United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 32

MOTION for LEAVE by the American Center for Law and Justice to file Amicus Curiae in support of 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Attorney Kozina, Vladimir F. added. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kozina, Vladimir) Modified on 3/26/2018 (Donati, J).

Download PDF
1 Vladimir F. Kozina, SBN 95422 2 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Blvd. 3 Stockton, CA 95207 Tel. (209) 477-3833 4 Email: vkozina@mayallaw.com 5 Jay Alan Sekulow* 6 Stuart J. Roth* Jordan Sekulow* 7 AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE 201 Maryland Avenue, NE 8 Washington, DC 20002 Tel. (202) 546-8890 9 10 Edward L. White III* Erik M. Zimmerman* 11 Geoffrey R. Surtees* AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE 12 3001 Plymouth Rd., Ste. 203 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 13 Tel. (734) 680-8007 14 * Not admitted in this jurisdiction 15 Counsel for Amicus Curiae ACLJ 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN Unopposed Motion by the American Center for Law and Justice for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Incorporated Memorandum of Law Honorable John A. Mendez 25 26 27 28 ACLJ’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Injunction – 2:18-CV-490-JAM-KJN 1 The American Center for Law and Justice (“ACLJ”) timely moves this Court for leave to 1 2 file the attached amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. / 3 Dkt. Entry 17 (setting March 26, 2018, as the due date for the filing of amicus briefs supporting 4 Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion). No party opposes the granting of this motion. A 5 proposed order has been submitted with this motion. 6 District courts have broad discretion regarding the appointment of an amicus curiae. 7 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). The case before this Court implicates issues 8 9 of general public interest. The proper resolution of this case is a matter of utmost concern to the 10 ACLJ because of its impact on the integrity of the constitutional process and the safety of 11 American citizens, many of whom are ACLJ members and supporters. 12 13 14 The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law. Counsel for the ACLJ have presented oral argument, represented parties, and submitted amicus curiae briefs before the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts around the 15 16 17 country in cases involving issues of constitutional law and immigration law. See, e.g., Trump v. Hawaii, No. 16-1540, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4322 (July 19, 2017); Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance 18 Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017); United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016); Pleasant Grove 19 City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009); FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007); McConnell 20 v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003); Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 21 (1993); Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th 22 Cir. 2017); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017). 23 24 25 1 26 / The ACLJ is a non-profit organization. It has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns any portion of it. 27 28 1 ACLJ’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Injunction – 2:18-CV-490-JAM-KJN 1 The ACLJ has long advocated for a robust protection of national and border security and 2 has fought to ensure government compliance with the Constitution. The attached amicus brief is 3 supported by more than 65,000 individuals who have joined the ACLJ’s committee opposed to 4 state actions that violate the Constitution. 5 6 The issues presented in this case involve matters of constitutional and immigration law. The ACLJ believes it can offer this Court information and perspective that will assist it in deciding 7 the pending preliminary injunction motion. As set forth more fully in the attached amicus brief, the 8 9 ACLJ will provide this Court with insight into how AB 450 violates the Supremacy Clause. AB 10 450 is an obstacle to the enforcement of federal immigration law. AB 450 prohibits employers 11 from consenting to searches and inspections by federal immigration enforcement agents and, as 12 such, places warrant and subpoena requirements on federal agents that are contrary to federal law; 13 14 federal law permits voluntary consent. AB 450 interferes with an immigration agent’s ability to locate illegal aliens because it requires employers to give their employees notice of any upcoming 15 16 17 inspection, which will cause any employee who is illegally in this country the opportunity to flee before the inspection. AB 450 interferes with federal law because it prevents employers from re- 18 verifying their employee records to determine whether an employee is an alien who may not be 19 legally employed in this country under federal law. In addition, AB 450 violates well-established 20 federal public policy that encourages citizens to cooperate with law enforcement agents. Rather 21 than encourage cooperation, AB 450 prohibits cooperation. 22 Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, the ACLJ respectfully requests that this Court 23 24 grant this unopposed motion and accept for filing the ACLJ’s attached amicus curiae brief 25 supporting Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 26 27 28 2 ACLJ’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Injunction – 2:18-CV-490-JAM-KJN Respectfully submitted, 1 /s/ Vladimir F. Kozina Vladimir F. Kozina, SBN 95422 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Blvd. Stockton, CA 95207 Tel. (209) 477-3833 Email: vkozina@mayallaw.com 2 Dated: March 26, 2018 3 4 5 6 Jay Alan Sekulow* Stuart J. Roth* Jordan Sekulow* AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE 201 Maryland Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel. (202) 546-8890 7 8 9 10 Edward L. White III* Erik M. Zimmerman* Geoffrey R. Surtees* AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE 3001 Plymouth Rd., Ste. 203 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Tel. (734) 680-8007 11 12 13 14 15 * Not admitted in this jurisdiction 16 Counsel for Amicus Curiae ACLJ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ACLJ’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Injunction – 2:18-CV-490-JAM-KJN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I hereby certify that on March 26, 2018, I electronically transmitted the foregoing 3 unopposed motion, along with the attached proposed order and amicus curiae brief of the ACLJ, 4 using the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California’s Electronic Document 5 Filing System (ECF) and that service on all counsel of record will be accomplished via the ECF 6 system. 7 8 Respectfully submitted, 9 /s/ Vladimir F. Kozina Vladimir F. Kozina, SBN 95422 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Blvd. Stockton, CA 95207 Tel. (209) 477-3833 Email: vkozina@mayallaw.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 ACLJ’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Injunction – 2:18-CV-490-JAM-KJN

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?