United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al

Filing 5

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion for Leave to File Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Excess of the Page Limit by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chilakamarri, Varu)

United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al

Doc. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Tony West Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch Varu Chilakamarri (NY Bar #4324299) Joshua Wilkenfeld (NY Bar #4440681) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel. [phone]/Fax [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for the United States IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA The United States of America, Plaintiff, No. 02:10-cv-1413-NVW

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN Governor of the State of Arizona, in her EXCESS OF THE PAGE LIMIT Official Capacity, v. Defendants. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(e), Plaintiff, the United States, hereby moves for an order granting it leave to file a motion for preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum of law that does not exceed 54 pages. Under Local Rule 7.2(e), unless otherwise permitted by the Court, the current page limit for such a motion is seventeen pages. Plaintiff has made every effort to make its motion for a preliminary injunction and memorandum as short as possible. However, under the current page limit, Plaintiff is unable to present its arguments in sufficient detail to permit their full and careful consideration. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum involves a constitutional preemption challenge to Arizona's S.B. 1070 (as amended by H.R. 2162) ("Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act"). S.B. 1070 includes several provisions that directly relate to the area of federal immigration law which is itself

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"exceedingly complex." See Local 512, Warehouse and Office Workers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 795 F.2d 705, 721 (9th Cir. 1986) (abrogated on other grounds); see also Lok v. INS, 548 F.2d 37, 38 (2d Cir. 1977) (noting that federal immigration laws bear "striking resemblance . . . to . . . King Minos's labyrinth in ancient Crete"). Further, although S.B. 1070 was passed as a single legislative act, it is broad in scope and contains several distinct sections relating to different facets of immigration law, including the employment, transportation, and registration of aliens. In order to fully present its argument for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff's motion and supporting memorandum must describe in sufficient detail the United States' preemption challenge to S.B. 1070 as a whole and to five distinct provisions of this law. This will require Plaintiff to set forth the relevant federal immigration framework and the ways in which S.B. 1070 conflicts with that framework and with federal enforcement priorities and policies, as well as with the conduct of foreign relations. Further, Plaintiff's motion and supporting memorandum must set forth the irreparable harm that the United States will face if S.B. 1070 is not enjoined, as well as the impact that an injunction will have on Defendants and the public as a whole. To this end, Plaintiff will file 10 supporting declarations from officials within the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State, as well as local law enforcement officers. Proper treatment of these issues by Plaintiff will require it to exceed the standard page limit. The validity of S.B. 1070 is matter of great significance to the nation as a whole, as evidenced by the serious public debate that has been sparked from its inception and has continued after its passage.1 It is all the more critical, therefore, to have as complete an Indeed, Defendants have themselves touted the significance of S.B. 1070, and have had to amend the law in response to the concerns of the public. See Press Release, Statement by Governor Jan Brewer (April 23, 2010) (noting that this legislation has "been the subject of vigorous debate and intense criticism" and that "though many people disagree," S.B. 1070 "I firmly believe it represents what's best for Arizona. Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our State."); Press Release, Statement by Governor Jan Brewer (April 30, 2010) (signing amendments to S.B. 1070 one week after its passage to "specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed (continued...) 2
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

argument as possible in this matter. Plaintiff has lodged with this Court its proposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. Counsel for Defendants was contacted and has not yet provided a response as to Defendants' position on this motion. Nonetheless, granting this request will not prejudice Defendants. Should this motion be granted, Plaintiff will not oppose a similar request by Defendants, collectively, for leave to file a response with a comparable number of pages. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Leave to File its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting

Memorandum in Excess of the Page Limit.

DATED: July 6, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, Tony West Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch /s/ Varu Chilakamarri Varu Chilakamarri (NY Bar #4324299) Joshua Wilkenfeld (NY Bar #4440681) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel. [phone]/Fax [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for the United States

(...continued) 28 fears" about the original law), available at http://www.azgovernor.gov/media/PressReleases.asp. 3

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 6, 2010, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona's Electronic Document Filing System (ECF) and will include this motion with the summons and Complaint to be served on Defendants in this case. /s/ Varu Chilakamarri Varu Chilakamarri

4