Here are the highlights for August:
* On August 5, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise spoke at the Washtenaw County, Michigan, Board of Commissioners meeting in opposition to a proposed property tax hike that would send tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. The proposal was ultimately rejected, but the Board of Commissioners is looking at alternative ways to use tax dollars to fund abortion. We are monitoring the Boardâs activity.
* On August 14, the Sixth Circuit ruled that AFLC lacked standing in our lawsuit against the Michigan Attorney General and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights for their endorsement of the discredited Southern Poverty Law Centerâs bogus âhate groupâ label that it applies to conservative organizations, including AFLC.
In a prior ruling, the district court held that AFLC had standing, citing the controlling case law. However, after waiting over four years to rule on the partiesâ cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court reversed itself and held that AFLC lacked standing.
We immediately appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Because the Sixth Circuit panel committed precedent-setting errors of exceptional public importance in this First Amendment case, and its opinion directly conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, on August 27, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc, requesting full court review.
You can read more about this important case here.
* We completed discovery in the Wilson v. City of Moscow case, and on August 25, we filed a full-throated motion for summary judgment.
In this case, we are representing Nate Wilson and his two sons, who were charged by the City with violating an ordinance that prohibits the posting of âadvertising matterâ on City property without written permission.
We filed this civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
Nate and his sons have the distinction of being the only individuals ever charged by the City with violating the âadvertising matterâ ordinance, while the record shows without contradiction that the posting of flyers, decals, handbills, and other such âadvertising matterâ on City poles in this university town is a long-established practice.
The City targeted the Wilsons because the âadvertising matterâ they posted was critical of the Cityâs 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 Wilsonâs father.
You can read more about this case here.
* Throughout August, discovery continued in our lawsuit against Genoa Township, Michigan. There is little doubt that the Township is abusing the discovery process to pressure Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) to drop the lawsuit or at least to drag it out and punish CHI for bringing it. But that tactic will not work because AFLC has been able to provide CHI with its legal services pro bono. Without pro bono legal representation, CHI would not have been able to sustain this litigation.
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 federal 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.
As noted in previous reports, on June 29, the district court certified for interlocutory appeal its order denying our motion for partial summary judgment (which we filed in November 2023) on the issue of liability under RLUIPA, meaning that while there is not a final judgment yet in this case, the Sixth Circuit should weigh in on the dispositive âsubstantial burdenâ issue.
As the district court acknowledged in its order certifying the immediate appeal, âIf 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.â See our Petition for Permission to Appeal filed in the Sixth Circuit.
On August 27, we responded, in part, to the discovery abuses engaged in by the Township by filing an emergency motion to quash a last-minute subpoena issued by the Township to one of our witnesses. We also requested sanctions against the Township. Later that same day, the Court granted the motion to quash and directed the Township to respond to the remaining issues (sanctions and scope of the subpoena) by September 1.
You can read more about this important case here.
* As previously reported, on July 14, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the district courtâs order dismissing our lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department. This lawsuit is a putative class action filed 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 Cityâs 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.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit without permitting discovery. Our motion for reconsideration presented sworn declarations from four homeless individuals who provided firsthand knowledge of the Cityâs policy and practice of removing them during cleanup, but then directing them to return to the private property following the cleanup processâthe very evidence the court originally said was missing.
On August 31, the court denied our motion. We will be appealing the courtâs rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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!