Featured Cases

Harker v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 23-cv-07865, S.D. NY.
DEI
Discrimination
Woke Corporations

The plaintiff, James Harker, is an older white male. He has worked on film sets for more than 20 years doing electrical work. He has worked as a gaffer, the chief electrician on set, as well as a best boy electrician. The Defendants, Meta, BBDO, AICP, and Something Ideal, discriminated against him in hiring and job placement, despite his experience; all because he is the wrong race. The Defendants put into practice a program called “DoubletheLine,” which hired candidates based on whether they were “BIPOC,” otherwise known as “Black, Indigenous, or People of Color.” Because Mr. Harker is white, he was not eligible to participate in the DTL Program.

Jill Hines & Jim Hoft v. Alex Stamos, et al.

Case Number: 3:23-cv-00571, W.D. La.
Censorship

Defendants launched their colossal mass-surveillance and censorship program, in close cooperation with government officials, probably the largest mass-surveillance and mass-censorship program in American history—the so-called “Election Integrity Partnership” and “Virality Project.”  Four entities—Stanford Internet Observatory, University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab—collaborate closely with federal, state, and local government officials to monitor and censor disfavored viewpoints on social media. This government-private censorship consortium tramples on the First Amendment rights, privacy interests, and business expectations of millions of Americans.

Jackson, et al. v. Biden, et al. (Taylor Force Act)

Case Number: 2:22-cv-00241-Z N.D. Tex.
Foreign Affairs
Government Oversight

For decades, the Palestinian Authority – lavishly funded by the U.S. and other Western governments – has paid terrorists to indiscriminately murder and maim people living in or visiting Israel. Among other things, the PA’s “Pay to Slay” program rewards terrorists and their families with cash bounties based on the number and severity of the civilian casualties they inflict.

 

Responding to a Palestinian terrorist’s 2016 brutal murder of U.S. Army Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and West Point graduate Taylor Force, and the subsequent Palestinian Authority’s payment of a bounty to the terrorist’s family, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Taylor Force Act. The Act prohibits U.S. economic assistance that directly benefits the Palestinian Authority unless and until the Secretary of State certifies the PA has terminated Pay to Slay. Under President Trump, the government obeyed the law. However, under President Biden, the government has lawlessly transferred hundreds of millions U.S. taxpayer dollars to directly benefit the Palestinian Authority. President Biden and Secretary Blinken are violating the law and financing the PA’s violent extremism and virulent, eliminationist antisemitism.

Deanda v. Becerra, et al.

Case Number: 2:20-cv-92-Z N.D. Tex.
Parental Rights

The Department of Health and Human Services has for decades provided “family planning services” to adolescents under a provision known as Title X. Our client has sought to raise his children in accordance with his Christian faith, and his view as a parent is that his children should not be able to make use of the contraceptive services provided by the Federal Government without his consent. Texas passed a law that gives parents the right to be informed and to grant or withhold consent for their children to participate in programs like Title X. The Biden Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services disregarded Texas’s law and continued to provide these services without informing the parents of children who sought to make use of the program.

Montana, et al. v. Cardona, et al.

Case Number: 1:23-cv-00775-TSC D.D.C.
Parental Rights

The Cedar Grove School District in Cedar Grove, New Jersey, began gathering information from young children about gender identity, same-sex unions, religious affiliation, and race/ethnicity. In 2021, the parents filed complaints with the New Jersey Department of Education. Within six months, the State investigated, held a hearing, and ruled that the school district had violated parents’ rights. The parents also filed PPRA complaints with the Department of Education, but the complaints sat for well over a year without any action. In 2022, AFL filed two FOIA requests and sent a letter to the Department of Education demanding reasons for the delay. Then, and only then, the Department notified parents that it was opening an investigation. But since January 2023, the parents have heard nothing further.

FASORP v. NYU

Case Number: 21-1046, Supreme Court of the United States
DEI
Discrimination
Higher Education

The New York University Law Review has chosen to use race and sex as factors in determining which articles to publish, which significantly impacts the career prospects of those authors denied publication. A coalition of faculty, alumni, and students opposed to racial preferences sued the University for this discrimination, and the University prevailed in the Second Circuit.

SB8 Texas Heartbeat Act Defense

Case Number:
Pro Life

The Department of Justice filed a frivolous and politically motivated lawsuit against the State of Texas in an attempt to enjoin every person in Texas from exercising their rights under the Texas Heartbeat Act. The Biden Administration filed this lawsuit after abortion providers and pro-abortion groups failed to persuade the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of the law.

