Press Release

Thomas More Law Center Files Brief in Supreme Court Declaring Neither Court Nor Government Can Determine What Is a Sin

January 12, 2016 by TMLC

January 12, 2016

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday, filed a friend of the court brief in the case of Zubik v. Burwell, in support of seven non-profit organizations including the Little Sisters of the Poor who claim they cannot comply with the Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate (“HHS Mandate”) because even the so called “accommodations” make them actively complicit in the sin of abortion. TMLC’s brief asserts that the Court is not the arbiter of sacred Scripture and, therefore, cannot determine whether or not an act constitutes a sin; it can only determine whether the government’s penalties for refusal to complete the sinful act are a substantial burden on religious liberty.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, portrays this case as a potential turning point in American legal history, stating, “The HHS Mandate is a monumental attack on religious liberty. If this appeal is lost, the government becomes the head of every religious denomination in the country by its assumed authority to determine what is in fact a sin.”

The HHS Mandate requires religious non-profit organizations to participate in a government scheme to provide free contraceptives, including abortion causing drugs and devices (abortifacients), to their employees or face monumental fines that would result in closing the doors of most non-profit organizations that object to the HHS Mandate.

However, the HHS Mandate allows non-profit organizations like the Little Sisters to receive a so-called accommodation from directly providing free contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. The accommodation requires the non-profit organizations to either (1) fill out a form as notice of their objection to contraceptives and abortifacients and provide that form to their insurers, which includes language instructing the insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans, or (2) write and send a detailed letter to HHS with all of the information necessary to notify the non-profits’ insurers of their newfound obligation to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans.

These notification requirements trigger the non-profits’ insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans. This notification requirement makes the non profits complicit in the provision of a service that they find sinful, thereby causing them to sin themselves.

TMLC’s brief argues, supported by a long line of Supreme Court precedent, that neither the government nor the Supreme Court can determine whether an act does or does not violate a person’s religious beliefs. Rather, the Supreme Court must accept the non-profits’ assertions that the notification requirement is indeed against their religion. To accept otherwise is to supplant the Church and the Bible with the government, allowing the Supreme Court and the government to interpret tenants of faith. This slippery slope would subject all religious exercise to the whim of the government’s approval.

Excerpts from TMLC’s Amicus brief:

“This Court has already determined that the fines for noncompliance with the HHS Mandate impose a substantial burden on employers. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2776 (2014). The ultimate question, therefore, is whether compliance is actually against the Petitioners’ religion. This is something that is for Petitioners to determine, not the Court.”

“The Court is not the arbiter of sacred scripture and cannot determine whether the notification form and letter are attenuated enough from the provision of contraceptives that they do not substantially burden Petitioners’ religion. Delving into this inquiry requires the Court to interpret Petitioners’ religious beliefs on the morality of the different levels of complicity with sin. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indian Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981). Therefore, the Court can only determine whether Petitioners are being compelled to do something that violates their faith—here, filling out the notification form or writing a notification letter to HHS, both of which trigger the dissemination of contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees in connection with their employee health plans.”

“While women have a right to obtain contraceptives, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-486 (1965), this does not mean they have a right to free contraceptives and abortifacients. Moreover, this right certainly does not mean that a person has the right to obtain contraceptives and abortifacients—either directly or indirectly—from their employer at the expense of pillaging the employer’s religious liberty.”

Click here to read TMLC’s entire 19-page brief

TMLC, representing thirty-six plaintiffs including six religious non-profit organizations, has filed twelve lawsuits challenging the illegal aims of the HHS Mandate.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Planned Parenthood and the Maine Attorney General Combine to Silence Pro-Life Speech; Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit

December 22, 2015 by TMLC

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, today, filed a federal lawsuit against the Maine Attorney General, the City of Portland, Maine and several Portland police officers to stop enforcement of a portion of the Maine Civil Rights Act (“Act”). Under the Act, it is illegal to make any noise that can be heard inside an abortion clinic after being warned by a police officer. A Portland police officer officially warned Pastor Andrew March that employees could hear his anti-abortion message inside their facility and in so doing paved the way for a State lawsuit against him under the Act.

As a result, TMLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pastor Andrew March to stop enforcement of the Act as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. Pastor March is the father of three children and the founding preacher of a church in Maine. He feels called by God to oppose the culture of death and to work to end the murder of his fellow citizens behind the walls of Planned Parenthood. When the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against his friend and fellow preacher Brian Ingalls under the Act, he took up his mantel and began to preach outside the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Andrew March not only wants to save lives, but also wants to give women a last chance to avoid the enduring physical and psychological harms caused by abortion.

The Portland Planned Parenthood is located on a busy public thoroughfare, which, in addition to usual street sounds such as sirens, honking, and other traffic noises, hosts city parades and protests by hundreds of yelling and chanting people. Yet, among this cacophony of sounds, Planned Parenthood claims the lone, unamplified voice of Andrew March interferes with its abortion services.

Planned Parenthood, assisted by the Maine Attorney General and the City of Portland, is using Maine’s Civil Rights Act to silence all Pro-Life speech in front of its facility by claiming to hear it within the building. TMLC’s lawsuit contends that the Act is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and is being used to target and silence the Pro-Life viewpoint. In fact, amid the far louder traffic and city-approved parades, police officers enforcing the statute admit that it is the Pro-Life content of Andrew March’s speech that allegedly interferes with abortion counseling and procedures within the building. See Video. See additional Video.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the lawsuit: “Our lawsuit is based on the bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that government, in this case the State of Maine and the City of Portland, cannot ban Pro-Life speech just because they disagree with its content or find it offensive.”

Click here to read the full complaint

TMLC recently defeated a previous attempt by the same Planned Parenthood facility to silence Pro-Life speech. On Oct. 8, the U.S. District Court in Maine entered a consent judgment in which the City of Portland agreed that their 39-foot “buffer zone” silencing Pro-Life speech within the vicinity of Planned Parenthood was unconstitutional. In light of the City’s defeat, Planned Parenthood and the City of Portland seem to be going through a list of Maine’s laws to intimidate and silence Pro-Life speech. After charging Brian Ingalls and warning Andrew March under the Act, police officers are now threatening Andrew March with criminal charges for disorderly conduct—all this despite the fact that both preach peacefully and respectfully from the Bible.

###

Thomas More Law Center Asks Court to Dismiss “Too Loud” Lawsuit Against Portland Anti-Planned Parenthood Preacher

November 23, 2015 by TMLC

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, last Friday, filed a motion to dismiss the Maine Attorney General’s lawsuit against Brian Ingalls. Ingalls is the 26-year old Christian who is being sued by Maine’s top attorney for allegedly praying and preaching the Bible too loudly outside of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Maine Attorney Stephen Whiting is assisting in the lawsuit as local co-counsel.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills is a zealous supporter of Planned Parenthood. Mills, along with her brother and sister, were honored by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England at their 50^th Anniversary Gala for their continued dedication to the abortion business.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The politically motivated and ridiculous lawsuit filed by Attorney General Mills is a clear violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution. She should know better.”

Backing-up Thompson’s claim is an amazing video recorded conversation with police in front of Planned Parenthood. In the video, a different prolife preacher asks a responding officer what is and what is not too loud and how a violation is determined. The officer responds that there are no criteria. When asked if Planned Parenthood could just lie when claiming a preacher is too loud and can be heard inside of the building, the officer acknowledges, that they could. Click here to view the video.

The complaint filed by Attorney General Janet Mills alleges that by continuing to preach after police notified him that Planned Parenthood officials had complained he was too loud, Ingalls violated the Maine Civil Rights Act. TMLC is requesting that the Court dismiss the Attorney General’s frivolous lawsuit without requiring the young father to expend any further time or resources to defend the suit. The Maine Attorney General’s lawsuit against Brian Ingalls is an attempt to warp the Maine Civil Rights Act into a state-sponsored weapon to silence pro-life speech that hurts Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.

Less than a month before the lawsuit against Ingalls was filed, the City of Portland’s buffer zone, enacted to protect the same Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, was declared unconstitutional in a judgment obtained by the Thomas More Law Center. Mill’s current Civil Rights lawsuit can only be construed as an irresponsible attempt to circumvent that judgment and impose a de facto 50 foot buffer zone. A violation of the Maine Civil Rights Act carries a $5,000.00 fine. Curiously, Mill’s complaint requests that Ingalls not be allowed within 50 feet of any Planned Parenthood in Maine, not just the one in Portland where he preaches his pro-life message.

