Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump

Filing 6

MOTION by Appellants Daniel R. Coats, Department of State, Elaine C. Duke, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Rex Tillerson and Donald J. Trump in 17-2231, Appellants Elaine C. Duke, Kevin K. McAleenan, James McCament, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Rex Tillerson and Donald J. Trump in 17-2232, Appellants Elaine C. Duke, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Department of State in 17-2233 to accelerate case processing.. Date and method of service: 10/20/2017 ecf. [1000178181] [17-2231, 17-2232, 17-2233] Lowell Sturgill [Entered: 10/20/2017 08:12 PM]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
____________________________________
)
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
)
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
)
)
v.
)
No. 17-2231 (L)
)
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity )
as President of the United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants-Appellants.
)
____________________________________)
IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS
)
BORDERS, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
)
)
v.
)
No. 17-2232
)
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity )
as President of the United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants-Appellants.
)
____________________________________)
EBLAL ZAKZOK, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
)
)
v.
)
No. 17-2233
)
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity )
as President of the United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants-Appellants.
)
____________________________________)

MOTION TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING
MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
These consolidated appeals concern Presidential Proclamation No. 9645,
“Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into
the United States by Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats,” 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161
(Sept. 27, 2017). The Proclamation was issued after the Department of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Department of State and Director of National
Intelligence, conducted a global review of foreign governments’ informationsharing practices and risk factors, culminating in a decision by the Acting Secretary
of Homeland Security to recommend that the President impose entry restrictions on
certain nationals of eight countries that were deemed inadequate or otherwise
problematic. The Proclamation imposes country-specific restrictions that, in the
President’s judgment, would most likely “encourage cooperation” in information
sharing and “protect the United States until such time as improvements occur.” Id.
at 45,164.
On October 17, 2017, the district court issued a preliminary injunction that
bars the defendants (except the President) from enforcing Section 2 of the
Proclamation to exclude nationals of the identified countries except for North Korea
and Venezuela, and except with respect to individuals who lack a credible claim of
a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, as defined in the
court’s accompanying memorandum opinion.
2

The district court granted the

preliminary injunction on a global basis, rendering it applicable to “all places,
including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in
the issuance of visas, with the above exceptions, pending further orders from [the]
court.”
Earlier today, the government filed notices of appeal in each of these three
cases, which have been consolidated for purposes of appeal, and moved for an
emergency stay pending appeal and an administrative stay.
For the reasons set forth below, defendants-appellants respectfully request
that the Court adopt the following briefing schedule for the remainder of the briefing
regarding the government’s stay motion:
Response to Motion:

October 24, 2017

Reply:

October 26, 2017

This proposed schedule gives plaintiffs ample time to respond to the
government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, and is appropriate given the urgency
of the issues at stake, which involve the district court’s second-guessing of a
presidential determination that country-specific restrictions on the entry of aliens is
necessary to encourage information-sharing by those countries and to protect against
risks to the national security.
Plaintiffs in each of these consolidated appeals object to this motion and
propose instead that their response to the motion be due October 27 and a reply be
3

due October 30. We respectfully believe that allowing a full week for plaintiffs to
respond to our stay motion is unnecessary and fails to reflect the gravity of the issues
presented in these appeals and the need to protect the public interest while the Court
considers the appeals.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the Court to issue a briefing
schedule making a response to the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal
in these consolidated appeals due October 24, 2016, and a reply due October 26,
2017.
Respectfully submitted,
Chad A. Readler
Assistant Attorney General
Hashim M. Mooppan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
s/Sharon Swingle
Sharon Swingle
[phone]
H. Thomas Byron III
[phone]
Lowell V. Sturgill Jr.
[phone]
Attorneys, Civil Division
Appellate Staff, Room 7250
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this motion complies with the type-face requirements of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-volume limitations of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A). This motion contains 513 words,
excluding the parts of the motion excluded by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
27(d)(2) and 32(f).
s/Sharon Swingle
Sharon Swingle

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of October, 2016, I filed the foregoing
motion by use of the Fourth Circuit’s CM/ECF system. Participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users, and service will be accomplished by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
s/Sharon Swingle
Sharon Swingle

6