Note: This Topic was posted before AODA ditched their case because of the mental illness of Judge Thomas Rose who had said men on dating sites could be compared to products and that Americans had "no fundamental liberty interest to contact foreigners".
In any event, Judge Rose did agree to let the case go on January 17th, one month after Tahirih and the Keystone Cops agreed to let the case die a merciful and quiet death before trial.
I don't think the enemy can point to the TRO denial as a valid document in the future
Here is the post as it was written before the case was dropped in December:
With the AODA vs Gonzales May 2006 Case due to return to court next month, I would like to see some lawyers take what is happening there very seriously. The judge is a Bush appointee who used the excuse that, because the AODA lawyer mentions "Lawrence vs Texas" (the right of gay men to have sex), she didn't provide a reason "to create a new fundamental liberty interest" for heteresexuals.
Here is the money quote from the Denial of TRO document from Judge Thomas Rose on May 26th that I have posted at www.veteransabroad.com/denied.pdfAs regards their substantive due process claim, Plaintiffs recognize that “the Supreme Court
has never explicitly held that a person has a fundamental liberty interest in contacting a person from
another country in order to develop an intimate relationship....” Doc. 3 at 28. Nevertheless, they
urge the Court to recognize the denial of a fundamental liberty interest based upon the autonomy
Case 3:06-cv-00123-TMR Document 21 Filed 05/25/2006 Page 5 of 7
passages of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562, 574 (2003). The Supreme Court, however, has
often stated its reluctance to recognize new “fundamental liberty interests.” Chavez v. Martinez,
538 U.S. 760, 776, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 2006 (2003).
Judge Thomas Rose is correct that the Plaintiff's lawyer did say that she recognizes no fundamental liberty interest. Please read the www.veteransabroad.com/troREQ.pdf
I have a copy where the AODA lawyer (Jennifer) DOES STATE ON PAGE 25 (on the web version you can find the passage in section 3) that the "Supreme Court has never explicitly held that a person has a fundamental liberty interest in contacting a person from another country"...and then Jennifer does not immediately follow this up with the 1st Amendment Right to Assemble, but waits a paragraph before doing this. This "One Paragraph Delay" gave Judge Thomas Rose the excuse to ignore the Right to Assemble.
Here is the entire text put into the context of the rest of the document:
If an American shares certain sensitive, private information which is compelled by the statute, but that he
or she does not want to reveal, then the IMBRA infringes upon that person’s right to initiate and
develop an intimate relationship. A fortiori, the statute unconstituitonally impinges upon that
person’s fundamental right to marry.
The Supreme Court has “long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage
and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment,” Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974); and “has
consistently acknowledged a ‘private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.’” Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly held
that a person has a fundamental liberty interest in contacting a person from another country in
order to develop an intimate relationship, “unless we close our eyes to the basic reasons why
certain rights associated with the family have been accorded shelter under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, we cannot avoid applying the force and rationale of these
precedents to the family choice involved in this case.” See Moore v. City of East Cleveland,
Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 501 (1977). This is because, under our Constitution, the freedom to marry
and the freedom to form intimate relationships with the person of our choice resides with the
individual, not the government. See Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. The IMBRA usurps that right by
intervening in a private relationship, before it is formed, in a manner that frustrates even basic
communication. This contravenes basic principles of substantive due process, requiring the
IMBRA to be enjoined.
4. The IMBRA violates the right of association.
The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to freely associate with one another.
See U.S. Const. amend. I; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Invest. Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963).
Where the association is for the purpose of expression or communication, the degree of First
Amendment protection is heightened all the more. See, e.g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530
U.S. 640, 659 (2000). In addition, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to associate
and the right to privacy are inextricably linked, for the exposure of private relationships to
government intermeddling can discourage the relationship from forming at all. See NAACP v. State
of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). For this reason, regulations that impact the ability to form
private associations are viewed with strict scrutiny. See McConnell v. Fed. Elections Comm’n, 540
U.S. 93 (2003).
The above link is the main complaint of AODA against IMBRA. It is a critical document to show journalists and lawyers.