Here are the highlights for February:
* On February 12, and in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled in favor of Joshua and Stephanie Mast, upholding their adoption of a severely wounded orphaned child rescued by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan. This ruling brings to a close years of complex litigation and international attention, affirming the finality of the Mastsâ adoption and dismissing challenges brought by Afghan nationals A.A. and F.A., aka John and Jane Doe, who had sought to overturn the adoption order.
AFLC is representing Richard Mast, the brother of Joshua, who has been tied up in this litigation because he was the lawyer who assisted with the adoption.
You can read more about this extraordinary case here.
* On February 13, we filed our reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in our lawsuit challenging Prop 3 in Michigan (§ 28 of Article I of the Michigan Constitution) on behalf of Right to Life of Michigan and several parents, who argue that this super-right to âreproductive freedomâ that was passed by voter initiative violates parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Our clientsâ parental right claim is premised on the fact that through § 28, which grants minors rights to âreproductive freedom,â parents are shut out of participation in decisions regarding their childrenâs health and welfare in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Under long-established precedent, parentsânot the Stateâhave primary authority with respect to the upbringing of children. The declaratory and injunctive relief we are seeking in this case will promote child safety by guaranteeing parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their childrenâs lives.
* On February 18, the Michigan Court of Appeals granted our application for leave to appeal the circuit courtâs order denying our motion to dismiss the patently frivolous lawsuit filed by three Biden electors against the 2020 Trump electors. We are representing five of the sixteen Trump electors.
These same electors successfully fended off the criminal charges brought against them by the Michigan Attorney General for their role in the so-called âfake electorâ scheme. A state court judge dismissed the criminal case following the preliminary examination, finding that the charges against the electors lacked merit.
In this civil case, the three Biden-elector plaintiffs are suing our clients for (1) declaratory relief (they essentially want a court to declare that Biden won the election . . . but courts resolve cases and controversies, they are not therapy sessions for political activists); (2) false-light/invasion of privacy; (3) conversion; and (4) conspiracy. These claims are without any legal merit.
The lower court judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit, so we filed an application for leave to the Michigan Court Appeals to allow us to appeal the lower courtâs interlocutory order (i.e., it was not a final order so it doesnât trigger a right to appeal), and the court granted it.
The granting of such applications is rare, and it is a strong signal that the court has serious concerns about the legal sufficiency of the Biden electorsâ claims. As it should.
We are now preparing our appellantsâ brief.
* On February 23, we filed our opening 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 one of our clients 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.
* Throughout this month, we have been engaging in discovery in our religious land use lawsuit filed against Genoa Township, Michigan, on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) and its president.
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, among others, of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that prohibits religious discrimination when making land use decisions.
You can read more about this important 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 couldnât do what we do without them!