED CHALLENGES TO THE 'COMMUNICATIONS CLAUSE' WHICH PREVENTS BUSINESSES FROM ANNOUNCING THEY 'DISCRIMINATE' TO PROCEED. THEN, IN 2019, THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST THE CHALLENGES TO THAT COMMUNICATION CLAUSE. ON JULY 26, 2021, A SPLIT PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT. PETITIONERS 303 CREATIVE ET AL. FILED THEIR PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2021. THE STATE FILED ITS OPPOSITION ON DECEMBER 8, 2021. PETITIONERS FILED THEIR REPLY BRIEF ON DECEMBER 22, 2021. ON FEBRUARY 22, 2022, THE COURT GRANTED THE PETITION BUT LIMITED IT TO WHETHER APPLYING A PUBLIC-ACCOMMODATION LAW TO COMPEL AN ARTIST TO SPEAK OR STAY SILENT VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. MERITS BRIEFS AND AMICUS BRIEFS ON THE MERITS WERE FILED, INCLUDING OUR AMICUS BRIEF FILED ON JUNE 2, 2022. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 5, 2022. ON JUNE 30, 2023, THE SUPREME COURT, IN A 6-3 DECISION, VINDICATED THE LORIE SMITH'S RIGHT NOT TO CREATE WEBSITES CELEBRATING MARRIAGES THAT DEFY HER BELIEF THAT MARRIAGE SHOULD BE RESERVED TO UNIONS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, HOLDING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS COLORADO FROM FORCING A WEBSITE DESIGNER TO CREATE EXPRESSIVE DESIGNS SPEAKING MESSAGES WITH WHICH THE DESIGNER DISAGREES. THE COURT RULED THAT COLORADO'S PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW COULD NOT BE STRETCHED SO FAR AS TO COMPEL SPEECH: "WHEN A STATE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION COLLIDE, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION WHICH MUST PREVAIL. U. S. CONST., ART. VI, CL. 2." SLIP. OP. AT 14. AND, "THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENVISIONS THE UNITED STATES AS A RICH AND COMPLEX PLACE WHERE ALL PERSONS ARE FREE TO THINK AND SPEAK AS THEY WISH, NOT AS THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS." ID. AT 26. THE RESULT IN THIS CASE IS EXCELLENT, BUT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ISSUE WAS LEFT UNADDRESSED.
PART III, LINE 28	REV. PAUL A. EKNES-TUCKER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, M.D. ALA. NO. 2:22-CV-184-LCB-SRW. AMICUS BRIEF FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2022. THE BIDEN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A VERY INTRUSIVE SUBPOENA TO EAGLE FORUM ALABAMA ("EFA") DEMANDING ELEVEN CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ROLE EFA PLAYED WITH RESPECT TO THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE'S ENACTMENT OF THE "ALABAMA VULNERABLE CHILD COMPASSION AND PROTECTION ACT," ALSO KNOWN AS "VCAP," WHICH PROHIBITS CERTAIN "MEDICALPROCEDURES THE STATE HAD DETERMINED TO BE HARMFUL TO MINORS. IT ISSUED A SIMILAR SUBPOENA TO SOUTHEAST LAW INSTITUTE. BOTH ARE NONPARTIES TO THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION. OUR AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EFA ARGUED THAT, SHOULD THE SUBPOENA NOT BE QUASHED, THE PRECEDENT THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED WILL THREATEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, NOT JUST OF EFA, BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY THE RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL. THERE IS NOT A GREAT DEAL OF CASE LAW ON THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT SUBPOENAS OF THE SORT ISSUED HERE, BECAUSE THIS SUBPOENA CONSTITUTES A NEW TYPE OF THREAT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES EMANATING FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SOME SEE THIS NEW THREAT AS PART OF THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, REPLACING THE NOTION OF "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW"WITH THE ORWELLIAN MANTRA THAT "SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS." DOJ'S COMPLAINT AGAINST ALABAMA RAISED ONLY ONE ISSUE: WHETHER ALABAMA LAW'S "CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX OR ON TRANSGENDER STATUS" HAD THE EFFECT OF "DISCRIMINAT[ING] ON THE BASIS OF SEX AND ON THE BASIS OF TRANSGENDER STATUS...." THAT COULD BE ANSWERED ONLY BY EXAMINING WHAT THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE DID, NOT BY DELVING INTO EFA'S PRIVATE RECORDS. WE ARGUED THE SUBPOENA VIOLATED THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE FREEDOMS OF ASSOCIATION AND OF ASSEMBLY (TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES). ON OCTOBER 24, 2022, THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER QUASHING THE SUBPOENAS, ENDING THE MATTER.
PART III, LINE 28	ILLINOIS V. FERRIERO, FORMERLY VIRGINIA V. FERRIERO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NO. 21-5096. AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT MAY 14, 2020, AND IN THE COURT OF APPEALS MARCH 11, 2022. VIRGINIA, ILLINOIS, AND NEVADA FILED SUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CLAIMING TO BE THE 36TH, 37TH, AND 38TH STATES TO RATIFY THE LONG EXPIRED EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT (ERA) AND SEEKING TO FORCE THE NATIONAL ARCHIVIST TO CERTIFY THE ERA AS THE TWENTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. OUR FIRST AMICUS BRIEF OPPOSED THIS ATTEMPT TO JUDICIALLY IMPOSE THE ERA, WHICH DID NOT MAKE IT THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS BEFORE IT EXPIRED UNDER THE TIME LIMIT IMPOSED BY CONGRESS FOR THE STATES TO RATIFY IT. (ONE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THE ERA DIED ON MARCH 22, 1979. SEE IDAHO V. FREEMAN, 529 F. SUPP. 1107, 1154 (D. ID. 1981), VACATED AS MOOT 459 U.S. 809 (1982).) ON JUNE 12, 2020, THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED FIVE STATES (ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, NEBRASKA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND TENNESSEE) TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS TO ARGUE AGAINST RATIFICATION. ON MARCH 5, 2021, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER ACCEPTING ALL AMICUS BRIEFS AND THEN DISMISSED THE CASE ON TWO GROUNDS: (1) THAT PLAINTIFFS LACKED STANDING TO BRING THE CASE; AND (2) THAT THE DEADLINES CONGRESS SET FOR RATIFYING THE ERA WERE WITHIN CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND HAD LONG SINCE EXPIRED. PLAINTIFFS APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT. WE FILED OUR SECOND AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE ARCHIVIST WHILE THE CASE WAS ON APPEAL. MEANWHILE, VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT HAD SWITCHED FROM DEMOCRATIC TO REPUBLICAN CONTROL, AND VIRGINIA, NO LONGER SUPPORTING THE CASE, MOVED TO BE DISMISSED AS A PARTY. VIRGINIA'S MOTION WAS GRANTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON FEBRUARY 25, 2022. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2022. ON FEBRUARY 28, 2023, THE D.C. CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION. THE LOSING STATES HAD NINETY DAYS TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO. THUS, THE CASE IS OVER. THE FUND CONTINUES TO MONITOR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREAS OF FIRST AMENDMENT, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WITH A VIEW TOWARD PARTICIPATING IN OR SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL LITIGATION WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

