First Amendment Watch at NYU Interviews William A. Brewer III on Challenge to New York’s Even Year Election Law
February 20, 2026 — First Amendment Watch at NYU recently interviewed William A. Brewer III regarding Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors’ constitutional challenge to New York’s Even Year Election Law (EYEL), which moves most local elections outside New York City from odd- to even-numbered years.
Filed December 29, 2025, an amended complaint alleges the law violates the First Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the EYEL is unconstitutional, an order barring its enforcement, and relief permitting localities to opt in or out. Plaintiffs include the New York Republican State Committee, the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways, and a coalition of counties, local candidates, and voters.
In the interview, Brewer emphasized the historical purpose of separating local and national election cycles.
“Most local elections occur on an ‘odd cycle,’” Brewer explained. “The reason for that really goes back to the late 1890s, when what was then the Progressive Party and a reform movement intended to break political corruption. Almost universally, the solution was seen as [a need] to separate out the important issues that are debated and ultimately decided in local elections into odd years so that they would have their own space in the town square to communicate with voters about those important issues.”
Under the EYEL, local contests will appear on ballots dominated by presidential, federal, and statewide races. Brewer argued that this shift burdens core political speech.
“By consolidating thousands of local races beneath high-salience state and federal contests, the Even Year Election Law purposely and effectively subordinates local elections to state and national political dynamics and diminishes the ability of local candidates to reach their constituents,” he said. “By pushing local contests to the bottom of overcrowded ballots, the EYEL reduces visibility, drives up campaign costs, and weakens the connection between candidates and voters.”
Brewer further stated: “The First Amendment protects not just technical ballot access, but meaningful political opportunity and robust debate. When the state deliberately redesigns election mechanics to bury a defined class of candidates and skew democratic competition, it imposes a severe burden on core political speech – and that violates the First Amendment.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James has moved to dismiss the complaint. The case is pending in federal court.
Read the full interview here: Attorney William Brewer on New York’s Even Year Election Law and the First Amendment | First Amendment Watch
Texas Lawyer Reports on Upcoming Trial Over Alleged Misappropriation of Commercial Actress’s Image by Biote-Affiliated Providers
February 17, 2026 – Texas Lawyer reports on upcoming trial proceedings in a lawsuit filed by commercial actress and Brewer client Cindy Latch against nearly two dozen medical providers affiliated with Biote Medical, LLC, a Texas-based hormone therapy company. As reported, Latch alleges that the providers used "her likeness to market their services for years, ignoring contract expirations, written cease-and-desist notices, and ultimately a court injunction."
Trial proceedings against the Biote-affiliated providers are scheduled to begin soon in the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.
“These defendants have continued to profit from her likeness despite having no legal right to do so,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for Latch. “Her brand is her currency, and that right is worth fighting for.”
At the heart of the dispute is Latch’s former collaboration with Biote. Under a series of “Image Usage Contracts,” Biote had the right to use Latch’s promotional materials – but only so long as payments were timely and consent remained valid. According to the petition, those contracts expressly required affiliates to remove all content within 30 days after payment ceased or authorization ended.
The lawsuit alleges that when Latch withdrew her consent in 2021 and Biote’s license expired, many affiliated providers ignored the termination and continued using her image. Despite receiving written instructions from Biote to remove the content – and a court-ordered injunction issued on December 9, 2024 – numerous providers allegedly failed to comply.
According to the article, "Brewer said this case is important beyond just the people involved. He called it a sign of how courts and juries might handle image rights violations in the digital age, since social media makes it easier to use content without permission."
Separately, Texas Lawyer reports on an award of fees and costs against Biote related to its outside counsel’s reported abrupt termination of deposition proceedings and evidence gathering as the parties approached trial. In addition to Brewer, Latch is represented by partner Josh Harris and associates Amir Saada and Jordon Smith.
Read the report here: Interrupted Depositions Stall Texas Actress’ Fight Over Her Image | Texas Lawyer
Remarker: Foundation Bridges Dallas Educational Divide
ReMarker recently profiled the Brewer Foundation’s Future Leaders Program (FLP), a public-private education initiative now serving 15 schools from the Dallas Independent School District.
FLP launched in 2001, after the firm’s community impact affiliate, the Brewer Storefront, identified deep educational inequities throughout South Dallas. In response, Brewer Foundation founder William A. Brewer III partnered with St. Mark’s School of Texas and The Hockaday School to create a unique private-public initiative now known as the Future Leaders Program.
