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

Filing 69

Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review and filed Motion to become amicus curiae. Submitted by Washington State Labor Council. Date of service: 02/06/2017. [10304141] [17-35105]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached separate PDFs of motion and brief, updated docket text to reflect content of filing, resent notice. 02/06/2017 by LA] (Iglitzin, Dmitri) [Entered: 02/06/2017 02:51 PM]

No. 17-35105
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
No. 2:17-cv-00141
The Honorable James L. Robart
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
OF WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL
IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION OF WASHINGTON AND
MINNESOTA TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY
PENDING APPEAL

Jennifer L. Robbins
Dmitri Iglitzin
Kathleen Phair Barnard
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98119-3971
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for WSLC

Corporate Disclosure Statement
Washington State Labor Council is a non-profit organization with 600
affiliated union locals and councils representing approximately 450,000 rank-andfile union members throughout the State of Washington.

It has no parent

corporation and there is no publicly held corporation that owns 10 per cent or more
of its stock, of which it has none.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

Page
1

II. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

3

III. ARGUMENT

4

A. Absent continuing injunctive relief, residents of Washington will
suffer irreparable harm because their government, in clear
contravention of the INA, has labelled some of them as being less
valuable than others, and as having no rights.

5

B. Absent continuing injunctive relief, residents of Washington will
also suffer irreparable harm because their government has interfered
with their liberties by limiting their movement, their ability to
associate with their families, and to work.

12

IV.

CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer,
757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 12, 13, 14, 15
City of Los Angeles, Dep’ of Water & Power v. Manhart,
t
435 U.S. 702, 98 S. Ct. 1370, 55 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1978) .............................. 10, 11
Enyart v. Nat’ Conf. of Bar Examiners, Inc., cert.
l
denied, 132 S. Ct. 366, 181 L.Ed.2d 232 (2011) .............................................. 12
Statutes
8 U.S.C. § 1152 ......................................................................................................6
Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-383, 102 Stat. 903 (1998)..................1
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964) .................... 8, 10
Immigration Act of 1924, Pub.L. 67-5, 42 Stat. 5 (1924) .................................... 6, 7
Immigration Act of 1965.........................................................................................5
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163 .............................7
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, Pub.L. No.
89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965)....................................................................... passim
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (1965) .......................8
Other Authorities
111 Cong.Rec. 24 (1965) ........................................................................................9
California Faculty Association at http://www.calfac.org/headline/cfaissues-statement-trump-immigration-ban ...........................................................4
Discrimination in Asylum Law: The Implications of Jean v. Nelson, 62
Ind. L.J. 127, 149 (1986). ...................................................................................7
H.R. Res. 683, 112th ...............................................................................................1

Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 723 (1964) ...................................................... 10
Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Immigration and
Naturalization of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong.
119 (1965) 9 ......................................................................................................6
Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the
Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 11
(1965) ................................................................................................................9
Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the
Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 44-45
(1965). ...............................................................................................................8
Immigration: Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the Comm. on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H.R. 7700 and 55
Identical Bills, 88th Cong. 901-02 (1964), reprinted in 10A Oscar
Trelles & James Bailey, Immigration and Nationality Acts:
Legislative Histories and Related Documents, doc. 69A (1979) 390 ..................5
John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants 77 (1964) .......................................... 2, 8
The President’ Comm’ on Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall Welcome
s
n
263 (submitted Jan. 1, 1953) ..............................................................................7
The President’ Comm’ on Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall Welcome
s
n
277 .....................................................................................................................7
Roger Daniels, Coming To America: A History of Immigration And
Ethnicity In American Life 338 (1990) ...............................................................8
T. Aleinikoff & D. Martin, Immigration Process and Policy 55 (1985) ................ 10
Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Immigration Policy and the American Labor
Force 62 (1984) .................................................................................................9

I. INTRODUCTION
For more than half a century the United States maintained discriminatory
immigration laws excluding Chinese laborers and others of Chinese descent; in
2012, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution
acknowledging that “ United States was founded on the principle that all
the
persons are created equal” and formally expressing the regret of the House of
Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Acts. H.R. Res. 683, 112th Cong.
(2012).
Acknowledging “ fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and
the
internment of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese
ancestry during World War II,”in 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil
Liberties Act of 1988 to offer a formal apology, and grant reparations in the
amount of $20,000, to each living victim of the Japanese internment resulting from
an Executive Order issued in 1942. Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100383, 102 Stat. 903 (1998). The Act stated that the government “
actions were
carried out without adequate security reasons… and were motivated largely by
racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Id.
After decades of maintaining discriminatory national origin quotas that
disfavored non-European immigrants, Congress enacted the Immigration and
Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965)
1

