/wtp/ - We, the People

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-legal-brief-champions-parental-rights/

>The brief was filed in support of petitioner’s application for a preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of school policies that purport to ban “discriminatory language,” but surreptitiously aim to censor the speech of students by forbidding the use of pronouns reflecting the biological sex of another student. As if that isn’t enough, the OOSD further oversteps their bounds by requiring the use of self-declared preferred pronoun(s) of other students on any given day.

>To be clear, OOSD’s actions amount to an unlawful and flagrant rejection of America’s parental rights jurisprudence cultivated by the Supreme Court for over a century, starting with a 1923 SCOTUS decision announcing, “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children…liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own.”

Read the Brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AmericasFuture-Amicus-Brief-Parents-v-Eau-Claire-Filed-07082024-SCOTUS.pdf

>>1341

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-13/

<Introduction:

The episode begins with Alicia Kutzer welcoming listeners to "America's Future Law Matters," a podcast focused on key legal issues within America's judicial system. She introduces the guest, Attorney Bill Olson, known for his extensive experience in constitutional law and appellate advocacy. The discussion is heavily critical of the school's pronoun policy, viewing it as an infringement on free speech, parental rights, and religious freedom. The tone is one of concern about the direction of educational policy and its broader implications for American society.

<Main Discussion:

Case Overview: The discussion centers on a case involving the Olentangy Local School District in Ohio, where policies mandate students to use preferred pronouns of their peers, including transgender students, under threat of punishment for non-compliance. The case was brought by Parents Defending Education on behalf of anonymous students and parents against these school policies.

<First Amendment Issues:

Bill explains how the case touches on First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech. He outlines two ways the First Amendment can be violated: by censoring speech or by compelling speech. The school's policy does both by prohibiting the use of biologically accurate pronouns and compelling students to use preferred pronouns.

<Supreme Court Precedent:

Reference is made to the Tinker v. Des Moines case, which established that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school unless their speech creates a 'substantial disruption'. The school's argument that using incorrect pronouns could hurt feelings does not meet this threshold, according to Bill.

<Arguments and Implications:

Bill criticizes the policy for its complexity and impracticality, noting the variety of pronouns students might need to use, potentially leading to confusion and fear of punishment among students. He also discusses how this case reflects a broader cultural and legal battle over transgender ideology, which he describes as having roots in ancient pagan practices, thus clashing with Christian beliefs about gender.

<Cultural and Legal Critique:

The podcast delves into how such policies might be part of a larger agenda, possibly aiming to undermine traditional American values, freedoms, and parental rights. There's a particular focus on how it might force individuals to adopt beliefs contrary to their own, essentially compelling religious or ideological conformity.

<Resistance and Pushback:

Both Alicia and Bill express optimism about the pushback against these policies, highlighting a growing resistance from parents and legal challenges that might lead to a return to more traditional norms regarding speech and gender identity in schools.

<Conclusion:

Alicia thanks Bill for his insights and encourages listeners to visit America's Future's website for more episodes. The episode ends with a call to action for support in defending constitutional rights against what they perceive as overreaching policies.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/gun-rights/appeals-court-strikes-down-ban-allowing-handguns-be-sold-teenagers

https://www.lawandfreedom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Yukutake-amicus-brief-final.pdf

Thank you America's Future.

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-1/

Key Points from the Transcript:

Introduction and Background:

Alicia Kutzer introduces the episode, emphasizing its focus on the U.S. Constitution, separation of powers, and American jurisprudence.

Bill Olson, with 48 years of legal experience, shares his background, including his education (Brown University and Richmond Law School), White House internship under Richard Nixon, and extensive litigation experience, particularly with amicus briefs in policy-oriented cases.

Lawfare:

The discussion defines "lawfare" as the use of courts for political battles, contrasting it with traditional legislative and executive processes.

Examples include the federalization of state issues (e.g., abortion via Roe v. Wade) and attempts to remove President Trump from the Colorado ballot using a novel 14th Amendment theory.

