Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bernstein v. Kerry

Bernstein v. Kerry

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102 |Likes:
Bernstein v. Kerry
Bernstein v. Kerry

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center on Jun 25, 2013
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

06/25/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA---------------------------------------------------------------------XRACHEL BERNSTEIN,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,-against-JOHN F. KERRY,
et al.,
Defendants.---------------------------------------------------------------------XCivil Action No: 12-1906 (ESH)
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONTO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 1:12-cv-01906-ESH Document 19 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 45
 
Table of Contents
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................iiINTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1ARGUMENTPOINT ILEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS ...............................2POINT IIDEFENDANTS’ POLITICAL QUESTION ARGUMENT IS FRIVOLOUS.............................3POINT IIIFAR FROM BEING AN “ABUSE OF DISCRETION,” ENFORCING THELIMITATIONS IN FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS STATUTES AGAINSTEXECUTIVE ABUSES IS THE JUDICIARY’S ROLE.............................................................6POINT IVTHIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION..........................................................................................9POINT VPLAINTIFFS HAVE ARTICLE III STANDING......................................................................13A. The Plaintiffs Suffer Constant Injury............................................................................13B. The Plaintiffs’ Injuries are Fairly Traceable (in Part) to Funding Sent by theDefendants to Palestinian Governmental Entities, NGOs, and Individuals..........................24C. The Plaintiffs’ Injuries can be Redressed (in Part) by an Order Compellingthe Defendants to Comply with Federal Statute...................................................................25D. The Constitution Compels the Conclusion that the Plaintiffs Have Standing..............28POINT VIPALESTINIAN TERRORISM IS A DAILY THREAT THAT RELIES ON ACONSTANT SUPPLY OF MONEY ........................................................................................31CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................38
 
Case 1:12-cv-01906-ESH Document 19 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 45
 
-ii-
Table of AuthoritiesConstitution
* U.S. C
ONST
. art. I, § 7, cls. 2-3 (Presentment Clause)................................................22, 28-31U.S. C
ONST
. art. I, § 8...................................................................................................................3U.S. C
ONST
. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 .......................................................................................................21U.S.
 
C
ONST
. art. II, § 3.........................................................................................................19, 29U.S. C
ONST
. art. III, § 2..............................................................................................................23
Cases
 Allen v. Wright 
, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).........................................................................................20
  Am. Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Louisa Water & Sewer Comm'n
, 389 F.3d536 (6th Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................20-21
  Baker v. Carr 
, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).....................................................................................3-4, 9
  Bennett v. Spear 
, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).......................................................................................24
  Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev
., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008)(
en banc
).............................................................................................................15-16, 24
  Bond v. United States
, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011)...........................................................................10
  Bryant v. Yellen
, 447 U.S. 352 (1980)........................................................................................27
 Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA
, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013)..............................................................22*
Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U.S. 417 (1998)......................................................18, 28-30
 CNA v. United States
, 535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2008).....................................................................2
 Gonon v. Allied Interstate, LLC 
, 286 F.R.D. 405 (S.D. Ind. 2012)..........................................2-3
  Haase v. Sessions
, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987).......................................................................2
  Hanson v. Veterans Admin.
, 800 F.2d 1381 (5th Cir. 1986)......................................................26
  Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman
, 455 U.S. 363 (1982)............................................18-19
  I.N.S. v. Chadha
, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).............................................................................5, 22-23
 
Case 1:12-cv-01906-ESH Document 19 Filed 06/14/13 Page 3 of 45

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)//-->