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
Most Recent 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
St. Isidore v. Drummond, et al. (24-396)
Filed March 12, 2025
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Foundation for Moral Law. as amicus curiae in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, supports the petitioners who seek equal treatment for religious charter schools under Oklahoma law. The Foundation argues that tax-funded education inherently constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion- whether that be secularism or a religious worldview- since education transmits ideological values Nevertheless, the Foundation maintains that if such funding exists, it must not discriminate against religious schools like St. Isidore, which deserve the same opportunities afforded to "nonsectarian" Institutions.
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al. (24-297)
Filed March 10, 2025
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Mahmoud v. Taylor, supports the petitioners who are parents objecting to school policies that did not allow them to opt-out their children from LGBT education materials in the Montgomery County School System. The Foundation argues that all tax-payer funded education is an unconstitutional establishment of religion because it necessarily promotes a belief system, in this case, secular gender ideology.
Darcy Roake, et al., v. Cade Brumley, et al. (24-30706)
Filed December 26, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Roake v. Brumley, supports the appellants in defending Louisiana’s HB 71, which mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The Foundation argues that the Ten Commandments are not merely religious symbols but are also foundational to Western legal and republican government traditions. The brief emphasizes that these commandments convey essential principles such as respect for life, property, truth, and family, all of which are cornerstones of American legal and cultural heritage. By showcasing the historical influence of Hebrew law on the Founders and early American jurisprudence, the Foundation asserts that the display is consistent with constitutional principles and does not constitute the establishment of religion. The Foundation urged the Court to reverse the district court’s decision and uphold Louisiana’s right to recognize the secular significance of the Ten Commandments.
Kelly Chiles, v. Patty Salazar, et al. (24-539)
Filed December 13, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Chiles v. Salazar, supports the petitioner in challenging Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The Foundation argues that Colorado's law oversteps its authority to regulate medical practices by targeting speech, particularly talk therapy, which is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. The brief emphasizes that the state’s regulation effectively imposes an ideological belief system about gender identity, stifling therapists from providing alternative perspectives or treatments rooted in biological and psychological reality. Additionally, the Foundation highlights the potential harms of gender transition practices, arguing that they often fail to address underlying distress and may lead to long-term negative outcomes, particularly for minors. The Foundation urged the Court to grant the petition for certiorari to affirm the constitutional protection of free speech and ensure that therapists can practice without being compelled to endorse state-mandated ideologies.
Bethesda University, et al., v. Seungje, et al. (24-530)
Filed December 12, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Court of Appeal for the State of California. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Bethesda University v. Cho, supports the petitioners in their effort to defend religious autonomy and the First Amendment rights of a Pentecostal university. The Foundation argues that California courts have overstepped their bounds by imposing non-Pentecostal members on Bethesda University’s governing board, thereby interfering with the institution’s religious mission and doctrinal integrity. This intrusion undermines the university’s ability to train pastors and adhere to its Pentecostal, charismatic theology, violating the constitutional principle of church autonomy. The brief emphasizes that control over theological education is central to the independence of religious institutions and that judicial interference constitutes state control of the church. The Foundation urges the Court to grant the petition for certiorari to reaffirm the separation of church and state and protect the independence of religious organizations.
Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, et al. (24-427)
Filed November 15, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Hittle v. City of Stockton, supports the petitioner, Ronald Hittle, in his challenge to his dismissal as Fire Chief of Stockton, California, for attending a leadership event at a church. The Foundation argues that Hittle’s termination violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, as his attendance at the Global Leadership Summit—a faith-based leadership program—was motivated by his religious convictions and posed no harm to his role or the city. The brief emphasizes that the City’s actions reflect unconstitutional hostility toward religion and a misunderstanding of the jurisdictional separation of church and state intended by the Framers. The Foundation also contends that Hittle’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must be interpreted in light of First Amendment protections to ensure robust religious liberty. The Foundation urged the Court to grant the petition for certiorari, reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom in both public employment and broader society.
Brown, et al., v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. (24-3789)
Filed October 16, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Brown v. Alaska Airlines, supports the appellants, Lacey Smith and Marli Brown, in their claims of religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Foundation argues that Alaska Airlines violated the appellants’ First Amendment rights by terminating them for expressing religiously motivated objections to the company’s support of the Equality Act on its internal communication platform. The brief emphasizes that the appellants’ comments were grounded in sincere religious beliefs and that the company failed to provide any reasonable accommodation for their convictions. Additionally, the Foundation contends that the termination represents viewpoint and content discrimination, which suppresses religious expression and violates fundamental principles of fairness and diversity. The Foundation urged the court to reverse the district court’s decision, affirm the appellants’ right to religious accommodation, and ensure that employees are not punished for expressing their deeply held beliefs.
