_svg.png){kind=small}
Biazzo Law Participates on Winning Side in Five U.S. Supreme Court Cases Defending the Constitution Before America’s 250th Birthday
- corey7565
- 5 days ago
- 15 min read
By Biazzo Law, PLLC
June 30, 2026
As the United States approaches its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026, Biazzo Law, PLLC has participated through amicus curiae briefing on the winning side in five major United States Supreme Court matters involving constitutional rights, separation of powers, federalism, election law, executive authority, public accountability, and the limits of government power.
These cases are not merely political disputes.
They are constitutional cases.
They involve the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, Article I taxing authority, Article II executive power, Article III judicial review, Article V amendment structure, federalism, and the principle that no branch of government may rewrite the Constitution by unilateral action.
Biazzo Law’s participation in these matters reflects the firm’s continuing commitment to constitutional advocacy, government oversight, appellate litigation, and U.S. Supreme Court amicus practice.
Quick Answer: What Supreme Court Cases Did Biazzo Law Participate In?
Biazzo Law participated through amicus curiae briefing on the winning side in the following Supreme Court matters:
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump / Trump v. V.O.S. Selections — involving whether the President could use IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs without clear congressional authorization.
Trump v. Illinois — involving federalization and attempted deployment of National Guard forces into Illinois and Chicago.
United States v. Hemani — involving the Second Amendment and whether the federal government could prosecute a nonviolent marijuana user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) without proof of dangerousness, intoxicated firearm possession, violence, or firearm misuse.
Watson v. Republican National Committee — involving whether federal election-day statutes require absentee ballots to be physically received by election day.
Trump v. Barbara — involving birthright citizenship, Executive Order 14160, and whether children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In each matter, Biazzo Law participated through amicus briefing. The Supreme Court did not necessarily cite Biazzo Law’s briefs by name. But in several of these cases, the Court’s opinions appeared to echo themes advanced in the briefs: constitutional structure, text, history, federalism, clear congressional authorization, limits on executive power, and the need to preserve fundamental constitutional guarantees.
Why These Cases Matter Right Before America’s 250th Birthday
America’s 250th birthday is not only a celebration of independence.
It is a reminder that the United States is a constitutional republic.
The Constitution is not self-enforcing. It depends on courts, lawyers, litigants, public officials, military service members, journalists, citizens, and civic institutions insisting that government power remain lawful, accountable, and limited.
These five Supreme Court matters show that constitutional limits still matter.
They also show that constitutional advocacy can matter even when the advocate is not a party. Amicus briefs can help courts understand the broader legal structure, historical context, institutional consequences, and public importance of a case.
For Biazzo Law, these cases reflect a simple principle:
Defending the Constitution is not partisan. It is the duty of the legal profession, the courts, public officials, military service members, and citizens.
The Constitutional Oath Matters
Every attorney takes an oath to support the Constitution and the laws of the jurisdictions in which that attorney is admitted.
Corey J. Biazzo also took an oath at age 18 when he enlisted in the United States Navy: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That oath was not to a political party.
It was not to a president.
It was not to Congress.
It was not to a particular policy outcome.
It was to the Constitution itself.
That principle continues to guide Biazzo Law’s constitutional litigation, appellate work, amicus practice, and
nonpartisan Government Oversight Program.
These Are Also Government Oversight Cases
Each of these cases is also a government oversight case.
Government oversight is not anti-government. It is pro-Constitution.
The federal government has important responsibilities: national defense, immigration enforcement, public safety, taxation, foreign affairs, criminal law enforcement, election administration coordination, and protection of federal personnel and property.
But those powers must be exercised within constitutional limits.
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program focuses on lawful, nonpartisan accountability, public education, constitutional analysis, FOIA strategy, amicus curiae participation, and public-facing legal commentary concerning government action.
Learn more about the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawgovernmentoversight
These five Supreme Court matters show why that work matters.
Case 1: Learning Resources v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections — Tariffs, Taxes, and Congress’s Article I Power
The first case involved the President’s attempt to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, to impose sweeping tariffs.
The constitutional issue was straightforward but enormous:
Can the President use emergency economic powers to impose tariffs when Congress has not clearly authorized that tariff power?
The Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariffs.
That result matters because tariffs are not merely foreign-policy tools. They are taxes on imports. Under the Constitution, the power to impose taxes and duties belongs to Congress.
Biazzo Law filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the parties challenging the tariffs. The brief emphasized that allowing unilateral tariff authority would improperly shift Congress’s taxing power to the Executive Branch.
That case matters historically because it reinforces one of the Constitution’s central structural protections: the power of the purse belongs to Congress.
Read the Biazzo Law amicus brief
Read the Supreme Court opinion
Why the Tariffs Case Matters for Government Oversight
The tariffs case is a classic government oversight case because it asks whether emergency authority can be used to bypass Congress.
Emergency power is often necessary. But emergency power is also dangerous if it becomes a substitute for legislation.
The Founders gave Congress the power to tax for a reason. Taxation affects every business, consumer, importer, exporter, worker, investor, and family in the country.
A president may identify national emergencies. But a president cannot turn statutory silence into a broad taxing power.
That is the rule-of-law lesson of Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections.
Case 2: Trump v. Illinois — National Guard Deployment, Federalism, and Domestic Military Power
The second matter involved the attempted federalization and deployment of National Guard forces into Illinois and Chicago.
The federal government relied on 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which allows the President to call National Guard forces into federal service when he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The Supreme Court denied the Government’s stay application.
Biazzo Law filed an amicus brief supporting Illinois and Chicago. The brief argued that domestic deployment of military forces must remain subject to statutory limits, federalism principles, the Posse Comitatus Act, and the Constitution’s careful allocation of power between the federal government and the States.
Read the Biazzo Law amicus brief
Read the Supreme Court order/opinion
Why the National Guard Case Matters for Government Oversight
Domestic military deployment is one of the most sensitive powers in American law.
The Constitution does not permit military power to become a general law-enforcement tool. Federal troops and National Guard forces may be used in limited circumstances, but those circumstances must be grounded in lawful authority.
That is why the case was not merely about one deployment.
It was about federalism, public safety, military restraint, separation of powers, and whether statutory limits on domestic military authority remain real.
As America approaches its 250th birthday, this case is a reminder that the Constitution was designed to prevent the concentration of military and police power in one branch.
Case 3: United States v. Hemani — Second Amendment Rights and Status-Based Disarmament
The third case involved the Second Amendment.
In United States v. Hemani, the federal government prosecuted Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance.
Biazzo Law filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mr. Hemani.
The Supreme Court held that the government’s prosecution was inconsistent with the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Hemani.
The Court emphasized that the government did not claim Mr. Hemani used the firearm violently, possessed it while intoxicated, threatened anyone, or misused the firearm. Instead, the prosecution rested on his status as a marijuana user.
Biazzo Law’s amicus brief argued that the Second Amendment cannot be reduced to a privilege lost through broad status-based classifications untethered to historical tradition, dangerousness, violence, intoxicated firearm possession, or misuse of a firearm.
The Supreme Court’s opinion appeared to echo that danger-based framing.
Read the Biazzo Law amicus brief
Read the Supreme Court opinion
Read Biazzo Law’s case-specific blog
Why Hemani Matters for Constitutional Rights
Hemani is important because it reinforces that constitutional rights cannot be eliminated through broad government labels.
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That right is not absolute. But when the government restricts it, the government must justify the restriction under the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition.
The case does not mean every drug user may possess firearms. It does not decide every application of § 922(g)(3). It does not prevent laws targeting intoxicated firearm possession, violent conduct, dangerousness, addiction, or misuse.
But it does confirm an important principle:
The government cannot automatically strip a constitutional right based solely on a broad status category unless the restriction is supported by the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That principle matters beyond firearms. It reflects a broader constitutional truth: government classifications must remain subject to constitutional limits.
Case 4: Watson v. Republican National Committee — Election Day, Ballot Receipt, and State Election Authority
The fourth case involved federal election law.
In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court considered whether federal election-day statutes prohibit Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later.
Biazzo Law filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson.
The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that federal election-day statutes do not require absentee ballots to be physically received by election day.
Biazzo Law’s amicus brief argued that federal election-day statutes regulate when ballots must be cast, not when mailed ballots must be received or counted.
