Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-2335 #108

12-2335 #108

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12,159 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #108 - DOJ's opposition to BLAG's motion to dismiss the DOJ appeal, case number 12-2435
Doc #108 - DOJ's opposition to BLAG's motion to dismiss the DOJ appeal, case number 12-2435

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 12-2335 and 12-2435IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUITEDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, In Her Official Capacity asExecutor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer,Plaintiff-Appellee, v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant-Appellant,BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant, On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York, Case No. 10-civ-8435
OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL NO. 12-2435
 __________________________________ STUART F. DELERY 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 
MICHAEL JAY SINGER (202) 514-5432 AUGUST E. FLENTJE(202) 514-3309
 Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 7228 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Case: 12-2335 Document: 108 Page: 1 08/03/2012 681607 25
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY....................................1STATEMENT........................................................3 A. Statutory Background.........................................3B. Facts and Prior Proceedings...................................4 ARGUMENT.........................................................8 THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISMISSALOF THE GOVERNMENTS APPEAL..............................8 A. The Executive Branch Defendants Have Standing to Appeal........8B. Dismissal Of The Executive Branch Defendants’ Appeal WouldCreate An Unnecessary Obstacle To Resolving The SubstantialConstitutional Questions In This Case.........................12CONCLUSION......................................................19CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case: 12-2335 Document: 108 Page: 2 08/03/2012 681607 25
 
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases: Page
Barnes v. Kline 
,759 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1985),
majority opinion vacated 
,
Burke v. Barnes 
,479 U.S. 361 (1987)............................................................................................................ 16
In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation 
,589 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1979)............................................................................................. 18
Bob Jones University v. United States 
,461 U.S. 574 (1983).............................................................................................................. 9
Buckley v. Valeo
,424 U.S. 1 (1976). ......................................................................................................... 13, 14
Coleman v. Miller 
,307 U.S. 433 (1939)............................................................................................................ 17
Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper 
,445 U.S. 326 (1980)...................................................................................................... 10, 12
Diamond v. Charles 
,476 U.S. 54 (1986)................................................................................................... 7, 16, 17
Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Perini N. River Assocs.
,459 U.S. 297 (1983)............................................................................................................ 13
Greenlaw v. United States 
,554 U.S. 237 (2008)............................................................................................................ 10
INS v. Chadha 
,462 U.S. 919 (1983).............................................................................................. 3, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 14, 17
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 
,504 U.S. 555 (1992)............................................................................................................ 10ii
Case: 12-2335 Document: 108 Page: 3 08/03/2012 681607 25

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Marty Lederman liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->