As we finish another year fighting for faith and freedom, we want to thank all of our clients and donors, as you are an important and necessary part of our work.
Here are the highlights for December:
* On December 4, we filed our reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our lawsuit against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and the director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.
Our lawsuit challenges the Attorney Generalâs and the MDCRâs use of the Southern Poverty Law Centerâs (SPLC) âhate groupâ list to target conservative organizations, including AFLC.
In 2020, the judge issued a favorable ruling denying the Attorney Generalâs and MDCRâs motions to dismiss our lawsuit on standing grounds.
Yet, after waiting over four years to rule on our cross-motions for summary judgment, the judge recently dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, prompting our appeal.
The briefing is now complete, and we await a date for oral argument.
You can read more about this case here.
* On December 5, we filed our reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the Hess v. Oakland County case, in which we are defending Andrew Hess against the politicized prosecution launched against him by Karen McDonald, the Oakland County Prosecutor who is running to be the Democrat nominee for Michigan Attorney General.
McDonald is pursuing a 20-year felony charge against Hess for making an off-hand political comment in a near-empty lobby outside of the presence of any election official during a contentious election recount held in the county in December 2023.
We filed this federal lawsuit to halt this unlawful prosecution, which was designed to silence individuals who challenge the actions of election officials.
You can read our reply brief here.
Oral argument before the Sixth Circuit is scheduled for February 4 in Cincinnati, Ohio.
* Discovery has commenced in our religious land use lawsuit against Genoa Township, Michigan, which we filed on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) and its president in June 2021.
At issue is the Townshipâs denial of CHIâs request to develop a prayer campus and modest adoration chapel on its wooded, 40-acre property in the Township.
The lawsuit alleges a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that prohibits religious discrimination when making land use decisions.
In December, we hired an economic expert to assist with calculating damages and with providing expert testimony in support his calculations.
Due to the delay caused by the Townshipâs unlawful denial of the prayer campus construction, CHI has lost donations and will have to pay much higher construction costs, among other damages, as a result. We will seek to recoup these damages from the Township. When we prevail, we will also seek the recovery of our substantial attorneysâ fees from the Township.
You can read more about this case here.
* Following an Idaho federal judgeâs favorable ruling this past November in our federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the City of Moscow, Idaho and several of its officials, we have commenced the discovery phase of the litigation and are preparing our discovery and litigation plans to be filed with the court shortly.
In this case, we are representing Nathan Wilson and his two sons. As alleged in the lawsuit, the City has selectively enforced its laws against our clients based on their religious beliefs and their affiliation with Christ Church, a local and conservative Christian community.
In his recent ruling, the judge denied the Cityâs motion to dismiss the gravamen of the claims, including the Wilsonsâ claims that the Cityâs ordinance that was applied against them is unconstitutional and that the Cityâs selective enforcement of the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
You can read more about that case here.
* On December 22, we filed our opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our lawsuit challenging Prop 3 in Michigan on behalf of Right to Life of Michigan and several parents, who claim that this super-right to âreproductive freedomâ that was passed by voter initiative violates their parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
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 couldnât do what we do without them!