Three Major Lawsuits
We have had a very busy week here at the American Center for Law and Justice. We have filed two briefs at the Supreme Court of the United States. Also, a new lawsuit challenging our national motto, In God We Trust, has been filed.
1. Newdow v. U.S. Congress ~ Yesterday, Michael Newdow, who previously brought a lawsuit against the Pledge of Allegiance, once again filed a suit challenging the national motto In God We Trust with U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. We will be representing members of Congress who have also been sued in this action. The ACLJ will fight to protect the national motto all the way to the Supreme Court.
Our national motto, In God We Trust is not only permissible, but constitutional as well. It appears on U.S. currency and has been the official U.S. motto since 1956. This lawsuit is another attempt to use the legal system to remove a legitimate reference to the religious heritage of Americain this case banning the motto of the United States. Litigation filed by Michael Newdow must be taken seriously since he has now twice attempted to have the pledge declared unconstitutional.
Mere acknowledgment of God by the government cannot be said to be establishment of religion, such that it would violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The nation's history is replete with examples of acknowledgment of religious belief in the public sector. The Supreme Court has on several occasions referenced the national motto as a legitimate expression of our religious heritage. The underlying premise of the national motto can be traced to our founding. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our Creator to have certain unalienable rights. Our Founding Fathers recognized that rights and liberties derive from an authority higher than government, which means that government cannot take these rights and liberties away.
2. Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women ~ In just twelve days, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments in an abortion protest case. Today we filed our reply brief asking the Justices to put a final end to the nearly 20-year-old racketeering suit brought by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and two abortion businesses against Joe Scheidler of Operation Rescue and three other pro-life defendants. With oral arguments scheduled to take place on November 30th at the high court, we are representing Operation Rescue in the case. At issue: a federal appeals court decision that purported to reopen the case despite the Supreme Court's complete rejection of NOW's lawsuit in 2003. We are hopeful that the high court will reinforce what it said two years ago and finally bring this case to a conclusion. In a clear decision in 2003, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the use of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutea law designed to combat drug dealers and organized crimewas wrongly used against the pro-life movement.
This case has been litigated since 1986, when NOW filed a lawsuit against various pro-life individuals and organizations. In 2003, the Supreme Court seemingly ended the RICO case by a vote of 8-to-1, ruling that merely obstructing the operations of a business, without obtaining any money or other property, was not extortion. The high court concluded that all of the predicate acts [under RICO] must be reversed, that the judgment that [defendants] violated RICO must also be reversed, and that the injunction . . . must necessarily be vacated. When the case returned to the 7th Circuit, we asked that the case be sent back to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. NOW, however, argued that, despite the Supreme Court ruling, the RICO case was still alive and the injunction should remain in effect. The appeals court agreed that the Supreme Court had not finished the case, and that NOW could pursue the matter further in the trial court.
In our response brief, filed on behalf of Operation Rescue, we contend that there are three independent reasons why NOWs RICO suit must fail. First, the Supreme Court said so in 2003. Second, the supposedly remaining claim, namely, the crime of violence that affects commerce, simply does not exist under the relevant federal statute (the Hobbs Act, which prohibits robbery and extortion). Third, the only judicial relief NOW seeksan injunctionis not available to private parties under RICO. Our brief concludes: It is time for this marathon case to end.
3. Gonzales v. Carhart ~ Yesterday, we filed an amicus brief representing 70 members of Congress in support of a request from the U.S. Solicitor General asking the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion in a case out of Nebraska. With the high court already engaging such issues like abortion protests, assisted suicide, and parental notification for minors, the issue of defending human life is front and center this term at the high court. Were hopeful the high court takes the partial-birth abortion case because it is clear the government does have a vital and compelling interest in preventing the spread of the practice of abortion into infanticide. Its time for the Supreme Court to put an end to this abhorrent practice once and for all.
In September, the government filed a Petition of Certiorari asking the high court to reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which declared the ban unconstitutional. In addition to being involved in the Nebraska case, we also backed the governments positionon behalf of members of Congressin two other challenges of the national ban on partial-birth abortion in cases in New York and California.
We are representing 70 members of Congress: U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Rick Santorum, along with 67 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Click here to read the ACLJ brief which contains the names of the members of Congress. Our brief argued: Partial birth procedures represent the . . . bridge between abortion and infanticide. . . . The central goal of the partial birth statute is the defense of the border against the encroachment of abortion into infanticide. We also pointed out that Congress spent more than eight years deliberating the question of partial-birth abortion and such a well-considered Congressional action should not be struck down without Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court may announce as early as December whether it will hear the case.