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. 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 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.

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. 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 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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.

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. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. 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.

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. This case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 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.

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). 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.

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. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Fourth Circuit. 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.

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. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. 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.

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.

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.

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 a 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.

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.

Coach Kennedy regularly knelt on the 50-yard line and prayed after football games—until school officials ordered him not to do so and fired him for obeying God rather than men (Acts 5:29). In the Supreme Court, the Foundation noted the longstanding principle that “…neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Agreeing that this was unconstitutional discrimination against Coach Kennedy’s religious speech, the Supreme Court issued a momentous decision that will afford much more freedom for prayer in the public arena.

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.

The Foundation argued to the United States Supreme Court that Congress has the authority under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to ban partial birth abortions in the states because the babies on whom this procedure is performed are almost outside the mother’s womb and completely alive in every meaningful sense. The Foundation also points out that a right to abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and thus, the Supreme Court’s whole line of abortion decisions are illegitimate.

The Foundation argued to the Alabama Supreme Court that “machine bingo” gambling approved in Etowah County, Alabama, violates the local constitutional amendment permitting traditional “bingo,” defined in a contemporaneous enabling statute as a game played on “card or paper.” “Machine bingo” is therefore unlawful under Alabama’s constitutional prohibition on lotteries and “schemes” in the nature of a lottery, and therefore, the circuit court’s ruling allowing permits for such machines should be reversed.

The Foundation argued to the Alabama Supreme Court that new video sweepstakes machines installed at the Birmingham Race Course violate Alabama’s prohibition on lotteries and “schemes” in the nature of a lottery, and therefore, the circuit court’s ruling permitting the machines to remain operational should be reversed. The Supreme Court declared the machines to be unconstitutional and quoted from the Foundation’s brief in the course of setting out its reasons for so ruling.

The Foundation argued to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a former student at Eastern Michigan University who was dismissed from a graduate counseling program because she refused to affirm the homosexual lifestyle. The Foundation explained that the University’s action violated Ward’s right to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and liberty of conscience under the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

The Foundation for Moral Law argued to the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama courts should not be forced to recognize a California court order stating that an Alabama mother, now married to a man, must allow her former lesbian lover in California visitation rights with the mother’s biological child. The State of Alabama is not required by the ‘full faith and credit clause’ of the U.S. Constitution to recognize something which is directly contrary to its law and public policy and to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Foundation for Moral Law argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that it was unconstitutional for the State of California to ban counselors from sharing their opinion with a minor client that homosexuality is not normal. The Foundation argued: “under the guise of affirming the homosexual lifestyle, SB 1172 actually established by law the religious and moral belief that homosexuality and homosexual acts are morally acceptable when in fact a large portion of the population and of the counseling community believe on religious, moral, and scientific grounds that homosexuality and homosexual acts are wrong.”

The Foundation argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and firearms in the home is an egregious violation of the plain words of the Second Amendment, which protects the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Founders understood that they had gained their independence, and that we would remain free, thanks to a citizenry that was well-armed to defend itself against enemies foreign and domestic.

The Foundation asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn lower federal courts that struck down Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, as unconstitutional. The Foundation’s brief argued four main points: (1) the text of the Constitution should be the standard for determining whether Proposition 8 is constitutional, not judicially-fabricated “tests”; (2) marriage is an institution for human government, not merely an individual right; (3) just because California courts recognized same-sex “marriage” in California, which lasted for a mere 140 days, does not make it a time-honored, God-given right; and (4) contrary to the lower courts’ opinion, a “rational basis” for traditional marriage exists.

The Foundation argued to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals that the traditional definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) was constitutional. The Foundation explained that the definition of marriage was given by God when He created man and woman, a definition that has been sustained throughout the common law and American law, and that by passing DOMA Congress was supporting marriage and responsible procreation and defending traditional notions of morality. The Foundation urged the appeals court to interpret the Constitution as the Framers intended instead of rewriting the Constitution to fit a radical, liberal agenda.

