Brewer Client NYSPRA Urges Supreme Court to Rein in Vague, Status-Based Federal Gun Ban
January 30, 2026 — The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSPRA) filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a federal law that imposes felony gun prohibitions based on ill-defined personal status rather than concrete criminal conduct.
The NYSRPA brief in United States v. Hemani urges the Supreme Court to reject a federal gun ban that imposes felony liability based on vague status labels rather than clearly defined conduct. It argues that the statute fails basic due process requirements, authorizes punishment without proof of wrongdoing, and exceeds constitutional limits on Congress’s power to define crimes.
Hemani is widely viewed as among the most significant Second Amendment matters to reach the Supreme Court in recent years, with nationwide implications for the scope of federal firearm regulations and the constitutional limits of Congress’s power to impose firearm disabilities.
In the case, defendant Ali Danial Hemani was charged under a federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by individuals deemed “unlawful users” of controlled substances, even though he was not alleged to be intoxicated at the time of possession. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the government failed to show any historical tradition of disarming individuals who were not intoxicated at the time they possessed a firearm and therefore held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Hemani. The Solicitor General later asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, which the Court agreed to hear, and its ruling is expected to clarify the scope of permissible firearm regulations under the text-and-history framework established in Bruen.
In its amicus brief, NYSRPA challenges § 922(g)(3), a federal statute that bars firearm possession by individuals deemed “unlawful users” of controlled substances. NYSRPA argues that the statute violates core constitutional protections by attaching criminal penalties to vague and undefined status labels, rather than clearly defined conduct. According to the brief, the law fails to provide fair notice to ordinary citizens and invites arbitrary enforcement by leaving critical terms undefined.
“This case goes to the heart of whether criminal law is governed by clear rules or by after-the-fact judgments about personal status,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for NYSRPA. “When Congress imposes felony penalties without clearly defining the prescribed conduct, it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to reaffirm the constitutional limits that protect individual liberty and the rule of law.”
Brewer added, “When an organization with NYSRPA’s history and experience speaks, it is because the constitutional stakes demand clarity from the Court.”
Although NYSRPA is best known for its leadership on Second Amendment issues, the brief emphasizes broader constitutional concerns that extend beyond firearms policy. NYSRPA argues that § 922(g)(3) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on status-based criminal punishment, and the rule of lenity, which requires ambiguous criminal statutes to be construed in favor of individual liberty.
NYSRPA President Tom King underscored the significance of the case and its broader constitutional implications.
“Hemani presents another ‘constitutional moment,’” King said. “The Supreme Court’s review will determine whether Americans are subjected to felony punishment under unbounded laws, or whether our freedom is protected by clear, enforceable limits on government power. The NYSRPA wants to ensure those principles are forcefully presented to the Court.”
According to the brief, “This case is not about excusing dangerous conduct. It is about whether Congress may impose felony punishment without clearly defining what conduct is prohibited, and without requiring proof of any contemporaneous wrongdoing.”
The amicus brief was filed by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, whose record of success in constitutional litigation includes its representation of the National Rifle Association of America in the unanimous Supreme Court victory in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, a First Amendment case against former New York financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.
A decision in Hemani could have sweeping consequences for federal criminal law, firearms regulation, and the constitutional limits on status-based prohibitions enforced through the criminal justice system.
Click here to see the brief.
Brewer is joined in representing the NYSRPA by partner William A. Brewer IV and Jed Sexton, both from the firm’s New York office.
William (Bill) Brewer Writes for Bloomberg Law on Vullo and First Amendment Advocacy
January 26, 2026 — In a Bloomberg Law commentary, partner William (Bill) Brewer examines why the Supreme Court’s free speech warning in National Rifle Association v. Vullo matters now more than ever. Although the Court unanimously reaffirmed in 2024 that government officials may not use regulatory power to coerce private actors into silencing disfavored speech, the case’s return to the Second Circuit has raised renewed concerns about whether that warning is being meaningfully enforced.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, stated the principle plainly: “The First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or…through private intermediaries.”
As Brewer writes, “The opinion emphasized that while officials may criticize or attempt to persuade, they cross a constitutional line when they use regulatory authority to pressure others into silencing or economically isolating disfavored speakers.”
