Halligan's Controversial Record

Caitlin Halligan Puts Her Activist Philosophy Into Practice

Face of a Radical Lawyer

CAITLIN HALLIGAN: Courts enable 'enviable social progress' "Courts... Time and time again we have seen how the dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility." (Caitlin Halligan, Remarks, White Plains, NY, 5/5/03)

Activism On 2nd Amendment
Halligan Pushed Radical Theory Deemed 'Legally Inappropriate' By Court

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: "As New York's Solicitor General, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York's baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law." ("Obama Pushing "Most Anti-Second Amendment Nominee" In Recent History," Gun Owners Of America, 3/4/13)

NY COURT OF APPEALS: "Plaintiff's complaint, as pertinent here, claims that illegally possessed handguns are a common-law public nuisance…" (People Of The State Of New York v. Sturm & Ruger Co., 309 A.D.2d 91, 2003)

• NY COURT OF APPEALS: "The New York Court of Appeals has never recognized a common-law public nuisance cause of action based on allegations like those in this complaint. Moreover, other jurisdictions have dismissed public nuisance claims against firearms manufacturers on similar or other grounds… In light of the foregoing, we believe it is legally inappropriate, impractical and unrealistic to mandate that defendants undertake, and the courts enforce, unspecified measures urged by plaintiff in order to abate the conceded availability and criminal use of illegal handguns." (People Of The State Of New York v. Sturm & Ruger Co., 309 A.D.2d 91, 2003)

Similar Lawsuits Cost Americans Jobs, Put Companies 'Out Of Business'

"The gun industry has been plagued in recent years by lawsuits from cities, states and individuals. …many smaller manufacturers have been dropped by their insurers and are drowning in legal bills. Three California gun companies already have gone out of business..." ("Gun Industry Views Pact As Threat To Its Unity," The Washington Post, 3/18/00)

"At R.T. Smoke'n Gun Shop in Mount Vernon, co-owner Charles Timlin … said many of his friends in the industry have been driven out of business because of the threat posed by lawsuits. 'It's financially breaking the back of the gun industry with the sole purpose of trying to stop people from having guns,' he said." ("Shield For Gun Industry," The Journal News, 7/2/03)

"At H-S Precision in Rapid City, a lawsuit would put the company out of business, said Todd Houghton, vice president of sales and marketing. The company employs about 75 people and averages about $6 million to $8 million in sales of rifles, he said. Although the company does not make handguns, he said he saw his insurance rates go up virtually overnight when crime victims began suing gun manufacturers and dealers. 'It has an effect on the whole industry,' he said." ("Lawmakers Act To Shield Gun Makers, Dealers From Lawsuits," Gannett News Service, 10/21/05)

"…a proposal to apply to gun makers the legal concept of strict liability - essentially a no-fault application of blame against a manufacturer for injuries caused by its product. Randall Casseday, a spokesman for Kahr Arms, which sells guns to the New York City Police Department, said holding the firearms industry to such a standard would be unfair. 'I can't see how Kahr Arms can be responsible for criminal misuse of its product,' Mr. Casseday said. 'I don't see how you can do that. One lawsuit would put us out of business.'" ("Differing Views Are Voiced By City On Gun Lawsuits," The New York Times, 9/13/03)

After State Court Rejected Her Radical Legal Theory, Halligan Attacked Bipartisan Congressional Legislation Protecting 2nd Amendment Rights

NRA: "Our opposition is based on Ms. Halligan's attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. …she worked to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005 with strong bipartisan support. This legislation was critically important in ending a wave of lawsuits sponsored by anti-gun organizations and governments, which sought to blame firearms manufacturers and dealers for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties." (National Rifle Association, Letter To Congress, 3/9/11)

