Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama amici curiae voter ID 10151

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama amici curiae voter ID 10151

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama amici curiae voter ID 10151

Page 1: Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama amici curiae voter ID 10151

Category:

Number of Pages:24

Date Created:April 6, 2018

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 10, 2018

Tags:Ministries, 10151, Veasey, discriminatory, discrimination, Birmingham, Greater, Curiae, Appellants, naacp, Husted, Amici, Voting, orfanedes, Voters, Alabama, Voter ID, voter, arizona, Circuit, Virginia, filed, Supreme Court, district


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
No. 18-10151 THE UNITED STATES COURT
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Greater Birmingham Ministries, Alabama State Conference the
National Association for the Advancement Colored People,
Giovana Ambrosio, Elizabeth Ware, Shameka Harris,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Secretary State for the State Alabama,
Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court the North District Alabama Case No. 2:15-CV-02193-LSC (L. Scott Coogler, U.S.
District Judge)
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. AND ALLIED
EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION SUPPORT APPELLEE AND
AFFIRMANCE
_____________________________________ Christopher Coates
LAW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER COATES
934 Compass Point
Charleston, S.C. 29412
(843) 609-7080
Paul Orfanedes
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Date: April 2018
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
TABLE CONTENTS
TABLE AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................
CERTIFICATE INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................................... CIP-1
IDENTITY, INTERESTS, AND AUTHORITY AMICI CURIAE ....................
STATEMENT THE ISSUE .................................................................................2
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................
ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS AUTHORITY:
Appellants Failed Establish Section Results Claim, Which Requires Showing, This Circuit and Clear Majority Other Circuits, That
Challenged Law Particularly Caused Discriminatory Result .................................
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................17
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE .......................................................................18
CERTIFICATE SERVICE ................................................................................19
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
TABLE AUTHORITIES
CASES
PAGE
Gonzalez Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc),
aff sub nom. Arizona Inter Tribal Council Arizona, Inc.,
133 Ct. 2247 (2013).................................................................................6,
Chisom Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991) ...................................................................
Frank Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2014) .........................................7, 10,
Husted Ohio State Conf. the NAACP, 135 Ct. (2014) ...........................11
Irby Virginia State Bd. Elections, 889 F.2d 1352 (4th Cir. 1989) ...................
Johnson Governor Fla., 405 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005) .........................4,
League Women Voters N.C. North Carolina,
769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................
Lee Va. State Bd. Elections, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2016) ........................10,
N.C. State Conf. the NAACP McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016),
cert. denied, 137 Ct. 1399 (2017)................................................................
Ohio Democratic Party Husted, 834 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2016) .....................11,
Ohio State Conf. the NAACP Husted, 768 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2014),
vacated, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24472 (6th Cir. Oct. 2014) ...................
Ortiz City Phila. Office the City Comm rs, F.3d 306 (3rd Cir.1994) ..............................................................................
Smith Salt River Project Agric. Improvement Power Dist.,
109 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................
Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. (1986) ................................................................
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
Veasey Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. den. sub nom.
Abbott Veasey, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 789 (Jan. 23, 2017) .......................passim
FEDERAL STATUTES U.S.C. 10301 ......................................................................................................2 U.S.C. 10301(a) ............................................................................................4, U.S.C. 10301(b) ......................................................................................4,
FEDERAL RULES
FED. APP. 29(a)(2) ............................................................................................1
FED. APP. 29(a)(4)(E) .......................................................................................1
iii
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
CERTIFICATE INTERESTED PERSONS
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant Federal Rules Appellate Procedure 26.1(a) and 29(a)(4)(A)
and 11th Cir. 26.1-1(a), amici Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational
Foundation hereby submit they are registered 501(c)(3) educational non-profit
organizations, that they are private non-publicly held corporations, and that they
have parent corporations. publicly held corporation parent corporation
owns ten percent (10%) more amici stock. Amici further certify that,
