International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

Filing 38

MOTION by State of Alabama, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, State of Florida, State of Kansas, State of Louisiana, State of Montana, State of Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of South Dakota, State of Texas, State of West Virginia, and Phil Bryant for leave to file amicus curiae brief. Date and method of service: 03/27/2017 ecf. [1000049647] [17-1351] (JSN)

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1351 Doc: 37-3 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 6 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; HIAS, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and Its Clients; Middle East Studies Ass’n of North America, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and Its Members; Muhammed Meteab; Paul Harrison; Ibrahim Ahmed Mohomed; John Does #1 & 3; Jane Doe #2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. Trump, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States; Department of Homeland Security; Department of State; Office of the Director of National Intelligence, John F. Kelly, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State; Daniel R. Coats, in His Official Capacity as Acting Director of National Intelligence, Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF FOR THE STATES OF TEXAS, ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MONTANA, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WEST VIRGINIA, AND GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND A STAY PENDING APPEAL Ken Paxton Scott A. Keller Attorney General of Texas Solicitor General Jeffrey C. Mateer First Assistant Attorney General J. Campbell Barker Deputy Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel.: (512) 936-1700 Fax: (512) 474-2697 scott.keller@oag.texas.gov Ari Cuenin Assistant Solicitor General Appeal: 17-1351 Doc: 37-3 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 6 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici curiae the States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia, and Governor Phil Bryant of the State of Mississippi respectfully move for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of appellants. The parties consent to the proposed amicus brief, which accompanies this motion and a Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limit. 1. On March 6, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13,780, determin- ing that “the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209, 13,213 (Mar. 9, 2017). “In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures” required by the Order are completed, the Order states that “the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high.” Id. at 13,211. “Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing,” the Order imposes a “temporary pause on the entry of nationals” from these six countries, “subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers,” as described in the Order. Id. The Order also imposes a temporary restriction on aliens seeking entry under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Id. at 13,215-16. On March 15, 2017, the district court enjoined the Executive Order in part on the basis that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their Establishment Clause claim. 1 Appeal: 17-1351 Doc: 37-3 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 3 of 6 2. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 permits a State to file an amicus brief without the parties’ consent or leave of court “during a court’s initial consideration of a case on the merits.” Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(1), (2). Although the parties consent to the proposed amicus brief, that rule appears not to govern here both because the case is before the Court in a stay posture simultaneously with the “case on the merits,” and because the attached brief is submitted on behalf of twelve States as well as the Governor of Mississippi. See id. 29(a)(2) (no leave of Court required for amicus brief of a “state”). 3. Amici respectfully move for any necessary leave to file an amicus brief at this stage, in support of appellants and in support of their motion to stay pending appeal being considered simultaneously by the Court. The attached proposed brief includes material that is “desirable” and “relevant to the disposition of the case.” Id. 29(a)(3). The amicus brief provides an overview of the federal immigration laws against which plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims should be evaluated; explains that the Executive Order reflects a policy decision delegated to the Executive Branch expressly by Congress, and was issued after multiple federal officials drew public attention to serious flaws in the preexisting vetting scheme for aliens residing abroad who wish to enter this country; and draws the Court’s attention to authorities relevant to the extension of constitutional rights that plaintiffs advocate here. 4. This is a case of national interest with important and far-reaching foreignaffairs and national-security implications. Every State has a substantial interest in the health and welfare of their citizens, but the States and their elected officials 2 Appeal: 17-1351 Doc: 37-3 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 4 of 6 must rely on the federal Executive to determine when the entry of aliens should be suspended for public-safety reasons under a regime crafted by the States’ elected representatives in Congress. See generally Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2507 (2012). Amici thus share a substantial interest in the federal government having the latitude to make policy judgments reserved to it by statute, and inherent in this country’s nature as a sovereign, regarding the terms and conditions for whether aliens may enter the country. 5. Amici have also endeavored to assist the Court in resolving the weighty issues in this case in as few words as possible. The attached brief complies with the type-volume limitation for an amicus brief on the merits because it uses fewer than half of the 13,000 words that are allotted for appellants’ opening brief during the Court’s initial consideration of the case on the merits. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(1), (5), 32(a)(7)(B)(i). 6. The parties consent to the relief requested in this motion. 3 Appeal: 17-1351 Doc: 37-3 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 5 of 6 Conclusion Amici respectfully request leave to file the attached brief as amici curiae supporting appellants and a stay pending appeal. Respectfully submitted. Ken Paxton Attorney General of Texas Jeffrey C. Mateer First Assistant Attorney General s/ Scott A. Keller Scott A. Keller Solicitor General J. Campbell Barker Deputy Solicitor General Ari Cuenin Assistant Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel.: (512) 936-1700 Fax: (512) 474-2697 scott.keller@oag.texas.gov 4 Appeal: 17-1351 Doc: 37-3 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 6 of 6 Certificate of Conference This motion has been conferenced with counsel for the parties, and the parties consent to the filing of the proposed amicus brief for which leave to file is requested herein. s/ Scott A. Keller Scott A. Keller Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on March 27, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document 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 service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. s/ Scott A. Keller Scott A. Keller 5

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?