Advocacy

William Trevor Case v. Montana — LONANG Amicus Brief, U.S. Supreme Court (Re: arguing against warrantless police entry into homes based on property rights and constitutional protections.) 08/04/2025 – Morgan-Thompson. The case involves the warrantless entry of police into William Case’s home, leading to his shooting, raising questions about the legality of such actions. The argument asserts that the home is a sacred space protected by divine and constitutional rights, and warrantless entry violates these principles. The text discusses the foundational nature of property rights as unalienable and derived from divine authority, not civil government. The Fourth Amendment is analyzed as a protector of property rights, emphasizing the need for warrants to prevent unreasonable searches. The First, Second, Third, and Fifth Amendments collectively reinforce the protection of property rights, especially within the home.
*PDF file*
Kaley Chiles v. Patty Salazar (Colorado Dept. of Regulatory Agencies) — LONANG Amicus Brief, U.S. Supreme Court (Re: civil governments are bound by the law of nature, which protect intellectual freedom and limits government jurisdiction over speech and expression.) 06/12/2025 – Morgan-Thompson. The brief argues that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates Constitutional freedoms. Colorado’s statute prohibits licensed counselors from discussing conversion therapy with minors while permitting gender transition counseling. This ban intrudes upon freedom of mind and conscience, which are beyond government jurisdiction according to natural law. The state lacks authority to approve or condemn the expression of ideas. The brief contends that the human mind was created free by God and is beyond civil jurisdiction. Colorado has established itself as a ‘Ministry of Truth’ by banning one viewpoint while promoting another. The ban violates both natural law and constitutional protections. The brief argues that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy counseling wrongfully assumes dominion over licensees’ thoughts and ideas, violating the law of nature, the Colorado Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. It urges the Court to recognize that governmental mandates to ‘speak not’ have no place in a constitutional republic.
*PDF file*
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas Taylor, et al. — LONANG Amicus Brief, U.S. Supreme Court (Re: parental rights to opt children out of school curriculum that conflicts with religious beliefs.) 03/05/2025 – Morgan-Thompson. The brief argues that parents possess natural, unalienable rights to direct their children’s education. Maryland’s compulsory attendance law, when used to force children to attend classes teaching material contrary to parents’ religious beliefs, violates these rights and the First Amendment. Montgomery County Board of Education mandates curriculum celebrating gender transitions and same-sex relationships. Petitioner parents sought opt-out accommodations based on religious objections but were denied. Parents who withhold children face criminal penalties including up to 30 days imprisonment and $500 fines.The brief asks the Court to declare Maryland’s compulsory attendance law unconstitutional as applied when it forces children to attend classes teaching curriculum contrary to parents’ religious or other beliefs, rather than continuing an ad hoc balancing approach to these disputes.
*PDF file*
Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board Of Education — LONANG Amicus Brief, Sixth Circuit (Re: opposing school district’s mandatory “preferred pronouns” speech policy) 12/18/2024 – Morgan. Parents are challenging an Ohio school district’s policies prohibiting use of non-preferred pronouns on First Amendment grounds. The district court and appeals court panel denied a preliminary injunction, applying the Tinker v. Des Moines test for restricting student speech. The full Sixth Circuit appeals court is now reviewing the case en banc. The brief argues that the appeals court incorrectly applied Tinker, giving too much weight to speculative psychological harm and improperly compelling speech. It contends that Supreme Court precedents like West Virginia v. Barnette, Abington v. Schempp, and 303 Creative v. Elenis should control instead, as they prohibit compelled speech and require government neutrality on religion. The brief criticizes the majority’s leap from potential psychological harm to substantial disruption under Tinker. The brief argues the school policies compel all students to use preferred pronouns against their beliefs, violating free speech rights. It contends the policies censor dissenting views on gender and biology. The brief claims the option to use names instead of pronouns does not resolve the compelled speech problem. The brief urges the full appeals court to reverse the denial of the preliminary injunction and direct that the school district’s policies be enjoined, based on clear Supreme Court precedents protecting free speech and prohibiting compelled speech in schools.