Olson highlights the targeting of conservative lawyers, noting penalties like disbarment and fines for advocating certain positions, a shift from past practices where creative legal arguments were more accepted.

2020 Election Challenges:

The transcript addresses the Project 65 Committee, which targeted lawyers challenging the 2020 election results, claiming these challenges were frivolous.

Olson disputes the claim, noting that many cases were dismissed on procedural grounds (e.g., standing) rather than on merits, and some courts recognized election irregularities.

Separation of Powers:

Alicia quotes James Madison from Federalist 47, emphasizing the importance of separating legislative, executive, and judicial powers to prevent tyranny.

Olson connects this principle to scripture, arguing that human fallibility necessitates checks and balances, and critiques current trends of power usurpation (e.g., agencies like the ATF creating laws).

Garland v. Cargill:

The Supreme Court case addressed the ATF’s rule banning bump stocks, which Olson describes as a government overreach.

The Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority, aligning with an amicus brief filed by America’s Future.

Olson notes the rule’s origins under President Trump, influenced by media and political pressure post-Las Vegas shooting, despite bump stocks’ limited use and impracticality.

Tennessee v. Department of Education:

This case involved a Department of Education rule expanding Title IX to include gender identity protections, which Olson and Kutzer criticize as an executive overreach.

The Sixth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against the rule, consistent with America’s Future’s amicus brief, due to procedural violations (e.g., lack of notice and comment).

Broader Implications:

The episode concludes with a reflection on the simultaneous attacks on constitutional principles (First, Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments) and the need for resistance through legal and other means.

Both speakers stress the importance of maintaining separation of powers to preserve American liberty and governance.

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-2/

The transcript captures a legal discussion between Alicia Kutzer, a practicing attorney with nearly 20 years of experience across various legal fields, and Bill Olson, a constitutional attorney with nearly 50 years of experience. The program focuses on three recent Supreme Court decisions that have significant implications for constitutional law, criminal justice, and administrative law. The hosts also discuss the role of America’s Future, an organization that filed amicus briefs in these cases, in advocating for constitutional principles and legal fairness.

Key Cases Discussed

Trump v. United States (July 1, 2024)

Background:

This case addresses the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. It arose from charges against former President Donald Trump related to his actions following the 2020 election, particularly those taken while he was still in office.

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity for actions within their constitutionally conferred authority (official acts). For other official acts, there is presumptive immunity, but no immunity exists for unofficial acts. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting. The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the district court to categorize Trump’s actions as official or unofficial and determine immunity accordingly.

Key Points of Discussion:

Historically, the U.S. operated under a de facto policy of presidential immunity, as seen in cases involving Presidents Nixon, George W. Bush, and Clinton. This case marks the first time a prosecutor has challenged presidential authority in this manner, raising concerns about the potential for politically motivated prosecutions. The ruling’s ambiguity in distinguishing official vs. unofficial acts leaves room for lower courts to interpret, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes. The hosts express concern that the decision, while a victory for Trump, opens a “Pandora’s box” for future legal battles, especially given the political context.

Fisher v. United States (June 28, 2024)

Background:

This case involves Joseph Fisher, a January 6th defendant charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)) for obstructing an official proceeding (the certification of the 2020 election). The statute was originally enacted to address corporate fraud, such as document shredding during the Enron scandal.

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Court ruled that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s obstruction provision (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)) does not apply to the January 6th defendants’ actions, as the law was intended to address document destruction, not physical obstruction of proceedings. The decision struck down a charge used against hundreds of January 6th defendants, including Trump, for prosecutorial overreach. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Barrett dissenting alongside Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Notably, Justice Jackson joined the majority.

