Skip to main content

About

The National Constitutional Law Union is a non-profit social welfare organization. Its mission is to preserve and protect the United States Constitution and the American way of life by providing legal support and funding to individuals whose Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and similar rights are being violated or in jeopardy.

We Are At A Crisis Point For American Freedom

The National Constitutional Law Union is the answer to the useless and radically leftist American Civil Liberties Union in that we actually fight for the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Issues

The National Constitutional Law Union is supporting litigation critical to individual Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and related issues in state and federal courts across the country.

Cases

From local courtrooms to the Supreme Court, the National Constitutional Law Union works tirelessly to defend your constitutional rights. Read about our cases below:

Carter Page v. James Comey, FBI, et al., Case No. 20-cv- 3460 (D.D.C.)

We are trial counsel to Dr. Carter Page in his historic FISA abuse case which is the most important litigation to arise from the “Russia Hoax,” in which the FBI, DOJ, and other elements of the federal government obtained fraudulent FISA warrants against Trump aide Carter Page. The case was dismissed at the trial court level by Judge Dabney Friedrich. However, it is now on appeal at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. We are optimistic that the decision will be reversed either at the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court and will be returned to the District Court level for discovery to proceed.

United States v. Christopher Alberts, Case No. 21-cr-026 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia including gun-related charges. The Defendant was arrested on the evening of January 6th on Capitol grounds. The Defendant is a decorated Army combat veteran. He was recently sentenced to seven years in federal prison. This case is headed toward a lengthy appeal process that will raise extremely important First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Due Process issues.

United States v. Daniel Amsini, Case No. 23-mj-00132-GMH (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a young male who engaged in no violence or property destruction yet is facing multiple misdemeanor and felony charges. The case has not yet been assigned to a district court judge.

Anderson, et al. v. United Airlines, Case No. 23-cv-00989 (N.D. Ill.)

We represent 28 United Airlines pilots and flight attendants against the airline in ground-breaking litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the airline over employer-mandated COVID vaccines. The litigation is in the early phase of motion practice.

United States v. Stephanie Baez, Case No. 21-cr-0507 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a young woman who is an aspiring medical school student and who is attempting to start a family through an IVF process despite having very serious medical issues. She immigrated to the United States as a young child. She engaged in no violence or property destruction yet is facing four misdemeanor charges with a jury trial date currently set for September 26, 2023, before Judge Paul Friedman.

United States v. Nancy Barron, Case No. 22-cr-00089 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a single mother with multiple special-needs children (solely responsible for their care) who engaged in no violence or property destruction yet is facing four misdemeanor charges with a jury trial date currently set for August 22, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

United States v. Michael Brock, Case No. 21-cr-500 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a father and small business owner who has medical issues is charged with both misdemeanor and felony charges and has a trial date set for currently set for October 16, 2023, before Judge Carl Nichols.

Estate of Caviness, et al. v. Atlas Air, et al., Case No. 22-cv-23519 (S.D. Fla.)

We represent 100 Atlas Air pilots and flight attendants against the largest cargo carrier in the world in a ground-breaking litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the airline over employer-mandated COVID vaccines. The litigation is in the early phase of motion practice. This case is before Judge K. Michael Moore, who handled the Elian Gonzalez case.

United States v. Lloyd Cruz, Case No. 23-cr-3064 (C.A.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a father of five with PTSD and other mental health issues who relies on social security disability payments for income and engaged in no violence or property destruction. He was convicted of two misdemeanor charges and is currently finishing a 45-day prison sentence imposed by Judge Reggie Walton. We are currently litigating his appeal in the D.C. Circuit and then likely the Supreme Court. His appeal presents perhaps the most important 4th Amendment issue in American history – whether the “geofence” general warrants the DOJ and FBI used to obtain the cell phone data of every person at the Capitol complex on January 6th were Constitutional. These general warrants, which did not identify probable cause regarding either specific defendants or specific alleged crimes, cast the broadest net for the data of Americans in the history of the country.