The Brewer firm previously served as counsel to the NRA and argued that point in the litigation, helping to shape the Association’s campaign to combat viewpoint discrimination. As the NRA now petitions the Supreme Court to rehear the case, the commentary explores a broader constitutional problem: how clear First Amendment protections can be weakened through procedural decisions on remand, even after a decisive Supreme Court ruling.
Read more here.
Texas Lawyer: Lawyers Fight Each Other, Clients in $10M Fee Dispute
January 9, 2026 — Texas Lawyer reports that a high-profile trade secrets case that produced jury verdicts totaling more than $300 million has now turned into a high-stakes fight between lawyers and former clients.
According to the January 9, 2026, article, Brewer client Williams Simons & Landis (WSL) has filed a federal lawsuit seeking more than $10 million in unpaid legal fees. Texas Lawyer reports that WSL helped secure a $115 million jury verdict against Walmart in April 2021. WSL "then helped keep the case going through a retrial, which led to a $223 million verdict in May 2025. The case settled in August 2025, but the settlement amount has not been made public," the article states.
The defendants include the firm’s former clients — RiskOn International, Ecoark Holdings, Zest Labs Holdings, and related entities — as well as San Francisco law firm Bartko Pavia, which served as lead counsel during the retrial.
WSL alleges that after benefiting from years of trial and appellate work, the defendants conspired to avoid paying contractually owed contingent fees and expenses. William A. Brewer III, Brewer partner and lead counsel for WSL, described the situation as extraordinary in comments to Texas Lawyer.
“For the client now to try to avoid paying for the work that was done over five years ago by my client, that’s an extraordinary injustice,” said Brewer. “No lawyer, particularly trial lawyers, who's developed and tried the case and prevailed substantially, likes to be put in the position where you have to sue your client to get paid. That's what's happened here.”
In addition to fees tied to the Walmart recovery, WSL says it is owed approximately $300,000 for work on a separate lawsuit against Deloitte Consulting. As reported, “Williams Simons & Landis is seeking a jury trial, attorney fees, court costs, and an order requiring the defendants to provide a full accounting of settlement proceeds, litigation recoveries, and fund transfers related to the Walmart case. The firm is also seeking exemplary and punitive damages for what it calls the defendants' ‘willful, malicious, fraudulent and tortious conduct’ – plus any other legal or equitable relief the court might award.”
“Everybody should be popping champagne and enjoying a fight well fought,” Brewer said. “Instead, they’re trying to get away with not paying their bill.”
Reuters and Law360 Report on Brewer Client's Lawsuit for Unpaid Legal Fees
January 9, 2026 — Reuters and Law360 today report that Brewer client Williams Simons & Landis PC (WSL) is "suing a group of its former clients, saying they breached a representation contract by failing to pay more than $11 million owed to the firm after a successful trade secrets suit against Walmart," the Law360 report states.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, names RiskOn International, its predecessor Ecoark Inc., Zest Labs Holdings, and law firm Bartko Pavia LLP as defendants.
As reported, WSL alleges it was retained under written engagement agreements to prosecute high-stakes trade-secret litigation against Walmart on a hybrid and contingent-fee basis. In 2021, WSL secured a staggering $115 million jury verdict. According to the complaint, WSL also built the litigation record that later supported a retrial verdict of approximately $223 million and culminated in an August 2025 confidential settlement.
The Law 360 report states, "Despite these victories, and the eventual settlement, triggering the contingency fee agreements, WSL said that its former clients refused to pay for its work and instead fabricated negligence claims to justify the non-payment."
"Williams Simons & Landis delivered extraordinary results in the Walmart litigation — and the firm's advocacy was the foundation for two jury verdicts totaling more than $325 million," said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to WSL. "The record reflects that a retrial was ordered so additional evidence could be considered. The retrial relied on the same trial record WSL developed and resulted in an even larger verdict. This dispute isn't about performance; it's about payment."
Reuters reports that Zest Labs subsequently filed a separate lawsuit on January 8, 2026, against WSL in state court in connection with the Walmart litigation.
Brewer told Reuters that WSL delivered "extraordinary results" in the Walmart case and that Zest's lawsuit was "nothing more than an attempt to deflect from paying our client."