The Foundation argued that the Defense of Marriage Act is allowed under a plain reading of the Constitution. The Foundation told the Court they should follow the Constitution, plain and simple. “The Second Circuit says the nonexistent equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, even though the Supreme Court has never said the actual Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the states recognize same-sex marriages. How can it be, that the non-existent equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment is stronger than the actual Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth? This anomaly demonstrates the danger and folly of allowing the federal judiciary to depart from the plain language of the Constitution and the intent of its Framers, and to wander aimlessly in the trackless fields of their own imaginations.” The Foundation’s argument consisted of the following arguments: “(1) the Constitutionaly of the Defense of Marriage Act should be determined by the text of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land; (2) the Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the Equal Proection component of the Fifth Amendment because the Fifth Amendment Contains no such component; (3) the Defense of Marriage Act is rationally supported by many legitimate reason and important considerations, including the “law of natire and of nature’s God” and those interests advanced by Congress when it passed the statute.”

The Foundation argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the language of the First Amendment does not require the removal of the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and therefore, the federal district court’s excising of those words because they acknowledge God should be reversed.

The Foundation filed this brief in the Massachusetts Appeals Court appealing a disorderly conduct conviction leveled against evangelist Michael Marcavage of Repent America for peacefully preaching the gospel with a megaphone in Salem, Mass. on Halloween night 2007. Although the Foundation obtained a dismissal of a noise ordinance violation charge, the trial court found Marcavage guilty of disorderly conduct based primarily on the potential reaction the Halloween revelers might have to his preaching.

The Foundation argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that courts should apply the text of the Establishment Clause, as it would have been understood by the people that ratified it, to determine the constitutionality of the School Board’s prayer policy, rather than rely on case tests like the Lemon test and others. In this case, the Indian River School Board prayer policy is not a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and should be upheld.

The Foundation argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the National Day of Prayer law, 36 U.S.C. § 119, is not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Such days of national prayer are not an establishment of religion, as those words were understood by the framers; such prayers have been officially declared since the time of our first congresses and presidents; and they represent an American philosophy of government that depends on the blessings of Almighty God.

The Foundation argued to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the language of the First Amendment, as understood by the Founders, does not prohibit the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County, North Carolina from opening their meetings with prayers, including those offered in the name of Jesus. Moreover, it is not within the jurisdiction or expertise of judges to determine the content of one’s prayers and whether they are too “sectarian.” Finally, allowing public prayer reflects the beliefs of the majority of Americans who believe in God and the power of prayer to affect our society and government.

The Foundation argued to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Cobb County, Georgia, commissions from opening their sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus, nor does it outlaw the process the commissions use to choose clergy members who would give such prayers. The Foundation urges the Court to approve the prayers and the process based on the actual meaning of the Establishment Clause rather than according to incomplete and unhelpful judicial tests.

The Foundation successfully defended the Pavkovic family when the three of them were arrested for praying aloud in the name of Jesus from the U.S. Senate Visitors’ Gallery as a Hindu man opened the Senate in prayer. The Foundation was able to secure a dismissal of the charges against the Pavkovics for their bold stand for the God in Whom America and her forefathers trust.

Similar brief filed with all the members of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) after the court vacated a 3-judge panel’s decision (holding that 4 specific prayers violated the Constitution) and agreed to rehear the case.

The Foundation argued to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the language of the First Amendment does not prohibit the Indiana House of Representatives from opening its daily sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus, and therefore, a federal district court’s ruling stopping the 188-year practice should be reversed.

The Foundation argued to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that the language of the First Amendment does not prohibit the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana from opening its meeting with prayer, and therefore, a federal district court’s ruling stopping the practice should be reversed.

The Foundation argued to the specially-appointed Supreme Court of Alabama that the Court of the Judiciary incorrectly removed him from his judicial office because he disobeyed an unlawful federal court order. The Alabama Supreme Court refused to address the issue of whether the order to remove the monument was unlawful and affirmed the Court of Judiciary’s punishment of removal from office for Chief Justice Moore.

The Foundation argued in a petition to the United States Supreme Court that it should hear former Chief Justice Moore’s case concerning his removal from his judicial office because an unconstitutional religious test had been placed upon him and his position as Chief Justice had been taken without due process of law. The Supreme Court denied former Chief Justice Moore’s petition, ending his avenues of appeal concerning the loss of his position.