Here are the highlights for July:
* On July 1, we filed a Second Amended Complaint in our civil rights lawsuit against the City of Moscow, Idaho and several of its police officers. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nate Wilson and two of his sons.
Our clients are the targets of retaliatory and selective enforcement of the law by City of Moscow officials because of their speech critical of the City and their membership in Christ Church. The City has a longstanding animosity toward this conservative Christian church and its members.
The City, a college town, has permitted for decades private citizens to post signs and political messages on City poles and other property (as you commonly see in many major college towns), but City officials punished our clients’ use of this forum because the message was critical of the City’s draconian COVID-19 policies. Moreover, the City executed its retaliatory policy by selectively enforcing a patently unconstitutional City ordinance against our clients.
You can read more about this case here.
* On July 10, the presiding judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied our motion for summary judgment and granted the motions for summary judgment filed by the Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and the Director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). These motions were pending with the Court for over four years.
The lawsuit challenges the Attorney General’s and the MDCR’s use of the SPLC “hate group” list to target conservative organizations, including AFLC.
In 2020, the judge issued a very favorable ruling denying the Attorney General’s and MDCR’s motions to dismiss our lawsuit on standing grounds. However, during the hearing held on June 2, the judge was openly hostile, even raising issues and questions that he had previously ruled upon in our favor.
Unfortunately, but not surprising in light of the hearing, the judge issued his ruling on July 10 and dismissed the lawsuit . . . on standing grounds. Unbelievable.
We will appeal.
You can read more about this case here.
* On July 15, we filed a motion for summary judgment in our lawsuit against the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma and its chief of police for firing our client, Wayne Brown, a Tulsa Police Department (TPD) officer at the time, based on complaints generated by an anti-police activists about social media posts that Brown posted on his Facebook page 3 to 6 years prior to his hiring by the TPD.
Our motion sets forth the facts and law demonstrating that our client should prevail as a matter of law. You can read our brief here.
You can read more about the case here.
* On July 23, we filed a “notice of supplemental authority” in our lawsuit challenging Prop 3.  Prop 3 resulted in the creation of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution.
The lawsuit, which challenges § 28 on federal constitutional grounds, was filed on behalf of sixteen pro-life plaintiffs, including, among others, Right to Life Michigan, two moms, and parents with children in public schools.
As set forth in the lawsuit, § 28 creates a super-right to “reproductive freedom” that is exceedingly harmful to women and children.  In fact, this constitutional provision is a Trojan Horse for the left-wing’s radical pro-abortion and “gender-reassignment” agenda . . . and worse.
In our filing, we brought to the court’s attention Mahmoud v. Taylor, 222 L.Ed.2d 695 (2025), which was decided on June 27, 2025 and therefore after the briefing concluded on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
This decision supports our claims that § 28 violates parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to religious exercise protected by the First Amendment.
* On July 28, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up our case filed on behalf of two members of Red Rose Rescue, a pro-life group, against Letitia James, the New York Attorney General.
During a press conference convened by the New York Attorney General to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and several of its members, the Attorney General declared that the organization was a “terrorist group” and that those associated with the organization were “terrorists.”
There were no allegations of terrorism in the civil lawsuit, and neither Red Rose Rescue nor anyone associated with the organization has ever been charged with the crime of terrorism nor any other violent felony.
The Attorney General’s appellation was designed to malign Red Rose Rescue and its associates in the eyes of the public and to reduce the effectiveness of their First Amendment activities.
You can read more about the case here.
* On July 30, we filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in 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 the lawsuit, we advance claims for malicious prosecution, selective prosecution, violation 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) and is thus not protected by the First Amendment.
Our TRO asks the court to immediately enjoin this unconstitutional statute to prevent the unlawful arrest and prosecution of Hess while this case proceeds.
You can read more about this case here.
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!