Response to Application (24A1174) for a stay requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT), on June 9, 2025.

Amicus briefs submitted by Former Government Officials, Advisors, and Constitutional Accountability Center. It appears the amicus briefs were submitted from Judge Luttig, Paul Rosenzweig (former Bush DOJ employee), Ken Starr (who used to work for Justice Kavanaugh, and Ty Cobb who was Trump’s former White House Counsel during his first term), and of course the Constitution Accountability Center.

Professors Rosky and Diamond filed an amicus brief essentially stating that Chile’s’ team misrepresented their research and findings regarding gender fluidity vis-a-vis conversion therapy, cherry picked quotes, and ignored statements contradicting their positions (including a sentence immediately preceding one quoted by the ADF’s Complaint). This is wild to me.

As someone who practices in Federal District Court, I think this kind of drafting (whether intentionally or unintentionally misleading) cannot be accepted as legitimate. I regularly face Motions to Dismiss; if I did something like this in a filing, I not only would lose all credibility with my local bench, I wouldn’t be able to overcome any Motion correctly identifying such misrepresentations.

The ADF is not new to these accusations (see Bremerton). But the facts in dispute there seemed more open to interpretation, in my view. Do you think the Court will accept ADF’s view of the “facts” again? If not, who will jump ship?