Press Release

Thomas More Law Center Selected to Represent Tennessee in Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

October 25, 2016 by TMLC

October 25, 2016

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has been selected by the Tennessee General Assembly to represent the General Assembly and the State of Tennessee in a constitutional challenge to the federal government’s refugee resettlement program as a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a public interest law firm, TMLC will represent Tennessee without charge.

The Tennessee General Assembly, by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, passed Senate Joint Resolution 467 (“SJR 467”) during the 2016 legislative session. The Resolution authorized legal action to stop the federal government’s violation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it impermissibly commandeers state funds to finance a federal program.

State Representative Terri Lynn Weaver, commented, “Of all the legislation that I have worked on, this by far is the most important. The only way we can get back to our Constitutional Beginnings and the intent birthed by our Founding Fathers is to go and take it back. We are looking forward to linking arms with the Thomas More Law Center for the long haul to regain sovereignty for our great state.”

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, added, “At issue is state sovereignty. Our rights and responsibilities under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution are at stake. We seek a declaration of these rights. Indifference to our constitutional rights is indifference to our duty. We are not indifferent.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It’s an honor to represent the state of Tennessee on this significant constitutional issue. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts observed, ‘The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.’ We intend to follow that advice on behalf of the state of Tennessee in our lawsuit.”

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007, after which the federal government designated a private, non-governmental organization, to administer the program.

Two members of the Senate and two members of the House of Representatives were appointed by their respective Speakers to implement SJR 467: State Senators Mark Norris and John Stevens on behalf of the Senate, and State Representatives William Lamberth and Terri Lynn Weaver on behalf of the House of Representatives. These four individuals will be responsible for consulting with the Thomas More Law Center attorneys on behalf of the General Assembly during the pendency of the lawsuit.

State Representative William Lamberth stated, “I look forward to working with the Thomas More Law Center as we pursue a Judicial remedy to this issue that will ensure the safety and security of all Tennesseans.”

TMLC intends to advance a legal claim of first impression to challenge federal refugee resettlement programs operating in states which have formally withdrawn from participation in the federal refugee resettlement program, but are nevertheless still forced by federal regulations to pay state taxpayer dollars to finance programs administered by private organizations.

Currently, state funds that could otherwise be used for state programs are in effect appropriated by the federal government to support refugee resettlement rather than to support Tennesseans. This arrangement displaces Tennessee’s constitutionally mandated funding prerogatives and appropriations process.

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.

Michigan’s Systematic Inquisition of Parents Over Religious Objection to Vaccines Leads to Federal Lawsuit by Thomas More Law Center

July 7, 2016 by TMLC

July 7, 2016

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed a federal lawsuit today against State and County officials and employees seeking to stop a State-sponsored religious inquisition of parents who have religious objections to State vaccination requirements.

TMLC brought the law suit on behalf of Tara Nikolao, a devout Catholic, registered nurse, and mother of four. Mrs. Nikolao objects to vaccines manufactured from aborted fetal cells and other vaccines on religious grounds. Her lawsuit claims that government employees violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, the religious protections in Michigan’s Constitution, and a Michigan statute when they subject parents to detailed interrogation about their religious beliefs.

[Read the Complaint here]

The Michigan legislature enacted a statute in 1978 to protect the right of parents to exempt their children from vaccinations because of religious beliefs. For nearly 40 years, this mandatory religious exemption remained unchanged. All that parents had to do was state in writing that they cannot comply with the vaccination requirements because of their religious beliefs. Mrs. Nikolao exercised her statutory right to a religious exemption approximately 10 times before a new rule was implemented in December 2014. This new administrative rule requires parents to drive to local health departments, submit to a religious inquisition, and explain their religious beliefs to local health department employees in order to receive a waiver.

In October 2015, in an effort to comply with the new rule, Mrs. Nikolao took time off work, packed her four children into the car, and drove approximately an hour to the Wayne County Health Department office in an attempt to obtain a religious exemption. Upon her arrival, two health department employees bullied and harassed Mrs. Nikolao because of her religious beliefs.

