On Monday, May 1, 2017, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court to support of former Governor Janice Brewer of Arizona, defending Arizona's
right to refuse to issue drivers licenses to beneficiaries of the DACA. We discuss that brief below, but first, wanted to celebrate the filing of ...
Our Firm's 100th SCOTUS Amicus Brief
Our firm was honored to have filed our 100th amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court. And that does not include scores more amicus briefs in U.S.
Courts of Appeals, U.S. District Courts, and State Courts.
We began adding this type of Constitutional and public policy work to our practice on October 16, 1981, with a brief supporting President Reagan's firing
of the Air Traffic Controllers for striking in violation of federal law. Our client for that brief was the Public Service Research Council.
Since then, during the last 36 years, we have filed briefs addressing a large variety of constitutional and statutory issues. The constitutional issues
have included the free exercise clause, the establishment clause, freedom of the press, free speech, the right to petition the government, the right to
assemble, the regulation of nonprofit organizations, the qualifications for the President and members of Congress, appeals from military courts martial,
election law, the LGBTQ Agenda, the Decennial Census, abortion, health freedom, administrative law, citizenship and immigration, the necessary and proper
clause, asset forfeiture, the commerce clause along with a host of Second, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments cases. The statutory issues
have been likewise diverse, involving many of these same areas of law and others.
Our firm website was established in 1999, and have kept it current since then with our briefs, other filings, press coverage, publications, appearances,
etc. — www.lawandfreedom.com. Now totaling over 600 documents, these postings on our firm's website contain a brief summary, and are categorized by
subject matter, type of law, by year, and by court. Moreover, they can be searched using "tags" that identify their subject matter more precisely.
(Interestingly, as of now we have cited the Holy Bible in 40 briefs.)
We are grateful to the clients who allow us to be able to speak boldly to the courts in support of the Constitution, freedom, and our clients' positions.
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer
This week's brief supported a petition for certiorari filed by the state of Arizona. Arizona is seeking to have the Supreme Court review and reject a
Ninth Circuit opinion which struck down Arizona's decision not to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens who are part of President Obama's
unconstitutional DACA program.
Our brief explains that the Ninth Circuit below had wrongly assumed that there is only one type of citizenship in this country - U.S. citizenship. On
the contrary, the Constitution provides that American citizens are citizens both of the United States and of the state where they choose to reside.
However, the Constitution says nothing about aliens. The Ninth Circuit wrongly assumed that federal citizenship governs state citizenship, and that
states have no authority over those who are not U.S. citizens.
Our brief also noted that Arizona's decision cannot possibly be prohibited by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which applies to only "laws of the
United States." DACA is nothing more than a political decision by one President not to enforce the law. It is not a "law" enacted by Congress and
signed by the President; and since it is revocable at will, nor is it a "rule" which has fixed and precise standards governing conduct. Thus, DACA
cannot possibly "preempt" Arizona's state policies.
Next, our brief noted the political bias contaminating the Ninth Circuit's decision. Although claiming its decision had nothing to do with equal
protection, the Ninth Circuit's opinion focused on Arizona's supposed "animus" against illegal aliens. Yet animus has nothing to do with the findings
of "preemption" on which the Ninth Circuit claimed its opinion rested.
Finally, our brief criticized the Ninth Circuit's reliance on Plyer v. Doe, a Supreme Court equal protection decision. The Plyer opinion has been
heavily criticized by those on all sides of the political spectrum as being grounded neither in Constitutional text nor in any legal precedent.
Rather, the decision was the product of judicial log rolling, cobbling together a bare majority of five justices, with Justice Brennan emoting about
the "not niceness" of denying education to children. For the last 35 years, Plyler has forced states to pay billions to educate millions of illegal
aliens, and no doubt encouraged millions more to enter the country illegally. Plyer's place is the judicial wastebin, and should not be relied upon
to create new "rights" for illegal aliens.
Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, U.S.
Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
|
|
|
