Miller v. Vilsack – Biden Administration farm loan forgiveness program
Case Number: 4:21-cv-00595-O N.D. Tex.
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.
America First Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of farmers and ranchers across the United States. AFL obtained a preliminary injunction that prevented the Biden Administration from being able to use the program and discriminate against American citizens based on their race.
Result:AFL WIN. The Biden Administration did not appeal the preliminary injunction. But because of the class-wide preliminary injunction and the fact that the Biden Administration had no viable path forward because of our lawsuit, President Biden and his allies in Congress were forced to repeal the program through legislation.
- MAJOR VICTORY: President Biden and His Allies in Congress Rescind Racially Discriminatory Farm Loan Forgiveness Program; AFL Vows to Continue Fight for Equality for American Citizens
- Big Problems for a Signature Program in Biden’s “Equity” Agenda—DOJ Refuses to Appeal Preliminary Injunction in AFL Case Involving Racial Discrimination Against Farmers and Ranchers
- Major Legal Victory: Court Grants Preliminary Injunction And Class Certification In USDA’s Racially-Based Debt Relief Program
- America First Legal Sues Biden Admin To End Racial Discrimination Against Farmers And Ranchers
Auslander v. Tredyffrin/Easttown
Case Number: 2:22-cv-01425-HB E.D. Pa.
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.
America First Legal sued on behalf of Mr. Auslander to stop the school district from interfering with his constitutionally protected First Amendment right to video and audio record or copy or photocopy all records Defendants produced in response to the plaintiff’s right to know request.
Result:AFL WIN. AFL obtained the documents on behalf of Mr. Auslander and released them to the public to show—definitively—that CRT indoctrination was being advanced in public schools.
Jacobson v. Bassett
Case Number: 3:22-cv-00033-MAD-ML
The State of New York implemented a policy that rationed COVID-19 treatment based on the patient’s race rather than their medical need.
AFL sent the State of New York a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the state stop using race as the basis for rationing life-saving COVID-19 treatment. Unlike the states of Minnesota, Utah, and New Mexico, however, New York did not reverse course after receiving AFL’s letter, so AFL sued the state on behalf of its client, Cornell Law School Professor William Jacobson. AFL moved for a preliminary injunction and class certification to stop New York from using race as a criterion to determine whether or not a patient was eligible for medical care.
Result:The District Court and the Second Circuit ruled against our client based on standing. We disagree with those decisions, but they have largely been overcome by events related to the elimination of measures concerning COVID-19.
Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District
Case Number: 3:22-cv-00508
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.
AFL joined with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and sued on behalf of a parents group in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, that wants to protect their children from the predation of the local school administration. The case was dismissed in the trial court based on a lack of standing.
Result:The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Payne v. Biden
Case Number: 21-cv-3077 D.D.C.
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.
AFL filed a lawsuit on behalf of a career civilian Navy employee to have the Executive Order declared illegal and unconstitutional. AFL also supported similar litigation in the Fifth Circuit case of Feds For Medical Freedom v. Biden.
Result:While AFL technically lost at the district and circuit level, AFL’s case theory prevailed at the Fifth Circuit en banc stage, which led the Administration to reverse course and end the vaccine mandate. Thus, AFL’s client prevailed and retained his career without having to get the injection. AFL has also asked the Supreme Court to vacate the DC Circuit’s opinion.
Vierbuchen v. Biden
Case Number: 22-cv-0001 D.Wy.
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.
AFL filed a lawsuit on behalf of a federal prosecutor to have the Executive Order held illegal and unconstitutional. AFL also supported similar litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s Feds For Medical Freedom case.
Result:The proceedings in Wyoming remained stayed for a majority of the case while the litigation in Texas moved through the court system. Ultimately, AFL’s position prevailed in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upholding a nationwide injunction barring the enforcement of the mandate, which led the Administration to reverse course and end the vaccine mandate altogether. After that, AFL dismissed the suit. Thus, AFL’s client prevailed and retained her career without having to get the injection.
Texas v. Mayorkas, et al.
