-
Jun 29, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Rachel Morrison |Patrick Brown |Natalie Dodson
Published June 14, 2024PDFOn June 14, 2024, EPPC filed an amicus brief in Chestek v. Vidal, urging the Supreme Court to hear a case involving whether the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is generally subject to “notice-and-comment rulemaking,” a process that guarantees interested parties an opportunity to influence the development of rules that have the force and effect of law. EPPC fellows Rachel N.
-
Jun 20, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Patrick Brown |Eric N. Kniffin |Jamie Hall
Published June 18, 2024PDFIn June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, correctly finding that the Constitution did not contain a right to abortion. In the two years since, states have been passing laws to protect the unborn child in the womb—and create a society in which pregnant women, and the babies they carry, receive the support they are due.
-
Jun 11, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Mary Hasson |Stanley Kurtz |Brad Littlejohn
Published June 11, 2024On Monday, June 10, 2024, the Ethics and Public Policy Center filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Houston County, Georgia v. Lange in support of the County’s petition for rehearing en banc.
-
Jun 3, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Carl R. Trueman |Francis X. Maier |George Weigel
Published April 26, 2024PDFOn Friday, April 26, 2024, EPPC fellow Eric Kniffin filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Apache Stronghold v. United States(link to Becket case page). This case started when Congress passed a law giving Resolution Copper the right to mine the area under Oak Flat, a sacred site for the Western Apache. The parties agree that the mining operation will turn Oak Flat into 1,100-foot-deep crater nearly two miles wide.
-
Jun 3, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Mary Hasson |Carl R. Trueman |Francis X. Maier
Published April 19, 2024PDFOn Friday, April 19, 2024, the Ethics and Public Policy Center filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Prichard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois. Plaintiff Patricia Prichard and her minor daughter have health care through her employer, Catholic Health Initiatives. Prichard’s minor daughter was diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
-
May 30, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Rachel Morrison |Eric N. Kniffin |Henry Olsen |George Weigel
Published May 28, 2024PDFOn Tuesday, May 28, 2024, EPPC scholars Rachel N. Morrison and Eric Kniffin met with government officials in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to oppose two State Department rules on nondiscrimination in foreign assistance, which are expected to be finalized soon.
-
May 27, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Rachel Morrison |Henry Olsen |George Weigel
Published April 8, 2024PDFOn Monday, April 8, 2024, EPPC scholars Eric Kniffin and Rachel N. Morrison met with government officials in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to oppose the Health and Human Services’ proposed changes to “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” (TANF) regulations, which are expected to be finalized soon.
-
Apr 18, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Rachel Morrison |Eric N. Kniffin
Published April 18, 2024PDFOn Thursday, April 18, 2024, EPPC scholar Rachel N. Morrison met with government officials in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to share concerns with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance on harassment in the workplace, which is expected to be finalized soon.
-
Apr 2, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Rachel Morrison |Nathanael Blake |George Weigel
Published April 2, 2024PDFOn Tuesday, April 2, 2024, EPPC scholar Eric Kniffin met with government officials in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) to provide comment on a new oppose a new rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would clarify what constitutes discrimination against individuals with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and, by extension, the Americans with Disabilities Act.
-
Apr 1, 2024 | 
eppc.org | Eric N. Kniffin |Nathanael Blake |George Weigel |Andrew Walker
To start, HHS’s interpretation of Bostock is implausible. The Supreme Court did not, as HHS claims, conclude that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Moreover, the Supreme Court explicitly denied that its interpretation of Title VII applied to other statutes—not to Title IX and not to the thirteen statutes listed in the proposed rule. HHS has no mandate from Congress and no duty under Bostock to redefine what discrimination on the basis of sex means under these laws. . . .