When Mrs. Nikolao explained that she had a religious objection to vaccines, the health department employees demanded that Mrs. Nikolao explain her actual reason for objecting. Despite Mrs. Nikolao’s repeated insistence in the face of berating questions from State employees that her personal religious beliefs did not allow her to vaccinate her children—a belief that the Michigan legislature enacted a statute to protect,—the health department employees would not accept her religious objection and insisted that no religions object to vaccines.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“MDHHS”) instructs local health department employees to implement this religious examination and inculcation by providing county employees with a document to “teach” parents their faith. The document entitled “Religion” is used as a tool by county health departments to coerce and trick parents with religious objections to vaccines into vaccinating their children.

[See the Document Here]

Kate Oliveri, TMLC attorney handling the case commented: “The new rule allows government employees to take on the role of priests and pastors, molding religious beliefs to further the State’s agenda. This is antithetical to the religious protections found in the Federal and Michigan constitutions and the religious protections enacted by the Michigan legislature.”

In Mrs. Nikolao’s case, health department employees used the MDHHS Religion document, which falsely attributes a quote to Pope Benedict XVI, in an attempt to coerce her into violating her beliefs by vaccinating her children. The documents claims that, according to Pope Benedict XVI, “parents who chose not to give vaccines derived from [aborted fetal] cells would be in ‘more proximate cooperation with evil’ than those who gave their children the vaccines in question because of the life-saving nature of vaccines.” Pope Benedict never made such a statement. Moral Reflections, the Vatican document produced on vaccines containing the cells of aborted children by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, also did not contain any condemnation of parents who refuse to vaccinate, especially not the MDHHS characterization of parents who do not vaccinate their children as “evil.”

[Read Moral Reflections Here]

###

Supreme Court Decision—Protecting Abortion Industry More Important than Woman’s Health, Safety

June 29, 2016 by TMLC

June 29, 2016

ANN ARBOR, MI – On Monday (6/27), in the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, struck down a Texas law that ensured abortion facilities are clean and safe. Justice Kennedy, a Republican appointee, sided with the four Democrat appointees on the Court. The Court’s decision was a debilitating blow to women’s health care and continued the Court’s history of pandering to pro-abortion groups that prey on women in crisis.

The ruling forces women seeking abortions to receive below-standard health care by allowing abortions facilities to circumvent the minimum standards of care required for other surgical facilities simply because their product is abortion.

Kate Oliveri, Trial Counsel at the Thomas More Law Center, involved in several pro-life cases, commented:

“In effect, the Court has given abortionists a constitutional right to increase their profit margin by providing second-class healthcare to women. We must rise to the challenge of protecting women from this profit seeking industry that preys upon women and makes a mockery of the women’s rights movement.”

In 2013, Texas passed new legislation “enacted to raise standards of care and ensure the health and safety of all abortion patients.” This legislation, House Bill 2 (“HB2”), included two provisions challenged up to the Supreme Court:

Physicians performing abortion procedures must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility (“admitting-privileges requirement”).
Abortion facilities must comply with the minimum standards of care for surgical facilities (“surgical-center requirement”).

A group of abortion providers challenged these provisions as too costly, arguing many abortion providers would close down. The Supreme Court bought their argument. It held that easy abortion access is more important than safe abortion procedures done by competent doctors with local hospital privileges.

Here are some of the standard Texas surgical-center requirements that the Court felt women receiving surgical abortions do not deserve:

an “adequate number” of registered nurses;
scrub facilities;
fire emergency precautions;
ceiling, wall, and floor finishes;
separate soiled utility and sterilization rooms;
regulated air pressure, filtration, and humidity control; and
plumbing requirements.

Quoting the recently departed Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas chastised the majority in his dissent for “bend[ing] the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even speak in opposition to abortion is at issue.” Justice Thomas noted, today’s decision “will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed:

“The Court marginalizes itself as it repeatedly fabricates new legal standards that are not found in the Constitution to reach the ideological results it wants. This is especially clear with the decisions surrounding the Court-created right to abortion.”

In the wake of this decision, abortion advocates are already plotting to minimize the quality of healthcare for women across the country by filing new lawsuits challenging health and safety provisions in numerous other States.

