Thomas More Law Center

The Sword and Shield for People of Faith

TMLC

Wanted: Skilled Federal Litigator Seeking a Higher Purpose

by

October 9, 2019

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is a leading national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, dedicated to defending America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and national security. Please visit the Law Center’s website at www.thomasmore.org for more information on the Law Center’s mission and our cases.

Make a Difference! 

We are looking for a full-time appellate/litigation lawyer who has significant experience in the federal trial and/or appellate courts.  Applicants must be fully committed to the Law Center’s mission. Law Center lawyers fight for the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, the sanctity of human life, and a strong national defense in order to maintain a sovereign and free United States of America.

Position requirements:

  • Thorough knowledge of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  • At least three years of federal trial and/or appellate court experience
  • Fully committed to the TMLC’s mission
  • Excellent brief writing and oral argument skills
  • Must relocate to the Ann Arbor, Michigan, area
  • Willingness to travel to courts throughout the United States

Hiring preferences:

  • Three years’ experience in a U.S. Attorney’s Office
  • Military veteran
  • Knowledge of First Amendment law

How to apply:

Email letter of interest and resume to our Office Manager, Fran Morello at: fmorello@thomasmore.org.

Subject Line: Open Attorney Position

 

Renowned Appellate Lawyer To Argue Tennessee Refugee Resettlement Case For The Thomas More Law Center

by

March 13, 2019

   ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that nationally prominent appellate lawyer John Bursch will represent the state of Tennessee and its General Assembly on March 19 before a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

   The Thomas More Law Center was retained by the Tennessee General Assembly in March 2017 to file a first-of-its-kind Tenth Amendment lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The federal government has violated state sovereignty by forcing Tennessee to continue paying for the program after Tennessee opted out and exercised its right not to participate. TMLC is appealing after a federal district court judge dismissed the case. The Law Center is representing Tennessee without charge.

   Mr. Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, has an impressive client list ranging from Fortune 500 companies and foreign and domestic governments, to top public officials and industry associations in high-profile cases. His cases frequently involve pressing political and social issues, and five had at least $1 billion at stake.   

   He has argued 11 U.S. Supreme Court cases and obtained summary reversal on three more, compiling a Supreme Court merits record of 10-2-2.  He has also argued 30 cases in state supreme courts, and dozens more in federal and state appellate courts across the country. A recent study included John on its “veritable who’s who of Supreme Court litigators” list.

   Although Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the federal refugee resettlement program in 2007, the federal government continues to commandeer state tax dollars to fund the federal program.

   Tennessee has a history of supporting the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.  In 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, which passed in the Senate 31-0 and in the House by 85-2, demanded that the federal government halt its practice of imposing mandates on the states for purposes not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

   Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, commented: “John’s integrity, outstanding litigation skills, and impressive record on appeals prompted me to ask him to join our fight.  I can’t think of anyone more qualified to represent Tennessee and the constitutional principles involved in this case.”

Supreme Court Will Consider Whether A 40-Foot Cross Must Be Removed To Appease Atheists And Dishonor Fallen WWI Soldiers

by

  February 26, 2019 

   ANN ARBOR, MI – On Wednesday, February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision which ordered the removal or disfigurement of a 40-foot tall cross erected in 1925 to memorialize the World War I service and death of forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland.  

   The “Peace Cross of Bladensburg” located at the entrance to the town of Bladensburg, Maryland sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.” A bronze plaque lists the names of the forty-nine fallen sons of Bladensburg. Above the names is the inscription: “This Memorial Cross Dedicated To The Heroes of Prince George’s County Maryland Who Lost Their Lives In The Great War For The Liberty Of The World.”

   The Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while the cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

   The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, engaged in the heated culture war battle over the meaning of the Establishment Clause, by filing an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) to save the Cross. The stakes are high.   Crosses throughout the nation, including those in the Arlington National Cemetery, will be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court affirm the lower court decision.     

   This is the second amicus brief filed by TMLC. The first brief, filed in July 2018, asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against the cross. Once the Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling, this second brief, filed on December 19, 2018, asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

   The federal lawsuit challenging the “peace cross” was brought in 2014 by three atheists who occasionally drove past the cross and claimed they were offended. TMLC’s brief authored by Erin Kuenzig addresses their claim by arguing,

“Allowing a historic war memorial to be destroyed to quell some momentary discomfort plaintiffs feel when they drive past the Bladensburg monument would do real and lasting harm to this country; it would send a message of disrespect to our fallen soldiers and their families, and it would deprive future generations of a treasured piece of history.”

   TMLC’s brief also claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution. 

