The Baltimore Coin Test Case

Last November, after the decision over the FOIA case, it was announced, "the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild still plans to pursue a test case regarding whether those import restrictions were promulgated in an arbitrary and capricious fashion".

Now a Washington-based attorney, Jason H. Ehrenberg of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, has filed an action on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) (plaintiff) against the US Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; the Commissioner,  US Customs and Border Protection; the US Department of State; and, the Assistant Secretary of State (educational and cultural Affairs), United States Department of State. (The pdf can be found here.)

Ehrenberg's expertise lies, according to his firm's website, in "employee benefits, employment and civil rights law, and higher education law, representing both individual and organizational clients on a broad spectrum of issues within the employment relationship".

Apart from wanting the return of coins brought into the United States apparently without the appropriate paper trail, the action seeks:

ACCG requests the Court: (a) to declare that the decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type is arbitrary and capricious because, pursuant to applicable law, State failed to disclose to Congress a rational basis for the reason, or reasons, behind State’s decision to reject the advice of its own advisory committee and also in departing from prior agency practice; (b) to declare that the decisions to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of both Cypriot and Chinese type are also arbitrary and capricious because they are both contrary to law and the product of bias, prejudgment and ex parte contact; and (c) to declare that under the applicable statutes Customs must prove that the Cypriot or Chinese coins at issue were illicitly removed from Cypriot or Chinese find spots before they may be forfeited.

However this "test case" is more than about Cyprus and China.

There is an attack on the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA):

Upon information and belief, the Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”) is a nonprofit group that promotes professional archaeology. Upon further information and belief, although the AIA maintains it has some 200,000 members, this figure is derived from the circulation of its magazine, Archaeology. In contrast, upon further information and belief, a small number of professional archaeologists – many of whose careers are dependent on excavation permits issued by Cultural Nationalist states like China, Cyprus and Italy—actually govern the AIA and formulate its public stances. According to one such pronouncement, the AIA maintains that all unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed to be “stolen” and repatriated to their supposed countries of origin.

There is a comment on the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI):

Upon information and belief, the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (“CAARI”) is a nonprofit group formed to promote the study of Cypriot archaeology and related disciplines. Upon further information and belief, the careers of many CAARI associated archaeologists are dependent upon the Cypriot Department of Antiquities issuing them excavation permits. Upon further information and belief, CAARI also maintains that all unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed to be “stolen” and repatriated to their supposed countries of origin.

I note that among the grumbles in the submitted action is this one:

Allowing Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to influence the decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type, though he had just received an award from Greek and Greek Cypriot interests and had displayed bias in favor of such interests.

I have commented on this issue before. I asked then:

What about organisations that reward congressmen for supporting "collector rights" or intervening "in issues of importance to ancient coin collectors"? Or is that different?

Given the recent comments about academic journals by a partner at Bailey & Ehrenberg, it is curious to see that one of the authorities cited in the legal papers is Wikipedia (section 61).

It is interesting to note that among the cases cited was one where "Supreme Court ruled agency’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to offer any reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases caused or contributed to climate change" (section 132). Does Mr Ehrenberg side with those who believe that there is no climate change? Or does he prefer to drive a "gas-guzzler" rather than do his little bit to save the planet?

And does he care if archaeological sites on Cyprus are being looted to provide archaeological material for the market? Or is the issue about the right to collect and to own antiquities?