Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges, based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency, were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for, or being confirmed for, the Presidency of the United States, to declare his actions in office to be null and void, or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.
Challenges By early 2012, dozens of lawsuits had been filed challenging Obama's eligibility in states including North Carolina,Gonzales, Veronica (November 14, 2008). "Hampstead man's suit contests President-elect Obama's citizenship", Wilmington Star-News (North Carolina). Ohio,McLaughlin, Sheila (November 1, 2008). "Lawsuit tossed on Obama's birth site", Cincinnati Enquirer. Pennsylvania,"Judge tosses suit over Obama's birth", Washington Times. October 26, 2008. Hawaii, Connecticut,"Conn. court upholds Obama's place on ballot", Associated Press via Hartford Courant. November 3, 2008. New Jersey, Texas and Washington.Holmes, Jamie (October 23, 2008). "Obama citizenship questions continue", WPTV (West Palm Beach, Florida)."State declares Obama birth certificate genuine", Associated Press. October 31, 2008) No suit or challenge resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court or other body.
Obstacles A major obstacle to most citizen suits has been lack of standing. In the initial wave of lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2008 presidential election, the only plaintiff who was a presidential candidate or presidential elector was Alan Keyes. The importance of the doctrine of standing was explained by Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in dismissing one suit. He noted that one of the principal aims of the doctrine is to prevent courts from deciding questions "where the harm is too vague." This was especially true for a presidential election, where a disgruntled voter who suffered no individual harm "would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."
Long form On April 27, 2011, Obama released his original Hawaii long-form birth certificate.CNN Obama releases original long-form birth certificate, By Alan Silverleib, April 27, 2011 Donald Trump took credit for Obama's birth certificate release, but at the same time questioned its authenticity.Hollywood Reporter Donald Trump Takes Credit for Obama Birth Certificate Release; Questions Authenticity, by Lindsay Powers 4/27/2011
Civil suits
Federal
Berg v. Obama On August 21, 2008, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat and former deputy state attorney general, filed a complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child. He alleged that the "Certification of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."Memorandum and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss , Berg v. Obama, No. 08-1256 (E.D. Pa. October 24, 2008)"Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot," Philadelphia Daily News, October 25, 2008
Bypassing the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the United States Supreme Court. On December 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Berg's request for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15. On December 15, 2008, the petitioner refiled the application for injunction. Two days later, Berg's appeal was denied without comment by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Berg's previously denied request for an injunction was refiled with Justice Antonin Scalia on December 18, 2008. On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009.
On November 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Berg lacked standing.
Essek v. Obama On November 25, 2008, Daniel John Essek of Whitley County, Kentucky, filed a pro se federal lawsuit in the Kentucky Eastern District Court. The suit was originally filed as a Freedom of Information Act case, but was amended to a judicial challenge to Obama's qualifications for the Office of President of the United States. Essek sought to prevent the inauguration of Barack Obama on the grounds that Obama was not a natural born citizen based on allegations that Obama was born in Kenya. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove dismissed the suit because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating that Mr. Essek's grievance was the generalized grievance of a voter, not a specific injury that would have granted him standing to sue.
Kerchner v. Obama On January 20, 2009, Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit in federal court, on behalf of Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs, suing President-Elect Barack Obama, the United States Congress, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi alleging Obama was ineligible to be president, and that Congress failed to verify Obama's eligibility.Table of Contents for KERCHNER et al v OBAMA & CONGRESS et al Complaint, as amended A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing. On July 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Berg v. Obama, affirmed the dismissal, and ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous appeal.United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit : KERCHNER v. OBAMA II, caselaw.findlaw.com Apuzzo's subsequent request for a hearing was denied, but the order to show cause was discharged. On November 29, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.
Barnett v. Obama On January 20, 2009, Orly Taitz filed a lawsuit in federal court, Alan Keyes et al v. Barack H. Obama et al against Obama, with Wiley Drake as one of the named parties for the plaintiff. On July 13, 2009, the presiding judge dismissed the case without prejudice on technical grounds, and on July 14, 2009, Taitz refiled a "First Amended Complaint" Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama on behalf of Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Cynthia Davis, Gail Lightfoot, several other local politicians, and various armed service members. Taitz sought a declaratory judgment that Obama is ineligible for office and an injunction to void his actions and appointments as President.
Two of the plaintiffs, Markham Robinson and Drake, subsequently attempted to dismiss their attorney, Orly Taitz, who refused to sign their substitution-of-attorney documents and instead filed to dismiss the two of them as plaintiffs in the case. On September 8, 2009, Judge David O. Carter denied the dismissal of Drake and Robinson as plaintiffs, and granted their motion to substitute Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation as counsel for them, refused to dismiss Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato from the case, and set a tentative trial date for January 26, 2010.
At a hearing on October 5, 2009, Carter considered the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and declined to rule from the bench, saying that he would take the matter under advisement. On October 7, 2009, he released a Minute Order finalizing the previously tentative dates for summary judgment motions and trial, and on October 29, 2009, he dismissed the case. On December 22, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the eligibility of the sitting president. On June 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.
Citing new evidence, on August 14, 2012, Taitz filed a motion in Judge Carter's court to re-open the case. The motion was denied on August 31, 2012.
Hollister v. Soetoro On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass". The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand. On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.
Cook v. Good On February 1, 2009, Stefan F. Cook, a major in the United States Army Reserve, contacted Taitz via e-mail, asking to be part of her lawsuit. On May 8, he volunteered to serve for one year in Afghanistan beginning on July 15, 2009. The Army accepted his offer and ordered him to report on that date. On July 8, however, he filed suit, with Taitz as his lawyer, seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector, arguing that his deployment orders were invalid because Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. His orders were thereupon revoked; an army spokesperson stated, "A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty." Accordingly, Cook's case was dismissed as moot on July 16.
In the lawsuit, captioned Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good (Colonel Wanda L. Good -Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command – St. Louis) and filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Cook asserted that he "would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President's command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties." In April, before Cook volunteered for deployment to Afghanistan, he had been included in Taitz's list of people she said she represented as plaintiffs, in a letter raising the citizenship issue. A retired Army major general and an active reserve US Air Force lieutenant colonel subsequently joined the Georgia case as plaintiffs alongside Cook. Cook's deployment orders were canceled, and a government spokesman explained, "The Commanding General of SOCCENT (U.S. Special Operations Central Command) has determined that he does not want the services of Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders." An Army CENTCOM spokesman rejected as false claims that the revocation validated Cook's claims: "This in no way validates any of the outlandish claims made by Maj. Cook or his attorney. The idea that this validates those charges about the president's fitness for office is simply false."
After the case was filed, Taitz alleged that Cook had been terminated from his civilian job with a defense contractor, after the situation at his company had become "nutty and crazy".