International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

Filing 147

AMICUS CURIAE/INTERVENOR BRIEF by Anti-Defamation League; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Union for Reform Judaism; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Women of Reform Judaism in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: Amicus Curiae. Method of Filing Paper Copies: hand delivery. Date Paper Copies Mailed, Dispatched, or Delivered to Court: 04/17/2017. [1000064640] [17-1351] David Mills

Download PDF
RECORD NO. 17-1351 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AT GREENBELT BRIEF OF THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, JEWISH COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM, CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS, AND WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES David E. Mills Alyssa T. Saunders COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 Tel.: 202-842-7800 Counsel for Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism Additional Counsel on Back Cover LANTAGNE LEGAL PRINTING 801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 644-0477 A Division of Lantagne Duplicating Services RECORD NO. 17-1351 Of counsel: John B. Harris Jeremy Goldman Caren Decter Jessica Smith Rayna Lopyan Lily Landsman-Roos Lakendra Barajas FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C. 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 David Bohm DANNA MCKINTRICK, P.C. 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Counsel for Jewish Council for Public Affairs Counsel for Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism Steven M. Freeman Lauren A. Jones Melissa Garlick Michael Lieberman ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 Doron F. Ezickson ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Anti-Defamation League UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case, except that a disclosure statement is not required from the United States, from an indigent party, or from a state or local government in a pro se case. In mandamus cases arising from a civil or bankruptcy action, all parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to the mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. If counsel is not a registered ECF filer and does not intend to file documents other than the required disclosure statement, counsel may file the disclosure statement in paper rather than electronic form. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. No. 17-1351 Caption: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald J. Trump Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26. 1, Anti-Defamation League (name of party/amicus) who is amicus in support of appellees, makes the following disclosure: (appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor) 1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO 2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations?  YES  NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO If yes, identify all such owners: -1- 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Rule 26.1(a)(2)(B))?  YES  NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question)  YES  NO If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member: 6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding?  YES  NO If yes, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors’ committee: Signature: /s/ David E. Mills Date: 4/19/2017 Counsel for: Anti-Defamation League CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ************************** I certify that on 4/19/2017 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below: /s/ David E. Mills (signature) 4/19/2017 (date) -2- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case, except that a disclosure statement is not required from the United States, from an indigent party, or from a state or local government in a pro se case. In mandamus cases arising from a civil or bankruptcy action, all parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to the mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. If counsel is not a registered ECF filer and does not intend to file documents other than the required disclosure statement, counsel may file the disclosure statement in paper rather than electronic form. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. No. 17-1351 Caption: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald J. Trump Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26. 1, Jewish Council for Public Affairs (name of party/amicus) who is amicus in support of appellees, makes the following disclosure: (appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor) 1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO 2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations?  YES  NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO If yes, identify all such owners: -3- 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Rule 26.1(a)(2)(B))?  YES  NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question)  YES  NO If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member: 6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding?  YES  NO If yes, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors’ committee: Signature: /s/ David E. Mills Date: 4/19/2017 Counsel for: Jewish Council for Public Affairs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ************************** I certify that on 4/19/2017 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below: /s/ David E. Mills (signature) 4/19/2017 (date) -4- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case, except that a disclosure statement is not required from the United States, from an indigent party, or from a state or local government in a pro se case. In mandamus cases arising from a civil or bankruptcy action, all parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to the mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. If counsel is not a registered ECF filer and does not intend to file documents other than the required disclosure statement, counsel may file the disclosure statement in paper rather than electronic form. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. No. 17-1351 Caption: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald J. Trump Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26. 1, Union for Reform Judaism (name of party/amicus) who is amicus in support of appellees, makes the following disclosure: (appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor) 1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO 2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations?  YES  NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO If yes, identify all such owners: -5- 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Rule 26.1(a)(2)(B))?  YES  NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question)  YES  NO If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member: 6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding?  