Roman Catholic Bishop Edward J. Slattery has received judicial approval to file a "friend-of-the-court" brief in a case that asks a Tulsa County judge to declare Oklahoma's new immigration law unconstitutional.Slattery and Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Tulsa applied Thursday to submit a brief in support of the position of plaintiff Michael C. Thomas.
In a pastoral letter made public in November, Slattery called the immigration law immoral.
District Judge Jefferson Sellers ruled Thursday that the brief from Slattery and Catholic Charities can be filed. Sellers also set an April 3 hearing on pending motions in the case.
Slattery is bishop of the Roman Catholic Tulsa Diocese, which includes 33 Oklahoma counties, a document says.
Thomas, identified as a resident taxpayer of Tulsa County, seeks "to prevent an alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds" by the state and Tulsa County for enforcement of an unconstitutional statute, according to his lawsuit.
One defendant is Gov. Brad Henry, "who is charged with the responsibility of seeing that the laws of the state are faithfully and constitutionally executed, including the lawful expenditure of public funds," states the suit, filed Jan. 3.
The other defendant is the Tulsa County Board of Commissioners, the public body "obligated and responsible for the expenditure of public funds required in the enforcement of the extensive provisions incorporated" in House Bill 1804, the suit says.
The plaintiff's attorneys are James Frasier, Steve Hickman and James C. Thomas, the father of the plaintiff.
James Thomas previously said he strongly opposes the immigration law and that he needed a taxpayer to be the plaintiff. His son agreed to fill that role, he said.
In court responses, lawyers for the governor and the County Commission say Michael Thomas has no "standing" to pursue the legal challenge.
"For a person to have standing to challenge any of the statutes created by HB 1804, the person challenging the statutes must be directly affected by the statutes (for example, be an illegal alien who has been denied a right)," states a motion to dismiss the case, filed by Assistant Attorneys General Daniel Weitman and Kevin McClure, representing Henry.
"Any other result would have the absurd effect of flooding the courts with taxpayer claims challenging any and all statutes passed by the Legislature," the motion contends.
A motion to dismiss the case filed by Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney James Dunn on behalf of the county commissioners maintains that "in essence, the plaintiff attempts to establish standing to bring this action by asserting that if a statute has "through its enforcement" any expense, no matter how minute, attributed to it, then a taxpayer has the requisite standing to challenge the statute."
The suit by Thomas asserts that the immigration law violates the Oklahoma Constitution on multiple grounds.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce