Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Appellant
Brief Amicus Curiae of the New Civil Liberties Alliance in Support of the Appellant
Motion for Permission to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellant
Amicus Brief of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce
Jessica Lee Thompson
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 869-5210
Jessica.Thompson@NCLA.legal
Brett D. Watson
BRETT D. WATSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
PLLC
P.O. Box 707
Searcy, Arkansas 72145-0707
Telephone: (501) 281-2468
Facsimile: (501) 421-1756
watson@bdwpllc.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
New Civil Liberties Alliance
To the Honorable Supreme Court of Arkansas:
1. Amicus curiae New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization formed under the laws of the District of Columbia. NCLA respectfully requests leave to file the attached brief in support of the position of Appellant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
2. As a public-interest law firm, NCLA was founded to challenge multiple constitutional defects in the modern administrative state through original litigation, amicus curiae briefs, and other means of advocacy.
3. The "civil liberties" of the organization's name include rights at least as old as the U.S. Constitution itself, such as jury trial, due process of law, the right to be tried in front of an impartial and independent judge, and the right to be subject only to penalties that are both Constitutional and have been promulgated by Congress. Yet these selfsame civil rights are also very contemporary—and in dire need of renewed vindication—precisely because administrative agencies have trampled them for so long.
4. NCLA aims to defend civil liberties—primarily by asserting constitutional constraints on the Administrative State. Although Americans still enjoy the shell of their Republic, there has developed within it a very different sort of government—a type, in fact, that the Constitution was designed to prevent. This unconstitutional state within the Constitution's United States and the State of Arkansas is the focus of NCLA's concern.
5. NCLA has an interest in this Court's decision because it believes this case is an opportunity for this Court to fulfill its fundamental duty "to say what the law is" and denounce deference to agency interpretations of statutes.
6. NCLA brings to this Court a perspective that the parties' briefs do not bring. By raising constitutional problems with deference to agency interpretations of statutes to the Court, the brief addresses the deference issue in this appeal in a way that is helpful to the Court and not duplicative of the parties' briefs.
7. The movants have read the briefs of the Appellant and Appellee, and this amicus brief is necessary, as explained above, to address the issue of whether the circuit court erred in Giving "Great Deference" to DFA in a Post-2009 Arkansas Tax Procedure Act case. The parties raised this issue in their briefs.
8. The proposed brief of amicus curiae accompanies this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: March 16, 2020
/s/ Brett D. Watson
Brett D. Watson
BRETT D. WATSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
PLLC
P.O. Box 707
Searcy, Arkansas 72145-0707
Telephone: (501) 281-2468
Facsimile: (501) 421-1756
watson@bdwpllc.com
Jessica L. Thompson
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 869-5210
Jessica.Thompson@NCLA.legal
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
I certify that the foregoing has been filed on March 16, 2020, via the electronic-filing system, which will forward a copy to all counsel of record.
/s/ Brett D. Watson
Brett D. Watson
Jessica Lee Thompson
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 869-5210
Jessica.Thompson@NCLA.legal
Brett D. Watson
BRETT D. WATSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
PLLC
P.O. Box 707
Searcy, Arkansas 72145-0707
Telephone: (501) 281-2468
Facsimile: (501) 421-1756
watson@bdwpllc.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
New Civil Liberties Alliance
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS..........................................................................................v
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................................1
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................2
I. AGENCY DEFERENCE VIOLATES ARTICLE IV BY REQUIRING JUDGES TO ABANDON THEIR DUTY OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.................................2
II. AGENCY DEFERENCE VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BY REQUIRING JUDGES TO SHOW BIAS IN FAVOR OF AGENCIES............................5
III. THE COURT SHOULD CALL OUT THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH AGENCY DEFERENCE NOTWITHSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF STARE DECISIS.................................................................................................12
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................15
CASES
Baldwin v. United States, 589 U.S. ___, 2020 WL 871675, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 1359, 140 S. Ct. 690 (2020)..........................................................7, 11
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)..........................................6
Chamberlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 343 Ark. 392, 36 S.W.3d 281 (2001).........................................................................................13
City of Fort Smith v. McCutchen, 372 Ark. 541, 279 S.W.3d 78 (2008)................12
Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 8 N.J. 433, 86 A.2d 201 (1952)...............................................................................................................7
Graves v. New York, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)...............................................................13
Griffen v. Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n, 355 Ark. 38, 130 S.W.3d 524 (2003)....................................................................................2
King v. Miss. Military Dep't, 245 So.3d 404 (Miss. 2018).......................................9
Legal Srvcs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001)............................................13
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).......................................................................12
Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015).............................................................3, 7
Miss. Methodist Hosp. & Rehab Ctr., Inc. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 21 So.3d 600 (Miss. 2009),.........................................................................8, 9
Moore v. Tillman, 170 Ark. 895, 282 S.W. 9 (1926).................................................8
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)..................................................3
Pledger v. Boyd, 304 Ark. 91, 799 S.W.2d 807 (1990).........................................4, 5
Reece v. Eaton Corp., 2015 Ark. App. 77...............................................................12
Terrell v. Middleton, 187 S.W. 367 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916), writ denied, 108 Tex. 14, 191 S.W. 1138 (1917).......................................................7
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018)......................................................................................................4, 9, 10
United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33 (1952).......................13
Walnut Grove Dist. No. 6 v. County Bd. of Educ., 204 Ark. 354, 162 S.W.2d 64 (1942).................................................................................6, 7, 8, 9
Walther v. Carrothers Constr. Co. of Ark., LLC, 2016 Ark. 209, 492 S.W.3d 504....................................................................................................14
Walther v. Weatherford Artificial Life Sys., Inc., 2015 Ark. 255, 465 S.W.3d 410 ...................................................................................................14
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994)...............................................................12
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Ark. Const. art. IV......................................................................................................2
Ark. Const. art. IV, §§ 1-2.........................................................................................2
U.S. Const. amend. XIV........................................................................................2, 5
STATUTES AND RULES
Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-406.............................................................................14, 16
Ark. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 1..............................................................................3
Ark. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2..............................................................................6
Ark. Code Jud. Conduct Rule 2.11(A)(1)................................................................14
ASCR...
