Here are the highlights for Januaryâwe are starting the year off with a âbangâ:
*On January 10, we filed a âwrit of mandamusâ in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. This is an extraordinary measure. Generally, a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a judicial officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. It is issued from a superior court to an inferior court.
In this case, we are asking the Sixth Circuit to order the federal district court judge presiding in our case in Detroit to rule on the partiesâ cross-motions for summary judgment, which have been pending for more than 5 years.
In this lawsuit, the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)âa government agencyârefused to run our clientsâ âLeaving Islamâ ad even though the transit authority runs many controversial ads, including an ad from an atheist organization stating, âDonât believe in God. You are not alone.â
The courtâs delay in ruling on the motions is depriving our clients their First Amendment right to freedom of speech
* On January 23, we celebrated our seven-year anniversary! Itâs hard to believe that it has been seven years since we launched AFLC, which has become (in the words of National Review columnist and Fox News contributor Andrew C. McCarthy) âthe leading public interest law firm fighting . . . in America.â
* On January 28, we filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking the high courtâs review in a case challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authorityâs (WMATA) refusal to display two âSupport Free Speechâ ads on their advertising space.
In this case, WMATA originally rejected the ads because the ad copy âadvocates free speech and does not try to sell you a commercial productâ in violation of WMATAâs advertising guideline prohibiting â[a]dvertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions.â
WMATA now claims that the ads also violate its guideline prohibiting â[a]dvertisements that support or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief.â
AFLC contends that both guidelines are unlawful, viewpoint-based restrictions.
* On January 29, we filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals in our case representing four pro-lifers who were arrested, charged, and convicted for engaging in a Red Rose Rescue at an abortion center in the City of Sterling Heights, Michigan.
In this appeal, we are seeking to make case law that will assist pro-lifers in the future. Â More specifically, in the petition, we seek appellate court review of the trial courtâs refusal to instruct the jury on two viable defenses to the trespass charge: the defense of necessity and the defense of others.
* We continue with court appearances, depositions, briefs, and motion practice in many other cases as well.
Thank you for your prayers and financial support. We couldnât do what we do without them!