Foundation for Moral Law
Foundation for Moral Law
We participate in cases throughout the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This page contains our most recent amicus work and the cases we are fighting on behalf of our clients.
Click on a case name to read its description and our brief.
To read our earlier amicus work:
Past and Current Clients
Amicus Briefs
The Foundation participates in cases throughout the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This page contains our most recent amicus work and the cases we are fighting on behalf of our clients.
Click on a case to read its description and our brief.
To read our earlier amicus work:
Past and Current Clients
Amicus Briefs
The Foundation educates and advises citizens on the most important Constitutional questions facing our nation.
In 2022, we prepared and circulated several position papers: 1) the first detailed the fitness of Biden’s new Supreme Court Justice Ketanje Brown Jackson; 2) when the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to sue the Jefferson County Public School System over its policies allowing prayer at football games, we sent a letter to the school boards explaining that the policies are constitutional under the First Amendment; 3) we also sent a letter to a South Dakota elementary school which had excluded a child’s poster focused on God from the school’s “inclusion campaign.”
Act 2022-442, passed in Alabama, requires all local school boards and independent school systems in Alabama to employ a Director of Mental Health Services and even goes so far as to dictate their qualifications. The Foundation, at the request of one of many concerned citizens, sent a letter opposing this law and recommending legal and legislative action against it to the State Board of Education, Alabama Legislators, and the staff and board of the Alabama Association of School Boards.
We continue to counsel Christians across the country as they face mandatory vaccinations in violation of their religious and medical rights. For example, this quarter, we have provided legal assistance in obtaining a vaccination exemption to a mother, a member of the National Guard, and a man referred to us by his doctor. We continue to provide extensive counseling to Marine Lt. Col. Schneider and his JAG attorney regarding the discharge proceedings resulting from his religious objection to the COVID vaccine.
The Foundation educates and advises citizens on the most important Constitutional questions facing our nation.
In 2022 we prepared and circulated several position papers: 1) detailing the fitness of Biden’s new Supreme Court Justice Ketanje Brown Jackson; 2) when the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to sue the Jefferson County Public School System over its policies allowing prayer at football games, we sent a letter to the school boards explaining that the policies are constitutional under the First Amendment; 3) sent a letter to a South Dakota elementary school which had excluded a child’s poster focused on God from the school’s “inclusion campaign.”
Act 2022-442, passed this year in Alabama, requires all local school boards and independent school systems in Alabama to employ a Director of Mental Health Services and even goes so far as to dictate their qualifications. The Foundation, at the request of one of many concerned citizens, sent a letter opposing this law and recommending legal and legislative action against it to the State Board of Education, Alabama Legislators, and the staff and board of the Alabama Association of School Boards.
We continue to counsel Christians across the country as they face mandatory vaccinations in violation of their religious and medical rights. For example, this quarter, we have provided legal assistance in obtaining a vaccination exemption to a mother, a member of the National Guard, and a man referred to us by his doctor. We continue to provide extensive counseling to Marine Lt. Col. Schneider and his JAG attorney regarding the discharge proceedings resulting from his religious objection to the COVID vaccine.
Join Our Emailing List
Stay updated on the cases we are working and those we are watching
Past and Current Clients
Pastor Tony Spell is the Pastor of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; a Pentecostal Church with nearly 2,000 members. Its weekly activities involve singing and preaching the Word, baptisms, laying hands on the sick to pray for them, and providing food for the hungry in the community.
In early 2020, Louisiana’s Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards capped gatherings, including churches, at 10 people! Pastor Spell concluded that complying with the Governor’s orders would violate God’s command to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:24-25) and decided to keep holding services. As a result, he was served with six criminal summonses. Shortly afterward, he was arrested for allegedly trying to run over a protestor outside his church, although video evidence showed that he neither hit him nor even approached him. At his arraignment, the judge told Pastor Spell that he could no longer preach to his congregation. When Pastor Spell could not agree, the judge ordered him to be equipped with an ankle bracelet. He was confined to his house and told that he would be arrested if he left.
Never before, to our knowledge, has a pastor in America been criminally charged and confined to house arrest for doing what Christians have done for two thousand years: going to church! The trial judge eventually backed down and had the ankle bracelet taken off of him, but the criminal charges against him were still pending.