United States v. Michael Dillon, Case No. 23-cr-108 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a working-class individual who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only five minutes yet is facing four misdemeanor charges in front of Judge Tanya Chutkan.

United States v. Michael Gianos, Case No. 22-cr-00074 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a working-class individual who engaged in no violence or property destruction yet was facing four misdemeanor charges. He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge. Sentencing occurred before Judge Jia Cobb on July 25, 2023. Despite the government seeking three months of incarceration in federal prison, we successfully argued that he should receive only probation and a short period of home detention.

Randy Quaid, et al. v. Granet, et al., Case No. 23-6850-JFW (C.D. Cal.)

We represent actor Randy Quaid and his wife against numerous plaintiffs in connection with an alleged conspiracy to illegally access and utilize information from a government database to obtain advantage in a civil litigation relating to the alleged forgery of a deed to the Quaids’ property in Montecito, CA, along with alleged identity theft. This case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

United States v. Derek Gunby, Case No. 21-cr-626 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a working-class individual who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only a short period of time yet is facing four misdemeanor charges with a trial date currently set for October 2, 2023, before Judge Paul Friedman.

United States v. Timothy Hart, Case No. 21-cr-00540 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a small business owner who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was pepper sprayed in the face multiple times by law enforcement officers. However, he was charged with felony and misdemeanor counts, including 20-year Obstruction of Official Proceedings. He pleaded guilty to one felony charge of Civil Disorder. Sentencing occurred before Judge Paul Friedman on July 27, 2023. Despite the government seeking four months of incarceration in federal prison, we successfully argued that he should receive only probation and a short period of home detention.

Jason Lakatos v. HCA Healthcare, Case No. _____ (S.D. Fla.)

This is a civil litigation that will shortly be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This is an extremely important case with respect to healthcare freedom. The plaintiff is a doctor who was terminated because he insisted on prescribing ivermectin and other useful medications to fight COVID.

United States v. Jared Kastner, Case No. 21-cr-725 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is a young man from Indiana who works as an engineer, was recently married and is a member of his church security detail. He engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only a short period of time yet is facing four misdemeanor charges with a trial date currently set for August 8, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya. This case will present very important Second Amendment issues on appeal, as District Court Judge Randolph Moss held at the conclusion of a bond revocation hearing that not even Mr. Kastner’s wife – who is not a defendant in the case – is allowed to have firearms in their house for personal protection during the pendency of the case.

United States v. Rebecca Lavrenz, 23-cr-00066 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is an older female who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only a short period of time yet is facing four misdemeanor charges with a trial date currently set for March 25, 2024, before Judge Rudy Contreras.

United States v. Jesus Rivera, Case No. 22-3088 (C.A.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The defendant engaged in no violence or property destruction and was only in the Capitol for a brief period and was convicted of only misdemeanors while represented by government-appointed attorneys. He was sentenced to 8 months in federal prison. This appeal will likely go to the Supreme Court and will involve important issues regarding the First Amendment and Due Process.

United States v. Deborah Lynn Lee, 21-cr-303 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant is an older female who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only a short period of time. She initially only faced four misdemeanor charges. However, after exercising her right to go to trial, the DOJ outrageously filed a superseding indictment including a 20-year felony Obstruction of Official Proceedings, punishing her for exercising her Constitutional right to a trial. We have moved to dismiss based on this vindictive and unconstitutional superseding indictment. Judge Amy Berman Jackson is considering the motion and no trial date is set at this point.

United States v. David Lesperance, James Cusick, and Casey Cusick, Case No. 21-cr-439 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Defendants are a 76-year-old pastor and Vietnam volunteer veteran who served in the Army infantry and was awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, his son who also attended bible school and is married with three very young children, and a 72-year-old congregant of their church. They engaged in no violence or property destruction and were only inside the Capitol for approximately nine or ten minutes. After a week-long jury trial before Judge John Bates (and despite overwhelming evidence in their favor), they were convicted of four misdemeanor charges. The case will now head toward the sentencing phase, which will be followed by a lengthy appeal process that will raise extremely important First Amendment and Due Process issues.