Blessed Cajuns v. Guzman

Case Number: 4:21-cv-677-O N.D. Tex.
Discrimination
Government Oversight

Section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act provided financial benefits to restaurant and bar owners injured by forced closures due to COVID-19. The Act charged the Small Business Administration with administering the program—which only had a limited sum of money—and with providing access to those benefits through a race-based prioritization scheme. In short, minority business owners went to the front of the line, and white business owners went to the back of the line—effectively cutting off any likelihood of obtaining funds.

Sefelino v. County College of Morris, et al.

Case Number: 2:23-cv-01595 D.N.J.
Discrimination
First Amendment
Higher Education

AFL’s client is a Christian student who frequently speaks about the Bible and his Christian faith. He seeks to inform his classmates of the Bible’s teachings, urging them to repent their sins and put their faith in Jesus. The County College of Morris suspended him for engaging in “hate speech” for sharing his faith.

Solomon v. Garland, et al.

Case Number: 1:23-cv-00759-RJL D.D.C.
Government Oversight

In early 2021, former President Donald J. Trump declassified a binder of documents related to the FBI’s abusive “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation. The Presidential Records Act gives a former president the absolute right to access records from his administration and the right to give that same level of access to any representative he chooses. President Trump designated journalist John Solomon as a representative to access the binder from the National Archives. Yet, even though the law requires the National Archives to let Mr. Solomon review the binder, it continues to deny access. Instead, the National Archives transferred the documents to the Department of Justice and continues to refuse to provide Mr. Solomon access to the records.

South Carolina Freedom Caucus v. Jordan, et al.

Case Number: 23-cv-00795 D.S.C.
First Amendment

South Carolina law allows only certain legislative caucuses - those formed around party, race, or gender - to raise money and engage in the full range of protected free speech. The House Democratic Caucus, House Republican Caucus, the Black Caucus, and the Women’s Caucus can speak freely, but ideologically-oriented groups like the Freedom Caucus (and the Progressive Caucus) may not. Instead, the members of these caucuses face criminal penalties for exercising their First Amendment rights. South Carolina’s law restricting speech “based on the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” is blatantly unconstitutional.

Herrera v. Raoul, et al.

Case Number: 1:23-cv-00532, N.D. Il.
Second Amendment

On January 10, 2023, the Illinois Governor signed into law a ban on the sale, purchase, and possession of rifles and standard capacity magazines. Cook County and the City of Chicago already had restrictive gun laws in place. All of the restrictions, in this case, contravene the Second Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. As the Supreme Court has stated, this right is not a “second-class right” from all others in the Bill of Rights, and while States may regulate “dangerous and unusual weapons,” those in “common use” are undeniably beyond any state’s power to ban.

Sebaggala v. Levinson

Case Number: 2021L009047 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
First Amendment

AFL represented Helen Levinson, a mother of two, born to a family of Christian Arab immigrants from Jordan and raised in Chicago, who stood up against a school teacher for promoting highly racialized and progressive viewpoints in her school district. One teacher from outside Helen’s school district would aggressively protest at her district’s school board meeting. At one point, Helen needed a security escort to leave a meeting. Based on this type of behavior, Helen wrote a letter to the teacher’s school board, providing examples of the teacher’s conduct, and requesting the board review whether this was in compliance with their code of conduct. In response, the teacher sued Helen. This lawsuit violated IL’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. You cannot file a lawsuit in an attempt to keep someone from exercising their constitutional rights. We partnered with Sorin Leahu, who was already defending Helen, to combat this lawfare from the teacher.

AFL v. Kerner

Case Number: 1:22-cv-03576 D.D.C.
Government Oversight

AFL requested through FOIA that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Division provide all email communications between its employees and the Legal Director at the American Civil Liberties Union, David Cole. DOJ refused to even conduct a search in response to the request, claiming that the search would be too burdensome because DOJ would have to get the consent from each of its employees in the Civil Division before searching their email accounts. Essentially, DOJ decided that each individual employee should get to have a veto over whether DOJ would respond to the FOIA request.

Gill, et al. v. Lehigh County Board of Elections

Case Number: 2022-C-1849, Court of Common Pleas of Leigh County, PA
Elections

The Lehigh County District Attorney investigated ballot drop boxes in Lehigh County in the 2021 general election and found that hundreds of void ballots had been deposited into drop boxes and were subsequently counted by the Board. Lehigh County refused to remedy these issues and put in place sufficient security measures to protect our elections.

Romine, et al. v. Chester County Board of Elections

Case Number: 2022-07093-IR, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County PA
Elections

The Chester County Board of Elections placed dropboxes in the community with cameras attached. After investigations by local patriots, it became clear that many people were depositing multiple ballots. A person is only authorized to deposit their ballot into a ballot dropbox in PA. In one instance, a man appeared to fill out two ballots while waiting in his car and then deposited both ballots into the ballot dropbox.

