We participate in cases throughout the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This page contains our most recent amicus work and the cases we are fighting on behalf of our clients.
Click on a case name to read its description and our brief.
To read our earlier amicus work:
The Foundation educates and advises citizens on the most important Constitutional questions facing our nation.
In 2022, we prepared and circulated several position papers: 1) the first detailed the fitness of Biden’s new Supreme Court Justice Ketanje Brown Jackson; 2) when the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to sue the Jefferson County Public School System over its policies allowing prayer at football games, we sent a letter to the school boards explaining that the policies are constitutional under the First Amendment; 3) we also sent a letter to a South Dakota elementary school which had excluded a child’s poster focused on God from the school’s “inclusion campaign.”
Act 2022-442, passed in Alabama, requires all local school boards and independent school systems in Alabama to employ a Director of Mental Health Services and even goes so far as to dictate their qualifications. The Foundation, at the request of one of many concerned citizens, sent a letter opposing this law and recommending legal and legislative action against it to the State Board of Education, Alabama Legislators, and the staff and board of the Alabama Association of School Boards.
We continue to counsel Christians across the country as they face mandatory vaccinations in violation of their religious and medical rights. For example, this quarter, we have provided legal assistance in obtaining a vaccination exemption to a mother, a member of the National Guard, and a man referred to us by his doctor. We continue to provide extensive counseling to Marine Lt. Col. Schneider and his JAG attorney regarding the discharge proceedings resulting from his religious objection to the COVID vaccine.
Amicus Briefs
Filed July 10, 2025
In Cambridge Christian v. Florida High School Athletic Association, we defended the right of students and faculty to begin a football game with voluntary public prayer. The state prohibited the prayer solely because it was broadcast through a government-controlled microphone, wrongly invoking the judge-made “government speech” doctrine to suppress religious expression. We argued that the Founders would not have recognized such a doctrine, and that the First Amendment was written to restrain government, not shield it from scrutiny. Public prayer has deep roots in American civic life, and the Constitution protects—not prohibits—such expressions of faith.
Filed July 3, 2025
In Heaps v. Delaware Valley Regional High School, we defended the constitutional right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing without state interference. The school’s policy allowed staff to secretly facilitate gender transitions for students—without parental notice or consent. We argued that this policy violates deeply rooted parental rights recognized in Supreme Court precedent and common law tradition, and promotes a harmful ideological belief in place of scientific fact. Children cannot consent to such life-altering decisions, and the state cannot usurp parental authority in loco parentis to do so. We urged the court to reverse and uphold the family’s primacy over state ideology.
Filed June 6, 2025
In Wuoti v. Winters, we defended the right of religious foster parents to provide loving homes without being coerced into affirming gender ideologies that violate their faith. The state of Vermont is now denying licenses to families who won’t use preferred pronouns or support social transitioning—even if these families have otherwise demonstrated exemplary care. We argued that such requirements amount to compelled speech and religious discrimination, and that they dangerously reduce the number of safe, nurturing homes available to vulnerable children.
Filed June 11, 2025
In Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles, we stood beside a mother whose daughter was socially transitioned at school—without her knowledge or consent. The school district adopted a policy of “secret gender transitioning,” keeping parents in the dark and actively working against the family’s moral and religious values. We exposed this policy as a shocking breach of constitutional parental rights and religious liberty and a disturbing step toward a future where the state, not the family, determines a child’s identity.
Filed June 12, 2025
In Chiles v. Salazar, we supported a Christian counselor in Colorado who is prohibited by law from offering talk therapy that aligns with the client’s biological sex and personal convictions. The state has declared that even compassionate conversations aimed at helping children accept their God-given bodies are “dangerous” and must be banned. We argued forcefully that such laws are not only scientifically unfounded—they are unconstitutional violations of free speech, religious liberty, and parental rights.
Filed May 5, 2025
The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Wolford v. Lopez, supports the petitioners who challenge Hawaii’s sweeping restrictions on the public carry of firearms. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Foundation argues that these restrictions violate the plain text of the Second Amendment, disregard the historical understanding of the right to bear arms, and conflict with recent Supreme Court precendent, including District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Furthermore, the Foundation contents that the right to sell defense- particulary the duty of parents to protect their children- is inextricably linked to the right of life, and that Hawaii’s policy unjustly deprives citizens of both. The Foundation urges the Court to grant review and reaffirm the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.
Filed April 17, 2025
The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Oliver v. City of Brandon, supports the petitioner who challenges restrictions on free speech and religious exercise outside a public amphitheater. This case is before the U.S Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Foundation argues that so-called “free speech zones” unlawfully suppress constitutionally protected expression and that Gabriel Oliver’s right to preach the Gospel was unjustly curtailed. Furthermore, the Foundation contends that the lower courts misapplied Heck v. Humphrey to bar Oliver’s claim for prospective relief, deepening an existing circuit split. The Foundation urges the Court to restore Oliver’s rights and reaffirm the availability of federal remedies for ongoing constitutional violations.
Filed March 12, 2025
The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond, supports the petitioners who seek equal treatment for religious charter schools under Oklahoma law. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Foundation argues that tax-funded education inherently constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion- whether that be secularism or a religious worldview- since education transmits ideological values. Nevertheless, the Foundation maintains that if such funding exists, it must not discriminate against religious schools like St. Isidore, which deserve the same opportunities afforded to “nonsectarian” Institutions.
Filed March 10, 2025
The Foundation for Moral Law, as amicus curiae in Mahmoud v. Taylor, supports the petitioners who are parents objecting to school policies that did not allow them to opt-out their children from LGBT education materials in the Montgomery County School System. This case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Foundation argues that all taxpayer-funded education is an unconstitutional establishment of religion because it necessarily promotes a belief system, in this case, secular gender ideology.
