Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Pearce-memorandum-(00033161)

Pearce-memorandum-(00033161)

Pearce-memorandum-(00033161)

Page 1: Pearce-memorandum-(00033161)

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Geoffrey Kercsmar (#20528) Gregory Collins (#023158) KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 6263 Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, 85250 Tel: (480) 421-1001 gsk@kflawaz.com gbc@kflawaz.com 
Paul Orfanedes (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) James Peterson (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) Michael Bekesha (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor/Defendant Russell Pearce THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT ARIZONA 
The United States America, Plaintiff, 
The State Arizona; and Janice Brewer, Governor the State Arizona, her Official Capacity, 
Defendants. Case No.: 2:10-cv-01413-SRB 
LODGED: AMENDED PROPOSED MEMORANDUM RESPONSE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ATTACHED 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Geoffrey Kercsmar (#20528) Gregory Collins (#023158) KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 6263 Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, 85250 Tel: (480) 421-1001 gsk@kflawaz.com gbc@kflawaz.com 
Paul Orfanedes (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) James Peterson (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) Michael Bekesha (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor/Defendant Russell Pearce THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT ARIZONA 
The United States America,  Case No.: 2:10-cv-01413-SRB  
Plaintiff,  [PROPOSED] MEMORANDUM  RESPONSE  PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR  
The State Arizona; and Janice Brewer, Governor the State Arizona, her Official Capacity,  PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION  
Defendants.  

