Page One

TheLitigatorMSLF Expands U.S. Supreme Court Knox Ruling

LAWYER UNION BARS SPEECH RIGHTS A Nebraska attorney filed a lawsuit against the Nebraska State Bar Association in federal district court in Lincoln charging that it violates his rights under the Constitutions First and Fourteenth Amendments. With MSLF as his attorney, Scott Lautenbaugh, Esq., an Omaha, Nebraska attorney and a Nebraska State Senator, alleges that the associations use of his annual membership dues for political and ideological purposes constitutes government compelled-speech. The Association is an integrated bar, which means membership is mandatory for all attorneys practicing in Nebraska. Previously, Mr. Lautenbaugh filed a petition with the Nebraska Supreme Court asking that it de-integrate the bar, that is, make membership in the bar voluntary; in July 2012, the court noticed the need for further study and in September 2012 sought documents from the association. Mr. Lautenbaughs lawsuit seeks to build on the U.S. Supreme Courts June 2012 decision in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000. The Courts rulings on unions and First Amendment rights apply equally to bar associations. Membership in the Nebraska State Bar Association is mandatory for all attorneys who practice law in the State. Members dues of $345 annually is used, not only to regulate, discipline, and educate attorneys, but also to support a Legislative Program, which includes the initiation, support, opposition, or comment on legislative matters, at both [state and local] levels. During

the last two years, for example, the Legislative Program has lobbied on over 100 bills alone, including opposition to legislation: expanding concealed carry permit rights, restricting eminent domain, and eliminating statutes of

limitations for some felonies. Mr. Lautenbaugh believes,

because he is required to be a member of the

State Bar Association, the use of his dues for political and ideological purposes constitutes government-

compelled speech and violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Moreover, because the bar association requires him to opt out of paying dues it uses for lobbying purposes, rather than providing him the opportunity to opt in, it appears to violate Knox. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional requirements regarding unions also apply to bar associations, but the applicability of other aspects of Knox to the Nebraska case remain to be determined. Unlike other States, when a Nebraska member opts-out of political expenditures, that portion of the dues is not refunded but is used for other purposes. MSLF filed a friend of the court brief in the Knox case in which it urged the Supreme Court to consider whether only having the ability to opt-out of political spending (rather than to opt-in) violates the First Amendment. Because opting-out assumes that non-

Autumn 2012The Litigatoris published quarterly byMountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundationdedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org

members want to associate themselves with the unions advocacy, it puts the burden of protecting free speech on the non-member.

Justice Alito, in an opinion that appears to be directed at unions, held that opting-out can violate the First Amendment: Our cases have tolerated a substantial impingement on First Amendment rights by allowing unions

to impose an opt-out requirement at all. Justice Alito also adopts MSLFs argument that balancing the rights of individuals with those of unions is not the correct approach. Which side should bear the risk [of a constitutional violation]? asks Justice Alito. The answer is obvious: the side whose constitutional rights are not at stake.

Page Two

ASPEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX NETS SUIT

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSS

WEB PAGE POLL Visitors to MSLFs web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to the following question: Colorado passed a law that calls a tax a fee, imposes it, and incurs debt all without Taxpayer Bill of Rights required voter approval. Is that constitutional? One hundred percent (100%) said, No: The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is clear; there are no taxes or new debt without voter approval. Zero percent (0%) said, Yes: TABOR is too limiting; schemes such as the Bridge Enterprise Act are necessary to increase spending. Vote on the new question at MSLFs web site today! Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLFs precedent-setting, nation-ally-significant litigation is to check MSLFs highly acclaimed web site. MSLFs web site is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updates on MSLFs Legal Cases and Press Releases.

Did you know that you might be able to double your gift for free? Thousands of companies match their employees charitable contributions. Matching gifts play a key role in help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Please ask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your human re-sources or personnel department to see if your company will match your gift to MSLF. Then, each time you mail your gift, please include a matching gift form from your employer. MSLF will do the rest!

