No discipline for SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh: good or bad? The Trump litmus test continues

I have written on this blog many times that the election of Donald Trump has so far worked, and continues to work, as a litmus test for many ways of how the American government works, on federal and state levels.

Certain things which the law permitted the previous administrations to do, somehow becomes not permissible under this administration.

Certain things that were wrong - but not noticed - under the previous administrations, became more visible just because Trump is doing it.

I am planning a detailed overview of this phenomenon, but in this particular article I wanted to point out one extraordinary feature of the "Trump litmus test":  it has shed a light on the U.S. Supreme Court and what is very wrong about its operation over the last 100 years.

First of all, with the death of Justice Scalia (and unlawful filibustering by the Republican Senate of a nomination to SCOTUS by President Obama) and retirement of Justice Kennedy, Trump has got to fill two seats so far on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Same as President Obama, same as all presidents before him, President Trump has avoided as a plague in fitting the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, the last resort in death penalty cases - candidates with criminal defense background.

The only people who have criminal law experience on that court are former prosecutors.  

Of the 9 current justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 

1. Stephen Breyer;
2. Clarence Thomas;
3. John Roberts (The Chief Justice):
4. Ruth Ginsburg;
5. Samuel Alito;
6. Neil Gorsuch;
7. Sonia Sotomayor;
8. Elena Kagan;
9. Brett Kavanaugh,

the only U.S. Supreme Court justice who does not have prior experience as a prosecutor is Ruth Ginsburg, and yet, Ruth Ginsburg's experience as a law professor and general counsel for ACLU between 1973 and her nomination to the bench in 1980 is not the equivalent of a background in criminal defense, since the ACLU has never undertaken criminal defense, and Ruth Ginsburg in particular did not work as a criminal defense attorney.

I thoroughly dislike Hillary Clinton and did not vote in the previous presidential elections because I did not see good presidential candidates in either of the candidates running in 2016.

Having said that, I did defend Hillary Clinton, during her election campaign, in August of 2016, in my blog article when she was bashed for her actions as a criminal defense attorney and a public defender.

And, I have stated on this blog that President Obama did a disservice to this country when he nominated Merrick Garland, having bypassed a courageous female judge Jane Kelly with a public defender background, who continued to work as a public defender even after she was attacked and left for dead, because of her public defense work.

President Trump, so far, also disappointed, having nominated to the court 2 white males, both former prosecutors, having so far confirmed the trend portraying background in criminal defense or civil rights litigation as a disqualification for public office (only one justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has a qualification in civil rights litigation, and NONE - in criminal defense).  Once again, this court handles criminal cases, and, especially, death penalty cases.

With NO justices having prior experience in criminal defense, while 8 justices having experience (and indoctrination) in prosecution, and the mentality of people having "enjoyed" prosecutorial immunity - which corrupts prosecutors' minds and drives them to score convictions, without regard whether the law is followed, with an eyes on the prize, career advancement.

For 8 out of 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices, prosecutorial positions did bring a career advancement, to the top of the American government, a lifetime appointment to a position where there are no job requirements, no accountability and an unlimited power over life and death (literally), people's fates, property, and over setting the law in the entire country - without authority for doing that in the U.S. Constitution, but by "well-settled" custom.

Since 1925, SCOTUS has asked - and received - from the U.S. Congress the gift of not having to review all petitions filed with the court, on the merits.

A SCOTUS judge is the only position where the judge does not have to preside over court cases other than impeachment of the President (applicable only to the Chief Judge of SCOTUS) and does not have to discharge functions other than administrative (swearing in highest officers of the U.S. Government).

Otherwise, there is no minimum of cases to review per year for SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS chooses no cases for review in a given year, they have a right to do that, too.  Nobody can make them accountable for refusing to review the absolute majority of cases (7920 out of 8000 filed, and then, we do not have official statistics of how many cases are REALLY filed published by the U.S. Supreme Court, only approximate numbers).

Cases that SCOTUS does take for review "coincidentally" are filed predominantly by 70 attorneys, the so-called "Echo Chamber", most of them having some kind of connection to the court (former clerks etc.).

Nothing too crooked.

Judges accept gift from parties and attorneys - for themselves and for their law clerks.

