Orly Taitz has an article up titled “I need help in finding this Pennsylvania case of Juarez Escobar (sic), where fed, judge stated that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional. Do not see anything in PACER under Juarez Escobar in PA recently.” I like to think of my self as a good person and a helpful one. Taitz, as far as I can tell, auto-deletes my comments, so my attempt to give her the case number and a link to the decision didn’t work. (Awwww.)
This brings me to a point about looking up federal lawsuits online. There is a web site, Justia.com, where one can lookup federal lawsuits, and this web site is a very useful free public resource for finding cases, one that I use frequently; however, it is not the actual federal court system, PACER, and it does not always have everything in the PACER system. I couldn’t find this case at Justia either, even when putting in the hyphen that Orly dropped (actual name is Elionardo Juarez-Escobar). However, the real PACER Case Locator has the case (2:14-cr-00180-AJS). Use of the PACER Case Locator requires a PACER account. I actually went to PACER first in this instance because I knew Taitz was having trouble.
The case itself is interesting and District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said in his order that President Obama’s Executive Action (not Executive Order) was beyond the Administration’s power of prosecutorial discretion, and therefore unconstitutional. His reasoning, as I read it, was based on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is something applied on a case-by-base basis, and not to classes of people as Obama outlined.
He will be deciding on the aspects of Obama’s immigration dictates being unconstitutional, in the actual case brought by Orly Taitz. Judge Hanen is the SAME ..
Actually, the Taitz case involves transportation of undocumented children and is based on her claim of getting sick through treating one of them. That morphed into a case about Ebola, and that transmogrified into a generalized opposition to Obama’s Executive Action, something that happened after she filed her case.
One might want to tell Taitz to shut up, as she is not the representative of the American people and has no individual standing to bring such a lawsuit. Taitz claims “taxpayer standing,” something I have read many time did not apply to Obama eligibility cases. Taitz, however, cites to a case:
Further, Obama claims that Taitz lacks standing as a tax-payer, however this is patently false, as the Supreme Court in Flast v Cohen, via decision penned by the Chief Justice Earl Warren found that US tax payers have standing to challenge actions by the government, as long as those actions relate to spending allocated by the Congress based on it’s spending and taxing power and those actions are illegal.
The Court’s decision in Flast v. Cohen does not grant general standing to all taxpayers. The Court set up this test for taxpayer standing:
To maintain an action challenging the constitutionality of a federal spending program, individuals must demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Art. III requirements. Pp. 392 U. S. 102-103.
(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. P. 392 U. S. 102.
(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. Pp. 1 392 U. S. 02-103.
Obama’s immigration initiative is no way a “spending program” or a "statute," and Taitz has no individual stake in it (not being herself liable for deportation). In order to sue, the legislation challenged must exceed Constitutional limitations, not simply go beyond delegated powers. She fails both tests. The Flast case had to do with state spending to support religious schools in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.