PENDLEYS VIEW The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has been used to award millions of dollars to environmental groups contrary to the EAJAs pur-pose of allowing Americans, forced to litigate against the federal govern-ment, to be paid their attorneys fees and expenses if they prevail and if the governments legal position is not substantially justified. Use of the EAJA by environmental groups is unique in two other ways. Envi-ronmental groups recover fees for suing over non-injurious, technical violations of federal law and they are paid quickly. MSLFs clients sue to vindicate constitutional or statutory rights and are not paid or wait years to be paid. John Shuler of Dupuyer, Mon-tana, who killed a grizzly bear in self-defenseas allowed under the Endan-gered Species Actwas prosecuted by the federal government for nearly a decade. Shuler prevailed only after his attorneys expended $225,000; how-ever, federal courts denied his EAJA application for attorneys fees. Donald Eno is a disabled veteran on fixed income, seeking to eek out a living as a miner on his gold and travertine claim in the Plumas Na-tional Forest in northern California. In 1996, the U.S. Forest Service took legal action to drive Mr. Eno off his extremely valuable claim. In February 2007, Mr. Eno prevailed. Then federal lawyers challenged Mr. Enos EAJA claim for nearly $200,000, a battle that, after more than five years, remains in federal court! Stanley K. Mann is a professor, lawyer, and alternative-energy entre-preneur, whose extremely valuable geothermal wells were seized illegally by federal officials. After litigating for nine years, Mr. Mann was awarded nearly $1 million. Despite his clear victory, the years invested in it, and the absence of any justification for the governments illegal actions, federal lawyers contested his nearly $300,000 EAJA claim. Nearly three years later, Mr. Mann awaits a ruling..

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation sued the City of Aspen and five members of the Aspen City Coun-cil in Pitkin County District Court for violation of the Colorado Constitutions Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). The group alleges that its members should have been allowed to vote on a $0.20 tax Aspen imposes on each disposable carryout bag grocers provide to their customers. The tax, which went into effect in May 2012, applies to paper bags distributed by grocers. Plastic bags are banned. Like a sales tax, the tax is collected by grocers from customers and the proceeds remit-ted to the City of Aspen. CUT seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an order requiring refund of all revenues collected, along with the payment of interest, as required by TABOR. In October 2011, Aspen passed a

Waste Reduction Fee, similar to taxes imposed by Telluride, Carbondale, and Basalt, because, Aspen considers itself an environmental leader and this topic presents an opportunity for Aspen to continue to take a progressive stance

on environmental issues. In the taxs first year, grocers may retain a portion to inform customers about the tax, train staff about the tax, and alter infrastruc-ture to accommo-date the collection of the tax. Revenue from the tax funds general expenses of

Aspen government, including public educational campaigns, infrastructure, pollution-reduction equipment, and community cleanup events. Meanwhile, MSLFs lawsuit against Colorado for imposing a tax on vehicles that circumvents TABOR continues. In TABOR Foundation v. Colorado Bridge Enterprise, MSLF seeks to end this tax.

MSLF urged the Supreme Court of the United States to review a rul-ing by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that upheld the constitution-ality of a federal law that places a southern county under the direct supervision of the Attorney Gen-eral of the United States 46 years after its enactment. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requires Shelby County, Alabama as a covered jurisdiction, to get federal approval before any change in voting standard, practice, or procedure. In a 2-1 ruling, the panel upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 over MSLFs objections, which included that, while application of Sec-tion 5 of the VRA to Shelby County was proper in 1965, it no longer is lawful and Congresss 2006 reauthorization of the VRA is unconstitutional. Section 5, Congresss most intrusive

involvement in State sovereignty, bars a covered jurisdiction from enact[ing] or seek[ing] to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with

respect to voting, different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964 unless it submits that request for preclearance to the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia, and

it is determined that such proposed enactment does not have the purpose . . . [or] effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States, on account of race or color, or [language minority status], to elect their preferred candidates of choice[.] Section 5 still applies to the entire State of Alabama, including Shelby County, and was left unchanged when, in 2006, Congress reauthorized the VRA for another 25 years. In the last

ten years, Shelby County has filed for preclearance numerous times, expend-ed significant taxpayer dollars, time, and energy to meet its obligations, and has had at least one election delayed in order to ensure compliance with the preclearance obligation of Section 5. In April 2010, Shelby County sued in the District of Columbia federal district court to challenge Section 5s constitutionality. The district court held that Section 5 is constitutional and does not exceed the power of Congress under the Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.Meanwhile, Texas is raising the consti-tutionality of Section 5 in its defense of its requirement for photo-identifications to vote in Texas.