Andover News: Phillips Debate Teams Advance to Round of 32 in International Public Policy Forum
January 7, 2026 — Andover News reports that Phillips Academy has advanced to the Round of 32 in the 2025-26 Brewer Foundation/New York University International Public Policy Forum.
Celebrating its 25th year, the International Public Policy Forum is a global high school debate contest that combines written and oral advocacy on major public policy issues. This year's competition is the largest in history, with 332 teams from 39 countries submitting qualifying round essays. From this initial field, the top 64 are selected by a panel of judges, who then compete in a single elimination tournament.
The field narrows through multiple written rounds, with the final eight teams receiving an invite to New York City to compete in live oral debates for cash prizes and to win the Brewer Cup.
Read More
Big Island Now: Kealakehe Students Represent Big Island as They Advance to Next Round of International Debate Competition
January 6, 2026 — A team from Kealakehe Public High School has advanced to the top 32 teams in the 25th annual Brewer Foundation/New York University International Public Policy Forum, the only global high school debate competition blending written and oral advocacy. This year's contest began with a record 332 teams from 39 countries.
Starting from the Qualifying Round and continuing to through the Round of 64, teams submitted written arguments addressing whether the Group of 20 Nations should impose a global education tax equal to 1 percent of each member country’s GDP to support universal primary and secondary education. Judges then selected 32 advancing teams representing schools in 14 U.S. states and nine countries. The field will continue to narrow through to more successive rounds to eight finalists who travel New York City to compete in oral debates for a $10,000 grand prize and the Brewer Cup.
Kealakehe is the only Big Island team to advance this year, after reaching the top eight in last year’s competition.
Read More
New York Law Journal: Amended Lawsuit Decries NYC Legislators Who Voted for Even Year Election Law
NEW YORK – December 30, 2025 — Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors filed an amended complaint Monday strengthening its constitutional challenge to New York’s Even Year Election Law (“EYEL”).
The amended complaint adds a new statewide plaintiff, the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways, representing more than 1,100 local officials across New York, and adds the New York State Board of Elections as a defendant responsible for administering and enforcing the law.
The filing builds on a lawsuit brought on behalf of the New York Republican State Committee, county Republican committees, and a coalition of counties, towns, local candidates, and voters from Nassau, Suffolk, and Orange Counties in October.
Enacted in December 2023 and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul, the EYEL moves most county and town offices outside New York City from historic odd-year election cycles to even-numbered years, coinciding with state and federal contests. Plaintiffs contend the law undermines local control over election timing and reshapes how local elections are conducted.
The amended filing builds on the existing First Amendment and Voting Rights Act claims by incorporating additional factual allegations based on the law’s operation and effects. It also updates the case to reflect the November 2025 elections, in which candidates were elected under shortened, transitional terms and are now required to run again on accelerated timelines.
The amended complaint further highlights disparities in how the law was applied. It alleges that New York City voters were given the opportunity to decide whether to move their local elections to even years through a ballot initiative and rejected the change, while counties and towns outside the city had the even-year election mandate imposed on them by the State Legislature without a public vote.
The filing identifies New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who voted against the New York City ballot initiative that would have moved some of its local elections to even years, as a relevant non-party. It also identifies state legislators representing New York City districts who voted to impose even-year elections on all counties and towns outside of the city in 2023, but whose own constituents voted handily to preserve odd-year elections in November of this year.
Plaintiffs allege this contrast underscores the law’s unequal and politically selective design.
“Now that this law has been implemented, its consequences are no longer theoretical,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “Local candidates will be forced to run again on shortened timelines, local elections will be buried under federal races, and voters will be deprived of meaningful choice. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit government officials to implement a system designed to silence local democracy.”
He added, “This case is about defending the right of communities to govern themselves — to debate local issues, elect local leaders, and be heard without being drowned out by national politics. That is what the First Amendment protects, and that is what this lawsuit seeks to restore.”
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the law and restore local control over election timing.
Contact:
Ali Dukakis
Director of Communications
Office: 212-527-2580
ajd@brewerattorneys.com
Read more here.
High School Debate Teams Advance to Round of 32 in International Public Policy Forum (IPPF)
December 29, 2025 — The Brewer Foundation/New York University International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) today announced the high school debate teams advancing to the Round of 32 in the 2025-26 competition. Founded in 2001, the IPPF is the world’s only international high school debate competition combining written and oral advocacy on issues of public policy. Now in its 25th year, the IPPF’s annual competition began in October with a record-breaking 332 teams from 39 countries, making it the largest qualifying field in program history.