YES  NO If yes, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors’ committee: Signature: /s/ David E. Mills Date: 4/19/2017 Counsel for: Union for Reform Judaism CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ************************** I certify that on 4/19/2017 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below: /s/ David E. Mills (signature) 4/19/2017 (date) -6- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case, except that a disclosure statement is not required from the United States, from an indigent party, or from a state or local government in a pro se case. In mandamus cases arising from a civil or bankruptcy action, all parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to the mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. If counsel is not a registered ECF filer and does not intend to file documents other than the required disclosure statement, counsel may file the disclosure statement in paper rather than electronic form. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. No. 17-1351 Caption: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald J. Trump Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26. 1, Central Conference of American Rabbis (name of party/amicus) who is amicus in support of appellees, makes the following disclosure: (appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor) 1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO 2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations?  YES  NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO If yes, identify all such owners: -7- 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Rule 26.1(a)(2)(B))?  YES  NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question)  YES  NO If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member: 6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding?  YES  NO If yes, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors’ committee: Signature: /s/ David E. Mills Date: 4/19/2017 Counsel for: Central Conference of American Rabbis CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ************************** I certify that on 4/19/2017 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below: /s/ David E. Mills (signature) 4/19/2017 (date) -8- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER INTERESTS Disclosures must be filed on behalf of all parties to a civil, agency, bankruptcy or mandamus case, except that a disclosure statement is not required from the United States, from an indigent party, or from a state or local government in a pro se case. In mandamus cases arising from a civil or bankruptcy action, all parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to the mandamus case. Corporate defendants in a criminal or post-conviction case and corporate amici curiae are required to file disclosure statements. If counsel is not a registered ECF filer and does not intend to file documents other than the required disclosure statement, counsel may file the disclosure statement in paper rather than electronic form. Counsel has a continuing duty to update this information. No. 17-1351 Caption: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald J. Trump Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26. 1, Women of Reform Judaism (name of party/amicus) who is amicus in support of appellees, makes the following disclosure: (appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor) 1. Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO 2. Does party/amicus have any parent corporations?  YES  NO If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity?  YES  NO If yes, identify all such owners: -9- 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Rule 26.1(a)(2)(B))?  YES  NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question)  YES  NO If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member: 6. Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding?  YES  NO If yes, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors’ committee: Signature: /s/ David E. Mills Date: 4/19/2017 Counsel for: Women of Reform Judaism CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ************************** I certify that on 4/19/2017 the foregoing document was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at the addresses listed below: /s/ David E. Mills (signature) 4/19/2017 (date) - 10 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF INTEREST ..................................................................................1  BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................3  ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5  I.  America’s Aspirations as a Refuge for the Oppressed .........................6  II.  America is at Its Best When It Honors Its Commitment to Its Core Values .........................................................................................11  III.  When America Closed Its Doors and Allowed Its Core Values to be Compromised, The Country Later Looked Back in Shame .......16  A.  The St. Louis and Jewish Refugees During the Holocaust .......16  B.  The Chinese Exclusion .............................................................22  C.  The Japanese Internment...........................................................27  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................30 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Aziz v. Trump, --F. Supp. 3d--, No. 117CV116LMBTCB, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) .............................................................................................. 29 Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1168 (2017) ............................................................................... 29 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .................................................................................................. 5 WV Ass’n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 5 Statutes Chinese Exclusion Act, ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58 (1882) (repealed 1943) ..........23, 24, 25 Civil Liberties Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4201, 4202, et seq. .......................................28, 29 Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (Pub. L. 80-774) .................................................... 11 Geary Act, ch. 60, 27 Stat. 525 (1892) (repealed 1943) .......................................... 25 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89-236; 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968) .................................................................. 13 Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) .............................................................. 13 Scott Act (1888), ch. 1064, 22 Stat. 504 (1888) (repealed 1943) ............................ 24 ii STATEMENT OF INTEREST The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), Jewish Council for Public Affairs (“JCPA”), Union for Reform Judaism (“URJ”), Central Conference of American Rabbis (“CCAR”), and Women of Reform Judaism (“WRJ”) respectfully submit this brief as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees’ (“Plaintiffs”) opposition to the appeal by the Government-Appellants (“Government”) of the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (“District Court”) in Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, ECF Nos. 149 and 150, dated March 15, 2017 and entered March 16, 2017, enjoining enforcement of Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13,780 entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). Accordingly, ADL, JCPA, URJ, CCAR, and WRJ (collectively, “Amici Curiae”) ask this Court to affirm the Memorandum Opinion and Order.1 Founded in 1913, ADL is a civil rights and human relations organization that works against intolerance and hatred, seeks to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and fights to secure justice and fair treatment for all people. Through its 26 1 In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(2), Amici Curiae state that all parties have consented to the filing of this amicus brief. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E), Amici Curiae state that no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief; and no person—other than Amici Curiae, their members, and their counsel—contributed money to preparing or submitting this brief. regional offices throughout the United States, ADL provides materials, programs and services to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry. Because of its history fighting discrimination, including prejudice toward immigrants and religious minorities, ADL can provide unique and important insights for the Court in addressing the Executive Order and in considering the historical context of the Executive Order’s provisions limiting or barring entry of refugees into the United States. JCPA is the coordinating body of 16 national Jewish organizations and 125 local Jewish federations and community relations councils. Founded in 1944, JCPA is dedicated to safeguarding the rights of Jews throughout the world; upholding the safety and security of the State of Israel; and protecting, preserving, and promoting a just, democratic, and pluralistic society. JCPA recognizes that the United States was founded by individuals who came here in search of religious and political freedom and economic opportunity, and that our country is based upon the ethical imperative to “welcome the stranger.” JCPA’s policies make every effort to institute uniform, compassionate and humane protocols and criteria to process refugee and asylum claims. JCPA works to ensure that those fleeing persecution are protected, and that the United States is accessible and welcoming toward those who wish to come here to work and live. Since 1990, JCPA has supported an open admissions policy that maintains the pluralistic character of American society and 2 does not prefer one national group at the expense of another. JCPA opposes the use of rigid caps on entry to the United States. Because of its work in this field, JCPA can offer unique and helpful information to this Court related to the harmful impact of the Executive Order on individuals fleeing persecution. The Union for Reform Judaism, whose 900 congregations across North America include 1.5 million Reform Jews, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, whose membership includes more than 2000 Reform rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism, representing more than 65,000 women in nearly 500 women's groups around the world, come to this issue out of our affirmation of the supreme value of human life and the equal dignity of every human being. We also share a longstanding commitment to the principle of religious liberty that has lifted up people of all faiths while providing more protections, rights and opportunities than have been known anywhere else throughout history. We are committed to fulfilling the mandate of the Prophets of Israel who bade us to pursue justice, seek peace, and build a society of loving-kindness among all of God's creatures. BACKGROUND The United States is a nation dedicated to the ideals of equality, liberty and justice. (See infra Section I.) Adhering to these principles under changing domestic and international circumstances is a continuous work in progress. Throughout the history of the United States, and frequently with respect to 3 immigration, our ideals have been tested. Sometimes the nation rises to meet the challenge, upholding the values that make America exceptional. (See infra Section II.) At other times, when prejudice and fear predominate over reason and compassion, we falter, often with devastating consequences. (See infra Section III.) We turned our backs on the St. Louis, a ship with nearly 1,000 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, condemning hundreds of them to their deaths; we passed laws that overtly excluded and discriminated against the Chinese; and we rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese Americans and interned them in prison camps in the 1940s. In each instance, when we later realized that we had strayed from our principles, we were left to apologize to the people who had suffered, or to their descendants, or to the memory of those who perished without descendants, in each case promising to learn from our mistakes and not to repeat them. ADL was created at a time when fear and prejudice against Jews were so great that a Jewish man, Leo Frank, was convicted of murder after a trial marked by overt anti-Semitism and then dragged from his prison cell and lynched in 1915. 2 2 See Wendell Rawls, Jr., After 69 Years of Silence, Lynching Victim is Cleared, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 8, 1982. After the lynching, armed mobs ran through the streets of Atlanta, forcing Jewish businesses to shutter their doors and about half of Georgia’s Jewish population to flee. Sixty years later, Georgia posthumously pardoned Frank on the grounds that the State failed to protect him while he was in its custody. See STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, Pardon of Leo Frank (Mar. 11, 1986), http://www.gpb.org/files/georgiastories/nsouthfrank176.jpg. See also Leonard 4 ADL regularly confronts discrimination against perceived outsiders, foreigners and strangers. As an organization founded by immigrants and sworn to protect the interests of religious and ethnic minorities, ADL believes that when our nation’s values are threatened, we are duty-bound to return to the founding principles that propelled this nation of immigrants – in the hope that future generations can celebrate and maintain our resolve. Furthermore, JCPA, URJ, CCAR, and WRJ believe that in accordance with our core American principles of equality, fairness and due process of law, those entering the country legally with the intention to settle here permanently should not be subjected to discriminatory administrative procedures. ARGUMENT A petitioner seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 3 With this brief, Amici Curiae provide insight to demonstrate Dinnerstein, Leo Frank Case, NEW GEORGIA ENCYCLOPEDIA, http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/leo-frank-case. 3 See also WV Ass’n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009) (“In order to receive a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 5 that the District Court correctly determined that Section 2(c) of the Executive Order, if not immediately enjoined, would cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, similar to other harms for which the United States has later apologized when it failed to live up to its values and the promise embodied in the Constitution. Amici Curiae also show that the District Court correctly determined the public interest lies squarely in support of injunctive relief, as America has always been at its best when it opens its doors to refugees and immigrants. I. America’s Aspirations as a Refuge for the Oppressed. The promise of America has been manifest since before the American Revolution. John Winthrop, while still on his transatlantic voyage to the New World, admonished the future colonists of Massachusetts always to remember that their new community would be “as a city upon a hill,” with the entire world watching.4 In fulfilling this vision, the country welcomed in its early years those disfavored and persecuted in their homelands based on their religious beliefs, including the Pilgrims, the Puritans and the Huguenots. Since then, our nation’s wisest leaders have been guided by Winthrop’s inspiring vision and have strived toward a more inclusive democracy. equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”) (internal quotation omitted). 