Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump

Filing 163

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28(j)) by Appellees Grannaz Amirjamshidi, Arab American Association of New York, John Doe #4, John Doe #5, John Does #1 & 3, HIAS, Inc., International Refugee Assistance Project, Mohamad Mashta, Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc., Shapour Shirani, Yemeni-American Merchants Association and Fakhri Ziaolhagh in 17-2231. [1000213949]. [17-2231, 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240] Omar Jadwat [Entered: 12/22/2017 10:18 PM]

December 22, 2017
Patricia S. Connor
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex
1100 East Main Street, Suite 501
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3517
Re: International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
Nos. 17-2231(L), 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240 (Consolidated) (en banc)
Dear Ms. Connor:
The en banc Court heard argument in these consolidated cases on
December 8, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) and L.R. 28(e), the
plaintiffs respectfully submit the opinion that the Ninth Circuit issued
today in Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 17-17168, the parallel litigation
challenging the same Presidential Proclamation, as supplemental
authority.

National Office
125 Broad Street, 18th floor
New York NY 10014
[phone]
aclu.org

The Ninth Circuit’s per curiam opinion affirms, on statutory grounds, the
district court’s preliminary injunction with regard to individuals with a
credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the
United States. It rejects the various contentions regarding justiciability
that the government advanced both in Hawai‘i and in this case. Slip Op.
14-25; IRAP Br. 14-19. On the merits, it holds that the Proclamation
exceeds the President’s delegated authority under the Immigration and
Nationality Act; fails to provide an adequate basis for its sweeping entry
restrictions; and violates the statute’s prohibition of nationality
discrimination in visa issuance. Slip Op. 26-61; IRAP Br. 22-41. And it
finds that the remaining preliminary injunction factors justify issuance of
the injunction for reasons equally applicable here. Slip Op. 61-66; IRAP
Br. 55-57.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit’s decision fully supports affirmance in this
case.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
Counsel for Plaintiffs
in Nos. 17-2231 & 17-2240
cc: All counsel via ECF