We have been fighting this egregious infringement of religious liberty in court for over 2 years now. In May 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court quashed the criminal charges against Pastor Spell because the Governor's executive orders violated his fundamental right to exercise his religion. This was a great victory, but the fight is not over.
Pastor Spell’s case for damages against the Governor is still live in federal court. Most recently, in February 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruled against us. As soon as we learned this, we began preparing our final petition at the United States Supreme Court.
Our Petition, which you can read by clicking the button below, is completely unique. Every COVID-19 "victory" for religious liberty has been based on an “unfair treatment” argument, i.e., that the government cannot restrict churches any worse than it restricts department stores. However, government should not allowed to close the Church just because it also closed Wal-Mart. This is a very dangerous precedent because there is no limit on what government can deem an "emergency."
Our Petition argues that, based on the text and history of the Constitution, the Founders intended the First Amendment to enshrine a strict jurisdictional separation of Church and State that forbids the State from shutting down the Church. The Church is a special and separate institution that cannot be “equally” restricted with just any other secular entity.
Spell v. Edwards is an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to untangle the mess that has been made of our religious freedom; to declare once and for all that the State cannot keep a church from assembling. Our duty to “not forsake the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:25) is for us to decide as a Church, not to be dictated by a Governor, President, or any government! Please join us in prayer that the Supreme Court will take up Spell v. Edwards and affirm this vital truth. Visit our News page here to read the latest on this case.
Willie Lee Conner shoplifted a nail gun, was wrongly convicted of first-degree robbery, and has now served ten years in prison for it. He is still incarcerated at 56 years old, separated from his loving family, and facing severe health problems. His conviction and sentence are entirely unjust. The Foundation for Moral Law represents Mr. Conner pro bono.
On July 5, 2012, Mr. Conner shoplifted a roof nailer from Lowe's by putting it into his pants and attempting to leave the premises. When confronted by store employees, he complied and walked with them back to the store. On the way, the nail gun in his pants shifted position and began to dig into his leg. He stumbled and grabbed at it, and in an unfortunate choice of words, said “I have a gun,” referring to the nail gun. The employees interpreted this to mean that he had a deadly weapon, even though the store's loss prevention manager had seen him take the roof nailer and put it down the front of his pants. Even so, they wrestled him to the ground (he did not resist) and found the nail gun.
When the employees called the police, they reported a simple shoplifting. Nevertheless, the Baldwin County DA’s Office, seeing an opportunity for a potential “habitual offender,” charged Mr. Conner with first-degree robbery. The crime of first-degree robbery in Alabama requires possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon, or a statement by the perpetrator raising a presumption that they were so armed. But Mr. Conner was accused and convicted solely of committing a theft while in possession of a dangerous and deadly weapon. However, Mr. Conner never had a dangerous or deadly weapon on his person. He is therefore innocent of the crime with which he was charged. A roofing nailer cannot possibly be a deadly weapon. It cannot fire nails at people, and it cannot even drive nails into wood without a compressor, which Mr. Conner did not have.
Mr. Conner did not mean to threaten with the statement “I have a gun;” he was only giving the reason he had doubled over, stumbled, and was adjusting his pants. And even if he had been charged with first-degree robbery under the "presumption" prong because of this statement, any "presumption" that he was armed was immediately rebutted on the scene by the store employees' search of him because they found that he had no gun.
Mr. Conner's conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. However, Chief Justice Roy Moore dissented because he believed Mr. Conner was innocent. He therefore took a personal interest in the case and, after he left the Court, sought to help Mr. Conner through the Foundation for Moral Law. At the Foundation, we are dedicated to the strict interpretation of the Constitution as intended by its Framers, and normally handle cases involving religious liberty. However, we have made an exception for Willie Conner because his conviction and sentence constitute a gross miscarriage of justice.
After representing him for almost 2 years and trying every possible avenue—federal court, the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, a petition to the United States Supreme Court—no justice has been served. His most recent petition for writ of habeas corpus to the trial court was denied and this was affirmed on appeal. The Foundation will be appealing this decision to the Alabama Supreme Court and continuing to fight for Willie in every way we can. Read the latest on this case on our News page, linked here.