(hereinafter, “
INA” which finally ended “
),
strong overtures of an indefensible
racial preference” in our immigration law. John F. Kennedy, A Nation of
Immigrants 77 (1964).
Yet, once again if not restrained, discriminatory and destructive
governmental action will later lead to sober thought, contrition and the need for
apology. One week after assuming office, President Donald Trump signed an
Executive Order fulfilling his campaign promise to enact a “
Muslim ban” and to
subject immigrant applicants to “
extreme vetting.” The Executive Order bans all
refugees from entering the country for 120 days, bans all refugees from Syria
indefinitely, and bans immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majorityMuslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. President Trump defends the Executive Order with
rhetoric of national security.

Even if future leaders of our government feel

compelled to issue formal apologies or statements of regret for this unlawful and
discriminatory act, no amount of contrition, or even reparations, will undo the
harm to individuals, and most importantly to our democracy, caused by the
Executive Order at issue here.
The Washington State Labor Council (“
WSLC” submits this brief in
)
opposition to President Donald Trump, et. al.’ Emergency Motion Under Circuit
s
Rule 27-3 For Administrative Stay And Motion For Stay Pending Appeal
2

(“
Emergency Motion” because the members of its affiliated unions would suffer
)
irreparable harm from revived enforcement of the Executive Order.
I. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The WSLC is a state-wide labor council comprised of more than 600 local
unions and represents more than 450,000 rank-and-file union members working in
Washington State. It is widely considered to be the “
voice of labor”in Washington
State. Declaration of Jeff Johnson (“
Johnson Dec.” ¶ 2.1 WSLC has a strong
),
interest in advocating for the liberty interests of Washington State workers. Id.
Because of the irreparable harm being done to union members in Washington
State, which is set forth in detail below, the WSLC and other labor leaders have
spoken out vehemently against President Trump’ Executive Order. Id., ¶ 4 and
s
Ex. A (statements from labor unions regarding the Executive Order).2

All of the declarations referenced herein were filed with the district court below,
and copies are attached for the court’ convenience hereto.
s
2
See also Washington State Labor Council statement at
http://www.thestand.org/2017/01/wslc-trump-orders-bring-shame-to-the-u-s/;
Service Employees International Union statement at
http://www.seiu.org/2017/01/seius-saenz-trumps-executive-actions-are-an-attackon-american-values-that-will-hurt-immigrant-muslim-and-refugee-families;
American Federation of Teachers statement at: http://allin.rtp.aft.org/aft-opposestrump-executive-orders-information-and-resources; American Nurses Association
statement at
http://nursingworld.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/MediaResources/PressReleases
/ANAPresidentResponds-ImmigrationEO.html; Teamsters Joint Council 16 at
http://teamsters.nyc/2017/02/01/new-york-teamsters-support-immigrants-opposetrump-immigration-orders/; AFL-CIO’
s
1

3

The WSLC submits this brief in opposition to the Emergency Motion and to
support the State of Washington’ efforts to ensure that the unconstitutional,
s
unlawful Executive Order does not again go into effect.3
II. ARGUMENT
The WSLC joins, but will not repeat here, the States’meritorious arguments,
made to this Court, that the Executive Order violates the United States Constitution
and federal statutes. It submits this brief to add its unique perspective and voice to
the chorus of voices seeking to point out to this Court the truly appalling
consequences this misguided and wrongfully-motivated Executive Order will have
if the Order enjoining it is stayed pending appeal. The WSLC also writes to
emphasize that careful review of the history of discriminatory immigration rules
demonstrates the significance of the irreparable harm that is being caused in

statement at http://www.thestand.org/2017/02/attacking-immigrants-refugeeshurts-us-all/; UniteHERE! statement at http://unitehere.org/pressreleases/statement-by-d-taylor-on-president-trumps-travel-ban/; United
Farmworkers statement at
http://www.ufw.org/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=news_press&b_no=19078&
page=1&field=&key=&n=1221; SEIU California’ statement at
s
http://www.seiuca.org/2014/11/21/seiu-california-statement-on-the-presidentsaction-on-immigration/; California Faculty Association at
http://www.calfac.org/headline/cfa-issues-statement-trump-immigration-ban.
3
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 29(a) the WSLC states that no party’ counsel authored
s
this brief in part or whole, no party or party’ counsel contributed money that was
s
intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief, and no person other than
amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel contributed money that was intended to
fund preparing or submitting the brief.
4

particular by the fact that this Executive Order violates the INA— the statute
meant to end pernicious discrimination in immigration law.
A.