addition the persons and entities identified the briefs Plaintiffs-Appellants
and Defendants-Appellee, the following persons may have interest the outcome this case:
Allied Educational Foundation (amicus curiae)
Judicial Watch, Inc. (amicus curiae)
Orfanedes, Paul (counsel for amici curiae)
Coates, Christopher (counsel for amici curiae)
Dated: April 2018
Respectfully submitted, Paul Orfanedes
Paul Orfanedes
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024
CIP-1
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
IDENTITY, INTERESTS, AND AUTHORITY AMICI CURIAE1
Allied Educational Foundation and Judicial Watch, Inc. (collectively
amici file this amici curiae brief pursuant FED. APP. 29(a)(2) support Appellee, Alabama Secretary State, and urge this Court affirm the
judgment the District Court. Amici have received prior consent from all
parties the filing this brief.
Judicial Watch, Inc. Judicial Watch non-partisan educational
foundation that seeks promote transparency, integrity, and accountability
government and fidelity the rule law. Judicial Watch regularly files amicus
curiae briefs means advance its public interest mission and has appeared
amicus curiae this Court many occasions.
The Allied Educational Foundation AEF nonprofit charitable and
educational foundation based Englewood, New Jersey. Founded 1964, AEF dedicated promoting education diverse areas study. AEF regularly files
amicus curiae briefs means advance its purpose and has appeared
amicus curiae this Court many occasions.
Pursuant FED. APP. 29(a)(4)(E), party counsel authored the brief whole part; party party counsel contributed money that was
intended fund preparing submitting the brief; and person other than the
amici curiae their counsel contributed money that was intended fund
preparing submitting the brief.
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
Amici believe that the standard proof suggested Appellants way
establish results claim under Section the Voting Rights Act fundamentally
misconstrues the nature that statute. contrary this Court precedent and
contrary the governing law almost every circuit consider the issue.
accepted this Court, would great harm. Amici submit this brief for the sole
purpose explicating the correct standard proof under Section
For these and the reasons set forth below, amici urge the Court affirm the
District Court grant summary judgment favor Appellee.
STATEMENT THE ISSUE
Whether results claim brought under Section the Voting Rights Act, U.S.C. 10301, requires claimant show that challenged practice
procedure caused discriminatory result significant enough have diminished the
opportunity the members protected group participate the political
process and elect representatives their choice.
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT claimant proceeding under Section the Voting Rights Act need not
allege and prove discriminatory intent. Such claimant also may succeed
alleging results claim, meaning that voting procedure inflicted racially
discriminatory result the claimant member protected class.
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
There split between circuits how results claim may proved.
Opinions this Circuit and five others rightly require that challenged voting
practice procedure cause particular, discriminatory result, which significant
enough constitute loss equal opportunity participate the political
process. This standard derives from the plain language Section and properly
restricts its use actual instances voting-relating discrimination. contrast,
the Fifth Circuit merely requires proof that challenged procedure
disproportionately impacts members protected class and that this impact
linked interacts with history discrimination against that class. The
Fifth Circuit standard does not distinguish between ordinary election laws and
race-based discrimination, and arbitrarily puts every voting law, and every
proposed amendment voting law, risk being found violate Section
This standard fatally flawed, unworkable, and contrary precedent.
Appellants ask this Court adopt this defective standard. should not
so. Indeed, the fact that Appellants did not adduce sufficient proof under the
correct standard shows that summary judgment was properly granted against them.
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS AUTHORITY
APPELLANTS FAILED ESTABLISH SECTION RESULTS
CLAIM, WHICH REQUIRES SHOWING, THIS CIRCUIT AND
CLEAR MAJORITY OTHER CIRCUITS, THAT CHALLENGED
LAW PARTICULARLY CAUSED DISCRIMINATORY RESULT
Section the Voting Rights Act forbids State from imposing
applying voting qualifications, practices, procedures manner which results denial abridgement the right any citizen the United States vote
account race color U.S.C. 10301(a). violation established
when the
political processes leading nomination election are not
equally open participation members [protected] class
that its members have less opportunity than other members the
electorate participate the political process and elect
representatives their choice. U.S.C. 10301(b).
While Section clearly prohibits intentional discrimination with respect
voting, plaintiff also could establish violation without proving discriminatory
intent, based upon showing discriminatory results. Johnson Governor
Fla., 405 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Courts have had
define the parameters what results claim entails. Obviously, such claim
cannot based solely the fact that voting practice procedure has
different effect different racial groups. Every voting statute for that matter,
every statute any kind will differentially impact members different racial
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
groups, even only slightly accidentally. cannot the case that every voting
statute that does that could exist subject challenge under Section
The plain text Section however, limits its application ways that make
its enforcement manageable. Section provides that states may not impose
apply practices manner which results proscribed outcome. This means, minimum, that challenged practice must have caused the result prohibited
the statute. U.S.C. 10301(a); see also Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. 30,