Rickey Caster was peacefully and respectfully preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a downtown street corner on October 31, 2022, when a city police officer approached him demanding to see a permit for his use of a microphone and speaker. Rickey, believing that a permit was unnecessary for his public speech, initially stated that the law did not require him to have a permit. In a calm and respectful exchange of words, the officer told Caster that he could not use the microphone and speaker setup without a permit. “No problem!” Caster thought as he put his microphone away and continued preaching with the volume of a gifted street evangelist.
However, this was not enough for the officer. Evidently, he did not want Rickey preaching at all that afternoon. Because Rickey would not stop using his voice to preach the Gospel on the sidewalk, the officer handcuffed and arrested 2 of 3 him on the spot. The City of Selma charged Rickey with disorderly conduct and has ordered his appearance in municipal court or payment of a fine of (?) $1000. Video evidence at the scene showed that Rickey was not disorderly in any way whatsoever. In fact, he peacefully and respectfully preached for over half an hour, and there was no indication that any member of the public was disturbed by his religious expression. He addressed the officers as "Sir" and politely but firmly told them he had a legal and constitutional right to preach. The City did have any probable cause to arrest Rickey for simply preaching the Gospel. Rickey reached out to us.
Street preaching and public ministry have a long history in our Country and around the world, of course dating back to biblical times. As Christ said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15. Sharing the Gospel “boots on the ground” is a powerful way for individuals to reach the public, often reaching those who may not have had the opportunity to hear it otherwise. The Foundation believes that public evangelism is a cornerstone of our Christian faith and honors those who God has gifted and called to do such good work. We defended Rickey because arresting a street preacher for simply preaching is unacceptable.
On March 29th, Foundation Lead Staff Attorney Talmadge Butts and co-counsel Katrinnah Darden traveled to Selma with Rickey for trial and, after a discussion with the City prosecutor, the City of Selma agreed to completely drop the case against Rickey! You can read more about the victory on our News page, linked here.
Our work is far from done. Cases like Rickey’s happen far too often all across the Country, even in more conservative Bible belt states like our home here in Alabama. The Foundation for Moral Law is dedicated to fighting for religious freedom on every street corner in America! Street preaching is emblematic of religious liberty because it represents our fundamental right to express religious beliefs and to do so in public. The downtown areas of our cities are often the epicenters of poverty, addiction, and political corruption. Street preachers are on the frontlines of bringing the Gospel to these areas, providing hope and inspiration to those who may be struggling with difficult circumstances.
Amicus Briefs
Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District (23-3630)
Filed October 2, 2023
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy, the Olentangy school district in Ohio created a policy, much like those emerging all across the U.S., that requires students to use classmates’ “preferred pronouns,” despite their convictions (religious or otherwise) telling them not to. In 2022, we filed a brief in Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar, a case brought by the same organization against a school district in Iowa for a similar pronoun policy. So, in Olentangy, we followed our Linn-Mar brief and argued that this is an egregious violation of the First Amendment that compels a student to say things with which he may disagree, even if he disagrees because of his religion.
Volokh v. James (23-356)
Filed September 26, 2023
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It involves the New York Hateful Conduct Law, which forces all social media apps and websites that solicit funds online in New York to develop a “hate speech” policy and post it on their platform. Our brief points out that this law is overbroad in two ways: (1) it applies to many organizations outside the state on the sole basis that their websites are accessible in New York (possibly including the Foundation!), and (2) it doesn’t define what constitutes hate speech, but was obviously intended to include any controversial topic, like abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender surgery, and gun control, and these topics are controversial specifically because Christians are required by their faith to take a stand on these issues). But under this law, “hate speech” could include Christian beliefs, or anything that the liberal New York government disagrees with. Our brief argued that, according to the Supreme Court, unless speech is aimed at inciting lawless action and is likely to produce such action, no government can label it “hate speech” and restrict it without violating the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Speech First v. Sands (23-156)
Filed September 14, 2023
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Fourth Circuit. If there is one place where the battle for free speech matters most, it is at public universities. However, public college administrations (arms of the government) have been creating “bias response teams” in recent years. These “teams” are given the power to monitor speech on campus and refer students for formal discipline for saying “bias” things. They define “bias” speech as any statement on the topics of gender, sexual orientation, transgenderism, or similar controversial issues that “offends” other students or faculty. Under these policies, professing the belief that God only created two genders or that marriage should be between a man and a woman could subject a student to punishment. An organization called Speech First has been challenging “bias response teams” across the country with much success. But this year, in Sands, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Virginia Tech, holding that its “bias response team” simply doesn’t stifle student speech. The Foundation filed an amicus brief to help Speech First persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Sands and overturn the Fourth Circuit.