Absent continuing injunctive relief, residents of Washington will
suffer irreparable harm because their government, in clear
contravention of the INA, has labelled some of them as being less
valuable than others, and as having no rights.

“
The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning
immigrants, non-immigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or
religions reflects the attitudes the government has of its own citizens of those same
national origins and religions – that they are less valued, less than equal. Such
policies cause harm to our unions’members that cannot be undone.” Johnson Dec.
¶ 6.
In discussing the Immigration Act of 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk
similarly observed that immigration rules have significant domestic, as well as
foreign, meaning:
[G]iven the fact that we are a country of many races and national origins,
that those who built this country and developed it made decisions about
opening our doors to the rest of the world; that anything which makes it
appear that we, ourselves, are discriminating in principle about particular
national origins, suggests that we think ... less well of our own citizens of
those national origins, than of other citizens....4
4

Immigration: Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the Comm. on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, on H.R. 7700 and 55 Identical Bills, 88th Cong. 901-02
(1964), reprinted in 10A Oscar Trelles & James Bailey, Immigration and
Nationality Acts: Legislative Histories and Related Documents, doc. 69A (1979)
390. See also id. at 410 (remarks of Attorney General Robert Kennedy) (noting
5

Attorney General Katzenbach accurately assessed the damage done by
discriminatory immigration rules the 1965 Act was meant to abolish:
I do not know how any American could fail to be offended by a system
which presumes that some people are inferior to others solely because of
their birthplace.... The harm it does to the United States and to its citizens is
incalculable.”
Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Naturalization of the
Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong. 119 (1965) 9.
Through this language in the INA, the Congress abolished discrimination long
codified in statutory national origin quotas which disfavored non-European
immigrants:
Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections
1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall
receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the
issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality,
place of birth, or place of residence.
8 U.S.C. § 1152 (enacted by Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965)).
The quotas were introduced into law in 1921, and extended by the
Immigration Act of 1924, which required a study of the ethnic sources of
America’ white population from the origins of settlement; and quotas were
s
derived from the percentages of the U.S. population that were derived from any

that the bill “
would remove from our law a discriminatory system of selecting
immigrants that is a standing affront to millions of our citizens”
).
6

particular nation. This had the effect of limiting immigration from Asia, and nonProtestant eastern and southern Europe. Pub.L. 67-5; 42 Stat. 5 (1921); Pub.L. 675; 42 Stat. 5 (1924). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, 66
Stat. 163, retained modified quotas that again reflected the existing demographic
mix of U.S. inhabitants and had no purpose other than to maintain the existing
ethnic and religious composition of the national population. See Mary Jane
Lapointe, Discrimination in Asylum Law: The Implications of Jean v. Nelson, 62
Ind. L.J. 127, 149 (1986). That discriminatory purpose became the focal point of
intense debate which fueled the impetus for the 1965 Act.
President Harry Truman opposed the discriminatory quota system and when
his veto of the 1952 act was overridden, he denounced the system as being contrary
to American values because it “
discriminates, deliberately and intentionally,
against many of the peoples of the world.” The President's Veto Message, June 25,
1952, reprinted in The President’ Comm’ on Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall
s
n
Welcome 277. President Truman’ Commission on Immigration and National
s
Origin had found that “ major disruptive influence in our immigration law is the
the
racism and national discrimination caused by the national origins system,”and that
the present system should be replaced with a “
unified quota system, which would
allocate visas without regard to national origin, race, creed, or color.” The

7

President’ Comm’ on Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall Welcome 263 (submitted
s
n
Jan. 1, 1953).
In 1958, then Senator John Kennedy published a broadside against the
national origin quota system in which he criticized the system for having “
strong
overtures of an indefensible racial preference.” John F. Kennedy, A Nation of
Immigrants 77 (1964). As President, he introduced legislation to end the quota
system and President Lyndon Johnson strongly advocated for the bill, after
President Kennedy’ deal.
s

The INA was enacted in 1965 as one of three

complimentary bills passed early in Johnson's presidency, the others being the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964), and the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (1965).5 See Roger Daniels,
Coming To America: A History of Immigration And Ethnicity In American Life 338
(1990) (observing that the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Immigration
5

Senator Hiram Fong described the purpose of the Act as “
seeking an immigration
policy reflecting America’ ideal of the equality of all men without regard to race,
s
color, creed or national origin” which he noted reflected the values of the Civil
Rights Act:
Last year we enacted the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was
designed to wipe out the last vestiges of racial discrimination against our
own citizens . . . . As we move to erase racial discrimination against our
own citizens, we should also move to erase racial barriers against citizens
of other lands in our immigration laws.
Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the Senate Comm.
on the Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 44-45 (1965).
8

