​

Biazzo Law Government Oversight

 

Constitutional Advocacy and Government Oversight

 

A nonpartisan public-service initiative of Biazzo Law

 

The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program monitors the exercise of governmental power, explains constitutional rights and pending legal questions, seeks public records, and participates in selected cases involving constitutional structure and civil liberties. The Program is nonpartisan: it applies the same constitutional standards to every president, political party, agency, and government official.

​

The Program currently examines many actions of the Trump administration because it is the administration presently exercising federal executive power. That focus is not a permanent partisan alignment. The Program will continue its work during future administrations, regardless of party, and will evaluate government conduct according to the Constitution, federal law, and the rule of law.

​

The public is the intended audience and beneficiary of this work. The Program’s publications and public-interest activities do not create an attorney-client relationship and are not a substitute for legal advice about an individual matter.

​

Our mission

 

The Program’s mission is to promote constitutional accountability through lawful, peaceful, and fact-based means. Its work is grounded in a simple principle: public power is limited power, and every government official is subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

​

Nonpartisanship does not mean avoiding conclusions about legal questions. An amicus curiae brief necessarily advocates a position. The Program may support or oppose an action taken by a Republican, Democratic, or future administration when the legal issue warrants it. Positions are selected according to constitutional principles—not partisan allegiance, political personality, or electoral advantage.

​

Why attorneys and courts matter

 

The Constitution assigns distinct powers to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. When a proper case or controversy is presented, courts exercise judicial review to determine whether government action is consistent with the Constitution and federal law.

​

Attorneys help that system function. They identify legal issues, develop the record, represent parties with standing, present adversarial arguments, and—when appropriate—offer amicus briefing that may assist a court in evaluating broader constitutional or institutional consequences. Attorneys do not decide what the Constitution means in a case; courts do. But lawyers have an important professional role in bringing properly framed disputes before the judiciary and asking courts to enforce legal limits on governmental power.

​

What the Government Oversight Program does

Constitutional analysis and public education

 

The Program publishes plain-language explanations of constitutional rights, federal power, judicial decisions, and significant pending cases. The purpose is to help readers understand what the law provides, what remains disputed, and how constitutional questions move through the courts.

​

Amicus curiae advocacy

 

The Program prepares and submits selected friend-of-the-court briefs in cases involving significant constitutional or federal questions. An amicus brief is filed by a nonparty that offers legal, historical, institutional, or practical analysis that may assist the court. Amicus participation is not representation of the parties, and a court is not required to adopt an amicus’s arguments.

​

Freedom of Information Act and public-records work

 

The Program uses the Freedom of Information Act, administrative appeals, and litigation when appropriate to seek records concerning federal policies, legal authorities, and government operations. Public-records work is intended to improve transparency and allow the public to evaluate government conduct using primary materials.

​

Lawful court and administrative processes

 

Where jurisdiction, standing, procedure, and the facts permit, attorneys may use administrative processes and litigation to request judicial review of allegedly unlawful government action. The Program distinguishes between public education, amicus participation, and representation of a party; those are different roles with different legal consequences.

 

The same standards across administrations

 

Constitutional limits do not change when political control changes. A restriction on executive authority defended during one administration cannot be discarded merely because another party assumes office. The Program therefore evaluates governmental power using principles intended to remain consistent over time.

​

The President and executive agencies are not the Program’s only subjects. Congress, federal courts, state and local officials, and government institutions can also raise questions involving constitutional limits, civil rights, transparency, or abuse of public power. The Program will follow the legal issue wherever it leads and will correct or update its public analysis when the law or record changes.

​

Peaceful and lawful civic engagement

 

The Program supports lawful advocacy, public education, public-records requests, peaceful expression, participation in government processes, and resort to the courts. It does not support violence, threats, harassment, doxxing, intimidation, interference with public duties, or unlawful conduct directed at government officials, public employees, litigants, judges, attorneys, witnesses, or their families. Disagreement with government should be expressed within the bounds of law and with respect for the safety and rights of others.

