Month in Review – October 2026

Here are the highlights for a very busy and productive October:

* We begin with some great news. Baby Doe is now safe and sound with her loving adoptive parents, Joshua and Stephanie Mast, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a last-ditch effort to overturn a landmark Virginia Supreme Court ruling upholding their adoption.

As previously reported, this extraordinary case began in September 2019, when U.S. Army Rangers rescued a severely wounded infant who had been orphaned during a military operation against foreign Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. The child, whom we refer to as Baby Doe, received lifesaving medical treatment at Bagram Air Field.

Marine Major Joshua Mast and his wife, Stephanie, undertook Herculean efforts to secure the child’s safety and future. In 2020, a Virginia court entered a final adoption order making Baby Doe their legal daughter.

What followed was years of contentious litigation initiated by an Afghan couple propped up by pro bono Big Law a/k/a The Gitmo Bar (so named for running to Cuba to represent the 9-11 jihadists in US courts) who challenged the adoption, claiming parental rights under Afghan law.

Although two lower Virginia courts ruled against the Masts, on February 12, 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed those decisions and upheld the adoption. The court ruled that Virginia law protects the finality of adoption orders after six months and rejected the challengers’ constitutional and other legal arguments.

On April 22, 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court denied their petition for rehearing.

Undeterred, the Afghan couple’s pro bono lawyers made one final attempt to overturn the adoption by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

On October 19, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied their petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling intact and securing Baby Doe’s legal status as the daughter of Joshua and Stephanie Mast.

AFLC has been actively involved in this litigation, working with local counsel in the Virginia appellate proceedings and representing Richard Mast, Joshua’s brother and an attorney who helped secure the original adoption, in related federal litigation.

While related federal litigation continues, the battle over the validity of Baby Doe’s adoption has reached its conclusion.

We are grateful for this extraordinary victory and remain committed to defending the Mast family against the remaining legal challenges.

* If you have been following our work, you know that we have been engaged in a fight for religious liberty against Genoa Township, Michigan on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. (CHI) for over five years.

In May 2021, Genoa Township unlawfully denied CHI the right to build a prayer campus with a modest, 95-seat, Saint Padre Pio adoration chapel on CHI’s 40-acre, wooded property. The Township’s unlawful actions prompted 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.

The 40-acre property was generously donated to CHI by the Catholic Diocese of Lansing so that CHI could develop this prayer campus, which would include, in addition to the adoration chapel, prayer trails, an outdoor Stations of the Cross, an outdoor altar, and religious statues and icons.

The natural, rural, and wooded nature of the CHI property makes it uniquely suitable for a prayer campus and adoration chapel as the property reflects the natural beauty, peace, and serenity of God’s creation.

With the close of discovery, there was a flurry of activity in this case during the month of October, including the following:

• On October 5, we filed our “Daubert” motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of the Township’s real estate “expert.”
• On October 6, the court held a hearing on our motion to quash. The motion was previously granted. During the hearing, the court confirmed that discovery was now over as a result.
• On October 9, we filed our full-throated opposition to the Township’s motion for summary judgment, thoroughly dismantling the Township’s bogus legal theory on the substantial burden question.
• On October 24, we filed our reply in support of our Daubert motion, further demonstrating why the Township’s “expert” was not an expert, and if anything, the testimony further supported CHI’s claim that it should prevail as a matter of law.
• On October 26, we filed our reply in support of our motion for summary judgment, providing the court with a roadmap for why it should rule in CHI’s favor as a matter of law.

You can read more about this important case here.

* As previously reported, the district court recently denied our motion for reconsideration and dismissed our lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department.

The lawsuit alleges that the City’s 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.

We appealed the dismissal, and throughout this month, we worked on our opening brief and other documents that we will be filing soon in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

* As previously reported, the briefing on our motion for summary judgment in the Wilson v. City of Moscow case has concluded.

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 “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.

The City targeted the Wilsons, who have the distinction of being the only individuals ever charged with violating the City ordinance at issue, because their postings were critical of the City’s draconian COVID-19 restrictions and because City officials harbor animosity toward Christ Church, a conservative Christian community to which the Wilsons belong.

The district court set oral argument on our motion for December 7, 2026.

You can read more about this case here.

* As previously reported, we have a precedent-setting case presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In this case, we are representing 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.

The Sixth Circuit just set oral argument on this case for December 15, 2026, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

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!