Act “
represent a kind of high-water mark in a national consensus of
egalitarianism” Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Immigration Policy and the American
);
Labor Force 62 (1984) (“
Just as overt racism could no longer be tolerated in the
way citizens treated their fellow citizens, neither could it be sanctioned in the laws
that governed the way in which noncitizens were considered for immigrant
status.”
).
In supporting passage of the INA, Senator Edward M. Kennedy argued that
the national origins quota system was “
contrary to our basic principles as a nation.”
111 Cong.Rec. 24, 225 (1965). Senator Joseph Clark insisted that “ national
the
origins quotas and the Asian-Pacific triangle provisions are irrational, arrogantly
intolerant, and immoral”and that it was unjust that “ brilliant Korean or Indian
[a]
scientist is turned away, while the northern European is accepted almost without
question.” Id. at 24, 501. Representative Paul Krebs stated that immigration rules
based on national origin were “
repugnant to our national traditions,”and that “
we
must learn to judge each individual by his own worth and by the value he can bring
to our Nation.” Id. at 21, 778. Representative Dominick Daniels rejected the
national origin quotas that “
racism simply has no place in America in this day and
age.” Id. at 21, 787. Other senators and officials condemned the national origins
quota system as “
un-American”and “
totally alien to the spirit of the Constitution,”
and praised the new bill for its recognition of individual rights. Hearings on S. 500
9

Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, pt.
1, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1965) (statement of Attorney General Katzenbach), 47
(statement of Secretary of State Dean Rusk), 127 (statement of Senator Hugh
Scott), 165 (statement of Senator Paul Douglas) and 217 (statement of Senator
Robert Kennedy); see also Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the House Comm.
on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 723 (1964), where the Secretary-Treasurer
of the AFL-CIO, James B. Carey, quotes the AFL-CIO Declaration in support of
the bill).
The INA repealed a system that, in the words of President Johnson,
“
violated the basic principle of American democracy— the principle that values
and rewards each man on the basis of his merit . . . .”T. Aleinikoff & D. Martin,
Immigration Process and Policy 55 (1985). In that regard, like Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the INA’ “
s focus on the individual is unambiguous. It
precludes treatment of individuals as simply components of a racial, religious,
sexual, or national class.” City of Los Angeles, Dep't of Water & Power v.
Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 708, 98 S. Ct. 1370, 55 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1978). In enacting
the INA, Congress intended to end discrimination based on national origin and
religion and non-discrimination “
requires … focus on fairness to individuals rather
than fairness to classes. Practices that classify employees in terms of religion, race,

10

or sex tend to preserve traditional assumptions about groups rather than thoughtful
scrutiny of individual.” Manhart, 435 U.S. at 709-10.
The Executive Order at issue here is blanket discrimination against classes
of individuals based on their national origin and religion, classifications that are
not consistent with American law, or even rational, and are at the same time over
and under inclusive, as the States of Washington and Minnesota have pointed out.
It denies Syrian refugees, immigrants and the resident family members of
immigrants of the seven excluded nations evaluation on individual merit and
instead imposes what our Constitution and laws protect against: invidious
discrimination based on particular characteristics. The order works precisely as
did the repealed quota system, by denying liberty to whole classes of people based
on their national origin. The Executive Order thus directly contravenes the INA
and the Nation’ values, which mandate that each individual is evaluated on his or
s
her own merit.

The WSLC joins in the following statement of former national

security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government
condemning the Executive Order as antithetical to American law and values:
As government officials, we sought diligently to protect our country, even
while maintaining an immigration system free from intentional
discrimination, that applies no religious tests, and that measures individuals
by their merits, not stereotypes of their countries or groups. Blanket bans of
certain countries or classes of people are beneath the dignity of the nation
and Constitution that we each took oaths to protect. Rebranding a proposal
first advertised as a “
Muslim Ban”as “
Protecting the Nation from Foreign
11

Terrorist Entry into the United States” does not disguise the Order’
s
discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to
America’ Constitution, laws, or values.
s
ECF 29-2, ¶ 9 (Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V.
Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. Mclaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell,
Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, Susan E. Rice).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the States of Washington and Minnesota are
likely to prevail on the merits, and the district court’ temporary restraining order
s
should be left intact.
B.