Case Number: 22-cv-00094-Z N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL, serving as co-counsel to the State of Texas, sued several members of the Biden Administration to prevent the implementation of the Interim Final Rule and to ask the court to hold this rule as unlawful.
Result:The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Texas, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Case Number: 22-cv-00780 N.D. Tex.
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).
Serving as co-counsel, AFL and eight states filed suit to have the CAM Program deemed unlawful and prevent the federal government from carrying out the program until the government engages in proper rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, as this rule lacks Congressional authorization.
Result:The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Texas, et al. v. HHS, et al. (WHO case)
Case Number: 4:23-cv-00066 N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL, serving as outside counsel to the State of Texas and in partnership with the State of Oklahoma, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Xavier Becerra to halt the Biden Administration’s plan to relinquish American sovereignty to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Result:The case was dismissed for lack of standing on August 18, 2023.
Texas, et al. v. DHS et al. (CHNV Parole case)
Case Number: 6:23-cv-00007 S.D. Tex.
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).
Partnering with Texas and 20 other states, AFL filed a lawsuit and a motion for preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration. Together with lawyers from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, AFL attorneys argued the case at the trial held on August 24 and 25, 2023, and helped draft the post-trial briefs.
Result:The district court’s decision is pending.
- America First Legal Partners with Texas and Massive Coalition of 20 States in Filing Emergency Lawsuit to Shutdown Biden’s New Plan to Illegally Transport Legions of Unauthorized Aliens into the United States
- America First Legal & Texas File For Emergency Injunction To Block Biden’s Most Extreme Open Borders Decree In Lawsuit Joined by Twenty States
Texas v. Biden
Case Number: 4:21-cv-00579 N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL and the State of Texas sued the Biden administration for their failure to enforce the Title 42 regime during the pandemic.
Result:WIN. AFL and Texas obtained a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration on March 4, 2022. But the Biden Administration subsequently amended its policies to avoid further litigation on the matter, and the case was terminated.
- America First Legal, Serving As Outside Counsel To Attorney General Ken Paxton And The State Of Texas, Files Lawsuit Against Biden Administration
- AFL, Texas Ask Federal Judge To Immediately Halt Biden’s Illegal Catch-And-Release Policies At The Border
- BIG VICTORY ON TITLE 42: America First Legal & AG Paxton Win Preliminary Injunction Against Biden’s Mass Release of Illegal Alien Minors at the Border
Texas v. Walensky, et al. (Title 42 case)
Case Number: 6:22-cv-13
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.
AFL, serving as outside counsel to the State of Texas and in partnership with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, filed a lawsuit against the Director of the CDC, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other government officials, challenging the Biden Administration’s attempt to prematurely end expulsions under 42 U.S.C. § 265.
Result:The State of Texas voluntarily dismissed the case since a Temporary Restraining Order was granted in a different case challenging the same government action.
Neese v. Becerra
Case Number: 2:21-cv-00163 N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of doctors across the United States, seeking to have a federal court declare unlawful and set aside the Biden Administration’s edict.
Result:On November 22, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a final judgment in AFL’s clients’ favor. It held unlawful and set aside HHS’s edict. As a result, it is not currently in effect, and doctors across America will not be forced to provide these services because of the HHS interpretation. The Biden Administration has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the case is currently pending there.
- VICTORY: Federal Judge Issues Final Order Rejecting Biden’s Transgender Edict to All Doctors Across America
- LITIGATION UPDATE: IN LAWSUIT AGAINST BIDEN TRANSGENDER EDICTS, AFL UPDATES COURT FOLLOWING DOJ THREATS AGAINST DOCTORS
- AFL Sues To Block Radical Biden Edict Forcing Doctors To Provide Unethical Transgender Treatments, Erasing Biological Sex From Medicine
Thomas, et al. v. Loudoun County Public Schools
Case Number: 22003556-00 Loudoun County Circuit Court
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.
America First Legal, representing a group of 11 parents, filed a lawsuit seeking damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and the appointment of a special master to oversee the school district.
