Obama asks court to dismiss suit over federalization law

U.S. President Barack Obama and some of his Cabinet members, through the U.S. Department of Justice, are asking the federal court to dismiss a local businessman’s lawsuit that seeks to stop the implementation of the federalization law.

Obama and some Cabinet members, through DOJ’s senior litigation counsel Theodore W. Atkinson, pointed out that under the doctrine of res judicata, Joaquin Q. Atalig cannot relitigate legal claims that the CNMI government already litigated and lost more than two years ago.

Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.

To allow Atalig to do so would render the prior litigation meaningless, said Atkinson. It would also “open the door for any citizen to attempt a second bite at the apple when its government loses a legal challenge on its citizens’ behalf.”

Atalig, through counsel Joseph E. Horey, filed the lawsuit in November 2011 against Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, State Secretary Hillary Clinton, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Atalig wants the U.S. District Court for the NMI to declare the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (federalization law) as legally unenforceable and that its implementation and enforcement is valid and lawful only with the consent of the people of the CNMI.

Atalig is the owner of the Sunrise Hotel on Rota and some apartment buildings on Saipan.

Atkinson pointed out that Atalig’s court action is the second lawsuit challenging the implementation and enforcement of the CNRA, which applied U.S. immigration law to the CNMI beginning November 2009.

The CNMI government brought the first lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2008. The district court dismissed the suit on Nov. 25, 2009, and entered a final judgment in the case last year.

Atkinson said that when the CNMI sued the United States, it did so on behalf of the citizens of the CNMI, creating privity between Atalig and the CNMI government. The claims in Atalig’s lawsuit are identical to the claims brought by the CNMI government, he added.

Both actions, Atkinson said, implicate the same interests-the CNMI’s exercise of local self-governance in the face of congressional action to apply federal immigration laws to the CNMI.

Atkinson said a decision in Atalig’s case contrary to the decision of the court in the CNMI government’s lawsuit would “destroy or impair” the United States’ interests in implementing the CNRA.