In the Round of 64, teams submitted arguments in a written volley on the topic:
“Resolved: The Group of 20 Nations should levy a global education tax equal to 1% of each member country's gross domestic product to establish a dedicated international organization that supports the provision of universal, free, quality primary and secondary education.”
A panel of judges evaluated each submission and selected the 32 teams advancing to the next round. These teams represent schools in 14 U.S. states and nine countries including Turkey, Singapore, and Vietnam.
From these 32 teams, the field will narrow through an additional elimination round to the Elite 8, who will be invited to New York City to compete in oral debates for cash prizes and the Brewer Cup.
The Round of 32 is now underway. To learn more about the tournament, click here.
Round of 64 Results:
· Syosset High School from Syosset, New York advances over KIPS College Sargodha / Aitchison College from Punjab, Pakistan
· Kealakehe Public High School from Kailua Kona, Hawaii advances over The Hockaday School from Dallas, Texas
· BASIS International School Shenzhen from Shenzhen, China advances over Cypress Ranch High School from Cypress, Texas
· Bergen Debate Club from Fort Lee, New Jersey advances over Upper St. Clair High School from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
· Seido Mikawadai High School from Nagasaki, Japan advances over Solon High School from Solon, Ohio
· Jasper High School from Plano, Texas advances over Westwood High School (Team 1) from Austin, Texas
· Ivy Bridge Academy (Team 1) from Johns Creek, Georgia advances over Speech & Debate India from Mumbai, India
· Greenwich High School from Greenwich, Connecticut advances over San Marino High School from San Marino, California
· Carroll Senior High School from Southlake, Texas advances over Summit Christian Academy from Yorktown, Virginia
· Pomperaug Regional High School from Southbury, Connecticut advances over Shanghai Pinghe School from Shanghai, China
· North Allegheny Senior High School from Wexford, Pennsylvania advances over Westwood High School (Team 2) from Austin, Texas
· Flower Mound High School from Flower Mound, Texas advances over Shanghai American School Puxi from Shanghai, China
· TH School from Hanoi, Vietnam advances over Mountain View-Los Altos Speech and Debate from Mountain View, California
· Hamilton High School from Chandler, Arizona advances over Notre Dame High School from Sherman Oaks, California
· The Academy of Classical Christian Studies from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma advances over Newark Academy from Livingston, New Jersey
· Çevre High School from Istanbul, Turkey advances over The Episcopal School of Dallas from Dallas, Texas
· Jabberwocky Studio from Delhi, India advances over Washington High School from Fremont, California
· Ivy Bridge Academy (Team 2) from Johns Creek, Georgia advances over Debate Education Forum High Wycombe, United Kingdom
· Delbarton School from Morristown, New Jersey advances over American School Dhahran from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
· Grand Oaks High School from Spring, Texas advances over College Preparatory School of America from Lombard, Illinois
· Notre Dame San Jose from San Jose, California advances over Richland High School from Prosper, Texas
· Phillips Academy Andover from Andover, Massachusetts advances over Orlando Science High School from Orlando, Florida
· Millburn High School from Millburn, New Jersey advances over King George British International School from Bucharest, Romania
· German European School Singapore from Singapore advances over Brookfield East High School from Brookfield, Wisconsin
· Troy High School from Troy, Michigan advances over PM SHRI Kendriya Vidyalaya 1, AFS Sambra from Karnataka, India
· Phillips Exeter Academy from Exeter, New Hampshire advances over Saratoga High School from Saratoga, California
· Saint Paul Preparatory Seoul from Seoul, Republic of Korea advances over Rock Canyon High School from Highlands Ranch, Colorado
· Nova High School from Davie, Florida advances over Panther Creek High School from Frisco, Texas
· Damien Memorial School from Honolulu, Hawaii advances over British International School Abu Dhabi from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
· Westwood High School (Team 3) from Austin, Texas advances over Seoul International School from Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea
· Marymount Academy International from Montreal, Canada advances over Woodberry Forest School from Woodberry Forest, Virginia
· Northport High School from Northport, New York advances over Alpha Co from La Crescenta, California