James Bopp, Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm ended 2021 fighting in Indiana against employer COVID vaccination mandates and in Wisconsin for election integrity.

On December 16th, Bopp testified before the Indiana House Committee on Employment, Labor and Pensions regarding HB1001, urging the Indiana General Assembly to ban Indiana businesses from mandating COVID vaccinations for their employees.

In his testimony, Bopp noted the wide agreement, backed up by expert studies, that the COVID vaccines do not prevent a person from getting a COVID infection and transmitting it to others but may ameliorate the symptoms and effects, which means that COVID vaccinations are preventative medical treatments, not a public health measure. Bopp argued that the law requires that medical treatments receive the patient’s voluntary and informed consent and, as a result, employer mandates are contrary to law.

Bopp’s testimony was cited by many news stories.

Vax mandate hearing in Indiana shows sharp split between business, individuals | Indiana | kokomoperspective.com

Furthermore,on December 23, Bopp was in Madison, Wisconsin state court arguing that the Wisconsin State Assembly’s effort to investigate possible irregularities in the November 2020 election should go forward in order to ensure the integrity of Wisconsin elections.

The Wisconsin State Assembly has appointed former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Mike Gableman, as Special Counsel, to conduct a thorough investigation of the administration of recent elections in Wisconsin. Gableman has issued subpoenas to the Wisconsin Elections Commission to investigate several credible allegations of misfeasance by the WEC during the November 2020 election. The WEC however filed suit to fight the subpoenas.

Bopp, representing Justice Gableman, argued that legislative oversight of the WEC was vital to maintain the integrity of Wisconsin elections in the face of serious allegations of misconduct and that a government agency, like WEC, had no authority to resist an investigation of their conduct by the Wisconsin legislature since it was the body that created, empowered, and funded WEC.

Several news stories featured Bopp’s arguments to the state court.

Dane County judge to rule next month on the validity of Gableman’s subpoena | State & Regional | wiscnews.com

Law is Not Enjoined, but a Few Texas State Officials That Have Limited Enforcement Authority Under SB 8 Can be Sued in Federal Court to Enjoin Their Enforcement of SB 8

WASHINGTON – On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision about Texas SB 8, also known as “The Heartbeat Act.” The Texas law is designed to protect unborn children whose hearts have begun to beat, usually at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law is unique in that enforcement of the law is largely left to private citizens to sue abortion clinics and doctors to prevent them from violating the state law, and not by state officials through criminal penalties.

The lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have allowed the Texas Heartbeat Bill (SB 8) to stay in effect while the U.S. Supreme Court considered an expedited appeal by abortion clinics, which raised the question of whether the law could be challenged in federal court because its enforcement is largely left to private citizens and not to state officials or law enforcement.

The Court decided that appeal today, which will allow the law to remain in effect indefinitely, even though the limited state enforcement of the law through professional licensing boards will be subject to challenge in federal court. The Court rebuffed the abortion clinics’ claims that they could sue in federal court various state officials, including state court clerks and judges and the attorney general, and private citizens who had not declared an intention to seek private enforcement of the law. The Court also refused to permit federal courts to just “enjoin the law,” which the abortion clinics wanted.

Furthermore, in a stern rebuff of the Biden Administration, the Court summarily dismissed, in an 8 to 1 vote, the Administration’s appeal of the lower court’s refusal to enjoin the Texas law, in a suit brought by the Justice Department against the State of Texas. The Court thereby signaled that the Biden Administration suit had so little merit that the Court need not consider their appeal.

“The result of the Court’s decisions today is largely a victory for the pro-life movement,” said James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for National Right to Life. “The federal courts will only be able to enjoin Texas professional licensing boards from enforcing the law, leaving lawsuits by private citizens to enforce the law intact. The Court recognized that the constitutionality of the Texas law can be litigated in state court when such private lawsuits are brought, which, of course, is the normal situation, but not through a preemptive challenge in federal court that the abortion clinics were seeking.”

“This life-saving measure has saved an estimated 100 babies per day since it went into effect on September 1, 2021, since lower federal courts and the Supreme Court have so far refused to enjoin it.” said Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life Committee. “The Court’s decisions today will continue to allow the law to stay in effect by recognizing that federal courts have no power to enjoin it, except in the limited circumstance of state professional licensing disciplinary actions. We look forward to this Texas law continuing to save lives.”

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of affiliates in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

National Right to Life, Nation’s Largest and Oldest Pro-Life Organization, Leads the Way in State and Federal Pro-Life Legislation

WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which concerns Mississippi’s “Gestational Age Act” which bans abortions after 15-weeks gestation. The Court’s decision next year will address the question of whether a state has a compelling interest in protecting the right to life prior to viability.