*PDF file*
Kansas v. U.S. Dept. of Education – Joint Amicus Brief, Tenth Circuit (Re: opposing a DOE Final Rule which declared that “sex discrimination ‘includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity.’”) 10/16/2024 – Olson, et al. The brief supports challenges a new DOE rule that expands the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The brief argues that the DOE rule goes beyond implementing Title IX and undermines it. The brief argues the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision, which interpreted sex discrimination in employment law to include LGBTQ discrimination, does not apply to Title IX. It claims Title IX’s text and history show it was meant to address discrimination against biological females specifically. The brief contends the rule is part of a progressive agenda to impose transgender ideology by denying biological sex as an immutable reality. It argues this undermines truth and reality in service of expanding government power. The brief asserts that the rule exceeds DOE’s authority, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and infringes on First Amendment rights. It urges the court to reject the rule as unlawful and unconstitutional.
*PDF file*
U.S. v. Skrmetti, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee – LONANG Amicus Brief, U.S. SCt. (Re: supporting a state law that bans cross-sex hormone treatments, puberty-blocker drug regimens, and surgical removal or modification of breasts or genitals) 10/15/2024 – Morgan-Olson, et al. The brief supports a Tennessee law banning certain transgender medical procedures for minors. It argues the law should be upheld as constitutional, critiquing the lower court’s use of heightened. The brief argues the Equal Protection Clause was not intended to protect transgender status. It calls for abandoning tiered scrutiny in favor of a text-based interpretation focused on original meaning. The brief contends Tennessee’s law is rational and narrowly tailored to protect children. The brief criticizes the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of care as biased and politically motivated rather than scientific. It cites evidence that WPATH tailored its recommendations to support litigation and Biden administration priorities, removing age minimums for procedures under pressure. The brief highlights the multi-billion-dollar market for transgender medical procedures and hormones. It argues pharmaceutical companies and hospitals have a financial incentive to promote these treatments, creating conflicts of interest in the research and recommendations. The brief frames Tennessee’s law as a legitimate exercise of state power to protect vulnerable children from experimental, irreversible procedures.
*PDF file*
Louisiana v. U.S. Dept. of Education – Joint Amicus Brief, Fifth Circuit (Re: (Re: opposing a DOE Final Rule which declared that “sex discrimination ‘includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity.’”) 09/26/2024 – Morgan-Olson, et al. Plaintiffs challenged a Department of Education (DOE) rule that would expand Title IX protections to cover gender identity. The rule would require schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and participate in sports aligned with their gender identity. Several states and school boards sued to block the rule, arguing it goes beyond the scope of Title IX. The brief argues the DOE rule undermines rather than implements Title IX: 1) it destroys privacy for women and girls by allowing biological males in female facilities, 2) Undermines women’s sports by permitting transgender males to compete against biological females, and 3) Violates free speech by compelling use of preferred pronouns. It contends the rule contradicts the original intent of Title IX to protect biological females from discrimination. The brief also argues the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision on LGBT workplace discrimination does not apply to Title IX, as Title IX explicitly allows for some sex-segregated programs and facilities. The brief notes the rule is part of a broader progressive agenda to impose transgender ideology and create “new human realities” by forcing people to act as if biological sex is changeable. It argues accepting such rules will lead to further erosion of biological realities and traditional values.
*PDF file*
Doe v. Ladapo – Amicus Brief (Re: supporting Florida law banning “gender affirming care” for minors, and some restrictions for adults) 09/04/24 – Morgan-Olson, et al. This is an amicus brief filed in support of Florida’s law banning puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors with gender dysphoria. The brief argues that the district court erred in striking down the law as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The brief criticizes the district court for equating transgender status to race and for finding that the Florida legislature acted out of animus in passing the law. It argues there is no evidence to support these conclusions and that the court improperly applied heightened scrutiny. The brief contends that if the ban on puberty blockers and hormones for minors is struck down, it will lead to challenges against bans on gender transition surgeries for minors as well. It argues the court’s reasoning could be used to invalidate other restrictions on transgender medical interventions for youth. The brief concludes by urging the appeals court to reverse the district court’s decision and uphold Florida’s law as constitutional, arguing it is a legitimate effort to protect children from potentially harmful and irreversible medical interventions.
