Download the Biden-Harris Administration Accountability Tracker Here

AAF Files First of a Series of Briefs Defending Women’s Sports

Advancing American Freedom filed the first of a series of three amicus briefs leading a coalition of 52 other amici urging the Supreme Court to hear cases challenging West Virginia and Idaho laws designed to protect women’s and girls’ sports. The Fourth and Ninth circuits enjoined enforcement of those laws.

The physical distinctions between men and women manifest themselves in drastic differences in performance at the highest level of competition. AAF’s briefs argue that while elite female athletes are incredibly talented, they would not be competetive with the top men in the world. The briefs show that giving children puberty blockers, an important element in the West Virginia cases, is just the latest iteration in a pattern of socially acceptable harm that has existed in different forms throughout recorded human history. As the Cass Review out of the UK explains, “a diagnosis of gender dysphoria . . . is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.” Yet many in America would rush children onto these drugs, potentially setting them up for a lifetime of consequences.

“If men are allowed to compete in women’s sports, women will be discouraged from putting in the years of hard work athletic excellence requires,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “States have both the authority and the responsibility to protect women’s and girls’ sports and to ensure that children are allowed to experience normal physiological development free from medically unnecessary surgical and hormonal manipulation.”

Read the full brief here.

AAF: The Biden-Harris Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is Devastating Seniors

Advancing American Freedom Files Amicus Brief on California Carbon Carve-out

Advancing American Freedom led an amicus brief with 39 other amici in Diamond Alternative v. EPA urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and find that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot grant one State an exemption to act as an alternative national legislature for environmental regulation. Yet that is exactly what it has done. Congress allowed the EPA to grant states waivers to address unique and specific local issues. California is seeking to use that exemption to address global climate change. Because other states can only either follow the EPA’s regulations or California’s, this system allows California to set an alternative national standard. California, in turn, based its standard not on its unique local needs but on its agenda-driven desire to fight global climate change.

“While sending more power back to the states is generally a good thing, allowing one state, and the most regulatorily minded of states at that, to have special power that is denied to every other state, to set alternative regulatory standards for the nation is not American federalism,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “The Supreme Court must take this case and limit the California exemption to the problem Congress intended to solve; California specific environmental dangers.”

Read the full brief here.

Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency

Read the full statement here.

AAF: Kamala Harris’ Border Czar Record

AAF: Tim Walz’s Radical Record

What Ever Happened to the Democratic Party?

Confronting our Debt Crisis: A Guide to Cutting Federal Spending

AAF: Say NO to Kamala Harris and Double Down on Tax Cuts

Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Read the full statement here.