Periodically scandals flare about particularly corrupt gift-taking, but no impeachment of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice occurred on that ground so far, and the U.S. Supreme Court does not have a code of judicial conduct, but does have a code of silence for its clerks and a code of PERSONAL loyalty of clerks to justices, which has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution that gives to justices their power, within its strict boundaries.

Justice Scalia was "found dead" at a remote Texas ranch with personnel speaking only Spanish, the ranch belonging to an individual who has had prior litigation with the U.S. Supreme Court that ended up in his favor.

The duck-hunting trip of the same Scalia with a party in litigation also did not result in discipline for Scalia.

Scalia's friend on the court Justice Ginsburg, while spewing open hatred to the current President, and having done so since before his elections, continues to preside over cases where he is a party, without recusal.

As reported by an extraordinary lawsuit of an attorney out of California, Linda Shao, SCOTUS Justices not only refuse to recuse from a case involving an organization that judges ask to "sponsor" their law clerk for annual free month-long trips to London with VIP treatment by the British judiciary, but hide certain materials from Linda Shao's docket on the court, and do that systematically.

While President Trump is being investigated for "Russian collusion" by a special counsel, nobody investigates SCOTUS justices when they travel or lecture while paid by foreign governments.

In 2015, foreign sponsors paid (bought) U.S. Supreme Court justices for the following:

Roberts - lectures in Japan;

Ginsburg - lectures in South Korea; Switzerland

Kennedy with spouse - Austria;

Kagan - Israel;

Breyer - Great Britain

Ginsburg and Alito were paid by lawyers' organizations to travel abroad in 2015,

Ginsburg - to the Great Britain (paid for by the American College of Trial Lawyers), 

Alito - to the Dominican Republic, paid for by the Federal Bar Council - 

by organizations of attorneys APPEARING in front of these judges.

SCOTUS judges who reject the majority of incoming petitions, have time for side jobs.

For example, in 2015, the following side jobs were reported by SCOTUS judges (I summarized this information from justices' releases obtained by a watch-group on a Freedom of Information Request),  I have printouts of  copies of justices' actual financial disclosures for 2015 are on file.

Anthony M. Kennedy	McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific	$                   12,500.00
Anthony M. Kennedy	Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Clarence Thomas	Horatio Alger Association
Clarence Thomas	Creighton University School of Law	$                   15,000.00
Clarence Thomas	George Washington University School of Law	$                   10,000.00
Clarence Thomas	J. Reuben Clark Law School - Brigham Unviersity	$                      2,225.00
Clarence Thomas	The Daily Caller	Salary
Clarence Thomas	Liberty Consulting, Inc.	Salary and benefits
Ruth Ginsburg	Trust Article Fourth U/W Martin D. Ginsburg, Trustee
Ruth Ginsburg	University of Michingan - Tanner Lecturer	$                   10,000.00
Samuel Alito	ABA Advisory Committee on the Law Library of Congress
Samuel Alito	Member Honorary Board of the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land in the United States
Samuel Alito	University of Kentucky	$                      6,000.00
Samuel Alito	Duke University Law School	$                   15,000.00
Elena Kagan	Harvard Law School
Elena Kagan	President and Fellows of Harvard College	$                   15,000.00
Stephen Breyer	Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Stephen Breyer	The Pritzker Architecture Prize
Stephen Breyer	Penguin Random House LLC, Royalty Income	$                 116,774.61
Stephen Breyer	The authors Registry, Inc; Royalty Income	$                         384.93
Stephen Breyer	Penguin Random House LLC, Nonemployee compensation	$5,000

Note that, when SCOTUS Justices are paid lecturers in colleges and universities, they were disqualified from hearing immigration cases where colleges and universities were claiming standing and injury from Trump administration's "travel ban".

None of them recused.

And none of that became a burning issue in the American media or for the American public.

No "emolument clause" was invoked, no demonstrations held in the streets, no lawsuits filed and no criminal or impeachment investigations commenced.

In fact, complaints against U.S. Supreme Court justices die on filing - because NOBODY "under the law" in the United States may discipline a SCOTUS justice.

As was shown in the case of Justice Kavanaugh.

One might say that complaints against Justice Kavanaugh were politically motivated - since he was on the federal bench for 12 years, from 2006 to 2018, with no complaints filed against him.

