Featured Cases

Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC

Case Number: 4:18-cv-00824-O N.D. Tex.
Discrimination
First Amendment

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an edict claiming that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, with no exceptions for anyone. The EEOC had been using this edict to sue Christian-owned businesses that didn’t conform to the edict, which compelled employers to “allow employees into restrooms that correspond to the employees’ gender identity, no matter the individual’s biological sex, whether the individual has had a sex-change operation, or whether other employees have raised objections or privacy concerns.”

Braidwood Management v. Becerra

Case Number: 4:20-cv-00283-O N.D. Tex.
Government Oversight

Former President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress created section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, which empowered the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (“PSTF”) to decide the “preventative care” that all private health insurance must cover, even though none of the Task Force’s members were appointed as “officers of the United States” in conformity with Article II of the Constitution. In effect, the PSTF amounted to an unelected, unaccountable group of elite technocrats who unilaterally dictated which services all Americans with health insurance must subsidize—resulting in higher premiums and disruptions to the healthcare system in the United States.

Spicer v. Biden

Case Number: 1:21-cv-2493 D.D.C
Government Oversight

In 2020, President Trump lawfully appointed Sean Spicer and Russ Vought to serve three year terms on the Board of Visitors for the Naval Academy. In an unprecedented move, the Biden Administration attempted to remove them and replace them with radical left-wing progressive ideologues.

Sargent, et al. v. School District of Philadelphia, et al.

Case Number: 22-cv-01509 E.D. Pa.
Parental Rights

In 2021, in the name of “antiracism” and “equity,” the School District of Philadelphia announced that starting with the 2022–23 school year, it was changing its selection process for criteria-based schools from a race-neutral process to a racially discriminatory process. The school district did so despite 62% of the students attending those schools identifying as black or Latino and with no schools having a white majority.

Thomas, et al. v. Loudoun County Public Schools

Case Number: 22003556-00 Loudoun County Circuit Court
Parental Rights

Loudoun County Public Schools adopted Regulation 8040, which prohibits school staff from talking to parents about any issue related to the “gender identity” of their children, unless the child consents. The school district also implemented critical race theory into its curriculum and allowed teachers to discuss topics like race, sex, and religion in an age-inappropriate manner.

Neese v. Becerra

Case Number: 2:21-cv-00163 N.D. Tex.
Government Oversight

The Department of Health and Human Services issued an edict that interpreted section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Practically speaking, this meant that a man who claimed to be a woman could seek medical treatment from a doctor—treatment that would only be provided to a woman—and then file a claim of discrimination against the doctor with the Biden Department of Health and Human Services. A finding by HHS that a doctor engaged in discrimination could result in disastrous consequences for that doctor, including financial penalties and the loss of access to any insurance providers that receive funding from the federal government. The HHS edict would have led to Doctors across the United States having to provide transgender medical services–including prescribing “puberty blockers,” “hormone therapy” for children, and referrals for surgeries that result in castration, sterilization, and genital mutilation.

Texas v. Walensky, et al. (Title 42 case)

Case Number: 6:22-cv-13
Immigration

The Trump Administration had used 42 U.S.C. § 265 (Title 42) to immediately expel over 1 million illegal border crossers during the COVID Pandemic Health Emergency. The Biden Administration initially continued this policy but later sought to stop removing illegal entrants while maintaining other Pandemic-related measures. This would have allowed the Biden Administration to import a large number of illegal aliens into the United States.

Texas v. Biden

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00579 N.D. Tex.
Immigration

The Federal government violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Public Health Service Act of 1944 (“PHSA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by abandoning preexisting protections against the introduction of illegal aliens infected with COVID-19 into the state of Texas. By causing an influx of aliens who are or might be infected with COVID-19, the Biden administration has put the public health of Texas and the United States in peril, as well as having weakened the economies of Texas and the United States as the economy attempts to recover from the effects of the pandemic.

Texas, et al. v. DHS et al. (CHNV Parole case)

Case Number: 6:23-cv-00007 S.D. Tex.
Immigration

Under the guise of preventing illegal aliens from crossing the southern land border, the Biden Administration created a new blatantly unlawful program that will permit up to 360,000 aliens to be “paroled” into the United States every year—despite no authorization from Congress to do so and even though these aliens do not have visas. The new program actually allows aliens in their home countries to obtain the benefit of securing advance approval to enter the United States—despite no other basis in law for them doing so (i.e., these are not visas).

