Dept of Justice Appeals Injunction Preventing Cut Off of Funds to Acorn

The Department of Justice has appealed the ruling of a district court judge who first granted ACORN a preliminary injunction and now has entered a permanent injunction preventing Congress from cutting off funds to that organization which has amassed a nationwide record of lawbreaking.  It has sought a stay pending appeal.

The Department argues that Congress' determination to cut off funds does not rise to the level of "punishment" and the Bill of Attainder prohibition against punishment without trial is inapplicable to Congress' action against ACORN.

Next it argues the government will suffer irreparable injury if an Act of Congress is enjoined by a single district court judge when such Acts of the legislature are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. The Government also argues that the injury will interfere with Congress' ability to "effectively administer programs".

The Government notes that unless the appeals court stays the injunction the defendant ACORN may well have performed the work for which it receives payment which would make full recovery difficult should an appeals court vacate the injunction. Additionally, the opaque and complicated structure of the organization and its lax accounting may make recovery of the funds spent impossible.

In contrast, the Government argues, if the funds to ACORN are suspended while the appeal progresses, it constitutes only a temporary suspension of the contracts with ACORN and that does not constitute the necessary "irreparable injury" which is a predicate for injunctive relief.

The Department also argues it is in the public interest that the Congressional cut off be kept in place pending appeal.

The Department has given this sufficently serious attention, asking in the alternative, that the Appeals Court temporarily, administratively stay the injunction during the pendancy of the proceedings on its Motion to Stay pending Appeal. In other words, it has signalled to the Court it really regards this as serious and requests immediate action to lift the lower court order.

I think the Government Motion is well-grounded in law and precedent as well as common sense.

h/t: Washington Examiner
The Department of Justice has appealed the ruling of a district court judge who first granted ACORN a preliminary injunction and now has entered a permanent injunction preventing Congress from cutting off funds to that organization which has amassed a nationwide record of lawbreaking.  It has sought a stay pending appeal.

The Department argues that Congress' determination to cut off funds does not rise to the level of "punishment" and the Bill of Attainder prohibition against punishment without trial is inapplicable to Congress' action against ACORN.

Next it argues the government will suffer irreparable injury if an Act of Congress is enjoined by a single district court judge when such Acts of the legislature are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. The Government also argues that the injury will interfere with Congress' ability to "effectively administer programs".

The Government notes that unless the appeals court stays the injunction the defendant ACORN may well have performed the work for which it receives payment which would make full recovery difficult should an appeals court vacate the injunction. Additionally, the opaque and complicated structure of the organization and its lax accounting may make recovery of the funds spent impossible.

In contrast, the Government argues, if the funds to ACORN are suspended while the appeal progresses, it constitutes only a temporary suspension of the contracts with ACORN and that does not constitute the necessary "irreparable injury" which is a predicate for injunctive relief.

The Department also argues it is in the public interest that the Congressional cut off be kept in place pending appeal.

The Department has given this sufficently serious attention, asking in the alternative, that the Appeals Court temporarily, administratively stay the injunction during the pendancy of the proceedings on its Motion to Stay pending Appeal. In other words, it has signalled to the Court it really regards this as serious and requests immediate action to lift the lower court order.

I think the Government Motion is well-grounded in law and precedent as well as common sense.

h/t: Washington Examiner

RECENT VIDEOS