Absent continuing injunctive relief, residents of Washington will
also suffer irreparable harm because their government has
interfered with their liberties by limiting their movement, their
ability to associate with their families, and to work.

In addition to dignitary harm, Washington residents have suffered tangible
harm and will continue to suffer harm if the temporary restraining order enjoining
enforcement of the Executive Order is stayed. Lost opportunities to engage in
one’ chosen profession, to travel, and to be united or reunited with families and
s
loved ones are all irreparable, because losses of this kind sustained by individuals
affected by the Executive Order cannot be remedied by money damages. See, e.g.,
Enyart v. Nat’ Conf. of Bar Examiners, Inc., cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 366, 181
l
L.Ed.2d 232 (2011); Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2014). In addition to the irreparable harm set forth in the pleadings filed by
12

the States of Washington and Minnesota, and other amici curiae, individuals who
live and work in Washington are being subjected to the irreparable harm described
herein.
Among WSLC’ affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity
s
Charter with the WSLC and other labor allies are unions whose members are
directly impacted by the Executive Order, because they are immigrants or nonimmigrant temporary workers from one of the seven banned countries whose
ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited outright or whose
inability to re-enter the United States after travelling will put their livelihoods in
jeopardy. Johnson Dec., ¶ 6. Members are also affected because the ability of
their families to travel into the United States is prohibited temporarily or
indefinitely, disrupting the members’family ties, personal freedoms and economic
security. Id. The members of unions affiliated or allied with WSLC affected by the
Executive Order ban include hospitality workers, retail employees, health care
industry workers, laborers, factory workers, and state, county and municipal
employees among others. Id. These union members are exceptionally diverse,
comprised of an array of races, nationalities, and religions. Id. The negative
policies the United States government establishes concerning immigrants, nonimmigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or religions reflects the
attitudes the government has of its own citizens of those same national origins and
13

religions –that they are less valued, less than equal. Id. Such policies cause harm
to unions’members that cannot be undone. Id.
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 4121 (“
UAW 4121” represents academic student employees
)
(“
ASEs” at the University of Washington (“
)
UW” Declaration of David Parsons
).
(“
Parsons Dec.” ¶ 1. Some ASEs are citizens or nationals of one of the seven
),
countries listed in the Executive Order and are present in the U.S. with valid visas.
Id., ¶ 3. Many have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the Executive
Order on their work at and for UW. Id. In particular, since the Executive Order
has been issued, impacted ASEs from the seven named countries believe they can
and should not travel outside the U.S., and have been advised by UW to avoid any
international travel. Id. This impacts in numerous ways these ASEs’ ability to
perform research and complete their courses of study. Id. If the restraining order
is stayed, at least one ASE conducts research that requires overseas travel, and
therefore may be significantly delayed or lose altogether the work completed
pursuant to this project, which has been in process for years and directly impacts
degree completion. Id. For some ASEs, any delay in completing research and
course work could jeopardize funding and employment opportunities.

Id.

Additionally, if the restraining order is stayed ASEs will again be restricted from

14

visiting close family members or friends outside the U.S., which creates significant
emotional hardships. Id.
UAW 4121 is aware of at least one ASE who is a citizen or national of one
of the seven countries, and is outside the U.S. Id., ¶ 4. If he or she is unable to reenter the U.S. as a result of the Executive Order, his/her ability to conduct research
for UW related to his/her course of study could be limited, and his/her graduate
program training sequence could be disrupted. Id.
Service Employees International Union 6 Property Services Northwest
(“
SEIU 6” has historically represented immigrants and refugees employed in the
)
commercial janitorial industry, and its membership often reflects the different
flows of immigrants and refugees coming into the U.S. workforce. Declaration of
Matt Haney (“
Haney Dec.” ¶ 2. The current membership includes over 350
),
individuals originally from the seven affected countries in the Executive Order
travel ban. Id., ¶ 3. The majority of these members originated from Somalia. Id.
The members from these countries tend to save up their money in order to be able
to afford to return to their countries of origin for a month or more. Id.
Since President Trump issued the Executive Order banning all refugees from
entering the country for 120 days, banning all refugees from Syria indefinitely, and
banning immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries
from entering the U.S. for 90 days, SEIU 6 members who have made travel plans
15

to Somalia have been contacting union representatives at SEIU 6 expressing their
fears that they may not be able to return to the U.S., to their families and to their
jobs, if they travel now. Id., ¶ 4.
Additionally, a SEIU 6 member currently on leave in Somalia has contacted
union representatives about fears of losing his job and in turn his health coverage,
essential to controlling his chronic health condition, because he will not be able to
return to the United States by April 15th as was arranged with his employer. Id., ¶
5.
These individual tangible harms are irreparable, as they cannot be remedied
by money damages. Re-implementation of the Executive Order would cause
irreparable injury to individuals living and working in Washington. The requested
stay should therefore be denied.
III.

