RE: Request for Expedited Constitutional Review – Rule 44 Rehearing Evaluation
Dear Counsel,
Thank you for taking the time to consider the enclosed memorandum.
I recognize that the time available for review is extremely limited because of the period governing petitions for rehearing under Supreme Court Rule 44. For that reason, I respectfully ask only that you determine whether the constitutional question presented merits professional evaluation and, if you conclude that it does, whether any further action by the United States should be considered through lawful constitutional procedures.
The enclosed memorandum does not ask the Executive Branch to disregard the Supreme Court’s judgment or to act outside the Constitution. Rather, it presents what I believe to be an antecedent constitutional question that was not distinctly presented during the litigation in Trump v. Barbara.
In summary, the memorandum asks whether the Civil Rights Act of 1866—enacted to secure citizenship and civil rights for the formerly enslaved following the Civil War—possesses an independent remedial significance that should be expressly examined before the same Reconstruction framework is applied to materially different constitutional circumstances.
Whether that theory ultimately proves persuasive is, of course, a matter for constitutional counsel and, where appropriate, the courts. My immediate request is more modest. I ask only that the question itself be evaluated on its legal merits and that you determine whether it provides a professionally supportable basis for seeking rehearing, clarification, or other lawful action available to the Executive Branch.
The memorandum has been written to distinguish, as carefully as possible, among established constitutional authorities, historical evidence, and the legal arguments I respectfully advance. It is offered in the hope that it will assist counsel rather than presume to substitute for counsel’s independent judgment.
If you conclude that any portion of the memorandum is unsupported, overstated, historically incomplete, or inconsistent with controlling authority, I would be grateful for your candid assessment. My objective is not to defend language for its own sake, but to ensure that any constitutional question presented to the President or the Supreme Court is as accurate, disciplined, and professionally responsible as possible.
Time is of the essence. If, after review, you believe the question warrants further consideration, I respectfully request that it be brought to the attention of those responsible for advising the President regarding any potential Rule 44 filing or other lawful executive action.
Thank you for your consideration, your service to the Constitution, and your willingness to review this submission under demanding circumstances.
Respectfully,
Ted Hayes
Mr. Citizen Patriot
Founder, Justiceville
The Society of USA Federal Citizens
Enclosures:
- Executive Counsel Summary
- REHEAR AND ENFORCE: Constitutional Memorandum to the President of the United States
- Selected Supporting Authorities