Correspondence from Kopp to Fisher; Excerpts from Unification Church v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Brief
Public Court Documents
April 1, 1984
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Correspondence from Kopp to Fisher; Excerpts from Unification Church v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Brief, 1984. 5c7c92fa-df92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/9a8e62c2-9e28-4e0e-b43b-29a4af1d3f52/correspondence-from-kopp-to-fisher-excerpts-from-unification-church-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-brief. Accessed May 21, 2025.
Copied!
U.S. DePartment of Justice
Civil Division
I
i
Rffi:t{S?4Pe:na
I
ss'EEIy to thc
Division tndicatcd
and Rcfer to lnitials and Number
lfiash in gt on, D. C. 20.5 3 0
TELEPHONE
(202) 633- 5431t'lr. GeoiP A. Fi.dg
Cl€L*., U.S. Corrt oe ffPeals
for tlre D.C. Cr-trrrlt
lEtr t4231 U.S. Corrtbcrrre
H s @Btl'tutlcr.ltl@,E, N.tl.
t*astrlngtcrr, D.C. 20001
Re: thlftl>atlcn ctrrct!, ct al' v' Imlgratjta
rd llatrralt att"cn Senrlce
Dear Hr. plst*:
Enclosed for filing are
cocies of our brief*--I5- .o'piu= of our aPPendix
in the above-caPtioned matter'
Yours very trulY,
Enclosures
cc: s€e prye
A signed certificate
page of the brief '
BOBEBtr E. ECEP
DirecLo?, APpellate Sectron
Civil Division
of service apPears on the last
hdd yur }tdly date 'try
tb rc],cd qy 6 ttls Ieffi
rrr rutnrn lt b E lD t1p sclosail rtlmea e}f-aa*resaail cnvetcpe.
FOR\l Cl\'-l2l
t\r.\R. 82
TAtsLE OE CCI.]:Ei:TS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Nature of
Facts and
the Case
Proceedings Below.
${JIvIffiPY OF ARGLIMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLIIDED THAT
SECTTON 2412(b) wAS NOT TNTENDED TO CREATE ABASIS FOR AN AUTOMATIC FEE AWARD AGAII.IST THE
UNITED STATES IN NUMEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL
A]'ID STATUTORY ACTIONS ''AI.IALOGOUS'' TO ACTIONS
BROUGHT AGAINST STATE OEFICERS UNDER
42 V. S. C. 1 983
A. The District Court's Construction
Is Compelled By The Langruage
Of the Statute And By Settled
Principles Of Sovereigrn
Immunity
B. The Church's proffered Reading OfSection 2412(b) Woutd Effectively
Read Secti.on 24t2(d) And The
2
2
10
Paqe
1
2
25
i.
L4
16
Substantially Justified Langruage
The Legislative History Does Not
Support The Church's Reading
19
D.
28
31
II THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT ?HE
CHURCH FAILED TO ESTABLISH TI1AT IT MET THE CRITERIA
TO BE A ''PARTY'' ELiGIBLE FOR A FEE AWARD UNDER
Of Section 24t2(b)
The Eiqhth Circult's Decision In
Premachandra Is Incorrect And
Should Not Be Followed.
sEcTroN 24]-2(d) oF THE EAJA.
Than 500 Employees.
To Qualify As A party Under Section
2412(d)(2)(B) The Claimant Must Show
Both That It Has A Net Worth Of Less
Than $5 Milllon And That It tias Fewer
A.
32
The Church Fai1ed To
It Has Fewer Than S00
Establi sh
Employees
B. That
39
C. The Legislatrve History Does Not Support
The Church's Reading Of Section 2412(b)
Plaj.ntiff s (Br. 18-19) and amicus (Br. 6-B), and those cases
which have uphetd the reading they =rlgg""t,15 rely almost
exclusively on the congressional testimony of Armand Derfner of
the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. See House
Hearinqs, suDra, Et 1O0. Any reliance on Mr. Derfner's
testimony is plainly inappropriate.
First, while Mr. Derfner rna-:/ have believed that Section
2412(b) should be read in a certain manner, there is nothing in
the Iegislative history to show that any legislator, much less a
majority of Congress, adopted that reading. And the critical
j.ssue here is not what Mr. Derfner intended, but what Congress
intended. As a witness appearing before Congress, Mr. Derfnerrs
views are entitled to no weight. See Uni_ted States v. Kung
Chen Fur Corp., 188 E.2d 577, 584 (C.C.P.A. 1951); cf .
Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 9, 18 (1845). Indeed,
even the statements of sponsors of legislation are not
considered dispositive. See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441
U.S. 281, 311 (1979). Given that Mr. Derfner's reading would
effectively read Section 2412(d) and the substantially justified
15 See Premachandra v.
cirl-Tgs4), rEEE;;rng
v. Secretarv of Navv,
1982 ), appeal pendj.ng,
Mitts, 727 E.2d 717, 728-29 (8th
and rehearing en banc pending; Lauritzen
546 F. Supp. tZZt, UZe (C.D. Caf .
9th Clr. No. 82-6020.
-25
?a r -1- ^u.its
court should
CCi,]CLUS I ON
fol-egoing reasons, the judgment of
be afflrmed.
the district
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD K. WILLARD
JOSEPH E. d1GENOVA
United States Attornev
WILLIAIVI KANTER
NICHOLAS S. ZEPPOS
4-ttornevs
*ile1t:te starr
x!
:
APRIL 1984
28 (EoorNorE coNTTNUED)
:1i:YT:13:::: make an award unjust.,,
: I i :iSI iili; ; .
"''il. lI":'H: ISili';. 1 o="? B.H.';i;r / \_, \..t. ?svquDe Lrle courl hel.d that the threshold
:1:?*ll1_ay criteri. ,...--.ot met i.t never reachect rhi q':,;il;'J;:";'i:.",
thetlspecial circrrmstrr!-aetr ^-^--; -: ---,:f :**^'ll:"i::::::: "
";;;;;"i;" T: ;;; H;iil3:*ill'l'13;affirming the di=t.i.i .I"iti"-..A.r.
reached this
-46