CONCLUSION

The individual tangible and dignitary harm that is being suffered by
residents whose national origin is from the countries subject to the Executive Order
is irreparable, in violation of the INA, and the Constitution’ guarantees of equal
s
protection and due process. The Executive Order is not rationally related to its
stated goal of protecting national security and is, and must be, subject to judicial
review, unless we are to abandon the rule of law. The harms that would be
suffered if the ruling below enjoining enforcement of the unlawful and
16

unconstitutional Executive Order were to be stayed are severe, and the need for
continuing injunctive relief is urgent. Because each of the elements for injunctive
relief is met, this Court should deny the Emergency Motion.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of February, 2017.

s/Jennifer L. Robbins
Jennifer Robbins, WSBA No. 40861
s/Dmitri Iglitzin
Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673
s/Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA #17896
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98119-3971
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for WSLC

17

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
We certify that this brief complies with Rule 32-1 and is proportionally
spaced, has a type face of 14 points or more and contains 3,831 words.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2017.
s/Jennifer Robbins
Jennifer Robbins, WSBA No. 40861
s/Dmitri Iglitzin
Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673
s/Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA #17896
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD
IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 11

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Plaintiff,

v.

DECLARATION OF JEFF
JOHNSON

DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY; JOHN F.
KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security; TOM
SHANNON, in his official capacity as Acting
Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,

16
Defendants.
17
18
19

I, Jeff Johnson, hereby declare as follows based on personal knowledge.

20

1.

21
22
23

I am the president of the Washington State Labor Council (“
WSLC” I have held
).

the position since 2010. Since 1986, I have held other positions with the WSLC, including
special assistant to the president, lead lobbyist, research and organizing director, and shop
steward for the administrative staff unit. I also sit on the Governor’ Council of Economic
s

24
25
26

Advisors, the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, the Washington State
Apprenticeship Council, the Board of Washington Community Action Network and Alliance for
Jobs and Clean Energy, and I serve as Co-Chair of the Washington State Blue Green Alliance.
DECLARATION OF JEFF JOHNSON - 1
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
[phone]

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 11

1
2
3
4

2.

The WSLC is comprised of more than 600 local unions and represents more than

450,000 rank-and-file union members working in Washington State. It is widely considered to
be the “
voice of labor”in Washington State. WSLC has a strong interest in advocating for the
liberty interests of Washington State workers.

5
6
7

3.

The WSLC provides many services to its affiliated unions. The Council has a

focus on legislative advocacy, political action, communication through its website “
The Stand,”

8

supporting affiliated unions’ organizing drives by rallying community leaders and elected

9

officials, and programs that provide affiliate and direct worker assistance like dislocated worker

10

assistance, increasing student awareness about apprenticeship programs within community and

11

technical colleges, Project Help, education and training for union members, and assistance for

12
unions with contract and economic research.
13
14

4.

On January 30, 2017, I issued the following statement regarding President Donald

15

Trump’ Executive Order that bans all refugees from entering the country for 120 days, bans all
s

16

refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bans immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-

17

Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

President Trump’ Executive Order on Friday de facto banning Muslims from
s
certain Middle Eastern countries from entering/re-entering the country for 90 days
went beyond the pale of common decency, human dignity, and further fans the
flames of racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism that he thoughtlessly spewed
during his campaign. Legal permanent residents, green card holders and vetted
refugees from certain Muslim countries — only countries where the Trump
Corporation has no business dealings — were detained at airports, refused entry,
and in some cases, sent back to the country they had just arrived from. This
reckless action further contributes to the rising attacks on Muslims and others in
America. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic rise in hate
incidents over the past two years, now at 260,000 hate incidents a year. This
hateful and shameful Executive Order was met by thousands protesting at airports
across the country as well as an emergency stay against the Executive Order by a
federal judge.

DECLARATION OF JEFF JOHNSON - 2
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
[phone]

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 11

As union members and as a labor movement we stand with immigrants and
refugees. We cannot and will not allow the president to pick us off one group at a
time. Another leader did this in the 1930s and 1940s with horrific consequences.

1
2
3
4

America was built by immigrants and refugees and they will continue to play a
part in the values upon which we define America.

5

6.