The trigger for the complaints was not the judge's behavior, but him having been nominated by President Trump who certain people want to filibuster no matter what he does.

From that point of view, complaints against Kavanaugh, likely, did not have merit and were unfair.

But, that is not the point I am making here.

The point I am making is that the complaints, fair or unfair, meritorious or not, were not even REVIEWED by federal judges - BECAUSE Judge Kavanaugh has become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, and as such, unreachable by judicial discipline.

He (and his 8 associates) have a job that has

1. no requirements of a minimum caseload;
2. a marble palace and a practically unlimited budget - for 9 people to review court cases, for which the same court had, initially, a single room in the Capitol building;
3. plenty of time to go, during business hours, to 
1. talk to law students;
2. talk to bar associations (all expenses paid for travel and accommodations);
3. write books, sell them and advertise them;
4. lecture for money;
4. an ability to allow themselves to accept gifts in money and in kind for themselves and for their personnel from parties and counsel in litigation, and from foreign governments and entities - 

with NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever.

The "phenomenon" of no discipline for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice BECAUSE he is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice was caught by the media because the complaints were against a Trump-nominated Justice.

But, the same applies to all other judges of this court.

Isn't it time to demand from the newly-elected democratic House in the U.S. Congress to stir up this sinecure that has nothing to do with the authority given to this court (a limited authority, mind) by the U.S. Constituion, and to re-establish this court the way it was planned by the "Founding Fathers" in the first place - 

not as a lifetime graft-making sinecure without any accountability and unlimited power, 

but a court of law that must resolve ALL incoming petitions on the merits.

If they do not have enough justices to review all incoming cases - expand the court.

If we have 150 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and if they have a strictly enforceable code of conduct, limited terms and a prohibition on making laws, and on accepting gifts of ANY KIND from the public and especially from foreign governments, entities and individuals - maybe, then, we will look the way we declare ourselves to be, a democracy?

Because the way SCOTUS is set up now smacks of a monarchy.

The list of U.S. citizens with known names, plaintiffs in the #CAIR (hoax) lawsuit, the "American Muslims", who sued American taxpayers for damages and attorney fees under the guise of challenging President Trump's Executive Order on immigration that concerns ONLY non-citizens

It has been reported that CAIR - Council for American Islamic Relations -  has filed a lawsuit against President Trump challenging his immigration executive order.

Here is the Executive Order, it was included into the lawsuit as an exhibit.

Because the alleged (and much-celebrated) temporary restraining orders that were allegedly previously filed regarding the same executive order in federal courts in New York, Virginia and Massachusetts on the official federal court register Pacer.gov, which raises issues about existence, contents and legitimacy of those alleged orders - I immediately went to Pacer.gov to check out whether this new alleged lawsuit can be seen there.

CAIR has been called an unindicted conspirator in a federal criminal court case United States v Holy Land Foundation et al, Case No.: 3:04-cr-240-P in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and also in a letter of President Bill Clinton's U.S. Attorney General's office to the U.S. House Representative Sue Myrick (years of service in the U.S. House of Representative - January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2013), and the letter, sent obviously with the approval of the then-Democratic President Bill Clinton, pointed out to testimony at trial about connections of CAIR and its founders with HAMAS which
was designated as a terrorist organization by:

• Israel (1989);
• U.S. (1995 - see the letter of the U.S. Attorney General's office below);
• Jordan (1999 - outlawed);
• Canada (2002);
• European Union (2001/2003 - designation overturned by a court, with European Council appealing the decision);
• Japan (2006); and, most recently, by
• Arab Emirates (2014)

but was, reportedly, not designated as a terrorist organization by:

• Iran;
• Russia;
• Turkey;
• China;
• Brazil,
• Norway, and
• Switzerland

Here is the letter of U.S. Assistant Attorney General under President Bill Clinton, Ronald Weich, to U.S. House Representative Sue Myrick:

The lawsuit by the Committee on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against President Trump was reportedly filed yesterday in a federal court in Virginia.

There is a civil rights case against Donald Trump available on Pacer.gov in Virginia that was filed on Monday, January 30, 2017.