“The Supreme Court oral arguments today were very encouraging. It is apparent from the questions that a majority of the Court is seriously considering at least rejecting the viability line that currently prohibits prohibitions on abortion prior to viability,” said James Bopp, Jr., National Right to Life Committee’s (NRLC) General Counsel, and author of NRLC’s amicus brief in the case.

“But the key question seems to be how far the Court is willing to go, either a decision that just rejects the viability line, permitting states to argue that prohibitions on abortion prior to viability are justified by sufficiently compelling state interests or if they will issue a broader decision which explicitly either totally or partially overrules Roe and/or Casey. There appears to be several Justices whose questions seemed to favor one path or the other, who would constitute a majority,” said Bopp.

“It is important to remember that either ruling would be a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement, vastly expanding our ability to protect innocent unborn life,” Bopp concluded.

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life spoke at today’s #EmpowerWomenPromoteLife press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court, saying, “Viability is an ever-changing standard and, therefore, unworkable as the timeline or framework for abortion. For many years, babies were thought to be viable at 28 weeks. Now, babies are generally considered to be viable at 24 weeks, but babies have survived at 21 weeks! Viability is not a characteristic of the baby but of how advanced our technology has become.”

Tobias continued, “Mississippi seeks to protect from abortion unborn babies after 15 weeks. By that age, preborn children are fully formed. They have heartbeats, fingers and toes, and functioning organs. By eight weeks gestation, brain waves can be recorded. Life has surely begun, and the state has the right, indeed—the duty—to protect it.”

The National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest and oldest pro-life group, has successfully led the way over the last 48 years in seeing pro-life, protective legislation passed on both the state and federal levels. National Right to Life is the only national pro-life group with affiliates in all fifty states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide.

“Regardless of the outcome in Dobbs, National Right to Life and our state affiliates will continue our work on both the state and federal levels to protect unborn babies and their mothers,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, National Right to Life and its state affiliates have led the way in protecting all innocent human life by seeing legislation enacted on the state and federal level that challenges current jurisprudence and educates Americans about the extremism of current abortion law.

“National Right to Life led the debate over partial-birth abortions and pioneered new ground in the abortion debate with the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,” said Jennifer Popik, J.D., federal legislative director for NRLC. “The legislation banned a particular abortion procedure that was used both before and after what is considered viability.”

Popik continued, “The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 and provides precedent in the Court’s jurisprudence for prohibiting abortions before viability.”

National Right to Life and its state affiliates have led the way on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, women’s right to know legislation, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Unborn Child Protection Act, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor’s Protection Act, parental notification and consent laws and many, many other state and federal laws. National Right to Life’s model legislation on these issues and more have been passed in dozens of states over the years.

The entire text of the speech by Carol Tobias can be found here.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of affiliates in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Last week, Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund challenged Indiana’s prohibition on corporate contributions to political action committees (“PACs”) for independent expenditures.

Indiana currently allows a corporation to contribute to a PAC, but only if the contribution (1) does not exceed the contribution limits and (2) is designated for disbursement to a specific candidate or committee. Given that independent expenditures are expenditures made completely independent and separate from a candidate, contributions for them cannot be designated, nor disbursed, to a candidate. So the relevant code sections act as a complete prohibition against contributions from corporations to PACs for independent expenditures.

The Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court have made clear that contribution limits are only constitutional if they target quid pro quo corruption (which refers to dollars for political favors) or its appearance. Contribution limits serving any other purpose are unconstitutional. But courts have gone a step further, making clear that independent expenditures do not create a threat of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. Accordingly, prohibitions on contributions for independent expenditures are unconstitutional.

“Our Constitution has made clear that political speech is protected and that groups like Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund have a right to have their voices heard,” says lead counsel James Bopp, Jr. “Allowing groups like Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund to raise funds for independent expenditures is very important to the pro-life movement. It will allow Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund to further advance the movement by helping get pro-life leaders in office, which will in turn help pro-life legislation be enacted and protected in Indiana.”

Mike Fichter, Indiana Right to Life President and CEO, states, “Independent expenditures are a very important means for Indiana Right to Life to engage in the political process. These will become even more important in the wake of next summer’s Supreme Court ruling on Mississippi’s abortion law, which we hope will open greater opportunities to protect life.”

Chicago, Illinois – The eight students who have sued Indiana University over its COVID vaccination mandate filed their opening brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week. The students argued the district court was wrong to deny their motion for preliminary injunction.

In May this year, IU announced it will be requiring all students, faculty, and staff to receive COVID vaccinations before they can return to IU for the fall semester with stringent and limited exemptions for those with religious or medical exemptions. Even if a student is granted an exemption they are still subject to rigorous extra requirements, regardless of why they received an exemption, including masking, regular testing and possible quarantining. In June, The Bopp Law Firm, on behalf of IU students, filed a federal lawsuit against IU to preserve students’ rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, and of medical treatment choice.

