Legislative History: Unification Church et. al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Working File
April 2, 1984

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