The Constitutional Challenge is called a Preemptive Claim/Constitutional Challenge.
As the matter is proceeding to the United States Supreme Court, the documents will be marked specifically as a Preemptive Claim.
Here's why.....
The Bivens remedy has never been considered the proper vehicle for altering an entity's policies, injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally.
Damages and attorney fees are NOT available in preemptive claims.
| WE DIDN'T ASK FOR DAMAGES. WE ASKED FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE RESTORED. |
The Preemption cause of action's weakness – lack of damages – is also its strength.
The Supreme Court is comfortable with injunctive relief against states when sovereign immunity bars damages, so recognizing preemptive claims for injunctive relief does not send up the same alarms as Section 1983 suits do.
With respect to injunctive relief, the typical relief in a preemption case is invalidation of the preempted state or local law, regulation, or agency order and an injunction against enforcing it.
The preemption cause of action arises from the Constitution's Supremacy clause, not from a statute, and thus congressional intent is irrelevant to the existence of the cause of action: “In this type of action, it is the interests protected by the Supremacy Clause, not by the preempting statute, that are at issue."
| YOUR EVIDENCE IS THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THEIR DEFENSE MUST PROVE THAT RULE 1.6 IS NOT THE CAUSE. THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY DO NOT PROSECUTE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE... and RULE 1.6 WILL MANDATE THEY SAY NOTHING. |
Preemption under the Supremacy Clause “concerns the federal structure of the Nation rather that the securing of rights, privileges, and immunities to individuals.”
| A NATIONAL ISSUE, WE SERVED THE CHALLENGE ON EVERY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. |
Remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law.
The option to sue for injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause... is almost always available.
The core principle is a state or local law, regulation official written policy, or agency order that is invalid because it conflicts with a federal statute or frustrates Congress' objectives. Relief then revolves around invalidating the state or local action to the extent that it conflicts with federal law and enjoining the state or local government from implementing it.
| DECLARING RULE 1.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. |
The preemptive cause of action originates in the Constitution. The Supreme Court's implicit recognition of the preemption cause of action is well entrenched and would be difficult to reverse.
The Court must pay attention to the broader purposes and may not rest the decision on the phrasing of a particular subsection.
Jurisdiction and standing requirements, including causation and redressability, must be met.
| THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED REPEATEDLY FOR THE COURT IN EVERY FILING. |
Preemption is intended for use in situations which challenge a state or local law, regulation, written policy, or administrative order.
Preemption claims may generally be brought only against government officials.
| SERVED TO 56 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL. |
The Supreme Court's decisions construing the scope of Section 1983 and related jurisdictional statutes are irrelevant to the scope of supremacy clause preemption claims that are not based on Section 1983.
| THOSE MISGUIDED SUGGESTIONS THAT OUR CASE IS A 1983 CASE ARE DELIBERATE. THE JUDGES PRETEND IT IS A 1983 CASE AND DISMISS IMPROPERLY. MISGUIDE, MISINFORM, MISDIRECT... |
WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION? Why does the court wish to continue to sacrifice the integrity of every judge in the US and mandate continued injustice and corruption.
