It is important to understand that to the federal government a lawsuit is a normal process in advancing an agenda of the federal government. It is not personal. In fact, some may argue that it is overly impersonal and agenda driven.
Many times during my tenure as a trial attorney for the federal government, I would be defending litigation filed against the federal government while a fellow attorney would be working on an assistance package for the very people that sued the government. My job was to win the lawsuit or to explain to the agency why the opposition was right. No consideration was given to the plaintiff’s identity or plight. Every action was based upon a risk benefit analysis. We looked at possibilities of winning the litigation, the benefit to the government of pursuing the litigation to its conclusion and the cost to the government of doing so. The actions we took had nothing to do with the opposing party. It was totally impersonal. At the same time, my fellow attorney, who was tasked with assisting those same people, was looking at their plight, balancing that plight with the needs of other citizens and, of course, the cost to the government. That attorney’s only concern about the litigation I was defending was whether it would interfere with the assistance the agency was trying to provide. The fact of the existence of the litigation was irrelevant to the provision of assistance.
The response of the federal government to the litigation is evident within the commonwealth. Despite the litigation, the federal government is funding commonwealth airport projects, road projects, justice projects and many other projects. It will continue to do so. It will also provide the commonwealth with stimulus money. Those are hardly actions we would expect of federal government resentful about an intergovernmental lawsuit.
In the federal government, it is understood that people and political entities will often disagree on whether the federal government is correctly implementing a program. It is equally understood that going to court to seek redress against a perceived governmental wrong is a constitutional right that is crucial to our form of government. When the federal government loses such a lawsuit, it adapts to the new rules and proceeds with its agenda. When the federal government wins such a lawsuit, it proceeds with its agenda. In either event, litigation records are stored away, the federal attorneys change their focus to the next challenge and the affected agency continues with its core missions and agenda. There is no time for recrimination or anger.
The ability to publicly argue whether or not actions of our local government or our federal government are right or wrong is equally crucial to our form of government. Please argue those political issues. Let us get away from the make-believe argument that somehow suing the federal government will make it mad at us. The right of the people to sue their government, when they believe that the government is acting improperly under the law, is fundamental to who we are as a nation. The federal government knows that and understands its significance. We need the same knowledge and understanding.
There is a genuine political debate concerning whether the lawsuit against the federal government should proceed. That debate is democracy in action. However, any debate over whether the litigation will somehow hurt the CNMI, because it will make the federal government mad, is no more than misdirection by people that lack understanding of how the federal government functions.
The newspapers can continue to fill their articles with the “litigation makes the federal government mad” issue and we can continue waste our energy on it. On the other hand, the newspapers could provide a service to all of us by actually researching, investigating and reporting facts and we could get down to the real political debates that will shape our future.
R. ANTHONY WELCH
Papago, Saipan