(1986). Further, Section provides that only violated where voters
protected class have less opportunity than other voters participate the
political process and elect representatives their choice. U.S.C.
10301(b).
Courts applying Section have recognized these features the statute.
Johnson, 405 F.3d 1228, this Court, rejecting Section challenge felondisenfranchisement statute, noted:
Despite its broad language, Section does not prohibit all voting
restrictions that may have racially disproportionate effect. See
Chisom [v. Roemer], 501 U.S. [380,] 383 [(1991)] Congress
amended the Voting Rights Act make clear that certain
practices and procedures that result the denial abridgement the
right vote are forbidden even though the absence proof
discriminatory intent protects them from constitutional challenge.
(emphasis added).
Judge Tjoflat, elaborated this point his concurring opinion. Analyzing the
pre-Bolden application section along with the legislative history surrounding
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
the amendment and our own postamendment application section the votedenial context, concluded that something more than mere showing
disparate effect essential prima facie vote-denial case. Id. 1238 (Tjoflat,
J., concurring). particular, the words Section suggest causation
requirement. Id. the vote-dilution context, this means showing that racial
bias the relevant community caused the alleged vote denial abridgment. Id.
Vote-denial claims were more varied, and thus required courts alert
unconventional factors indicating bias-caused vote denials. Id. But the causation
requirement still applied. The felon-disenfranchisement claim before the Court
failed because there were factors causation, whether found our
precedent our wildest dreams, showing anything other than that the
causation the denial the right vote felons Florida consists entirely
their conviction, not their race. Id. 1238-39.
Other circuits have similarly required that Section claimants show that the
loss equal opportunity participate the political process was caused
challenged procedure. Gonzalez Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc), aff sub nom. Arizona Inter Tribal Council Arizona, Inc., 133 Ct.
2247 (2013), the Ninth Circuit held that challenge based purely
showing some relevant statistical disparity between minorities and whites,
without any evidence that the challenged voting qualification causes that disparity,
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
will rejected. Id. 405 (emphasis added), citing Smith Salt River Project
Agric. Improvement Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586, 595 (9th Cir. 1997). the case
before it, the Court acknowledged the district court findings that Latinos had
suffered history discrimination that hindered their ability participate the
political process fully, that there were socioeconomic disparities between Latinos
and whites, and that Arizona continues have some degree racially polarized
voting. 677 F.3d 406. Yet the Court still rejected the Section claim, because
the plaintiff had adduced evidence that Latinos ability inability obtain
possess identification for voting purposes (whether not interacting with the
history discrimination and racially polarized voting) resulted Latinos having
less opportunity participate the political process. Id. 407; see Salt River,
109 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 1997) bare statistical showing disproportionate
impact racial minority does not satisfy the results inquiry citing
Ortiz City Phila. Office the City Comm rs, F.3d 306, 308 (3rd Cir.1994)
(although African-American and Latino voters are purged disproportionately
higher rates than their white counterparts, plaintiff Section challenge failed
prove that the purge statute caused this disparity). Frank Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2014), the Seventh Circuit
reversed lower court ruling and held that Wisconsin law requiring voters
present photo the polls did not violate Section The Court acknowledged
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
disparities the percentages white, black, and Latino voters who possessed
acceptable photo IDs the documents necessary obtain them. Id. 752. But
the Court also recognized that Section does not condemn voting practice just
because has disparate effect minorities. Id. 753. Although these
findings document disparate outcome, they not show denial anything
Wisconsin, 2(a) requires; unless Wisconsin makes needlessly hard get
photo ID, has not denied anything any voter. Id. racial disparities alone
were the key results claim, Section would sweep[] away almost all
registration and voting rules. Id. 754. Nor did generalized showing
societal discrimination establish violation. Section forbids discrimination
race color but does not require states overcome societal effects private
discrimination that affect the income wealth potential voters. Id. 753.
The district judge did not find that blacks Latinos have less opportunity than
whites get photo IDs, but that, because they have lower income, these groups
are less likely use that opportunity. And that does not violate Id. contrast, the Fifth Circuit applied radically different notion
causation, using the standard Appellants favor this case. See Veasey Abbott,
830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. den. sub nom. Abbott Veasey, 2017
U.S. LEXIS 789 (Jan. 23, 2017). the context Section challenge Texas
photo law, that Court set forth two-part framework for determining the
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
requisite discriminatory result. First, challenged procedure must impose
discriminatory burden members protected class and second, that burden
must part caused linked historical conditions that produce
discrimination against that class. Id. 244 (citations omitted). According the
Fifth Circuit, this second element sufficient, without more, establish the
requisite causal link between the burden voting rights and the fact that this
burden affects minorities disparately. Id. 245 (citation omitted). Relying
statistical evidence disparate access voter (id. 250) and established
