State of Washington, et al v. Donald J. Trump, et al

Filing 25

Filed (ECF) Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Southern Poverty Law Center Corrected Motion to become amicus curiae. Date of service: 02/06/2017. [10302889] [17-35105]--[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect content of filing, resent notice. 02/06/2017 by LA] (Katskee, Richard) [Entered: 02/06/2017 12:32 AM]

Download PDF
No. 17-35105 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. On Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal of a Temporary Restraining Order Issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Case No. 2:17-cv-141, Hon. James L. Robart MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, AND AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING APPELLEES AND DENIAL OF A STAY, AND REQUEST TO FILE 2759-WORD BRIEF KRISTI L. GRAUNKE MICHELLE R. LAPOINTE Southern Poverty Law Center 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 (404) 521-6700 ANGELO J. CALFO KRISTIN W. SILVERMAN Calfo Eakes & Ostrovsky PLLC 1301 Second Avenue Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 407-2200 RICHARD B. KATSKEE ERIC ROTHSCHILD ANDREW L. NELLIS BRADLEY GIRARD KELLY M. PERCIVAL Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1310 L Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3234 Counsel for Amici Curiae INTRODUCTION Currently before the Court is Defendants’ emergency motion for a stay of the temporary restraining order issued February 3, 2017, by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Robart, J.). Pending determination of the State of Washington’s request for a preliminary injunction, for which the court directed the parties to set a briefing schedule so that the request could be decided with dispatch, the court restrained enforcement of Executive Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017), which bars immigrants and refugees from predominantly Muslim countries from entering or remaining in the United States. Defendants have impermissibly appealed an unappealable temporary restraining order and have sought a stay of that TRO pending resolution of their putative appeal. Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center respectfully request leave to file the accompanying proposed amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs and against issuance of the requested stay. Identity and Interest of Amici Curiae i. Amicus Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a national, nonsectarian public-interest organization. Its mission is twofold: (1) to advance the free-exercise rights of individuals and religious communities to worship as they see fit, and (2) to preserve the separation of church and state as a vital component of democratic government. Americans United represents more than 125,000 members and supporters across the country. Since its founding in 1947, Americans United has regularly participated as a party, as counsel, or as an amicus curiae in leading church–state cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and by federal and state trial and appellate courts throughout the country. Americans United has long defended the fundamental rights of religious minorities in the United States by, among other things, bringing legal challenges to governmental action that singles out particular religions for favor or disfavor. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2016 WL 7473962 (U.S. 2016) (supporting Muslim petitioners who were detained and tortured after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001); Hassan v. City of New York, 2014 WL 3572027 (3d Cir. 2015) (supporting challenge to New York City Police Department’s surveillance of Muslim communities); Awad v. Ziriax, 2011 WL 2118216 (10th Cir. 2012) (supporting challenge to Oklahoma law that singled out Islam for official disfavor). Americans United also advocated for the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb, under which a claim has been made in this case, as well as its sister statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., and routinely participates as counsel or as an amicus curiae in cases arising under these statutes. See, e.g., Holt v. Hobbs, 2014 WL 2361896 (2015). Notably, Americans United filed an amicus brief in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005), proposing the factors for the test of constitutionally permissible religious accommodations under RFRA and RLUIPA that the Supreme Court then adopted. ii. Amicus Southern Poverty Law Center has provided pro bono civilrights representation to low-income persons in the Southeast since 1971, with particular focus on seeking justice for the most vulnerable people in society. SPLC has litigated numerous cases to enforce the civil rights of immigrants and refugees to ensure that they are treated with dignity and fairness. SPLC monitors and exposes extremists who attack or malign groups of people based on their immutable characteristics. SPLC is dedicated to reducing prejudice and improving intergroup relations. SPLC has a strong interest in opposing governmental action premised on unlawful discrimination that undermines the promise of civil rights for all. REASONS WHY THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED 1. The issues in this case have important ramifications for persons living across the United States and around the world. If the challenged TRO were to be stayed, families