Result:The case was dismissed when the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing. Although the Court recognized that parents have a self-executing right under the Virginia Constitution to bring cases to protect their parental rights, the Court said that these particular plaintiffs had not alleged appropriate injury.
- AFL’s Center for Legal Equality Files Blockbuster Lawsuit Against Loudoun County Public Schools For Promoting Secret Gender Transitions, Distributing Pornographic Books in the Library, Forcing Children to Change in Locker Rooms with Members of the Opposite Sex, Racially Discriminating In The Name of Equity, and Financially Extorting Parents
- AFL Demands Answers and Internal Documents From Loudoun County Public Schools
Sargent, et al. v. School District of Philadelphia, et al.
Case Number: 22-cv-01509 E.D. Pa.
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.
Representing three parents of students who were denied entry into schools they were otherwise qualified to attend based strictly on their race, AFL filed a lawsuit to enjoin the admissions policy.
Result:The case is currently being litigated in the District Court.
Spicer v. Biden
Case Number: 1:21-cv-2493 D.D.C
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.
AFL sued President Biden and his Administration to prevent the removal of Mr. Spicer and Mr. Vought from their respective positions.
Result:The case was dismissed by the District Court. While on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, in a parallel case (Severino v. Biden, et al.), that a presidential appointee in a similar position was removable at will by the President. The parties to our case agreed to dismiss the appeal. In the end, the D.C. Circuit has now clarified the extent of the President’s removal authority for such positions, which will be helpful for all future administrations to understand.
- AFL Hits Back — Files Lawsuit Against Biden Administration For Illegal Removal Of Spicer, Vought From The Board Of Visitors Of The U.S. Naval Academy
- AFL Continues the Fight Against the Biden Administration’s Partisan Power Grab and Purge of the Federal Government — Files Preliminary Injunction To Stop Illegal Removal Of Spicer, Vought From The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors
Braidwood Management v. Becerra
Case Number: 4:20-cv-00283-O N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL represented clients in a lawsuit seeking to have this section of the Affordable Care Act vacated as violating the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
Result:The District Court agreed with AFL’s claims that the PSTF violated the Appointments Clause and vacated all of its actions since 2010. The case is now on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- AFL Takes On Obamacare In Federal Court, Joins As Co-Counsel in Lawsuit Challenging Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act
- America First Legal Secures Historic Victory in Lawsuit Against Illegal “Obamacare” Provision
- America First Legal Challenges Obamacare’s Constitutional Violations in Fifth Circuit Brief
Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC
Case Number: 4:18-cv-00824-O N.D. Tex.
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.”
AFL represented clients in a class-action lawsuit against the EEOC.
Result:The District Court ruled in AFL’s clients’ favor, finding, among other things, that “employers may have policies that promote privacy, such as requiring the use of separate bathrooms based on biological sex.” On appeal, the Fifth Circuit also ruled for AFL’s client, holding that it has pre-enforcement standing to sue and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act prevents the EEOC from enforcing its so-called guidance documents against Christian employers. According to the court: “On the merits, and as we explain, we decide that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] requires that Braidwood, on an individual level, be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock.”
- AFL Defends Religious Freedom, Joins Case Against The EEOC’s Illegal Executive Action On Transgender Policy
- America First Legal Achieves Monumental Victory for Religious Liberty and the Undisputed Definition of Biological Sex In Its Lawsuit Against The Federal Government’s Illegal Guidance on Transgender Employees
- MAJOR VICTORY: AFL Prevails at the Fifth Circuit in Lawsuit Challenging the EEOC’s Extreme Transgender “Guidance Documents”
Costello v. Carter
Case Number: 21-1509 Supreme Court of the United States
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.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Result:Cert Petition Denied.
AFL, et al. v. Cardona, et al.
Case Number: 22-cv-01947-RCL, D.D.C.
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.
AFL sued Secretary Becerra and the Department of Education to stop the illegal rubber-stamp council from operating.
