USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Filing 97

Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Anti-Defamation League. Date of service: 09/30/2010. [7493333] (PSK)

Download PDF
USA v. State of Arizona, et al Doc. 97 Att. 1 No. 10-16645 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. STATE OF ARIZONA AND JANICE K. BREWER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB Hon. Susan Bolton, District Judge, Presiding AMICUS BRIEF OF ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP DAVID J. BODNEY PETER S. KOZINETS Collier Center 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 (602) 257-5200 ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE STEVEN M. FREEMAN* STEVEN C. SHEINBERG* DEBORAH BENSINGER* 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158-3560 (212) 885-7700 *Not admitted in this jurisdiction Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Anti-Defamation League Dockets.Justia.com CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the Anti-Defamation League ("ADL") states that it is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. ADL has no parent corporation. No publicly owned corporation holds ten percent or more of the stock of ADL. ADL does not issue any stock. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Citations..................................................................................................... iii Statement of Interest .................................................................................................. 1 Argument....................................................................................................................3 I. II. Federal and State Laws Expressly Prohibit the Commission of Hate Crimes Against People of Color and Immigrants. .......................................... 4 S.B. 1070 Undermines Immigrant Communities' Trust in Law Enforcement, Eviscerating the Police's Ability to Enforce Federal and State Anti-Hate Crimes Laws. ......................................................................... 7 A. B. C. S.B. 1070 Effectively Transforms All State, County and Local Law Enforcement Officers Into Immigration Agents. .......................... 7 Police Cannot Enforce the Law If Victims and Witnesses Are Unwilling to Come Forward. ................................................................ 9 S.B. 1070 Undercuts Effective Enforcement of the Laws Prohibiting Hate Crimes......................................................................11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 12 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 14 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 15 ii TABLE OF CITATIONS Page(s) Cases Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008)............................................................................................2 Statutes 18 U.S.C. 249......................................................................................................2, 6 A.R.S. 11-1051....................................................................................................7, 8 A.R.S. 13-701..................................................................................................... 2, 6 A.R.S. 13-1509........................................................................................................8 A.R.S. 13-1604........................................................................................................7 A.R.S. 13-2928........................................................................................................8 A.R.S. 13-3883........................................................................................................9 A.R.S. 41-1750....................................................................................................2, 6 Phoenix City Code, Part II, 39-7.............................................................................8 Phoenix City Code, Part III, 8-12 ........................................................................... 8 Other Materials ADL Report, Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream (2008), http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/Immigrants%20Targeted ......... 4 iii ADL, Ten Year Comparison of FBI Hate Crime Statistics (rev. Nov. 2009), http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/HCSA_10year.asp ...................................... 5 ADL, Hate Crimes Laws, http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp ........................................................ 2, 7 ADL Model Legislation, http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp .................................................... 2 ADL, Law Enforcement Training, http://www.adl.org/learn/adl_law_enforcement/default.htm ............................... 1 ADL, Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust (Mar. 19, 2009), http://www.adl.org/learn/adl_law_enforcement/LEAS+309.htm?LEARN_Cat=Training &LEARN_SubCat=Training_News..................1 ADL, Advanced Training School, http://www.adl.org/learn/learn_main_training/Advanced_Training_Schoo l.asp ....................................................................................................................... 1 Randal C. Archibold, In Border Violence, Perception Is Greater than Crime Statistics, N.Y. Times, June 20, 2010, at A16, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res= 9505E0D61E31F933A15755C0A9669D8B63 .................................................... 