Marvin Brandt of Fox Park, Wyo-ming owns 83 acres of land, a portion of which was burdened by a right-of-way for the Laramie, Hahns Peak, and Pacific Railroad Company from Laramie to the Colorado line. In 1996, the Wyo-ming and Colorado Railroad Company, as the railroad was then known, sought to abandon the line; by 2004, it had removed all the tracks and ties. By operation of federal and state law, the right-of-way was extinguished and Mr. Brandts property became unencum-bered. In April 2005, the U.S. Forest Service announced plans to convert its non-existent right-of-way into a pub-lic, recreational trail. In July 2006, the United States sued Mr. Brant in Wyo-ming federal district court to quiet title to the trail in its name. MSLF, on Mr. Brandts behalf, filed a counterclaim to quiet title in favor of Mr. Brandt.

In April 2009, the Wyoming federal district court quieted title to the old rail-road right-of-way in favor of the United States. The district court also ruled that the United States could expand the scope of the railroad right-of-way to in-clude a public, recreational trail. MSLF appealed the district courts ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado. Recently, the Tenth Circuit issued a short, per curiam decision that affirmed the district court, a decision the panel could have issued after oral arguments in May of 2010! Mr. Brandt and MSLF are contemplating whether to seek re-view by the Tenth Circuit (en banc) or by the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Mr. Brandt awaits a ruling of his appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. in which he seeks just compensation.

Page Three

WYOMING MAN BATTLES FOR HIS LAND

VOTING RIGHTS ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

MINERS FIGHT BACK

KEEP READING! The Litigator, MSLFs quarterly newsletter, is the indispensable tool for staying informed regarding the latest in MSLFs precedent-setting, nationally-significant, public-interest litigation. The Litigator is mailed on the first of Febru-ary, May, August, and November. En-sure that you keep receiving The Litigator by contributing $25 annually.

With MSLF as its attorney, the Northwest Mining Association urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a controversial ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a lawsuit by an American Indian tribe, a badly fractured en banc panel, over a scathing dissent by four judges, reversed earlier rulings by a three-judge Ninth Cir-cuit panel and by a federal district court. The Ninth Circuit held that, when the Forest Service reviews Notices of Intent (NOIs) by miners to use suction drilling to mine their own claims, it constitutes agency action under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and triggers the agencys duty to engage in interagency consultation. The opinion fails to recognize the statutory right of miners to mine and conflicts with the Courts precedents.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: REAGAN - WE WIN AND THEY LOSEby William Perry Pendley, Esq. President and Chief Operating Officer

Forty-eight years ago last month, private citizen Ronald Reagan delivered his famous A Time for Choosing speech. Today it is worth considering Reagans legacy on natural resources and the environment. [W]e win and they lose, said Reagan in 1977 to Richard V. Allen in describing his strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union. Allen was flabbergasted. Id worked for Nixon and Goldwater and many others, and Id heard a lot about Kissingers policy of dtente and about the need to manage the Cold War, but never did I hear a leading politician put the goal so starkly. History proved Reagan right and the intellectual elite, the media, and Democrat and Republican political leaders, wrong. Reagan, with his unbridled faith in American ingenuity, creativity, and know-how and his confidence in the free-enterprise system, believed the United States would transcend the Soviet Union. First, however, Reagan had to revive and then revitalize an American economy reeling from a double-digit trifecta (unemployment, inflation, and interest rates). Reagan did believe in better days, but he knew the economy could not grow without reliable sources of energy that America had in abundance. It all made sense to Reagan and to the American people who elected him by a large margin, but much had changed over the two decades leading up to his inauguration. The environmental movement was in its ascendancy and had persuaded Congress to enact a series of well-intentioned laws that posed a threat of great mischief in the hands of covetous bureaucrats, radical groups, and activist judges. Reagan adhered to what one social scientist called the human exemptionalism paradigm, whereby human technological ingenuity can continue infinitely to improve the human situation, whereas the Earth Day organizers embraced a neo-Malthusian ecological paradigm that believed in environmental limits on economic growth. Carter adhered to the latter view and while his administration was extreme in that regard, the 1980s bi-partisan consensus in Washington was the American public had embraced a new environmental ethic. It was not surprising, therefore, that following Reagans election in November 1980, he was presented with reports from two transition task forces on energy and environmental issues. One urged that the president maintain the momentum of environmental protection while allowing for some easing of regulation. Reagan quickly brushed it aside; only three copies

were ever made. Instead, in another bold break with the bi-partisan past akin to his approach to foreign policy, Reagan opted for The Heritage Foundations report, Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration. Mandate called for massive changes in the U.S. Department of the Interiors programs, including dramatic increases in oil and gas leasing, both on the Outer Continental Shelf and on federal lands across the country, and resumed leasing of federal coal lands in the American West.