Result:AFL WIN. After AFL sued and pinned the Department of Education into a corner, the Department of Education announced that it would disband the illegal Council.
- MAJOR VICTORY: Biden Administration Disbands Illegal and Partisan ‘Parents Council’ After AFL Sues
- America First Legal, Parents Defending Education, Fight for Schools File Lawsuit Against Biden Administration Over Fake ‘Parents Council’ That Will Rubber-Stamp Indoctrination Efforts
- AFL Continues Fight Against The Department of Education’s Deceptive And Illegal Woke Indoctrination Council
Bolduc v. Amazon
Case Number: 4:22-cv-615 E.D. Tex.
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 filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Amazon seeking to halt its use of the racially discriminatory program.
Result:The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Doe, et al. v. Bethel Local School District
Case Number: 3:22-cv-00337-MJN, S.D. OH
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.”
AFL sued the school board on behalf of a group of parents and students, seeking to stop their children from having to use bathrooms with members of the opposite biological sex.
Result:The District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing. It is currently on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Lowery v. Texas A&M, et al.
Case Number: 4:22-cv-03091 S.D. Tex.
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.
AFL sued on behalf of a professor who does not qualify for the discriminatory program because of his skin color.
Result:The case was dismissed. It is currently on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Stewart v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, et al.
Case Number: 5:23-cv-00007-H N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL filed a class-action lawsuit against the six Texas medical schools for illegally using race and sex preferences in their admissions – a practice that violates Title VI, Title IX, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Result:This case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Brandl, et al. v. West Shore School District
Case Number: 1:23-cv-00368-CCC M.D. Pa.
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.
AFL sued the West Shore School District in order to protect parental rights to decide what is being taught to children in public schools.
Result:This case is currently being litigated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Cargill v. ATF
Case Number: 1:22-cv-01063 W.D. Tex.
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.
AFL has joined with the Texas Public Policy Foundation to represent Michael Cargill in his suit against the ATF, seeking to preserve the ability of FFL holders to lawfully sell guns to the American public and thus preserve the public’s Second Amendment rights.
Result:This case is currently being litigated in the Western District of Texas.1:22-cv-01063 W.D. Tex.
Romine, et al. v. Chester County Board of Elections
Case Number: 2022-07093-IR, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County PA
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.
AFL, on behalf of its clients, sued the County and requested that the Board of Elections take the commonsense step of providing dropbox monitors at the dropboxes to ensure individuals are only dropping off their ballot.
Result:AFL WIN. The Court granted AFL’s requested relief and ordered the County Board of Elections to staff the dropboxes with monitors to ensure individuals were only dropping off their ballot.
Gill, et al. v. Lehigh County Board of Elections
Case Number: 2022-C-1849, Court of Common Pleas of Leigh County, PA
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.
America First Legal Foundation joined with Wally Zimolong to file suit to compel the Board of Elections to comply with Pennsylvania laws governing election security and ballot drop boxes.
Result:AFL WIN. Drop boxes were not used for a portion of the early voting period.
AFL v. Kerner
Case Number: 1:22-cv-03576 D.D.C.
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.
Federal law requires that the Office of Special Counsel “shall” investigate “any allegation” concerning arbitrary or capricious withholding of information under FOIA. Recognizing DOJ’s policy as the blatant violation of FOIA that it is, AFL filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel to request that they investigate the DOJ FOIA office. The Special Counsel refused, erroneously citing a lack of authority, so AFL sued OSC in federal court to compel them to fulfill their duty. AFL has sued and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to require the Office of Special Counsel to comply with its duties under the law.
Result:AFL obtained a partial win at the district court level, but is appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to obtain a full victory.
Sebaggala v. Levinson
Case Number: 2021L009047 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
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.
We defended Helen in the Circuit Court for Cook County, IL.
Result:AFL WIN. Both the first and second complaints were dismissed. The second complaint was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the teacher can no longer sue Helen related to these claims.
Herrera v. Raoul, et al.
Case Number: 1:23-cv-00532, N.D. Il.
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.