Laura Loomer, et al. v. Twitter, Dorsey, Meta, Zuckerberg, Doe FBI Agents, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02646 (N.D. Cal.)

This is a ground-breaking Civil RICO lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California by Laura Loomer and her Congressional campaign to hold Big Tech accountable for its criminal conspiracy with the FBI and other elements of the federal government to target conservative American citizens with censorship and to interfere in American elections. A motion to dismiss has been briefed and argued, and we are awaiting the decision. If the motion is denied, we will proceed to the discovery phase of the litigation. If it is granted, we will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and then the Supreme Court.

Arthur “Mac” Love v. Larry Hogan, State of Maryland, et al., Case No. 22-1928 (4th Cir.)

This is a civil rights lawsuit against the State of Maryland and its former Governor Larry Hogan. The plaintiff Mac Love was an employee in Governor Hogan’s office at the time of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020. Love posted some content on social media favorable to Rittenhouse and the right of self-defense. He was fired for those posts in violation of his First Amendment rights. The case was dismissed at the trial court level and is now on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and then potentially the Supreme Court.

United States v. Patrick Montgomery, et al., Case No. 21-cr-46 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. There are three co-defendants in this case, and we are co-counseling with Professor Alan Dershowitz. Our client Patrick Montgomery is a former outdoor guide from Utah. They did enter the Senate Chamber gallery for a short period of time but engaged in no violence or property destruction. Our client initially only faced four misdemeanor charges. However, after exercising his right to go to trial, the DOJ outrageously filed multiple superseding indictments including a 20-year felony Obstruction of Official Proceedings and other felonies, punishing her for exercising her Constitutional right to a trial. We have moved to dismiss based on this vindictive and unconstitutional superseding indictment. The case is currently set for trial on October 16, 2023, before Judge Randolph Moss.

Jaime Parham v. City of St. Augustine, et al., Case No. _______ (M.D. Fla.)

Our client is a Constitutional conservative activist in St. Johns County. He was peacefully protesting the removal of a Civil War memorial in the old town square of St. Augustine with a handful of others. There were a vast number of Antifa and BLM protestors there who were not peaceful. Perhaps because they were outnumbered or perhaps because of political bias, local law enforcement officers took the side of the leftist protestors and attempted to arrest our client. He was pepper sprayed in the eye, causing a cut cornea, and was violently thrown to the ground by police. He was wrongfully charged with resisting arrest. Upon reviewing the video of the incident, the local district attorney immediately dropped those charges. Our client filed an administrative claim against the city and numerous of its officers, which was denied. We are now imminently going to a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

United States v. Dominic Pezzola, Case. No. 21-cr-175 (D.D.C.)

We represented Dominic Pezzola in the four and half month long “Proud Boys” January 6th trial. We won the only acquittal on a seditious conspiracy among the five defendants, as well as defeating multiple other counts. During the trial, it was revealed that the FBI (i) concealed dozens of confidential human sources (“CHS”) among the Proud Boys on January 6th (ii) destroyed evidence regarding the CHS involvement and (iii) actually infiltrated the defense team with another CHS to spy on defense strategy. The case will now head to the sentencing phase before Judge Timothy Kelly, followed by a lengthy appeal process in front of the D.C. Circuit and then likely the Supreme Court. This historic case will present numerous crucial Constitutional law issues on appeal that will affect American freedoms for generations to come.

District of Columbia v. Proud Boys International, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03267 (D.D.C.)

We represent five individuals, Jonathanpeter Klein, Roberto Minuta, William Pepe, Dominic Pezzola, and Edward Vallejo, in a civil damages lawsuit brought by the District of Columbia against the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and various individual members of those organizations in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. The District of Columbia is represented by one of the nation’s most powerful AmLaw 100 law firms, while all of our defendants are indigent, and two are incarcerated. The case is pending before Judge Amit Mehta and is in the early stages of motion practice and discovery. This case will present a good opportunity to seek discovery regarding the events of January 6th.

