Month in Review – May 2026

Here are the highlights for May:

* On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its adverse opinion in our appeal of the district court’s denial of our request for a preliminary injunction on behalf of Andy Hess.

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 has 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 ruling flies in the face of 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 (even the district court, which denied our preliminary injunction on the likelihood of success prong, concluded that Hess has shown irreparable harm).

We promptly filed a motion for rehearing en banc, asking the full court to rehear the case as the three-judge panel decision was terribly wrong.  The petition was denied on May 27, which now forces us to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read more about this case here.

* Throughout May, we have been actively involved in discovery in this case, including defending multiple depositions, responding to discovery requests, and taking the deposition of the defendants’ “expert” witness.

In May 2021, Genoa Township unlawfully denied Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. 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.

You can read more about this important case here.

* We are continuing the time-consuming 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.

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

* On May 26, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of our parental rights challenge to Prop 3 in Michigan on standing grounds.

Proposal 3, which became §28 of the Michigan Constitution, was a voter-initiated amendment to the state constitution that created a super-right to “reproductive freedom.”

As is too often the case, when the courts do not want to address the substantive claims, they find a way to dismiss the case on standing grounds.  But make no mistake, there is a double standard.  The courts often have little difficulty with “standing” when pro-abortion litigators challenge pro-life laws or when litigants challenge state constitutional amendments that protect marriage and family.  Conservatives too often face unfriendly courts or judges unwilling to make politically incorrect rulings.

The silver lining is that the case was dismissed without prejudice.  Consequently, as we build a record of the harms caused by this diabolical amendment, we can return to court with a new case.  Unfortunately, this obviously means that the harms caused by § 28 will continue.

Pray for our courts and for the protection of innocent human life.

At the end of the day, these challenges are important as you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, and we need to continue to shine a light on the dark side of abortion.

You can read our filings on the standing issue in the Case Updates 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!