AFL sued to defend the Second Amendment rights of its client, an emergency room doctor at a Chicago area public hospital who also teaches tactical medicine at a public university and serves as a medic on a Chicagoland SWAT team. As a medic, he is trained to provide medical aid to police officers, bystanders, perpetrators, and others who may be injured at the scene of an incident. He is dedicated to serving his community and is a law-abiding resident of Chicago with a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and concealed-carry license. He owns firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.
Result:AFL Filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary injunction. The district court denied those motions and AFL has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court. 1:23-cv-00532, N.D. Il.
South Carolina Freedom Caucus v. Jordan, et al.
Case Number: 23-cv-00795 D.S.C.
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.
AFL sued the South Carolina House of Representatives Legislative Ethics Committee on behalf of the South Carolina Freedom Caucus following attacks on its members’ free speech.
Result:AFL Win. The District Court held that the restrictions on speech were unconstitutional and ordered the provisions of law unenforceable against AFL’s clients.
Solomon v. Garland, et al.
Case Number: 1:23-cv-00759-RJL D.D.C.
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.
AFL sued Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice, and the National Archives on behalf of John Solomon to obtain access to the records.
Result:This case is currently being litigated in the district court.
Sefelino v. County College of Morris, et al.
Case Number: 2:23-cv-01595 D.N.J.
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.
AFL sued the County College of Morris (CCM) and its Dean of Students, Janique Caffie, for suspending and threatening a Christian student for preaching from the Bible and speaking against homosexuality.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
Blessed Cajuns v. Guzman
Case Number: 4:21-cv-677-O N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL sued the Small Business Administration on behalf of a class of restaurant and bar owners, seeking to have the priority access program declared unlawful and enjoined.
Result:AFL WIN. AFL obtained a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to stop race-based prioritization of access to COVID-19 relief funds for American restaurant owners. Most of AFL’s clients were able to obtain relief from the program before the funding pool was exhausted.
SB8 Texas Heartbeat Act Defense
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.
AFL moved to intervene on behalf of clients seeking to defend their rights to sue under the Texas Heartbeat Act and to defend the law from this lawless and partisan attack from the Biden Department of Justice. AFL also submitted amicus briefs in defense of the Texas Heartbeat Act and the unborn.
Result:AFL WIN. The Fifth Circuit followed the Supreme Court of Texas’s unanimous decision that state officials lack the authority to enforce the Texas Heartbeat Act. In December, a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States rejected abortion providers’ attempt to immunize themselves from private civil lawsuits authorized by SB8, allowing the law to remain in effect and ensuring that every state in America can now outlaw abortion by authorizing private civil-enforcement suits against abortion providers and their enablers. The Supreme Court also dismissed the Department of Justice’s emergency petition in its politically motivated lawsuit over the Texas Heartbeat Act.
FASORP v. NYU
Case Number: 21-1046, Supreme Court of the United States
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.
AFL joined as co-counsel in a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to review and overturn the judgment below.
Result:The petition for Certiorari was denied.21-1046, Supreme Court of the United States
Montana, et al. v. Cardona, et al.
Case Number: 1:23-cv-00775-TSC D.D.C.
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.
AFL sued the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Miguel Cardona on behalf of parents in Cedar Grove, New Jersey, for failing to investigate and resolve their Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) complaints.
Result:The case is currently pending.
Deanda v. Becerra, et al.
Case Number: 2:20-cv-92-Z N.D. Tex.
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.
Our clients sued the Biden Administration’s Secretary of Health and Human Services to compel the federal government to recognize the parental rights established by the State of Texas, and to establish that Title X does not preempt Texas State Law.
Result:A Federal District Court judge granted summary judgment to our client and ordered HHS to cease violating Texas law and Constitutional parental rights. The case was appealed and is currently pending before the 5th Circuit (Case No. 23-10159)
Jackson, et al. v. Biden, et al. (Taylor Force Act)
Case Number: 2:22-cv-00241-Z N.D. Tex.
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.