4 John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity (1630). 6 The birth of the United States came in part because the Founders sought to cast off the shackles of Europe’s endless religious wars and sectarian conflict in order to form a more perfect union. In beseeching the country to separate from England, Thomas Paine recognized that Europe was “too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace” and believed the discovery of America had a divine purpose: “to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.” 5 Seven months later, the Declaration of Independence enunciated the “self-evident truths” that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Less quoted from the Declaration is the Founders’ burning grievance that the English King had restricted free immigration, having “endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that reason obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners [and] refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.” 6 After the United States won its independence, it faced the challenge of designing laws that embodied the enlightened vision of the new nation. In 1785, James Madison published “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” in opposition to a bill proposed to Virginia’s General Assembly that 5 6 Thomas Paine, Common Sense (Jan. 10, 1776). Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776). 7 would have levied a modest tax to support Christian education.7 Madison warned that any measure, no matter how slight, that gave a preference to one religion over another would constitute “a dangerous abuse of power” and would betray the vision of America as a shining city upon a hill: Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. . . . Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.8 Virginia recognized Madison’s wisdom. It rejected the establishment bill and instead adopted Thomas Jefferson’s “Statute for Religious Freedom,” which firmly separated church from state and enshrined the principles of religious liberty for all.9 When Madison went to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he fought for Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land, and it became a bedrock of the rights confirmed by the First Amendment. 7 James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments ¶ 9 (Jun. 20, 1785). 8 Id. (emphasis added). 9 Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom (Jan. 16, 1786). 8 Although the makeup of the United States was overwhelmingly Christian at its birth, our Founders were clear that the nation’s new laws prohibiting religious discrimination extended to people of all faiths and backgrounds. When Jefferson later reflected on his Statute for Religious Freedom, he extolled the broad application of the law, which was evidence that the legislators “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo [Hindu], and Infidel of every denomination.”10 The American values of accepting people into this country regardless of their faith, race or nationality have been celebrated by our leaders. In 1855, Abraham Lincoln confronted the burgeoning anti-immigrant “Know Nothing” movement, soundly rejecting the Know Nothings’ vision of an America in which “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” 11 He said of the movement: “When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure. . . .” 12 10 11 12 Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, Works 1:71 (1821). Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Joshua F. Speed (Aug. 24, 1855). Id. 9 The vision of the “shining city upon a hill” has also inspired poets. In 1856, Walt Whitman wrote: “These States are the amplest poem, here is not merely a nation but a teeming Nation of nations.” 13 Emma Lazarus’s immortal sonnet, enshrined on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, urges “ancient lands” to give America “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”14 These values have endured to the modern day. In his 1959 book, A Nation of Immigrants, future President John F. Kennedy studied the history of immigration in this country, both in terms of those subject to religious persecution and those facing other overpowering hardship. He wrote: “America has always been a refuge from tyranny. As a nation conceived in liberty, it has held out to the world the promise of respect for the rights of man.” 15 On the eve of his election as President in 1980, Ronald Reagan also took inspiration from Winthrop’s vision of America: These visitors to that city on the Potomac do not come as white or black, red or yellow; they are not Jews or Christians; conservatives or liberals; or Democrats or Republicans. They are Americans awed by 13 Walt Whitman, Preface to Leaves of Grass (1855). Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus (1883). 15 John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants 7 (Harper Perennial, January 2008). 14 10 what has gone before, proud of what for them is still . . . a shining city on a hill. 16 II. America is at Its Best When It Honors Its Commitment to Its Core Values. There are numerous examples where the United States has met its aspirations as Winthrop’s “shining city upon a hill,” opening itself to “anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” 17 At its best, the United States has been a beacon of hope for refugees from war-torn countries, victims of religious persecution, natural disasters or other emergencies, fulfilling what President Kennedy described in A Nation of Immigrants as the “natural humanitarian impulses of the American people which is in keeping with our traditions of shelter to the homeless and refuge for the oppressed.” 18 Indeed, many of these refugees have contributed immeasurably to the fabric of America. With the Truman Directive in 1945, and the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, the United States – for the first time since its founding – began explicitly to seek to become a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution, as the first Americans had done hundreds of years earlier. 19 President Truman led the assistance and reconstruction 16 Ronald Reagan, Election Eve Address, (Nov. 3, 1980). Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address to the Nation, (Jan. 11, 1989). 18 Kennedy, supra note 15 at 46. 