Center for Medical Progress v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (22-1186)
Filed July 3, 2023
Judgement issued October 2, 2023
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. David Daleiden is the pro-life leader of the Center for Medical Progress who made national headlines with an undercover investigation exposing Planned Parenthood’s wide-scale harvesting of body parts of aborted babies. His undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood employees callously and flippantly negotiating the price of tiny baby hearts, lungs, livers, and brains. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (now Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services) filed fifteen felony charges against Daleiden for this investigation, and Planned Parenthood has filed a civil lawsuit against him alleging he has violated their privacy rights. This case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the Center for Medical Progress and the freedom of speech.
Tennessee v. Department of Education (22-5807)
Filed January 31, 2023
This case was brought to challenge the Biden Administration’s new policy prohibiting discrimination in schools on the basis of not only biological sex, but gender identity and sexual orientation, too. We submitted a brief arguing that this places an unconstitutional burden on the speech of students and teachers who believe, sometimes because of religious conviction, that sex is assigned biologically and cannot be changed by a personal decision, or even hormones or surgery. We argued that this policy violates the freedom of speech, parental rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, because the government lacked authority to promulgate it to begin with.
Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services (22-3573)
Filed December 5, 2022
In the last few years, members of the Biden Administration have threatened social media companies to force them to censor what the government deemed “misinformation” about Covid on their platforms. Twitter users have sued over this infringement of their freedom of speech. The Biden Administration labeled speech questioning or criticizing the government’s origin story for Covid-19, whether the Covid vaccine limited transmission, the necessity of church and business lockdowns, and many other issues “misinformation” because, as our Founders knew, when the People question and discuss the government’s actions, real change is possible. Since their case was dismissed, the users are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Our brief makes the connection that the Biden Administration is engaging in the exact kind of behavior that the Founding generation found repugnant in the James Adams’ Administration’s Sedition Act of 1978. The Sedition Act criminalized criticism of the President and Congress with the penalty of fines and imprisonment. This is why the Founders insisted upon a Bill of Rights and why the Foundation believes that free speech is necessary for our Republic to survive!
Keister v. Bell (22-388)
Filed November 18, 2022
We filed on behalf of a preacher who was kept by University of Alabama campus police from evangelizing on a public sidewalk for supposedly violating the campus speech and expression policy. Under the law, public sidewalks are considered “traditional public forums” where the State, including public universities, have no right to censor speech.
Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar Community School District (22-2927)
Judgment issued September 29, 2023
Filed November 9, 2022
In this case, the Linn-Mar, Iowa school district policy stated that students would be punished if they referred to a fellow student using pronouns that did not suit that student’s preferences due to their transgender identity. By compelling speech, this policy constituted an egregious violation of the First Amendment. We supported the parents challenging this policy with an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit decided in favor of the parents, directing the entry of a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of this policy. You can read the decision here. The Foundation repurposed its brief in Linn-Mar to be filed in the similar case Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy a year later. We are hopeful that the Linn-Mar decision will positively affect the Sixth Circuit in deciding Olentangy.