6
7

Among WSLC’ affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity Charter
s

with the WSLC and other labor allies are unions whose members are directly impacted by the
Executive Order, because they are immigrants or non-immigrant temporary workers from one of

8
the seven banned countries whose ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited
9
10

outright or whose inability to re-enter the United States after travelling will put their livelihoods

11

in jeopardy. Members are also affected because the ability of their families to travel into the

12

United States is prohibited temporarily or indefinitely, disrupting the members’ family ties,

13

personal freedoms and economic security. The members of unions affiliated or allied with

14

WSLC affected by the ban include hospitality workers, retail employees, health care industry

15

workers, laborers, factory workers, and state, county and municipal employees among others.

16
These union members are exceptionally diverse, comprised of an array of races, nationalities,
17
18

and religions.

The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning

19

immigrants, non-immigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or religions reflects

20

the attitudes the government has of its own citizens of those same national origins and religions –

21

that they are less valued, less than equal. Such policies cause harm to our unions’members that

22

cannot be undone.

23

//

24
25
26

//
//
//
DECLARATION OF JEFF JOHNSON - 3
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
[phone]

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 11

1
2
3
4

7.

Recognizing the injustice of President Trump’ Executive Order, labor unions
s

have spoken out emphatically against it. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and accurate
copies of some statements by organized labor, published on their websites in response to the
Executive Order.

5
6
7
8
9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Signed in _Olympia, WA__, Washington, this 2nd day of February, 2017.

10
11
12
13
Jeff Johnson

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DECLARATION OF JEFF JOHNSON - 4
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
[phone]

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 11

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

1
2
3
4

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that
on this 2nd day of February, 2017, I caused the foregoing Declaration of Jeff Johnson to be filed
with the Court using the cm/ecf system, which will automatically provide notification of such

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

filing to:

Colleen M. Melody
Patricio A. Marquez
Marsha Chien
Office of the Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
Robert W. Ferguson
Anne E. Egeler
Noah G. Purcell
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
Jacob Campion
Attorney General of Minnesota
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, MN 55101
Michelle R. Bennett
Arjun Garg
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530

22
23

Signed in Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of February, 2017.

24
25

Jennifer Woodward, Paralegal

26

DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 5
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

LAW OFFICES OF
SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-3971
[phone]

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 11

Exhibit A

 (/)

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 11

Contact:
Maria Ponce, [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail]), 202-394-2139

Issued January 27, 2017

SEIU’s Sáenz: Trump’s executive actions are an attack on American
values that will hurt immigrant, Muslim and refugee families
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In response President Trump’s announcement of a series of executive actions on
immigration and refugees, SEIU International Executive Vice President and iAmerica Action President Rocio Sáenz
issued the following statement:
“Another day brings another executive action that attacks immigrants, refugees and their families and
compromises American values. Earlier this week, President Trump followed through on his promise to
create a mass deportation force, turned the vast majority of immigrants into deportation priorities, fasttracked their deportation, and made mandatory detention the default for all immigrants, including families
and children ⩞�eeing persecution. Trump’s executive actions today will continue to intensify the
criminalization of immigrants.
“America should always be a nation that welcomes immigrant and refugee families and their contributions
to our communities and economy. Restrictions on immigration from predominantly Muslim countries
repudiate our own values and give license to others around the world to do the same or worse. Denying
refuge to persons ⩞�eeing persecution at a time when they are most in need of safety is morally wrong and
un-American.  It undermines our security because it harms the victims of persecution and violates our
international obligations.
“SEIU members and our communities will keep standing up for immigrants, refugees and their families,
despite these attacks. Tens of thousands rallied and marched in more than 70 cities throughout America on
Jan. 14, and we will use our collective power in the days and months ahead to prevent deportations and
protect immigrant families. We will build our movement so we can come back stronger in 2018 and 2020 to
win common sense immigration reform that works for working families.”

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 11

1800 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036

twitter (https://twitter.com/seiu)

facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/seiu)

youtube
(https://www.youtube.com/user/SEIU/videos)

Privacy (/privacy/)

Contact (/about/#contact)

©Service Employees International Union

Paid for by SEIU COPE, www.seiu.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 11

Enter e­mail address

News Coverage
Press Releases
Events Calendar
Interactive Event Map
50th Anniversary

Home > News & Events> Press Releases

Tweets by

Trump refugee ban executive order is ‘appalling,’ UFW and UFW Foundation say

@
  UFWupdates

01/27/2017
United Farm ...
@UFWupdates
The Hill: GOP suspends 
rules to push through EPA 
pick despite Dem boycott 
@... fb.me/Vq3BT2uB
2h

