Brewer Comments on ACLU Joining Firm as Co-Counsel in First Amendment Supreme Court Case
December 11, 2023 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors joins the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in welcoming the ACLU as co-counsel in the NRA’s First Amendment case against former New York State financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.
The Brewer firm has represented the NRA in this matter since its inception, and the United States Supreme Court accepted the case for review on November 3, 2023.
The case has become among the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country.
As reported by The New York Times, “…when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the NRA’s free speech challenge to what it said were a New York official’s efforts to blacklist it, one of the lawyers had a bold idea. Why not ask the ACLU to represent it before justices?”
“The NRA might be thought of as the 800-pound gorilla on the Second Amendment…clearly, the ACLU is the 800-pound gorilla on the First Amendment,” firm partner Bill Brewer told the Times.
Brewer stated today, “We look forward to collaborating with the ACLU, Eugene Volokh, and others on this advocacy team. These lawyers and dozens of amici speak to the importance of the NRA’s case and sends a powerful message to New York State regulators: the NRA will always defend its right to free speech.”
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA are ACLU Legal Director David Cole, attorney Eugene Volokh, firm partner Sarah B. Rogers and firm counsel Noah B. Peters.
New York Times Reports on NRA First Amendment Case, ACLU Joins Brewer as Co-Counsel
December 9, 2023 - The New York Times reported today on the ACLU joining the Brewer firm as co-counsel in the NRA’s First Amendment case against former New York State financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.
The case has become among the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country. The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 3, 2023.
As reported, “…when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the NRA’s free speech challenge to what it said were a New York official’s efforts to blacklist it, one of the lawyers had a bold idea. Why not ask the ACLU to represent it before justices?”
“The NRA might be thought of as the 800-pound gorilla on the Second Amendment…clearly, the ACLU is the 800-pound gorilla on the First Amendment,” firm partner William Brewer told the Times.
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA are ACLU Legal Director David Cole, attorney Eugene Volokh, firm partner Sarah B. Rogers and firm counsel Noah B. Peters.
Read MORE.
Dallas Morning News Publishes Brewer Op-Ed on Voting Rights Act Decision
December 4, 2023 — The Dallas Morning News published an op-ed in the Opinion section Monday by partner William A. Brewer III about a new court decision that poses a threat to the Voting Rights Act. The opinion piece, “A dangerous precedent for the Voting Rights Act,” reflects the Brewer Storefront’s continued dedication to enforcing and upholding the Voting Rights Act in Texas communities. The Storefront is the firm’s community-service legal affiliate.
The commentary follows:
Just months after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which safeguards against voting schemes that demonstrably dilute the votes of minorities, the law is again under attack.
Recently, a three-judge 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 in a redistricting case filed in Arkansas, that only the federal government can bring a Section 2 voting rights challenge, thereby denying individuals and civil rights groups the right to file lawsuits challenging discriminatory election systems.
The lawsuit brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and others alleges that a proposed redistricting map for the Arkansas House of Representatives denies Black voters an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
The decision is binding in seven states. The risk is obvious. North Dakota, one of the states covered by the decision, intends to appeal a recent federal judge’s ruling that protected Native American voting rights in the state after tribes and tribal members sued last year seeking a joint majority Native American state House district. State leaders are already seeking to leverage their self-interests over that of Native voters.
The 8th Circuit decision, if affirmed by the Supreme Court, could potentially lead to voters of color across the country being denied any ability to challenge voting systems that overtly deny fair representation.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, color or membership in a language minority group. Since its passage in 1965, most Section 2 cases concern voters of color filing lawsuits that challenge at-large election systems, arguing that they deny voters of color a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing. By an overwhelming margin, private plaintiffs (individual voters and groups), not the government, bring most Section 2 cases.
The 8th Circuit panel ruling in Arkansas State Conference NAACP vs. Arkansas Board of Apportionment reflects bad jurisprudence and poor historical research. Even worse, it is a potentially damaging outcome for the nation. Since 1965, the Voting Right Act has served as an important tool to protect the votes of those excluded from power by voting systems that deliver power to the few — and keep it from the many.