1	Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received ....................	1	13,500
2	Program service revenue including government fees and contracts ................	2
3	Membership dues and assessments .............................	3
4	Investment income ....................................	4
5a	Gross amount from sale of assets other than inventory .......	5a
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses ............	5b
c	Gain or (loss) from sale of assets other than inventory (Subtract line 5b from line 5a) ......	5c
6	Gaming and fundraising events
a	Gross income from gaming (attach Schedule G if greater than $15,000)	6a
b	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions from fundraising events reported on line 1) (attach Schedule G if the			sum of such gross income and contributions exceeds $15,000) ..	6b
c	Less: direct expenses from gaming and fundraising events ...	6c
d	Net income or (loss) from gaming and fundraising events (add lines 6a and 6b and subtract line 6c)	6d
7a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ......	7a
b	Less: cost of goods sold .............	7b
c	Gross profit or (loss) from sales of inventory (Subtract line 7b from line 7a) .........	7c
8	Other revenue (describe in Schedule O) ....................	8
9	Total revenue. Add lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5c, 6d, 7c, and 8 ..............	9	13,500

Part ⅢStatement of Program Service Accomplishments (see the instructions for Part III) Check if the organization used Schedule O to respond to any question in this Part III . .	Expenses (Required for section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations; optional for others.)
What is the organization's primary exempt purpose? TO PROVIDE CERTAIN LEGAL ASSISTANCE ON VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ISSUES.
Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. In a clear and concise manner, describe the services provided, the number of persons benefited, and other relevant information for each program title.
28 LITIGATION ACTIVITIES (Grants $ 0) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			28a	20,031
29 LEGAL DEFENSE INFORMATION SERVICES AND REPORTS (Grants $ 0) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			29a	2,500
30 (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			30a
31 Other program services (describe in Schedule O) ................ (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here...	31a
32 Total program service expenses (add lines 28a through 31a)..........	32	22,531

(a) Name and business address of each independent contractor	(b) Type of service	(c) Compensation
NONE

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title

10	Grants and similar amounts paid (list in Schedule O) ................	10
11	Benefits paid to or for members ......................	11
12	Salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits ................	12
13	Professional fees and other payments to independent contractors ............	13
14	Occupancy, rent, utilities, and maintenance ...................	14
15	Printing, publications, postage, and shipping ...................	15
16	Other expenses (describe in Schedule O) ...................	16	24,762
17	Total expenses. Add lines 10 through 16 .................	17	24,762

18	Excess or (deficit) for the year (Subtract line 17 from line 9) ............	18	-11,262
19	Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (from line 27, column (A)) (must agree with
	end-of-year figure reported on prior year’s return) .................	19	72,306
20	Other changes in net assets or fund balances (explain in Schedule O) ...........	20	0
21	Net assets or fund balances at end of year. Combine lines 18 through 20 ..........	21	61,044