Saturday, February 14, 2015


February 14, 2015

Dean Brad Sears
The Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476

Dear Dean Sears:

I received an email today describing the work being done by the Williams Institute at UCLA. As a result, I visited your very impressive and comprehensive web site.

It appears that through the generosity of Mr. Williams, the University has been able to recruit a formidable staff of scholars, researchers, writers and speakers which has been diligently and effectively training 3,000 judges throughout the United States.

In reviewing your web site, I was impressed with both the similarity and the contrast between the work of the Institute and the famous Brandeis Brief filed in the 1908 case of Muller v Oregon on behalf of the defendant State of Oregon by Louis Brandeis, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court.

The Brandeis Brief, you will recall, was a ground breaking effort to persuade the court, not so much with historical precedents as with scientific knowledge and other evidence not introduced in the lower courts, such as testimony by medics, social scientists and male workers who argued that long working hours had a negative effect on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of women.

It became a model for many other presentations before the Supreme Court of the United States, a practice which has encouraged the Court to eschew the historic function of adjudication in favor of an activist role as arbiter of the national welfare and culture.

It would appear that the work of the Williams Institute constitutes a massive and exhaustive Brandeis Brief in favor of the LGBT cultural agenda. In the interest of fairness, would it not be desirable to inform the public and all potential litigants of the names of those 3,000 judges who had the benefit of your intensive instruction and attitude training?

I should think that litigants currently before the court debating the marriage issue should be informed which, if any, of the current Supreme Court Justices are among those 3,000 judicial graduates of the Williams Institute.


Thomas E. Brennan
Former Chief Justice of Michigan
Founder of Thomas Cooley Law School


  1. What seems to get lost in this issue of gas marriage is the free association aspect of the first amendment. In light of it, then why is it not unconstitutional for state government to be in the business of issuing licenses for any citizen to freely associate with another.

  2. A marriage license is not a license to associate. If it were, the First Amendment might come into play. But a marriage license is a license to propagate human beings, an activity which carries the greatest social consequence. The state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of the next generation.

  3. Then why must two octogenarians get a marriage license? A license to propagate is moot.

  4. Don't knock octogenarians. Genisis 21:2