Navy SEALs v. Biden & Doster v. Kendall (22-3702 & 22-10077)
Filed August 26, 2022
Judgment issued November 29, 2022
These are two cases in the United States Courts of Appeals where Navy and Air Force members are challenging their respective branches’ COVID vaccination mandates as violations of their religious liberty. The Foundation filed in Navy SEALS at the district court in 2021 where the court issued an injunction protecting the Navy SEALs religious liberty, but Biden appealed—we filed another brief supporting the Navy SEALs in the Fifth Circuit. In Doster, we filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit also supporting Air Force members’ religious liberty—in a great victory, the Sixth Circuit ruled in their favor! We are still awaiting the court's judgment in the Navy Seals' case.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (21-418)
February 23, 2022
Judgment issued July 29, 2022
Coach Kennedy regularly knelt on the 50-yard line and prayed after football games—until school officials ordered him not to do so and fired him forImage Feature obeying God rather than men (Acts 5:29). In the Supreme Court, the Foundation noted the longstanding principle that “...neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Agreeing that this was unconstitutional discrimination against Coach Kennedy’s religious speech, the Supreme Court issued a momentous decision that will afford much more freedom for prayer in the public arena.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (19-1392)
Filed July 28, 2021
Judgment issued July 26, 2022
In the 49 years since Roe v. Wade, 63,000,000 babies have been killed by abortion. In Dobbs, the Foundation joined Lutherans for Life to file an amicus brief supporting the Mississippi law restricting abortion. Now, Roe v. Wade is history! Five Justices voted to overrule Roe, and Chief Justice Roberts concurred that Mississippi's law is constitutional but was not yet ready to overrule Roe. The three liberal justices issued an irrational dissent. But the battle for life has just begun. Just as we helped enact the Alabama Human Life Amendment and the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, the Foundation will continue to fight for the legal protection of the lives of unborn children.
Stay updated on the cases we are working and those we are watching
Past and Current Clients
Pastor Tony Spell is the Pastor of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; a Pentecostal Church with nearly 2,000 members. Its weekly activities involve singing and preaching the Word, baptisms, laying hands on the sick to pray for them, and providing food for the hungry in the community.
In early 2020, Louisiana’s Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards capped gatherings, including churches, at 10 people! Pastor Spell concluded that complying with the Governor’s orders would violate God’s command to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:24-25) and decided to keep holding services. As a result, he was served with six criminal summonses. Shortly afterward, he was arrested for allegedly trying to run over a protestor outside his church, although video evidence showed that he neither hit him nor even approached him. At his arraignment, the judge told Pastor Spell that he could no longer preach to his congregation. When Pastor Spell could not agree, the judge ordered him to be equipped with an ankle bracelet. He was confined to his house and told that he would be arrested if he left.
Never before, to our knowledge, has a pastor in America been criminally charged and confined to house arrest for doing what Christians have done for two thousand years: going to church! The trial judge eventually backed down and had the ankle bracelet taken off of him, but the criminal charges against him were still pending.
We have been fighting this egregious infringement of religious liberty in court for over 2 years now. In May 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court quashed the criminal charges against Pastor Spell because the Governor's executive orders violated his fundamental right to exercise his religion. This was a great victory, but the fight is not over.
Pastor Spell’s case for damages against the Governor is still live in federal court. Most recently, in February 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruled against us. As soon as we learned this, we began preparing our final petition at the United States Supreme Court.
Our Petition is completely unique. (Available in PDF format at the link below). Every COVID-19 "victory" for religious liberty has been based on an “unfair treatment” argument, i.e., that the government cannot restrict churches any worse than it restricts department stores. However, government should not allowed to close the Church just because it also closed Wal-Mart. This is a very dangerous precedent because there is no limit on what government can deem an "emergency."
Our Petition argues that, based on the text and history of the Constitution, the Founders intended the First Amendment to enshrine a strict jurisdictional separation of Church and State that forbids the State from shutting down the Church. The Church is a special and separate institution that cannot be “equally” restricted with just any other secular entity.
Spell v. Edwards is an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to untangle the mess that has been made of our religious freedom; to declare once and for all that the State cannot keep a church from assembling. Our duty to “not forsake the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:25) is for us to decide as a Church, not to be dictated by a Governor, President, or any government! Please join us in prayer that the Supreme Court will take up Spell v. Edwards and affirm this vital truth. Visit our News page here to read the latest on this case.
Willie Lee Conner shoplifted a nail gun, was wrongly convicted of first-degree robbery, and has now served ten years in prison for it. He is still incarcerated at 56 years old, separated from his loving family, and facing severe health problems. His conviction and sentence are entirely unjust. The Foundation for Moral Law represents Mr. Conner pro bono.