TMLC trial counsel Erin Kuenzig commented, “The Maine Attorney General’s lawsuit against Brian Ingalls is a blatant attempt to silence lawful, peaceful, pro-life speech simply because that speech promotes life instead of abortion, and thereby threatens Planned Parenthood’s business. The First Amendment does not permit the state to silence speech merely because government officials disagree with the message being conveyed, but that is exactly what has happened here.”

Victory for Common Core Opponents in Missouri Appellate Court

November 19, 2015 by TMLC

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a big victory for opponents of Common Core, the Missouri court of appeals dismissed the State’s appeal, leaving in place a lower court decision that blocked Missouri’s membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”). The ruling, issued on November 17^th, dismissed as moot an appeal by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, and thereby upheld the lower court’s decision that Missouri’s participation in SBAC was a violation of the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution and numerous federal and state statutes.

The Compact Clause challenge to SBAC was first conceived and implemented by Missouri attorney, D. John Sauer, of the James Otis Law Group, based in St. Louis, who brought the action on behalf of state taxpayers. The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed a friend of the court brief supporting the lower court decision in that case.

Since then, the Thomas More Law Center and the James Otis Law Group have joined forces to bring similar challenges to the constitutionality of the Common Core testing consortia in several other states, including North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia. Erin Mersino, TMLC senior trial counsel, has worked alongside Sauer in developing the three additional lawsuits.

Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, commenting on the collaboration between the two firms. “John Sauer is an extraordinary attorney. We are privileged to work alongside John. In this truly cooperative effort, several other attorneys have donated their time as local co-counsel: Arnold Fleck, of Bismarck, ND, Jeffrey Kimble and Ryan Kennedy of Robinson & McElwee, PLLC, in Charleston, WV, and Robert J. Rohl of Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, PC, in Rapid City, SD.”

John Sauer obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney. He eventually entered into private practice and recently founded the James Otis Law Group. Prior to his law degree, Sauer attended Duke University before attending Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He subsequently received his Masters from the University of Notre Dame.

Thompson, commenting on the appeals court ruling, said “The effect of the court of appeals ruling is to leave in place the first and only state court ruling that tears down the Common Core edifice constructed by the federal government.”

Shortly after the lower court decision holding SBAC unconstitutional, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 2, later signed by Governor Nixon, which expressly prohibits the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) from using funds to pay SBAC license fees or membership dues. An opinion from DESE General Counsel stated that the language contained in H.B. 2 specifically prohibited the state from participating as a member or as a licensee of SBAC and recommended that Missouri’s membership in SBAC be terminated immediately.

As a part of its continuing efforts to help parents combat Common Core, the Thomas More Law Center developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide.

Thomas More Law Center Steps Up Attack on Common Core with New Lawsuit in South Dakota

November 16, 2015 by TMLC

ANN ARBOR, MI – Continuing its legal battle to stop the federal government from usurping control over the nation’s elementary and secondary public schools, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI filed a third lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s implementation of Common Core and its participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”).

This latest challenge to the Common Core Curriculum and SBAC was filed last week against South Dakota Governor, Dennis Daugaard, and other state officials on behalf of two South Dakota taxpayers, Shelli Grinager and Amber Mauricio. Shelli Grinager is the mother of three school aged children and Amber Mauricio is the mother of five.

These Plaintiffs seek to stop South Dakota from paying yearly SBAC membership fees totaling over $600,000 by state taxpayers on the grounds that SBAC is an unconstitutional compact. Its creation was never approved by Congress, as required by the Compact Clause, which states that “[n]o state shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another state.” The lawsuit claims other violations of federal and South Dakota laws dealing with public education.

Shelli Grinager, a West River plaintiff, and Amber Mauricio, an East River plaintiff, have both seen their school aged children break down in tears due to the amount of pressure that teachers and schools were subjecting them to in the name of passing the SBAC tests.

Grinager, a former school board member, PTA president and advocate for students and families, has fought against Common Core since the beginning, speaking out against the roll out of the high pressure SBAC tests. Last year, Grinager was forced to start homeschooling her children, after two of her children were denied more challenging math because they had to stick to the rigid Common Core curriculum. She said, “The public school environment has become more about testing our children than teaching them.”

