Texas, et al. v. HHS, et al. (WHO case)
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 A coalition of States petitioned the Department of Health and Human Services to have the regulations rescinded, and HHS refused to do so.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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.