UPDATE – Liberty Legal Foundation files Amicus Brief in U.S. v. Arizona arguing to the High Court that the Obama Administration is acting outside the immigrations laws passed by Congress.
Liberty Legal is taking on Illegal Immigration on three fronts:
1. Citizen class action lawsuit to require the Executive branch to follow existing laws passed by the Legislative branch. The Immigration Class Action (ICA) seeks to enforce existing immigration law. Read more…
2. Liberty Legal’s Motion to Intervene in the U.S. v Arizona case. Read more…
3. Liberty Legal’s Writ of Mandamus to the Supreme Court to reverse long standing precedent that violates state sovereignty by allowing states to be sued by the federal government in district courts. Read more…
ICA – Immigration Class Action
In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That act required the executive branch to respond to requests for information about an individual’s immigration status. This requirement was restated in 1997 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. See US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part IX, Section 1373
We the People spoke through our legislators and established law to curb illegal immigration which was already a critical problem in 1996. This year, Arizona passed a law which requires AZ law enforcement to make informational requests, to which the executive branch is required to respond. However, President Obama’s executive branch simply doesn’t want to follow the law. Instead they sued Arizona to stop law enforcement from making requests so that DHS wouldn’t have to respond.
The ICA seeks to obtain a court order that requires the Obama administration to enforce existing immigration law. The ICA also seeks an order prohibiting the Obama administration from restricting any entity from seeking immigration status information.
The Details: The Immigration Class Action (ICA) was filed on September 16, 2010 in Tennessee District Court against Defendants Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, Eric Holder, David Palmatier as Unit Chief for the Law Enforcement Support Center, and the United States. Key legal precedent at issue will likely be Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923 as the Defendants are sure to cite “standing doctrine” as a defense.
In Re Richard Mack v. Susan Bolton
Despite the clear language and meaning of the Constitution, long standing legal precedent allows for States to be sued in courts other than the Supreme Court. The Founders intended State sovereignty to be protected and honored, on the order of foreign countries. To this end Article III, Section II, Clause II states: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
In 1884, legal precedent was established allowing States to be sued in lower federal courts. The Supreme Court’s naive reasoning at that time was that State sovereignty would never be dishonored by the federal government. The court essentially said, “That will never happen.” Well, it is happening so Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court. This petition requests that the Supreme Court reevaluate the precedent set in Ames v. State of Kansas ex rel. Johnston and restore State Sovereignty by re-establishing the Constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court have exclusive jurisdiction when the federal government sues a State.
The petition, titled In Re Richard Mack v. Susan Bolton would result in complete dismissal of the U.S. v. Arizona lawsuit. If our petition is granted the Supreme Court would essentially erase the U.S. v. Arizona lawsuit from the books. It would be as if that lawsuit had never been filed.
U.S. v. Arizona Intervention
When Judge Bolton ruled in favor of the U.S. in U.S. v. Arizona, she set the precedent that the Executive branch can set their own priorities even if those priorities directly conflict with properly passed legislation. If this precedent is left standing, We The People have no voice. We can elect Congressman to pass laws such as the Immigration law passed in 1996, but it will have no effect if the Executive branch has the permission of the Judicial branch to ignore Legislative mandates. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act says that the executive branch “shall” do certain things. In legal terms “shall” means “must, you have no choice”. The Executive Branch has no authority to “set their own priorities.” When Congress has set priorities the President has no choice but to follow those priorities.
The current motion is a Motion to Intervene filed in the Arizona District Court that ruled in U.S. v. Arizona. Accompanying the motion is a proposed third party complaint with counter claims against the United States and the Department of Homeland Security. Success in this motion will restore the Separation of Powers and force the Executive branch to follow and enforce the law.