   Moreover, TMLC’s brief importantly points out,

“We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

   Clearly, use of the Latin Cross in 1925 reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening line begins “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on row.”

   In this case, the purpose of the cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

   Click here to read TMLC’s brief filed on December 19, 2018.

   Click here to read TMLC’s first brief.

 

Thank you for your Service — You’re Fired; Pink Slipping our Army Captains a Threat to National Security

by

July 15, 2014

While we watched the commander-in-chief drinking beer and playing pool last week, we learned that 1,100 Army captains — some in harm’s way on the front lines in Afghanistan—were receiving pink slips notifying them they were fired.   How demoralizing, heartless, and stupid. 

Thank you for your Service — You’re Fired; Pink Slipping our Army Captains a Threat to National Security

These captains now must lead and care for the Soldiers entrusted to them in combat, dodge the bullets and IEDs, and at the same time worry about finding a job when they get back home, that is, if they ever do.    As one Army wife posted on MilitaryFamily.org, “On some level I knew the draw downs were inevitable, but I guess I never expected to be simultaneously worried about a deployment to Afghanistan and a pink slip because my husband’s service is no longer needed.”

This is another stark example of domestic politics trumping our national security interest. 

The experience and knowledge about the enemy and counter insurgency these officers have gained is irreplaceable.    

The very Army leadership we are eliminating are the leaders we most desperately need to retain.   Why?  Because they represent three critical talent streams that will be essential in our next war (and there WILL be a next war, and it will likely be sooner than anyone wants):

  1. Courage – They are among the bravest volunteers.  Any captain or major currently with 6 to 10 years in service would have had to have raised his/her hand around 2004-2008, when the current war was at its worst.  Iraq was in sectarian flames, and a resurgent Taliban was attempting to retake Afghanistan.  This was followed by the surge to fix Iraq and Operation Medusa in Afghanistan to save Kandahar from the Taliban.  All of this and these young Soldiers still said, “I’ll go.  Send me.” 
  2. Experience – This war has been largely a platoon leader and company commander’s fight.  These Soldiers have been the point of the spear for years and are at the pinnacle of their professional relevance in our ongoing global war against Al-Qaeda.  We are now going to dump a major chunk of irreplaceable talent out on the streets.
  3. Talent – These are now some of our most agile and adaptive leaders.    These young leaders have mastered the art of coordinating nearly all elements of national power to achieve our nation’s global aims – not just military force, but diplomacy, economic resources, education, and information in an effort to defeat an intractable enemy and provide space for innocent civilians to carve out a new country.

Given the recent events of China threatening its Pacific neighbors, an emboldened and bellicose Russia threatening Ukraine and inserting itself in Latin America, Iran ever closer to nuclear weaponry and a Middle East now descending into a virtual free-fall of Islamist inspired chaos why would anyone inside the White House be stupid enough to press ahead with these drastic levels of military cuts?    It is tantamount to willful negligence on the part of our nation’s political leadership.

Our Army is currently at 510,000, well below the Clinton Era Army.  The current cuts are aimed at reducing it to 490,000.  And the most recent defense budget proposal from the Pentagon, now working its way through Congress, calls for an Army of 450,000 soldiers.

It seems our troop reduction policies are based on how we would like the world to be, not what it really is.  We have forgotten George Washington’s admonition, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving the peace.”

Moreover, we are reducing our military ranks without regard to our own dismal history in accurately predicting both the timing and nature of our next war.  In February 2011, then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, told an audience of West Point cadets:

 

Major force reduction is a bridge the U.S.  Army has crossed often, especially during the big post-war draw downs.    The post World War I and World War II era draw downs were very large, but these were entirely expected and economically necessary.      

Although the Pentagon is attempting to soften current separations, the fact remains: it is putting out young officers into a weak economy which still hasn’t recovered from the 2008-2009 recession.  These young officers and their families agreed to devote their lives to defending our country.  Now they are rightfully concerned about finding a job (the unemployment rate for recent veterans is incredibly high).  We thank them for their service.  But Washington will spit them out in another 10 months.

President John F.  Kennedy, on November 26, 1962, addressed the First Armored Division, at Fort Stewart, Georgia.   The Division had been deployed during the Cuban Missile crisis.   In his remarks he quoted from a poem found in a sentry box in Gibraltar:


How sad but true.

Watch video of Charles Krauthammer here.   

Former US Army Capt. Jon­athan Hendershott’s (West Point, 2007) original article.

Religious Freedom Wins in Supreme Court, But More Battles to Be Fought—An Analysis

by

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, holding that the Federal Government cannot force closely held for-profit corporations to choose between obeying their religious beliefs and paying huge fines for following their convictions. The Court emphasized that its decision was a relatively narrow one, thus opening the way for further battles relating to Obamacare and the HHS Mandate.

Religious Freedom Wins in Supreme Court, But More Battles to Be Fought—An Analysis

The Justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in the joined cases that the HHS Mandate instituted by then HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama Administration violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA is a federal law enacted over twenty years ago that prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on a person’s ability to practice his religion unless that burden advances an important government interest and does so in the least restrictive way possible.

The HHS Mandate promulgated under Obamacare requires employers to provide their female employees with health insurance that includes no-cost access to twenty different kinds of contraceptives. Many Christians consider the covered drugs and procedures tantamount to the taking of an innocent human life, and a grave sin. The Government in their briefing admitted that at least four of the covered drugs aborted life after the moment of conception. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, based on their religious beliefs, did not want to provide insurance coverage for those four kinds of twenty required types of birth control because the drugs, according to the Government’s own sources, cause abortions and it would make them complicit in the sin of abortion.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, welcomes the decision on behalf of the thirty for-profit plaintiffs represented by the Law Center which has also filed federal lawsuits challenging the HHS Mandate. Those lawsuits are at various stages in the legal process including one, Eden Foods, currently held in abeyance in the Supreme Court pending the ruling in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases. While handling its own cases, TMLC also filed a Friend of the Court brief in the Supreme Court supporting the Hobby Lobby case.

TMLC is also representing six non-profit corporations challenging the HHS Mandate in several different federal courts.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented, “Justice Ginsburg ignoring the actual clear limiting words of the majority opinion, wrote a dissent characterizing the decision as one of ‘startling breadth.’ She was joined in her dissent by the other Democrat appointees on the bench, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Her opinion has fueled the outraged voiced by groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton claiming the decision is a war on women. The decision will undoubtedly be used as a fundraising tool and to mobilize their base.”

TMLC Senior Trial Counsel, Erin Mersino, is the principal attorney handling the Law Center’s challenges to the HHS Mandate.

You can also read Erin’s USA Today commentary on the decision here.

Salient points in the majority opinion include:

• For-profit corporations are persons protected under RFRA.
• For-profit corporations are capable of exercising religion.
• The HHS mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.
• Even assuming the HHS mandate is in furtherance of a compelling governmental                interest, it is not the least restrictive means required by RFRA.

Click here to read the entire Supreme Court Opinion.

The Day After Hobby Lobby Decision, Supreme Court Rules For Another Corporation Challenging the HHS Mandate

by

The day after its ruling in Hobby Lobby, the US Supreme Court granted review of the Thomas More Law Center’s petition on behalf of Eden Foods and its president Michael Potter, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Hobby Lobby decision.   

Click Here for Supreme Court Order

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed Eden Food’s initial challenge to the HHS Mandate in March 2013. After being denied a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of the HHS Mandate by a federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, TMLC filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.  That petition had been held in abeyance pending the decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

The Day After Hobby Lobby Decision, Supreme Court Rules For Another Corporation Challenging the HHS Mandate  

Eden Foods, co-founded by Potter in the late 1960s, is the oldest natural food company in North America and the largest independent manufacturer of dry grocery organic foods.  In 2009, Eden Foods was selected as the best food company in the world by Better World Shopping Guide, which also acknowledged the company’s outstanding record in social and environmental responsibility. The company employs 150 employees.

For years, Michael Potter, a Roman Catholic, President and sole shareholder of Eden Foods Corporation, for religious reasons, had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients.  In accordance with his Catholic faith, Potter believes that any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or means”—including abortifacients and contraception—is wrong. 

The HHS Mandate forced Potter to make a choice between violating a foremost tenet of his faith or face fines up to $4.5 million per year. 

Potter brought the lawsuit because he cannot compartmentalize his faith and his business practices.  

Mr. Potter said in a statement, “We are grateful for the Hobby Lobby decision and look forward to further developments.”

TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Erin Mersino

Erin Mersino, TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel who is handling the Eden Foods case commented on yesterday’s Supreme Court order, “The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby preserves the religious freedom we are guaranteed under the Constitution.  The HHS mandate required business owners to directly violate their faith.  The Supreme Court relied upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was signed into law by President Clinton and passed in a bipartisan effort to protect our First Amendment rights, to strike down the mandate.  Under RFRA, the government has to establish a basis for substantially burdening one’s religious faith.  Here, the government failed to do so.” 

 

Mersino continued, “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and proposed parade of horribles has no basis in reality.  No flood gates have been opened.  The truth is that the Supreme Court struck down an unjust law.”