Cargill v. ATF

Case Number: 1:22-cv-01063 W.D. Tex.
Second Amendment

ATF is attempting to reduce Americans’ access to firearms by revoking federal firearms licenses (FFL), the license required to run a gun store, for minor paperwork errors. The ATF has begun arbitrarily labeling minor errors as “willful violations” of the Gun Control Act, absent any actual indication of willfulness or intent by the FFL holder. This is a stark departure from the longstanding practices of the ATF where they used to work with gun dealers to reduce paperwork errors.

Brandl, et al. v. West Shore School District

Case Number: 1:23-cv-00368-CCC M.D. Pa.
Parental Rights

The West Shore School District’s Social Emotion Learning curriculum teaches children “virtues and values” that go against the beliefs of Christian parents in the school district. The parents requested that their children be excused from this SEL curriculum as it does not reflect the values, morals, and beliefs in the parent’s religion. After initially accepting the religious exemption, the school district reversed its course and informed the parents that they would not honor the right to have children excused from the SEL curriculum.

Stewart v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, et al.

Case Number: 5:23-cv-00007-H N.D. Tex.
Discrimination
Higher Education

Statistical evidence obtained from six medical schools in the State of Texas reveals that the schools are using race and sex preferences in their admissions policies in violation of Title VI, Title IX, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lowery v. Texas A&M, et al.

Case Number: 4:22-cv-03091 S.D. Tex.
DEI
Discrimination
Higher Education

Federal law prohibits race-based discrimination in hiring and contracting. Texas A&M created a faculty hiring program with dedicated funding and positions set aside for candidates from “underrepresented minority groups.” In short, instead of considering applicants based on their qualifications, Texas A&M sought to reserve certain positions for candidates based solely on their skin color.

Doe, et al. v. Bethel Local School District

Case Number: 3:22-cv-00337-MJN, S.D. OH
Parental Rights

For over a century, this school district has prohibited biological males and biological females from using the same intimate facilities, even disciplining students for violating this rule. At a school board meeting on September 13, 2021, a faculty member proposed changing the longstanding rules and asked the Board to allow students to use facilities of their preferred “gender identity.” On January 10, 2022, the Board announced it had adopted the proposed change, claiming it was necessary to comply with the law without public discussion, deliberation, or voting. This violated Ohio state law, providing that “any resolution, rule, or formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open meeting of the public body.”

Bolduc v. Amazon

Case Number: 4:22-cv-615 E.D. Tex.
DEI
Discrimination
Woke Corporations

Under the guise of “diversity,” Amazon is offering a $10,000 bonus to its delivery service partners — but only for those partners who are black, Latino, or Native American. Asian Americans and whites are categorically ineligible for this racially discriminatory stipend. This is a flagrant violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guarantees citizens of every race and color the same right to make and enter into contracts with others.

AFL, et al. v. Cardona, et al.

Case Number: 22-cv-01947-RCL, D.D.C.
Government Oversight
Parental Rights

The Biden Administration’s Department of Education created a “National Parents and Families Engagement Council” to serve as a partisan, hand-selected committee to mask the Biden Administration’s devastatingly anti-child and anti-family actions. The Biden Administration stacked the Council’s composition with representatives of liberal donors and supporters. If allowed to operate, the Administration intended to use the Council to provide the imprimatur of approval of the Administration’s actions and, in turn, use that seal of approval to bludgeon parents and political opponents who disagreed with the Administration’s policies.

Costello v. Carter

Case Number: 21-1509 Supreme Court of the United States
Elections

Pennsylvania lost a congressional seat in the 2020 census, requiring the Pennsylvania General Assembly to draw a new congressional map for the 2022 elections. In January 2022, Pennsylvania’s General Assembly approved a congressional map that Governor Wolf vetoed for being insufficiently Democratic, even though the Assembly-approved map would have created a 9-8 majority of Democratic-leaning congressional districts. In response to this impasse, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, where Democrats hold a 5-2 majority, imposed a more partisan Democratic map backed by the Elias Law Group, a leftist redistricting firm operated by Democratic Party operative Marc Elias.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court’s actions violated the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which clearly and unmistakably states that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” The language of the Elections Clause makes no allowance for a state supreme court to impose a congressional map by unilateral decree.

Stay Informed

Get updates about the legal battles we are waging across the country. To Get Critical Updates By Text: Text Join to 50608.

    I would like to Subscribe!