Here are the highlights for August:
* Last month, 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.
Our lawsuit challenged 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 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 of this year, 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 and dismissed the lawsuit . . . on standing grounds.
On August 1, we filed our notice appeal, seeking review of the court’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
You can read more about this case here.
* On August 7, we filed responses in opposition to the motions for summary judgment filed by the City of Tulsa and its chief of police, Chuck Jordan, in our lawsuit challenging their firing of our client, Wayne Brown, a Tulsa Police Department (TPD) officer at the time.
Brown was fired by the City and its police chief based on complaints generated by an anti-police activists regarding social media posts that Brown posted on his Facebook page 3 to 6 years prior to his hiring by the TPD.
We previously filed our motion for summary judgment, and on August 10, we filed a reply in support of our motion.
You can read more about this important case here.
* Last month, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up our case against Letitia James, the New York Attorney General. Our lawsuit was filed on behalf of two members of Red Rose Rescue, a pro-life group.
The Attorney General filed a “waiver” (essentially telling the Court that the case has no merit; therefore, she is waiving her right to file a response). However, on August 25, the Supreme Court directed the Attorney General to file a response, indicating that at least some of the justices are interested in this case.
This case arises out of a press conference convened by the Attorney General to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and several of its members. During this conference, the Attorney General declared that Red Rose Rescue 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 August 22, we filed a reply in support of our motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in our federal civil rights lawsuit against Oakland County, Michigan, the Oakland County Prosecutor, the Oakland County Sheriff and others. Our lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrew Hess.
On August 29, the district court denied our TRO and preliminary injunction.
That same day, we filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. We intend to file a motion for an injunction pending appeal.
In this lawsuit, we are challenging the County’s enforcement of the “terrorist threat” felony statute against our client.
Following the dismissal of the felony charge against Hess in state court earlier this year, 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 off-hand comment made during an election recount held in the County on December 15, 2023, constituted a “terrorist threat.”  Hess walked into a near-empty lobby and allegedly stated, in conversational tone, “Hang Joe for Treason,” which was overheard by a secretary, who was admittedly not a party to the conversation and who admitted that there was no imminent threat of harm.
The “Joe” referenced in the statement is the director of elections for the County. Hess’s statement was plainly not a “terrorist threat”; it is political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment.
We asked the court to immediately enjoin this unconstitutional statute to prevent the unlawful arrest and prosecution of Hess (once again) while this case proceeds. The court refused, so we appealed.
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!