​

Constitutional Advocacy Without Partisan Allegiance

 

The Constitution binds public officials regardless of political party, ideology, office, or administration. Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program evaluates government action under the same principles across administrations: constitutional text and structure, enacted statutes, historical understanding, controlling precedent, the evidentiary record, and the limits imposed on every branch of government.

​

The Program does not support or oppose a political party, candidate, or public official as such. Individual filings may support a particular party’s requested disposition because constitutional litigation necessarily requires a stated legal position. Those positions are selected according to the legal principles presented, not the political identity of the official or litigant involved.

The Program’s constitutional work has addressed individual rights, due process, federalism, separation of powers, legislative authority, executive authority, election administration, domestic military power, administrative procedure, and statutory limits on government action. Its guiding principle is straightforward: constitutional protections must be applied evenhandedly, and no government official is above the law.

​

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL AND AMICUS ADVOCACY

 

This tracker identifies selected public filings connected with the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program. Each entry summarizes the constitutional or federal question addressed, the position taken, and the matter’s procedural status. Amicus participation does not constitute representation of a party, and a court’s disposition does not necessarily mean that it adopted an amicus’s arguments.

​

Tracker last reviewed: September 28, 2026

​

LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP

 

Docket: No. 24-1287, considered with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, merits

​

Filing Date: October 8, 2025

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief addressing Article I taxing authority, statutory limits on presidential tariff power, and the separation of powers.

​

Position: Supported the parties challenging the tariffs.

​

Status: Decided February 20, 2026. The judgment in No. 25-250 was affirmed. The judgment in No. 24-1287 was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1287.html

​​

​

​​

 

TRUMP v. BARBARA

 

Docket: No. 25-365

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, certiorari and merits

​

Filing Dates: October 29, 2025, and February 26, 2026

​

Filings: A joint certiorari-stage amicus brief followed by a merits-stage amicus brief addressing the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and constitutional limits on executive authority.

​

Position: Supported the respondents challenging the executive order.

​

Status: Decided June 30, 2026. The judgment was affirmed.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

TRUMP v. ILLINOIS

​

Docket: No. 25A443

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, emergency application

​

Filing Date: November 3, 2025

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief addressing domestic military deployment, federalism, constitutional limits on executive authority, and the standards governing emergency relief.

​

Position: Opposed the requested stay.

​

Status: The application for a stay was denied on December 23, 2025.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25A443.html

​

​

​

​

​

WATSON v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

​

Docket: No. 24-1260

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, merits

​

Filing Date: January 5, 2026

​

Filing: Corrected amicus curiae brief addressing federal election law, state legislative authority, and the treatment of ballots cast by election day but received afterward.

​

Position: Supported the petitioners.

​

Status: Decided June 29, 2026. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

 

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1260.html

​

​

​

​

​

UNITED STATES v. HEMANI

 

Docket: No. 24-1234

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, merits

​

Filing Date: January 24, 2026

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief addressing the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of federal firearm restrictions applied to unlawful users of controlled substances.

​

Position: Supported the petitioner.

​

Status: Decided June 18, 2026. The judgment was affirmed.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1234.html

​

​

​

 

​

 

 

TRUMP v. CALIFORNIA

 

Docket: No. 26A124

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, emergency application

​

Filing Date: July 29, 2026

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief addressing Article III jurisdiction, federal postal authority, election administration, and the equitable principles governing emergency relief.

​

Position: Opposed the requested stay.

​

Status: The Supreme Court granted the requested stay on August 24, 2026.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A124.html

​

​

​

​

 

 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE v. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

 

Docket: No. 26A203

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, emergency application

​

Filing Date: August 16, 2026

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief concerning an application to stay a preliminary injunction affecting action by the National Park Service.

​

Status: The Supreme Court granted the requested stay on August 31, 2026.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A203.html

​

​

​

​

 

 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA

 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA

Docket: No. 26A305

 

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States; emergency application for a stay

​

Filing Date: September 9, 2026

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief addressing statutory and procedural limits governing nationwide changes in postal services under 39 U.S.C. § 3661.