Amber Mauricio’s fight against Common Core began when she attempted to “opt out” her children from the SBAC testing. The school ignored her opt out request and tested her children anyway. Mauricio was alarmed by the nature of some Common Core aligned questions asked of her children which sought to examine how they would behave in certain situations and what their home life is like.

As in the two earlier lawsuits, which challenged the constitutionality of SBAC and Common Core in North Dakota and West Virginia, the Thomas More Law Center partnered with D. John Sauer of the James Otis Law Group based in St. Louis, MO. South Dakota attorney Robert J. Rohl of Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, PC located in Rapid City, SD is assisting as local co-counsel.

The lawsuit was filed in the Hughes County Circuit Court.

Click here to read the South Dakota Complaint

The North Dakota and West Virginia lawsuits follow the success of an earlier lawsuit filed by Mr. Sauer that stopped Missouri’s implementation of Common Core. That case is currently on appeal. The Thomas More Law Center filed a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the Missouri district court decision.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on behalf of the Law Center, “Employing an insidious bureaucratic system, the Federal Government directs what and how American students learn, and effectively eliminates the fundamental rights of parents to control the education of their children.”

In school districts across the country, administrators subject children, who obey their parents’ wishes and decline to participate in Common Core standardized testing, to unbelievable punishments. Students have been suspended, refused entrance into their classrooms, refused bathroom privileges, stripped of their academic and extracurricular honors and awards, removed from athletic participation, and punished with “sit-and-stare” policies. “Sit-and-stare” is a practice that forces students to sit at their assigned desk with no materials, books, or paper in silence for multiple hours during testing.

Forty-three states initially joined either SBAC or the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (“PARCC”), a cornerstone for Common Core implementation under direction of the federal government. However, due to growing opposition from parents and teachers, several states have since canceled their membership and endured punishments for doing so.

As a part of its efforts to help parents combat Common Core, the Thomas More Law Center developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide.

Thomas More Law Center Represents Planned Parenthood Foe Sued by Maine Attorney General for Preaching Too Loudly

November 11, 2015 by TMLC

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, is defending 26-year old pro-life advocate, Brian Ingalls, against an unprecedented charge by the Maine Attorney General alleging that he was illegally loud in front of the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Portland, Maine.

The Maine Attorney General filed the civil rights complaint against Ingalls, threatening the hard-working father with fines of up to $5,000, and seeking to ban him from coming within 50 feet of any Planned Parenthood facility.

According to the Attorney General’s complaint, by publically speaking out against abortion and preaching about Jesus, Brian Ingalls “disrupted the safe and effective delivery of health services.” For reasons that can only be described as politically motivated, the Attorney General has transformed an unverified noise complaint by Planned Parenthood into a civil rights complaint against a young Christian pro-life advocate.

The Thomas More Law Center is no stranger to the City of Portland’s efforts to silence pro-life speech and protect Planned Parenthood’s business in the city. Portland previously banned pro-life advocates from the public sidewalk in front of the same Planned Parenthood abortion clinic by enacting a 39-foot buffer zone around all of the entrances, exits, and driveways of the business.

The Thomas More Law Center successfully challenged the constitutionality of Portland’s 39-foot buffer zone ordinance in federal court and obtained a judgment declaring that the buffer zone violated the First Amendment. Now, the Attorney General has launched a new attack against pro-life speech just days after the judgment was entered. This is the first time that the Maine Civil Rights Act has been used against pro-life advocates in an attempt to stifle their message and create a de facto 50-foot buffer zone.

Erin Kuenzig, TMLC’s trial counsel who successfully represented pro-life sidewalk counselors in the buffer zone case, commented on the Attorney General’s new lawsuit. “The Attorney General’s baseless pro-abortion tactic seeks to silence pro-life speech. Such biased action by a state’s chief law enforcement officer is not only unconstitutional, but it also corrupts the entire justice system.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel and a former prosecuting attorney, added: “The Attorney General’s actions in this case are a blatant abuse of her powers to aid the pro-abortion political establishment dominating the City of Portland.”

The Attorney General’s complaint relies solely on Planned Parenthood’s complaint to the Portland Police Department alleging that Ingalls could be heard inside of the building. His continued preaching has now been deemed a civil rights violation by the Maine attorney general.