*PDF file*
Tennessee v. Cardona – Amicus Brief (Re: Opposing the attempt by the Dept. of Education to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity) 09/03/24 – Morgan-Olson, et al. This is an amicus brief filed by the LONANG Institute and conservative organizations in support of states challenging a Department of Education rule that expands the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include gender identity. The rule would require schools to allow transgender students to use facilities and participate on sports teams matching their gender identity. The brief argues the rule undermines Title IX’s purpose of protecting women and girls. It claims the rule violates privacy by allowing biological males in female restrooms/locker rooms, destroys fairness in women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes to compete, and infringes on free speech by compelling use of preferred pronouns. The brief contends the rule goes beyond the DOE’s authority to implement Title IX. The brief characterizes gender identity as a “progressive” ideology at odds with biological reality. It argues accepting transgender identities undermines objective truth and opens the door to further erosion of societal norms. The brief urges the court to affirm the district court’s decision blocking implementation of the rule, arguing it exceeds the DOE’s authority and contradicts the text and purpose of Title IX. [The Rule was subsequently withdrawn by the DOE in December of 2024].
*PDF file*
Grants Pass v. Johnson – LONANG Amicus Brief 03/04/24 – Morgan-Thompson. This case deals with a 9th circuit holding that the “involuntary homeless” have a right to camp for free on public property, that taxpayers must foot the bill by providing shelters, and that a city prohibiting free camping violates a homeless person’s 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Apart from being absurd and without textual support, we argue that the laws of nature and of nature’s God declare human beings are given the ability to self-govern, that those who fail to do so (the homeless) are still responsible for their conduct and choice of where to sleep, etc, (rather than being victims), that homelessness is not like a disease over which one has no control, and that to compel others to financially subsidize through public funds, their inability to pay for lodging, is the equivalent of compelling by force one to love their neighbor, a duty only owed to God.
*PDF file*
Fischer v. United States – LONANG Amicus Brief 02/02/24 – Morgan-Thompson. This case addresses the government’s minimalist approach to the term “corruptly” in a federal statute that it is using to prosecute January 6 participants that entered the capital. We argue that when Moses charged the people of Israel with acting “corruptly” regarding their rejection of God’s government over them in favor of a golden calf, that Moses used the term to mean that the very process of government was corrupted, not merely interfered with. We state that, therefore, absent a demonstration that the counting of the electoral vote in Congress itself became corrupted, that merely interfering with the vote counting fails to meet the law of nature concept of corruptly and the prosecutions fail.
*PDF file*
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: Whether to overrule the Chevron deference doctrine) 07/18/23 – Morgan-Thompson. The case concerns the National Marine Fisheries Service’s attempt to require fishing vessels to carry and pay for monitors, despite lacking explicit statutory authority. The lower court applied Chevron deference to uphold this action. The amicus argues that statutory silence creates no ambiguity and means no authority has been granted. They contend that courts should apply strict Article III judicial review to agency actions, striking down those that exceed constitutional authority, make impermissible policy determinations, or violate principles of government by consent and enumerated powers. It contends that agencies have only delegated power, are not superior to Congress, and cannot derive authority from claims of expertise or congressional silence. The amicus proposes alternatives to Chevron deference, including applying the rule of lenity to all agency actions and adopting Justice Gorsuch’s three-prong test from Gundy v. United States. The amicus urges the Court to take aggressive steps to limit the growth of federal agencies by providing district courts with meaningful tools for judicial review. They argue that overruling Chevron is not enough and that a clear test is needed to revive the principles of government by consent and limited, enumerated powers.