4o
State of Kansas, et al., v. United States Department of Education, et al. (24-3097)
Filed October 11, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Kansas v. United States Department of Education, supports the plaintiffs-appellees in their challenge to the Department’s policy that mandates the recognition of gender identity in public schools. The Foundation argues that this policy violates the constitutional rights of students, parents, and teachers by compelling speech, infringing upon the free exercise of religion, and disregarding parental authority over critical decisions in their children’s lives. The policy’s compelled use of preferred pronouns and names imposes an ideological viewpoint and conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs about gender. Furthermore, the Foundation asserts that the Department overstepped its constitutional and statutory authority under Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment, undermining the separation of powers and federalism. The brief calls for the court to affirm the district court’s decision, protecting the First Amendment and preserving parental rights against unconstitutional executive overreach.
Defend Arlington, et al., v. U.S. Department of Defense, et al. (24-5026)
Filed August 23, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Defend Arlington v. U.S. Department of Defense, supports the plaintiffs-appellants in their effort to preserve the Arlington Reconciliation Monument and protect the religious liberties intertwined with its existence. We argue that the removal of the monument desecrates the graves it was meant to honor and infringes upon the religious and cultural convictions of the deceased veterans and their descendants. The Foundation highlights the historical and constitutional significance of respecting religious liberty, emphasizing that memorials and burial sites often serve as profound expressions of faith and remembrance. By removing the monument, the Department of Defense not only undermines these principles but also erodes a critical symbol of reconciliation and historical integrity. We urge the court to reverse the lower court’s decision, restore the monument, and uphold the fundamental right to honor the past with dignity and respect.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al., v. Jennifer VanDerStok, et al. (23-852)
Filed August 20, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Garland v. VanDerStok, supports the respondents in defense of the Second Amendment and its historical protection of the right to manufacture firearms. We argue that the right to "keep and bear arms," as understood by the Founders, inherently includes the ability to create arms, a practice deeply rooted in America’s history from colonial times through the Revolutionary War. The Foundation highlights the pivotal role individual gunsmithing played in securing independence from British tyranny and underscores that contemporary regulations, such as the ATF’s interpretation of the Gun Control Act, threaten these constitutional protections. By examining the historical and constitutional context, we assert that restricting the manufacture of firearms undermines the Second Amendment’s original intent and risks eroding the liberties it guarantees. We urged the Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit's decision and protect the right of Americans to exercise this fundamental liberty.
Valerie Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, et al. (24-1398)
Filed August 7, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, supports the plaintiff, Valerie Kloosterman, in her pursuit of justice and the protection of her First Amendment rights. We argue that Metropolitan Hospital's policy requiring employees to affirm beliefs and participate in practices contrary to their religious convictions constitutes a violation of the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Additionally, the Foundation contends that a standard arbitration agreement cannot be used to compel an employee to forfeit such fundamental constitutional rights without a clear, knowing, and voluntary waiver. The case highlights the broader issue of compelled speech and the imposition of ideological compliance in professional settings, which undermines both religious liberty and individual conscience. We urged the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision, affirming that constitutional protections cannot be overridden by employment policies or arbitration clauses.
John M. Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation (24-1942)
Filed July 17, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, advocates for the protection of the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. We argue that the Brownsburg policy, requiring John Kluge to use students’ preferred pronouns against his deeply held religious beliefs, constitutes an unconstitutional violation of these rights. This policy represents compelled speech, forcing Kluge to articulate messages contrary to his convictions, and ignores the jurisdictional limits placed on government interference in matters of personal faith and conscience. The Foundation highlights that the First Amendment firmly protects individuals from being coerced into speech that violates their beliefs, as affirmed in numerous Supreme Court precedents. We urged the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision and uphold Kluge’s constitutional rights, reinforcing the principle that religious freedom and free expression are cornerstones of our democratic society.
4o
Parents Protecting Our Children, UA, v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin, et al. (23-1280)
Filed July 3, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, supports the petitioners in their effort to safeguard parental rights under the Constitution. We argue that the district’s policy of secretly facilitating gender transitions without parental consent is an unconstitutional violation of the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children. This policy promotes harmful ideological beliefs about gender that conflict with biological and medical realities, undermining the family unit and potentially causing irreversible harm to children and their families. By disregarding the authority of parents and imposing life-altering decisions on children without their knowledge or consent, the school district infringes on constitutional protections that prioritize the family as the cornerstone of society. The Foundation urged the Court to grant the petition for certiorari and protect the rights of parents and the integrity of the parent-child relationship.
E.D., et al., v. Noblesville School District, et al. (24-1608)
Filed June 10, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, supports the appellants and their fight to safeguard the First Amendment rights of students. We argue that the school district's censorship of a pro-life flyer constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, violating foundational principles established by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Even if the Court were to apply Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the censorship fails as Hazelwood does not justify viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. The Foundation highlights the importance of schools as venues where students can exercise their rights and engage in open discourse. We urged the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision and protect the free speech rights of E.D. and the Noblesville Students for Life.