4 Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, Statement on Senate Bill 1070, http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_ BILL_1070.pdf ................................................................................................... 10 Arizona Department of Public Safety, 2009 Crime in Arizona Report http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/docs/Crime_In_Arizona_Report_2 009.pdf. ................................................................................................................. 5 Federal Bureau of Investigation, A Different Kind of Training: What New Agents Learn from the Holocaust (May 30, 2010), http://www.fbi.gov/page2/mar10/leas_033010.html............................................2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Hate Crime Statistics (Nov. 2009), http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html. ............................................ 5 iv Michael Kiefer & Michael Ferraresi, Phoenix Slaying Now Termed to a Hate Crime, Ariz. Republic, June 18, 2010, at B6, available at http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/18/ 20100618phoenix-murder-called-hate-crime.html...............................................6 Latino Decisions, Political Implications of Immigration in 2010: Latino Voters in Arizona (May 14, 2010), http://latinodecisions.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ld-nclr-presentationmay11.pdf. .......................................................................................................... 12 Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee Recommendations (June 2006), http://www.majorcitieschiefs.org/pdfpublic/MCC_Position_Statement_R EVISED_CEF_2009.pdf..................................................................................... 11 E.J. Montini, Is SB 1070 the End or the Beginning?, Ariz. Republic, May 16, 2010, at B1, available at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/ 2010/05/16/20100516immigration-law-montini.html#ixzz0rUl5AcUz. ............. 4 Amanda Lee Myers & Paul Davenport, Arizona Governor Says Beheadings Claim "an Error," Associated Press, Sept. 3, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39001126/...........................................................5 Police Foundation, Law Enforcement Leaders to Discuss How Local Immigration Enforcement Challenges Public Safety Mission (May 20, 2009), http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/strikingRelease.pdf......................10 Dennis Wagner, Violence Is Not up on Arizona Border: Mexico Crime Flares, but Here, Only Flickers, Ariz. Republic, May 2, 2010, at A1, available at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/ 2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violencemexico.html#ixzz0rUoV3Vu6.............................................................................. 4 v STATEMENT OF INTEREST The Anti-Defamation League ("ADL") is the leading nongovernmental organization in the United States that trains law enforcement officers on issues of hate crimes and extremism. ADL provides training through a national network of regional offices to thousands of law enforcement officers to ensure that they know how to recognize and identify hate crimes and investigate them properly and sensitively.1 ADL has trained law enforcement leaders at its Advanced Training School: Course on Extremist and Terrorist Threats in Washington, D.C.2 With the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ADL has also trained more than 45,000 law enforcement professionals in Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust, a program that examines how law enforcement became co-opted by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust, and that provides law enforcement professionals with an increased understanding of the importance of their relationship to the communities they serve and their role as protectors of civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.3 ADL, Law Enforcement Training, http://www.adl.org/learn/adl_law_enforcement/default.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2010). ADL, Advanced Training School, http://www.adl.org/learn/learn_main_training/Advanced_Training_School.asp (last visited Sept. 27, 2010). ADL, Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust (Mar. 19, 2009), http://www.adl.org/learn/adl_law_enforcement/LEAS+309.htm?LEARN_Cat=Training&LEARN_SubCat=Training_News; Federal (Continued ...) 1 3 2 1 ADL also has unmatched expertise concerning the development of federal and state hate crimes legislation. In 1981, ADL drafted a model state hate crime law,4 and the District of Columbia and 45 states, including Arizona, have enacted statutes based on or similar to ADL's model.5 ADL was a leading advocate for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 ("HCPA"), 18 U.S.C. 249. ADL also has advocated for laws mandating the collection of statistics about hate crimes. Courts must "pay[ ] particular attention to the public consequences" of granting or vacting a preliminary injunction. (ER 35, quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (emphasis added; internal citation omitted).) Through its work with law enforcement and expertise in hate crime, ADL is uniquely situated to assist the Court in evaluating the public consequences of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended ("S.B. 1070"), particularly in connection with the reporting and prevention of hate crimes. While the principal issue before the Court is preemption, and while ADL agrees with Plaintiff- Federal Bureau of Investigation, A Different Kind of Training: What New Agents Learn from the Holocaust (May 30, 2010), http://www.fbi.gov/page2/mar10/leas_033010.html. ADL, Hate Crimes Laws, http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp (last visited Sept. 27, 2010); ADL Model Legislation, http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/text_legis.asp (last visited Sept. 27, 2010). 