​

Issues Addressed: The brief argued that 39 U.S.C. § 3661 establishes a specific preimplementation procedure when the United States Postal Service proposes a nationwide change in the nature of postal services that will generally affect service. That procedure includes submitting the proposal to the Postal Regulatory Commission, providing an opportunity for an on-the-record hearing, and obtaining an advisory opinion before implementing the change. The brief argued that the Postal Service’s general statutory powers under 39 U.S.C. §§ 401 and 404 do not displace those more specific procedural requirements. It also addressed Buchanan v. United States Postal Service and argued that compliance with § 3661 provided an independent and narrow basis for denying emergency relief.

​

Position: Supported the respondents and opposed the Government’s application for a stay.

​

Status: On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the emergency application. The Court stated that the Government was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the district court’s preliminary injunction and that the equitable factors governing emergency relief did not favor a stay. Justice Kavanaugh concurred. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented. Biazzo Law participated on the side that prevailed at the emergency-application stage. The Court’s order did not state that it adopted any particular argument presented in the amicus brief, and the underlying litigation remains pending.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A305.html

​

Tracker Note: The denial resolved the request for emergency relief before the Supreme Court; it was not a final merits judgment in the underlying litigation.

​

​

​​

​

 

 

 

 

 

VIRAMONTES v. COOK COUNTY and GRANT v. HIGGINS

 

Dockets: Nos. 25-238 and 25-566

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, consolidated merits cases

​

Submission Date: September 11, 2026

​

Filing: Joint amicus curiae brief of Huang Tiange and Corey Biazzo addressing whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The brief argues that legislative “assault weapon” labels and feature-based classifications do not create a separate constitutional class of arms, that the rifles are in common use, and that constitutional protection cannot be frozen against technological development.

​

Position: Supported the petitioners.

​

Status: The corrected brief was submitted on September 11, 2026, after the Clerk requested a correction. The official docket presently identifies the brief as submitted rather than filed. The consolidated cases are set for oral argument on December 2, 2026.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-238.html

​

​

​

​

 

PROPOSED AMICUS BRIEFS NOT ACCEPTED FOR FILING

 

The following entries concern motions requesting permission to file proposed amicus curiae briefs. The motions were filed publicly, and the proposed briefs were attached to them, but the court denied leave to file the proposed briefs. They are therefore identified separately from amicus briefs that were accepted for filing.

​

TRUMP v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE — PROPOSED AMICUS BRIEF CONCERNING SETTLEMENT AND APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORITY

​

Case Number: No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW

Court and Stage: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, post-dismissal proceedings

​

Motion Date: June 2, 2026

​

Filing: Motion for leave to file a proposed amicus curiae brief in support of reopening the case for limited review of the statutory and appropriations-law authority underlying the parties’ settlement.

​

Issues Addressed: The proposed brief examined whether the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304, federal settlement statutes, the Purpose Statute, advance-payment restrictions, public-money custody requirements, and related fiscal laws authorized the Executive Branch to use the settlement as a basis for capitalizing a proposed $1.776 billion future-claimant compensation program. It argued that the Judgment Fund pays qualifying judgments, awards, and settlements but does not independently authorize the creation of a new compensation program for unidentified future claimants.

​

Position: Supported reopening or preserving the case for limited review of the settlement’s statutory and appropriations-law foundation. The proposed amicus did not represent or seek relief for any party.

​

Status: The court denied the motion for leave on June 2, 2026. The court explained that it was awaiting the plaintiffs’ briefing and that, at that stage, it found no need for additional amicus participation. The proposed amicus brief was attached to the publicly filed motion but was not accepted as an amicus filing.

