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

Filing 68

Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by US Justice Fndn, Citizens United, Citizens United Fndn, English First Fndn, English First, Public Advocate of the US, Gun Owners Fndn, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, US Border Control Fndn & Policy Analysis Center. Date of service: 02/06/2017. [10304130] [17-35105] (Titus, Herbert) [Entered: 02/06/2017 02:48 PM]

No. 17-35105
444444444444444444444444

In the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF MINNESOTA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
President of the United States, et al.
Defendants-Appellants.
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
_______________
Brief Amicus Curiae of U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens
United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate
of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America,
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control
Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center in Support of Defendants-Appellants’
Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
________________
JOSEPH W. MILLER
Ramona, CA 92065
Attorney for Amicus Curiae USJF
MICHAEL BOOS
Washington, D.C. 20003
Attorney for Amici Curiae CU & CUF
*Attorney of Record
February 6, 2017

HERBERT W. TITUS*
WILLIAM J. OLSON
JEREMIAH L. MORGAN
ROBERT J. OLSON
WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.
370 Maple Avenue W., Suite 4
Vienna, Virginia 22180-5615
[phone]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae

444444444444444444444444

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The amici curiae herein, U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens
United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of
the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America,
Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control
Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center, through their undersigned counsel,
submit this Disclosure Statement pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
26.1, 29(c).
All of these amici curiae are non-stock, nonprofit corporations, none of
which has any parent company, and no person or entity owns them or any part of
them. The amici curiae are represented herein by Herbert W. Titus, who is
counsel of record, William J. Olson, Jeremiah L. Morgan, and Robert J. Olson of
William J. Olson, P.C., 370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4, Vienna, Virginia
22180-5615. Amicus United States Justice Foundation also is represented herein
by Joseph W. Miller, 932 D Street, Suite 2, Ramona, California 92065. Amici
Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation are also represented herein by
Michael Boos, 1006 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.
s/Herbert W. Titus
Herbert W. Titus

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT
I.

The District Court’s TRO Should be Stayed, as the
President Had Full Authority to Issue His Executive
Order of January 27, 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A.

B.

II.

The President Has Near Plenary Authority Over
Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Prior Presidents Have Exercised Broad Authority over
Immigration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Temporary Restraining Order Reinstating the Prior Status Quo
for Refugees Threatens the Nation’s Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

ii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Amici United States Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United
Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the
United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative
Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy
Analysis Center are nonprofit organizations, exempt from federal income tax
under either section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).
Each entity is dedicated, inter alia, to the correct construction, interpretation, and
application of law. Their interest also includes protecting the our nation’s borders,
enforcement of immigration laws, separation of powers, and related issues.
Many of these amici have worked on these issues for many years, including
the following during the last year: (i) a Legal Analysis of presidential candidate
Trump’s proposals to limit immigration from certain countries (Feb. 12, 2016);
(ii) an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a 26-State challenge
to presidential executive actions that were clearly outside statutory authority (Apr.
1

Amici requested and received the consents of the parties to the filing of
this brief amicus curiae, pursuant to Rule 29(a), Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. No party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part. No party
or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
submitting the brief. No person other than these amici curiae, their members or
their counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
submitting this brief.
1

4, 2016); (iii) Comments to the Department of State regarding the proposed
number of refugees for 2017 (May 19, 2016); (iv) a Legal Policy Paper analyzing
the constitutional authority for States to enter into an interstate compact regarding
immigration (Sept. 2, 2016); and (v) Comments to the U.S. Citizenship &
Immigration Service regarding amendments to the Registration for Classification
as Refugee form (Nov. 17, 2016).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 3, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington issued a “nationwide” Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”),
prohibiting “enforcement” of five sections of President Trump’s Executive Order
(“E.O.”) of January 27, 2016 — section 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5,(e). The
district court’s Order explains the basis for its decision as follows:
The court finds that the States have satisfied [the required] standards
[for a TRO] and that the court should issue a TRO [including] the
States are likely to succeed on the merits.... [District Court Order at
4.]
There follow a few sentences as to the harm allegedly suffered by the states, but
no analysis whatsoever as to whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are
“likely to succeed on the merits.” Remarkably, the district court’s TRO2 is wholly
2

Moreover, the district judge issued no separate opinion justifying his

TRO.
2

devoid of any analysis of the constitutional or statutory authority of the President
to issue his Executive Order.3 To correct that failure in legal analysis, Section I,
infra, addresses the broad, even plenary authority of the President to restrict
immigration from specific countries. Section II, infra, addresses the authority of
the President to delimit refugee status when required by the national interest.
ARGUMENT
I.

The District Court’s TRO Should be Stayed, as the President Had Full
Authority to Issue His Executive Order of January 27, 2017.
A.

