Month in Review – September 2025

* On September 4, we filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our federal civil rights lawsuit against Oakland County, the Oakland County Prosecutor, the Oakland County Sheriff and others on behalf of Andrew Hess.

We filed our reply in support of this motion on September 18, 2025.

Earlier, on August 29, the district court denied our TRO and preliminary injunction.  That same day, we immediately filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

We were informed on September 25 that the Oakland County prosecutor is moving forward with reinstating the felony charge against Hess.

In this lawsuit, we are challenging on First Amendment grounds the County’s enforcement of the “terrorist threat” felony statute against our client.

Following the first 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.”

During the recount, 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” and is, in fact, political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment.

You can read more about this case here.

* On September 23, we filed a response to the former Chief of Naval Operations’ (Admiral Gilday) motion to dismiss our Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim for damages against him for denying our clients’ (four Navy SEALs) requests for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

When Biden revoked the vaccine mandate for political reasons (as part of an appropriations compromise, demonstrating that there was never a compelling reason for the mandate), the court dismissed our claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as they were now moot.

However, revoking the mandate did not moot our claim for damages against Gilday, who was the final decisionmaker responsible for granting or denying religious exemptions.

You can read more about this case here.

* On September 24, the presiding judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied our motion for partial summary judgment, which we filed in November 2023, in our lawsuit against Genoa Township, Michigan on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) and its president.

At issue is the Township’s denial of CHI’s request to develop a prayer campus and modest adoration chapel on its 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.

The court denied the motion, concluding that additional facts were needed.  The court also granted the Township’s motion for discovery.  However, the court never held a scheduling conference nor issued a scheduling order setting forth the scope and duration of discovery as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On September 30, we filed a motion for reconsideration, setting forth arguments that the court was wrong as to what constitutes a substantial burden under RLUIPA.  In the alternative, we asked the court to certify the question to the Sixth Circuit (the Sixth Circuit had previously granted CHI a preliminary injunction, finding that CHI had established a substantial burden, but the district court disregarded this decision in its ruling).

Because the court granted the Township’s motion for discovery without any guidance or limitations (indeed, the Township immediately started a discovery fishing expedition), on September 30 we also filed a motion for a protective order.

You can read more about this case here.

* On September 25, we sent a letter to the Mayor of the City of Dearborn, Michigan, a City that actively promotes Islam and discriminates against Christians and Jews.

Our letter attracted national attention as The Federalist discussed it 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!