The Voting Rights Act is particularly relevant in Texas, where the population continues to diversify while, at the same time, elected bodies such as school boards and city councils employ voting schemes that frustrate outcomes that mirror the state’s demographics. Census figures reveal this year that Hispanics make up the largest share of the population in Texas, and yet this reality is not reflected among the political leadership on local and statewide elected bodies.
If this decision stands, it will leave only the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General empowered to bring cases, denying eligible voters the right to challenge their local election systems in court. We know that private lawsuits brought by citizens whose community employs inequitable voting schemes have compelled positive change.
In his dissent in the Arkansas ruling, 8th Circuit Chief Judge Lavenski Smith writes, “Rights so foundational to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government’s agents for protection.” Smith is a 2002 George W. Bush appointee, and is African American.
He added that the private plaintiff issue is best left to the Supreme Court.
Importantly, in June 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a 5-4 vote in Allen vs. Milligan, which was brought by private plaintiffs to protect Black voters.
Our firm is familiar with the importance of the private right of action. Our community service legal affiliate, the Brewer Storefront, has brought numerous voting rights cases in Texas challenging at-large election systems on behalf of Hispanic, Black, Asian and white plaintiffs.
The successful cases have resulted in revamped election systems, often by way of the creation of geographically drawn single-member district seats that include the creation of minority “opportunity” district seats where minority voters make up a majority.
Most importantly, these cases have created a pathway of opportunity: They have resulted in greater representation of minority voters and the election of minority candidates across North Texas.
For example, a Richardson Independent School District voting rights case brought by Brewer Storefront resolved in 2019 resulted in a previously all-white school board becoming majority-minority, better reflecting the majority-minority students the school district educates.
David Tyson, plaintiff in the Richardson ISD case, is a former RISD board member and the first Black American to ever serve on the board. He bravely stepped forward to sue. Tyson was honored this year by the Texas Legislature for his contributions to Richardson, following his voting rights achievement.
Yet, if this 8th Circuit ruling prevails, Tyson’s voice would have been silenced. The inequities of the voting system he challenged would remain today, to the detriment of schools, students and the broader community.
Removing the right of private individuals and organizations to sue under the Voting Rights Act would undermine the civil rights of voters not only in Texas, but nationally. Voting rights are central to civil rights in our democracy. We should fight to protect them at all costs.
Bloomberg Law Reports on Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
November 13, 2023 – Bloomberg Law reports that former Polsinelli PC attorney Julia Rix urged a federal judge to allow her sexual harassment suit against the law firm to proceed.
Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors represents Rix. According to an opposition filing by Rix in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the dismissal motion by the firm and alleged harasser Gabriel Dabiri is a “desperate bid” to avoid “public scrutiny” of her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, and an effort to avoid local human rights laws.
The firm and Dabiri “will be forced to contend with the misconduct alleged and their failure to investigate it properly,” William A. Brewer III, Rix’s attorney, added in a statement. “Rix believes the record—replete with late night overtures and sexual advances, followed by blatantly retaliatory actions—speaks for itself.”
To read more, click here.
New York Post Reports on Brewer Storefront Fraud Case
November 10, 2023 – The New York Post reported today about Brewer Storefront client Kimaya Taylor and her fraud case against a New York City consignment store. According to the article, “The owners of an Upper East Side antiques store are being sued by a series of clients who claim they were ripped off and had their heirlooms trashed.”
The article continues, “The owners of Sara’s Antiques, on Lexington Ave and E. 73rd St., are facing six lawsuits, a complaint to the police and to the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection about their business selling treasures on consignment.” According to the Post, Sara’s proprietors Sayeh Sassouni Khorshad, and her husband Vahid Peter Khorshad, who goes by Peter, face a series of legal actions for selling the valuables of their clients and keeping the cash themselves, handing back one-off pieces badly damaged, or losing them entirely.
The Storefront is the legal community service affiliate of the Brewer firm.
Read more here.
International Public Policy Forum Announces 2023-24 "Top 64" Teams
November 8, 2023 - The Brewer Foundation and New York University today announced the “Top 64” teams for the 23rd annual International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) – the first and only contest that gives high school students around the world the opportunity to engage in written and oral debates on issues of public policy.
The IPPF begins annually in October, as teams submit a 3,000-word qualifying round essay either affirming or negating the IPPF topic. This year, students are debating the topic, "Resolved: Governments should provide a universal basic income."
A record 311 teams, representing schools in 26 countries and 33 U.S. states, submitted qualifying round essays – making this the largest year in competition history. Judges evaluated each essay, and the top 64 teams now advance into a single-elimination, written debate competition.
In the top 64 round, schools will volley papers back and forth via e-mail. Judges review the essays in the order they were presented (affirmative constructive, negative constructive, affirmative rebuttal, negative rebuttal) and select the advancing teams. The process will begin anew as the "Top 32" teams compete for their chance to advance to the "Sweet 16" round.
In March, the "Elite 8" teams will be announced. These teams win all-expenses-paid trips to New York City to compete during IPPF Finals Weekend, which begins May 3, 2024. During the finals, teams supplement their written advocacy with oral argumentation. The IPPF World Champion is awarded a $10,000 grand prize.
To view the list of advancing teams, click here.
Insurance Journal Reports on Supreme Court Hearing NRA Case
November 6, 2023 – The Insurance Journal reported today on the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear the NRA’s First Amendment case against former New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo.
As reported, “The NRA has claimed that former New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo infringed its First Amendment rights when she spoke out against gun violence and issued a press release and guidance letters urging banks and insurance companies in New York to consider not doing business with gun groups including the NRA.”
The NRA was appealing a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Vullo's actions did not constitute unlawful conduct. The appeals court ruling "gives state officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents," the NRA's lawyers said in court papers.
The NRA’s lawyer, William A. Brewer, said the NRA is ready to argue its case before the Supreme Court.
“We are grateful the Supreme Court will review this First Amendment case and excited by the opportunity to argue to the Court that a government regulator cannot take adverse action against its political enemies,” said Brewer in a statement. “The ruling from the Second Circuit condones public officials having unbridled power to attack those with whom they disagree.”
To read more, click here.
NBC, CNN, and Others Report on Supreme Court Granting Review of NRA Case
November 4, 2023 - NBC News, CNN, The New York Times, The Hill, and other media outlets reported today that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the NRA's free speech case against Maria Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services.
As reported by NBC, "The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the National Rifle Association's claim that a New York state official's alleged role in urging companies to end ties with the gun rights group constituted unlawful coercion."
The NRA was appealing a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Vullo's actions did not constitute unlawful conduct. The appeals court ruling "gives state officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents," the NRA's lawyers said in court papers.
As reported by The Hill, "In April 2018 — two months after the deadly mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school — Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, urged banks and insurers to consider the “reputational risks” of working with the NRA, according to court filings. The gun rights group filed suit against Vullo and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), saying the NRA had “suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages” due to the officials’ “blacklisting” of the group in violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Brewer firm has represented the NRA in this matter since 2018.
Speaking of today's developments, Brewer partner William A. Brewer III said, "We are grateful the Supreme Court will review this First Amendment case and eager to argue to the Court that government officials who take adverse action against their political enemies do so at their own risk. The ruling from the Second Circuit, which the Court will review, condones public officials having unbridled power to attack those with whom they disagree. Lawyers live for these moments: the opportunity to advocate for clients on their most important matters – on the biggest stage.”
See below to read more:
“Supreme Court takes up NRA coercion claim against former New York official,” NBC
“Supreme Court to hear NRA’s claim a New York agency coerced businesses to drop ties to gun rights group,” CNN
“Supreme Court to Hear N.R.A.’s Free Speech Case Against New York Official,” The New York Times
“Supreme Court to hear NRA free speech lawsuit against NY official,” The Hill