Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> The Once and Future Lawyer

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Law Students

: The Once and Future Lawyer

Berg v Obama citizenship TRO lawsuit

ADVERTISEMENTS

Someone asked me whether I had heard about this lawsuit over Sen. Obama's citizenship. I told him I hadn't, but that it was unlikely to go anywhere in any court for lack of standing. Because this news story has some legal crossover, however, I figured I would get a more informed opinion over it. After sifting through about 10,000 pages of drivel from both the left and the right (and some funny legal ones from Above the law), I have been able to conclude that this lawsuit has not gotten very far, and in short order, will be dismissed.

From what I can tell, Philip Berg is an attorney in Pennsylvania who is bringing this action pro se against Sen. Obama. (Above the Law nominated Berg for lawyer of the day on August 25). See generally Below the Beltway: And That, It Would Seem Is That (discussing this suit and linking to other similar citizenship lawsuit challenges); Mystery solved*: Barack Obama was American-Born (playing on the conspiracy theorists attacking both parties). I have found a copy of the complaint here, but was unable to access it through the Eastern District of Pennsylvania website. At least according to that document, the case number is 08cv4083, and is captioned Philip J. Berg, Esquire v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

The complaint, among other things, seeks injunctive relief to prevent Sen. Obama from running based on his alleged non-citizenship. He also brings suit against the DNC for essentially failing to do the same thing as him. Curiously, the complaint references many internet allegations (and Wikipedia), but nothing actually concrete. I'll reserve comment on the merits, and instead focus on two problems, which will likely result in its dismissal.

First, the timing issue. He's been running for months, so the thought that there is a pressing need to act now, where no one has acted before, would lead most lawyers to the conclusion that a restraining order (and particularly an emergency injunction) is probably a loser.

Regarding the rest of the claims, I would imagine the entire complaint is going to be dismissed for lack of standing, particularly since the complaint does not address standing in any form. The question becomes (to me anyway), who would have standing to bring a claim against someone running for president? I think the answer is that there is only one person, the current president. Maybe there are others (DNC national committee chair, another party's nominee), but an ordinary citizen is, in all likelihood, not one of them. The remaining question is whether this lawsuit is frivolous enough to merit sanctions.

As it currently stands, however, it seems that the case was delayed pending service of process. See Motion denied in Obama lawsuit. That article indicates that the senator has been served, so I would imagine the actual dismissal can follow in short order, followed by the standard request for costs.

I may post the link to an article based on the court's response, but I doubt I will devote much, if any, more time on this topic. Assuming it gets dismissed, I'll be curious to see how much more time and money gets wasted on trying to appeal it. Cf. Philadelphia Attorney Phil Berg Demands Disbarment of (3) U.S. Supreme Court Justices. If only Jonathan Lee Riches would file a complaint out of this one.