​

Docket Entries: Motion for Leave, ECF No. 66; Order Denying Motion, ECF No. 67

​

Public Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2026cv20609/706172

​

​

​

​

 

 

TRUMP v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE — PROPOSED SHORT SUPPLEMENTAL AMICUS BRIEF

​

Case Number: No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW

Court and Stage: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, post-dismissal proceedings

​

Motion Date: June 15, 2026

​

Filing: Renewed motion for leave to file a proposed short supplemental amicus curiae brief addressing the plaintiffs’ June 12, 2026 settlement-authority argument.

​

Issues Addressed: The proposed supplemental brief addressed the distinction between authority to settle a claim and authority to pay money from the United States Treasury. It argued that statutes authorizing the government to compromise existing claims do not necessarily authorize use of the Judgment Fund to capitalize a discretionary compensation program for nonparties whose claims had not been adjudicated, compromised, or settled. It requested limited clarification of the statutory basis for any proposed Judgment Fund payment rather than a final determination concerning the fund’s legality.

Position: Supported neither party. The proposed brief addressed only the statutory and appropriations-law question raised by the plaintiffs’ settlement-authority argument.

​

Status: The court denied the renewed motion for leave on June 25, 2026. In an omnibus order addressing three proposed amicus filings, the court stated that the case had been sufficiently briefed and that no additional amicus briefing was needed. The proposed supplemental brief was attached to the publicly filed motion but was not accepted as an amicus filing.

Docket Entries: Renewed Motion for Leave, ECF No. 91; Order Denying Additional Amicus Briefing, ECF No. 103

​

Public Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2026cv20609/706172

 

 

 

 

 

SISTRUNK SEEDS INC. v. TRUMP — PROPOSED AMICUS BRIEF CONCERNING THE DOMESTIC EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE

​

Case Number: No. 1:26-cv-23365-RAR

Court and Stage: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; motions to dismiss

​

Motion Date: September 14, 2026

​

Filing: Motion for leave to file a proposed amicus curiae brief addressing the text, history, structural purpose, and judicial enforceability of the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

​

Issues Addressed: The proposed brief examines whether the Domestic Emoluments Clause operates as a structural constitutional safeguard against state-conferred financial benefits to a President. It argues that the constitutional analysis should consider substance, control, benefit, and practical effect rather than conveyancing form alone, including allegations involving public instrumentalities, private entities, intermediaries, or conduits. The brief also addresses why the political significance of a dispute does not, by itself, make an otherwise justiciable constitutional question nonjusticiable.

​

Position: Supported the plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendants’ motions to dismiss and argued that the Domestic Emoluments Clause claims should be permitted to proceed. The proposed brief accepted the allegations solely for purposes of the motions to dismiss and did not take a position on disputed facts.

​

Status: On September 14, 2026, the court granted Biazzo Law’s motion for leave and authorized Corey J. Biazzo to file the amicus curiae brief on or before September 15, 2026. The supplied docket record does not yet show a separate post-order filing of the authorized brief. The motions to dismiss remain pending.

​

Case Update: https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/biazzo-law-seeks-leave-to-file-amicus-brief-in-miami-trump-presidential-library-emoluments-case

​

Tracker Note: The grant of leave permitted amicus participation. It did not decide the motions to dismiss or indicate that the court adopted any argument in the proposed brief.

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS — AMICUS BRIEF CONCERNING VOTER VERIFICATION, SOCIAL SECURITY RECORDS, AND FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORITY

 

Docket: No. 26A308

Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States; emergency application seeking a stay of a federal district court order while the underlying appeal proceeds in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

​

Submission Date: September 15, 2026

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief addressing the statutory limits governing the Department of Homeland Security’s use of Social Security Administration records through the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, commonly known as SAVE.

​

Issues Addressed: The brief develops a focused statutory argument concerning 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the Help America Vote Act, the Social Security Act, and the Privacy Act. It argues that § 1373(c) requires the Department of Homeland Security to respond to lawful government inquiries seeking citizenship or immigration-status information but does not independently authorize the Social Security Administration to disclose its records to DHS. It also argues that the “notwithstanding” clauses in § 1373(a) and (b) cannot be transferred into subsection (c) and that subsection (b) addresses immigration-status information rather than citizenship information.