Now expanded to four partner private schools, the program brings more than 200 DISD students to campus each Saturday, where public and private school teachers co-lead a rigorous curriculum blending academic instruction, leadership development, and college preparation. FLP goes well beyond traditional classroom support, strengthening the skills they need to grow and lead others. As Ian Shaw, President of the Brewer Foundation explains in the piece:
“A future leader isn’t just someone who gets A’s in school. Scholastic skills can only go so far. A future leader is someone who can be an advocate for themselves and for others.”
That commitment shapes all aspects of the program, including its funding. Unlike many other student support programs, the FLP is fully sponsored by the Brewer Foundation and offered at no-cost to both the partner schools and the students participating.
The results for students are transformative. Four students from this year’s FLP class earned full-ride scholarships to college, including Emanuel Benitez, who earned a full-ride scholarship to Columbia University, and featured in the article. Emanuel will be the first of his family to leave Dallas.
However, Emanuel does not stand alone. Since 2009, FLP students have received over $20 million in scholarship offers.
To read the full piece, click here.
To learn more about the Future Leaders Program and its impact, click here.
To support the Foundation and its work, click here.
Dallas Morning News Reports on New Lawsuit Against Biote Medical Over Sleep Supplements
February 11, 2026 – The Dallas Morning News reports that a former Biote Medical employee and his wife have filed suit against the Irving-based hormone therapy and supplements company, alleging that one of its sleep supplements caused serious liver damage.
As reported, Christopher and Mary Pat Sharon filed their lawsuit Monday in Dallas County court. According to the complaint, the couple took Biote’s “Deep Sleep” supplement as directed beginning around 2021 and subsequently developed symptoms consistent with liver injury. The filing states that both sought medical treatment, and Mary Pat Sharon underwent a liver biopsy.
According to the Morning News, “The couple raised concerns that other people may have been harmed by the supplement, too.”
The lawsuit alleges that Biote discontinued “Deep Sleep” in late 2021 and introduced a reformulated product, “Best Night Sleep,” but did not issue any public notice regarding potential safety concerns with the earlier version. Christopher Sharon, who worked for Biote at the time, allegedly began raising internal concerns by 2023 after concluding that the decision to reformulate may have been linked to safety issues.
As reported, “Christopher Sharon was terminated from Biote in mid-2025. One of his attorneys, Bill Brewer, said the company pointed to a restructuring as the reason for the termination.”
Brewer said Sharon tried to raise the issue inside the company first, and filed suit only after those efforts failed and he was terminated.
“Mr. Sharon never felt he got an adequate explanation as to … what the company was doing (and) whether the company discontinued the Deep Sleep product as a result of others reporting the same problems that he and his wife experienced,” Brewer said.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Reports on Voting Rights Act Case, Third-Party Support
February 9, 2026 – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports today on substantial third-party support for Brewer Storefront’s voting-rights challenge to Keller Independent School District’s at-large school board election system. As reported, after the federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, the firm’s subsequent filing details extensive empirical evidence, expert analysis, and sworn testimony demonstrating persistent concerns about minority vote dilution and representational fairness.
The filing includes historical election data showing that candidates favored by a majority of Hispanic voters in Keller ISD elections have consistently been unsuccessful, despite Hispanic students comprising approximately 26% of the district’s enrollment and the absence of any Hispanic trustees on the board. Independent academic research, including analysis published by the University of Chicago, has identified at-large voting systems as historically associated with minority vote dilution.
Notably, the Star-Telegram reports that the court record now includes sworn affidavits from nationally recognized voting-rights experts, elected officials, and community leaders. These include testimony from FairVote Director of Research and Policy Deb Otis, as well as affidavits from Texas State Representative Rafael Anchía and former North Texas school board trustees with firsthand experience implementing such reforms. Storefront plaintiff Claudio Vallejo also provided sworn testimony.
As reported, in an affidavit included in the new filing, which was in response to O’Connor’s order, Vallejo wrote that he believed lack of diverse representation on the school board negatively impacts Hispanic and African-American student outcomes.
Multiple affidavits also describe real-world impacts on parents and candidates within Keller ISD.
Brewer Storefront previously represented plaintiffs in successful voting-rights matters that resulted in the adoption of cumulative voting systems, leading to increased minority representation. Consistent with that history, the Star-Telegram reports that the firm respectfully disagrees with the district court’s ruling and has announced its intent to appeal.
Read more: Plaintiff in Keller lawsuit argues claims were not baseless | Fort Worth Star-Telegram
International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) Announces 2025 – 26 Advancing “Sweet 16” Teams
The Brewer Foundation/New York University International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) today announced the high school debate teams advancing to the competition’s final written round, the “Sweet 16.”