history discrimination Texas, the Court found violation Section Id.
257, 264.
Two other circuits, the Fourth and the Sixth, initially adopted the relaxed
interpretation Section causation espoused the Fifth Circuit Veasey, but
more recently have come require showing causation line with other
circuits. League Women Voters N.C. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 240
(4th Cir. 2014), the Fourth Circuit granted preliminary injunction against law
eliminating same-day registration and prohibiting the counting out-of-precinct
ballots, expressly utilizing the two-part test later applied Veasey. That case was
later decided the merits other grounds. N.C. State Conf. the NAACP
McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 Ct. 1399 (2017).
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
However, Lee Va. State Bd. Elections, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2016),
the Fourth Circuit upheld Virginia photo law against similar challenge.
Virginia had contested the plaintiffs argument that the challenged law caused
voters not vote:
Virginia contends that there evidence that any eligible Virginia
voter has been will denied equal opportunity vote.
asserts that the evidence any person failure cast ballot this
case was not attributable Virginia law but that persons
decision not cure provisional ballot.
Id. 599-600 (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit agreed, finding that the
plaintiffs failed provide evidence that members the protected class have less opportunity than others participate the political process, part because voter without identification can cast provisional ballot, which can cured
later presenting photo ID. Noting that the plaintiffs assert[] categorically that long there disparity the rates which different groups possess
acceptable identification, violated, the Court cited the Seventh Circuit
decision Frank and responded manner consistent with that ruling: make this assertion, however, the plaintiffs have make
unjustified leap from the disparate inconveniences that voters face
when voting the denial abridgement the right vote. Every
decision that State makes regulating its elections will, inevitably,
result somewhat more inconvenience for some voters than for
others. For example, every polling place will, necessity, located
closer some voters than others. interpret prohibiting
any regulation that imposes disparate inconvenience would mean
that every polling place would need precisely located such that group had spend more time traveling vote than did any other.
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
Similarly, motor-voter registration would found invalid
members the protected class were less likely possess drivers
license. Yet, courts have also correctly rejected that hypothetical. See
Frank Walker, 768 F.3d [at] 754 [].
Id. 600-01; see also Irby Virginia State Bd. Elections, 889 F.2d 1352, 1359
(4th Cir. 1989) (rejecting Section challenge appointive system choosing
school boards where the evidence cast considerable doubt the existence
causal link between the appointive system and black underrepresentation
The Sixth Circuit also applied the two-part Veasey test affirming
preliminary injunction against enforcing Ohio law reducing the 35-day early
voting period that state. Within few weeks, however, the district court
injunction was stayed the Supreme Court and the circuit decision affirming
was vacated. Ohio State Conf. the NAACP Husted, 768 F.3d 524, 532 (6th
Cir. 2014) (finding Section violation), vacated, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24472
(6th Cir. Oct. 2014); Husted Ohio State Conf. the NAACP, 135 Ct.
(2014) (granting stay district court order). subsequent litigation, the Sixth Circuit reversed district court ruling that
had invalidated and enjoined Ohio law reducing the early voting period. Ohio
Democratic Party Husted, 834 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2016). doing so, the Court
modified the two-part Veasey test importing explicit causation requirement
into both its prongs. first held that Section plaintiffs must show proof
disparate impact amounting denial abridgement protected class members
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
right vote that results from the challenged standard practice. Id. 637. consequence, the first element the Section claim requires proof that the
challenged standard practice causally contributes the alleged discriminatory
impact affording protected group members less opportunity participate the
political process. Id. 637-38 (emphasis added). Only [i]f this first element
met does the second step come[] into play. Id. 638. But this step also
requires showing causation. The second step asks not just whether social and
historical conditions result disparate impact, but whether the challenged
voting standard practice causes the discriminatory impact interacts with
social and historical conditions. Id. The Court concluded:
The foregoing construction Section faithful the statutory
text and legislative history [and] also makes practical sense.
[T]o apply Section invalidate innocuous voting regulation[s]
based solely evidence that social and historical conditions resulted disparate impact would punish state for the effects private
discrimination. therefore clarify that challenged statute]
actionable Section violation only shown causally
contribute, interacts with social and historical conditions that
have produced discrimination, disparate impact
Id. 638-39. sum, the Ninth, Seventh, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits all agree with
Judge Tjoflat this Circuit that Section may only used challenge voting
practice procedure that particularly caused denial abridgment the right
vote account race color. racially disproportionate impact not enough;
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
nor history discrimination; nor are the two combination. Quite simply,
the challenged procedure must shown plaintiffs cause discriminatory
results order prove Section results claim. contrast, the standard for establishing Section violation the Fifth
Circuit much less demanding. Under Veasey, Section claim can succeed