​

The brief further examines Congress’s election-specific framework under the Help America Vote Act. It explains that Congress expressly established a limited pathway for matching voter-registration information against Social Security Administration records, identified the participating government officials, defined the information SSA may return, and imposed confidentiality and use restrictions. The brief argues that the modified SAVE system materially departs from that framework by permitting bulk searches using names, dates of birth, full or partial Social Security numbers, and other identifiers; routing information through DHS; returning additional data fields; and creating person-specific SAVE records retained by DHS.

​

The brief also addresses the Privacy Act’s individualized-notice requirements. It argues that the record presents an unresolved question concerning whether affected individuals received notice, when their information was originally collected, that their Social Security Administration records could later be used for voter-verification purposes.

Position: Supported the respondents and opposed the Government’s emergency application for a stay. The brief argued that the unresolved statutory questions prevented the applicants from making the strong showing on the merits required for emergency relief.

​

Status: On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the Government's application for a stay in a per curiam opinion. The June 22, 2026 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in No. 25-cv-3501 is stayed while the appeal proceeds in the D.C. Circuit (No. 26-5243). The stay also continues through any timely petition for a writ of certiorari. It ends automatically if certiorari is denied, or when the Court sends down its judgment if certiorari is granted. The Court concluded, at the emergency stage, that the respondents likely had standing but that their statutory claims likely lacked merit. It read the "notwithstanding" clauses of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 as likely authorizing DHS to request and receive citizenship-status information from other agencies, including the Social Security Administration. It also found that the equities favored a stay. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, dissented. Biazzo Law's brief supported the respondents, who did not prevail at the emergency-application stage. The Court's reading of § 1373 differs from the reading the brief advanced.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a308.html

Tracker Note: Amicus participation does not constitute representation of the parties. The submission of an amicus brief does not indicate that the Supreme Court has accepted or adopted any argument presented in the brief. The application remains pending, and the underlying litigation has not been finally resolved.

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

JOHNSON v. JACOBSON

 

Docket: No. 26-255
Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, certiorari stage (petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit)

​

Filing Date: September 22, 2026

​

Filing: Joint amicus curiae brief of Huang Tiange and Corey Biazzo. It addresses whether a State may make a nonresident's ability to carry a handgun for self-defense depend on which State issued the person's carry permit. It also addresses whether a court may remove a permit-reciprocity rule from Second Amendment review by treating it as a matter of interstate comity.

​

Issues Addressed: The brief argues that the Second Amendment secures a uniform national right that does not change at state borders. It relies on Heller, McDonald, and Wolford v. Lopez, which confirmed that the Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States. The Eighth Circuit accepted that public carry in Minnesota is covered by the Amendment's text. The brief argues that the court then erred by separating Minnesota's reciprocity provision from the State's carry prohibition and permit requirement, and by holding that the provision, standing alone, regulates no protected conduct. It also argues that the court's analogy to professional licenses confuses the credential with the constitutional right the credential regulates. The brief explains that earlier interstate-carry decisions rested on reasoning that no longer controls:

​

• Bach v. Pataki relied on the rule that the Second Amendment did not bind the States.

• Peterson v. Martinez decided a narrowed concealed-carry claim under the pre-Bruen framework.

• Culp v. Raoul applied intermediate scrutiny.

 

It describes the Eighth Circuit's comity theory as a fourth route to the same result. Finally, it argues that the case is a clean vehicle because it was decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Court could correct the threshold framework and remand for the historical analysis without deciding whether every State must recognize every other State's permit.

​

Position: Supported the petitioner. The brief asks the Court to grant certiorari and reverse or, at minimum, vacate and remand for analysis of Minnesota's complete legal regime under Bruen.

