top of page

DRE US Supreme Court Cases

The federal judges’ manufactured DRE jurisdictional rule stupidly claiming that the Barber v. Barber US Supreme Court case of 1858 gives them permission to do so. In fact, the Barber v. Barber case was a split decision where the minority wrote that “[i]t is not in accordance with the design and operation of a Government…. [to] assume to regulate the domestic relations of society….with a kind of inquisitorial authority, enter the habitations and even into the chambers and nurseries of private families, and inquire into and pronounce upon the morals and habits and affections or antipathies of the members of every household…..whether expressly conferred upon the State courts, or tacitly assumed by them, their example and practice cannot be recognised as sources of authority by the courts of the United States. The origin and the extent of their jurisdiction must be sought in the laws of the United States.”

The DRE expose the US Supreme Court’ scareless lack of respect for the Constitution and reason and its hypocrisy. In the face of the DRA, here is what the court has said, “The Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’1 ‘basic civil rights of man,’2 and ‘rights far more precious . . . than property rights.’3 ‘It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.’4 The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,2 and the Ninth Amendment.” 5 Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed. 2d 551 (1972)
 

1 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923);   2 Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 111 0, 111 3, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); 3 May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, 73 S.Ct. 840, 843, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953); 4 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 1 58, 1 66, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944);  5 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed. 2d 510 (1965) and 6 Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1 21 2–13, 31 L.Ed. 2d 551 (1972)

The footnoted Domestic Relations Exception Supreme Court Cases are available here:

​

  1. US. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013)

  2. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 159 L. Ed. 2d 98, 188 Ed. Law Rep. 17 (2004)

  3. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992)

  4. Sutton v. Leib, 342 U.S. 402, 72 S. Ct. 398, 96 L. Ed. 448 (1952)

  5. Ohio ex rel. Popovici, State of v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S. Ct. 154, 74 L. Ed. 489 (1930)

  6. De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S. Ct. 485, 50 L. Ed. 765 (1906)

  7. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 26 S. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867 (1906)

  8. Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 21 S. Ct. 555, 45 L. Ed. 810 (1901)

  9. Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 20 S. Ct. 58, 44 L. Ed. 115 (1899)

  10. Burrus, Ex parte, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S. Ct. 850, 34 L. Ed. 500 (1890)

  11. Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582, 21 How. 582, 16 L. Ed. 226, 1858 WL 9327 (1858)

“Children have a very special place in life which law should reflect. Legal theories and their phrasing in other cases readily lead to fallacious reasoning if uncritically transferred to determination of a state’s duty toward children.” Frankfurter, J., concurring in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 536 (1953).

​

“It is firmly established . . . that . . . wherever possible, the best interests of a child lie in his being nurtured and guided by both of his natural parents.” Daghir v. Daghir, 92 A.D.2d 191,193,441 N.Y.S.2d 494 (2d Dept. 1981).

​

“Interference with the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent is ‘an act so inconsistent with the best interest of the child that it raises a strong presumption that the offending parent is unfit to act as custodial parent.’” Prugh v. Prugh, 298 A.D.2d 569 (2nd Dept. 2002).

​

“The fostering of a relationship with the noncustodial parent is an important consideration in a custody determination.” Matter of Esterle v. Dellay, supra, 281 A.D.2d at 726.

​

“A parent’s desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection… [P]arent’s interest in accuracy and justice of decision to terminate parental status is an extremely important one.” Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed. 2d 640 (1981).

​

In New York State where Manuel P. Asensio, and if daughter, Eva Asensio, filed the nation’s first criminal indifference to civil rights case against the Hon. Chief Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and the federal judges on the surface the case law gives that appearance that