*PDF file*
Wade v. U. Michigan – Gun Owners of America Amicus Brief (Re: The right to bear arms on college campus) 03/09/23 – Morgan-Olson, et al. The brief contends that the University of Michigan, as a political subdivision of the state, cannot declare its entire campus a “sensitive place” exempt from Second Amendment protections. It argues there is no historical precedent for broad firearms bans on college campuses dating back to the founding era. The brief claims the university’s historical relationship with students was based on in loco parentis (acting in place of parents), not imposing criminal penalties. The brief contends that Heller and McDonald’s references to “sensitive places” like schools create only a rebuttable presumption, not a categorical exemption from Second Amendment protections. The brief argues the university’s campus-wide ban is far too broad, likening it to banning firearms across an entire city. It notes the university’s large size, population, and diverse facilities that go well beyond just classroom buildings. The brief points out that the Michigan Constitution provides even stronger protections for gun rights than the federal Constitution, with no “sensitive places” exception. The brief examines historical sources on the early days of the University of Michigan, finding no evidence of firearms restrictions. It argues the university’s traditional role was to act on parents’ behalf regarding student conduct, not to impose its own criminal prohibitions.
*PDF file*
Tennessee v. Dept. of Education, et al. – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: The statutory meaning of ‘sex’) 01/31/23 – Morgan-Thompson. This is an amicus brief in support of affirming a district court’s injunction against Department of Education and EEOC guidance documents that expanded the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision regarding Title VII to Title IX and other areas of Title VII. The brief argues that Bostock itself was wrongly decided and should not be considered binding precedent. The brief contends that the Bostock decision improperly created new legislative rules under the guise of statutory interpretation, violating separation of powers. It argues that Justice Gorsuch’s “ordinary public meaning” test used in Bostock has no legal pedigree, lacks factual basis, and should not be considered precedential. The brief urges the court to instead rely on the original meaning and intent of Title VII and Title IX. The brief argues the court should rely on the original meaning of “sex” in Title VII and Title IX as referring only to biological male/female distinctions, not concepts of sexual orientation or gender identity. It contends this meaning aligns with the “law of nature” referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
*PDF file*
Feds for Medical Freedom, et al. v. Joe Biden, et al. – Amicus Brief (Re: The CMS federal ‘vaccination’ mandate) 09/02/22 – Wm. J. Olson, et al. This is an amicus brief filed in support of plaintiffs challenging President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees. The brief argues that the mandate is unconstitutional and violates employees’ rights. The brief contends that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) does not bar the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. It argues that the CSRA was meant to cover individual employee disputes, not a broad constitutional challenge to a mandate affecting all federal workers. The brief claims the plaintiffs would not have adequate remedy through the CSRA process. The brief argues that the mandate violates the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine” by forcing employees to give up constitutional rights in order to keep their jobs. It contends this infringes on religious freedom and due process rights. Moreover, the mandate violates natural law and inalienable rights given by God, not government. It argues that individuals have a natural right to make their own medical decisions that cannot be overridden by government mandates.
*PDF file*
Missouri, et al. v. Joe Biden – Amicus Brief in support of Petition for Certiorari (Re: The CMS federal ‘vaccination’ mandate) 06/21/22 – Wm. J. Olson, et al. This is an amicus brief filed in support of petitioners challenging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The brief was filed by several conservative organizations and individuals including the LONANG Institute arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional. The brief makes several key arguments: 1) The mandate exceeds Congress’s spending and commerce powers; 2) It unconstitutionally commandeers state officials; 3) It violates the “law of nature” and individual liberty; 4) It violates the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation. Specifically, the brief contends the mandate violates the “law of nature” and unalienable individual rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence. It argues individuals have a natural right to make their own medical decisions without government coercion. It asks the Court to find the CMS mandate unconstitutional based on enumerated powers, federalism, natural rights, and medical ethics principles.
