American Dream Legal

What it reported doing in 2024

Cases in litigation: american association of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists v. Mississippi state board of medical licensure, et al. The american association of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists (aaplog) and its members oppose elective abortion and are committed to the care and well-being of their patients, including both pregnant women and their unborn children. Accordingly, aaplog's Mississippi members decline to perform or refer patients for elective abortions. However, several professional medical societies, associations, and board-certification organizations have adopted formal policies that make aaplog's Mississippi members vulnerable to discipline or de-certification by those organizations for refusing to perform or refer patients for elective abortions. Under Mississippi law, aaplog's Mississippi members could be disciplined by the state if they have disciplinary action taken against them by these professional organizations. Mississippi's recently enacted elective abortion ban would shield aaplog's Mississippi members from this disciplinary action, but the constitutionality of that statute is uncertain. The uncertainty surrounding the constitutionality of Mississippi's elective abortion ban interferes with the conscience rights of pro-life physicians and threatens the lives of unborn children. Thus, aaplog seeks a judgment declaring that the statute is constitutional. American dream legal is representing aaplog in state court to clarify the constitutionality of Mississippi's elective abortion ban. No specific fees have been sought or recovered at this stage. Slaughter v. Edneycharles slaughter is a physical therapist who runs a clinic in jackson, Mississippi specializing in care for elderly patients. That experience convinced him that homebound patients in his community were not receiving enough time-intensive, quality care. When the pandemic deepened this problem, slaughter resolved to open his own home health agency to solve it. But two overlapping state laws stood in his way. The first statute, Mississippi's certificate-of-need (con) law, would allow slaughter to open an agency only if his community met the state's crude estimates of sufficient "need" for his services. Even worse, only two years after the con law was introduced, it was rendered superfluous by the adoption of a moratorium on cons that prohibited new agencies altogether. Notwithstanding its official description as a temporary "moratorium," the ban stood for a total of 45 years, a national record which remains unbroken today. These laws prevent slaughter from opening a safe, needed business and harm mississippians by decreasing access to home health care. Their sole purpose is to protect existing providers from competition with new ones. Faced with this barrier, slaughter sued. The federal district court invalidated the moratorium but upheld the con law. American dream legal is representing slaughter in his appeal to put an end to that anticompetitive law as well. No specific fees have been sought or recovered at this stage.fuselier v. Riscassijohnny fuselier is a vietnam veteran, a u.s. Navy retiree, and a paying resident of the armed forces retirement home in gulfport, Mississippi (afrh). As a longtime supporter of president trump, he wants the freedom to wear a trump hat and other political apparel at the federally run facility. But afrh prohibits veterans from wearing or displaying political slogans. When mr. Fuselier defied the ban by taping political signs to his orthopedic walker, officials at the home threatened to evict him, saying it wanted to make sure the veteran residents of the home "get along." but government facilities cannot ban political speech simply because it might be controversial. Because the political slogan ban violates the first amendment rights of nearly 500 veterans, fuselier joined with american dream legal to file a class action lawsuit challenging the ban on their behalf. No specific fees have been sought

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 84.8%; rating input score 85
• Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -6.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 34%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: Limited
• Revenue growth: Limited
• Asset growth: Limited