5 4 Arizona's anti-hate crimes laws are codified at A.R.S. 13-701(D)(15) and 411750(A)(3). 2 Appellee's argument on that issue, ADL submits this brief to address a specific area of public safety that will be harmed if the Preliminary Injunction is vacated. As shown below, unless the District Court's Preliminary Injunction is affirmed, the enjoined provisions of S.B. 1070 will undermine the enforcement of hate crimes in Arizona by driving a sharp wedge between law enforcement and communities whom such laws were designed to protect. ARGUMENT If well-ordered liberty means anything, it must mean that all persons should be afforded access to police protection if they become victims of hate crimes. Yet the core provisions of S.B. 1070 that the District Court preliminarily enjoined impede that access for immigrant communities in Arizona, including U.S. Citizens and lawful residents. As the record shows, the state immigration-enforcement regime at issue will deter members of immigrant communities from reporting crimes or serving as witnesses in criminal investigations if implemented. This amicus brief provides additional context about a particular and devastating consequence of the rupture in police-community trust in Arizona that S.B. 1070 will otherwise cause the creation of a law enforcement underclass uniquely vulnerable to increased hate crimes and violence. That consequence is fundamentally at odds with the strong Congressional and Arizona policies embodied in anti-hate crimes legislation, and it demonstrates that the public interest strongly supports affirming the District Court. 3 I. Federal and State Laws Expressly Prohibit the Commission of Hate Crimes Against People of Color and Immigrants. ADL has monitored and exposed the increasingly anti-immigrant, anti- Latino and anti-Mexican rhetoric that has surrounded the national debate on immigration reform.6 S.B. 1070 was passed against this backdrop of anger and frustration in Arizona. The bill's principal sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce, has been quoted as suggesting that the nation attempt a mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, praising a similar 1954 effort as "a successful program."7 Other supporters of the bill, including Defendant-Appellant Janice K. Brewer, have invoked fears of widespread violence and criminal activity as reasons for the law even though those fears have been thoroughly debunked by widelyreported criminal statistics showing that border violence in Arizona is at historic lows.8 In this climate, it is critically important that law enforcement be able to See, e.g., ADL Report, Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream (2008), http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/Immigrants%20Targeted %20UPD ATE_2008.pdf. E.J. Montini, Is SB 1070 the End or the beginning?, Ariz. Republic, May 16, 2010, at B1 available at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/16/20100516imm igration-law-montini.html#ixzz0rUl5AcUz. See, e.g., Randal C. Archibold, In Border Violence, Perception Is Greater Than Crime Statistics, N.Y. Times, June 20, 2010, at A16 available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E0D61E31F933A15755C0A9 669D8B63; Dennis Wagner, Violence Is Not up on Arizona Border: Mexico Crime Flares, but Here, Only Flickers, Ariz. Republic, May 2, 2010, at A1 available at (Continued ...) 4 8 7 6 police fully the laws against the commission of hate crimes directed at Latinos and immigrant communities. The issue of hate crimes is far from theoretical. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, hate crimes are at their highest level since 2001.9 In 2008 (the last year included in the cited FBI report), 7,783 hate crimes were reported nationwide.10 Of those, 561 were motivated by the actual or perceived Hispanic ethnicity of the victim.11 In the past 10 years, between 400 and 600 hate crimes against Hispanics have been reported nationally each year.12 In Arizona, according to the annual report of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, there were 226 hate crime offenses reported in 2009.13 Forty-four of the offenses were based on ethnicity, with 37 "Anti-Hispanic" crimes.14 On June 18, 2010, The Arizona http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502ariz ona-border-violence-mexico.html#ixzz0rUoV3Vu6); Amanda Lee Myers and Paul Davenport, Arizona governor says beheadings claim `an error,' Associated Press, Sept. 3, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39001126/. ADL, Ten Year Comparison of FBI Hate Crime Statistics (rev. Nov. 2009), http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/HCSA_10year.asp. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Hate Crime Statistics, 2008, table 1 (Nov. 2009), http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html. 11 12 10 9 Id. ADL, Ten Year Comparison of FBI Hate Crime Statistics (updated Nov. 2009), http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/HCSA_10year.asp. Arizona Department of Public Safety, 2009 Crime in Arizona Report, http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/docs/Crime_In_Arizona_Report_2009.pdf. 14 13 Id. at 129. 5 Republic reported on the Phoenix murder of Juan Varela, which authorities charged as a hate crime.15 The federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which gives federal prosecutors the power to investigate and prosecute violent crimes where the perpetrator selects the victim because, inter alia, of the person's actual or perceived race, color or national origin, evinces a strong Congressional policy against the commission of hate crimes. 18 U.S.C. 249.16 Arizona's criminal statutes likewise include stringent prohibitions against the commission of hate crimes. A.R.S. 13-701(D)(15), for instance, provides that an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing includes "[e]vidence that the defendant committed the crime out of malice toward a victim because of the victim's identity in a group listed in 41-1750, subsection A, paragraph 3, or because of the defendant's perception of the victim's identity in a group listed in 41-1750, subsection A, paragraph 3." A.R.S. 41-1750(A)(3) concerns "prejudice based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability." These statutes provide that crimes committed out of hatred towards a victim because of his or her actual or perceived Michael Kiefer and Michael Ferraresi, Phoenix slaying now termed a hate crime, Ariz. Republic, June 18, 2010, at B6 available at http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/18/20100618phoenix-murdercalled-hate-crime.html. See United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/249fin.php (last visited Sept. 27, 2010). 16 15 6 membership in one of the protected classes are especially offensive to public policy and warrant aggravated criminal penalties. See also A.R.S. 13-1604 (defining "aggravated criminal damage"). These laws also recognize that when a bias-motivated crime is committed, the victim's entire community may be left feeling victimized, vulnerable, fearful, isolated and unprotected by the law. The impact of the crime spreads far beyond the already terrible consequences for the individual victim.17 II. S.B. 1070 Undermines Immigrant Communities' Trust in Law Enforcement, Eviscerating the Police's Ability to Enforce Federal and State Anti-Hate Crimes Laws. A. S.B. 1070 Effectively Transforms All State, County and Local Law Enforcement Officers Into Immigration Agents. S.B. 1070's enforcement regime turns police against immigrants and their communities, in furtherance of the statute's declared goal of promoting "attrition through enforcement." (S.B. 1070, Section 1 (DktEntry 80, ADD-1).) First, Section 2(B) requires immigration status determinations, when practicable, "for any lawful stop, detention or arrest" made "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and unlawfully present in the United States." A.R.S. 11-1051(B) (emphasis added). The extraordinary sweep of this mandatory immigration check provision cannot be overstated. It means that law enforcement officers, if they possess ADL, Hate Crimes Laws, http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp (last visited Sept. 27, 2010). 17 7 "reasonable suspicion" of "unlawful presen[ce]," are required to check immigration status when enforcing hundreds or thousands of the even most minor civil infractions, such as neglecting to mow the lawn (Phoenix Municipal Code Part II, 39-7(D)), failing affix licensing tags to the collar of the family dog (id., Part III, 8-12), or not properly maintaining a residential pool (id., Part II, 397(C)), not to mention myriad civil traffic infractions and a seemingly infinite list of other state, county and city laws and ordinances.18 The District Court correctly found that "[l]egal residents will certainly be swept up by this requirement," which also "imposes an unacceptable burden on lawfully-present aliens." (ER 19-20.) Second, Section 2(B)'s requirement that all arrestees must have their immigration status determined before release (A.R.S. 11-1051(B)) will inevitably burden U.S. Citizens who lack ready access to proof of citizenship (including those who do not have entries in United States Department of Homeland Security databases), not to mention lawfully present aliens whose "liberty will be restricted while their status is checked." (ER 16.) Third, Section 3, A.R.S. 13-1509, which criminalizes the failure to comply with certain federal alien registration requirements, and Section 5, A.R.S. 13-2928(C), which criminalizes working or applying or soliciting for work by 18 The Phoenix City Code is available at http://phoenix.gov/CITYCODE/ (last visited Sept. 30, 2010). Arizona's traffic laws are contained in Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, available at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28 (last visited Sept. 30, 2010). 8 undocumented aliens, reinforce the broad mandate of S.B. 1070 to promote "attrition through enforcement." The warrantless arrest provisions of Section 6 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. 