Reagans aggressive energy policies have never been equaled. Of greater importance today than the specific energy policies upon which Reagan embarked, however, is Reagans belief in American exceptionalism and the ability of the Amer-ican peopleif unfettered by their government with unnecess-arily burdensome regulationsto improve their and the Nations lot. The amazing work of the energy industry in discovering, developing, and delivering heretofore unanticipated oil and gas resources, for example, through use of fracturing technology, would not have surprised Reagan. In addition, Reagan, given his foresight in so many areas, may well have anticipated thepossible coming demise of the radical environmental move-ment. Much as the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight, the environmental movement may share that fate, especially given the total discrediting of its climate change scare-mongering, the failureafter spending a near infinite amount of moneyof alternative energy sources to compete with hydrocarbons, and the apparent indifference and even hostility of environmental groups to the economic needs of mankind. Or as Reagan so succinctly put it in 1983, I do not think they will be happy until the White House looks like a birds nest.

Page Four

HOLDER HELD IN CONTEMPT In June, the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over documents about the Fast and Furi-ous scandal. It is the first ever such vote against a sitting cabinet officer. J. Christian Adams is not sur-prised and explains why in his expos, Injustice, which is free with a $50 contribution to MSLF.

Page Five

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) Is A Nonprofit, Public-Interest Legal Foundation, That Is A 501(c)(3) Organization,Since Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions To MSLF Are Tax Deductible!

MSLF CANNOT REST; ITS ROLE ESSENTIAL TO REMAINING FREE In 2012, MSLF will have been going to court for 35 years, fighting to compel compliance with the commands of the Constitution and federal law to ensure that America remains a nation of laws. At no time during these three plus decades has the need for MSLF to go to court on behalf of those who could not afford legal representation been less-ened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy has grown and as federal laws have become more far-reaching and intrusive, MSLFs caseload has increased dramati-cally. That is obvious from a review of the scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is Vital If there is one lesson MSLF has learned over the past 35 years, it is that, regardless of which party occupies the White House or controls Congress, the threat to liberty remains and MSLF must be ready, willing, and able to go to court to defend freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once said, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. One of the prices that must be paid for MSLF to remain vigilant isthe price that tens of thousands of Amer-icans pay annually by making their tax-deductible contributions to MSLF and its litigation. The support of MSLF by tens of thousands of Americans committed to freedom could not be more important. Your support will ensure that MSLF remains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and the judge orders the federal government to pay attorneys fees and expenses).

MSLFs sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of those who support its aggressive litigation program.

MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makes the contributions it receives tax deductible.

MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MSLFs commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nation of laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.

MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution, strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hire legal counsel to protect their rights.

Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share of oneshard-earned income.

Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.

Although many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have been eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by charitable giving remain!

Income Tax Each year a person may deduct as much as 50 percent of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that limit is only 30 percent for gifts of appreciated property.

Estate Tax A person who died in 2011 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,000,000; however, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Because federal estate taxes over $5,000,000 range from 37 percent to 50 percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $500 in taxes. Please consult your tax adviser. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLFs brokerageaccount DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528, Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100; Denver, CO 80202.

(Adam J. Rehmer 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5095). Please notify MSLF BEFORE mak-ing the transfer; there is no way to identify a stock donor without prior notification.

Problem u

Solution u

Reason u

The Means u

Stock uTransferInformation

GIFT: $ ____________ o$1000 o$500 o$250 o$100 o$50 o$25o Check Payable to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF)o Credit Card ___MC ___Visa ___Discover ___AmEx Credit Card # _________________________________________________________________

CVV# (3 digit code on back of card) ___________________ Exp. Date _______________

Signature _____________________________________________________________________

NAME (Please print) _______________________________________________________________

ADDRESS ________________________________________________________________________

CITY ______________________________________STATE ____________ ZIP _______________

PHONE __________________________________________________________________________

EMAIL ___________________________________________________________________________o Yes, I want to help MSLF in its battles, including its fight against the Civil Rights Division.o I made my contribution in the amount of $50, or more. Please send me Injustice.o I have ADDED $10 to my $50 contribution; send me an autographed copy of Injustice.

