IN THE ARENA:
POLITICIANS WILL ALWAYS SAY THAT THEY ARE “WORKING HARD” FOR YOU. THAT’S WHAT THEY SAY, BUT THIS IS IT LOOKS LIKE:
“It is hardly equitable for the courts to recognize the prudential standing of abortion providers on behalf of actual or potential patients in the effort to terminate a pregnancy without also providing, or requiring a higher standard, for the intervention of pro-life organizations on behalf of actual or potential patients like Intervenors since their actual or potential patients are also making the life-altering or life-affirming decision not to terminate a pregnancy and should be able to exercise that freedom away from the undue influence of abortion advocates like Plaintiffs who are commonly permitted third-party standing.”
• Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene, Little Rock Family Planning, et al. v. Larry Jegley, et al., Case No. 4:21-CV-453-KGB (2021).
“Fortuitously for their communities, Intervenors provide counseling services advocating all alternatives to abortions, and on the long-term physical, emotional and psychological effects of abortion particularly in the black community in Arkansas not only for the protection of all life, but in effect, in the “interest of preventing abortion from becoming the tool of modern-day eugenics,” as warned by Justice Thomas in his Box concurrence.”
• Brief in Support of Intervenors’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Intervene, Little Rock Family Planning, et al. v. Larry Jegley, et al., Case No. 4:21-CV-453-KGB (2021).
PRO-INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND SMALL GOVERNMENT
“The result is the usurpation of the legislative police power by a sole, unelected member of the executive branch, unconstitutional encroachment upon the institutional rights of the General Assembly and an infringement upon the fundamental liberties and economic interests of each citizen of the State of Arkansas who is unaffected by COVID-19.”
• Appellant’s Brief, Dan Sullivan et al., v. Jose Romero, et al., Case No. CV-20-721 (2020).
PRO-FIRST AMENDMENT AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
“Passage of time, therefore, neither adds nor detracts from the Little Rock Ten Commandments monument with an inherent and undeniable historical meaning, though it may be a determinative factor in the evaluation of other monuments of religious import in a public setting.”
• Response to Orsi Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order to Show Cause, Donna Cave, et al. v. John Thurston, Case No. 4:18-cv-00342-KGB (2020).
PRO-PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS
“The government’s failure is also a violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights, and, considering the totality of the circumstances, certainly contributes to the outrageousness arising from its failure to prevent, and resulting from, the bad faith destruction of evidence.”
• Appellant’s Brief, United States v. Woods, et al., Case No. 18-3085 (8th Cir. 2019)
“Intervenor is understandably frustrated that the exercise of democracy in Pope County stands as a roadblock to a conclusion that must have seemed preordained. It is egregious for them to suggest, however, that Plaintiffs’ efforts in this action represent anything other than an attempt to recognize and enforce the will of Pope County voters expressed in the 2018 general elections when they overwhelmingly voted against passage of Amendment 100 and in favor of Pope County Ordinance 2018-O-42.”
• Brief in Response to Motion to Dismiss, Citizens For A Better Pope County v. Ben Cross, et al., Case No. 58CV-19-439 (2019)
PRO-RIGHTS OF PARENTS TO THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN
“The Bentonville School board, therefore, had no authority to issue a face coverings rule for children that infringes upon the individual liberties guaranteed to citizens of the State of Arkansas and in particular to Petitioners, in the care, custody and management of their children recognized under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 2, Section 29 of the Arkansas Constitution.”
• Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Sitton, et al. v. Bentonville School District, Case No. 04CV-21-1967 (2021).