AFL has sued the Biden Administration on behalf of Stuart and Robbi Force, Taylor Force’s parents; Sarri Singer, herself the survivor of a suicide bombing by a teenage terrorist on a Jerusalem bus in 2003 that killed 17, and Congressman Ronny Jackson (TX-13).
Result:Following the government’s motion to dismiss, AFL asked the court to allow discovery on the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. Following Hamas’s attacks on Israel, which began on October 7, 2023, the district court granted AFL’s motion to conduct limited discovery.
Jill Hines & Jim Hoft v. Alex Stamos, et al.
Case Number: 3:23-cv-00571, W.D. La.
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.
AFL, together with co-counsel John Sauer, Esq. and local counsel Julianna Petchak Parks and team, filed a lawsuit against these individuals and organizations seeking compensatory and punitive damages for its clients and the proposed class.
Result:The case is currently being litigated.
Harker v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.
Case Number: 23-cv-07865, S.D. NY.
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.
AFL filed a lawsuit pursuing claims under Section 1981 which guarantees “[a]ll persons … the same right … to make and enforce contracts” and Section 1983 which prohibits a conspiracy to violate an individual's civil rights. Likewise, AFL brought claims for a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination of “any individual” because of “such individual’s race.” AFL also brought claims pursuant to New York’s Human Rights Law, or NY CLS Exec § 296, which makes unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to refuse to hire or employ or to bar from employment any individual on the basis of race.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
Roberts, et al. v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, et al.
Case Number: 23-cv-01597, N.D. Ohio
Progressive Insurance engages in racial discrimination by offering $25,000 grants to ten “black-owned small businesses to use toward the purchase of a commerical vehicle.” Our client, a white male who owns a trucking company, received an email from Progressive, his insurance company, about a grant he otherwise would have qualified for if not for the color of his skin.
AFL, Mitchell Law PLLC, and Ashbrook Byrne Kresge LLC filed a class-action lawsuit against Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Circular Board LLC.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
International Partners for Ethical Care, et al. v. Jay Inslee, et al. (SB 5599)
Case Number: 23-cv-05736, W.D. Wash.
Washington state’s Senate Bill 5599 is a new law that allows shelters to take in children struggling with gender dysphoria and potentially provide them with life-altering “care” (potentially including sterilization) without parental consent or knowledge. The recently signed legislation creates a dangerous incentive for minors who disagree with their parents on “gender-affirming care” to run away to a shelter or host home. The new law takes away a requirement of notice to parents.
AFL has filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, as well as the Attorney General, Robert Ferguson, and the Secretary of the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Ross Hunter, all in the official capacities. These government officials have implemented a program that violates the procedural due process and substantive due process rights of parents. The State of Washington cannot deny parents their parental rights to direct the upbringing of their children, including making medical decisions for their children, simply because a child has entered a shelter in the state and claimed to be transgender.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
Brian Craig v. Target Corporation, et al.
Case Number: 23-cv-00599, M.D. Fl.
Target Corporation and its Board of Directors have misled shareholders and customers with misleading representations on the company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates. Target assured shareholders that it was monitoring for political and social issues and risks that could arise as a result of the ESG and DEI policies. However, management only cared when leftist “stakeholders” cared about these business decisions. Following Target’s May 2023 embrace of the radical transgender agenda, Target shares have seen more than a $12 billion collapse in value, the largest stock price decline in over 20 years.
On behalf of a Target shareholder, AFL sued the company for failing to assess the risks that come when corporations pander to the left and virtue signal while leaving their core customer base behind.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
Doe, et al. v. Horne, et al.
Case Number: 23-cv-00185, Dist. Ariz.
Arizona’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” prohibits biological males from playing on girls’ sports teams at public schools. On April 17, 2023, two biological male students seeking to overturn the law sued Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, the two students’ local schools, and the Arizona Interscholastic Association. Arizona Senate President Warren Peterson and Speaker of the Arizona House Ben Toma filed a motion to intervene in the case to defend the Act. The court later granted their motion.