Yet, CAIR is not a party in that lawsuit, where all plaintiffs are suing in their individual capacity, and not on behalf of CAIR as an organization, see the caption of the lawsuit that the plaintiffs designated and filed with the court themselves:

CAIR is not even representing plaintiffs in that action, even though that is what the complaint says:

The official docket report, on the opposite, says that the only attorney representing all plaintiffs in that action is a solo attorney by the name of Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas who was reported as a "staff attorney" of CAIR in 2015 in the press, but not listed as such in the docket of this particular case:

Here is the text of the lawsuit that I personally, and at my own expense, obtained from Pacer.gov:

And here is the docket report as of today from that same case.

Here is the list, that I compiled based the self-description in the complaint of 15 Plaintiffs with known names (there are several citizen plaintiffs concealing their names, who will be described in a separate blog) in the "CAIR" lawsuit who are American citizens, who self-identify as American Muslims, who claim that their own 1st Amendment (Establishment Clause) rights were violated because of an executive order of the President affecting non-citizens only, and who want money damages and attorney fees from the American taxpayers for such violation.

Name of Plaintiffs, all self-identified as “American Muslims”	U.S. Citizen? Yes/No	State and County of residence	Self-description in lawsuit
1.                Linda Sarsour	Yes	New York, Kings County	·                  Palestinian activist; ·                  Executive Director – Arab American  Association of New York; ·                  Former spokesperson (2016) of Presidential Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders; ·                  One of three national co-chairs for the 2017 Women’s March held the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump; ·                  Appeared in  “The Hijabi Monologues”; ·                  Has her own show “The Linda Sarsour Show”
2.                Rashida Tlaib	Yes	Michigan, Wayne County	·                Former Democratic member of the Michigan House of Representatives; ·                Attorney at the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice; ·                The 1st Muslim-American woman “to serve” /sic/ (to have served?) in the Michigan Legislature; ·                The 2nd Muslim woman to be elected to serve in a state legislature in America
3.                Adam Soltani	Yes	Oklahoma, Oklahoma County	·                   Executive Director of Council for American-Islamic Relations, Oklahoma; ·                   A prominent civil rights activist; ·                   Chair, Oklahoma Conference of Churches’ Religions United Committee; ·                   Planning member, OKC’s Jewish-Muslim Film Institute; ·                   Former member, the Oklahoma Democratic Party Religious Education Committee; ·                   Former board member, the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma; ·                   Former member, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City Executive Committee
4.                Alia Salem	Yes	Texas, Dallas County	·                  Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Dallas/Fort Worth (CAIR-DFW); ·                  “Plaintiff Salem’s work o CAIR-DFW has been featured on local, national and international media outlets”
5.                Nihad Awad	Yes	Washington, D.C., Washington County	·                  National Executive Director, Co-Founder of CAIR ·                  In 1997 (under president Bill Clinton), served on the White House Civil Rights Advisory Panel to the Commission for Safety and Security; ·                  Testified before both Houses of the U.S. Congress “on matters involving Muslims in America”; ·                  In 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections was a “key figure in voting a Muslim voting block”; ·                  In 2006, traveled to Iraq on a humanitarian mission to secure release of journalist Jill Carroll; ·                  In September of 2011 (under President Obama) traveled to Iran as part of “interfaith delegation” to appeal for release of American hikers held by Iran; ·                  In 2004, National Journal allegedly called Plaintiff Awad one of 100 most influential people in the United States; ·                  In 2009, a Georgetown University publication called Plaintiff Awad one of 500 most influential Muslims in the world; ·                  In 2010, “Arabian Business ranked him 39th in the “Arabian Business Power 100” list, “its annual listing of the most influential Arabs”.
6.      Dawud Walid	Yes	Michigan, Wayne County	·                  Executive Director, CAIR, Michigan (CAIR-MI); ·                  Served in the U.S. Navy; ·                  Earned 2 U.S. Navy & Marine Corp Achievement medals while deployed abroad; ·                  Received awards of recognition from the city councils of Detroit and Hamtramck and from the Mayor of Lansing, as well as “a number of other religious and community organizations”.
