Legislative History: Unification Church et. al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Working File
April 2, 1984

Legislative History: Unification Church et. al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legislative History: Unification Church et. al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1984. 4416f753-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6be20f60-2766-47bf-89c9-e231060d077e/legislative-history-unification-church-et-al-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service. Accessed October 08, 2025.

    Copied!

    l€ly t*r^1*^1

RE(:!ISZ4a:no

ti.S. I)ePartment of Juslice

Civil Division
I

?ilros- EEEII to tht
f)ivr!ron Indlcslcd Woshington D C. 20530

TELEPHONE
12021 633- 5431

rnd Rcfcr to Inrlr!l\.tnd Numb'I

t.ir. GagP A- FisfE
Cl€t*., U.S. Ort of lPPeals

for tle D-C. CJ-utlt
Iutr t123, [r.S- OorrtEl*
3rro r fgtftiltl.crr lEE, D'l{'
Hasfrlngto, D.C- 20001

Re: thlJr.catLn chrdt, Gt aI' v' b'.gtrat1o
rd UatualLzatLcrr Serrl'ee

Dear tt. pLst:':

Enclosed for filing are

coPies of
-Er copies of

our brief*
our appendix

in the above-caPtioned matter

Yours verY tru1Y,

BCEEM E. XEEPDirector , APPeI- late Sect lon
Civil Division

Enclosures

cc: Ecc pry

A signed certificate
page of the brief '

of service'aPPears on the last

brld lur tsirrary drte ,try tbe afcd qt d tDls'lettrr
rd rctro it b rc la tlp crcfoeed staryea d.f-M cmnf+e-

t (r-i.\'1 ( l\ -
\t i\



TABLE OE CO].]]E}:TS

QUESTIONS PRESENTE'D.

Paqe

1

z
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

Nature of
Facts and Proceedings Be).ow

the Case.
z
z

10
SUMV!{RY OE ARGI.IMENT.

42 V.S.C. 1983

Out Of The EAJA.

Of Section 2472(b)

The Ej.ghth Circui+_'s Decision InPremachancira Is Incorrect Anci
Shou1d Not Be Followed

sEcTroN 2412(d) oF THE EAJA.

Than 5OO Employees

THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLI.IDED THAT
:pTIoI 24t2(b) wAS Nor TNTENDED ro cnreie aBASIS FOR AI.] AUTOMATIC FEE AWARD AGAII.IST THEUNITED STATES IN NLiMEROUS CONSTITUTiONAL
AI{D STATUTORY ACTIONS''ATTIALOGOUS'' iO_ECirOr,rS
BROUGHT AGAINS? STATE OFFICERS UNDER

14
A.

B.

The District Court's ConstructionIs Compelled By The LangruageOf the Statute And By SettieaPrinciples Of Sovereign
16

The Church's proffered Reading OfSecti ?n 2412 (b) tfould Ef fectively
Read Sectj.on 24t2(d) And TheSubstantrally Justified Langnrage

19

D.

The Legislative History Does NotSupport The Church' s Read.ing

II THE DISTRICT COURT COR.RECTLY CONCLIJDED TiiAT ?}IECHURCH FAJLED TO ESTABLISH TiiAT ]T MET iHS CNITFRIATO BE A ''PARTY'' ELiGIBLE FOR A FEE AWARD I.]]!DER

25

2A

31
A. J9-lualify As A party Under Section

?41?(d)(2)(B) The cliimant rvlust ShowBoth That It lias A Net Worth Of LessThan $5 Mi.llion Anc That It lias Fewer

The Church Faileci To EstabllshIt Has Fewer Than 500 Employees

32

39

B.

-1

That



The Legislatrve History Does Not Support

Praintiffs (Br. 1g-19) and amicus (Br. G-g), and those cases
which have upheld the reading they sugge"t, 15 rery almost
exclusively on the congressional testimony of Armand Derfner of
the Lawyers committee for civir Rights under Law. See House

Hearlnqs, supra, dt 1oo. Any reliance on Mr. Derfner's
testimony is plainly inappropriate.

First, while Mr. Derfner rna-,, have believed that Section
2412(b) shourd be read 1n a cert,ain rnanner, there is nothing in
the regislative history to show that any regisrator, much ress a

majority of congress, adopted that reading. And the critical
issue here is not what Mr. Derfner intended, but what congress
intended- As a witness appearing before congress, Mr- Derfner,s
views are entitled to no weight. see uni,ted States v. Kung

Chen Fur Corp., 1BB E.2d S77, Sg4 (C.C.p.A. t9S1); cf.
Ardridge v. wilrlams, 44 u.s. (3 How. ) g, 1g (1g4s). Indeed,
even the statements of sponsors of legislation are not
considered dispositive. see chrvsler corp. v. Brown, 441
u.s. 281, 311 (1979). Given that Mr. Derfner's reading wour.d

effectivery read Section 2412(d,) and the substantially Sustif:ec

1q,
See Premachandra v.c:.rJgEZJIerrEari.ng

v. Secretarv of Navv.rge@,

Mltts, 727 F
and rehearing
546 F. Supp.
9th Cir. No.

.2d 7t7, 728-29 (
en banc pending;

!227, t228 (C.D.
82-6020.

8th
Lauri tzen

(-ci I -

-25



Io: the

court shculd

CC}iCLUS i ON

fo:-egotng reasons, the judgment of
be affirmed.

icpettE-E staff

Respectfully submi tted,

RICHARD K. WILLARD

JOS.EPH E. diGENOVA
_unr teC States _!_tt:=:-_=__

$ilii#,H,lx,,o,
$Eto-rnevs

the district

APRIL 1984

28 (FoorNcrE colr?rMlED)

;ii;:3i:il::: make an award unjust.,,

]
{'

Sfi3jSl { llj^l;, _::::;=t"ii"' }lJ}i.;.,o*.i'.I.,*i;
: : i g: :i i :: I " ; i : !; 

i 
:" F: i. : : !'l i:^ i:' i" :l:', "'l:n :: :ff i:, "I;;Fi:i "ti..fil::"*:. ;s::i:=:i:.ii i:i":,I:;;l;S;:"i:.",,heaffi.rmlns the ai=tri.t .;,:;Ii:r::o:::,::I+:r::-is but anotl"r' i.Jr'J'i5l

-46

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.