Amicus Briefs

EPPC scholars regularly file amicus briefs in key cases to promote a true and full account of human nature and human flourishing in American constitutional law. Compiled below are some of our amicus briefs in cases addressing the right to life, marriage, gender ideology, religious freedom, free speech, and the rule of law. 

EPPC brief efforts are led by EPPC scholars and attorneys Edward Whelan, Rachel N. Morrison, Eric Kniffin, Mary Hasson, Carter Snead, and Erica Bachiochi. Scholars coordinate with EPPC’s existing programs on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture, HHS Accountability Project, Person and Identity Project, Bioethics and American Democracy, and Life and Family Initiative. 

Abortion

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration

This case involved a challenge by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine against the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill. At four different stages of the litigation, Ed Whelan filed amicus briefs on behalf of EPPC explaining that the so-called Comstock Act provisions, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1462, prohibit sending abortion drugs by U.S. mail or by common carrier and that rebuts the contrived opinion by DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel on which the FDA relies. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

This case successfully overturned Roe v. Wade and clarified that there is not federal constitutional right to abortion. Three Supreme Court amicus briefs were filed by EPPC and its scholars. First, EPPC filed an amicus brief arguing that stare decisis considerations cut overwhelmingly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Second, Carter Snead filed an amicus brief with his colleague Mary Ann Glendon arguing against the constitutionality of previability abortions by appealing to abortion jurisprudence’s alienation from the text, history, or tradition of the US Constitution, considers stare decisis principles in justifying the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and positively argues for the essential unconstitutionality of elective abortion because of its unwarranted effect on an indisputably human life. Third, Erika Bachiochi partnered with law professors Terra Collett and Helen Alvaré to lead a brief on behalf of 240 women scholars and professionals, including EPPC fellows Mary FioRito and Mary Rice Hasson, and prolife feminist organizations, rejecting the idea that women need access to abortion to participate equally in the economic or social life in the nation. 

Animal Cruelty

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

This case narrowly weighs the permissibility of constrictive “gestation crates” on industrial pig farms and more broadly considers whether the restriction of such practices through ballot measures like Proposition 12 in California imposes an undue burden on producers. Carter Snead, along with social commentator Mary Eberstadt and Carter Scully of National Review, filed an amicus brief arguing that a basic respect and decency toward animals is consistent with the deep tradition of Western thought, and this legitimate moral interest can be articulated by legislation like Proposition 12, which thus does not unduly restrict industry practices and the market at large. 

Contraceptive Mandate

Zubik v. Burwell and Priests for Life v. HHS

This case involved a legal challenge by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the other religious nonprofits to the Obama administration’s so-called “accommodation” on its HHS contraceptive mandate. EPPC filed an amicus brief showing specifically that the Obama administration’s rules fail to satisfy the strict-scrutiny test imposed by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby

This case involved religious-liberty challenges to the Obama administration’s HHS mandate on contraceptives. EPPC filed a brief addressing, and thoroughly refuting, the Obama administration’s claim that for-profit corporations are inherently incapable of an “exercise of religion” for purposes of the protections afforded by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

Free Speech

Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

The case involved a challenge to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) refusal to run the Archdiocese of Washington’s proposed Advent campaign advertisement. EPPC filed an amicus brief in support of the Archdiocese of Washington arguing that WMATA’s refusal violated the First Amendment. 

“Gender Transition” Interventions

Tingley v. Ferguson

This case involves a legal challenge to a Washington state law that effectively mandates that therapists serving minors use a “gender-affirmation-only” approach and that denies effective psychotherapy to minors seeking psychological help to explore alternative pathways, including the possibility of desisting from a transgender identity. Mary Rice Hasson and EPPC President Ryan T. Anderson filed an amicus brief urging the court to consider the serious ethical concerns surrounding the law, which effectively mandates a “gender-affirmation-only” approach and denies effective psychotherapy to minors seeking psychological help to explore alternative pathways, including the possibility of desisting from a transgender identity. 

Dekker v. Weida

This case involves a legal challenge to Florida’s rule prohibiting state Medicaid dollars from funding “gender transition interventions,” including harmful and irreversible cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children. Eric Kniffin submitted an amicus brief on behalf of three “detransitioners” Walt Heyer, Ted Halley, and Billy Burleigh—biological males who suffered deep confusion and distress regarding his gender identity from an early age—sharing how each went through the medical “gender transition” process but found that transitioning did not make them happy or solve their confusion and depression. Another amicus brief was filed on behalf of former civil rights officials, including Rachel N. Morrison, and drew heavily from EPPC’s public comment submitted in opposition to HHS’s proposed Section 1557 rule, explaining that Section 1557 does not require Medicaid funding for gender transition intervention and any holding to the contrary would radically remake American healthcare and harm children. 

American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra

This case involves a legal challenge to an HHS “gender identity mandate,” which under the guise of nondiscrimination, requires healthcare professionals’ performance, insurance coverage, and promotion of “gender-transition interventions” (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries), including for children. Rachel N. Morrison, Mary Rice Hasson, and Eric Kniffin filed an amicus brief explaining that there is no medical consensus regarding an authoritative standard of care for the treatment of gender dysphoria or for the proper evaluation of the risks and benefits of medically assisted “gender transitions,” and that gender-transition interventions can lead to significant and irreversible harms, especially for minors. 

