By Scotty Boman, Editor
Kerry Morgan Esq. is the Libertarian Party’s nominee for the Michigan Supreme Court. The Libertarian Party of Michigan nominated him at its Summer convention in Holland Michigan on July 9th 2022. Michigan Supreme court justice is the only non-partisan office to which partisan state conventions can nominate candidates. The current court is composed of justices that were nominated by the Democratic or Republican parties.
This isn’t Morgan’s first run. He also ran for SCOTSOM in the 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, and 2006 Elections. While he is a well-qualified candidate for this office, his accomplishments and efforts as an attorney are significant and more people in the liberty movement should take note.
On June 19th of 2020, Kerry Lee Morgan & Randall A. Pentiuk represented the LONANG Institute in filing an Amicus Curiae Brief. The brief supported the Michigan legislature’s opposition to Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s orders that violated people’s rights to travel and peaceably assemble. The LONANG institute is a Michigan-based non-profit whose name is an acronym for “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” The phrase is commonly found in formative documents that assert natural rights.
The brief condemns the orders when they say, in part,
They trample down due process and the Article I rights of the people, and constitute unlawful preventative detention of persons who have done nothing to their neighbor except breathe. They resurrect the spirit of Monarchy, of Queen Anne and King George I and revive the slave codes of our former British and continental masters. They ignore human liberties, impair our freedoms and subject ten million people to the policeman’s club and jailhouse for nothing more than the attempted enjoyment of Constitutional rights and basic human freedom.
The brief further recognizes that the substance of Whitmer’s orders requiring sheltering-in-place and prohibiting social gatherings, were also previously imposed upon African-American slaves, residing In the Royal Colony Of Virginia while Governed by English monarchs. This historical precedent shows that the Governor’s Orders treat all Michiganders as though they were her slaves–to command as she willed.
The act that served as “precedent” begins on the 31st page of this PDF document.
As part of the legal team representing Gun Owners of America, Morgan filled a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court over the bump stock ban (docketed March 16 2022). The case before the court is Gun Owners of America vs. Merrick B. Garland. The ban was imposed without any lawmaking by Congress. Instead the BATFE simply defined “bumpstocks” as machineguns, then applied the existing ban on unregistered machineguns, to bump-stocks. Litigants had already challenged this absurd definition, but Courts applied a principle (or doctrine) of judicial review called “Chevron Deference.” The rationale is that if Congress gave a regulatory body authority to administer a law, that they were also authorized to make determinations regarding ambiguities in the law. So Courts often (though not always), dismiss challenges to federal agency interpretations based on the principle that they should defer the decision to the agency or bureau.
Morgan eloquently challenges the notion that there is any ambiguity and argues that the Chevron Deference doesn’t apply in this case. The petition also points out that the BATFE had previously allowed bumpstocks and that the Federal government had waived the Chevron Deference.
The tortured litigation history can be found under “statement of the case,” in this document. An abbreviated summary is available here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/the-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks-and-the-requirements-of-appellate-service/
In 2006 Michiganders successfully passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which ended most state-sponsored preferential treatment, based race, sex, or ethnicity. That year Libertarians were unified in supporting the popular measure while the gubernatorial candidates of every other political party took the unpopular position of supporting a continuance of state-sponsored bigotry.
Unfortunately, Harvard University and the University of North Carolina continue to discriminate against people based on their so-called race.
Kerry Morgan recently filed the brief regarding a case before SCOTUS. In it Morgan supports petitioners’ challenge to Harvard’s unconstitutional use of racial factors in college admissions. The cases were Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al… The brief is for the LONANG Institute as Amicus Curiae in support of the petitioners. It is an example of arguing from the law of nature as incorporated into the American System of law by the Declaration of Independence and as subsequently reflected in the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.
While some of the doctrines cited may seem archaic, authors penned words with specific meanings. Careful attention to the cultural and philosophical context in which writers composed formative documents is essential to an accurate interpretation of the written words. Morgan’s analysis reveals why phrases like, “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” appear in formative documents. In other words, it clarifies the meaning of the body of work.
Here Morgan argues that equality before the law implies impartiality and that the intended meaning of “equal” in the Fourteenth Amendment was that the state be “no respecter of persons.” He points out that some arguments for other meanings advanced by the State of Colorado have the effect of reviving the notorious “Separate but Equal” doctrine. The Supreme Court previously rejected it.
Though these rationales appear to be new fruit, they are unacceptable rationales, because they are plucked from the old judicially planted tree of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Then, it was “separate but equal.” Now, it is “diverse but equal.” Thereafter, according to Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), it was “separate is inherently unequal.” Amicus urge this Court to follow in Brown’s footsteps and declare “diversity is inherently unequal.”
“Diversity” must be subordinate to equality, not the other way around. Achieving legitimate diversity means achieving it through the equality principle, not in defiance thereof, or as an exception to equality. Respondent’s diversity is inherently unequal. Diversity can never be a trump card on equality according to the Law of Nature.
If elected, Kerry Morgan would bring much needed qualities to the Michigan Supreme Court. His historical insights, legal scholarship, and passion for liberty, (with impartial governance) are unimpeachable.
Contact Kerry here: https://www.martindale.com/attorney/kerry-lee-morgan-2161158/#contactForm
Editors note: Kerry Lee Morgan is also author of “Real Choice, Real Freedom: In American Education” which is available on Amazon.