It’s fine for Hamilton County to try to determine whether its new law governing use of county property is constitutional and enforceable, according to legal documents failed today in U.S. District Court, but officials should not expect federal courts to do it for them on the U.S. taxpayers’ dime, attorneys for Occupy Chattanooga say.
The arguments came in a nine-page brief filed Monday morning in response to the court’s recent federal lawsuit against Occupy Chattanooga by attorneys David Veazey of Chattanooga and Scott Michelman of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C.
“(I)t is black-letter law that federal courts lack jurisdiction over a state or local government’s suit for a declaration of the validity of its own law,” the attorneys argued, “. . . (and) lawsuits of this type would needlessly burden the resources of the courts . . . (and) force uninterested third parties to pay for a government’s exercise in verifying the validity of its own laws.”
The answer was filed on behalf of defendants named in a lawsuit filed last week by the county: Hope Alexander, Patricia Bazemore, Heidi Davis, Joy Day, Frank Eaton, Howard Hayes, Landon Howard, Sam McKinney, Shane Pinson, Occupy Chattanooga” and others referred to only as John and Mary Does.
Ironically, it notes, the county’s lawsuit against Occupy Chattanooga contends that the organization violated new rules and regulations over county property approved by county commissioners on Jan. 4 – almost two months after the group erected the tents on the courthouse law which local officials are determined to have removed.
“The complaint ascribes various legal positions to defendants and avers that they failed to secure approval for their demonstrations beginning Nov. 9, 2011, even though the ordinance . . . was not enacted until Jan. 4, 2012,” the documents filed in response to the county action noted.
“(P)ermitting such suits would authorize local governments to drag their political opponents into court to seek advisory opinions, rather than waiting for concrete disputes to develop,” according to the brief. “. . . When and if a concrete dispute arises there will be ample opportunity to test the validity of the county’s new ordinance. Until then, advising a local government as to the validity of its laws is the job of the government’s own legal advisers, not the federal courts.”
The commission is seeking to evict the group of protestors from camping out on the County Courthouse lawn.
The attorneys said they want to make oral arguments on the motion to dismiss.