whenever the racially disproportionate impact challenged practice
procedure interacts, any way, with existing history discrimination.
this standard that Appellants urge this Court adopt. See Op. Br. When
facially neutral procedures interact[] with social and historical conditions
disproportionately burden voters color, then the result voting discrimination
within the meaning Section id. (identifying Veasey one the
primary cases which Appellants rely); 255 122 (Section requires
discriminatory burden members protected class that caused
linked social and historical conditions that have produced discrimination
The Veasey standard favored Appellants unworkable. Every single
voting procedure has differential effect race, for every race choose
consider. This true even the most mundane rules concerning clerks office
hours, the contents mailings, written materials the polls, the structure
ballots, translations, kinds physical accommodations, registration and voting
deadlines every description, and allowable conduct near polling place, let
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
alone the more commonly contested issues concerning forms ID, same-day
registration, absentee voting, and out-of-precinct voting. Furthermore, every legal
rule and every fact pertaining our lives interacts with the social and
historical context which find ourselves. every existing law, and every
proposed amendment existing law, were subject legal challenge under Section whenever social scientist was willing say that its impact differed race and
interacted with our history, the orderly administration elections would become
impossible. Congress never intended this outcome, and the problem combatting
true instances racial discrimination voting hindered, not helped, such
chaotic state affairs.
Judge Tjoflat approach rationalizes Section the context results
claim restricting the statute reach cases where voting practice
procedure actually shown cause particular, discriminatory result. The
Veasey standard does such thing. offers principled way distinguish
between voting requirements that have disproportionate impact and voting
requirements that cause discriminatory results. also provides guidance about
what more than one minority group affected. This may common
situation. There may be, for example, evidence historical discrimination against
black and Hispanic voters, and perhaps against Asian voters well. such cases,
every single voting statute will provide advantage one minority group
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
relative the others. These other groups then will have been disproportionately
impacted voting practice procedure, historical context which they
have suffered race-based discrimination. these groups have Section claims?
And whose favor would such claims decided?
For all these reasons, Veasey standard does not make sense Section makes mess it. The causation requirement favored the clear majority
circuits consider the issue, which requirement derives from the plain language
Section the only logical way interpret the statute.
The District Court this case properly focused Appellants failure
show discriminatory result proscribed Section let alone discriminatory
impact sufficient rise the level denial abridgment equal
opportunity participate the political process and elect representatives
choice. U.S.C. 10301(b). the District Court powerfully summarized the
relevant facts:
Minorities not have less opportunity vote under Alabama
Photo law, because everyone has the same opportunity obtain
ID. Black, Hispanic, and white voters are equally able sign voter
registration form registration form update. They have the same
opportunity get registrar office, and the extent there
difference convenience, they have the same opportunity request
home visit. Insofar less convenient for the poor get
than for those who have greater means, that true for poor
whites for poor minority voters. Black voter and white
voter equal means who each lack and birth certificate, and
who each live equal distance away from the registrar office, are the exact same position: They can each get photo charge
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018 signing simple form, and they have transportation, the
mobile unit will come them. sum, there cannot
discriminatory impact voting when the law does not prevent
anyone from voting. 267 (emphasis added).
For the reasons stated the District Court, Appellants showing minor
disparities the possession IDs and historical facts and data concerning
discrimination not just insufficient. the wrong kind evidence. What
missing here evidence that the enforcement Alabama photo law has
resulted minority voters being denied equal opportunity participate the
electoral process. Because Appellants fundamentally misapprehended the proof
required under Section summary judgment was appropriately granted against
them.
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, amici Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational
Foundation, Inc. respectfully request this Court affirm the decision below and
dismiss Appellants claims.
Dated: April 2018
Respectfully submitted, Paul Orfanedes
Paul Orfanedes
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
porfanedes@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
Pursuant Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B), hereby
certify that this brief proportionally spaced, 14-point Times New Roman font.
Pursuant Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 29(a)(5) and per Microsoft Word
count, the brief within the amicus word limit 3,987 words excluding tables
and certificates, less than half the 13,000 words allowed for the principal brief.
Dated: April 2018 Paul Orfanedes
Case: 18-10151
Date Filed: 04/06/2018
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify, pursuant Fed. App. 25(d)(2), that electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk the United States Court Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system. certify that the parties
the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will accomplished the
appellate CM/ECF service.
Dated: April 2018 Paul Orfanedes