On July 5, 2012, Mr. Conner shoplifted a roof nailer from Lowe's by putting it into his pants and attempting to leave the premises. When confronted by store employees, he complied and walked with them back to the store. On the way, the nail gun in his pants shifted position and began to dig into his leg. He stumbled and grabbed at it, and in an unfortunate choice of words, said “I have a gun,” referring to the nail gun. The employees interpreted this to mean that he had a deadly weapon, even though the store's loss prevention manager had seen him take the roof nailer and put it down the front of his pants. Even so, they wrestled him to the ground (he did not resist) and found the nail gun.
When the employees called the police, they reported a simple shoplifting. Nevertheless, the Baldwin County DA’s Office, seeing an opportunity for a potential “habitual offender,” charged Mr. Conner with first-degree robbery. The crime of first-degree robbery in Alabama requires possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon, or a statement by the perpetrator raising a presumption that they were so armed. But Mr. Conner was accused and convicted solely of committing a theft while in possession of a dangerous and deadly weapon. However, Mr. Conner never had a dangerous or deadly weapon on his person. He is therefore innocent of the crime with which he was charged. A roofing nailer cannot possibly be a deadly weapon. It cannot fire nails at people, and it cannot even drive nails into wood without a compressor, which Mr. Conner did not have.
Mr. Conner did not mean to threaten with the statement “I have a gun;” he was only giving the reason he had doubled over, stumbled, and was adjusting his pants. And even if he had been charged with first-degree robbery under the "presumption" prong because of this statement, any "presumption" that he was armed was immediately rebutted on the scene by the store employees' search of him because they found that he had no gun.
Mr. Conner's conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. However, Chief Justice Roy Moore dissented because he believed Mr. Conner was innocent. He therefore took a personal interest in the case and, after he left the Court, sought to help Mr. Conner through the Foundation for Moral Law. At the Foundation, we are dedicated to the strict interpretation of the Constitution as intended by its Framers, and normally handle cases involving religious liberty. However, we have made an exception for Willie Conner because his conviction and sentence constitute a gross miscarriage of justice.
After representing him for almost 2 years and trying every possible avenue—federal court, the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, a petition to the United States Supreme Court—no justice has been served. His most recent petition for writ of habeas corpus to the trial court was denied and this was affirmed on appeal. The Foundation will be appealing this decision to the Alabama Supreme Court and continuing to fight for Willie in every way we can. Read the latest on this case on our News page, linked here.
Rickey Caster was peacefully and respectfully preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a downtown street corner on October 31, 2022, when a city police officer approached him demanding to see a permit for his use of a microphone and speaker. Rickey, believing that a permit was unnecessary for his public speech, initially stated that the law did not require him to have a permit. In a calm and respectful exchange of words, the officer told Caster that he could not use the microphone and speaker setup without a permit. “No problem!” Caster thought as he put his microphone away and continued preaching with the volume of a gifted street evangelist.
However, this was not enough for the officer. Evidently, he did not want Rickey preaching at all that afternoon. Because Rickey would not stop using his voice to preach the Gospel on the sidewalk, the officer handcuffed and arrested 2 of 3 him on the spot. The City of Selma charged Rickey with disorderly conduct and has ordered his appearance in municipal court or payment of a fine of (?) $1000. Video evidence at the scene showed that Rickey was not disorderly in any way whatsoever. In fact, he peacefully and respectfully preached for over half an hour, and there was no indication that any member of the public was disturbed by his religious expression. He addressed the officers as "Sir" and politely but firmly told them he had a legal and constitutional right to preach. The City did have any probable cause to arrest Rickey for simply preaching the Gospel. Rickey reached out to us.
Street preaching and public ministry have a long history in our Country and around the world, of course dating back to biblical times. As Christ said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15. Sharing the Gospel “boots on the ground” is a powerful way for individuals to reach the public, often reaching those who may not have had the opportunity to hear it otherwise. The Foundation believes that public evangelism is a cornerstone of our Christian faith and honors those who God has gifted and called to do such good work. We defended Rickey because arresting a street preacher for simply preaching is unacceptable.