7.      Basim Elkarra	Yes	California, Sacramento County	·                  Executive Director, CAIR-Sacramento Valley; ·                  Former board member, ACLU-Sacramento Chapter; ·                  Serves on Executive Board of California Democratic Party; ·                  Serves on the City of Sacramento Community Police Commission ·                  In 2011, under President Obama, “the U.S. Embassy in London sent Plaintiff Elkarra to England to meet young British Muslims as part of a strategy to promote civic engagement”
8.      Hassan Shibly	Yes	Florida, Hillsborough County	·                  Chief Executive Officer of CAIR-Florida; ·                  “Met with President Obama and several high-ranking government officials regarding Islam and civil rights issues facing Muslims”; ·                  “Serves as a consultant for, among other private entities /sic, italics added/, law enforcement and other governmental agencies”.
9.      Imran Siddiqi	Yes	Arizona, Maricopa County	·                  Executive Director of CAIR-AZ; ·                  A writer and prominent civil rights activist; ·                  Has written extensively on the subject of Islamophobia, Middle East Affairs, and issues affecting American Muslims.
10.  Julia Shearson	Yes	Ohio, Cuyahoga County	·                  Executive Director, CAIR-Ohio, Cleveland Chapter; ·                  “Delivered hundreds of lectures and trainings on Islam and Muslims, civil and human rights, diversity, Islamophobia, and immigration justice”; ·                  Was recently honored with other 22 area women for her leadership, activism, and community service in an art exhibit entitled “Reflections: The Many Facets of Stephanie Tubbs Jones” installed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport in memory of the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones; ·                  Before joining CAIR-OH, taught in Ohio University for 10 years, Jewish Vocational Services in Boston and the Summer School and Division of Continuing Education at Harvard University
11.  Karen Dabdoub	Yes	Ohio, Hamilton County	·                  Executive Director, CAIR-OH, Cincinnati Chapter, ·                  Has been “a Commissioner with the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission (CHRC) since 2006”; ·                  Was president of CHRC in 2009-2011; ·                  A founding member of Muslim Mothers Against Violence, founded in 2005; ·                  A member of Martin Luther King Jr. Coalition of Cincinnati since 2006; ·                  A former member of the FBI Multi-Cultural Advisory Council; ·                  A former member, Kentucky Commission on Human Rights Community Advisory Committee; ·                  Member of “Friends of Open House” – Cincinnati Chapter, “an international organization that worked to bring about peace and understanding between Palestinians and Israelis”; ·                  Appears in a documentary “A Visit to a Mosque in America”
12.  Namira Islam	Yes	Michigan, Oakland County	·                  Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative (MuslimARC), “a faith-based human rights education organization which focuses on racial justice”; ·                  “Worked in the areas of prisoner rights, and on international law and war crimes at the United Nations in The Hague, Netherlands”.
13.  Hussam Ayloush	Yes	California, Riverside County	·                  Executive Director of CAIR-Los Angeles; ·                  Is a 4th-term elected delegate to the California Democratic Party; ·                  Serves on board of  the Muslim American Homeland Security Congress (MAHSC)
14.  Corey Saylor	Yes	Virginia, Fairfax County	·                  Director, CAIR, Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia; ·                  “Ran successful advocacy campaigns against corporate giants such as Burger King and Bell Helicopter-Boeing when their actions or advertisements negatively impacted the American Muslim community”
15.  Zahra Billoo	Yes	California, Santa Clara County	·                  Civil rights attorney, ·                  Executive Director, CAIR-San Francisco Bay Area; ·                  Prominent civil rights activist; ·                  “Is frequently seen at mosques and universities facilitating trainings and workshops as part of CAIR’s grassroots efforts to empower the American Muslim community and build bridges with allies on civil rights issues”

Please, note that this people offer, instead of standing to sue, their credentials, "'service" on various "boards" and "councils", their TV shows, appearances on TV, lectures.

Apparently, service on boards of non-profits is now a substitute of standing in civil actions.

These people, U.S. citizens, under the guise of defending human rights, filed a lawsuit where they have no personal standing, no personal injury, but where they want to nevertheless use the scarce time of a federal court, and to obtain, for themselves, personally, money damages for their non-existent injuries, as well as attorney fees in this frivolous lawsuit paid by the American taxpayers.