19 David W. Haines, “Learning From our Past: The Refugee Experience in the United States,” AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, Nov. 25, 2015, 17 11 effort to resettle hundreds of thousands of European Jews and others displaced from their home countries who could not return after World War II. 20 These new laws gave truth to Thomas Paine’s prophecy that the United States would “open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.” The refugees welcomed to the United States during or after World War II have made immeasurable contributions to politics, science, literature, music, art, and social and scientific studies. Refugees from that period include Madeleine Albright, Hannah Arendt, Bela Bartok, Marc Chagall, Marlene Dietrich, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Henry Kissinger, Raphael Lemkin, Thomas Mann, Vladimir Nabokov, Claude Levi-Strauss, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and Billy Wilder. American culture and science stand on the shoulders of many of these contributions. With the onset of the Cold War, Congress began assisting groups of refugees from Communist regimes including those seeking freedom from the Soviet Union, Cuba, Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia, as well as those fleeing Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War. The openness to asylum seekers reflected in these efforts http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/refugee-experience-unitedstates. 20 Id. In so doing, as set forth below, the United States began the process of making amends for the tragic consequences of its turning away Jewish refugees during World War II, dooming many of them to death or excruciating years in concentration camps. 12 also demonstrated a growing recognition that many refugees have significant education, skills, strong family structures and commitment to hard work and success that make them ideal new citizens. 21 Examples of notable refugees that came to the United States from this period include: Sergey Brin, Joseph Brodsky, Gloria Estefan, Milos Forman, Wyclef Jean, Miriam Makeba, Thomas Peterffy, Regina Spektor and David Tran. In the wake of the publication of A Nation of Immigrants, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from South America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe, abolishing the quotas that had been set based on national origin. In 1968, the United States was one of the first countries to sign the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, a key treaty in international refugee law. The 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment ultimately permitted approximately 500,000 Jews, evangelical Christians and Catholics to escape religious persecution in the former Soviet Union by coming to the United States. And in 1980, Congress signed the Refugee Act, which standardized the resettlement process and services for all refugees admitted to the United States. 21 Haines, supra note 19. 13 Since the 1980s, the United States has resettled refugees from Darfur fleeing genocide and violence; refugees from Bhutan forced out of their country; and Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan refugees displaced by war. In addition, the U.S. has facilitated the naturalization of Hmong veteran refugees who served in Laos in support of U.S. forces and during the Vietnam War; 22 assisted the children of Vietnamese re-education camp survivors through the “McCain Amendment;” assisted former Soviet and Indochinese nationals with a credible fear of persecution through the “Lautenberg Amendment;” and assisted Iranian religious minorities through the “Specter Amendment.” 23 Since 1975, the U.S. has settled over 3 million refugees. 24 It should come as no surprise, then, that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by recent immigrants or their children (even though such immigrants account for roughly 10.5 percent of the U.S. population); or that the revenue generated by these companies is greater than the GDP of every country in the world outside the U.S. except China and Japan; or that successful global 22 William J. Clinton, “Statement on Signing the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 2000” (May 26, 2000). 23 Andorra Bruno, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL31269, “Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy” (Nov. 30, 2016). 24 Ruth Igielnick and Jens Manuel Krogstad, “Where Refugees to the U.S. PEW RESEARCH CENTER, (Feb. 3, 2017), Come From,” http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/03/where-refugees-to-the-u-scome-from/. 14 companies founded by American immigrants and refugees or their children span all sectors of the economy, including some of the most valuable brands in the world (Apple, Google, eBay, AT&T, General Electric, IBM, McDonald’s).25 At least 18 percent of all scientists living in the U.S. are immigrants or refugees, 26 and over 25 percent of all physicians and surgeons in the United States are born abroad.27 And as of 2016, roughly 2 million veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces living in the U.S. — of a total 18.8 million — are refugees/immigrants or have refugee/immigrant parents.28 As President Kennedy observed, “[t]here is no part of our nation that has not been touched by our immigrant background.” 29 25 P’SHIP FOR THE NEW AMERICAN ECONOMY, “The ‘New American’ Fortune 500,” (June 2011), http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/new-americanfortune-500-june-2011.pdf. 26 Flora Lan, Katherine Hale, and Emilda Rivers, “Immigrants’ Growing Presence in the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: Education and Employment Characteristics in 2013,” NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND ENG’G STATISTICS (Sept. 2015), https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15328/nsf15328.pdf. 27 Nicole Fisher, “25% of Physicians Are Born Outside the U.S. Can Immigration Reform Fix The Shortage?” FORBES: PHARMA & HEALTHCARE (Jul. 12, 2016), http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2016/07/12/25-of-docs-areborn-outside-of-the-u-s-can-immigration-reform-solve-our-docshortage/#446de1bc702b. 28 Jie Song and Jeanne Batalova, “Immigrant Veterans in the United States,” POLICY INST. (Oct. 13, 2016), MIGRATION http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrant-veterans-united-states. 29 Kennedy, supra note 15, at 3. 15 The Executive Order betrays that history, and would exclude the talents, ideas and work ethic of immigrants and refugees who, just as with generations past, would help build and protect our nation and strengthen our economy. III. When America Closed Its Doors and Allowed Its Core Values to be Compromised, The Country Later Looked Back in Shame. In sharp contrast to the times when the United States has shown its “natural humanitarian impulses,” there have been times when the country has closed itself off and succumbed to fear or bigotry, with tragic consequences. Sometimes the victims of this xenophobia and prejudice were Jews (the St. Louis tragedy and the denial of visas) or other religious minorities, sometimes they were from nations that were regarded as undesirable (the Chinese exclusion) and sometimes they were groups the government assumed to be disloyal (the Japanese internment during World War II). In each case, the United States apologized years later, after it was too late. A. The St. Louis and Jewish Refugees During the Holocaust The tragedy of the vessel St. Louis illustrates the devastating consequences that can result when the United States turns its back on refugees in need. In May 1939, on the eve of World War II and after Kristallnacht,30 the St. Louis left 30 Kristallnacht, or the “Night of Broken Glass,” occurred in November 1938, when almost 100 Jews were murdered, countless more were attacked, and as many as 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to concentration camps. See 16 Hamburg, Germany, carrying 937 passengers, nearly all of whom were Jews fleeing Nazi persecution. The ship was headed to Havana, Cuba with the hope of having its passengers granted sanctuary in the United States. Prior to the ship’s departure, most of the Jewish passengers had obtained valid paperwork permitting their entry to Cuba and had also applied for U.S. visas, planning to stay in Cuba only until their entry to the U.S. was approved. By the time the St. Louis arrived in Cuba on May 27, 1939, however, the Cuban president had invalidated most of the passengers’ travel certificates. 