Advancing teams remain eligible to win an all-expense paid trip to New York City, where they will compete for the IPPF World Champion title, the Brewer Cup and a $10,000 grand prize.
The written debates began in November and have successively narrowed the field. The Round of 32 began early January when teams engaged 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 written debate to select this year’s “Sweet 16” teams. They represent schools from 10 U.S states and 5 countries including the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Türkiye.
“The advancing teams have committed themselves to the research and craft that go into effective public policy advocacy,” says William A. Brewer, Chairman of the Brewer Foundation and Founder of the IPPF. “They have demonstrated exceptional skill thus far, but this final round will determine who earns the opportunity to debate in New York City.”
The winners of the “Sweet 16” will be invited to New York City to compete at the IPPF Finals on Saturday, April 18, 2026, at the NYU School of Law. The “Elite 8” teams will compete in oral debates before a panel of judges that includes professionals from law, business, academia, and public policy.
Founded in 2001, the IPPF is the only international debate competition which teams compete in both oral and written debate. The IPPF’s 25th competition began in October with a record-breaking field of 332 teams from 39 countries including Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, China, and Japan.
Results from the Round of 32:
Kealakehe Public High School from Kailua Kona, Hawaii advances over Syosset High School from Syosset, New York
BASIS International School Shenzhen from Shenzhen, China advances over Bergen Debate Club from Bergen, New Jersey
Jasper High School from Plano, Texas advances over Seido Mikawadai High School from Nagasaki Japan
Ivy Bridge Academy (Team 1) from Johns Creek, Georgia advances over Greenwich High School from Greenwich, Connecticut
Pomperaug Regional High School from Southbury, Connecticut advances over Carroll Senior High School from Southlake, Texas
North Allegheny Senior High School from Wexford, Pennsylvania advances over Flower Mound High School from Flower Mound, Texas
Hamilton High School from Chandler, Arizona advances over TH School from Hanoi Vietnam
Çevre High School from Istanbul, Turkey advances over The Academy of Classical Christian Studies from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Ivy Bridge Academy (Team 2) from John’s Creek Georgia advances over Jabberwocky Studio from Delhi, India
Delbarton School from Morristown, New Jersey advances over Grand Oaks High School from Spring, Texas
Notre Dame San Jose from San Jose, California advances over Phillips Academy Andover from Andover, Massachusetts
Millburn High School from Millburn, New Jersey advances over German European School Singapore from Singapore
Troy High School from Troy, Michigan advances over Phillips Exeter Academy from Exeter, New Hampshire
Saint Paul Preporatory Seoul from Seoul, Republic of Korea advances over Nova High School from Davie, Florida
Westwood High School from Austin, Texas advances over Damien Memorial School from Honolulu, Hawaii
Marymount Academy International from Montreal, Canada advances over Northport High School from Northport, New York
To learn more about the IPPF click here.
The Spectre Saga: Auto Outlets Report on Case Against Rolls-Royce, Texas Dealership
February 6, 2026 – National automobile platforms reported today on a lawsuit by Brewer client Marci Donovitz against Rolls-Royce and Texas authorized dealership Avondale Dealership over a defective Rolls-Royce Spectre, a new electric vehicle model from the luxury car company.
Filed in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County Texas on February 3, 2025, the lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment under Texas law.
As reported by Carscoops, “According to the filing, the vehicle ‘experienced a sudden and serious malfunction’ in October, just months after delivery. The plaintiff claims the EV would ‘soon become inoperable’ and sent it to the dealer for inspection.”
Carscoops reports that “the dealership reportedly informed her [Ms. Donovitz] by text that parts had been ordered, but were on backorder with no estimated delivery date. After 40 days with no progress, Donovitz retained legal counsel and sent a letter to Rolls-Royce requesting that it repurchase the vehicle and issue a refund. The company declined. As of February, the lawsuit states, the Spectre remains in the possession of Avondale Dealership and has not been repaired. The filing refers to the luxury EV as a ‘lemon.’”
As reported by National Today in the article, “Texas Woman Sues Rolls-Royce Over $546K Spectre EV Failure,” “this case highlights growing concerns about the reliability and durability of high-end electric vehicles, especially as automakers like Rolls-Royce expand their EV lineups. The lawsuit could impact consumer confidence in the brand and raise questions about Rolls-Royce's ability to properly diagnose and fix complex battery issues in a timely manner.”
Read more:
Her $546K EV Failed In Four Months, And Rolls-Royce Still Hasn’t Fixed It | Carscoops
Texas Woman Sues Rolls-Royce Over $546K Spectre EV Failure - National Today
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.