(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Group Brings Class Action Suit Against Huffman [1]

['Thadeus Greenson', 'Mark Larson', 'Jennifer Fumiko Cahill', 'Anne To', 'North Coast Journal Staff', 'Our Podcast Partner']

Date: 2025-01

A group of Humboldt County residents have joined a class-action federal lawsuit filed against North Coast Congressmember Jared Huffman and Fourth District Rep. Mike Thompson alleging the two men voted to use the residents' tax dollars to fund a genocide of Palestinian people in the ongoing Hamas-Israel war, violating international and U.S. laws.

The suit, filed Dec. 19 in San Francisco on behalf of a group of more than 500 tax payers throughout 10 counties dubbed "Taxpayers Against Genocide," alleges Huffman and Thompson's April 20 votes to approve $26.4 billion in military aid to Israel caused the class members the "emotional, psychic harm of being forced into being complicit in genocide," according to Dean Royer, the lead plaintiffs' attorney in the case.

"I trusted Congressman Huffman to call for a ceasefire and to demand that the U.S. follow our own laws in addition to International Law," said Humboldt County resident Robie Tenorio, one of the class members, in a lawsuit. "But despite overwhelming documented and corroborated evidence, Congressman Huffman voted in April 2024 to send Israel more offensive weapons, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers."

A vocal and dedicated group in Humboldt County has worked to bring awareness to the humanitarian crisis that's been unfolding in Gaza for more than a year, holding vigils, demonstrations and protests, alleging that the Israeli war effort amounts to an attempted genocide.

But whether or not that's the case, experts in the law and Congress consulted by the Journal said the lawsuit seems to ignore important provisions of federal law, adding they expect it will soon be dismissed by the court.

"I believe the suit is totally DOA because of the Speech and Debate Clause," said David Levine, a professor at University of California College of Law, San Francisco, referring to the clause in the U.S. Constitution intended to shield members of Congress from liability for official acts. "I haven't seen any explanation of how the attorneys think they even have a prayer of justifying this suit."

Levine also pointed to U.S. Supreme Court case law determining that being someone's status as a taxpayer alone does not give them standing to challenge government spending decisions, and that plaintiffs must show they've suffered personal injury to have the legal standing necessary to bring a federal lawsuit.

Stephanie Burkhalter, a professor of politics at Cal Poly Humboldt who specializes in Congress, said generally this standing issue prevents these types of taxpayer lawsuits from moving forward. For example, Levine said, taxpayer lawsuits brought challenging the Vietnam War were dismissed because courts find the plaintiffs couldn't show they'd personally been harmed.

"Basically," Levine wrote in an email to the Journal, "the remedy is, if you don't like what you're representatives are doing, vote them out of office the next time they stand for re-election."

And even if the lawsuit were allowed to proceed, the Speech and Debate Clause has been interpreted to widely shield members of Congress from criminal or civil liability for official acts.

The text of the clause itself lays out that members of Congress shall be paid for their services and — except in cases of "treason, felony and breach of the peace" — be "privileged from arrest during their attendance" of, or travels to and from, sessions of Congress. The clause ends "and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined the clause must be construed "broadly."

"It is well established that the clause serves to secure the independence of the federal legislature by providing members of Congress and their aides with immunity from criminal prosecutions or civil suits that stem from acts taken within the legislative sphere," explains the website Constitution Annotated, which is dedicated to analysis and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. "As succinctly described by the court, the clause's immunity from liability applies 'even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statues. This general immunity principle forms the core of the protections afforded by the clause."

Experts say that, together, the Speech and Debate Clause and limitations on taxpayer standing pose high hurdles for the suit to overcome.

Royer, for his part, said at a press conference announcing the suit's filing that he plans to argue that what's happening in Gaza meets the definition of genocide and violates international human rights laws against torture, and countries being complicit in genocides being committed on foreign soil. Further, he said, Thompson and Huffman's votes violate the Leahy Law, two statutory provisions that prohibit the U.S. government from using funds to assist foreign security forces when there is credible information implicating them in gross human rights violations.

"Tax dollars are being taken from our class members, our clients, and being funneled to the Israeli military and then being used to carry out the atrocities in Gaza," he said.

The Israel-Hamas war began Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas fighters invaded Israel and attacked civilian communities, killing almost 1,200 people, including more than 800 civilians, while taking an estimated 250 hostages back into Gaza. In response, Israel launched a sustained an offensive in Gaza that has killed more than 45,000 people, most of them women and children, according to news accounts and international organizations. Additionally, Israel has intensified a pre-existing blockade on supplies entering Gaza, decimating Gaza's healthcare system and bringing widespread risk of famine.

A United Nations Commission to the Israel-Palestine conflict found "clear evidence" that war crimes have been committed in Gaza, while the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in May for Hamas and Israeli leaders for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Huffman has not commented on the lawsuit publicly, but Thompson's office issued a statement.

"Congressman Thompson understands that it has been the civilian population that has paid the cost of Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel and he remains gravely concerned about the scale of civilian loss in this war," he said. "That's why has advocated and continues to advocate for the Biden Administration to work with the State Department and our allies to help secure a negotiated, bilateral ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages and the establishment of a two-state solution to ensure peace and self-determination for the Palestinian and Israeli people. Achieving peace and securing the safety of civilians won't be accomplished by filing a lawsuit."

Editor's note: This story was updated from a previous version to correct the new name of University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.



Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the Journal's news editor. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or [email protected].

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/group-brings-class-action-suit-against-huffman-31702663

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/