USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Filing 96

Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, et al.. Date of service: 09/30/2010. [7493170] (GSH)

USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Doc. 96

No. 10-16645 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF ARIZONA; AND JANICE K. BREWER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants-Appellants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; THE CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA; THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT; THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK; THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON; THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA; SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA; THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; AND THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ, County Counsel (Cal. Bar # 184621) GRETA S. HANSEN, Acting Lead Deputy County Counsel (Cal. Bar # 251471) ANJALI BHARGAVA, Deputy County Counsel (Cal. Bar # 267911) 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, California 95110-1770 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the County of Santa Clara, California Counsel for Additional Amici Listed on Subsequent Pages

Dockets.Justia.com

GEORGE A. NILSON, City Solicitor (D. Md. Bar # 01123) WILLIAM R. PHELAN, JR., Chief Solicitor (D. Md. Bar # 24490) Baltimore City Department of Law 100 Holliday Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland ZACH COWAN, City Attorney (Cal. Bar # 96372l) Berkeley City Attorney's Office 2180 Milvia Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, California 94704 Telephone: [phone] Attorney for the City of Berkeley, California SUSAN L. SEGAL, Minneapolis City Attorney (Minn. Bar # 137157) PETER W. GINDER, Deputy City Attorney (Minn. Bar # 35099) Minneapolis City Attorney's Office City Hall, Room 210 350 South 5th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota CHARLES J. McKEE, County Counsel (Cal. Bar #152458) WILLIAM LITT, Deputy County Counsel (Cal. Bar #166614) Office of the County Counsel County of Monterey 168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor Salinas, California 93901-2680 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the County of Monterey, California

VICTOR A. BOLDEN, Corporation Counsel (Conn. Juris. #418904) VIKKI COOPER, Deputy Corporation Counsel (Conn. Juris. #422788) KATHLEEN M. FOSTER, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Conn. Juris. #303744) Office of the Corporation Counsel 165 Church Street New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the City of New Haven, Connecticut ELIZABETH R. FINE, General Counsel (N.Y. Bar # 2193456) JEFFREY P. METZLER, Chief of Litigation (N.Y. Bar # 4167714) LAUREN G. AXELROD, Associate General Counsel (N.Y. Bar # 4314613) 250 Broadway, 15th Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the Council of the City of New York, New York GARY M. BAUM, City Attorney (Cal. Bar # 117200) P.O. Box 10250 250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: [phone] Attorney for the City of Palo Alto, California LINDA MENG, City Attorney (Ore. Bar # 793867) 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 430 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: [phone] Attorney for the City of Portland, Oregon

GERALD T. HENDRICKSON, Interim City Attorney (Minn. Bar # 43977) Office of the City Attorney 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone: [phone] Attorney for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota EDWIN P. RUTAN, II, City Attorney (Utah Bar # 9615) MARTHA STONEBROOK, Senior City Attorney (Utah Bar # 5149) PO Box 145478 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5478 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the Salt Lake City Corporation DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney (Cal. Bar #139669) WAYNE SNODGRASS, Deputy City Attorney (Cal. Bar #148137) 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place City Hall, Room 234 San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the City and County of San Francisco, California RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (Cal. Bar # 88625) NORA FRIMANN, Assistant City Attorney (Cal. Bar # 93249) Office of the City Attorney 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, California 95113-1905 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the City of San Jose, California

MICHAEL P. MURPHY, County Counsel (Cal. Bar # 83887) JOHN NIBBELIN, Deputy County Counsel (Cal. Bar # 184603) 400 County Center Redwood City, California 94063 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the County of San Mateo, California PETER S. HOLMES, City Attorney (Wash. Bar # 15787) JEAN BOLER, Civil Division Chief (Wash. Bar # 30997) City Attorney's Office 600 4th Avenue, 4th floor P.O. Box 94769 Seattle, Washington 98124-4769 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for the City of Seattle, Washington JOHN DANIEL REAVES, General Counsel (Unified Bar # 164897) U.S. Conference of Mayors 1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: [phone] Attorney for the United States Conference of Mayors

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the County of Santa Clara, California; the City of Baltimore, Maryland; the City of Berkeley, California; the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota; the County of Monterey, California; the City of New Haven, Connecticut; the Council of the City of New York, New York; the City of Palo Alto, California; the City of Portland, Oregon; the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota; Salt Lake City, Utah; the City and County of San Francisco, California; the City of San Jose, California; the County of San Mateo, California; the City of Seattle, Washington; and the United States Conference of Mayors (hereinafter "amici") respectfully move for leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief in support of Appellee the United States of America. II. INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE Cities and counties across the United States are responsible for providing essential services to their residents, including funding, operating, and overseeing local law enforcement agencies. The local governments seeking leave to appear as amici curiae serve racially, ethnically, economically, and culturally diverse communities nationwide. Our jurisdictions are home to some of the largest immigrant communities in the country, and our local law enforcement agencies 1

provide law enforcement services within these communities. The United States Conference of Mayors ("Conference"), founded in 1932, is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, of which there are some 1,200. Each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor. The Conference's member cities provide law enforcement services in diverse communities throughout the nation. By passing Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended by Arizona House Bill 2162 (hereinafter referred to as "SB 1070"), the State of Arizona seeks to impose a comprehensive state immigration enforcement regime that will threaten the ability of local governments and local law enforcement agencies to protect public safety. The provisions of SB 1070 that most significantly undermine the ability of local governments to protect public safety--Sections 2(B), 3, and 6--were preliminarily enjoined by the district court. If the district court's preliminary injunction is lifted and these provisions are allowed to take effect, the ramifications will be felt not only in communities within Arizona, but in our jurisdictions as well. These provisions suggest, wrongly, that the enforcement of federal civil immigration law is the responsibility of local government officials and that basic constitutional principles do not apply when local officials are enforcing immigration law. That message would be heard not only in Arizona but in every state across the country, making immigrants -- 2

whether they are naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders, or undocumented individuals -- deeply distrustful of local governments and law enforcement officials. Such distrust will have serious, long-term deleterious effects on the ability of local governments to protect the health and safety of all ofour residents. Accordingly, amici have a strong interest in seeing the district court's preliminary injunction upheld. III. REASONS WHY FILING AN AMICUS BRIEF IS DESIRABLE Based on our experience operating and overseeing local law enforcement agencies, amici can provide the Court with an important perspective on how the enjoined provisions of SB 1070 would operate and how their implementation would impact communities nationwide if the district court's preliminary injunction is overturned. Specifically, amici can explain how the enjoined provisions cannot be implemented in a constitutional manner, the extent to which they are vague, impractical, costly, and deeply damaging to the relationships of trust that local law enforcement agencies have built with immigrant communities and the public at large, and the ways that they will hinder the ability of local law enforcement agencies--both in Arizona and nationwide--to carry out their core mission of ensuring public safety.

3

IV. CONCLUSION We respectfully request that the Court grant this motion for leave to file the attached amicus curiae brief. Dated: Respectfully submitted, MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ COUNTY COUNSEL By: /S/ GRETA HANSEN Acting Lead Deputy County Counsel /S/ ANJALI BHARGAVA Deputy County Counsel .

.

Attorneys for the County of Santa Clara, California, on behalf of counsel for all amici

4

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. STATE OF ARIZONA; AND JANICE K. BREWER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY Case No. 10-16645 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; THE CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA; THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT; THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK; THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON; THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA; SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA; THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA; THE CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; AND THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on September 30, 2010. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. /S/ . Alexandra K. Weight 1