*PDF file*
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, et al. – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: ‘Recant & Confess’ Free Speech) 06/01/22 – Morgan-Thompson. This brief argues that Colorado’s public accommodation law violates the law of nature and First Amendment by compelling speech and infringing on freedom of conscience. The brief contends that Colorado’s law infringes on freedom of mind and conscience by compelling speech and forcing business owners to express views they disagree with. It argues the law functions as a “Ministry of Truth” that crushes dissenting viewpoints, similar to historical laws against blasphemy and heresy. The brief claims the law establishes a form of involuntary servitude by forcing people to provide personal services against their will. Drawing on Thomas Jefferson’s writings, the brief argues that freedom of conscience is a fundamental natural right that precedes civil government. It contends that the government lacks jurisdiction over the internal realm of thoughts and beliefs. The brief argues Colorado’s law violates this principle by attempting to control how business owners think about same-sex marriage. The brief draws parallels between Colorado’s law and historical attempts to suppress dissent, like the Edict of Worms against Martin Luther. It argues the law reflects an antiquated understanding of freedom more like the Holy Roman Empire than American principles of liberty. The brief concludes by observing that governmental mandates to “recant and confess” have no place in a constitutional republic.
*PDF file*
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: Racial Criteria in College Admissions) 05/06/22 – Morgan-Thompson. An amicus brief in support of the petitioner in two cases concerning race-based college admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The brief argues that such policies violate the principle of equality established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The brief contends that the “show no partiality” principle, grounded in the Law of Nature and affirmed by the Declaration of Independence, dictates the exclusive legal meaning of equality for the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination in education. This principle mandates color-blindness in college admission programs. The brief argues that the Supreme Court’s racial equality jurisprudence in college admissions, as expressed in cases like Regents v. Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Fisher v. University of Texas, represents an unconstitutional departure from the “show no partiality” principle. It contends that these decisions have wrongly allowed race-conscious admissions policies under the guise of promoting diversity. The brief urges the Court to affirm the Law of Nature’s concept of equality, mandating that no partiality be shown regarding a student’s race, skin color, or ethnicity in college admissions and programs. It argues that factors related to race should be removed entirely from educational admission applications. The document strongly criticizes the use of “diversity” as a justification for race-conscious admissions policies. It argues that such policies are simply modern versions of the “separate but equal” doctrine rejected in Brown v. Board of Education, and that they perpetuate racial discrimination under the guise of promoting diversity.
*PDF file*
Mississippi v. Jackson Women’s Health – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: Abortion & Right to Life) 07/27/21 – Morgan-Thompson. This is an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The brief argues that pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional and that the Court should abandon its substantive due process jurisprudence. The brief argues that the Declaration of Independence affirms states have police power to prohibit abortion and the Declaration grounded all civil power in the “laws of nature and nature’s God.” The brief strongly criticizes the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence as lacking textual support in the Constitution. It argues the 14th Amendment requires only procedural due process, not substantive due process. The brief contends the Court has no power under Article III to discover or constitutionalize unenumerated rights like abortion. Courts can only interpret and apply existing law, not make new law or constitutional rights.
*PDF file*
Letter to Michigan Legislature re: Mask Mandate 05/12/21 – K.L. Morgan. The letter is addressed to Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Speaker of the House Jason Wentworth from attorney Kerry Lee Morgan, dated May 12, 2021. It criticizes the state’s COVID-19 response and calls for defunding certain agencies. The author condemns the governor’s mandates on face masks and encouragement of vaccination, describing them as unscientific and infringing on personal freedoms. The letter likens these measures to religious rituals and criticizes the governor’s public briefings as self-congratulatory. The letter accuses the governor of unleashing bureaucrats to investigate “masklessness” and other perceived violations of COVID-19 rules. It criticizes the legislators for funding agencies like MIOSHA and MDHHS, which enforce these regulations. The author highlights MIOSHA’s emergency rules from April 13, 2021, and MDHHS’s gathering and face mask order from May 6, 2021, as examples of government overreach. The letter argues that these rules infringe on constitutional rights and personal autonomy. The letter invokes religious imagery, contrasting Jesus’s teachings on gatherings with the governor’s restrictions. It accuses the governor and MDHHS director of inserting themselves into every human relationship in Michigan. The author calls for rejecting the idea that vaccinations are the path back to normalcy and instead advocates for respecting individual medical choices. The letter cites the Michigan Constitution’s preamble, emphasizing the legislature’s duty to secure the “blessings of freedom” for the people.