[Read the Court’s Decision Here]

Thomas More Law Center Wins Huge Victory for Free Speech and Unborn Babies Against Planned Parenthood

May 24, 2016 by TMLC

May 24, 2016

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a huge victory for free speech and unborn babies, United States District Judge Nancy Torresen, yesterday, issued a preliminary injunction barring the Maine Attorney General and City of Portland police officers from enforcing the Noise Provision of the Maine Civil Rights Act (“Act”). Under the Act, after being warned by a police officer, it is illegal to make noise that can be heard inside an abortion clinic with the intent to interfere with a medical procedure.

In a 35–page opinion and order, Judge Torresen, an Obama appointee, held that the Noise Provision of the Act is content-based because it restricts speech based on its purpose, and therefore, is facially unconstitutional. Read Judge Torresen’s entire opinion here.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a lawsuit in December 2015, on behalf of Pastor Andrew March after a Portland police officer officially warned Pastor March under the Act, and ordered him to quiet his pro-life speech on the public sidewalk outside the Portland Planned Parenthood facility or face prosecution. Despite this threat of prosecution, Pastor Andrew March courageously continued to plead for the lives of the unborn at the doors of the Planned Parenthood facility.

Kate Oliveri, the Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “This is a victory regardless of whether you acknowledge that unborn children possess lives worth defending. Free speech rights are central to maintaining a free society and the court took a huge step toward protecting those rights for all citizens of Maine.”

The Planned Parenthood facility, located on a loud and busy thoroughfare in downtown Portland, has been the focus of pro-life counselors and prayer groups for the last several years. However, in October 2015, the Maine Attorney General resurrected the 15-year-old Noise Provision of the Act to sue Pastor Brian Ingalls in a state court for his opposition to abortion on those sidewalks. This occurred only two weeks after the City of Portland admitted that their a previous attempt to drown out free speech on the public sidewalk—a 39 foot buffer zone—was unconstitutional. The state case against Brian Ingalls is still pending. After the State sued Pastor Ingalls, Pastor March stepped in and began his preaching to save the lives of unborn babies.

Because a judge must determine that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction has a likelihood of success on the merits, by granting TMLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Judge Torresen has indicated that Pastor March will ultimately prevail in his claim that the Act is an unconstitutional suppression of free speech when the case goes to summary judgment. In the mean time, the order assures that Pastor March and other individuals can continue to preach pro-life messages and pray without being silenced by the Noise Provision.

Judge Torresen focused on the “intent to interfere with a medical procedure” portion of the statute. This portion restricts speech based on the purpose for which the speech is made and differentiates speech based on the message expressed. In order for a content-based restriction on speech to be constitutional, it must be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Judge Torresen concluded that the State had other content-neutral means of keeping peace at abortion clinics.

Thomas More Law Center Asks Court to Rescind School Order Banning Marine Dad From School Property

February 22, 2016 by TMLC

February 22, 2016

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, took a significant step last Friday (February 22) toward remedying the ongoing constitutional violations relating to John Kevin Wood’s right to object to the promotion of Islam in his daughter’s school. The assignments at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland, are so extreme that they force his daughter to violate her Christian faith for a grade.

When Mr. Wood objected to these assignments, requesting that his daughter receive an alternative assignment, the principal banned him from school grounds by issuing a no-trespass order against him. TMLC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland, requesting District Court Judge George J. Hazel to enjoin the no-trespass order.

The crux of the motion for a preliminary injunction is that the school district deprived Mr. Wood of meaningful involvement in the direction of his daughter’s education as the no-trespass order prevented him from speaking at parent meetings and various other events, thereby violating his First Amendment rights. The school district further deprived Mr. Wood of his constitutional rights by giving a principal unfettered discretion to ban him—the father of a student—from school grounds without any hearing or opportunity to defend himself because he brought to light the school’s unconstitutional practices. As a result of the order, John Kevin Wood has not entered onto school property for over a year. However, Spring 2016 is his daughter’s last semester in school, and he wants to attend the school events celebrating her graduation.

Kate Oliveri, TMLC attorney handling the case, commented: “Mr. Wood spent eight years as a Marine fighting to protect the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees to all citizens. Now, the school district is forcing him to fight once again for those freedoms as a father.”

Read TMLC’s 31-page Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction here.

Mr. Wood’s battle with La Plata High School began on October 22, 2014, when he discovered that his daughter, then in the 11^th grade, had to learn:

“There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”
“Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”
“Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
“To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”

During Mr. Wood’s eight year service in the Marine Corps, he was deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. A few years after his Honorable Discharge, Mr. Wood responded as a firefighter to the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Mr. Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction created in the name of Allah and, therefore, objects to the school district forcing his daughter to profess her allegiance to Allah.

In a phone call on the morning of October 24, 2014, John Kevin Wood advised the vice principal that the Constitution forbids the school from instructing his daughter in Islam or forcing her to disparage and denigrate her Christian faith; he reiterated his previous day’s request that she be given an alternative assignment, which was again refused. He then threatened to contact the media and lawyers if the school insisted on violating the constitution. However, the school was adamant and, as a result, his daughter suffered failing grades for not completing the pro-Islam assignments. Later that day, John Kevin Wood was notified by a police officer of the no-trespass order. See the no-trespass order here.

On January 27, 2016, TMLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Wood and his wife against Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School over the school’s promotion of Islam and refusal to allow their daughter to receive an alternative assignment. This case is in its early stages.

No date has been set for oral arguments on the preliminary injunction motion.

Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit On Behalf of Marine Dad Banned from School Property After He Objected to Islamic Indoctrination of Daughter

January 28, 2016 by TMLC

January 28, 2016

**Updated 10/15/2019- Click here to read the update on this case**

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday afternoon, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of former Marine, John Kevin Wood, and his wife, Melissa, who refuse to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda in her high school World History class. The lawsuit was filed against the Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School located in La Plata, Maryland.

The Woods’ daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes. The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam. Moreover, the second part of the statement, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader. The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam.

Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its 11^th grade students, including the Woods’ daughter, that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The Charles County Public Schools also taught the following:

“Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
“To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

Read the two exhibits containing Student worksheets here.

The sugarcoated version of Islam taught at La Plata High School did not mention that the Koran explicitly instructs Muslims “to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” (Sura 9-5)

When John Kevin Wood discovered the Islamic propaganda and indoctrination of his daughter, he was rightfully outraged. He immediately contacted the school to voice his objections and to obtain an alternative assignment for his daughter.

The Woods, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and our Savior, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that following the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only path to eternal salvation. The Woods believe that it is a sin to profess commitment in word or writing to any god other than the Christian God. Thus, they object to their daughter being forced to deny the Christian God and to her high school promoting Islam over other religions.

The school ultimately refused to allow the Woods’ daughter to opt-out of the assignments, forcing her to either violate her faith by pledging to Allah or receive zeros for the assignments. Together, John Kevin Wood, Melissa Wood, and their daughter chose to remain faithful to God and refused to complete the assignments, even though failing grades would harm her future admission to college and her opportunities to obtain college scholarships.

Adding insult to injury, in an effort to silence all pro-Christian speech in her school, La Plata’s principal, without a hearing or any opportunity to refute the false allegations against him, issued a “No Trespass” notice against John Kevin Wood denying him any access to school grounds.

Wood served 8 years in the Marine Corps. He was deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and lost friends to Islamic extremists. A few years later, Wood responded as a firefighter to the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction created in the name of Allah and knows that Islam is not “a religion of peace.” The school prevented John Kevin Wood from defending his daughter’s Christian beliefs against Islamic indoctrination, even though as a Marine, he stood in harm’s way to defend our nation, and the Charles County Public Schools.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “Defendants forced Wood’s daughter to disparage her Christian faith by reciting the Shahada, and acknowledging Mohammed as her spiritual leader. Her World History class spent one day on Christianity and two weeks immersed in Islam. Such discriminatory treatment of Christianity is an unconstitutional promotion of one religion over another.”

Thompson added, “The course also taught false statements such as “Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians, and Islam as a “religion of peace. Parents must be ever vigilant to the Islamic indoctrination of their children under the guise of teaching history and multiculturalism. This is happening in public schools across the country. And they must take action to stop it.”

The Woods’ lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Defendants violated their constitutional and statutory rights, a temporary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from endorsing Islam or favoring Islam over Christianity and other religions, and from enforcing the no trespassing order issued against John Kevin Wood.

Read entire Federal Complaint here.