Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

  • 7/30/2019 Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

    1/29

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    _________________________________________)

    RALLS CORPORATION, )

    ))Plaintiff, )

    ) Case No. 1:12-cv-01513-ABJv. )

    )BARACK H. OBAMA, )in his official capacity as )President of the United States, )COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT )IN THE UNITED STATES, and )

    TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official )capacity as Secretary of the Treasuryand )Chairman of the Committee on Foreign )Investement in the United States, )

    ))

    Defendants. )_________________________________________ )

    BRIEF OF OREGON WINDFARMS, LLC,

    KENT MADISON, WILLIAM J. DOHERTY, AND IVAR CHRISTENSEN

    AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF

  • 7/30/2019 Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

    2/29

    -ii-

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    STATEMENT OF IDENTITY, INTEREST IN THE CASE, AND SOURCE OFAUTHORITY TO FILE .......................................................................................................... viii

    STATEMENT OF CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ...................................................................... x

    STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS .............................. x

    INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

    ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 1

    I. The Fifth Amendment s Due Process Clause prohibits the government fromdepriving Ralls of its property without due process of law ......................................... 1

    II. Congress cannot statutorily divest all courts of jurisdiction to determinewhether a deprivation of property violates the Fifth Amendment s Due Process

    Clause ........................................................................................................................ 3

    A. The Fifth Amendment s Due Process Clause trumps Congress sjurisdiction-stripping authority and requires judicial review of Ralls s

    constitutional claims ....................................................................................... 3

    B. Congress s Exceptions Clause authority is subject to the Fifth Amendment sDue Process Clause regardless of whether its ostensible purpose for

    exercising that authority is national security ................................................... 5

    III. This Court may construe 50 U.S.C. Appx. 2170(i) to limit the scope of thestatute s jurisdiction-stripping provision to avoid a grave constitutional question ...... 7

    IV. CFIUS and the President deprived Ralls of property without anydue process, inviolation of the Fifth Amendment .............................................................................. 9

    A. Defendants orders deprived Ralls of its property ........................................... 9B. Defendants failed to afford Ralls an opportunity to be heard or even to

    inform it of the general nature of evidence purportedly justifying this

    deprivation ................................................................................................... 10

  • 7/30/2019 Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

    3/29

    -iii-

    V. Judicial review of Executive Branch actions under 50 U.S.C. Appx. 2170 is acritical safeguard for American businesses that benefit from foreign investment

    in the United States .................................................................................................. 14

    A. Only the federal judiciary can ensure that the Executive Branch does notinvoke 50 U.S.C. Appx. 2170 to arbitrarily deprive businesses of their

    property interests without due process .......................................................... 14

    B. The absence of judicial review of Executive Branch actions under50 U.S.C. Appx. 2170 would have serious consequences for American

    citizens and businesses ................................................................................. 15

    C. Judicial review is a necessary prophylactic against the Executive Branchasserting extra-constitutional authority in a manner inimical to basic

    separation-of-powers principles .................................................................... 17

    CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 18

  • 7/30/2019 Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

    4/29

    -iv-

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    CASE PAGE

    Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Federal Energy Administration,

    518 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ....................................................................................... 6

    Al Haramain Islamic Found.,Inc. v. United States Dept of the Treasury,

    686 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 13, 14American Airways Charters, Inc.v. Regan,

    746 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................... 2

    Armstrong v. Manzo,

    380 U.S. 545 (1965) ........................................................................................................ 9

    Bartlett v. Bowen,

    816 F.2d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..................................................................................... 4, 5

    Battaglia v. General Motors Corp.,

    169 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1948) ......................................................................................... 4, 5

    Boumediene v. Bush,

    553 U.S. 723 (2008) .................................................................................................... 6, 7

    Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians,

    476 U.S. 687 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 7

    County of Sacramento v. Lewis,

    523 U.S. 833 (1998) ........................................................................................................ 2

    Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co.,

    59 U.S. 272 (1856) ...................................................................................................... 5, 6

    Demore v. Kim,538 U.S. 510 (2003) ........................................................................................................ 7

    Elgin v. Dept of the Treasury,

    132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) ..................................................................................................... 7

  • 7/30/2019 Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

    5/29

    -v-

    Feinberg v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.,

    522 F.2d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ....................................................................................... 4

    GE v. Jackson,

    610 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 13Gray Panthers v. Schweiker,

    652 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ......................................................................................... 9

    Grosjean v. American Press Co.,

    297 U.S. 233 (1936) ........................................................................................................ 2

    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

    542 U.S. 507 (2004) ........................................................................................................ 6

    Hirsch v. McCulloch,

    303 F.2d 208 (D.C. Cir. 1962) ....................................................................................... 15

    Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg,

    512 U.S. 415 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 15

    In re Gault,

    387 U.S. 1 (1967) ........................................................................................................ 1, 2

    INS v. St. Cyr,533 U.S. 289 (2001) ........................................................................................................ 7

    Johnson v. Robison,

    415 U.S. 361 (1974) ................................................................................................ 5, 7, 8

    Marbury v. Madison,

    5 U.S. 137 (1803) ........................................................................................................ 4, 7

    Mathews v. Eldridge,424 U.S. 319 (1976) ...................................................................................................... 13

    Natl Council of Resistance of Iran I v. Dept of State,

    251 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 12, 13

  • 7/30/2019 Ralls v CFIUS_Brief in Support of Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae

    6/29

    -vi-

    Natl Fedn of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,

    132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) ..................................................................................................... 7

    Peoples Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. Dept of State,

    613 F.3d 220 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 13

    Propert v. District of Columbia,

    948 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................... 9

    Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon,

    548 U.S. 331 (2006) ........................................................................................................ 2

    Unit