31 While United Statesbased Jewish organizations negotiated with Cuban officials to persuade them to admit the other passengers, the United States refused to intercede formally on the refugees’ behalf or publicly pressure the Cuban government to admit them. 32 After negotiations with Cuba failed, the St. Louis headed towards Miami in June 1939, coming within sight of the Florida coastline. Despite pleas from passengers on board, President Roosevelt and the State Department refused to HOLOCAUST ENCYCLOPEDIA, U.S. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, “Kristallnacht,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005201. 31 HOLOCAUST ENCYCLOPEDIA, U.S HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, “Voyage of the St. Louis,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267. 32 Id. See also Dara Lind, How America’s Rejection of Jews Fleeing Nazi Germany Haunts Our Refugee Policy Today, VOX (Jan. 27, 2017, 8:12 AM). http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14412082/refugees-historyholocaust. 17 accept the Jewish refugees into the United States, 33 reflecting anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic sentiments prevailing at the time. 34 A State Department telegram to a passenger on the ship explained the government’s position that the passengers must “await their turns on the [visa] waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States.” 35 Ultimately, the United States refused entry to the passengers of the St. Louis, forcing it to sail back to Europe, as this archival photograph shows:36 33 Kristine Guerra, What the U.S. Learned from Turning Away Refugees who POST (Jan. 29, 2017) Fled the Nazis, WASH. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/29/what-the-u-slearned-from-turning-away-refugees-who-fled-thenazis/?utm_term=.e91085b6c047. 34 A Gallup poll taken in January 1939 asked Americans if the government should allow 10,000 refugee children, mostly Jewish, from Germany to be taken care of in American homes; 61 percent were opposed. See Ishaan Tharoor, What Americans Thought of Jewish Refugees on the Eve of World War II, WASH. POST (Nov. 17, 2015) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/whatamericans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-warii/?utm_term=.a67eb4b68817. 35 See “Voyage of the St. Louis,” supra note 31. 36 See Lind, supra note 32. Recent images of refugee-seekers being sent back to the countries they fled recall the St. Louis passengers who were turned away within sight of U.S. sanctuary. 18 Historians estimate that more than a quarter of the St. Louis passengers – 254 people – were killed in the Holocaust, including a number at Auschwitz, after being refused entry to the U.S. 37 On Holocaust Remembrance Day, January 27, 2017, a Twitter account (@Stl_Manifest, accessible https://twitter.com/stl_manifest), shared passengers’ stories, including: 37 See “Voyage of the St. Louis,” supra note 31. 19 at In April 2009, at a commemoration for Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) at the U.S. Capitol attended by the President and members of Congress, Fred S. Zeidman, chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, recalled the “infamous ship called the St. Louis” and reminded those gathered of the “shameful result” and the consequences of inaction.38 Three years later, the United States government issued a formal apology for the country’s refusal to 38 AMERICAN JEWISH JOINT DISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE ARCHIVES, “Fred S. Zeidman’s Remarks, Days of Remembrance Commemoration” (Apr. 23, 2009), http://archives.jdc.org/assets/documents/stlouis_fredszeidmanremarks2009.pdf. 20 provide refuge for the Jewish passengers aboard the St. Louis. 39 Addressing the 14 surviving passengers, a State Department official stated: “To the survivors of the MS St. Louis, on behalf of the president and Secretary of State, I am honored to say what we should’ve said so long ago, welcome.” 40 The passengers of the St. Louis were not the only victims of America’s refusal to grant visas to Jews and other minorities during the Holocaust. Before the St. Louis sailed, Congress rejected a bill that would have allowed 20,000 imperiled German children to settle in this country. Opponents took an “America-First” approach to reject the proposal, arguing that America should first focus on its own needy and homeless citizens. The wife of the United States immigration commissioner, Laura Delano Houghteling, refused to be swayed by the children’s vulnerability, testifying that “20,000 charming children would all too soon grow into 20,000 ugly adults.”41 Countless Jews denied visas to enter the United States ultimately perished in Nazi concentration camps, including the Dutch teenager Anne Frank.42 Historian Richard Breitman reminds us that if not for an 39 Kamrel Eppinger, State Department apologizes to Jewish refugees, SCRIPPS HOWARD FOUNDATION WIRE (Sep. 26, 2012) http://www.shfwire.com/statedepartment-apologizes-jewish-refugees/. 40 Id. 41 See Lind, supra note 32. 42 In 1938, Otto Frank first applied for immigrant visas for himself, his wife Edith, and their two daughters Margot and Anne. See Richard Breitman, Blocked 21 immigration policy steeped in fear, an elderly Anne Frank could still be living in the United States today. 43 Instead she was murdered at Bergen-Belsen, made immortal by the teenage diary that survived her. The Executive Order – signed on Holocaust Remembrance Day – ignores the tragic lessons our nation learned from turning our back on Jewish refugees during World War II, and would again close America’s doors to some of the world’s most vulnerable refugees and immigrants. B. The Chinese Exclusion In the late 1860s and early 1870s, Chinese immigrants, including both skilled and unskilled laborers, enjoyed easy passage to this country under the terms of a treaty between the United States and China.44 Even so, annual Chinese by National Security Fears?: The Frank Family and Shifts in American Refugee Policy, 1938-1941, YIVO INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH RESEARCH (Feb. 14, 2007), https://www.yivo.org/cimages/richardbreitman-ottofrank-whitepaper.pdf?c=. The family was placed on a waiting list, which by 1939 had grown to 300,000. Id. at 2. Despite having multiple people willing to provide affidavits for the Frank family, Otto faced impediments including the quota on German refugees, the requirement of proof of booked transportation to the U.S. and verification that no close relatives remained in German territories. Id. at 5. Ultimately, the Frank family was denied refugee status, and Anne, along with her mother and sister, all died in the concentration camps. 