MSLF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit legal foundation; contributions are tax-deductible pursuant to law.o I/We put MSLF in my/our will; (print name) _______________________________________.

Gun-free zones never gun freeBy William Perry Pendley

By Ted S. Warren, APPolice and other vehicles remain in front of the Century 16 movie the-ater Saturday, in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and dozens injured in a shooting attack.

In the very early morning hours on July 20, I was in Aurora preparing to fly out of Denver International Airport when, standing at the gate, I pulled up the terrible news on my mobile telephone. As a Colorado resident since 1989, I was reminded of the day in 1999 when I rushed to pick up my sons from their Jefferson County public schools after gunmen invaded Columbine High School.

I thought as well of a snowy December day in 2007 when a gunman murdered missionaries and church-goers in Arvada and Colorado Springs. As in the hours following those tragic days, much remains unknown about the murders and the man who commited them; soon we will know more than we ever would have wanted.

Likewise, as occurred following those tragedies, yesterday, even before my flight landed on the East Coast, there were declarations by some, including New York Citys Mayor Michael Bloomberg, that guns, gun-ownership and Second Amendment rights are the reasons for these tragedies.

I write this in the darkness of Saturdays early morning hours knowing that, because the organization I lead defends the rights of law-abiding citizens to exercise their federal and state constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and, if they qualify, to carry concealed weapons, we will be described as part of this alleged national problem. Such accusations ignore, not only that gun rights are supported overwhelmingly by the

American people, but also that the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed those rights in two landmark rulings in 2008 and 2010. (In the latter case, Justice Alito cited to our brief.)

Furthermore, earlier this year, in a case we brought on behalf of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and three Colorado students, a unanimous Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Colorado Concealed Carry Act, which allows those who qualify to carry firearms throughout Colorado with four specific exceptions: locations prohibited by federal law, K-12 schools, public buildings with metal detectors and private property. The court overruled attempts by the University of Colorado to set its own policies and bar concealed carry weapons and the exercise of Second Amendment rights on its campuses.

It appears that Cinemark Holdings Inc., owner of the theater where these murders took place exercises its rights as an owner of private property in Colorado to bar those who hold concealed carry permits from exercising their rights in its theaters.

As a result, law-abiding citizens, including owners of concealed carry permits, who were in the theater that dreadful night were unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves and their fellow movie-goers from the murderous attack visited upon them.

Opponents of the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws call the areas created by Cinemarks decision gun-free zones. They are not. As we discovered to our great horror in the early morning hours of July 20 and as we have discovered in the past, they are free only of the guns owned by law-abiding citizens.

William Perry Pendley, an attorney, is president of Mountain States Legal Foundation. Posted July 21, 2012.

Page Six

Page Seven

LEGAL

ACTION

NOTABLE

QUOTES

n MSLF urged the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse an opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that, contrary to federal law, places all forestry roads under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

n MSLF urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a Montana federal district court ruling that the Bureau of Land Management plan for a national monument in Montana complies with federal law.

n A Pennsylvania federal district court ruled in favor of MSLFs oil and

gas clients and made permanent its December 2009 ruling against a sweetheart lawsuit settlement made by the Obama Administration.

n MSLF urged the Ninth Circuit to vacate a ruling by a Montana federal district court striking the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the wolf in Idaho and Montana. That ruling was mooted when Congress amended the Endangered Species Act to bar listing the wolf, but the ruling was left standing.

n A District of Columbia federal district court narrowly struck down a racial preference contracting program used by the U.S. Department of Defense; MSLF was asked by the court to file an amicus brief in the case.

n MSLF urged the Supreme Court to hear an appeal by Arizona of the ruling of the Ninth Circuit that the voter identification requirements of Proposition 200 are barred by federal law; the ruling came from a badly split en banc panel.

n MSLF Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Steven J. Lechner, argued on behalf of MSLFs clients in Arizona federal district court to protect grazing rights from a challenge by environmental groups.

n The Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition filed by the State of Wyoming to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruling that President Clintons roadless rule did not violate the Wilderness Act of 1964; MSLF urged the Court to grant the petition.

n MSLF was in a Wyoming federal district court for oral arguments in a lawsuit, which began with one of MSLFs first cases, seeking to remove wild horses from grazing allotments.

n A New Jersey federal district court ordered that a trial be held regarding the property rights of a rural family sued by the National Park Service for trespass when the family put gates on its fence to protect family members. Feds in SWAT gear served the suit.