The President Has Near Plenary Authority Over Immigration.

President Trump’s Executive Order repeatedly relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f),
which expressly authorizes the President to suspend or restrict the entry into the
United States of “any aliens or of any class of aliens” that he determines would be
“detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This statute has been
understood to give a President virtually unlimited power to suspend or restrict
immigration within its framework. That statute has no language suggesting that
the statutory power granted to the President could not be applied generally to an

3

Contrast the conclusory approach taken by district Judge James L.
Robart with the much more careful, textual, and analytical approach taken by
district Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton in the District of Massachusetts in his ruling
in Louhghalem, et al. v. Trump, Civil Action No. 17-10154-NMG (Feb 3.,
2017) declining any injunctive relief in a similar challenge.
3

entire class based upon country of origin, as President Trump has done. Clearly,
this is an area where Congress has agreed legislatively that the President should
have wide berth to restrict foreign travel into the United States. Through more
than 125 years of litigation and numerous Supreme Court decisions addressing the
issue, the political branches, and especially the President, have been relatively
unimpeded by the judiciary in their authority to make immigration decisions
according to their political, social, and economic determinations.4 See United
States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950). Moreover, there is a
long line of cases holding that excluded aliens — those seeking to enter the United
States — have no rights under the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Ekiu v. United
States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 (1892); Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296,
302 (1902); United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 294 (1904);
Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138, 143-144 (1909); Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S.
32, 40 (1924); Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953).
B

Prior Presidents Have Exercised Broad Authority over
Immigration.

The district court ignored prior valid exercises of presidential authority to
exclude foreign persons for a wide variety of reasons.
4

See Feere, Jon, “Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S.
Immigration Policy?” http://cis.org/plenarypower/.
4

1. President Carter’s Executive Order 12172 (Nov. 26, 1979).
After Iran took American citizens working in Iran hostage and seized our
Embassy, President Carter issued Executive Order 12172, limiting entry by Iranian
aliens into the United States. U.S. immigration officials required thousands of
Iranian students to report to an immigration office, and students found to have visa
violations were deported. In addition, on April 7, 1980, President Carter
reportedly directed U.S. officials to invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens
for future entry into the United States, and to reissue new visas only for
compelling and proven humanitarian reasons, or where the U.S. national interest
required it.5
2. President Reagan’s 1981 Exercise of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
In 1981, President Reagan authorized the interdiction of certain vessels
containing undocumented aliens on the high seas. Proclamation No. 4865, 46 Fed.
Reg. 48107 (published Oct. 1, 1981). At the same time, President Reagan issued
Executive Order 12324, to interdict any “defined” vessel carrying such aliens.
When challenged, a district court ruled that the President’s power by such methods
to suspend the entry of illegal aliens had a “clear constitutional basis.” Haitian

5

See http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jimmy-carter-barred-iranians/
2015/12/09/id/705127/.
5

Refugee Center, Inc. v. Gracey, 600 F. Supp. 1396, 1398, 1400 (D.D.C. 1985),
aff’d, 809 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
3. President Reagan’s 1985 Exercise of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
President Reagan signed Presidential Proclamation 5377 on October 4,
1985, based upon the authority vested in him by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) — the same
statute invoked by President Trump — to suspend entry into the United States of
certain classes of Cuban nationals as nonimmigrants. Certain aliens asserted that
such action exceeded the government’s authority and impinged on the members’
First Amendment rights to freedom of association, speech, and religion. The
government’s action was sustained, and the suit dismissed. See Encuentro Del
Canto Popular v. Christopher, 930 F. Supp. 1360 and 944 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Cal.
1996).
4. President Obama’s 2011 Exercise of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
On August 4, 2011, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation
8697, entitled Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons
Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and
Other Abuses. Section 1 of that Proclamation — again, issued under the authority
of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) — suspends the entry into the United States, as immigrants
or nonimmigrants, by any aliens who have engaged in “widespread or systematic
6

violence against any civilian population” based in whole or in part on any number
of factors (e.g, race, descent, sex, religion, political opinion), as well as any alien
who participated (or attempted or conspired to participate) in war crimes, crimes
against humanity, or other serious violations of human rights.
II.