13-3883(A), which require complex determinations of removability that typically are only made by federal judges, further evinces the extent to which S.B. 1070 seeks to transform all state, county and municipal police officers in Arizona into full-time, all-purpose immigration agents. (ER 31-32.) B. Police Cannot Enforce the Law If Victims and Witnesses Are Unwilling to Come Forward. The District Court record is replete with evidence about the breach in trust that these statutes will engender if not preliminarily enjoined. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris testified that "[d]eterring, investigating and solving serious and violent crimes are the [Phoenix Police Department's] top priorities, and it would be impossible for us to do our job without the collaboration and support of community members, including those who may be in the country unlawfully." (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 27-10, Decl. of Jack Harris at 2.) Yet, as Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada testified, "[b]eing labeled an `immigration officer' will have serious consequences for community policing": "[i]t will deter immigrants, including those who are here legally, and other individuals, particularly those in the Latino community, from coming forward and interacting with the police, because they will fear being questioned about their status and possibly arrested for violating one of Arizona's new state immigration crimes." (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 27-8, Decl. of Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada 11.) This is particularly true for families that live in "mixed status" households, where some members are U.S. citizens or 9 have legal immigration status, and others do not. (Id. 13.) Consequently, the mandatory immigration check and related provisions of S.B. 1070 will "effectively undermin[e] our . . . ability to protect people from serious crime." (Id. 14.) The Police Foundation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association and Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police have expressed similarly grave concerns that deputizing local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law undermines the trust and cooperation of immigrant communities.19 For example, a 2009 report by the Police Foundation states that "[i]mmigration enforcement by local police undermines their core public safety mission . . . and exacerbates fear in communities already distrustful of police."20 According to Police Foundation President Hubert Williams: Police executives have felt torn between a desire to be helpful and cooperative with federal immigration authorities and a concern that their participation in immigration enforcement efforts will undo the gains they have achieved through community-oriented policing practices directed at gaining the trust and cooperation of immigrant communities. As one police chief pointed out during the project, "How do you police a community that will not talk to you?"21 See, e.g., Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, Statement on Senate Bill 1070, http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_BILL_10 70.pdf (last visited Sept. 27, 2010). Police Foundation, Law Enforcement Leaders to Discuss How Local Immigration Enforcement Challenges Public Safety Mission (May 20, 2009), http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/strikingRelease.pdf. 21 20 19 Id. 10 The Major Cities Chiefs Association agrees. According to its 2006 Position Statement: Undoubtedly legal immigrants would avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Without assurances that contact with the police would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard won trust, communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.22 C. S.B. 1070 Undercuts Effective Enforcement of the Laws Prohibiting Hate Crimes. As shown above, close cooperation between local law enforcement and minority communities is essential to the successful reporting and prosecution of hate crimes.23 Yet Latinos and members of immigrant communities will be deterred from reporting or serving as witnesses regarding a range of criminal activities in the community, including hate crimes, if the core provisions of S.B. 1070 are allowed to go into effect. According to a May 2010 study of Latino registered voters in Arizona commissioned by the National Council of La Raza, 85% of Latinos who are legal immigrants or U.S. citizens fear that they will be 22 Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee Recommendations (June 2006), http://www.majorcitieschiefs.org/pdfpublic/MCC_Position_Statement_REVISED_ CEF_2009.pdf (emphasis added). See notes 1, 3-4, supra. 23 11 racially profiled under S.B. 1070. Because of the new law, 47% report that in the future they would be less likely to report a crime or volunteer information to the police.24 Because these poll numbers do not reflect the attitudes of non-registered voters (including people who are more likely to be undocumented), the chasm between police and the Latino community caused by S.B. 1070 is much wider than that reflected by the study itself. The enjoined provisions of S.B. 1070 are contrary to the strong public policies against hate crimes embodied in federal and Arizona law, and are inimical to the public's strong interest in advancing public safety and civil rights. Rather than making neighborhoods safer, the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" as the bill's sponsors titled the statute will have exactly the opposite effect, especially in Arizona's Latino and immigrant communities.25 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Preliminary Injunction should be affirmed. Latino Decisions, Political Implications of Immigration in 2010: Latino Voters in Arizona, (May 14, 2010), http://latinodecisions.