*PDF file*
Wade v. Univ. of Michigan – GOA (Gun Owners of America) Amicus Brief 01/27/21 – Morgan, et al. This document is a motion and brief filed by Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation as amici curiae in a case involving a challenge to the University of Michigan’s firearms policy. The case was before the Michigan Supreme Court, which asked whether the lower court’s two-part analysis is consistent with key Second Amendment precedents. The amici argue that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable, God-given right that pre-exists government and cannot be infringed. They contend the Declaration of Independence, and the “equal footing” doctrine require Michigan to respect this right. The brief argues for applying Heller’s “simple test” focused on whether a law bans weapons commonly used for lawful purposes, rather than the two-part test used by lower courts. The brief criticizes the Court of Appeals for relying on an 1828 dictionary definition of “school” to categorize universities as sensitive places where firearms can be prohibited. It argues the court wrongly treated Heller’s “presumptively lawful” language as an irrebuttable presumption rather than a starting point for analysis. The amici contend the court failed to conduct the proper historical analysis or allow the plaintiff to rebut the presumption. It argues the university’s blanket prohibition on firearms possession by law-abiding citizens cannot withstand scrutiny under the proper constitutional analysis and should be struck down.
*PDF file*
Taylor v. Barnes – LONANG Amicus Brief (Re: Integrated Bar Ass’n) 11/30/20 – Morgan-Thompson. This is an amicus brief filed in a case challenging the mandatory membership requirement of the State Bar of Michigan. The brief is filed by the LONANG Institute in support of the plaintiffs challenging the mandatory bar membership. The brief makes several key arguments against mandatory bar membership: 1) Forced associations violate the natural right of freedom of association. 2) There is no compelling state interest that justifies forcing lawyers to join the bar association. 3) All activities of the State Bar are ideological and violate members’ free speech rights. 4) Mandatory membership allows the bar to trade on the reputation of unwilling members. The brief argues that freedom of association is a natural, unalienable right that cannot be infringed upon by the government without due process. It cites historical sources like John Locke and the Declaration of Independence to support this view. The brief contends that lawyers have committed no wrong that would justify forfeiting this right. The brief argues that the state has no compelling interest in forcing lawyers to join the bar association. It notes that the Michigan Supreme Court already regulates the legal profession directly, and that other licensed professions are not required to join mandatory associations. The brief contends the bar association’s advisory role does not justify forced membership. The brief urges the court to find mandatory bar membership unconstitutional based on natural rights principles, the lack of a compelling state interest, and violations of free speech and associational rights. It calls for allowing voluntary bar associations instead.
*PDF file*
Midwest Institute of Health v. Whitmer – Mich. Sup. Ct. opinion 10/02/20 (Midwest Inst. v. Whitmer). This is a Michigan Supreme Court opinion addressing certified questions from a federal court regarding the Governor’s authority to issue executive orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case involves a challenge by healthcare providers to restrictions on non-essential medical procedures. The court considers the validity of the Governor’s actions under two laws – the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act (EPGA) and the Emergency Management Act (EMA). The court unanimously rules that the Governor lacked authority to declare a state of emergency or disaster under the EMA after April 30, 2020. The EMA requires legislative approval to extend emergency declarations beyond 28 days, which was not obtained. In a split decision, the majority rules that the EPGA is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The majority finds that the EPGA gives the Governor overly broad authority with insufficient standards to guide the use of that power. The dissenting justices argue that the EPGA’s standards are sufficient under existing nondelegation doctrine precedents.