The Temporary Restraining Order Reinstating the Prior Status Quo
For Refugees Threatens the Nation’s Security.
In their Motion for a TRO to the district court, Plaintiff States contend that

the balance of equities “tips sharply in favor of the State.” Motion for TRO at 23.
But they take no account of the equities that favor Defendants. And they are
many. The fundamental premise upon which the President’s E.O. is based is that
the previous “issuance process” has not adequately “protect[ed] the American
people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”
E.O. at 1. However, the foremost reason for the E.O. is to suspend admissions of
foreign nationals, with the view of forming and implementing a more effective
exclusionary process. E.O. at Sections 1-3. More particularly, Section 4 of the
E.O. pinpoints the major problem with the status quo, and the paramount need for
a suspension while a new policy is in the making. First, the E.O. sets a goal:
The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the
adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals
7

seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent
to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their
admission. [E.O., Section 4.]
Then this section of the E.O. articulates six separate requirements designed to
prevent fraud in the application process. Id. at 4.
Are there good and valid reasons for such detail to take such precautions by
designing entirely new procedures to prevent fraud? In a report prepared by the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) during the Obama
Administration, it was observed that: “The immigration system is a constant
target for exploitation by individuals who seek to enter the United States and
who are otherwise ineligible for entry based on security grounds.” See U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, “Lack of Identity Documents in the Refugee
Process” at 1 (emphasis added). The DHS Report found:
ICE’s Refugee Program is particularly vulnerable to fraud due to
loose evidentiary requirements, where at times, the testimony of an
applicant alone is sufficient for approval. [Id. (emphasis added).]
According to this Obama Administration DHS report, the problems with the
current vetting system are legion:
•
•
•
•

the processing of refugees by DHS officers takes place in foreign refugee
camps;
vetting typically takes place in areas where it is difficult to verify claims;
biometric tools such as DNA testing and fingerprinting are nonexistent;
lack of any identity (name and DOB) documents;
8

•
•

unreliability of attestations such as former employers; and
counterfeit or altered documents (medical, political activity, judicial
papers).
Amazingly, the DHS report concluded that, instead of undermining one’s

claim for refugee status, this chronic lack of evidence has caused just the opposite
response:
The refugee and asylum laws purposefully contain loose evidentiary
requirements based on the assumption that a true victim of
persecution would not have the time or resources to obtain evidence
of their persecution as they flee the country. This flexibility in the
law, however, not only helps victims of persecution, it also allows
others to exploit the system. [Id. (emphasis added).]
Indeed, with information like this, it is not surprising that the DHS memo
was an internal one, made public by members of Congress in response to DHS
testimony assuring the House of Representatives as the department sought to
“increase the number of refugees from dangerous countries.”6 The Washington
Times reported that the DHS testimony was elicited during hearings concerning
President Obama’s “‘decision to increase overall refugee resettlement – and
specifically that of Syrian refugees – ignor[ing] warnings from his own national
security officials.’” With respect to the DHS document, itself, ICE Director Sarah
Saldana said: “I have never seen this document before.” Id.
6

Washington Times, “DHS admits refugee fraud ‘easy to commit,’”
(Sept. 22, 2016).
9

That was then; this is now. President Trump’s E.O. ends with a Section 10
entitled “Transparency and Data Collection.” In the concluding section, the
President vows to be “more transparent with the American people, and to more
effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest.” To
that end, the executive order commands the Secretary of Homeland Security to
report publicly within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter, vital information
concerning the threats of terrorism and violence against women from foreign
nationals on American soil. Apparently, by seeking this TRO, the Plaintiff States
prefer the status quo ante, irrespective of whether the terrorist threat is real.
Certainly, this is not a judicial question that is properly presented to a federal
judge to resolve. That is why the Congress has given virtually plenary authority
over immigration and the refugee program to the President of the United States.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court February 3, 2017 Temporary
Restraining Order should be stayed pending appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Herbert W. Titus
*HERBERT W. TITUS
WILLIAM J. OLSON
JEREMIAH L. MORGAN
ROBERT J. OLSON

JOSEPH W. MILLER
UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION
932 D Street, Ste. 3
Ramona, California 92065-2355
10

Co-Counsel for Amicus Curiae
U.S. Justice Foundation

Attorney for Amici Curiae
WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.
370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4
Vienna, Virginia 22180-5615
[phone]

MICHAEL BOOS
CITIZENS UNITED
1006 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Co-Counsel for Amici Curiae
Citizens United and
Citizens United Foundation
February 6, 2017
*Attorney of record

11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED:
1.

That the foregoing Brief Amicus Curiae of U.S. Justice Foundation, et

al. in Support of Defendants-Appellants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
complies with the limitation set forth by Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) and Circuit Rule
27-1(d), because this brief contains 10 pages, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2.

This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using WordPerfect
version 18.0.0.200 in 14-point CG Times.

/s/ Herbert W. Titus
__________________________
Herbert W. Titus
Attorney for Amici Curiae
Dated: February 6, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing Brief Amicus
Curiae of U.S. Justice Foundation, et al., in Support of Defendants-Appellants’
Motion for Stay Pending Appeal was made, this 6th day of February 2017, by the
Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system upon the attorneys for the
parties.
/s/ Herbert W. Titus
_________________________
Herbert W. Titus
Attorney for Amici Curiae