United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 33

[DISREGARD- DUPLICATE of 32 Motion ] MOTION for LEAVE by the American Center for Law and Justice to filed Amicus Curiae in support of 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kozina, Vladimir) Modified on 3/26/2018 (Donati, J).

1 Vladimir F. Kozina, SBN 95422
2 MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Blvd.
3 Stockton, CA 95207
Tel. [phone]
4 Email: [e-mail]
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. [phone]
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. [phone]
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. [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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. [phone]

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. [phone]

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. [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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