Show Full BioHide Full Bio


  • Amicus Brief: CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service

    "This court should reverse the decision below and clarify that the AIA does not bar pre-enforcement challenges to the validity of tax rules under the APA."

  • A Better Alternative to More Coronavirus Stimulus Spending and Loan Programs

    Tax-exempt CoVictory Bonds and Loans could rally everyone —from mom and pop shops to big institutional investors— to privately finance a victory over the coronavirus recession.

  • Amicus Brief: American Society of Journalists v. Xavier Becerra

    This court should reverse the district court, join its sister circuits in affirming that Reed is the law of the land, and grant journalists their day in court.

  • Amicus Brief: Higginson v. Becerra

    The right to vote, like the rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause, is an individual right. Vote dilution claims, however, treat people simply as members of their racial group.

  • Amicus Brief: Jessop v. City of Fresno

    "Now, not only can officials seize and retain personal property with little judicial oversight under the guise of civil asset forfeiture; law enforcement also can outright steal personal property for their own use with impunity and without fear of civil liability. "

  • Amicus Brief: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

    Harvard’s discrimination against Asian American applicants prolongs a long history of discrimination against Asian Americans in the United States. The judgment of the district court should be reversed.

  • Amicus Brief: West v. Winfield

    The reasoning embraced by the Ninth and Second Circuits—requiring a Section 1983 plaintiff to point to a decided case with identical, or nearly so, factual allegations in order to defeat qualified immunity—sets an impossible standard

  • Amicus Brief: Torres v. Madrid

    This Court should reverse the Tenth Circuit and return uniformity and predictability to the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

  • Amicus Brief: Fleck v. Wetch

    The case warrants this Court’s review because many state and local governments are refusing to comply with Janus’ waiver requirement.