Key Points of Discussion:

The hosts criticize the prosecution’s misuse of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, arguing it was a clear example of prosecutorial abuse to impose harsher penalties (up to 20 years) than the insurrection statute (10 years). The decision is seen as a victory for January 6th defendants and a rebuke to prosecutors who “fundamentally misconstrued” the law. America’s Future filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take the case, which it did, highlighting the organization’s role in defending constitutional rights. The ruling’s impact on ongoing cases is discussed, with estimates that around 330 defendants could benefit, though the process (e.g., post-conviction appeals) remains unclear.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (June 28, 2024)

Background:

This case challenged the Chevron deference doctrine, established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), which required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Court overturned Chevron, ending the 40-year-old doctrine. It ruled that courts, not agencies, should interpret ambiguous statutes, restoring judicial authority over legal interpretation. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred, stressing separation of powers as a basis for the decision.

Key Points of Discussion:

The hosts view the decision as a major victory against the administrative state, which they argue has overstepped its authority by interpreting laws without judicial oversight. Chevron empowered bureaucrats to issue regulations with little judicial scrutiny, often based on dubious claims of expertise. The ruling is expected to limit agency overreach, though bureaucratic manipulation may persist. It ensures courts, not agencies, decide legal interpretations, enhancing accountability. The decision’s far-reaching implications include curbing agencies’ ability to redefine terms or issue regulations without clear statutory authority.

Themes and Broader Implications:

Presidential Immunity and Political Prosecution:

The Trump v. United States decision establishes a framework for presidential immunity but leaves significant ambiguity, potentially inviting further litigation. The hosts express concern about politically motivated prosecutions, a recurring theme in discussions of Trump’s legal battles.

Prosecutorial Overreach and January 6th:

The Fisher case highlights prosecutorial abuse, with the hosts criticizing the Justice Department’s misuse of statutes to target January 6th defendants. The decision is framed as a victory for defendants’ rights and a check on government overreach, though its practical impact on ongoing cases remains uncertain.

Administrative State and Judicial Authority:

The Loper Bright decision is celebrated as a blow to the administrative state, restoring judicial oversight over agency actions. The hosts emphasize the importance of limiting bureaucratic power, though they acknowledge that agencies may still attempt to manipulate their authority.

Role of America’s Future:

The organization’s involvement in filing amicus briefs is highlighted, particularly in Fisher, where its brief was the only one filed at the petition stage. This underscores its role in advocating for constitutional principles and defending against perceived government overreach.

Overview of the Transcript

The discussion revolves around a legal challenge brought by a parents’ group against the Eau Claire Area School District in Wisconsin. The case centers on school policies that allow teachers and staff to counsel students on gender identity and sexuality without parental notification or consent, raising questions about parental rights and constitutional protections. The conversation also touches on broader societal and legal trends regarding gender identity, education, and government intervention in family matters.

Key themes include:

Parental Rights:Whether parental rights are fundamental and constitutionally protected.

School Policies on Gender Identity:The Eau Claire school district’s policies on counseling students about gender identity and transitioning, often without parental involvement.

Legal Standing:The procedural hurdle of whether the parents have legal standing to bring the case, as determined by lower courts.

Broader Societal Implications:Critiques of modern educational policies, comparisons to historical authoritarian regimes, and concerns about the erosion of parental authority.

Detailed Analysis

Introduction and Context

Program Overview:The program, America’s Future Law Matters, focuses on legal issues, the justice system, and court decisions affecting society. Alicia Kutzer introduces Bill Olsen, a constitutional attorney with nearly 50 years of experience, who leads a legal team filing amicus briefs for various organizations, including America’s Future.

Case Introduction:The discussion focuses on a case involving parental rights, specifically whether these rights are fundamental and protected by the Constitution. America’s Future filed an amicus brief in support of a parents’ group challenging the Eau Claire Area School District’s policies.

Case Background: Eau Claire School District Policies

Policy Description:Bill Olsen describes the Eau Claire school district’s policies, which instruct teachers and staff to counsel students questioning their sexuality or gender identity. These policies include “gender-affirming care” and allow discussions about transitioning, even for young children (e.g., kindergarteners).