Zachary Greenberg v. Jerry M. Lehocky, et al. (23-833)
Filed February 29, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae, supports the petitioner in Greenberg v. Lehocky, emphasizing the vital importance of protecting First Amendment freedoms within the legal profession. We argue that Pennsylvania Rule 8.4(g), even in its amended form, constitutes a blatant violation of free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. By chilling attorneys’ ability to present dissenting or unpopular views, the rule undermines the open advocacy essential to justice and imposes unconstitutional limitations on both lawyers and their clients. The Foundation urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to ensure that the legal profession remains a haven for free expression and robust debate, free from the constraints of politically correct orthodoxy. We stand firmly against the encroachments of Rule 8.4(g), which threatens to transform the courtroom into a forum limited to pre-approved viewpoints.
Mike Moyle, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al., v. United States of America (23-726)
Filed February 23, 2024
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, joined by The Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty, Lutherans for Life, and Two Kingdoms Ministry, argues as amici curiae in Mike Moyle v. United States that Idaho’s authority to regulate abortion is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. We contend that the Department of Health and Human Services’ guidance, which interprets EMTALA to mandate abortions in emergency circumstances, violates constitutional principles and encroaches upon Idaho's sovereignty. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, we stress that abortion regulation is historically and constitutionally a state power. Furthermore, Idaho’s laws protecting the sanctity of life are consistent with moral, religious, and scientific traditions, as well as the rights of medical professionals with conscientious objections. We urged the Court to uphold Idaho’s legislation, affirm state sovereignty, and reject unconstitutional federal overreach.
United States of America v. Douglass Mackey (23-7577)
Filed January 12, 2024
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As amicus curiae in United States v. Mackey, we stand firmly in defense of the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, arguing that Douglass Mackey’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 241 is a grave threat to those protections. We assert that Mackey’s conviction for sharing satirical political memes sets a dangerous precedent, chilling free speech by signaling that political satire and anonymous online speech can lead to federal prosecution. Memes, as a ubiquitous form of modern expression, are deeply rooted in America’s history of free speech, akin to pamphlets and political cartoons used by the Founders. Furthermore, the prosecution’s apparent political bias, in targeting Mackey while ignoring similar actions from other political perspectives, raises profound concerns about fairness and impartiality. We urged the court to reverse the decision, safeguarding free speech as a cornerstone of democracy and ensuring it is not eroded by politically motivated actions.
Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom, et al. (23-526)
Filed December 14, 2023
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Nichols v. Newsom, we advocate for the protection of the Second Amendment’s fundamental guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. We assert that California’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public contradict the plain language of the Second Amendment, which explicitly protects an individual’s right to self-defense, a core component of the right to life. Drawing on the Framers’ intent and recent Supreme Court precedents, we emphasize that the right to carry arms is essential for personal safety and community defense. The Foundation underscores that these restrictions undermine constitutional protections, defying both historical principles and modern judicial interpretations. We urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, ensuring that the constitutional right to bear arms is upheld in California and within the Ninth Circuit.
Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Robert Ferguson, et al. (23-2606)
Filed November 15, 2023
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Foundation for Moral Law, serving as amicus curiae in the case of Union Gospel Mission v. Ferguson, strongly advocates for the protection of religious liberty and the autonomy of religious organizations under the First Amendment. We argue that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses were intended by the Founders to ensure a clear jurisdictional separation between Church and State, granting religious organizations the freedom to make hiring decisions aligned with their faith and mission. Citing Supreme Court precedents, we emphasize that government interference in such decisions violates both constitutional protections and the foundational principles of religious freedom. Through this brief, we seek to reaffirm the understanding that religious organizations, like Union Gospel Mission, have the right to maintain their faith-based practices without undue state intrusion. We urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision and uphold the constitutional liberties that protect the integrity and mission of religious organizations.
Aurora Regino v. Kelly Staley, et al. (23-526)
Filed November 6, 2023
This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Our brief in the case of Regino v. Staley argues against a school district policy allowing "secret gender transitioning" without parental knowledge or consent. The Foundation emphasizes that such policies violate parents' constitutional rights to direct and control their children’s upbringing, as historically recognized by the Supreme Court and rooted in common law. It critiques gender identity ideology, arguing that biological sex is immutable and that encouraging or facilitating transitions is harmful, particularly for minors who lack the capacity for informed consent. The brief highlights the risks of long-term harm to children and family dynamics caused by these practices, calling them an overreach of state authority. We urged the court to reverse the district court's decision, asserting that parental rights are foundational to protecting families and children from ideological impositions by the state.
William Felkner v. John Nazarian, et al. (23-274)
Filed October 17, 2023
This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Our brief in the case of Felkner v. Rhode Island supports the petitioner, William Felkner, and argues for a reevaluation of the qualified immunity doctrine. The brief criticizes qualified immunity as an unjust barrier to accountability for constitutional violations, emphasizing its lack of foundation in historical or legal precedent and its tendency to produce unreasonable results. It asserts that Rhode Island College’s “perspective school” policy, which punishes students for holding dissenting viewpoints, constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Foundation highlights the college’s actions as an infringement on Felkner’s rights, noting his penalization for opposing progressive viewpoints and policies. We urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to address these constitutional concerns and reform the doctrine of qualified immunity.
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
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