On March 29th, Foundation Lead Staff Attorney Talmadge Butts and co-counsel Katrinnah Darden traveled to Selma with Rickey for trial and, after a discussion with the City prosecutor, the City of Selma agreed to completely drop the case against Rickey! You can read more about the victory on our News page, linked here.
Our work is far from done. Cases like Rickey’s happen far too often all across the Country, even in more conservative Bible belt states like our home here in Alabama. The Foundation for Moral Law is dedicated to fighting for religious freedom on every street corner in America! Street preaching is emblematic of religious liberty because it represents our fundamental right to express religious beliefs and to do so in public. The downtown areas of our cities are often the epicenters of poverty, addiction, and political corruption. Street preachers are on the frontlines of bringing the Gospel to these areas, providing hope and inspiration to those who may be struggling with difficult circumstances.
Amicus Briefs
Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy (23-3630)
Filed October 2, 2023
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy, the Olentangy school district in Ohio created a policy, much like those emerging all across the U.S., that requires students to use classmates’ “preferred pronouns,” despite their convictions (religious or otherwise) telling them not to. In 2022, we filed a brief in Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar, a case brought by the same organization against a school district in Iowa for a similar pronoun policy. So, in Olentangy, we followed our Linn-Mar brief and argued that this is an egregious violation of the First Amendment that compels a student to say things with which he may disagree, even if he disagrees because of his religion.
Volokh v. James (23-356)
Filed September 26, 2023
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It involves the New York Hateful Conduct Law, which forces all social media apps and websites that solicit funds online in New York to develop a “hate speech” policy and post it on their platform. Our brief points out that this law is overbroad in two ways: (1) it applies to many organizations outside the state on the sole basis that their websites are accessible in New York (possibly including the Foundation!), and (2) it doesn’t define what constitutes hate speech, but was obviously intended to include any controversial topic, like abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender surgery, and gun control, and these topics are controversial specifically because Christians are required by their faith to take a stand on these issues). But under this law, “hate speech” could include Christian beliefs, or anything that the liberal New York government disagrees with. Our brief argued that, according to the Supreme Court, unless speech is aimed at inciting lawless action and is likely to produce such action, no government can label it “hate speech” and restrict it without violating the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Speech First v. Sands (23-156)
Filed September 14, 2023
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Fourth Circuit. If there is one place where the battle for free speech matters most, it is at public universities. However, public college administrations (arms of the government) have been creating “bias response teams” in recent years. These “teams” are given the power to monitor speech on campus and refer students for formal discipline for saying “bias” things. They define “bias” speech as any statement on the topics of gender, sexual orientation, transgenderism, or similar controversial issues that “offends” other students or faculty. Under these policies, professing the belief that God only created two genders or that marriage should be between a man and a woman could subject a student to punishment. An organization called Speech First has been challenging “bias response teams” across the country with much success. But this year, in Sands, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Virginia Tech, holding that its “bias response team” simply doesn’t stifle student speech. The Foundation filed an amicus brief to help Speech First persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Sands and overturn the Fourth Circuit.
Center for Medical Progress v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (22-1186)
Filed July 3, 2023
Judgment issued October 2, 2023
David Daleiden is the pro-life leader of the Center for Medical Progress who made national headlines with an undercover investigation exposing Planned Parenthood’s wide-scale harvesting of body parts of aborted babies. His undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood employees callously and flippantly negotiating the price of tiny baby hearts, lungs, livers, and brains. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (now Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services) filed fifteen felony charges against Daleiden for this investigation, and Planned Parenthood has filed a civil lawsuit against him alleging he has violated their privacy rights. This case came before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit, and the Foundation moved on July 3rd for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the Center for Medical Progress and the freedom of speech but was denied leave when the Court denied the Center's petition itself.
Tennessee v. Department of Education (22-5807)
Filed January 31, 2023
This case was brought to challenge the Biden Administration’s new policy prohibiting discrimination in schools on the basis of not only biological sex, but gender identity and sexual orientation, too. We submitted a brief arguing that this places an unconstitutional burden on the speech of students and teachers who believe, sometimes because of religious conviction, that sex is assigned biologically and cannot be changed by a personal decision, or even hormones or surgery. We argued that this policy violates the freedom of speech, parental rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, because the government lacked authority to promulgate it to begin with.