[MSLF] is an amazing not-for-profit institution that takes on [Second Amend-ment] cases pro bono and they won at the [Colorado] Supreme Court.Brooke Goldstein, Esq.New York, NYOn ABC Red Eye

[Y]our organization does great work.Jason C. Miller, Esq.Lakewood, CO

Thank you very much for your hard work.James V. YoungSan Francisco, CA

Thanks to you courageous and great people. God bless you.Beth StuckerSultan, WA

I hope you can help save the U.S.Claude JungmanPremont, TX

I strongly support what you are doing.C.A. BelangerRochester Hills, MI

Thank you for all that you do.Margaret K. PetersOro Valley, AZ

You do good things.Donald D. ThayerLa Barge, WY

Keep up the great work!Carol A. MorrisEast Jordan, MI

I am heartened [each] time I receive The Litigator and realize there are still people like you standing up for individual libertiesand WINNING!Michael GibsonWalnut, CA

I truly support your cause.Arthur H. AbrottBeatty, OR

Keep up the good work!Ward D. StoepkerBerwyn, PA

Keep up the good work.Russell A. ReedMerritt Island, FL

We are proud of MSLF; thank you!Emra Duke LathropLostine, OR

RACE-BASED ADMISSION BY COLLEGES: UNCONSTITUTIONAL On the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court of the United States began its October 2012 Term and later heard arguments on ending the use of racial quotas by universities by overturning a 2003 Supreme Court ruling. During those arguments, a hard-hitting brief by MSLF was before the justices. Unlike the attorneys arguing the case, MSLF strongly urged the Court to overturn its 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which permits colleges and universities to admit students on the basis of their race or ethnicity until 2028! MSLF, which won a landmark civil rights decision by the Supreme Court, urged the Court in a friend of the court brief to reverse a ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel upholding the University of Texas at Austins right to use the race of a Texas coed, Abigail Noel Fisher, to reject her. Earlier, MSLF had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case because the panels ruling conflicts with the Courts legal precedents. In January 2011, a three-judge panel upheld an earlier ruling by a Texas federal district court that the University of Texas may use race to admit students. Both the district court and the panel relied on the controversial 2003 ruling; however, Judge Emilio M. Garza, in a concurring opinion, argued that the 2003 ruling was flawed and should be abandoned. In June 2011, the appeals court declined to rehear the case en banc.

In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that diversity was not a compelling governmental interest and that the University of Texas Law Schools use of race for admission was unconstitutional. In response, Texas enacted a

law requiring all Texas students graduating in the top ten percent of their class to be admitted to the University of Texas. As a result, the University of Texas was able to achieve the racial diversity that had existed on campus prior to the Fifth Circuits 1996 ruling. In June 2003, the Supreme Court abrogated the Fifth Circuits decision when it ruled, in Grutter v. Bollinger, that racial diversity could be

a compelling interest for the University of Michigan School of Law. Thereafter, the University of Texas began using race as a basis for granting admission. Abigail Noel Fisher of Sugar Land, who graduated in the top 12 percent of her class, applied for but was denied admission. In April 2008, she sued the University and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin, alleging that she was denied the right to compete for admission on an equal footing with minority students in violation of the U.S. Constitutions equal protection guarantee. In August 2009, the district court ruled in favor of the University of Texas based upon the Supreme Courts holding in Grutter.

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage

PAID

Denver, CO

Permit No. 847

MOUNTAIN

STATES

LEGAL

FOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis Way

Lakewood, Colorado 80227

ADDRESS SERVICE REqUESTED

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

William Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER

Steven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENTADMINISTRATION

Janice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John R. Gibson, NV: Chairman

John J. Blomstrom, WY: Vice Chairman

Frank Priestley, ID; Secretary

Peter K. Ellison, UT; Treasurer

Stephen M. Brophy, AZ

David Allen New, ID

L. Jerald Sheffels, WA

Don Sparks, TX