 United Farm
Embed

View on Twitter

Trump refugee ban executive order is 
‘appalling,’ UFW and UFW Foundation say
UFW Foundation Executive Director and United Farm Workers National Vice President Diana Tellefson
Torres issued the following statement from Los Angeles in response to President Trump’s executive
orders issued today and aimed at those who seek refuge in the United States:
Any type of refugee ban for any period of time is appalling and in direct opposition to long‐held
American values. Seeking refuge in the U.S is most often the last resort for those who face genuine
risk of persecution and can’t return to their countries from which they ‫ﻐ‬led. This ban not only turns
America's back on the world’s most oppressed people, it also undermines our nation’s founding
principles. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation that has historically offered refuge to the
oppressed. The UFW Foundation and UFW will continue standing ‫ﻐ‬irmly with immigrant and
refugee families, and denounces today’s executive actions.

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 11

For immediate release
January 29, 2017
Annemarie Strassel
[e-mail]

Statement by D. Taylor, President of
UNITE HERE, on President Trump’s Travel
Ban
<http://unitehere.org/wp-content/uploads/uniteherelogostacked.jpg>“With several executive orders this

week, President Trump has brought shame upon the United States and its rich
humanitarian legacy. He has put the lives of refugees, most of them children, fleeing for
their very lives, in danger once again.  His orders barring individuals holding green cards
and visas has created a humanitarian crisis and thrown our nation’s airports into chaos. He
has now established a religious test for our Nation, in spite of his denials of the truth once
again, by ordering that a Christian refugee child is more important than a Muslim refugee child. This is not only obscene, but
must certainly be against the Constitution of the United States which Mr. Trump only one  week ago publicly vowed to defend.
“Mr. Trump has singled out Muslim-majority countries for this ban ostensibly because they have produced terrorists who have
attacked the United States. Yet he exempts the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from which came the greatest number of these
terrorists, and some other countries, where he owns businesses, in an utter conflict of interest with security of the United
States.  Mr. Trump’s order betrays those who assisted our Nation in the war on terror sending them back to lands where their
lives are certainly at risk.
“Trump’s orders are fundamentally inhumane and reckless. They are un-American and unconstitutional. These orders can only
put our Nation, our citizens, and our allies at greater risk.
“Mr. Trump has also threatened to cut o虀� federal funding to “sanctuary” cities, where government o虀�icials are defying the
President’s anti-immigrant attacks to uphold the Constitution and preserve the peace. But we commend mayors in New York,
Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and beyond, who are declaring their cities sanctuary cities in defiance of Mr. Trump’s
unconstitutional and immoral directives. We demand that leaders in other American cities where our members live and work do
the same.
“As the Union of hospitality workers, including thousands of workers at airports across the US, we welcome travelers and
refugees from across the globe. We are proud to serve you. For the sake of our families, the people we serve and the values our
nation holds so dear, we will fight President Trump’s un-American attacks on travelers from Muslim countries and immigrants of
any ethnicity, race or creed.
“In the coming days and months ahead, Maria Elena Durazo, UNITE HERE’s General Vice President of Immigration, Civil Rights
and Diversity, will be leading our Union’s fight against this illegal and immoral policy.”

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 47 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 11

About UNITE HERE
UNITE HERE is an organization that represents 270,000 working people across North America. Our members in the U.S. and Canada
work in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, transportation, and airport industries.
Our membership is diverse. We are predominantly women and people of color, and we hail from all corners of the planet.
Together, we are building a movement to empower immigrants and all workers across North America to achieve greater equality
and opportunity.

<//www.linksalpha.com/social/mobile?link=http%3a%2f%2funitehere.org%2fpress-releases%2fstatement-by-d-taylor-on-president-trumps-travel-ban%2f>

Campaigns

<http://www.wewantyoutostay.org>
partnerships/>

Where We Are
UNITE HERE represents workers throughout the United States and Canada.

Find a Local by State/ Province
Any

Find Local or City

UNITE HERE Headquarters
275 7th Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6708
Tel. [phone]
UNITE HERE Canada
OFL Building,
15 Gervais Dr. 3rd Floor
Toronto, Ontario M3C 1Y8
Tel. [phone]
Follow Us
Subscribe to Updates

<http://unitehere.org/who-we-are/lgbt-

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 46-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 46-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 14 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 46-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 15 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 46-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 16 of 17

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 46-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 17 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that 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
appellate CM/ECF system on February 6, 2017.
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.
DATED this 6th day of February, 2017, in Seattle, Washington.

s/Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA #178967
Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin
& Lavitt LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98119-3971
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

8