One plaintiff in the case is a prepubescent eleven-year-old, and the other is a fifteen-year-old taking puberty blockers and female hormones. The lawsuit argues that because these two plaintiffs have not gone through puberty, they would not have any athletic advantage from being biological males. On July 20, 2023, the district court issued a preliminary injunction ordering that the two plaintiffs in the case–both biological males–should be allowed to play on their schools’ girls’ sports teams.
To ensure that the voices of the female student-athletes protected by the Save Women’s Sports Act can be heard, America First Legal filed on June 30, 2023, a motion to intervene in the district court on behalf of its clients, Arizona Women of Action, a women’s organization that advocates for concerned parents, and Anna Van Hoek, Lisa Fink, and Amber Zenczak, mothers whose daughters play sports on girls’ teams in school.
When Superintendent Horne and the Arizona legislative leaders filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit of the district court’s preliminary injunction, America First Legal filed, on behalf of its clients, an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit. The brief explains the real world consequences that girls in Arizona have suffered, and will suffer, when males compete against them. The brief also argues that the district court erred when it ruled that it did not have to show any deference to the Arizona legislature’s fact-finding determinations about the extent of the problem of biological males in girls’ sports.
Result:The district court has yet to rule on the motion to intervene. The appeal of the preliminary injunction is currently pending at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the case continues to be adjudicated on the merits at the district court.
Leahy, et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
Case Number: 23C1019, Circuit Couty of Davidson County
A girl, purporting to be a transgender man, shot and killed three children and three adults at Covenant, a private Christian school in Nashville. The Nashville Police Department obtained documents from executing search warrants of her vehicle and house. She left behind what the police called a “manifesto.” AFL’s client, Star News Network, a network of news agencies, filed a public records request asking for the manifesto. Metro Nashville refused to provide the manifesto, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. At the same time, Metro has identified no additional potential suspects, and the perpetrator of the crime was killed at the school by heroes of the Metro Nashville Police Department.
AFL filed suit against Metro Nashville, seeking the release of the manifesto. During the trial court process, three other parties were permitted to intervene. The Covenant Church, Covenant School, and Parents of Children at Covenant School were each permitted to intervene. However, Tennessee’s Public Records law does not permit intervention from third parties. AFL appealed the trial court’s order permitting intervention. Once that is resolved, AFL will have a trial on the merits of whether the manifesto should be released.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
National Center for Public Policy Research, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission (Kroger)
Case Number: 22-60230, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Kroger’s Board of Directors adopted The Kroger Co. Policy on Business Ethics, which commits Kroger “to a policy of equal opportunity for all associates without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender ideology.” NCPPR sent a proposal to Kroger requesting, as shareholders, that Kroger issue a public report detailing the potential risks associated with omitting “viewpoint” and “ideology” from its written equal employment opportunity (EEO) policy.
Kroger submitted a letter to the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance arguing that the proposal “deals with matters relating to the Company’s ordinary business operations” because it pertains only to “Kroger’s management of its workforce and policies concerning employees.” Kroger and the SEC effectively turned a blind eye and blocked the proposal, ignoring the fact that conservatives often face employment discrimination due to political ideology while acknowledging other factors like “gender.”
In partnership with Boyden Gray & Associates, AFL filed a petition at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on behalf of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) and two individual shareholders for being denied their lawful right as shareholders to protect prospective employees from discrimination based on political “ideology.”
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
America First Legal Foundation v. Adrian Fontes, et al.
Case Number: CV2023-007067, Superior Court of the State of Arizona
Following widespread errors and technical problems during the 2022 general election, AFL submitted a public records request to the Arizona Department of State requesting all emails from November 8 to 16 sent to and from Katie Hobbs (Secretary of State), Allie Bones (Assistant Secretary of State), C. Murphy Hebert (Director of Communications), and Sophia Solid (Deputy Communications Director). Then-Secretary Hobbs sat on the request and never responded before she assumed the governorship. On February 1, 2023, the Department of State under Secretary Adrian Fontes denied the request, claiming that our request for emails from four officials during a span of 9 days was “an unreasonable administrative burden.”