​

“Neither decisional rule nor statute can displace a fit parent . . . the courts and the law would, under existing constitutional principles, be powerless to supplant parents except for grievous cause or necessity in which the principle is plainly stated and stressed as more significant than other essential constitutional rights . . . The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children come(s) to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements . . . It is firmly established . . . that . . .wherever possible, the best interests of a child lie in his being nurtured and guided by both of his natural parents . . . Interference with the relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent is ‘an act so inconsistent with the best interest of the child that it raises a strong presumption that the offending parent is unfit to act as custodial parent . . . The custodial parent’s anger, hostility and attitude toward the non-custodial parent can substantially interfere with her ability to place the needs of the children before her own in fostering a continued relationship with then on custodial parent . . . Furthermore, the custodial parent’s conduct can be so egregious as to warrant a change of custody . . . The fostering of a relationship with the noncustodial parent is an important consideration in a custody determination.” Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548, 356 N.E.2d 277, 282-83 (1976) Daghirv. Daghir, 92 A.D.2d 191,193,441 N.Y.S.2d 494 (2d Dept. 1981) Prugh v. Prugh, 298 A.D.2d 569 (2nd Dept. 2002) Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 123 (2nd Dept. 1995) Landau v. Landau, 214 A.D.2d 541 (2nd Dept. 1995) Matter of Esterle v. Dellay, supra, 281 A.D.2d at 726.

​

“The right to be heard is fundamental to our system of justice . . . [and p]arents have an equally fundamental interest in the liberty, care and control of their children.”  In re Jung, 11 N.Y.3d 365 (N.Y., 2008).

​

“The right of a parent to the custody and control of a minor child is one of our fundamental rights as United States citizens.” Mark N. v. Runaway Homeless Youth Shelter, 189 Misc. 2d 245, 733 N.Y.S.2d 566 (Fam.Ct. 2001).

.

JUDICIAL RAW WILL AND FORCE

The Asensio Consideration identifies how both sides and the federal judiciary use of "raw will and force" against the American people's rights. Raw will and force is a politically correct term used to avoid saying the word treason. Treason is the use of government power outside of the requirements of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights to enforce national policy on issues such as inflation, election integrity, parental freedom, border security, and abortion.  Here are the documents filed in the Asensio Consideration. Consideration of June 26, 2021 First Amendment of April 7, 2022 introducing the "Eva Asensio Anti-Judicial Conduct Act of 2023" Asensio Graphic Novel titled Trump versus the Federal Judges included in the Consideration Four Annexes to the Consideration of June 26, 2021  Annex 1: The Investigatory Work of the Institute of Judicial Conduct Annex 2 Part 1: Trump vs. the Federal Judges Part 1 Annex…

Regulating Federal Judiciary Policy Making

On October 15, 1980, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, during the Second Session of the 96th US Congress , which convened on January 3, 1980, Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, signed the “Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 that became the Judicial Conduct Act and the Conference and Councils Law (Act)”  [1] The Act is the result of an epic struggle between the American people and the federal judges. The Act ended voluntary unsupervised self-regulation and impeachment as the only two methods of disciplining the federal judges. It did so by authorizing any person to file a complaint against a federal judge or federal judges, and requiring that those complaints be resolved. The Act created the position of presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Conference)  to supervise and control the processing of these complaints and review…

The Federal Government’s Monstrous Policy Making

The American people's war against federal judges and their subversion of justice commenced with the Rules Enabling Act of 1934.  This law failed and made things worse. Forty-six years later, the American people tried again with the Judicial Conduct Act of 1980. This law also failed and made things worse failed. In 2007 the House entered the Judicial Conduct Act of 2007. It was an attempt to amend the federal judicial code to define the crimes and misdemeanors for which a federal judge could be removed according to Articles II and III of the U.S. Constitution. The 2007 law  was written to make it easier to remove a federal judge from office.  As a result of this effort, the federal judges agreed on rules that would allow any person to file a complaint to impeach a federal judge.  This happened in 2008, 28 years after the signing of the Judicial…

Plan to Eliminate the “Notion of Parental Rights”

Behind the backs of every America, the federal government has fabricated and is enforcing a national anti-family anti-religion policy they call the "domestic relations and domestic violence expectation."  It exist and is being used nationwide against families in all 50 states and all 3,400 or so counties in America.  It is pure unadulterated evil.  In fact, law school professors and policy experts have gone to the extent of advocating what they call “notion” of parental rights be entirely abolished. This policy scheme blends into questions of the right of human beings to procreate without government approval.  

bottom of page