Month in Review – June 2025

Here are the highlights for June:

* On June 2, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise presented oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on our motion for summary judgment, which has been pending with the Court for over four years, in AFLC’s lawsuit against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.  The lawsuit challenges the Attorney General’s use of the SPLC “hate group” list to target conservative organizations, including AFLC.

You can read more about this case here.

The presiding federal judge issued a very favorable ruling denying the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss five years ago.  But during the recent hearing, the judge was openly hostile, even raising issues and questions that he had previously ruled upon in our favor.

The Court took the matter “under advisement.”  We are awaiting a ruling.

* On June 9, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise gave a presentation to the Michigan Conservative Coalition.  Muise discussed AFLC’s battles against government lawfare in Michigan and across the country.

* On June 25, opposing counsel consented to our filing of a Second Amended Complaint in our lawsuit against the City of Moscow, Idaho, and several police officers on behalf of Nathan Wilson and his two sons.

To protest the City’s draconian COVID-19 policies, Nathan’s sons posted on City property various decals with messages that were critical of the City’s policies.  It is a common practice in this college town for people to post various messages, including political message, on the City’s polls and at other locations throughout the City.  However, the City decided to selectively enforce its laws and arrest Nathan’s sons and charge and prosecute all three for their speech.

Our lawsuit alleges a selective prosecution claim as well as other First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

* On June 26, we filed a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss our federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Oakland County, the Oakland County Prosecutor, the Oakland County Sheriff and others on behalf of Andrew Hess.

In our lawsuit, we are challenging the County’s enforcement of the “terrorist threat” felony statute against our client.

Following the dismissal of the bogus criminal charge against Hess, on March 10, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, in which we advance claims for malicious prosecution, selective prosecution, violations of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, among others.

The County Prosecutor has vowed to continue her pursuit of Hess, claiming that Hess’s political speech made during a recount held in the County on December 15, 2023, constituted a “terrorist threat” (Hess claimed that government officials who cheat on elections should be tried and punished for treason, which is core political speech protected by the First Amendment).

You can read more about this case here.

* Our lawsuit against the City of Tulsa and its Chief of Police for firing our client, Wayne Brown, based on complaints the City received from an anti-police activist about Brown’s old Facebook posts made prior to his hiring by the Tulsa Police Department is proceeding as we recently disclosed our expert witness on damages and provided our preliminary witness and exhibit list.

This lawsuit was revived following our decisive win on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can read more about this case here.

* Our lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department advances.

We filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a substantial LA property owner and manager.

The lawsuit alleges that the City’s shuffling of the homeless onto or near private property effectively destroys the value of the property and amounts to a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a de facto condemnation under the California Constitution, and creates public nuisances.

We have many other important cases at various stages of litigation.  You can read more about our work on our website.

Thank you for your prayers and financial support.  We couldn’t do what we do without them!