43 Elahe Izadi, Anne Frank and her family were also denied entry as refugees to the U.S., WASH. POST, (Nov. 24, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/24/anne-frankand-her-family-were-also-denied-entry-as-refugees-to-the-us/?utm_term=.6e028f50e0dd. 44 See H.R. Res. 683, 114th Cong. (as passed by House, June 18, 2012). See also Kennedy, supra note 15 at 40. 22 immigration never exceeded 40,000 people, and in 1890 there were only 107,000 Chinese nationals living in the United States. 45 Nevertheless, hostility towards the Chinese escalated within certain segments of the American public, who blamed wage decreases and other economic difficulties on Chinese labor.46 Although Government leaders initially resisted constituent pressure to stop Chinese immigration,47 a “campaign of organized violence against Chinese communities took form, and the hysteria led to public pressure too violent to be resisted.” 48 The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, signed into law by President Arthur, was the “first federal law ever passed excluding a group of immigrants solely on the basis of race or nationality.” 49 The thrust of the Chinese Exclusion Act was that it barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States for 10 years, 50 but it also put in place other discriminatory systems, including a registry for all Chinese who were then legally present in the United States.51 Additionally, if Chinese 45 Kennedy, supra note 15 at 40. HARVARD UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OPEN COLLECTIONS PROGRAM, Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/exclusion.html. 47 President Arthur initially vetoed the bill, which he viewed as incompatible with the Burlingame Treaty. See Chester A. Arthur, “Veto of the Chinese Exclusion Act” (Apr. 4, 1882). 48 Kennedy, supra note 15 at 41. 49 S. J. Res. 23, Res. Ch. 134 (Ca. 2014). 50 Chinese Exclusion Act, ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58 (1882) (repealed 1943) (hereinafter “Chinese Exclusion Act.”). 51 Id. 46 23 laborers already in the country wished to leave temporarily, they had to obtain a “certificate” permitting them to return. 52 The Act also prohibited all courts from naturalizing people of Chinese origin, regardless of whether they were legally in this country. 53 These sweeping restrictions were explained only by this statement in the law’s preamble: “in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof[.]” 54 The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first of a series of laws designed to exclude the Chinese from the United States, both physically and politically. The Scott Act of 188855 precluded Chinese laborers from leaving and reentering the United States entirely and cancelled all “certificates” previously issued under the Exclusion Act. 56 This cancellation prevented the return of approximately 20,000 Chinese who had lawfully-obtained certificates permitting them to re-enter. 57 It also froze the migration of an additional 600 Chinese who were en route to the 52 Id. See also S. J. Res. 23, Res. Ch. 134 (Ca. 2014) Chinese Exclusion Act, § 14. See also S. J. Res. 23, Res. Ch. 134 (Ca. 2014). 54 Chinese Exclusion Act, preamble. 55 The Scott Act (1888), ch. 1064, 22 Stat. 504 (1888) (repealed 1943). 56 S. Res. 201, 112th Cong. (as passed by Senate, Oct. 6, 2011). See also H.R. Res. 683, 114th Cong. 57 S. Res. 201, 112th Cong. 53 24 United States at the time of its enactment. 58 When the Chinese Exclusion Act was set to expire in 1892, Congress passed the Geary Act, 59 which extended Chinese exclusion for another 10 years and introduced additional restrictions.60 It was not until 1943 that Congress finally began repealing certain – and eventually all – of these discriminatory laws. 61 The repeal of the Chinese exclusionary laws was a first step in reestablishing the ideals of the Founders. In October 2011, the United States Senate finally issued an apology for the Chinese Exclusion Act and other laws.62 A similar report was announced by the United States House of Representatives 63 and, later, by the California State Legislature.64 In each instance, the government noted that the Chinese Exclusion Act and its companion laws were “incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all persons are created equal[.]” 65 The announcements expressed a commitment to 58 Id. The Geary Act, ch. 60, 27 Stat. 525 (1892) (repealed 1943). 60 S. Res. 201, 112th Cong. 61 Id. 62 Id. 63 H.R. Res. 683, 114th Cong. 64 S. J. Res. 23, Res. Ch. 134 (Ca. 2014). 65 S. Res. 201, 112th Cong. See also S. J. Res. 23, Res. Ch. 134 (Ca. 2014) (pointing out that, “[p]aradoxically, the very same year that the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, financing abroad was completed for the Statute of Liberty. . . . While the Statute of Liberty was being built, legislators were contradicting those 59 25 “diversity in the United States that contributes to the country’s economic, cultural, technological, academic, and political growth[.]” 66 In its apology, the California legislature observed: The Chinese Exclusion Act set the precedent for racist foreign and national policy that led to broader exclusion laws and fostered an environment of racism that quickly led to the Jim Crow laws of the 1880s, and further segregation legislation that would tear our nation apart through most of the 20th Century[.] 67 Simply put, our nation’s leaders recognized that racism breeds racism, and any governmental policies that conflict with the founding ideals of this country cannot be allowed to stand. The Executive Order is such a policy. very ideals by discriminating against Chinese immigrants and lobbying Congress to do the same”). 66 S. J. Res. 23, Res. Ch. 134 (Ca. 2014). 67 Id. 26 C. The Japanese Internment The internment of Japanese-Americans was authorized by Executive Order 9066, 68 which President Roosevelt issued in early 1942, 10 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack. Executive Order 9066 gave to the Secretary of War and the military commanders to whom he delegated authority, the power to exclude any and all persons, citizens and aliens from designated areas in order to provide security against sabotage and espionage.69 Executive Order 9066 makes no reference to the Japanese, just as the current Executive Order does not reference Muslims. However, within a week of the issuance of the order, Lt. General John L. DeWitt issued the first of 108 relocation orders resulting in the forcible evacuation of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans, including 70,000 citizens, to internment camps in desolate areas of the United States for the duration of World War II. 70 The justification for Executive Order 9066 was “military necessity.” 71 However, Congress has since acknowledged that “these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and . . . were motivated largely by racial 68 7 Fed. Reg. 1407 (Feb. 19, 1942). 69 Id. 70 See Roger Daniels, Concentration Camps USA: Japanese Americans and World War II, 33, 104 (1972). 71 U.S. COMM’N ON WARTIME RELOCATION AND INTERNMENT OF CIVILIANS, REPORT: PERSONAL JUSTICE DENIED at 6-8 (96th Cong.) (1982). 27 prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” 72 This conclusion was bolstered by the absence of any effort to invoke Executive Order 9066 to intern German Americans or Italian Americans.73 In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued a proclamation acknowledging that “not only was that evacuation wrong, but Japanese Americans were and are loyal Americans.” In 1982, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians issued a report entitled, “Personal Justice Denied.” The report set the stage for President Ronald Reagan’s historic signing in 1988 of the Civil Liberties Act, which offered a formal apology and reparations for the “grave injustice” of evacuating, relocating and interning Japanese Americans. 