Students filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied by the district court on July 18th. Students then appealed to the Seventh Circuit. On August 27th, IU moved to dismiss the appeal, because they claimed that the students now lacked standing to sue since class at IU had started, which the Seventh Circuit subsequently denied. With today’s filing, the constitutional challenge against IU’s Mandate continues.

The students argue that the district court erroneously denied the injunction, because it reviewed the Mandate under the rational basis standard of review, that gives great deference to IU’s decision, which is employed when no constitutional rights are infringed. The district court based its decisions upon a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision, before the recognition of robust protection to bodily integrity and autonomy and medical treatment choice. The student urge the appellate court to recognize the changes in constitutional law that has occurred since then and impose the burden of proof on IU to demonstrate that their Mandate is justified and necessary to advance an important governmental interest.

“Continuing our fight against this unconstitutional mandate is necessary to guarantee that IU students receive the fair due process they’re owed by a public university,” states James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel in the lawsuit. “However, IU students are free adults are entitled to make their own medical treatment decisions. Under the proper review, IU cannot meet its burden of proof that it properly balanced the risks (both known and unknown) of the COVID vaccine to college-age students against the risks of COVID itself for college-aged students in issuing its Mandate. IU is a government actor and cannot infringe upon the students’ fundamental rights without a compelling justification, which does not exist now for college-aged students.”

Read Students’ Opening Brief here.

Chicago, Illinois – On Friday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Indiana University’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its COVID vaccination mandate for students, so the appellate court will hear the Student’s challenge on the merits.

In May this year, IU announced it will be requiring all students, faculty, and staff to receive COVID vaccinations before they can return to IU for the fall semester with stringent and limited exemptions to the Mandate for those with religious or medical exemptions. Even if a student is granted an exemption they are still subject to rigorous extra requirements, regardless of why they received an exemption, including masking, regular testing and possible quarantining. In June, The Bopp Law Firm, on behalf of IU students, filed a federal lawsuit against IU to preserve students’ rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, and of medical treatment choice.

Students filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was denied by the district court on July 18th. Students then appealed to the Seventh Circuit. On August 27th, IU moved to dismiss the appeal.

In its motion to dismiss, IU argued that, since school has already begun and the Students challenging its mandate had received exemptions or “withdrawn” from IU, they no longer had standing to bring the case and, as a result, the case was moot and should be dismissed.

The Students opposed IU’s motion, pointing out that even the exempted students still had to comply with parts of IU’s Mandate that unvaccinated students do not, and that this type of case could not be fully resolved in the limited amount of time between IU’s Mandate announcement and the start of the fall semester. In addition, the two students IU claimed had “withdrawn” had actually deferred their attendance at IU pending the resolution of this case. The Seventh Circuit denied IU’s motion to dismiss, which means it agrees the students have standing and the issues before the appellate court are not moot.

“Today’s ruling allows this fight to continue for the Students and that they will have their constitutional claims decided on the merits” states James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, lead counsel in the lawsuit. “IU claims plenary authority to require students to do anything IU feels necessary for health and safety of its students, no matter what fundamental constitutional rights of the student are violated, similar to how inmates in a prison are treated. However, IU students are not convicted and incarcerated prisoners, but are adults entitled to make their own medical treatment decisions. Thus, IU’s Mandate is unconstitutional and we look forward to proving that in court. Government actors, from a local official to the President of the United States, need to remember that, under the Constitution their power is limited. The Constitution rests on the foundation that we don’t receive our rights from the government—it prevents the government from infringing on those rights without a compelling justification, which does not exist now for college-aged students.”

Friends, The Bopp Law Firm has filed an appeal today in the United States Supreme Court in order to enjoin IU’s COVID Vaccination Mandate for all students.

This appeal has gotten significant attention, with USA Today calling our case “one of the most compelling involving COVID-19 to reach the Supreme Court.”

Indiana University students ask Supreme Court to block vaccine order.

We expect an opinion next week.

I have spoken about the IU Mandate case here.

I hope this helps you understand what we are doing.

Jim

Today, Indiana University Students, represented by The Bopp Law Firm, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent IU from enforcing its COVID Vaccination Mandate while their appeal is pending.

In May, IU announced it will be requiring all students, faculty, and staff to receive COVID vaccinations before they can return to IU for the fall semester with stringent and limited exemptions to the Mandate for those with religious or medical exemptions. Even if a student is granted an exemption they are still subject to rigorous extra-requirements, regardless of why they received an exemption. In June, The Bopp Law Firm, on behalf of IU students, filed a lawsuit against IU to preserve students’ rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and the right to consent to medical treatment.

Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Students request for an injunction, based upon a standard of review that gives great deference to IU’s decision. Both courts based their decisions upon precedent that is over a century old. Since 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down many cases which supports Students’ claim that their constitutional rights have been violated by IU’s Mandate, and that IU has the burden to prove its Mandate passes constitutional muster.

“Continuing our fight against this unconstitutional mandate is necessary to guarantee that IU students receive the fair due process they’re owed by a public university,” states James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel in the lawsuit. “An admitted IU student’s right to attend IU cannot be conditioned on the student waiving their rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and to consent to medical treatment like IU has done here. Both the district court and the court of appeals applied the wrong law to Students’ claims—mental patients who have objected to antipsychotic drugs have received greater consideration from the courts than have the Students here. Under the proper review, IU cannot meet its burden of proof that it properly balanced the risks (both known and unknown) of the COVID vaccine to college-age students against the risks of COVID itself for college-aged students before issuing its Mandate.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The National Right to Life Committee (“NRLC”) and Louisiana Right to Life (“LARTL”) have filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse course in a direction that will allow more abortion regulation and lead to reversing Roe v. Wade. They have asked the Court to provide a new roadmap, mandating that normal legal rules must be applied in abortion cases and state interests must be given full effect.

The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involving Mississippi’s ban (with exceptions) on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lower courts said that under the Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), no ban is permitted before viability (when babies can live outside the womb). The only Supreme Court issue is “[w]hether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional?”

As the NRLC and LARTL brief noted, abortion law is currently in confusion, with lower courts unsure of what the law actually is. The Court tried to fix the “jurisprudence of doubt” in its 1992 Casey decision by revising the test imposed by Roe in favor of a new “undue burden” test. But in later cases, new Court majorities applied a stricter test, and the multiple opinions in the last one (June Medical Services v. Russo) left lower courts confused as to what the test is. So, a new roadmap is required, the brief noted.

The brief showed how, since Roe, the Court has bent normal rules to make Roe’s abortion right more absolute, which the new roadmap should reject. And courts have failed to give full effect to state interests, for example, in Dobbs, the trial court didn’t even allow the State to put on evidence in defense of its law. These interests include protecting preborn human life (including from pain), protecting maternal health, guarding against harm to the integrity of the medical profession, protecting civil society, protecting against sex-, race-, and disability-discrimination, and other vital interests. Requiring normal rules and giving full effect to state interests will reverse the course Roe set in abandoning normal law and eventually put Roe itself at issue.

James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm and NRLC’s General Counsel says: “Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has twisted the normal rules of law to protect an absolute abortion right and not given full effect to powerful state interests such as protecting preborn life and maternal health. Today, we ask the Court to reverse that tangential path, which will allow greater regulation of abortion, lead to stability in the law, and put Roe itself at issue.”

The U.S. Supreme Court docket for Dobbs is here, and the NRLC and LARTL brief is here.

Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of affiliates in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Today, Indiana University Students, represented by America’s Frontline Doctors and The Bopp Law Firm, asked the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to prevent Indiana University from enforcing its COVID Vaccination Mandate while their appeal is pending.

In May of this year, IU announced it will be requiring all students, faculty, and staff to receive COVID vaccinations before they can return to IU for the fall semester with stringent and limited exemptions to the Mandate for those with religious or medical exemptions. Even if a student is granted an exemption they are still subject to rigorous extra requirements regardless of the basis of the exemption. In June, The Bopp Law Firm, on behalf of IU students, filed a lawsuit against IU to preserve students’ rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, due process, and the right to consent to medical treatment.

In continuing their fight, Students have asked the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to correctly identify as fundamental their rights to bodily integrity and bodily autonomy—which would require IU to meet a high bar in providing sufficient justification for its Mandate. Students believe that IU cannot meet this high bar. While IU may have had a compelling interest at the beginning of the pandemic, evidence suggests that is no longer the case. COVID cases and deaths associated with COVID are down significantly since the height of the pandemic, and the risk of serious morbidity and mortality from COVID for those in Students’ age group was already close to zero. Students are confident that if the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit properly employs this high standard, their claims will succeed.

“Our Constitution has made it clear that IU, as a government institution, cannot limit an individual’s freedoms without sufficient justification,” said James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, Director of Litigation for America’s Frontline Doctors, and lead counsel in the lawsuit. Unfortunately, IU has chosen to ignore these constitutional principles and impose a Mandate that violates students’ rights without sufficient justification. This cannot stand. In order to protect students, we have asked the Court of Appeals to prevent IU from enforcing its Mandate.”

Press About Bopp Law Firm

Press Releases