September 2, 2010 – Washington, D.C.: David Yerushalmi, general counsel to the Center for Security Policy, joined forces with Robert Muise, senior trial counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, to file an important amicus curiae brief in the case USA v. Arizona, the Ninth Circuit appeal of the federal district court’s ruling which held that Arizona’s anti-illegal alien law, S.B. 1070, was unconstitutional.
The lower court just last month had ruled that federal law preempted the State of Arizona’s efforts to take affirmative steps to protect its citizens against what the court conceded was an epidemic of violent crimes caused by an immigration system President Obama described as “broken” and that “everybody knows it.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the current system is broken and the fact that Arizona is literally under assault, evidenced by the federally-advised no-go zones just miles outside of Arizona’s major metropolitan areas, Obama instructed his attorney general, Eric Holder, to bring this lawsuit challenging the Arizona statute’s constitutionality.
Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise filed the amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Security Policy, the Thomas More Law Center, and the Society of Americans for National Existence.
The Center for Security Policy is a premier national security think tank in Washington, D.C., founded and led by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who acted under President Ronald Reagan as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control, and U.S.-European defense relations.
The Thomas More Law Center and the Society of Americans for National Existence are public interest law firms litigating in areas to defend the Judeo-Christian foundations of this country and its national sovereignty.
The Center for Security Policy provided this “statement of interest” to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of its filing the brief:
Since before 9/11, Mr. Gaffney has directed CSP in focusing much of its resources on the underlying enemy threat doctrine known to the jihadists as Sharia (i.e., Islamic legal doctrine and system). In turn, this work has led CSP to investigate the narco-terrorism connection between Middle East arms dealers, Hezbollah, and Central American drug traffickers such as Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (“FARC”). See, e.g., United States v. Jamal Yousef, No. S3 08 Cr. 1213 (JFK), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86281, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2010).
As set out in the government’s indictment in the Yousef prosecution, there is a working conspiracy between the U.S. State Department-designated Hezbollah jihadist group and militaristic drug traffickers who routinely use the Mexican-American border to transport drugs, money, arms, and personnel between the two countries.
This jihad presence on our southern border turns an out-of-control immigration problem into an existential security threat beyond measure for individual border states, such as Arizona, and the nation at large. From a national security policy perspective, it makes no sense for the federal government to prevent Arizona from providing a first layer of defense for itself and the Nation.
CSP’s specific interest in this case is on behalf of policy and national security professionals who call upon CSP to assist in crafting policy initiatives and other tools to counter the threat from Islamic terrorists who would exploit the federal government’s failure to defend our borders.
What makes this case all the more important is that the same federal government in charge of carrying out congressional legislation requiring secure borders chooses instead to litigate against State governments along our borders which dare to take minimal steps to act in accordance with their responsibilities to protect and defend their own residents.
Mr. Gaffney commented:
What is especially egregious about this lawsuit against Arizona by the Obama administration is that it has absolutely nothing to do with any abuse of personal liberty as we have been led to believe by the president and the main stream media. Instead, the argument the president effectively made in the government’s complaint is that the federal agencies in charge of immigration have chosen not to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress and this bureaucratic decision to ignore the law should preempt Arizona’s decision to protect its law abiding citizens who are assaulted daily by the violent crime that has followed illegal immigration.
The amicus brief filed in the federal appeal is available here.
About David Yerushalmi, Esq.
David Yerushalmi has been practicing law for more than 26 years. He is a litigator specializing in securities law, public policy relating to national security, and public interest law. Mr. Yerushalmi is licensed and practices in Washington D.C., New York, California, and Arizona and serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy.