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 November 23, 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