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ldnclr-presentation-may11.pdf. 25 24 Senate Bill 1070, at 16, http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf. 12 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of September, 2010. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP By s/ Peter S. Kozinets David J. Bodney Peter S. Kozinets Collier Center 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382 ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE Steven M. Freeman* Steven C. Sheinberg* Deborah Bensinger* 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158-3560 *Not admitted in this jurisdiction Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Anti-Defamation League 13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C) and Ninth Circuit Rules 29-2(c)(2) and 32-1, the foregoing Amicus Brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more, and contains 2,291 words. DATED this 30th day of September, 2010. s/ Peter S. Kozinets Peter S. Kozinets 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 30, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. 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 on the following: Tony West Dennis K. Burke Arthur R. Goldberg Varu Chilakamarri Joshua Wilkenfeld U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Beth S. Brinkmann Michael P. Abate Thomas Mark Bondy Edwin Smiley Sneedler Mark B. Stern Daniel Tenny 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellees John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Joseph G. Adams Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Joseph A. Kanefield Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Counsel for Defendants-Appellants Jeffrey R. King King Law Offices LLC P. O. Box 1211 Independence, Kansas 67301 Counsel for Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt and House Speaker Michael O'Neal of the Kansas Legislature 15 Barnaby W. Zall Weinberg & Jacobs 11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200 Rockville, MD 20852 Counsel for American Unity Legal Defense Fund James Leslie Hirsen SBD Group, Inc. 505 South Villa Real Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Counsel for Justice and Freedom Fund James Scott Detamore Mountain States Legal Foundation 2596 South Lewis Way Lakewood, CO 80227 Counsel for Mountain States Legal Foundation Bernard Eric Restuccia Office of the Attorney General 525 W. Ottawa 670 Law Bldg. Lansing, MI 48913 Michael A. Cox Michigan Attorney General P. O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Counsel for State of Michigan, State of Alabama, State of Florida, State of Idaho, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, State of Pennsylvania, State of South Carolina, State of South Dakota, State of Texas, State of Virginia Jay Sekulow American Center for Law and Justice 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Counsel for Members of Congress of the United States 16 Robert Joseph Muise Thomas More Law Center 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48106 David Yerushalmi Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. P. O. Box 6358 Chandler, AZ 85246 Counsel for Thomas More Law Center, Center for Security Policy, Society of Americans for National Existence Geoffrey S. Kercsmar Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC 6263 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Counsel for State Legislators for Legal Immigration Richard Abbott Samp Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Washington Legal Foundation, U.S. Representative Dan Burton, U.S. Representative Lynn Jenkins, U.S. Representative Jerry Moran, Allied Educational Foundation, Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement, National Border Patrol Council, U.S. Representative Tom McClintock John C. Eastman The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence c/o Chapman Univ. School of Law One University Drive Orange, CA 92866 Counsel for U.S. Representative Tom McClintock, Congressman Ed Royce, Congressman Lamar Smith, Congressman Ted Poe, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Individual Rights Foundation Brian Bergin Rose Law Group 6613 N. Scottsdale Road Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Counsel for Cochise County Sheriff Larry A. Dever Paul J. Orfanedes James F. Peterson Michael Bekesha Judicial Watch, Inc. 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024 Counsel for Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce 17 Thomas P. Liddy Maria R. Brandon Maricopa County Office of Special Litigation Services Security Center Building 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 4400 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Counsel for Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio Ray Elbert Parker P. O. Box 320636 Alexandria, VA 22320 Counsel for Ray Elbert Parker Brian Garlitz Garlitz Bell, LLP 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 990 Dallas, TX 75234 Counsel for Foundation for the Preservation of Constitutionally Reserved Rights Richard Peter Hutchison Landmark Legal Foundation 3100 Broadway, Suite 1210 Kansas City, MO 64111 Counsel for Landmark Legal Foundation s/ Peter S. Kozinets Peter S. Kozinets 18

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?