State Senator Russell Pearce, counsel, respectfully submits this Memorandum Response Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. grounds therefor, Senator Pearce states follows: 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page Introduction 
The law this Circuit clear. 1983, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that nothing federal law precludes city from enforcing the criminal provisions immigration law. Gonzalez City Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 476 (9th Cir. 1983). enacting Senate Bill 1070, amended House Bill 2162 (SB 1070), the Arizona legislature simply codified already existing enforcement provisions federal law that has been the law the land some cases for more than years. seeking enjoin Sections 1-6 1070 from taking effect, Plaintiff seeks overturn years precedent. Plaintiff also asks that this Court ignore Congress intentions that states and localities play vital role immigration enforcement efforts. such requests were not bold enough, Plaintiffs effort comes facial challenge for which must prove that under set circumstances could 1070 constitutional. Finally, Plaintiff simply ignores many provisions Sections 1-6 without discussing whether those provisions may preserved even the unlikely event that this Court was find that some portion the challenged sections were preempted. Plaintiffs motion without merit and preliminary injunction not warranted. 
II. Background April 23, 2010, Defendant Janice Brewer, Governor the State Arizona, signed Senate Bill 1070 into law. April 30, 2010, Governor Brewer signed House Bill 2162, which amended various provisions Senate Bill 1070. 1070 scheduled take effect July 29, 2010. 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Plaintiff, the United States America, filed its Complaint July 2010, asserting that Sections 1-6 1070 violate the Supremacy Clause the United States Constitution, are preempted federal law, and violate the Commerce Clause the United States Constitution. Sections and 1070 remain the same. Sections and were amended 2162. 1070 Section now 2162 Section 1070 Section now 2162 Section and 1070 Section now 2162 Section avoid confusion, this memorandum will refer all sections found 1070. 
Also July 2010, Plaintiff filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Mot.) requesting that this Court preliminarily enjoin enforcement 1070 preserve the status quo until this matter can adjudicated. that motion which Senator Pearce now responds. demonstrated herein, Plaintiff will not and cannot succeed the merits, and therefore, preliminary injunction not warranted. 
III. Argument Facial challenges are the most difficult challenges mount. 
Plaintiff does not address whether attempting bring facial as applied challenge 1070. Nonetheless, obvious that Plaintiff brings facial challenge, which generally disfavored the courts because such challenges rest only speculation, run contrary the fundamental principal judicial restraint, and threaten short circuit the democratic process. Washington State Grange Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008). Significantly, facial 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
challenge has been described the most difficult challenge mount successfully. 
U.S. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). 
The Supreme Courts disfavor toward facial challenges and its rationale for the heavy burden placed persons advancing such challenges manifest. When legislative enactment facially attacked, court disadvantage because does not know how the law will applied construed enforcing authority. The law might applied construed such way avoid any constitutional issues. the Supreme Court has stated, It neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional role resolve questions constitutionality with respect each potential situation that might develop. Gonzalez Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168 (2007). Instead playing game hypotheticals, Plaintiff too often does its memorandum, courts prefer wait until the law construed in the context actual disputes. Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 450. court must careful not beyond the statutes facial requirements and speculate about hypothetical imaginary cases. Salerno, 481 U.S. 745. Exercising judicial restraint facial challenge frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncement constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations statutes areas where their constitutional application might cloudy. Id. 
Because the strong disfavor toward facial challenges, courts impose[] heavy burden the plaintiffs. Id. (the fact that statute] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set circumstances insufficient render wholly invalid.). 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page court cannot find statute facially unconstitutional unless every reasonable interpretation the statute would unconstitutional. Id.; see also City Council Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 796-97 (1984). Conversely, defeat facial challenge under the Supremacy Clause, party need merely identify possible application the state law not conflict with federal law. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. Oberly, 837 F.2d 108, 116 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting California Coastal Commn Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 593 (1987)). other words, unlike as applied challenge, which the plaintiff applies specific facts the challenged statute, facial challenge must show that no set circumstances exists under which the [statute] would valid. Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 449. other words, the law must unconstitutional under any set facts all its applications. Id. filing the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction prior 1070s effective date, Plaintiff asks this Court precisely what the Supreme Court has warned againstto make premature interpretation and unnecessary pronouncement the constitutionality 1070. Plaintiff has not and cannot prove that all applications 1070 would cause all provisions Sections 1-6 unconstitutional. For this reason alone, preliminary injunction not warranted. 1070 not preempted Federal Law. 
Plaintiff argues that 1070 preempted because unlawful attempt set immigration policy the state level and conflicts with federal law. While the framework for preemption analysis not always precise, Crosby Natl Foreign Trade Council, 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
530 U.S. 363, 373 (2000), Plaintiff nonetheless fails establish preemption under any plausible framework. the contrary, 1070 falls within the well-recognized authority the states, does not regulate immigration, and way obstacle the enforcement federal immigration law. 1070 falls within the well-recognized authority state. 
The law this Circuit clear. The Ninth Circuit has squarely held that nothing federal law precludes city from enforcing the criminal provisions immigration law. Gonzalez, 722 F.2d 476. Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that the States have some authority act with respect illegal aliens, least where such action mirrors federal objectives and furthers legitimate state goal. Plyler Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 225 (1982) (citing Canas Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1975)). 1070 simply codifies already existing enforcement provisions federal law. 1070 mirrors Congress objectives and furthers the legitimate goals set forth Congress. 
ii. 1070 does not regulate immigration. 
Although the federal government has the power regulate immigration, the mere fact that aliens are the subject state statute does not render regulation immigration. Canas, 424 U.S. 352-353. Regulation immigration a determination who should should not admitted into the country, and the conditions under which legal entrant may remain. Id. 355; Toll Moreno, 458 U.S. (1982) (The authority control immigration the power admit exclude aliens.). 1070 plainly does not impose new restrictions the manner which 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
alien enters the country. Nor does create any new requirements for such individuals remain the country. certainly does not impose new conditions under which legal entrant may remain the country. 1070 simply codifies already existing enforcement provisions federal law. 
iii. 1070 not obstacle the enforcement federal immigration law. 1070 does not conflict with stand as obstacle the accomplishment and execution the full purposes and objectives Congress. U.S. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 109 (2000). 1070, fact, mandates compliance with the federal immigration laws and therefore cannot stand[] obstacle [the] accomplishment and execution congressional objectives. Jose C., 198 P.3d 1087, 1100 (2009). shown below, applying specific facts 1070 demonstrates that the statute does not impair federal regulatory interests and therefore concurrent enforcement activity authorized. Gonzales, 722 F.2d 474. 