Changizi v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (22-3573)
Filed December 5, 2022
In the last few years, members of the Biden Administration have threatened social media companies to force them to censor what the government deemed “misinformation” about Covid on their platforms. Twitter users have sued over this infringement of their freedom of speech. The Biden Administration labeled speech questioning or criticizing the government’s origin story for Covid-19, whether the Covid vaccine limited transmission, the necessity of church and business lockdowns, and many other issues “misinformation” because, as our Founders knew, when the People question and discuss the government’s actions, real change is possible. Since their case was dismissed, the users are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Our brief makes the connection that the Biden Administration is engaging in the exact kind of behavior that the Founding generation found repugnant in the James Adams’ Administration’s Sedition Act of 1978. The Sedition Act criminalized criticism of the President and Congress with the penalty of fines and imprisonment. This is why the Founders insisted upon a Bill of Rights and why the Foundation believes that free speech is necessary for our Republic to survive!
Keister v. Bell (22-388)
Filed November 18, 2022
We filed on behalf of a preacher who was kept by University of Alabama campus police from evangelizing on a public sidewalk for supposedly violating the campus speech and expression policy. Under the law, public sidewalks are considered “traditional public forums” where the State, including public universities, have no right to censor speech.
Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar (22-2927)
Judgment issued September 29, 2023
Filed November 9, 2022
In this case, the Linn-Mar, Iowa school district policy stated that students would be punished if they referred to a fellow student using pronouns that did not suit that student’s preferences due to their transgender identity. By compelling speech, this policy constituted an egregious violation of the First Amendment. We supported the parents challenging this policy with an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit decided in favor of the parents, directing the entry of a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of this policy. You can read the decision here. The Foundation repurposed its brief in Linn-Mar to be filed in the similar case Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy a year later. We are hopeful that the Linn-Mar decision will positively affect the Sixth Circuit in deciding Olentangy.
Navy SEALs v. Biden & Doster v. Kendall
(22-3702 & 22-10077)
Filed August 26, 2022
Judgment issued November 29, 2022
These are two cases in the United States Courts of Appeals where Navy and Air Force members are challenging their respective branches’ COVID vaccination mandates as violations of their religious liberty. The Foundation filed in Navy SEALS at the district court in 2021 where the court issued an injunction protecting the Navy SEALs religious liberty, but Biden appealed—we filed another brief supporting the Navy SEALs in the Fifth Circuit. In Doster, we filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit also supporting Air Force members’ religious liberty—in a great victory, the Sixth Circuit ruled in their favor! We are still awaiting the court's judgment in the Navy Seals' case.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (21-418)
Filed February 23, 2022
Judgment issued July 29, 2022
Coach Kennedy regularly knelt on the 50-yard line and prayed after football games—until school officials ordered him not to do so and fired him for obeying God rather than men (Acts 5:29). In the Supreme Court, the Foundation noted the longstanding principle that “...neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Agreeing that this was unconstitutional discrimination against Coach Kennedy’s religious speech, the Supreme Court issued a momentous decision that will afford much more freedom for prayer in the public arena.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (19-1392)
Filed July 28, 2021
Judgment issued July 26, 2022
In the 49 years since Roe v. Wade, 63,000,000 babies have been killed by abortion. In Dobbs, the Foundation joined Lutherans for Life to file an amicus brief supporting the Mississippi law restricting abortion. Now, Roe v. Wade is history! Five Justices voted to overrule Roe, and Chief Justice Roberts concurred that Mississippi's law is constitutional but was not yet ready to overrule Roe. The three liberal justices issued an irrational dissent. But the battle for life has just begun. Just as we helped enact the Alabama Human Life Amendment and the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, the Foundation will continue to fight for the legal protection of the lives of unborn children.
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
We depend on your support to fight for freedom.
Join the cause!
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
We depend on your support to fight for freedom.
Join the cause!
P.O. Box 148
Gallant, AL 35972
P.O. Box 4086
Montgomery, AL 36103