who currently find themselves living in different countries will be estranged. People fleeing war-torn regions will be turned away from this nation’s borders and given no opportunity to seek or obtain refuge from the horrors that they face in their countries of origin. Children coming to the United States for necessary medical care will be shunned. People lawfully residing and working in the United States will be prevented from traveling abroad by the threat that they will be detained and deported when they try to return home—or if they are already traveling abroad, they will have no way to avoid that consequence. And people lawfully in this country and not contemplating travel abroad are also at risk of being rounded up, detained, and deported. In short, nothing more than religion (albeit couched in the language of national origin or one-time residence) will determine whether hundreds of thousands of people have access (or continued access) to the opportunities of life in the United States. 2. What is more, it is not only the targeted Muslims who will be affected by the implementation of the Executive Order. The seismic shift in this Nation’s treatment of a religious minority will be felt by families, neighborhoods, houses of worship, local businesses, and, as the district court recognized, public universities and other public institutions. All will suffer the loss of valued employees, customers, relatives, and members of the community. 3. The hardships in this country and around the world that will be caused by official discrimination against a single, disfavored religious group highlight the importance of correctly analyzing and deciding questions of religious-freedom rights—legal issues that amici are uniquely positioned to assist this Court in assessing. The proposed amicus brief explains why the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars enforcement of the anti-Muslim Executive Order, and hence why Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and why a stay of the TRO would be improper. As the brief explains, the government is forbidden to discriminate against Muslims. And it is forbidden to endorse or disfavor one religion as compared with others. The Executive Order does all of this and more. 4. All parties issued blanket consents to the filing of amicus briefs. At 10:41 p.m. EST (7:41 p.m. PST) on February 5, however, amici were informed that Defendants altered their position from straightforward consent to all amicus briefs, now giving consent solely if the amicus briefs were filed by the deadline for Plaintiffs’ brief of 11:59 p.m. PST (2:59 a.m. EST). Amici had been anticipating filing the brief in the morning on February 6. In light of Defendants’ changed position, amici immediately raced to finish and finalize their brief and this motion and endeavored to file them. It was simply not possible, however to do so by 11:59 p.m. PST, so amici filed very shortly thereafter, as soon as the technical aspects of the file the brief could be resolved in accordance with the rules. Because of the late notice of change of position from Defendants, Defendants may now be withholding consent. Amici request that the Court accept the brief, whether as uncontested or as contested. 5. Finally, amici respectfully request that the Court also grant leave to file the possibly overlength proposed brief. Circuit Rule 27-1 provides that motions may be no longer than twenty pages. Assuming that the normal rules for amicus briefs apply to amicus briefs supporting or opposing motions, amici would then have ten pages for their brief. Circuit Rule 32-3(2) provides that one may comply with the court’s length requirements by “filing a monospaced or proportionally spaced brief or other document in which the word count divided by 280 does not exceed the designated page limit.” Hence, we assume that the Rules allow for 2800-word amicus briefs supporting motions. The proposed brief is 2759 words. If amici have misunderstood the rules and the brief is overlength, we respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file it regardless. CONCLUSION The Court should grant the request to file the proposed amicus brief and order the Clerk to accept the accompanying brief for filing. Date: February 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted, KRISTI L. GRAUNKE MICHELLE R. LAPOINTE Southern Poverty Law Center 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 (404) 521-6700 ANGELO J. CALFO KRISTIN W. SILVERMAN Calfo Eakes & Ostrovsky PLLC 1301 Second Avenue Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 407-2200 /s/ Richard B. Katskee RICHARD B. KATSKEE ERIC ROTHSCHILD* ANDREW L. NELLIS** BRADLEY GIRARD KELLY M. PERCIVAL*** Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 466-3234 * Admitted only in Pennsylvania. Supervised by Richard B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar. ** Admitted only in New York. Supervised by Richard B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar. *** Admitted only in California. Supervised by Richard B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar. Counsel for Amici Curiae Date: February 6, 2017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 6, 2017, the foregoing brief was filed using the Court’s CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served electronically via that system. /s/ Richard B. Katskee Counsel for Amici Curiae

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?