iv. 	Applications 1070 show that not preempted federal law. 
Plaintiff seeks enjoin only Sections 1-6 1070 from taking effect. Yet, Plaintiff does not allege that all circumstances these sections are preempted federal law. few applications which Sections 1-6 are not preempted follow. 
Plaintiff argues that Section preempted federal law because mandates that state and local law enforcement officers effectuate immigration status verification scheme. Mot. 25. its face, however, Section does nothing more 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
than codify that Arizona state and local law enforcement officers have the same discretion decide whether verify immigration status during the course lawful stop any other state federal law enforcement officer. Id. The requirement far from mandatory. officer has substantial discretion two instances. 
First, officer must only make reasonable attempt determine the immigration status person during the course lawful stop. Such attempt could more than asking the individual for his name, date and place birth, and immigration status. Such questioning has already been held constitutional. See Muehler Mena, 544 U.S. (2005). the individuals response insufficient, the officer may contact the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). Declaration David Palmatier (Palmatier Decl.), attached Exhibit Mot., LESC even prioritizes requests for information that are time sensitive, such roadside traffic stops. Id. its face, Section simply codifies what Plaintiff already acknowledges common practice. 
Second, officer must only make reasonable attempt determine immigration status practicable. There are many instances which officer may find impracticable. The simplest instance traffic stop busy street. officer lawfully stops individual for running red light downtown Phoenix during rush hour, the officer may issue the individual citation and ask the individual for his name, date and place birth, and immigration status. However, the officer may also simply issue the individual citation. Due the high volume traffic, the officer may 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
determine that not practicable have two vehicles sitting lane the shoulder the road for any additional period time, regardless the length time. officer may also find impracticable ask witness victim about his immigration status. Because any number scenarios which Section not mandatory and does not conflict with federal law, Section must survive facial challenge preemption. 
Furthermore, federal law does not preempt Section which does nothing more than codify into state law the authority state and local law enforcement enforce Sections 1304(e) and 1306(a) Title the United States Code. stated above, this Circuit has already recognized that state and local law enforcement may enforce provisions federal criminal law. Gonzalez, 722 F.2d 476. Plaintiff attempts present hypotethicals which Section conflicts with federal law because aliens who are lawfully the United States seeking lawful status will not provided documentation that satisfies federal regulations governing registration. Mot. 38. Yet, such scenarios ignore the plain language Section which states that does not apply person who maintains authorization from the federal government remain the United States. legal alien either forgets his registration documentation home, was not required obtain registration documentation, otherwise has authorization from the federal government remain the United States, the individual would not violation Section Since Section does not apply individuals who maintain authorization from the federal government, state and local law enforcement only have the 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
authority enforce violations Sections 1304(e) and 1306(a). Therefore, Section must survive facial challenge preemption. 
Section 1070 makes only minor modifications Ariz. Rev. Stat.  132319, which was first enacted 2005. The amendment solely codifies the general practice that law enforcement officer may lawfully stop any person who operating motor vehicle the officer has reasonable suspicion believe that the person violation any traffic law. 1070,  4(E). Plaintiff itself concedes that Section only amends preexisting statute. But Plaintiff fails account for last years decision this Court that concluded that Section 13-2319 constitutional. are America Maricopa County Bd. Supervisors, 594 Supp. 1104 (D. Ariz. 2009). that case, Senior Judge Broomfield held that Section 13-2319 was not preempted federal law and that there little question that state has vital interest the enforcement its criminal laws. Id. 1114 (quoting Are America Maricopa County Bd. Supervisors, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70689, (D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2007)). Since Section 1070 has effect this Courts very recent holding, Plaintiff has not shown how why this minor amendment Section 13-2319 should yield different result. 
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Section mandate[s] that state and local law enforcement officers effectuate immigration status verification scheme (Mot. 25) and preempted because will lead to further harassment lawfully present aliens. Mot. 32. Similar Section Section amends existing Arizona statute. Section simply authorizes officer arrest individual without warrant the officer has 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
probable cause believe that [t]he person arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. Exactly how this provision mandates immigration status verification scheme will lead harassment legal aliens unexplained. Since Plaintiff brings facial challenge, must show that all its applications, Section would preempted federal law. Yet, least one obvious circumstance, Section would not conflict with federal law. officer runs individuals name through the National Crime Information Center database, part any information that the officer would receive from the federal government indicates whether the individual immigration absconder, person who has been ordered removed but has absconded. Palmatier Decl.  other words, state local law enforcement officer does not need determine whether the commitment crime would render the alien removable engage [a] complicated analysis removability. Mot. 33. administrative judge would have already determined that the alien had committed removable offense and ordered the aliens removal.1 Consequently, Section also survives facial challenge preemption. 	Federal law recognizes the key role states and localities immigration enforcement. Pursuant federal law, federal criminal felony for individual against whom final order removal outstanding willfully fail[] refuse[] depart. 
U.S.C.  1253(a). Therefore, even prior the enactment Section officer had the authority arrest individual without warrant for committing felony. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3883(A)(1). See also Gonzalez, 722 F.2d 475 ([F]ederal law does not preclude local enforcement the criminal provisions federal immigration law.). 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Congress has made plain its view the vital role that states and localities play assisting federal officials with immigration enforcement efforts. While Plaintiff makes passing reference this cooperation (see Mot. 6-7), Congress has made clear that views the assistance states and localities essential successful enforcement the nations immigration laws. 
The most obvious examples this cooperative relationship are set forth two federal statutes, U.S.C.  1373 and 1644, both which are unmistakable federal mandates requiring cooperation through the free flow information regarding persons immigration status. Section 1373(a) expressly states that state and local government entities may not prohibit any way restrict government official from sending receiving from [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual. U.S.C.  1373(a). 
The legislative history the statutes reflects clear congressional view the importance cooperation through the exchange information between states and localities and federal immigration officials regarding persons immigration status. Congress enacted U.S.C.  1644 August 1996 part the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996. One month later, Congress enacted companion statute, U.S.C.  1373, part the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996 (IIRIRA). The Senate Report accompanying the bill that became IIRIRA explains that the provision: 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Prohibits any restriction the exchange information between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and any Federal, State, local agency regarding persons immigration status. Effective immigration enforcement requires cooperative effort between all levels government. The acquisition, maintenance, and exchange immigration-related information State and local agencies consistent with, and potentially considerable assistance to, the Federal regulation immigration and the achieving the purposes and objectives the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rep. No. 104-249, 19-20 (1996) (emphasis added). difficult conceive how Congress could have expressed its goal 