Secrecy from Parents:A significant concern is the policy’s mandate for secrecy. Teachers and staff are instructed to keep these discussions confidential from parents unless directly asked, and even then, they are not required to disclose details. The policy justifies this secrecy by citing concerns about parental reactions, which Olsen critiques as unfounded.

Development of Plans:The policies allow schools to develop plans for students, including decisions about names, pronouns, athletic participation, and locker room use, all without parental involvement. Olsen highlights the potential for medical or surgical interventions, though he doubts schools would go that far without parental consent.

Critique of Policies:Both Kutzer and Olsen express strong disapproval, calling the policies “perverse” and comparing them to totalitarian tactics that sever parent-child bonds. Olsen suggests that such policies reflect a broader societal trend of undermining parental authority and indoctrinating children.

Parental Rights and Constitutional Protections

Transient Nature of Teacher-Student Relationships:Kutzer emphasizes the temporary nature of teacher-student relationships, questioning why policies grant teachers such authority over children’s lives when their involvement is short-lived compared to parents’ lifelong role.

Historical Comparisons:Olsen draws parallels to fascist and communist regimes that sought to control children and sever familial bonds, framing the Eau Claire policies as part of a broader agenda to “sexually liberate” children and indoctrinate them against parental values.

Legal and Moral Outrage:The discussion highlights the outrage over policies that prioritize school authority over parental rights, especially in sensitive areas like gender identity and sexuality. Olsen references past instances where teachers were arrested for inappropriate conduct, contrasting that with the current normalization of such discussions.

Legal Challenges and Standing

Case Status:The case is at the petition stage before the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to hear it. The primary issue is legal standing under Article III of the Constitution. Lower courts (the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit) dismissed the case, ruling that the parents lacked standing because they had not demonstrated specific harm to their children.

Standing Arguments:Olsen critiques the courts’ requirement for actual harm, citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s views that interference with a legal right (e.g., parental rights) should suffice for standing. He argues that the courts are using standing as an “avoidance technique” to sidestep the merits of the case, possibly due to political or ideological pressures.

Fundamental Rights Precedents:Kutzer references Supreme Court precedents, such as a 1923 case, affirming parents’ fundamental rights to control their children’s upbringing, education, and care. She argues that the Eau Claire policies unreasonably infringe on these rights by withholding material information from parents.

Broader Legal and Societal Context

Supreme Court Trends:Olsen expresses skepticism about the Supreme Court’s willingness to address the merits of the case, citing recent decisions (e.g., Fisher v. United States and presidential immunity cases) where the Court remanded issues to lower courts rather than issuing definitive rulings. He predicts protracted litigation if the Court only addresses standing.

Title IX and Federal Regulations:Olsen mentions parallel litigation challenging Biden administration regulations under Title IX, which reinterpret “sex” to include gender identity. These cases, involving circuit splits, may force the Supreme Court to address related issues more quickly.

Call to Action:The discussion concludes with a call for parents to withdraw their children from public schools if possible, reflecting distrust in the education system and courts. Kutzer encourages viewers to stay informed via America’s Future’s resources.

Key Legal Issues

Parental Rights as Fundamental:

The case hinges on whether parental rights are fundamental under the Constitution, particularly the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Precedents like Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) affirm parents’ rights to direct their children’s upbringing and education.

The Eau Claire policies challenge these rights by allowing schools to act as quasi-parents, making decisions about gender identity and counseling without parental consent.

Legal Standing:

Article III standing requires plaintiffs to demonstrate an injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. The lower courts ruled that the parents failed to show specific harm, as no child had yet been directly affected by the policies.

The amicus brief likely argues that the policies’ existence and potential application constitute an imminent threat to parental rights, sufficient for standing.

First Amendment and Privacy Concerns:

While not explicitly discussed, the policies raise First Amendment issues (e.g., compelled speech regarding pronouns) and privacy concerns (e.g., withholding information from parents). These could be secondary arguments if the case progresses.

