Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump

Filing 9

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3, Jane Doe #4, Jane Doe #5, Jane Doe #6 and Iranian Alliances Across Borders in 17-2232 to Motion to accelerate case processing [6]. Nature of response: in opposition. [17-2232, 17-2231, 17-2233] Mark Mosier [Entered: 10/21/2017 12:55 PM]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.

17-2231 (L)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States,
et al.
Defendants-Appellants.
IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS
BORDERS, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.

17-2232

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States,
et al.
Defendants-Appellants.
EBLAL ZAKZOK, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
17-2233
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States,
et al.
Defendants-Appellants.

IAAB AND ZAKZOK PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE
REGARDING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
In moving to expedite briefing on its motion for a stay pending appeal, the
Government proposes a briefing schedule that gives Plaintiffs two business days to
respond to a 25-page stay motion. The Government has offered no good reason for
providing Plaintiffs so little time to respond.
On March 22, 2017, the Government filed a motion to expedite its appeal of
the district court’s order enjoining enforcement of the President’s second travel ban
(Executive Order No. 13,780). See Case No. 17-1351, Dkt. No. 14. In addition to
requesting an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal, the Government also requested an expedited briefing schedule for its forthcoming motion for a stay
pending appeal. In response to that motion, the Court entered an expedited briefing schedule under which Plaintiffs had 7 days to file an opposition, and the
government had 5 days for a reply. Id. Dkt. No. 25.
Plaintiffs have proposed that the parties proceed on a similar schedule for
briefing the motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order enjoining
enforcement of the President’s third travel ban (82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27,
2017)). Under that schedule, Plaintiffs’ opposition would be due on October 27,
2017, and the Government’s reply would be due on October 30, 2017. This sched-

1

ule would result in the motion being fully briefed in the 10 days that Plaintiffs
would ordinarily have to file their opposition.
The Government objects to following the schedule previously set by the
Court, arguing that it fails to account for the gravity of the issues presented and the
national security concerns. See Case No. 2232, ECF No. 6, at 3. But the Government has not even attempted to show why there is more urgency now than there
was in March. The Government’s actions prove that, if anything, there is less urgency now. The Government took more than six months to produce the reports on
which the Proclamation was based. After receiving the final report on September
15, 2017, the President waited 9 days to issue the Proclamation on September 24,
2017. See 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161, 45,163. By its terms, the Proclamation would not
take effect until October 18—24 days after it was issued. Id. at 45,171. And after
the district court entered a preliminary injunction, the Government waited more
than two days to file a simple notice of appeal.
Given the President’s decision to delay implementation of the Proclamation
by nearly a month, the Government cannot credibly argue that allowing Plaintiffs
an extra three days to file an opposition would pose a national security risk.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the following scheduling
order:
Plaintiffs’ Opposition:

Due October 27, 2017
2

Government’s Reply:

Due October 30, 2017

3

Dated: October 21, 2017

Johnathan Smith
Sirine Shebaya
MUSLIM ADVOCATES
P.O. Box 66408
Washington, D.C. 20035
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Richard B. Katskee
Eric Rothschild
Andrew L. Nellis^
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
1310 L St. NW, Ste. 200
Washington, D.C. 2005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Charles E. Davidow
Robert A. Atkins†
Liza Velazquez†
Andrew J. Ehrlich†
Steven C. Herzog†
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
[phone]
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Mark W. Mosier______
Mark H. Lynch
Mark W. Mosier
Herbert L. Fenster
José E. Arvelo
John W. Sorrenti
Karun Tilak
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One City Center
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Rebecca G. Van Tassell
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Lena F. Masri
Gadeir Abbas*
Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR)
453 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
4

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Faiza Patel
Michael Price
Brennan Center for Justice
at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750
New York, NY 10271
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Jethro Eisenstein†
Profeta & Eisenstein
45 Broadway, Suite 2200
New York, New York 10006
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

^ Admitted only in New York; supervised by Richard B. Katskee, a member of the
D.C. Bar.
†Application for admission forthcoming.
*Admitted in VA; not in DC – practice limited to federal matters.

5

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 469
words, excluding the parts of the motion excluded by Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure 27(d)(2) and 32(f).
s/ Mark W. Mosier
Mark W. Mosier

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 21st day of October, 2017, 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/ Mark W. Mosier
Mark W. Mosier

7