The Court’s majority opinion appeared to echo that core distinction. The Court held that an “election” refers to the electorate’s choice of candidate, and that choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are later received by election officials.
Read the Biazzo Law amicus brief
Read the Supreme Court opinion
Read Biazzo Law’s case-specific blog
Why Watson Matters for Federalism and Election Law
Election law often becomes partisan. But Watson should also be understood as a constitutional structure case.
The Constitution gives States primary responsibility for election mechanics, subject to congressional override. Congress may impose federal election rules when it clearly acts. But courts should not create national election rules from statutory silence.
That was Biazzo Law’s central point.
If Congress wants a national ballot-receipt deadline, Congress can enact one. If States want stricter deadlines, States can enact them within constitutional limits. But courts should not rewrite general election-day statutes into a nationwide receipt rule Congress did not choose.
That principle protects democratic legitimacy.
It also respects the separation of powers.
Case 5: Trump v. Barbara — Birthright Citizenship, Wong Kim Ark, and the Fourteenth Amendment
The fifth case involved one of the most important constitutional questions in modern Supreme Court practice: birthright citizenship.
In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court considered whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.
The case arose from Executive Order 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order attempted to deny citizenship to certain U.S.-born children based on the immigration status or temporary presence of their parents.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach.
The Court held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Biazzo Law participated through amicus briefing in support of the Respondents.
Earlier in the case, Corey J. Biazzo and Kevin Song filed a joint amicus brief defending the Fourteenth Amendment’s original, territorial rule of birthright citizenship. Kevin Song deserves express credit for his work on that joint brief. His contribution focused on the original meaning and logical structure of the Citizenship Clause as interpreted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Biazzo Law later filed a merits-stage amicus brief addressing Wong Kim Ark, stare decisis, executive power, Article III judicial review, and Article V structural caution.
Read the joint Biazzo/Song amicus brief
Read the Biazzo Law merits amicus brief
Read the Supreme Court opinion
Read Biazzo Law’s case-specific blog
Where the Biazzo Law Birthright Citizenship Briefs Appeared to Echo in the Opinion
The Supreme Court did not cite Biazzo Law’s briefs by name.
But the Court’s opinion appeared to echo several themes advanced in the Biazzo/Song joint brief and Biazzo Law’s merits brief:
the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a territorial rule of citizenship;
the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the sovereign power of the United States to govern persons within its territory;
Wong Kim Ark remains controlling;
the historically recognized exceptions are narrow;
domicile is not a hidden constitutional requirement;
immigration status does not create a new exception to birthright citizenship;
executive disagreement with precedent does not rewrite constitutional meaning.
The Court’s opinion rejected the Executive Order’s effort to make citizenship depend on parental immigration status.
That result matters enormously.
Citizenship is not merely paperwork. Citizenship is the legal foundation of national membership.
The Modern Visa-Holder Problem: Why Trump v. Barbara Was So Important
One practical reason Trump v. Barbara mattered is that Executive Order 14160 did not target only children of undocumented parents.
It also reached children born in the United States to parents whose presence was lawful but temporary, including parents here on work visas, student visas, tourist visas, or similar temporary status.
That means the Executive Order threatened uncertainty for children born in the United States to parents who were lawfully present but not citizens or lawful permanent residents.
A common example is a child born in the United States to parents who are Chinese citizens and present in the United States on temporary work visas such as H-1B status.
That kind of child is born on American soil, subject to American law, and within the sovereign authority of the United States. Yet under the Executive Order’s theory, citizenship could have turned on the parents’ visa classification rather than the child’s birth within U.S. territory and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction.
That is why the domicile theory was so dangerous.
It would have made constitutional citizenship depend on immigration paperwork.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach.
Why Trump v. Barbara Matters Historically
Trump v. Barbara is historically significant because it reaffirms the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment just before America’s 250th birthday.
The Citizenship Clause was adopted after the Civil War to repudiate Dred Scott and settle the question of national citizenship.
It was designed to prevent citizenship from being manipulated by political branches, racial caste systems, or changing political majorities.
The majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara explained that the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized a broad rule rooted in jus soli: birth on U.S. soil, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, confers citizenship.
That rule provides clarity.
It protects families.
It preserves national membership from executive revision.
It reinforces the principle that the Constitution, not unilateral executive action, defines constitutional citizenship.
The Common Thread: The Constitution Still Limits Government Power
These five cases involve different subjects:
tariffs;
military deployment;
criminal prosecution;
election administration;
birthright citizenship.
But they share a common constitutional theme.
Government power must have a lawful source.
The President cannot impose tariffs without statutory authority.
The President cannot deploy domestic military power without satisfying statutory and constitutional limits.
The federal government cannot prosecute in a way that violates the Second Amendment.
Courts cannot create national election rules Congress did not enact.
The Executive Branch cannot rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment by executive order.
That is why these cases belong together.
They are different chapters in the same constitutional story.
Why This Is Nonpartisan Constitutional Work
Biazzo Law’s work in these cases is nonpartisan.
The firm’s position is not that one party is always right and another is always wrong.
The position is that the Constitution is higher than any party, president, administration, Congress, agency, or court.
Executive overreach can occur under leaders of any political ideology.
Legislative overreach can occur under any majority.
Government agencies can exceed lawful authority under any administration.
Courts can err when they read words into statutes or fail to enforce constitutional limits.
That is why government oversight must be nonpartisan.
The Constitution belongs to the American people.
Why Amicus Briefs Matter in Supreme Court Cases
Amicus curiae briefs can play an important role in Supreme Court litigation.
An amicus brief may help explain:
constitutional structure;
historical background;
practical consequences;
federalism concerns;
separation-of-powers limits;
civil-liberties implications;
industry or public effects;
how a rule may affect future cases;
why a narrower or broader decision may be appropriate.
Biazzo Law’s amicus practice focuses on disciplined, appellate-aware, constitutionally grounded advocacy.
The goal is not to repeat the parties’ arguments.
The goal is to assist the Court by identifying legal principles, constitutional consequences, and institutional risks that may otherwise receive less attention.
Biazzo Law’s U.S. Supreme Court and Amicus Practice
Biazzo Law handles U.S. Supreme Court strategy, petitions for writ of certiorari, merits-stage amicus briefs, emergency applications, constitutional litigation, federal appeals, and appellate-sensitive trial litigation.
Learn more about Biazzo Law’s U.S. Supreme Court practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawscotuspractice
Learn more about Biazzo Law’s amicus curiae practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/amicus-curiae-briefs
Biazzo Law works with individuals, businesses, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, public-interest groups, and referring counsel in cases involving constitutional law, government authority, civil appeals, federal appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court strategy.
Biazzo Law’s Constitutional Law Practice
Biazzo Law represents clients and works with referring counsel in constitutional litigation involving due process, civil rights, federalism, separation of powers, First Amendment issues, Second Amendment issues, government overreach, emergency injunctions, appeals, and Supreme Court practice.
Learn more about Biazzo Law’s Constitutional Law practice here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/constitutional-law-attorney
The firm’s constitutional law approach is appellate-aware from the beginning. That means identifying the governing constitutional issue, preserving arguments in the trial court, framing the record for appeal, and anticipating how federal courts of appeals or the Supreme Court may analyze the issue.
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program
Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program exists to promote lawful, nonpartisan oversight of government action.
The program includes:
legal analysis of government action;
public education;
FOIA requests and public records strategy;
constitutional commentary;
amicus curiae participation in nationally significant cases;
monitoring litigation involving civil liberties and structural constitutional limits;
publishing accessible explanations of government power and constitutional rights.
Learn more here:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawgovernmentoversight
These five Supreme Court matters show why government oversight matters.
When government action threatens constitutional structure or individual rights, public legal analysis can help citizens understand what is at stake.
Why These Cases Matter in Florida, North Carolina, and Nationwide
Although these cases were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, their impact is national.
They matter to individuals, businesses, organizations, nonprofits, public officials, and lawyers in Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi, Washington, California, New Hampshire, and across the United States.