Daniel Richards v. Lockheed Martin, Case No. 22-cv-01640 (D. Col.)

Our client is a veteran who worked for Lockheed Martin. He spoke up against the woke, anti-veteran human resources directives that have recently swept across corporate America, including defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. Because of that, he was terminated. We have filed a Title VII lawsuit against Lockheed Martin for discriminating against our client based on his veteran status. The case is in early motion practice and will then either proceed to discovery or to appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

United States v. Jeremy Rodgers, Case No. 1:23-mj-00144 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Defendant is a young, well-educated man from Michigan who is accused of multiple felonies and misdemeanors for allegedly using a flagpole as a weapon. He was recently arrested as the DOJ has continued to file charges against Americans two and a half years after the events of January 6, 2021. He will be pleading not guilty on all charges and the case will proceed through motion practice, discovery, and trial.

Steven Rosati v. Long Island Railroad, MTA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-08594 (S.D.N.Y.)

Our client was a conductor on the Long Island Railroad, which is run by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of New York City. He is a conservative who had a significant podcast and social media presence. During the 2020 Presidential election and its aftermath, he made various comments on podcasts and social media in support of President Trump. As a result, he was fired from his position while his employer disregarded various procedural protections to which he was entitled under his Collective Bargaining Agreement. We have filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. We defeated the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and are now conducting discovery and looking to set a trial date in 2024 before Judge Jennifer Rearden.

United States v. Jesse James Rumson, Case No. 1:23-cr-70 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Defendant is a young, peaceful man from Citrus County, Florida who has now become motivated to run for County Commissioner due to what is happening to the country. He is well known for wearing a “Panda” headpiece on January 6th. It is fortunate he had the Panda headgear on because he was viciously beaten with baton strikes to the head by law enforcement officers that day, which led to him having only lacerations and concussion symptoms rather than being killed. He has been charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has a trial date currently set for January 22, 2024, before Judge Carl Nichols.

United States v. Kenneth Joseph Thomas, Case No. Case No. 21-cr-00552 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in which we won one of the two best jury verdicts of any January 6th case so far, including the only jury acquittal of a 20-year 1512 Obstruction of Official Proceedings charge. Our client is a Navy combat veteran who is a father of four and is an independent, lay minister. Overall, we defeated five out of 12 counts after a one-week jury trial and four days of jury deliberations before Judge Dabney Friedrich. The case is now heading toward the sentencing phase and then will proceed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and likely the Supreme Court where it will present extremely important First Amendment issues.

United States v. John George Todd III, Case No. 22-cr-00166 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Our client is an Army combat veteran with PTSD and multiple other service-related mental and physical health issues who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only a short period of time yet is facing four misdemeanor charges with a trial date currently set for October 17, 2023, before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya. The government attempted to revoke Todd’s bond and have him detained pre-trial for a domestic incident, but after two several-hour bond revocation hearings we were successful in keeping him free on pre-trial release.

Smith, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, Stewart Rhodes, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02265 (D.D.C.)

We represent two individuals, Stewart Rhodes, and Dominic Pezzola, in a civil damages lawsuit brought by certain Capitol police officers against President Trump, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and various individual members of those organizations in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. The District of Columbia is represented by one of the nation’s most powerful AmLaw 100 law firms, while both of our defendants are indigent and incarcerated. The case is pending before Judge Amit Mehta and is in the early stages of motion practice and discovery. This case will present a good opportunity to seek discovery regarding the events of January 6th.

United States v. Daniel Webb, Case No. 23-cr-00225 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Our client is a young, well-educated man who engaged in no violence or property destruction and was inside the Capitol for only a short period of time yet is facing four misdemeanor charges. Because of the stress and distraction, the prosecution was causing in his life, he has decided to plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge. We are now preparing for his plea hearing and then will be working on his sentencing memorandum and preparing for his sentencing before Judge Royce Lamberth to ensure he gets the lowest possible sentence.

