The folks at Judicial Watch do more than watch judges and tally court decisions. They circulate petitions against illegal immigration (to make it even more illegal?) and write sarcasm-laden press releases about the “dangers” of global warming. (From the sounds of it, they believe scientists need to chill out with all the taxpayer-funded temperature studies.)
Judicial Watch is also no fan of those manipulative “leftist activists,” according to the website JudicialWatch.org. “The integrity of the 2012 elections is under systematic assault by leftist activists and politicians whose objective is clearly to manipulate the 2012 elections for their own gain,” reads one of their missives.
Given the many targets on their target board, who or what is left for Judicial Watch to excoriate?
Well, the city of St. Paul, for starters.
On Nov. 2, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, demands that HUD turn over documents related to Magner vs. Gallagher, a high-profile federal lawsuit filed by a group of landlords against the city of St. Paul.
A statement from Judicial Watch indicates the organization is seeking to force HUD’s compliance with an April 4 Freedom of Information Act request “relating to possible collusion between the Obama administration and the city of St. Paul, MN, in withdrawing a ‘disparate impact’ appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. HUD has refused all JW FOIA requests for public records, even after JW paid in advance for the information.”
The Scoop can neither confirm nor deny what documents HUD has handed to who (or should that be ‘to whom’?), but here’s some of the back-story.
In the Magner vs. Gallagher lawsuit, a group of landlords said the city of St. Paul had come down too hard on their rental properties, and the excessive code enforcement had reduced the number of privately-owned, affordable apartments available to ethnic minorities. They said kicking the landlords out the door was making it tough for poor folks to find affordable apartments, especially the disproportionately high numbers of black residents who receive federal Section 8 housing help. (Some legal observers have balked at the idea of alleged slumlords suing St. Paul on behalf of their low-income tenants, but that’s how the cookie crumbled).
Magner vs. Gallagher nearly made it to the U.S. Supreme Court this year, but St. Paul withdrew its Supreme Court petition after repeated requests from the NAACP, Walter Mondale and other housing advocates. A group of GOP lawmakers in Congress believes that the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to not sign onto two additional housing suits filed against the city (Fred Newell vs. St. Paul, and Michael Blodgett vs. St. Paul), as long as St. Paul removed Magner vs. Gallagher from the Supreme Court schedule. It was, they said, “quid pro quo” — a blatant exchange of favors.
City officials have not denied that they discussed the three cases with a DOJ official, but they have denied there was anything inappropriate about the back and forth.
Housing advocates said the biggest reason to remove Magner vs. Gallagher from the Supreme Court was because St. Paul would surely win the case, and the court’s most conservative justices would use the opportunity to gut key protections for minorities in the Fair Housing Act. Those protections require plaintiffs to prove only that an unfair housing practice has a “disparate impact” on a vulnerable group, or “protected class” of citizens, such as low-income minorities. It’s much easier to prove “disparate impact” than to prove an actual intent to discriminate, so housing advocates were eager to see “disparate impact” upheld as the standard of evidence in discrimination cases of all types.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton requested that HUD not only turn over documents related to Magner vs. Gallagher, but that the department waive any fees because he claimed his organization is a member of the news media. Ahem. HUD apparently took issue with that claim, so Judicial Watch paid HUD $1,000 in advance for photocopying and labor.
The Scoop has to wonder if $1,000 even begins to cover the postage alone. The wide-ranging request entailed:
All communications with or about St. Paul, Minnesota, its residents, landlords, low-income properties or employees, specifically those exchanges:
a. relating to the city’s recent petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the petition’s withdrawal in February 2012; b. regarding “disparate impact” theory or analysis in the housing, landlord-tenant, or mortgage arena; c. involving any member of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Policy & Communications Committee, the House Democratic Caucus, or the White House, and their respective staffs; and, d. involving third parties such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Thomas Goldstein, or Walter Mondale and their respective staffs;
2. All invoices for travel, food, lodging, communications, or entertainment expenses incurred in connection with any “disparate impact” lawsuit against St. Paul, Minnesota.
Fitton maintains he still has not received the documents he asked for, so he’s sued to get them. His written statement pulls no punches, and accuses the government of using discrimination suits to “shakedown” businesses for cash:
“We have reason to believe that the Obama administration improperly and successfully pressured St. Paul city officials to take the extremely rare action of withdrawing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration and its liberal activist allies are desperate to protect their ability to use the discredited ‘disparate impact’ legal standard in lawsuits in order to shakedown businesses and reward allies.”
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. The Scoop will have to keep a close watch on that cantankerous Judicial Watch…