I hate to be a cynic but Brian S. Brown has some problems with truthfulness.
September 20, 2016:
We have some of the nation’s top legal experts in the country working on our briefs, and they believe we have an excellent chance of prevailing. You see, President Obama is simply making up a rationale to justify his extreme position on gender. Without any legal authority, Obama says that when Congress wrote anti-sex discrimination laws decades ago, they surely meant to include “gender identity” in the definition of sex. Of course, that is preposterous.
That of course is followed by a gimme money. Brown doesn’t get around to explaining that prevailing means that the Supreme Court takes up the case. The intended inference is that NOM will prevail on the merits.
September 23, 2016:
I just spoke with Dr. John Eastman, NOM’s chairman and one of the nation’s top constitutional lawyers, about the brief. He tells me that it will be a powerful refutation of this insane gender policy that President Obama seeks to impose on our schools and throughout society.
But in order to complete and file this brief, we need to raise $12,000 in the next week.
I still wasn’t clear that this was an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court taking up the case. I noted at the time that Eastman was on the take again.
September 29, 2016:
Urgent Need for Funds to File Supreme Court Brief
NOM’s brief has been completed and is at the printer’s office being readied for submission to the Court. But I am extremely concerned because we lack the funds to pay for the expenses associated with preparing and filing the brief.
October 6, 2016: NOM has filed a 16 page brief along with Claremont Institute. Presumably, NOM was responsible for half of John Eastman’s bill. NOM’s stated interest is amusing:
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE — The National Organization for Marriage (“NOM”)
is a nationwide, non-profit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities
that sustain it. NOM’s leading role in those efforts has
necessarily meant that the organization has been involved in many public debates about what constitutes
being male and being female. NOM has been involved
in a variety of efforts to overturn regulatory and legislative actions seeking to substitute “gender identity”
for biological sex in determining who may access gender-specific facilities such as restrooms, showers and
locker rooms. For example, NOM urged its members
to support a referendum in California and a ballot initiative in Washington State on these very matters.
Because of its advocacy and public education activities.
That’s fine for an amicus brief but they seem to have strained to explain what interest they have in transgender accommodations. In addition to Eastman, two Chapman Fowler Law School faculty members are listed.