• CAITLIN HALLIGAN: "[i]f enacted, this legislation would nullify lawsuits brought by nearly 30 cities and counties -including one filed by my office - as well as scores of lawsuits brought by individual victims or groups harmed by gun violence . ... Such an action would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by States to find solutions - through the legal system or their own legislatures - that might reduce gun crime or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers." (Caitlin Halligan, Remarks, White Plains, NY, 5/5/03)
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was supported by bipartisan majority, including six current Senate Dems: Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Harry Reid (D-NV), & Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). (S. 397, Roll Call Vote # 219: Adopted 65-31: R 50-2; D 14-29; I 1-0; 7/29/05)

After Congress Rejected Her Radical Legal Theory, Halligan Attacked Bipartisan Law In Federal Court

NRA: "After passage of the PLCAA, Ms. Halligan participated in the legal attack on the PLCAA. The state filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting New York City's attack on the law's constitutionality. The arguments in that brief were ultimately rejected by the Second Circuit, as they have been by every other appellate court (and every federal court at any level) that has considered the issue." (National Rifle Association, Letter To Congress, 3/9/11)

• HALLIGAN BRIEF: "…the PLCAA is not a permissible exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce… violates… Tenth Amendment and Fundamental Principles of Federalism." (Amicus Curiae, City Of New York v. Beretta, U.S. Court Of Appeals 2^nd Circuit, 4/30/08)

Activism On Terrorism
Halligan: Federal Courts 'Should Be The Preferred Forum For Future Terrorism Cases'

CAITLIN HALLIGAN Signed Report: "[C]riminal prosecutions in the federal courts … should be the preferred forum for future terrorism cases." "…use of military commissions should be minimized because of the several advantages offered by criminal prosecutions in the federal courts… They should be the preferred forum for future terrorism cases." ("The Indefinite Detention Of 'Enemy Combatants': Balancing Due Process And National Security In The Context Of The War On Terror," The Association Of The Bar Of The City Of New York, Committee On Federal Courts, P.7, 2/6/04

Amicus Brief For Al Qaeda Terrorist Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, Ignored Supreme Court Ruling

CBS/AP: "Ali al-Marri, 43, admitted to one count of conspiring to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization… Al-Marri admitted he trained in al Qaeda camps and stayed in al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan between 1998 and 2001, where he learned how to handle weapons and how to communicate by phone and e-mail using a code. He also admitted meeting and having regular contact with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and with Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly helped the Sept. 11 hijackers with money and Western-style clothing." ("Terror Suspect Al-Marri Pleads Guilty," The Associated Press/CBS News, 5/1/09)

HALLIGAN BRIEF: "The government has detained petitioner Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, without criminal process, for more than seven years and it asserts a power to continue his detention indefinitely… Thus, if al-Marri's confinement is lawful, it must be sustained as a civil detention — a narrow category of confinement that may be imposed without criminal process. … Without explicit statutory directives, judicial review of this issue would be frustrated. In this respect as well, the government's claim that the AUMF implicitly authorized the indefinite confinement of al-Marri is not in accord in with this Court's precedents concerning civil detention."  (Brief For Constitutional, Criminal Procedure, And Other Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, Petitioner, v. Commander Daniel Spagone, U.S.N., Consolidated Naval Brig, P.1, 21)

Activism On Immigration
Argument For 'Back Pay Awards' To Illegal Immigrants Rejected By Supreme Court

HALLIGAN BRIEF: "SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT If federal and state laws protecting labor standards and prohibiting employment discrimination are to be effective, the tribunals that enforce them must have the power to consider back pay awards to undocumented workers." (Amicus Curiae Brief, Hoffman Plastic Compound, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board, U.S. Supreme Court, 12/10/01)

SUPREME COURT: "The National Labor Relations Board (Board) awarded backpay to an undocumented alien who has never been legally authorized to work in the United States. We hold that such relief is foreclosed by federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). …Since the Board's inception, we have consistently set aside awards of reinstatement or backpay to employees found guilty of serious illegal conduct in connection with their employment." (Hoffman Plastic Compound, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board, U.S. Supreme Court, 3/27/02)

---

Tags: Caitlin Halligan, activist philosophy, anti gun rights, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!