Month in Review – June 2026

Here are the highlights for June:

* On June 1, we filed our reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our lawsuit filed on behalf of a Christian family that is being deprived of the use and enjoyment of their rural home in Michigan by a neighboring marijuana facility.

When our client complained to the Township about the illicit operation of this facility, Township officials retaliated against him by issuing bogus zoning violations.

While marijuana production is legal in Michigan, it remains a violation of federal law.  One of the main claims advanced in this case is an alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, in addition to claims that the facility is a public nuisance and that the retaliation against our clients is a violation of the First Amendment.

* Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit opinion denying our request for a preliminary injunction filed on behalf of Andy Hess, we promptly filed an application to stay the mandate and for an injunction pending appeal in the Sixth Circuit and then in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 18, Justice Cavanaugh denied our request “in chambers.”  The battle for justice continues.

In this case, we are defending Hess against the politicized prosecution launched against him by Karen McDonald, the Oakland County Prosecutor.

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.

And while the Sixth Circuit concluded that Hess demonstrated a substantial likelihood of succeeding on his claim that this prosecution violates his rights under the First Amendment, the court refused to enjoin the felony prosecution, concluding that there is no irreparable harm.

This “no irreparable harm” ruling is contrary to many decades of First Amendment jurisprudence, which holds that even the momentary loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law (the district court, which denied our preliminary injunction on the likelihood of success prong, and the motions panel, which denied our request for an injunction pending appeal for the same reason, both concluded that Hess has shown irreparable harm).

Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit ruling should cause the County Prosecutor to halt this unlawful prosecution.  The Michigan statute under which she is pursuing Hess, expressly states, “[A] prosecuting agency shall not prosecute any person or seize any property for conduct presumptively protected by the first amendment . . . .”  The federal court ruling makes clear that Hess speech is, at a minimum, “presumptively protected by the First Amendment.”

You can read more about this case here.

* Throughout June, we have been actively involved in discovery in our religious land use lawsuit filed on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) against Genoa Charter Township, Michigan, including defending depositions, responding to discovery requests, and attending a court hearing on pending motions.

In May 2021, Genoa Township unlawfully denied CHI the right to build a prayer campus with a Saint Padre Pio adoration chapel on its 40-acre, wooded property, prompting this civil rights lawsuit arising under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that prohibits religious discrimination in land use decisions.

In an interesting twist, on June 29, the district court certified for interlocutory appeal its order denying our motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under RLUIPA, meaning that while there is not a final judgment yet in this case, the district court acknowledged that the Sixth Circuit should weigh in on the dispositive “substantial burden” issue.

This is a rarity, but as the district court noted in its order certifying the immediate appeal, this case has a long history and a prompt resolution is necessary.

A ruling on the substantial burden issue will resolve the case.  As the district court stated in its order certifying the appeal, “If plaintiffs can prevail on their substantial burden RLUIPA claim as a matter of law without any further factual development, then all that will remain before this Court will be the determination of the relief available to plaintiffs.”

You can read more about this important case here.

* We are continuing the discovery process in the Wilson v. City of Moscow case, in which we are representing Nate Wilson and his two sons, who were charged by the City with violating an ordinance that prohibits the posting of “advertising matter” on City property without written permission.

We filed this civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Recently, the City responded to our “requests for admissions,” admitting many important facts.  We are now preparing our motion for summary judgment.

Here, Nate and his sons have the distinction of being the only individuals ever charged by the City with violating the “advertising matter” ordinance, while the record shows without contradiction that the posting of flyers, decals, handbills, and other such “advertising matter” on City poles in this university town is a long-established practice.

The City targeted the Wilsons because the “advertising matter” they posted was critical of the City’s draconian COVID-19 restrictions and because City officials have developed and demonstrated an animosity toward Christ Church, a conservative Christian community to which the Wilsons belong.  In fact, the pastor is Nate Wilson’s father.

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!