AFL sued Secretary Fontes and the Department of State to enforce Arizona’s Public Records Law and obtain the records Arizonians, and the American people, are legally entitled to.
Result:The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office produced the requested emails, and AFL, therefore, agreed to dismiss the case.
Johnathan Talbot v. Manoah Ainuu and The North Face Apparel Corp.
Case Number: 2:23-cv-00066, District of Montana
On June 20, 2023, Outdoor Research employee Johnathan Talbot was leaving a focus group in Bozeman, Montana, when he saw Manoah Ainuu, a North Face-sponsored ice climber who has used his platform to decry what he sees as systemic racism. Talbot introduced himself to Ainuu and mentioned that he had been on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee at his previous job. Ainuu then began accusing Talbot of being a racist and having white privilege. At 3:00 a.m. the next morning, Ainuu took to Instagram and told his 15K followers that Talbot had said racist things and tried to fight him. Ainuu encouraged his followers to get Talbot fired from his job. The most egregious of these posts was re-shared by a North Face executive who managed sponsored athletes. Ainuu continued his crusade against Talbot for several days, and it ultimately resulted in Talbot being fired from his job at Outdoor Research.
On October 2, 2023, on behalf of Johnathan Talbot, we filed a lawsuit in the Federal District of Montana against Ainuu and North Face for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.
Result:This case is currently being litigated.
America First Legal Foundation v. Merrick Garland, et al.
Case Number: 1:23-cv-02070-JMC, D.D.C.
AFL obtained emails from litigation against the National Archives and Records Administration confirming that Hunter Biden directly represented Burisma in its dealings with the Obama White House, and particularly to the Office of the Vice President. Hunter was both a board member of Burisma, which qualifies him as a “foreign principal” under 22 U.S.C. § 611(b). Hunter was also an attorney at the law firm representing Burisma. An “agent of a foreign principal” under FARA includes “any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal.”
Hunter Biden was thus apparently Burisma’s agent and subject to registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”). Following this damning revelation, AFL filed a formal complaint with the DOJ against Hunter Biden for failing to register under FARA.
AFL filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to require Hunter Biden to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) during the Obama Administration and subsequently failing to make a public statement regarding the matter.
Result:The case is currently being litigated.
America First Legal Foundation v. United States Department of State
Case Number: 1:23-cv-01939-TSC, D.D.C.
AFL filed nine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records relating to GEC grant awards and funding opportunities, which functionally outsource Biden’s propaganda and censorship program to leftist nonprofits. AFL’s requests related to grants awarded to The Atlantic Council, National Endowment for Democracy, Moonshot CVE, and Digital Public Square, as well as funding opportunities for a “New Counter-Disinformation Game” and NATO. The Department of State, however, has refused to turn over the requested records.
AFL filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of State for hiding Global Engagement Center (GEC) records regarding the Biden Administration’s outsourcing of censorship to leftist nonprofits.
Result:The case is currently being litigated.
America First Legal Foundation v. Department of Justice, et al.
Case Number: 1:23-cv-01948-RBW, D.D.C.
AFL filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security for Hunter Biden records generated between February 21, 2022, and the present. These requests followed public admissions that Hunter Biden’s laptop was genuine and that the claims to the contrary in 2020 were false. To date, however, not a single record has been produced.
AFL sued the Biden Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security for unlawfully refusing to produce records regarding Hunter Biden.
Result:The case is currently being litigated.
America First Legal Foundation v. Department of Justice
Case Number: 23-cv-01719, D.D.C
AFL filed a FOIA request with the Department of Justice seeking records related to the Loudoun County Grand Jury investigation of a sexual assault at a Loudoun County School, and related to the arrest of the victim’s father who was angry with the school for failing to protect his daughter. The Department of Justice then estimated that the request would take more than nine months to process, which is in excess of the time provided by the FOIA.
AFL sued to enforce its FOIA request and shine a light on the way the Department of Justice has chosen to handle the situation surrounding Loudoun County Schools.