United States v. Isaac Westbury, Jonah Westbury, Robert Westbury, and Aaron James, Case No. 21-cr-605 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with extraordinarily heart-breaking circumstances. Four out of five members of a family, three sons and a father are being charged with various felony and misdemeanor charges. The father has had six strokes, one of the sons is a Navy combat veteran, another of the sons has emotional health issues, and the other is extremely young. The only member of the family who has not been charged is the mother/wife/matriarch, who is working around the clock as an emergency room nurse first responder to attempt to support the rest of the family, all of whom have had trouble finding work due to January 6th. The FBI broke down their door and ransacked their house in a pre-dawn raid years ago, and the damage has still not been paid for or repaired by the government. They were actually only engaged in self-defense and the defense of others, yet are facing years in federal prison. They have a trial date currently set for February 12, 2024, before Judge Rudy Contreras.

United States v. Donnie Wren, Case No. 21-cr-00599 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in which NCLU-affiliated attorneys won one of the two best jury verdicts of any January 6th case so far. Overall, we defeated four out of seven counts after a lengthy jury trial and several days of jury deliberations before Judge Reggie Walton. The case is now heading toward the sentencing phase and then will proceed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and likely the Supreme Court where it will present extremely important First Amendment issues.

United States v. Ryan Zink, Case No. 21-cr-191 (D.D.C.)

January 6th criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Our client is a young, well-educated man from Arizona whose father is a former Congressional candidate. He engaged in no violence or property destruction and even attempted to help law enforcement officers, yet he is facing multiple felony and misdemeanor charges, including 20-year felony Obstruction of Official Proceedings. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and is currently set for trial before Chief Judge Boasberg on September 5, 2023.

Numbers

50

Cases

175

Clients

25

Attorneys

38

January 6th Defendants

15

January 6th Charges Defeated

2800

Individual Donors

600000

Dollars Raised

Team

John M. Pierce

Chairman

Gavin M. Wax

Executive Director

Edward A. Paltzik

Litigation Director

Todd J. Aldinger

Litigation Co-Director

Duotone (17)

Katie E. Cusick

Operations Director

Laura E. Loomer

Development Director

Duotone (20)

Paul J. Ingrassia

Communications Director

Publications

In-depth briefs, memorandums, resources, and analysis on the most pressing constitutional law issues.

Proposed Amendment to the Constitution to Prevent Political Prosecutions

Amicus Brief in Defense of President Trump Against Partisan Misuse of the Fourteenth Amendment Insurrection Clause

Strategy Memorandum Against the Trump Indictments

Testimonials

I must give an enormous amount of credit to my amazing legal team John Pierce, Roger Roots, Emily Lambert and John Mosley for their due diligence and fearless approach to justice.

Joe ThomasJanuary 6th Defendant

The NCLU has made my legal defense possible. I thank God for you all every day.

Deborah LeeJanuary 6th Defendant

We are fighting to ensure the survival of America’s unique Constitutional system.

We believe the most important thing that can be done to protect liberty is to fight in court for those who do not have the means or ability to fight for themselves.

Fighting for the God-given rights of Americans every day. 

Fighting for the God-given rights of Americans every day. 

Fighting for the God-given rights of Americans every day. 

Fighting for the God-given rights of Americans every day. 

Fighting for the God-given rights of Americans every day. 

Fighting for the God-given rights of Americans every day. 

Newsletter

The National Constitutional Law Union provides resources to litigate some of the most important legal cases in the country. Sign up below to be the first to hear about our latest work & how to get involved.

Membership

Join the National Constitutional Law Union today and fuel our fight to defend everyone’s constitutional rights nationwide.

Save 55%!
$17.91/ month
$98/ Year

@NCLU_ORG

Follow Us On Instagram
Follow Us On Twitter

Contact

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

    President Ronald Reagan

    © 2024 National Constitutional Law Union.