IMBRA Upheld and EC Case Dismissed....

[Dan]

For those of you following the developments in Georgia where European Connections filed suit to challenge the IMBRA legislation, today Judge Cooper issued his ruling and has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

What this essentially means is that there are no active cases to challenge the IMBRA legislation, and for the foreseeable future, IMBRA will exist intact - or grow.

More to come once the decision is further analyzed.

- Dan

[G Bala]

Here is the 40 page opinion released today in case you wish to read it:

http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/JudgeCooperDecision.pdf

As Dan stated, Judge Cooper, in the European Connections case in federal court in Atlanta, denied the free speech challenges to IMBRA and upheld it as a means to reduce domestic violence in the public interest.

More comments on the decision and possible appeals after the decision is better analyzed.

[Dan]

Summary page of the ruling today:

IMBRA is highly likely to reduce domestic abuse – and may actually save
lives. The health and safety of foreign women that IMBRA seeks to protect
substantially outweighs any pecuniary harm that IMBRA may cause to some IMBs.
When balancing the harms in this case, the Court is confronted with the classic
“blood-versus-money” analysis, and the safety of foreign women coming to the
United States clearly is the more vital interest.
IV. Public Interest
In this case, the public interest has been vindicated – through the public’s
representatives in Congress – through the enactment of IMBRA. The public has a
keen interest in having its representatives enact legislation to protect women from
domestic violence, and the public also has an interest in avoiding the wisdom of
such legislation second-guessed in a judicial forum. Domestic abuse is a significant
public concern, and the public interest will be vindicated by denying Plaintiff’s
request for a permanent injunction that would bar the enforcement of IMBRA.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. All motions
presently pending on the Court’s docket are DENIED as moot. The Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court
to mark this case closed.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2007.
s/ CLARENCE COOPER
CLARENCE COOPER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In addition, EC was ordered to pay for Defendant's legal fees.

- Dan

[G Bala]

Supplemental Order of Clerk of Court ordering that Defendant "recover its costs of this action" from Plaintiff EC.

http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/OrderECPlaintiffPayCostsofDeft.pdf

[Parlay Rey]

Wow. Just Wow. What is happening to our country?

[william3rd]

read the opinion in full. . . . . .

I dont think freedom of speech and commercial speech was really the issue.

It is pretty clear about what the judge felt about IMBs. I think that some of the terminology that he uses goes far beyond what he was ruling on.

Ohhh welll- will there be an appeal? Is the judge wrong in his ruling? On what basis?

The road to the Supreme Court starts with an opinion just like this one.