*PDF file*
Midwest Institute of Health v. Whitmer – LONANG Supplemental Brief 09/15/20 – Morgan-Thompson. This is a supplemental amicus brief in a case regarding the Michigan governor’s emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The brief responds to two questions posed by the Michigan Supreme Court about the interpretation of the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act (EPGA). The brief argues that the EPGA does not apply to public health emergencies or epidemics like COVID-19. It contends the act is limited to natural disasters and violent conflicts like riots, not health crises. The brief states that if the legislature intended the EPGA to cover public health emergencies, it would have explicitly said so. The brief argues that the term “public safety” in the EPGA has no specialized legal meaning and does not encompass public health events like epidemics. It states the phrase should be given its ordinary meaning. The brief urges the court not to apply the doctrine of “constitutional avoidance” to sidestep ruling on whether the EPGA violates separation of powers. It argues the court has a duty to directly address the constitutionality of the law. The brief contends that the EPGA unconstitutionally delegates legislative police powers to the governor, violating separation of powers under the Michigan constitution. It argues the legislature cannot grant such broad authority to the executive branch.
*PDF file*
Midwest Institute of Health v. Governor Whitmer – LONANG Amicus Brief 08/04/20 – Morgan-Thompson. This is an amicus brief regarding the Michigan Governor’s COVID-19 executive orders. It argues that the Governor’s orders exceed her authority under state emergency powers laws and violate the state constitution’s separation of powers. The brief argues that the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act and 1976 Emergency Management Act do not authorize the Governor to regulate private property or activities statewide. It contends these laws only allow regulation of public spaces and resources in specific emergency areas, not blanket statewide orders affecting private businesses and residences. The brief asserts the Governor’s orders are legislative in nature, not executive, because they create new rules where none existed before, apply generally to all residents, introduce new legal terms, and have the “prolixity of a legal code.” It argues this violates separation of powers by usurping the legislature’s role. The brief draws parallels between the current situation and the Japanese internment orders during World War II, which were also justified as emergency measures but later seen as unconstitutional overreach. It warns against allowing executive power to expand unchecked during crises. The brief argues the Governor’s orders violate multiple constitutional provisions, including separation of powers, non-delegation of legislative authority, and protections for individual rights and property. It contends the courts must step in to check this overreach of executive power. It asks the court to stand with the people against executive overreach.
*PDF file*
Mich House & Senate v. Governor Whitmer – LONANG Amicus Brief 06/19/20 – Morgan-Thompson. An amicus brief opposing actions taken by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Institute argues that the Governor’s executive orders violate the separation of powers, infringe on constitutional rights, and resemble historical laws that restricted the freedoms of slaves. The brief draws parallels between Whitmer’s orders and colonial-era laws in Virginia that restricted the movement and gatherings of slaves. It cites specific examples from 1705 and 1723 laws that prohibited slaves from leaving plantations or assembling in groups without permission, similar to Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders and restrictions on gatherings. The Institute argues that Whitmer’s orders constitute an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the executive branch. It contends that the orders create broadly applicable rules that should only be enacted by the legislature, not through executive action. The brief also claims the orders violate due process and infringe on rights protected by the Michigan Constitution. The brief argues that the orders degrade self-government, violate separation of powers, and improperly restrict the liberty of Michigan residents who have committed no wrongdoing. The Institute asks the court to reject the notion that a governor can prohibit all conduct except what is explicitly permitted during an emergency.
*PDF file*
COVID-19 Response to the State: Lockdown the Governor, Not the People 04/03/20 – K.L. Morgan. This letter is addressed to Michigan legislative leaders regarding Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-33 related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The author, Kerry Lee Morgan, argues that the Governor’s order, which requests a 70-day extension of the State of Emergency, oversteps her constitutional authority. He contends that the order infringes on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution, including freedom of assembly, religion, speech, and the right to bear arms. The author emphasizes that neither the Governor nor the Legislature has the power to suspend or curtail rights outlined in Article 1 of the Michigan Constitution. He questions the legal basis for the Governor’s actions and criticizes legislative leaders for their apparent willingness to cooperate with the executive branch on this matter. The letter suggests that the Governor should rely on voluntary compliance from Michigan residents rather than coercive measures. Morgan argues that people are capable of understanding the risks and taking appropriate precautions without the threat of criminal penalties. The author concludes by invoking historical figures like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, emphasizing the importance of preserving constitutional liberties even in times of crisis. He calls on the legislature to “lockdown the Governor, not the People” and to demonstrate faith in Michigan residents’ ability to govern themselves during the government created pandemic.
*PDF file*
Obergefell v. Hodges – Amicus Brief (Re: Same-sex ‘Marriage’) 04/03/15 – Wm. J. Olson, et al. This is an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in support of respondents (states) in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark same-sex marriage case. The brief argues against a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and warns of dire consequences if such a right is recognized. The brief contends there is no constitutional basis for same-sex marriage. It argues the 14th Amendment was not intended to address marriage, and that fabricating such a right ignores the original meaning and understanding of the Constitution. The brief criticizes attempts to find an “evolutionary right” not grounded in the text. The brief warns recognizing same-sex marriage would have severe negative consequences. The brief grounds opposition to same-sex marriage in religious beliefs and traditional morality. Same sex marriage contradicts God’s created order and Biblical teaching. The brief contends legalizing same-sex marriage represents a rejection of Judeo-Christian values in favor of paganism. The brief urges the Court to reject any constitutional right to same-sex marriage, arguing such a ruling would be an illegitimate exercise of judicial power contrary to the Constitution and God’s law.
*PDF file*
Letter Opposing A Compulsory State Bar 07/29/14 – K.L. Morgan. This is a letter to the Office of Administrative Counsel regarding comments on the Report of the Task Force on the Role of the State Bar of Michigan. It was submitted on July 29, 2014, in response to a Supreme Court order seeking input on whether state bar duties could be accomplished with less intrusion on attorneys’ First Amendment rights. Morgan argues that compelling attorneys to join and fund a state bar organization violates their right to free association. He contends that the unalienable right to freely associate predates and underlies the First Amendment, and that the current arrangement infringes on this right through coercion. Morgan asserts that attorneys should have the freedom to choose which organizations to join and support financially, if any, based on their own beliefs and preferences. The letter criticizes the use of mandatory dues to support bar activities, even if an attorney agrees with those activities. Morgan argues this deprives attorneys of the liberty to freely give contributions to organizations of their choice. He contends that compulsory funding serves to preserve the bar’s monopoly rather than protect the public, and that a diversity of voluntary bar organizations would better advance justice. The document suggests that the bar should continue to exist only if it can generate sufficient voluntary support. The letter advocates for allowing a diversity of voluntary bar organizations as a better way to advance justice and protect the public than a single mandatory association.
*PDF file*
DeBoer v. Snyder – Amicus Brief (Re: definition of ‘Marriage’) 05/14/14 – Morgan, Titus, Olson, et al. Various Amici filed a brief in support of appellants seeking reversal of a district court decision that struck down Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The brief argues that the district judge erroneously relied on shifting social science rather than constitutional principles in his ruling. The Court’s ruling was based primarily on testimony from psychologists and sociologists rather than a constitutional analysis. The Court selectively accepted testimony from plaintiffs’ experts while dismissing testimony from defendants’ experts. The brief contends that the 14th Amendment was not intended to mandate recognition of same-sex marriage. It argues that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to address racial discrimination, not to redefine marriage. The brief also asserts that same-sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples due to biological differences related to procreation. It defends laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman as based on longstanding moral and religious principles. It rejects the district court’s view that such laws are irrational or unconstitutional merely because they have a moral basis. The brief argues that the people of Michigan have the sovereign right to define marriage in their state constitution.
*PDF file*