Families Affirming Community Safety (FACTS)

December 17, 2009

John Doe and Jane Doe 1 through 20 et al v. State of Nebraska et al

Filed under: Legal — constitutionaldefense @ 11:41 am
Tags: , , , , ,

On Wednesday, Dec. 16 a complaint was filed in federal court to block the implementation of LB 285 and related legislation. The complaint says that the law is unconstitutional and asks for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the law until many questions about its constitutionality are settled by the courts.

They have requested:

  1. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution;
  2. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the ex post facto clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  3. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution;
  4. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the double jeopardy clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  5. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the United States Constitution;
  6. A declaration that LB 97 and LB 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  7. A declaration that LB 97, as amended by LB 285, violates, both facially and as applied, the search and seizure clause of the United States Constitution;
  8. A declaration that LB 97, as amended by LB 285, violates, both facially and as applied, the search and seizure clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  9. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the due process clause of the United States Constitution;
  10. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the due process clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  11. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution;
  12. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the equal protection clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  13. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the special legislation clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  14. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the freedom of speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution;
  15. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Nebraska Constitution;
  16. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the contracts clause of the United States Constitution;
  17. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the contracts clause of the Nebraska Constitution;
  18. A declaration that LB 97 and 285 violate, both facially and as applied, the separation of powers doctrine of the Nebraska Constitution;
  19. A preliminary injunction prohibiting each Defendant from enforcing LB 97 and LB 285 during the pendency of this matter;
  20. A permanent injunction prohibiting each Defendant from enforcing LB 97 and LB 285;
  21. Reasonable attorney fees; and
  22. Other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nedce/case_no-8:2009cv00456/case_id-50706/
https://constitutionaldefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/complaint.pdf
https://constitutionaldefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/brief-main-one.pdf

Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: