International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

Filing 62

MOTION by SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL to file amicus curiae brief (FRAP 29(e)) with consent of all parties on appeal within time allowed by FRAP 29(e).. Date and method of service: 03/31/2017 ecf. [1000053626] [17-1351] William Consovoy

Download PDF
No. 17-1351 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) respectfully moves for leave to file the attached amicus brief in support of appellants. Because all parties have consented to the filing of its brief, SLF does not believe this motion is technically necessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(2). But because some amici have expressed doubts about whether this appeal is the “initial consideration of a case on the merits,” Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(1), SLF files this motion out of an abundance of caution. SLF has a direct interest in this important case. SLF is a nonprofit, publicinterest law firm and policy center. Founded in 1976, SLF is dedicated to advocating for individual liberties in the courts of law and public opinion. SLF’s interest in this case stems from its profound commitment to protecting America’s legal heritage. That heritage includes the separation of powers—a critical safeguard of individual liberty. In its decision enjoining Executive Order 13,780, the district court undermined the separation of powers by overriding the President’s assessment of national security. SLF submits that its brief will be helpful to the Court in its consideration of this appeal. SLF’s brief addresses one particularly disturbing aspect of the decision below: the district court’s reliance on random statements from the 2016 presidential campaign to discern the Order’s “real purpose.” Consulting these statements intrudes on the prerogative of the Executive Branch by allowing individuals outside the Article II hierarchy to speak for the President. Worse still, the district court consulted these inappropriate sources to overturn the President’s national-security judgments and to question his fundamental character. None of this bodes well for the separation of powers. SLF’s brief will address the propriety of considering this type of evidence under the Establishment Clause—an issue that one court has suggested is decisive for appellees’ claim. See Aziz v. Trump, No. 11-cv-116, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017). For these reasons, SLF respectfully asks this Court to grant its motion. 2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ William S. Consovoy Kimberly S. Hermann SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION 2255 Sewell Mill Road, Suite 320 Marietta, GA 30062 (770) 977-2131 khermann@southeasternlegal.org . William S. Consovoy CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 (703) 243-9423 will@consovoymccarthy.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae March 31, 2017 3 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This motion complies with the type-volume limits because it contains 345 words, excluding the parts exempted by Rule 32(f). This motion complies with the typeface and type-style requirements because it was prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman. March 31, 2017 /s/ William S. Consovoy 4 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 31, 2017, this motion was served on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system. March 31, 2017 /s/ William S. Consovoy 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?