Standing to sue in federal court is crucial (and a jurisdictional barrier if it is absent) in a case where, interestingly, by an American citizen located within the country on behalf of non-citizens located outside of the country (in the detention area before immigration checkpoints in airports).

To have standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs have to have:

1) "injury in fact" - an invasion  of THEIR OWN legally protected interest which is:

    a)  concrete and particularized;
   b)  "actual or imminent",
   c) not "conjectural" or "hypothetical;

2) there must be a "causal connection" (violation of right caused the injury of the plaintiff) between the injury and the conduct complained of:

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court did not recognize "citizen standing" challenging constitutionality of government's actions without a personal actual injury that that government action has caused.

So, what is the standing of American citizens suing President Trump in his official capacity, which means plaintiffs are suing the U.S. and all of its taxpayers, for money damages and attorney fees to be paid to them, individual plaintiffs, by the same U.S. taxpayers who suffer from the justice gap and cannot afford their own attorneys for their own needs?

There is nothing in the complaint that would indicate

1) "injury in fact" - an invasion, by President Trump's Executive Order which says NOTHING about Islam or Muslims, and which is relevant only for non-citizens, of Plaintiffs citizens' own legally protected interests which would be:

    a)  concrete and particularized;
   b)  "actual or imminent",
   c) not "conjectural" or "hypothetical;

and

2) invasion of such interest in such a way that there is a "causal connection" (violation of right caused the injury of the plaintiff) between the injury and the conduct complained of.

The plaintiffs, suing in their individual capacities, and suing frivolously, without standing, demand that American taxpayers pay THEIR attorney fees for the lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. 2412:

And, even though the caption of the lawsuit claims that it is only for "injunctive and declaratory relief" - to prohibit President Trump from enforcing his order, and to declaring rights OF PARTIES -

in the middle of the complaint, all Plaintiffs, including U.S. citizen Plaintiffs who have no standing to sue (I will address the non-citizens' standing to sue in a separate blog) ask also for money damages, for themselves, individually:

So, the U.S. citizen Plaintiffs, trying to impress the court with their service on boards of various non-profits and some of them, having the ear of President Obama during his time in office, are asking (allegations irrelevant to their standing to sue), after prominently claiming on the caption of the lawsuit (which is where many people, including mainstream media sources, start and stop reading the lawsuit) ask for money damages for themselves personally under two statutes for injuries that they did not even claim and that did not occur:

28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(4)

Apparently, U.S. citizen plaintiffs could not, and did not sustain any injury or damages from an Executive Order of the U.S. President that had nothing to do with U.S. citizens.

But, greedy Plaintiffs asked for damages also under 28 U.S.C. 1357, a statute which is specifically designated to recover money damages for "injury to [plaintiff's] person or property" (Linda Sarsour claimed none in the lawsuit) sustained by plaintiff "under any Act of Congress, for the protection or collection of any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State".

Yet, there is nothing in the complaint about protecting or collecting revenues pursuant to an Act of Congress, or enforcing rights to vote of CITIZENS of the United States - even though U.S. citizen Plaintiffs try to get such money out of a federal court specifically on those grounds, invoking 28 USC 1357.

Why are these citizen plaintiffs doing it?

The ancient reason.

Greed.

Apparently, CAIR, and its executives, could not sleep well because of the sudden fame of ACLU that collected over $24 million dollars in donations based on the hype ACLU flared about their "heroic deeds" in filing lawsuits on behalf of non-citizens

(which lacked standing to sue because they were not admitted yet to the U.S., and there is no constitutional right or privilege existing for a non-citizen to get admitted to the U.S.).

Since CAIR, because of its dubious reputation, could not hope for donations of the level of ACLU, it decided to get money out of a lawsuit, through "damages" and "attorney fees" - by suing AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, using Donald Trump as a red rag to get anything they want, even though their lawsuit is absolutely frivolous.

When President Trump is sued in his official capacity, it is the American taxpayers who are sued.

And, if these frivolous plaintiffs get recovery from the judge, despite total lack of standing - it is the American taxpayers who will have to pay them damages for nonexistent injuries and to pay their attorneys for bringing and prosecuting this frivolous litigation.

So, my dear readers, American taxpayers, do not think CAIR executives are suing Trump.

They are suing YOU.

Have money?