They also matter locally to Biazzo Law’s core communities, including:
Charlotte;
Mecklenburg County;
Waxhaw;
Weddington;
Matthews;
Concord;
Lake Norman;
Miami;
Fort Lauderdale;
Boca Raton;
Parkland;
West Palm Beach;
Palm Beach County;
Broward County;
Miami-Dade County.
Constitutional law is national, but its consequences are local.
Tariffs affect businesses.
Military deployment affects communities.
Firearms prosecutions affect individual rights.
Election rules affect voters and candidates.
Birthright citizenship affects families, children, employers, universities, hospitals, and public agencies.
That is why constitutional advocacy matters.
What These Cases Do Not Mean
These cases should not be overstated.
Biazzo Law’s participation was through amicus curiae briefing. The firm did not represent the parties unless otherwise stated.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
A Supreme Court victory in one case does not mean the same arguments will prevail in another case.
The Court did not cite every Biazzo Law brief by name.
In several cases, the Court’s opinions appeared to echo themes advanced in Biazzo Law’s briefs, but the Court’s reasoning belongs to the Court.
This article is for public education and general legal information. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Key Takeaway
As America approaches its 250th birthday, these five Supreme Court matters show that constitutional advocacy still matters.
Biazzo Law participated through amicus curiae briefing on the winning side in cases involving:
the Article I power of Congress over tariffs and taxes;
limits on domestic military deployment;
Second Amendment rights;
state authority over election mechanics;
and birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The common principle is simple:
The Constitution remains the highest law of the land.
No president, agency, legislature, prosecutor, court, or political party is above it.
For Biazzo Law, that principle is not abstract. It reflects the attorney’s oath, the Navy oath Corey Biazzo took at 18, and the firm’s continuing commitment to constitutional litigation, government oversight, and U.S. Supreme Court advocacy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Supreme Court cases did Biazzo Law participate in on the winning side?
Biazzo Law participated through amicus curiae briefing on the winning side in Learning Resources v. Trump / Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Trump v. Illinois, United States v. Hemani, Watson v. Republican National Committee, and Trump v. Barbara.
Did Biazzo Law represent the parties in these cases?
No. Biazzo Law’s participation was through amicus curiae briefing unless otherwise stated. Amicus participation means the firm submitted legal arguments as a friend of the Court.
Did the Supreme Court cite Biazzo Law’s briefs?
The Court did not necessarily cite Biazzo Law’s briefs by name. However, in several cases, the Court’s opinions appeared to echo themes advanced in Biazzo Law’s amicus briefing, including constitutional structure, clear congressional authorization, the distinction between voting and receipt, danger-based Second Amendment analysis, and the territorial rule of birthright citizenship.
Why does amicus briefing matter?
Amicus briefs can help courts understand broader constitutional, historical, practical, and institutional consequences beyond the parties’ immediate dispute.
Why are these cases important before America’s 250th birthday?
They show that constitutional limits remain enforceable as the United States approaches 250 years of independence. They involve core questions about executive power, individual rights, citizenship, federalism, and the rule of law.
Why is Trump v. Barbara important?
Trump v. Barbara reaffirmed that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What role did Kevin Song play in the birthright citizenship case?
Kevin Song joined Corey J. Biazzo in an earlier joint amicus brief supporting the Respondents in Trump v. Barbara. His work focused on the original meaning and logical structure of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause as interpreted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Why is United States v. Hemani important?
United States v. Hemani is important because the Supreme Court held that the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under § 922(g)(3) was inconsistent with the Second Amendment as applied to him.
Why is Watson v. RNC important?
Watson v. RNC is important because the Supreme Court held that federal election-day statutes do not require absentee ballots to be received by election day.
Why are the tariffs and National Guard cases government oversight cases?
Both cases involve whether the Executive Branch acted within lawful authority. The tariffs case involved Congress’s Article I taxing power. The National Guard case involved statutory and constitutional limits on domestic military deployment.
Is Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program partisan?
No. The program is nonpartisan and focused on constitutional accountability, lawful government action, transparency, public education, and defending the rule of law.
Does Biazzo Law handle Supreme Court and amicus matters?
Yes. Biazzo Law handles U.S. Supreme Court strategy, amicus curiae briefs, federal appeals, constitutional litigation, government oversight matters, and appellate-sensitive civil litigation.
Comments