cooperation between federal immigration officials and state and local law enforcement 
authorities any more clearly than when enacted these statutes. one commentator has 
observed: The assistance state and local law enforcement agencies can also mean the difference between success and failure enforcing the nations laws generally. The nearly 800,000 police officers nationwide represent massive force multiplier. This assistance need only occasional, passive, voluntary, and pursued during the course normal law enforcement activity. The net that cast daily local law enforcement during routine encounters with members the public immense that inevitable illegal aliens will identified. 
Kris Kobach, The Quintessential Force Multiplier: The Inherent Authority Local 
Police Make Immigration Arrests, Alb. Rev. 179, 181 (February 2006). State 
and local law enforcement officers are the eyes and ears law enforcement across the 
United States. Id. 183. Federal immigration officers simply cannot cover the same 
ground (id.), and Congress obviously recognized the substantial benefits the 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
enforcement federal immigration that could result from the free flow information between local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. Congress sought promote this voluntary sharing enacting Sections 1373 and 1644. 
Congress mandate cooperative role between federal and state and local law enforcement further demonstrated other federal statutes. Section 1324(c) provides that: officer person shall have authority make any arrests for violation any provision this section except officers and employees the Service designated the Attorney General, either individually member class, and all other officers whose duty enforce criminal laws. U.S.C. 1324(c) (emphasis added). The U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unequivocally held that the all other officers provision allows for state law enforcement specifically enforce the criminal provisions federal immigration law. See Gonzalez, 722 F.2d 476. Other courts have similarly observed how federal law evinces clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies participate the process enforcing federal immigration laws. U.S. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1193 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing U.S. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999)). 
Notably, Plaintiff cites U.S.C.  1357g (1)-(9) (commonly referred the 287(g) program) (Mot. 6), under which state and local officers, under agreements between federal and state and local authorities, may trained perform certain 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
immigration-related enforcement functions. Plaintiff specifically omits reference 
section the same statute, which provides that: 
Nothing this subsection shall construed require agreement under this subsection order for any officer employee State political subdivision State  
(A) communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status any individual, including reporting knowledge that particular alien not lawfully present the United States; 
(B) otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General the identification, apprehension, detention, removal aliens not lawfully present the United States. U.S.C.  1357(g)(10) (emphasis added). This provision again demonstrates the cooperative relationship immigration enforcement that Congress has mandated. This relationship, recently described the California Supreme Court, a regime cooperative federalism, which local, state, and federal governments may work together ensure the achievement federal criminal immigration policy. Jose C., Cal. 4th 534, 554, 198 P.3d 1087, 1100 (2009). See also U.S.C.  1252c(b) (mandating that the Attorney General shall cooperate with the states assure that information that would assist state law enforcement officials arresting and detaining an alien illegally present the United States under certain conditions made available such officials). view this clear cooperative relationship, the U.S. Department Justices Office Legal Counsel has previously confirmed the important role states and localities immigration enforcement. See U.S. Department Justice, Office Legal Counsel, Non-preemption the authority state and local law enforcement officials 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
arrest aliens for immigration violations (dated April 2002). This memorandum recognizes that states have inherent power make arrests for violations federal law and that U.S.C.  1252c does not preempt State authority arrest for certain federal violations. Provisions 1070 can severed. this Court were find that any specific provision Sections 1-6 1070 unconstitutional its face, this Court should enjoin only that specific provision from the statute. Arizona, the law regarding severability well-settled. State Compensation Fund Symington, 848 P.2d 273, 280 (Ariz. 1993). An entire statute need not declared unconstitutional constitutional portions can separated. Id. determine whether constitutional portions can separated from those deemed invalid, court must ascertain legislative intent. The determination made whether it can determined from the language that the voters would have enacted the valid portions absent the invalid portion. Ruiz Hull, 957 P.2d 984, 1002 (Ariz. 1998) (A statute provision severable the valid and invalid portions are not intimately connected raise the presumption that the legislature would not have enacted the one without the other and the invalid portion was not the inducement for the passage the entire act. (quoting Campana Arizona State Land Dept, 860 P.2d 1341, 1347 (Ariz. 1993)). this instance, not only does each provision stand its own, the legislature clearly and explicitly stated, If provision this act its application any person circumstance held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
applications the act and this end the provisions this act are severable. 
1070,  12. Since Plaintiff only challenges specific provisions Sections 1-6 
1070, the existence long-standing Arizona precedent and the severability provision 1070 demonstrate that only those specific provisions deemed unconstitutional should enjoined. 
IV. 	Conclusion 
For the forgoing reasons, Senator Pearce respectfully requests that this Court deny 
Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction its entirety. 
Dated: July 20, 2010 	Respectfully Submitted, 
KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 
By: 	/s/ Geoffrey Kercsmar Geoffrey Kercsmar (#20528) Gregory Collins (#023158) 6263 Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, 85250 Tel: (480) 421-1001 
Paul Orfanedes (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) James Peterson (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) Michael Bekesha (Motion for admission pro hac vice filed) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 
-17 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor/Defendant Russell Pearce 
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that July 20, 2010, electronically transmitted the foregoing 
the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal Notice 
Electronic Filing the following: Plaintiff United States America Represented Joshua Wilkenfeld joshua.i.wilkenfeld@usdoj.gov 
Edwin Kneedler 
Edwin.S.Kneedler@usdoj.gov 
Varu Chilakamarri varudhini.chilakamarri@usdoj.gov 
Defendant State Arizona and Janice Brewer, Governor the State Arizona Represented John Bouma 
jbouma@swlaw.com 
Joseph Adams 
jgadams@swlaw.com 
Joseph Andrew Kanefield 
jkanefield@az.gov 
Robert Arthur Henry 
bhenry@swlaw.com 
Amicus Center the Administration Criminal Law Represented Anne Milgram anne.milgram@nyu.edu 
Anthony Barkow anthony.barkow@nyu.edu 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Ellen London 
elondon@fklaw.com 
Jessica Alexandra Murzyn 
jmurzyn@fklaw.com 
Ricardo Solano, Jr. 
rsolano@kflaw.com 
Timothy Casey 
SCHMITT, SCHNECK, SMYTH HERROD, P.C. 
Special Assistant Attorney General for Michigan 
For Amici Curiae Michigan, Florida, Alabama, 
Nebraska, Northern Mariana Islands, Pennsylvania, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia 