74 In his remarks on signing the Act, President Reagan made clear that the internment of Japanese Americans was a “grave wrong.”75 Congress too acknowledged that this measure – carried out under the false banner of “national security” – amounted to a 72 50 U.S.C. § 4202. Anti-Japanese bias was palpable: polls taken in 1944 indicated that more than 60 percent of Americans thought that whites should be prioritized in hiring decisions over Japanese Americans. Stephen White, “Many Americans Support Trump’s Immigration Order; Many Americans Backed Japanese Internment Camps, Too,” WASH. POST (Feb. 2, 2017). 73 See U.S. COMM’N ON WARTIME RELOCATION AND INTERNMENT OF CIVILIANS, supra note 71 at 3. 74 See 50 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq. 75 Ronald Reagan, Remarks on Signing the Bill Providing Restitution for the Wartime Internment of Japanese-American Civilians (Aug. 10, 1988). 28 “fundamental violation[] of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of [] individuals of Japanese ancestry” and caused “enormous damages, both material and intangible, . . . which resulted in significant human suffering[.]” 76 Like Executive Order 9066, the Executive Order here invokes national security as its justification. Leaving aside the legal standards regarding how much deference such an invocation deserves, the history of the Japanese internment counsels that we must take an especially hard look at actions that undermine core values and freedoms in the name of national security. In this regard, we note the statements by other federal courts that there is “no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States” and that the sequence of events leading up to the Executive Order raises questions as to whether national security concerns in this regard are “rational.” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1168 (2017); see also Aziz v. Trump, --F. Supp. 3d--, No. 117CV116LMBTCB, 2017 WL 580855, at *3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017). 76 50 U.S.C. § 4202. 29 CONCLUSION ADL, JCPA, URJ, CCAR, and WRJ believe that the District Court’s decision to enjoin Section 2(c) of the Executive Order is consistent with the principles underlying the Constitution. The District Court correctly determined that, absent injunctive relief, there will almost certainly be irreparable harm to countless people, just as there was when the United States turned away the desperate passengers of the St. Louis, excluded immigrants from China and interned Japanese Americans. Just as in all these situations, an apology years later is woefully insufficient to address the damage done. Amici Curiae believe that enforcing the Executive Order risks once again sacrificing the nation’s core values in favor of prejudice and fear – a sacrifice that history has repeatedly proven has profound consequences both to the persons targeted by the Order and to our stillvibrant vision of the shining city upon a hill. 30 Dated: April 19, 2017 Respectfully submitted, Of counsel: John B. Harris Jeremy Goldman Caren Decter Jessica Smith Rayna Lopyan Lily Landsman-Roos Lakendra Barajas FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C. 488 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 Counsel for Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism /s/ David E. Mills David E. Mills Alyssa T. Saunders Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 Telephone: (202) 842-7800 Counsel for Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism Steven M. Freeman Lauren A. Jones Melissa Garlick Michael Lieberman ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 605 Third Avenue New York, New York 10158 Doron F. Ezickson ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 1100 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1020 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Anti-Defamation League David Bohm DANNA MCKINTRICK, P.C. 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Counsel for Jewish Council for Public Affairs 31 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Effective 12/01/2016 No. ____________ 17-1351 Intl Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump Caption: __________________________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT Type-Volume Limit, Typeface Requirements, and Type-Style Requirements Type-Volume Limit for Briefs: Appellant’s Opening Brief, Appellee’s Response Brief, and Appellant’s Response/Reply Brief may not exceed 13,000 words or 1,300 lines. Appellee’s Opening/Response Brief may not exceed 15,300 words or 1,500 lines. A Reply or Amicus Brief may not exceed 6,500 words or 650 lines. Amicus Brief in support of an Opening/Response Brief may not exceed 7,650 words. Amicus Brief filed during consideration of petition for rehearing may not exceed 2,600 words. Counsel may rely on the word or line count of the word processing program used to prepare the document. The word-processing program must be set to include headings, footnotes, and quotes in the count. Line count is used only with monospaced type. See Fed. R. App. P. 28.1(e), 29(a)(5), 32(a)(7)(B) & 32(f). Type-Volume Limit for Other Documents if Produced Using a Computer: Petition for permission to appeal and a motion or response thereto may not exceed 5,200 words. Reply to a motion may not exceed 2,600 words. Petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition or other extraordinary writ may not exceed 7,800 words. Petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc may not exceed 3,900 words. Fed. R. App. P. 5(c)(1), 21(d), 27(d)(2), 35(b)(2) & 40(b)(1). Typeface and Type Style Requirements: A proportionally spaced typeface (such as Times New Roman) must include serifs and must be 14-point or larger. A monospaced typeface (such as Courier New) must be 12-point or larger (at least 10½ characters per inch). Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5), 32(a)(6). This brief or other document complies with type-volume limits because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. R. 32(f) (cover page, disclosure statement, table of contents, table of citations, statement regarding oral argument, signature block, certificates of counsel, addendum, attachments): 6,487 [✔] this brief or other document contains [ ] this brief uses monospaced type and contains [state number of] words [state number of] lines This brief or other document complies with the typeface and type style requirements because: [ ] this brief or other document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using [identify word processing program] in [identify font size and type style]; or microsoft word Times New Roman [ ] this brief or other document has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using [identify word processing program] in [identify font size and type style]. (s) David E. Mills Party Name Anti-Defamation League, et al. Dated: 4/19/2017 11/14/2016 SCC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 19, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system. COOLEY LLP /s/ David E. Mills David E. Mills 144212703

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?