The last of the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Alabama. Zeigler v. Gonzales(S.D. Ala., Civ. Act. No. 06-0080-CG-M, June 28, 2007).
The challenge had been filed by ElderLawAnswers member attorney Jim Zeigler, who sued because the version of the DRA voted on by the House was not identical to that passed by the Senate, in apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that both chambers of Congress pass identical versions of a bill before the bill can be signed into law by the President. (See "Elder Law Attorney Sues Over New 'Law' Affecting Medicaid Transfers")
In addition to Zeigler, others challenging the DRA on these grounds were the consumer group Public Citizen, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and ten other members of Congress, an independent professional student loan firm, and two individual Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) institutions. Federal courts have dismissed all these suits.
In ruling on Zeigler's suit, federal judge Callie Granade granted the Justice Department's motion to dismiss because of an 1892 Supreme Court ruling that enunciated "the enrolled bill doctrine." In that ruling, Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark(143 U.S. 649 (1892)), the Court said that once the President has signed a bill that the presiding officers of both houses attest is the bill passed by Congress, a court should not look behind the President's signature to question whether it in fact passed both houses. Zeigler had argued that the Field ruling did not apply. The judge noted that at least three other federal courts hearing similar challenges to the DRA have also ruled that Fieldapplies.
Noting that he pursued the action on virtually no resources, Zeigler told ElderLawAnswers that he will appeal if he can find an attorney to represent him who is admitted to the 11th Circuit (or who would apply for admission) and who would take the appeal pro bono.
"The court's order of dismissal was based on only one thing -- the enrolled bill doctrine from an 1890's case," Zeigler said. "If an appeal is taken, it would be clean and mean addressing that one issue only. There is a reasonable possibility that an appellate court would reverse, finding that the Fieldcase has been modified and was not meant to cover the situation of the DRA.
Any lawyer interested in taking Zeigler's case should e-mail: JimWZeigler@yahoo.com.
To read the full text of the court's ruling, click here.
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,200 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