timcasey@azbarristers.com 

Carolyn Lamm (pro hac vice) Stephen Zack (pro hac vice) Sara Elizabeth Dill (pro hac vice) Andrew Silverman (pro hac vice) American Bar Association 
clamm@whitecase.com szack@bsfllp.com sdill@pkjlaw.com 
Joseph Livermore University Arizona James Rogers College Law 
silverman@law.arizona.edu 
Barnaby Zall 
American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 

bzall@aol.com 

Stephen Montoya stephen@montoyalawgroup.com april@montoyalawgroup.com 
Donald Peters Kristin Mackin 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document Filed 07/20/10 Page 
Jeffrey Murray Attorneys for Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool 
dpeters@lasotapeters.com kmackin@lasotapeters.com jtmurray@lawms.com Mariette Do-Nguyen Kingdom Heaven 
D.Q_Mariette@wdcic.org addition COURTESY COPY was mailed this day to: HONORABLE SUSAN BOLTON United States District Court Sandra Day OConnor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 522 401 West Washington Street SPC Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2153 
Notice will sent other means those listed below they are affected this filing: Eric Restuccia Office the Attorney General 
P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, 48909 
James Peterson Judicial Watch Inc. 425 3rd Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 
Mark Sands Office the Attorney General 
P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, 48909 
Paul Orfanedes 

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB 
Judicial Watch Inc. 425 3rd Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 
Ray Elbert Parker 
P.O. Box 320636 Alexandria, 22320 Geoffrey Kercsmar 
Document Filed 07/20/10 Page



Sign Up for Updates!