Gaylor, Annie et al v. Lew, Jacob et al

Filing 99

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Orders, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 97 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Opinion and Order No.: 87, # 3 Opinion and Order No.: 95, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet) (lak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ANNIE LAURIE GAYLOR; DAN BARKER; IAN GAYLOR, Personal Representative of the estate of ANNE NICOL GAYLOR; and FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiffs v. Case No. 16-CV-215 STEVEN MNUCHIN, Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury; DAVID J. KAUTTER, Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants and EDWARD PEECHER; CHRIS BUTLER; CHICAGO EMBASSY CHURCH; PATRICK MALONE; HOLY CROSS ANGLICAN CHURCH; and the DIOCESE OF CHICAGO AND MID-AMERICA OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA, Intervenor-Defendants INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS’ DOCKETING STATEMENT Pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(c)(1) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Intervenor-Defendants—Edward Peecher, Chris Butler, Chicago Embassy Church, Patrick Malone, Holy Cross Anglican Church, and the Diocese of 1 Chicago and Mid-America of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia— respectfully submit this Docketing Statement in the above captioned case. I. Parties Appearing in Their Official Capacities The parties sued in their official capacity are the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The current Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury is Steven Mnuchin. The current Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service is David J. Kautter. II. Prior or Related Appellate Proceedings In a prior, related case, several of the same Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. § 107 on the same grounds. The district court sua sponte granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (W.D. Wis. 2013). This Court vacated and remanded on the ground that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew, No. 14-1152, 773 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2014). III. Jurisdictional Statement A. District Court’s Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. § 107. The District Court found that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge § 107(1), but have standing to challenge § 107(2) (Doc. 15). Plaintiffs invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 5 U.S.C. § 702. IntervenorDefendants maintain that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. 2 B. Appellate Court’s Subject-Matter Jurisdiction The District Court entered final judgment on December 15, 2017 (Doc. 96). The District Court’s order disposes of all claims of all parties. Intervenor-Defendants filed a timely notice of appeal in the District Court on February 8, 2018. (Doc. 97); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). Thus, the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction to hear this direct appeal of a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but the Seventh Circuit lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction for the same reasons that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, as stated above. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Luke W. Goodrich Luke W. Goodrich Joseph Davis Daniel Ortner The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1200 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Email: Telephone: (202) 349-7216 Facsimile: (202) 955-0090 Dated: February 8, 2018 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendants 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 8, 2018, the foregoing docketing statement was served on counsel for all parties by means of the Court’s ECF system. /s/ Luke W. Goodrich Luke W. Goodrich 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?