Eknes-Tucker v. Alabama

This case involves a legal challenge to an Alabama law that protects children from harmful and irreversible “gender transition” treatments (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries). Rachel N. Morrison and Mary Rice Hasson filed an amicus brief explaining there is no medical consensus regarding an authoritative standard of care for gender dysphoria or transitioning treatments and that such treatments can lead to serious harms, especially for children. 

Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra

This case involves a legal challenge to HHS’s “transgender mandate,” which under the guise of nondiscrimination, requires healthcare professionals to perform and provide insurance coverage for “gender-transition interventions” (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries), including for children. Rachel N. Morrison and Mary Rice Hasson filed an amicus brief explaining there is no medical consensus regarding an authoritative standard of care for gender dysphoria, gender transition interventions are harmful, especially for children, and no healthcare organization or professional should be forced to provide harmful gender transition interventions in violation of their medical judgments and religious beliefs. 

Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District

This case involves a legal challenge to the Madison School District’s transgender policy of keeping secret from parents that their children are “transitioning” at school if parents might not provide a “safe” or “supportive” environment, as determined by school personnel and the child. EPPC joined the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Concerned Women for America, the National Legal Foundation, the Pacific Justice Institute, and several state-level policy organizations, to file an amicus brief arguing that the policy violates the fundamental right so parents to care for and educate their children by depriving them of relevant information and also violates the procedural due process rights of parents by assuming that “unsupportive” parents are negligent or abusive. 

Marriage

Hollingsworth v. Perry and Perry v. Schwarzenegger

This case involved a legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which added a new section to the state constitution that stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” EPPC President Ed Whelan submitted two amicus briefs on behalf of EPPC. Both documented the egregious course of misconduct by the district judge below to inform the court to the fact that it should be especially wary of accepting at face value any assertion made by that judge, and the second explained that, if the court is not inclined to reverse the judgment below outright (the disposition we believe to be correct), it should exercise its supervisory power to vacate the judgments below in their entirety. 

Religious Freedom

Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker

This case involves procedural questions regarding protections for religious organizations under the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception.” Two Supreme Court amicus briefs were filed, one by EPPC and one on behalf of Rachel N. Morrison as a former attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and an expert in religious nondiscrimination and former EEOC General Counsel Sharon Fast Gustafson. EPPC’s brief urged the court to clarify further the protections afforded by the ministerial exception and to give practical guidance on how those protections affect the procedure for applying the doctrine. Rachel Morrison’s brief explained how the Tenth Circuit’s holding invites EEOC intrusion into religious matters and threatens to erode the First Amendment protections of religious organizations. 

Groff v. DeJoy

This case involves the proper legal standard for when employees should receive religious accommodations in the workplace. Rachel N. Morrison filed two Supreme Court amicus briefs on behalf of herself as a former EEOC employee and an expert on religious accommodations and former General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sharon Fast Gustafson, arguing that Title VII provides vital religious accommodation protections and requires a higher standard than the more than a de minimis cost standard for denying religious accommodation requests.  

Dr. A. v. Hochul 

This case involves a legal challenge by medical professionals to the lack of religious exemptions in New York’s vaccine mandate for health care workers. Rachel N. Morrison filed three amicus briefs on behalf of herself as a former EEOC employee and an expert on religious accommodations and former General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sharon Fast Gustafson, explaining Title VII’s religious accommodation standard and why New York’s mandate conflicts with Title VII. 

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel

This case involves whether teachers at two catholic schools qualify as “ministers” under the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception.” EPPC filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to adopt procedural protections in support of the ministerial exception. 

Rule of Law

The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden

This case involved whether the College of the Ozarks can sue the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over a Directive ordering HUD to enforce sex discrimination in housing to include discrimination because of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Rachel N. Morrison and Eric Kniffin partnered with the Cato Institute to lead a Supreme Court amicus brief, which was joined by the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, Inc., Reason Foundation, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and Manhattan Institute. The brief explained the importance of the procedural requirements of notice-and-comment rulemaking and of protecting the public’s right to participate in the agency rulemaking process and preserving the opportunity to help shape public policy. 

Wisconsin v. Peterson 

This case involves a secretive investigation targeting Governor Scott Walker and his allies. EPPC filed a brief explaining how the reported basis of the secret motion by a special prosecutor to disqualify the state supreme court justices who might put an end to the witch hunt is thoroughly unsound. 

Learn More

Most Read

1

Ike’s Insight

 George Weigel

2

EPPC Scholars Submit Comments Opposing ED’s Proposed Gender Identity Mandate in Athletics

 EPPC

3

Men at Work

 Stephen P. White

4

The Appeal of Regime Change

 Francis X. Maier
EPPC BRIEFLY
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Sign up to receive EPPC's biweekly e-newsletter of selected publications, news, and events.

SEARCH

Your support impacts the debate on critical issues of public policy.

Donate today