How does the Supreme Court decision UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) apply to ACORN's recent suit?
(answers which do not stick to the subject of constitutional and/or case law will be unhelpful)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$2 Answers
In United States v. Brown, a statute holding that a member of the Communist Party couldn't legally have a leadership role in a labor union was struck down as unconstitutional because it was held to be a bill of attainder. The courts held that the legislative branch could deny someone the right to lead a labor union based on past criminal actions, or even general characteristics that would give a reasonable expectation that a person might act with the intent to harm the United States (they were looking at this as falling under the Commerce Clause). However, the determination of guilt and decisions about who exactly could be considered to possess those general characteristics were not up to the Legislative branch. The legislature isn't allowed to use the law to punish a person or specific group that hasn't been tried. It violates the separation of powers of the branches of government and deprives those affected of due process.
I don't see how the Defund ACORN Now Act could not be found to be a bill of attainder. They're specifically singling out an organization by name for punitive action based on an indictment (an accusation), not a conviction in the court of law. The legislature is punishing ACORN (and its affiliates) because they assume they're guilty of something, not because it has been proven. That's pretty much the definition of a bill of attainder.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
-quote-
"In United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) (cited by von Spakovsky in footnote 8 of his article), in which the United States Supreme Court held that in designating Communist Party members as persons who cannot hold union office, Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes, the Court stated: “The best available evidence, the writings of the architects of our constitutional system, indicates that the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply – trial by legislature.
von Spakovsky: “The bill of attainder clause has never been read to prevent Congress from defunding an organization or a corporation whose employees engage in criminal conduct, and it has rarely been invoked by the modern Supreme Court. Indeed, the Court has ‘not invalidated legislation on bill-of-attainder grounds since 1965.’”
-end of quote_
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The first paragraph of your quote is accurate, but it does not support the second paragraph or your own conclusion. And it is true that the last time the Supreme Court invalidated legislation on Bill of Attainder grounds was in 1965, that's why I asked about this 1965 case!
You provide an interesting source. It is so rabidly right wing that the author says "ACORN is a criminal enterprise, a corrupt unofficial arm of Congressman Nadler’s political party and a slimy, subversive disgrace, but Congressman Nadler had a genuine legal argument and ACORN’s lawsuit asserting it is NOT bogus! " The author Mike Gaynor then goes on for several pages tearing up von Spakovsky's analysis.
Why would you say there is no punitive intent? That seems pretty far-fetched. The whole bill was rushed through Congress specifically to punish ACORN and that's why its supporters support it.
Congress certainly has an interest in not providing taxpayer funds to organizations that violate campaign finance and election laws; but, what it is supposed to do is pass a law saying that taxpayer funds are not to go to organizations that violate campaign finance and election laws. Then, it is up to the courts and the executive branch to enforce the law. That's what separation of powers is about. Of course, that law would have wound up blocking matching funds to the Republican and Democratic parties as well as ACORN.
You were right, the Federal Judge found it a clear case of "Bill of Attainder";
from the NY Times;
"A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision.
The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a “bill of attainder,” a legislative determination of guilt without trial, because it specifically punishes one group. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/us/politics/12acorn.html
Thanks for the heads-up Albanian. I hadn't read about the decision. I hope this reminds our elected officials that they should put upholding the constitution above political grandstanding in the future.
Great job of locating the relevant original documents rather than news analysis. When you lay out the legal texts, the US vs Brown, and the DeFund ACORN act together, that really makes it look not just like a Bill of Attainder, but a blatant, textbook case. It's as if Congress was trying to make a perfect example of a modern Bill of Attainder for law students to study instead of passing useful legislation.
Still, Congress' lawyers will present a couple of arguments. One is that denying funding is not punitive. That's pretty ridiculous since ACORN gets much of its income from government contracts. And in United States vs Brown the court makes clear that denying eligibility for employment constitutes punishment.
Congress will also argue that there are legitimate government interests to further. But in US vs Brown Congress argued that the purpose was to prevent people who would encourage strikes from being employed, and the court said you can pass a law to do that but you can't pick who to prevent and must leave that to the judicial and executive branches.
The more I look at this the more I'm inclined to take back saying that this is not a cut and dried case. Someone is going to have to come up with a better argument why it is not a Bill of Attainder than I've seen so far to stand a chance in court.
The FLA Congressman is right - United States v. Lovett ()
104 Ct.Cls. 557, 66 F.Supp. 142, affirmed.- the government tried to "defund" Lovett's salary becuase he was a subversive - just another form of naming a particular person and inflicting a severe punishment (proscrition against federal employment) by legislative act violating the separation of powers which is the principal behind "no bills of attainder" making sure Congress doen't intrude into the are of the judiciary