Zimolong LLC is a law firm built to support free enterprise and the United States Constitution. In 2022, City and State Pennsylvania magazine ranked founding partner Wally Zimolong as one of the Top 100 attorneys in Pennsylvania shaping state and national politics. Our firm’s lawyers are life-long activist in the conservative movement. They have represented numerous state and federal elected officials and candidates. Our firm’s attorneys are active members of the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. We have appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room, Newsmax, OANN, Fox 29, WPHT 1210 AM, and 990 AM WNTP to discuss increasing government encroachment on individual liberty. We have litigated numerous noteworthy constitutional, election, and “anti-woke” cases, including:
NAACP, et. al. v. Schmidt, et. al. Counsel to the sixth largest county in Pennsylvania is federal court case regarding whether mailed ballot procedures violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ball, et. al. v. Chapman, et. al. Counsel to amicus curiae in matter before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding whether the dating provisions of Pennsylvania’s mailed ballot statute violated the materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Jim Bognet v. Luzerne County Board of Elections. Engaged by the NRCC to bring an emergency petition for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Jim Bognet and Bognet for Congress to force the Luzerne County Board of Elections to perform their statutorily required duty to perform voter roll reconciliation and provide the number of people who voted in each precinct compared with the number of votes counted in each precinct. After weeks of unwillingness to perform their duty, upon filing of the petition the county provided the campaign with the information the very next day.
Elkin, et. al. v. The City of Philadelphia Commissioners, et. al. Counsel to two elected representatives in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in litigation against the City of Philadelphia’s decision to remove a process that caught double votes. Litigation led to the city’s resumption of the practice.
Election Integrity. Romine, et. al. v. Chester County Board of Elections. Lead counsel in case against board of elections to secure mailed and absentee ballot drop boxes. Litigation led to implementation of the most stringent drop box security measures in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Parents’ Rights. Auslander v. Tredyffrin-Eastown School District. Lead counsel to plaintiff in federal civil rights case that resulted recovery of 166 pages of documents proving school district taught critical race theory in school.
Equal Protection. Sargent v. School District of Philadelphia. Co-lead counsel to group of parents seeking preliminary injunction against the racially discriminatory admissions policy for Philadelphia’s criteria-based high schools.
Constitutional Law. Toth, et. al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Co-lead counsel to group of plaintiffs in action seeking a preliminary injunction against use of judicially created Congressional map.
Election Integrity / Constitutional Law. McLinko v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Lead counsel to plaintiff in action that declared no-excuse mailed voting (Act 77) unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Executive Action. State of Texas v. U.S., S.D.TX (No. 6:21-cv-00003). Counsel to amicus curie, Advocates for Illegal Alien Crime (“AVIAC”). Authored brief in support of the State of Texas’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration’s policy of suspending deportations of illegal aliens.
Public Education. Niehls, et. al. v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, et. al. (Montgomery County 2020). Represented group of parents seeking preliminary injunction against local government’s order closing all public, private, and parochial schools because the local government agency violated the Sunshine Act by holding secret meetings and failing to provide the public with proper notice.
Election Integrity. Pirkle, et. al. v. Boockvar (M.D.Pa. 2020). Lead Pennsylvania counsel to plaintiffs in a case brought in federal court that sought to challenge the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Pennsylvania based on reports of sever irregularities and deviations from the Pennsylvania Election Code. https://truethevote.org/true-the-vote-contests-illegal-ballots-cast-in-pennsylvania-%E2%80%8Bsues-gov-tom-wolf-and-secretary-of-state-kathryn-boockvar/
Election Integrity. Woodruff v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections, et. al. (Phila.CCP. 2020) Case for mandamus brought on the eve of the 2020 Presidential election that challenged the Philadelphia County Board of Election’s decisions to deviate from the Pennsylvania Election Code regarding the processing of mail in ballots. The case challenged the Board’s authority to (a) accept mail in ballot applications past the statutorily imposed deadline, (b) notify voters that their ballot was defective and providing them with an opportunity to cure, and (c) issue replacement ballots instead of provisional ballots.
Equal Protection. Paradise Concepts, Inc., et. al. v. Governor Thomas W. Wolf, et. al. (E.D.Pa. 2020) In a case that has received significant media attention, Wally is lead counsel in a class action lawsuit against the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other state actors concerning the constitutionality of COVID-19 related lock down orders. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is docketed at 2:20-cv-02161.
First Amendment: Road-Con, Inc., et. al. v. City of Philadelphia, et. al. (E.D.Pa 2020). In this case, Wally’s clients challenged the City of Philadelphia’s use of project labor agreements, which required city contractors to hire all employees from city selected unions and that required all employees to become members of those unions as a condition of employment. In a first of its kind decision, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled the city’s project labor agreements violated the First Amendment by compelling union membership and the payment of union dues.
First Amendment: Smith v. NJEA, 425 F.Supp.3d 366 (D.NJ. 2019). In this case, Wally’s clients challenged the legality of New Jersey’s Workplace Democracy Enhancements Act, which set forth a restrictive procedure for public sector employees to resign union membership. The federal court agreed that the act most likely violated the First Amendment, but dismissed based on standing. The case is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit.
First Amendment: LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council (M.D.Pa. 2019). In this case, Wally’s clients brought a class action lawsuit against various government agencies and public sector unions alleging that they violated the First Amendment rights of public sector employees by compelling payment of union dues as a condition of employment. Case is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit.
First Amendment: Feibush v. Johnson, 203 F.Supp. 3d 489 (E.D.Pa. 2016). This case involved a high profile dispute between a real estate developer and former political rival of a City of Philadelphia councilmember. The suit alleged that the councilmember retaliated against the plaintiff because the plaintiff decided to oppose him in an election. After a week long trial, a jury gave a landmark verdict and unanimously ruled that the councilmember violated the First Amendment rights of Wally’s client.
First Amendment: Pawlucy v. The School District of Philadelphia, et. al. (E.D.Pa. 2:12-cv-07134). In a case that garnered international media attention, Wally represented a Philadelphia high school student who was forcibly removed from class and verbally harassed by a teacher because she wore a t-shirt supporting the candidacy of Mitt Romney for president. The case settled for a confidential amount.
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process: Bullard v. City of Philadelphia, 847 F.Supp.2d 711 (E.D.Pa. 2012). In this case, Wally brought suit on behalf of a real estate developer whose property was demolished by the City of Philadelphia without notice or an opportunity to be heard in violation of his client’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The federal court granted summary judgment in favor of his client and the case later settled for $140,000.