Futia v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-06965
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 26
In Futia v. United States, Judge Karas denied Anthony J. Futia’s request to reconsider the denial of preliminary injunctive relief concerning his petition and tax claims.
Anthony J. Futia’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving in place the earlier denial of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The United States remained the defendant, and the opinion states that the court had not yet ruled on a motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Futia v. United States, Anthony J. Futia asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request for a preliminary injunction. Futia argued that the government violated his constitutional right to petition for redress by requiring him to pay federal income taxes without meaningfully responding to his petitions.
Futia challenged the reasoning of a prior decision from the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that historical evidence and later Supreme Court decisions supported his interpretation of the First Amendment’s petition right. He also argued that he would suffer continuing constitutional harm without an injunction.
Judge Karas denied the motion for reconsideration. The court said Futia had not shown that it overlooked binding authority or a fact, or that its earlier decision caused a serious injustice. The court also said that unresolved procedural problems independently weakened Futia’s likelihood of success. The court had not yet ruled on the government’s not-yet-filed motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Futia v. United States · No. 7:22-cv-06965
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
Anthony J. Futia, proceeding without a lawyer, sought reconsideration of the court’s August 30, 2022 order denying without prejudice his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The opinion identifies Futia’s underlying allegations as claims that the United States violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to pay federal income taxes without responding to his petitions for redress.
Futia argued that the court should reconsider its reliance on We The People Foundation v. United States, a 2007 District of Columbia Circuit decision. According to Futia, that decision wrongly concluded that the government was not required to respond to petitions and that people had no right to withhold tax payments while awaiting a meaningful response. Futia relied on historical materials concerning the First Amendment’s Petition Clause and cited later Supreme Court decisions, including District of Columbia v. Heller and Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri.
Futia also argued that his petitions, which he said had been submitted over many years concerning alleged constitutional violations, were serious and sufficiently detailed to require a meaningful government response. He maintained that the government’s failure to respond caused continuing constitutional injury and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his request for an injunction.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that Futia had not established that the court had overlooked binding authority or a fact, or that its decision would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court acknowledged that Futia disagreed with the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision but stated that disagreement did not justify reconsideration because the court had found that decision persuasive.
The court added that procedural problems independently undermined Futia’s claim that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court clarified that it had not ruled on the government’s motion to dismiss because that motion had not yet been filed; the court had only denied Futia’s motion for injunctive relief. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending reconsideration motion.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.