​

Status: Pending. The petition was filed on August 24, 2026. It seeks review of the Eighth Circuit's May 26, 2026 decision in No. 25-3036, reported as McCoy v. Jacobson, 176 F.4th 1055. The respondent waived the right to respond on August 31, 2026, and the petition was distributed for the Court's September 28, 2026 conference. The official docket lists the brief of Huang Tiange, et al. as filed on September 22, 2026. As of September 28, 2026, the Court has not acted on the petition.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-255.html

​

Case Update: https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/biazzo-law-files-joint-supreme-court-amici-brief-in-johnson-v-jacobson-second-amendment-carry-recip

 

Tracker Note: The brief does not challenge Minnesota's general shall-issue permit requirement, which the petitioner conceded for purposes of this litigation. It also does not contend that the Court has already required universal permit reciprocity. Amicus participation does not constitute representation of the parties, and the filing of an amicus brief does not indicate that the Court has adopted any argument presented in it.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

HOLLOWAY v. BROWN

 

Docket: No. 26-300
Court and Stage: Supreme Court of the United States, certiorari stage (petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington)

​

Submission Date: September 27, 2026

​

Filing: Amicus curiae brief of Corey Biazzo and Huang Tiange, captioned "Brief of Corey Biazzo, et al." The brief addresses whether Washington may prohibit all firearm possession after a second DUI-related "prior offense" within seven years. It also addresses how United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez apply to disarmament triggered by prior misdemeanor convictions.

​

Issues Addressed: The brief makes four arguments on the merits.

​

1. Washington does not define its own disarmed class. It borrows the "prior offense" definition from its DUI sentencing statute, which is the defect Hemani identified in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). That definition reaches some reckless-driving and negligent-driving convictions based on how the charge was originally filed. It also reaches out-of-state convictions and deferred prosecutions, and requires no proof of alcohol use.

2. Under Wolford's inference test, the law operates as no proffered historical analogue did. It reaches sober possession in the home. It lasts at least five years, which exceeds any confinement the predicate misdemeanors could carry, and it does not end with the sentence. It is enforced by a felony that triggers further state and federal disarmament. The predicate proceedings adjudicate nothing about firearms.

3. The Supreme Court of Washington could not build a tradition by combining three analogues it acknowledged might each be insufficient on its own.

4. Heller's reference to "longstanding prohibitions" does not reach a 2023 statute triggered by misdemeanors.

 

The brief also argues that the judgment is final under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn and rests solely on federal law. It adds that the Court could resolve the case narrowly, without deciding the validity of § 922(g)(1) or of all conviction-based prohibitions.

​

Position: Supported the petitioner. The brief asks the Court to grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington.

​

Status: Pending. The petition was filed on September 2, 2026, and docketed on September 8, 2026. It seeks review of the Supreme Court of Washington's June 11, 2026 decision in No. 103799-6, which sustained the prohibition by a 5–4 vote and directed judgment on the pleadings for the State. The State's response is due October 8, 2026. The brief was submitted electronically on September 27, 2026, and is available on the Court's website. As of September 28, 2026, the official docket does not yet list the brief.

​

Official Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-300.html

Case Update: https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/biazzo-law-files-supreme-court-amici-brief-in-holloway-v-brown-second-amendment-dui-disarmament-cas

 

Tracker Note: The brief does not argue that impaired driving is not dangerous. It does not argue that States may not regulate carrying firearms while intoxicated, or that every conviction-based firearm prohibition is unconstitutional. Amicus participation does not constitute representation of the parties.

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

HOW TO READ THIS TRACKER

​

Amicus participation is not party representation. Biazzo Law did not represent a party merely by participating as amicus curiae.

​

A procedural result is not necessarily a ruling on every argument. A stay order, jurisdictional disposition, affirmance, reversal, or remand should be understood according to the Court’s actual order or opinion.

​

“Supported” identifies the side supported in the litigation. It does not indicate support for a political party, candidate, administration, organization, or broader political agenda.

​

Courts are not required to adopt arguments presented by an amicus curiae. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Official court dockets and opinions control. This tracker will be updated when a filing is accepted, a case is decided, or another material procedural event occurs.