Texas, et al. v. HHS, et al. (WHO case)

Case Number: 4:23-cv-00066 N.D. Tex.
Foreign Affairs
Government Oversight

On January 19, 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule, which, in effect, empowers the World Health Organization (WHO) to make decisions about the existence of public health emergencies in the United States. This HHS-issued regulation states that certain WHO declarations automatically trigger a domestic public health emergency under U.S. law. This would allow HHS to unilaterally impose quarantine restrictions on American citizens based on decisions made by the WHO, with significant potential effects on the sovereignty of States and the American people. A coalition of States petitioned the Department of Health and Human Services to have the regulations rescinded, and HHS refused to do so.

Texas, et al. v. Biden, et al.

Case Number: 22-cv-00780 N.D. Tex.
Immigration

The Biden Administration created a program named the “Central American Minors Program,” or “CAM,” for illegal aliens from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras to petition the federal government to bring their minor children into the United States. So long as an illegal alien has a pending application for asylum, they can begin the process for their relative to enter and reside within the United States for a practically indefinite period. This program does not just include minor children, but it also qualifies the in-country parent of a qualifying child, a legal guardian, or a child’s primary caregiver. This program is an unlawful combination of two different statutory authorities: the Refugee Admissions Program under 8 U.S.C. § 1157 and the “parole” authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).

Texas v. Mayorkas, et al.

Case Number: 22-cv-00094-Z N.D. Tex.
Immigration

The Biden Administration has released millions of illegal aliens into the United States. On March 29, 2022, the Administration promulgated an Interim Final Rule to release even more illegal aliens into the country. This Interim Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and violates the Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

Vierbuchen v. Biden

Case Number: 22-cv-0001 D.Wy.
Government Oversight

The Biden Administration issued an Executive Order requiring all executive branch employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine or face termination. AFL brought suit on behalf of a federal employee to protect her right to not be forced to get an injection she did not want or need.

Payne v. Biden

Case Number: 21-cv-3077 D.D.C.
Government Oversight

The Biden Administration issued an Executive Order requiring all executive branch employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine or face termination. AFL sued on behalf of a federal employee to protect his right to not be forced to get an injection he did not want or need.

Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District

Case Number: 3:22-cv-00508
Parental Rights

The Eau Claire Area School District has implemented a policy that allows school administrators to facilitate a social transition for a child without informing or seeking consent from their parents. This policy permits school staff to keep the social transition of a gender-confused child hidden from their parents. Parents have the fundamental right to decide what medical treatments their children receive. By allowing a child to socially transition without informing or seeking consent from parents, the school district is providing psychosocial medical treatment to a child, which violates the parents’ right to raise their own child. Children lack the maturity and experience to consent to various things, including medical care, which is why parents have been entrusted with decision-making authority for their children’s medical decisions. Only competent parents can provide informed consent for medical treatment for their children, excluding medical emergencies. It is important to note that children are not wards of the state.

Jacobson v. Bassett

Case Number: 3:22-cv-00033-MAD-ML
DEI
Discrimination

The State of New York implemented a policy that rationed COVID-19 treatment based on the patient’s race rather than their medical need.

Auslander v. Tredyffrin/Easttown

Case Number: 2:22-cv-01425-HB E.D. Pa.
Parental Rights

Ben Auslander, a father, tried to review his child’s school district’s curriculum, which included divisive CRT instructional materials. Initially, the school district allowed him to inspect the CRT curriculum, but they prohibited him from taking verbatim written notes, photocopying, or photographing the records. When Mr. Auslander switched to taking voice notes on his phone, a district official shut him down, claiming that it was a copyright violation. The official abruptly ended the inspection and ordered Mr. Auslander to leave the premises.

Miller v. Vilsack – Biden Administration Farm Loan Forgiveness Program

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00595-O N.D. Tex.
Discrimination
Government Oversight

Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act created a program that permitted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide loan forgiveness to farmers and ranchers with USDA-backed loans—but excluded white farmers and ranchers from eligibility.

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!