SCOTUS Clerk Scott Harris has just Ruled that Citizens Cannot Sue States for Declaratory Judgments

by Leo Donofrio, naturalborncitizen, ©2020

(Dec. 24, 2020) — Yesterday, I posted about the Supreme Court having no record of my papers. Suddenly, I then received a backdated PDF from the Court by email that was apparently snail mailed on December 17th. (See image above.)

The Clerk, Scott Harris, has made a decision not to docket my case. Is it because I failed to follow a Supreme Court Rule? No. It’s because Scott Harris – the clerk – has made a legal interpretation that a citizen plaintiff is barred from suing a State in an adversarial capacity. And that judicial decision by Harris is wrong based on precedent of the United States Supreme Court cited in my papers.

As I made clear in my filing, the Eleventh Amendment only prohibits citizens from suing a State for monetary damages or equitable relief. But citizens have been allowed to name states in various other adversarial proceedings. For example, see California v. Deep Sea Research, 523 U.S. 491 (1998):

“As Justice Story explained, in admiralty actions in rem… the language of the [Eleventh] [A]mendment is, that’ ‘the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity.’ But a suit in the admiralty is not, correctly speaking, a suit in law or in equity; but is often spoken of in contradistinction to both.’’ 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1689, pp. 491-492 (5th ed. 1891).” California v. Deep Sea Research at 502.

Additionally, in an adversarial Bankruptcy proceeding, a citizen was allowed to name a State, according to the precedent of Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v Hood, 541 U.S. 440 (2004), where the Supreme Court stated:

“States, nonetheless, may still be bound by some judicial actions without their consent. In California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc.,523 U.S. 491 (1998), we held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal jurisdiction over in rem admiralty actions when the State is not in possession of the property.”

So, as both of these recent precedents clearly illustrate, the Court has made clear that while the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen from suing a State in a case at law (for monetary damages), or in a case for equitable relief (injunctive relief), other legal procedures are available to citizen plaintiffs.

In my case, I sought a pure Declaratory Judgment, and I intentionally avoided asking for injunctive relief. The United States Supreme Court has stated in multiple cases that a Declaratory Judgment is neither a case at law or equity, but the Supreme Court has never stated whether a citizen is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment from bringing a pure Declaratory Judgment action against a State.

This issue was the novelty of my case. And determining issues of first impression are the very purpose of the Court, not of the Clerk’s Office. The clerks are supposed to make sure litigants follow the Rules. Court Rule 17 governs original jurisdiction actions. It does NOT anywhere prohibit a citizen from filing such an action. It simply says “see Eleventh Amendment”. I did see it. I did address it.

Clerk Scott Harris has no authority to act like a Judge. I followed the Court Rule. No Rules were broken. If the Justices don’t want to hear the case, they can say so. But a clerk does not have judicial authority. This is why the Clerk’s Office on multiple occasions has been forced to admit there is no Court Rule against my filing this action.

I intend to appeal the Clerk’s decision not to docket my case. Since this pertains to an original jurisdiction action, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over it. I am hoping another attorney will represent me in an emergency application to stay the Clerk’s illegal usurpation of Supreme Court judicial authority. Last time I checked, Scott Harris was not appointed by a POTUS, nor confirmed by the Senate.

Furthermore, this is now the second time in my career that a SCOTUS clerk tried to be a judge. A clerk refused to docket my application to Justice Souter back in 2008 when I challenged Obama’s eligibility on the basis of his being born a British Subject. The clerk then erroneously claimed that I failed to get a prior judgment from the New Jersey Supreme Court. He was famously proved wrong.

That case was eventually docketed and referred to full conference of the Court after the public made a lot of noise. I have the trail of ever changing docket screenshots to prove it. I am preparing a post detailing all of my interactions with the Clerk’s Office, supported by visual evidence.

They ran three weeks off the clock, folks. Three precious weeks. Had this case been docketed, President Trump could have intervened, but they stopped it cold. Why? Read the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Foster v. Love. That’s why.

[I am available for interviews. Please write to Sharon Rondeau, Editor In Chief at ThePostEmail.com if you want to reach me for an interview, or if you are a lawyer who would like to represent me. editor@thepostemail.com ]