Title IX and Federal Policy:

The discussion of Title IX regulations reflects a broader legal battle over the federal government’s role in education and gender identity. The Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Chevron deference (in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024) may impact how courts review such regulations.

Societal and Political Implications

Cultural Divide:The transcript reflects a deep cultural divide over gender identity, education, and parental authority. Critics of the Eau Claire policies view them as part of a “woke” agenda, while supporters may argue they protect vulnerable students.

Erosion of Trust in Institutions:The conversation underscores a growing distrust in public schools and courts, with suggestions that parents should opt out of the system. This aligns with broader debates over school choice and homeschooling.

Historical Parallels:Comparisons to authoritarian regimes highlight fears of state overreach, though such analogies may oversimplify the issue. They reflect a narrative of government schools as tools of indoctrination.

https://www.americasfuture.net/newsletter/common-sense-soaring/#keeping-you-informed

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1887214737642987554

https://www.paperturn-view.com/america-s-future-inc/15-7-c-page-11x11-w-pths-compressed?pid=MjQ241512&p=15&v=4

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-legal-briefs-supporting-president-trump-in-birthright-citizenship-lawsuits/

The briefs

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AF-Amicus-Brief-Wash-v-Trump.pdf

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AF-Amicus-Brief-NH-v-Trump.pdf

https://x.com/SunTzusWar/status/1889069932152762472

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-scotus-brief-safeguards-separation-of-powers-defends-the-unborn/

>On Monday, February 10, 2025, America’s Future filed an Amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Eunice Medina, as South Carolina’s Interim Director of S.C. Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHS) v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al., SCOTUS Dkt. 23-1275. This case concerns states’ power and authority to regulate elective abortions in their jurisdiction. The SCOTUS public docket is located here. Our brief was filed in support of petitioner, SCDHS, and its position that healthcare providers who abort babies should be excluded from participating in its state Medicaid (MA) program.

Read the brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AF-Amicus-Brief-Medina-v-Planned-Parenthood-SCOTUS-Filed-02102025.pdf

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-briefs-supporting-separation-of-powers-and-the-second-amendment/

>This matter arises out of the EO instructing the DOS to pause taxpayer funding of illegal alien assistance and resettlement programs, which had been free-flowing under the Biden administration, which surreptitiously expanded the meaning of “refugee” to include nearly half of the world’s population. As explained in the brief,

>U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) v Department of State, et al. (DOS), Dkt. No. 1:25-cv-00465

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Americas-Future-Motion-Amicus-Brief-DOS-v-US-Conf-Catholic-Bishops.pdf

>The case arises out of a state law that took effect on June 12, 2021 following Missouri Governor Michael Parson’s signature. The law is called the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (SAPA). It declared certain federal restrictions on firearms to be “infringements” of rights of Missourians protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

>Missouri v United States of America, SCOTUS Dkt No. 24-796

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Missouri-v-US-SCOTUS.pdf

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-19/

>In Episode 19, attorneys Kutzer and Olson address a challenge to a 2023 Tennessee law that prohibits healthcare providers from furnishing gender-changing items and services such as puberty blockers, hormone-altering drugs, and surgeries to minors. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

>Listen and learn about the travel of the case and the legal issues the Court will consider regarding whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from enacting laws protecting children from sex-transition medical interventions with risks of lifelong harm. The ruling could have a national impact since roughly half of the states have passed laws regulating the provision of gender-changing surgeries and drugs to minors. The case is U.S. v Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee’s Attorney General.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1899876053163688058

Read the brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AmericasFuture-Amicus-Brief-Catholic-Bishops-v.-Dpt.-of-State.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1902411726462857361

>>5606

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-brief-supporting-second-amendment-rights-3/

>>5606

https://www.americasfuture.net/press-releases/americas-future-files-briefs-supporting-separation-of-powers-and-the-second-amendment-2/

>>5606

https://www.americasfuture.net/press-releases/americas-future-files-brief-supporting-dojs-constitutional-authority/

>>5606

https://www.americasfuture.net/press-releases/americas-future-files-brief-defending-constitutional-principles-2/

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-20/

>In Episode 20, attorneys Kutzer and Olson discuss the ongoing criminal matter against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, specifically examining the meaning of prosecutorial discretion and the motion to dismiss filed in this case by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48(a).

>Listen and learn what “leave of court” means and how activist judges game the system, violate the Constitution, and undercut the rules of judicial ethics when they act as partisan players instead of as referees or umpires calling balls and strikes. The attorneys look back at the persecution of General Mike Flynn. The case is United States of America v Eric Adams

https://intelligencer.today/americas-future-hits-milestone-record-of-100-amicus-brief-filings-defending-citizen-rights-the-republic-against-unhinged-lawfare-and-judicial-abuse/05/04/2025/9247/

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-scotus-brief-in-birthright-citizenship-case/

This is a good one that will help stop anchor babies and other fraudulent forms of getting citizenship.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1908895124232282468

>Law Matters - Episode 21

>In Episode 21, attorneys Kutzer and Olson examine a case addressing federalism and states’ rights. The case arises out of a 2021 Missouri law announcing it would not enforce federal gun regulations that the state perceived to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

>Listen and learn why the State of Missouri signed into law its “Second Amendment Preservation Act” to protect its citizens’ rights to bear arms, what lower courts ruled, and why federal courts cannot second-guess a state’s Tenth Amendment authority. The case is Missouri v United States of America, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1911101248939438380

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-brief-in-second-amendment-case-brief/

https://www.americasfuture.net/scotus-october-term-2024-decisions/

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-brief-supporting-constitutional-checks-balances/

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1919863457005850881

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-US-v-Shilling-SCOTUS.pdf

https://x.com/MaryFlynnONeil1/status/1919928859367014822

https://x.com/RyanAFournier/status/1919817565754343626

>>8394

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-helps-score-win-for-the-rule-of-law-and-separation-of-powers/

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-legal-briefs-opposing-judicial-activism-to-protect-the-rule-of-law/

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1924531811125690394

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Noem-v-NTA-SCOTUS-May-8-2025.pdf

>

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s request for a stay of a district court injunction, allowing it to move forward with deporting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans during the appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1925682179285094413

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Americas-Future-Amicus-Wilcox-v-Trump-SCOTUS-04152025.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1927397158698774764

https://www.americasfuture.net/speaking-with-american-patriots-alicia-kutzer/

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1928489823934751107

>The Supreme Court granted a stay of the Massachusetts district court’s injunction in Noem v Doe, et al., in a 7-2 decision, allowing President Trump to move forward with the revocation of parole and removal of more than 500,000 persons illegally allowed into the country.

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Noem-v-Doe-SCOTUS-05152025.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1929586109350105409

Full Brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Illinois-Dec-2024.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1930659985983234292

Full Brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AmericasFuture-Smith-and-Wesson-Amicus-Brief-filed-12032024.pdf

>>9661

https://x.com/Smith_WessonInc/status/1930676410018156718

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1931378055794053574

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Americas-Future-Naples-Pride-v-City-of-Naples-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Based!

https://www.americasfuture.net/newsletter/standing-for-america/#keeping-you-informed

United States v. Shilling: On May 6, 2025, in a 6-3 vote, the SCOTUS entered an order granting the government’s Application for Stay of an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in connection with President Trump’s January 27, 2025, Executive Order (EO) called “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” The decision allowed President Trump’s Executive Order to go forward, removing persons with gender dysphoria from the U.S. military. America’s Future was the only amicus brief filed supporting the government’s position.

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-US-v-Shilling-SCOTUS.pdf

Noem v. National TPS Alliance: On May 19, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the SCOTUS granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, allowing it to move forward with deporting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans during the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. America’s Future is proud to have helped score this win with its amicus brief to the Supreme Court, available here.

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Noem-v-NTA-SCOTUS-May-8-2025.pdf

Trump v. Wilcox: On May 22, 2025, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s application for a stay, allowing the firing of members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. America’s Future had filed an amicus brief supporting the government’s request on April 15, 2025, in addition to filing a brief on March 29, 2025, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Read America’s Future’s Supreme Court brief here.

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Americas-Future-Amicus-Wilcox-v-Trump-SCOTUS-04152025.pdf

Noem v. Doe: On May 30, 2025, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the Massachusetts district court’s injunction, allowing President Trump to move forward with the revocation of parole and removal of more than 500,000 persons illegally allowed into the country. America’s Future is proud to support President Trump and uphold the Constitution by helping score this victory with our amicus brief in this case. Read the brief here.

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Noem-v-Doe-SCOTUS-05152025.pdf

The big cases that make the news America's Future weighs in on and wins.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1934688553306300461

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-scotus-brief-to-fight-for-separation-of-powers-in-america/

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1935369796238930198

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Americas-Future-Amicus-brief-US-v-Skrmetti-AG-Tenn-10-15-2024.pdf

https://nypost.com/2025/06/18/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-tennessee-ban-on-transgender-surgeries-for-minors

https://www.americasfuture.net/newsletter/for-such-a-time-as-this-in-america/#keeping-you-informed

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1936144928704209407

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AF-Amicus-Brief-Second-Amendment-Ninth-Circuit.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1937283576434950546

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Americas-Future-DHS-v.-D.V.D.Amicus-Brief.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938271038153932952

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AF-Amicus-Brief-Medina-v-Planned-Parenthood-SCOTUS-Filed-02102025.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656709045821625

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AmericasFuture-Mahmoud-v-Taylor-Filed-Amicus-Brief-SCOTUS-16-October-2024.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656713231769793

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Trump-v-CASA-SCOTUS.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656715471495350

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Americas-Future-AF-2-FSC-v-Paxton-SCOTUS-amicus-brief-Filed.pdf

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656717396471812

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656719434899940

>>10335

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656721708228668

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656723763347694

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1938656726061842863

America's Future wins big cases.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1939729858747408678

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AF-Amicus-Brief-Crouch-v.-Anderson-SCOTUS-filed-brief-08282024.pdf

https://www.americasfuture.net/speaking-with-american-patriots-bill-olson/

> If courts are to make such decisions, the voice of Christian constitutional conservatives must be heard by judges through amicus briefs filed in those courts. Generally, amicus briefs can be more principled and bolder than the briefs filed by parties, and America Future’s amicus briefs even quote Scripture in briefs as appropriate.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1942695433349833158

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-SCOTUS-Trump-v-AFGE.pdf

>Just now, in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an injunction issued by yet another rogue district court judge, which allows the Trump Administration to move forward with its workforce reduction plan to cut government waste and restore accountability.

We do be firing the federal govt now.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1944885202259415397

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-DOE-SCOTUS.pdf

We can fire the Department of Education now.

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1946256294786310628

https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-brief-supporting-americas-sovereignty-and-the-rule-of-law/

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1955400508321181922

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/AF-Amicus-Brief-Brandt-v.-Griffin-11162023.pdf

>In an 8-2 decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc), families and children win! America’s Future is thrilled to have helped score this victory that upholds Arkansas’s SAFE Act, protecting children from “gender affirming” medical and surgical atrocities. The court also rejected the claim that the plaintiff parents had a right to transition their kids, concluding there was "no such right in this Nation's history and tradition."

https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1958669694959067628

https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1958568616472814044

https://x.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1761127120481198282

https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AmericasFuture-Amicus-Trump-NY-1.pdf

>Good news from the NY State Appellate Division for President Trump, who America’s Future supported with an amicus brief in New York v Trump, et al., to vacate the fine.