Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights et al v. Deal et al

Filing 3

MOTION for Leave to Proceed under Pseudonyms by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (jtj)

j If'

0 ~ 'mlI
_,

'l..~).

t') " CLERK

"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-:":
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
.

Georgia Latino Alliance for Human
Rights, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)
)

v.

)

Governor Nathan Deal, et aI.,

1: 11 - CV = 180 .,
A
"

Case No.

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

'r~r'

-------------)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DOE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER

PSEUDONYMS

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES
Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2
(collectively "Doe Plaintiffs") respectfully request leave to proceed under
pseudonyms. In this action, Doe Plaintiffs, along with several other named
organizational and individual plaintiffs, challenge Georgia House Bill 87 ("HB
87"). The Doe Plaintiffs request anonymity on several independent grounds.
First, public disclosure ofthe Doe Plaintiffs' identities and participation in
this action would seriously jeopardize the very constitutional protections that they

and the other plaintiffs seek to vindicate in this lawsuit. The Doe Plaintiffs
reasonably fear that, if their identities were to become public, there would be an
increased risk that they or their family members would be subjected to
unconstitutional detention by state or local law enforcement officials acting under
the auspices ofHB 87. They also fear that they or their family members could
suffer adverse immigration consequences, up to and including immigration
detention and the initiation ofremoval proceedings.
Second, immigration generally and HB 87 in particular have been the
subject of intense and heated debate in Georgia. In this highly charged
atmosphere, the Doe Plaintiffs fear harassment and even physical harm iftheir
identities and personal stories are disclosed publicly.
Third, this case turns on legal questions, not on the identities of any
particular individuals. Thus, the public's interest in open judicial proceedings will
not be affected if the Doe Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed anonymously.
Fourth, Defendants will not suffer any prejudice if the Doe Plaintiffs are
permitted to proceed anonymously, because this case turns solely on the
constitutionality ofHB 87.

II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE DOE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS

2

In determining whether to grant leave to proceed under a pseudonym, a court
"should carefully review all the circumstances of a given case." Doe v. Frank, 951
F.2d 320, 323 (lIth Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (emphasis in original). Relevant
factors include: whether the plaintiffs are challenging governmental activity, id.,
whether the issues involved are of a "highly sensitive" nature, id. at 324, whether
the litigants may be subjected to "social stigma" or "physical harm" as a result of
the information disclosed, id., whether plaintiffs would be admitting their intent to
engage in illegal conduct thereby risking criminal prosecution, id. at 323, and
whether anonymity would prejudice the defendants or harm the public, id. at 323­
24.
As discussed below, the balance in this case weighs heavily in favor of each
of the Doe Plaintiffs. Indeed, under very similar circumstances, the Third Circuit
and the District of Arizona recently allowed plaintiffs to proceed under
pseudonyms because of the threat of adverse immigration consequences, the
climate of hostility surrounding immigration, and the fact that the plaintiffs'
constitutional claims were of a purely legal nature. See Lozano v. Hazelton, 620
F.3d 170, 194-96 (3d Cir. 2010); Order Granting Motion to Proceed Anonymously,

3

Friendly House v. Whiting, No. 10-1061, Rec. Doc. 212 (D. Ariz. Filed June 21,
2010) ("Friendly House Order). I
A. DISCLOSURE OF THE DOE PLAINTIFFS' IDENTITIES WOULD
EXPOSE THEM TO SERIOUS HARM

Jane Doe #1 2

Jane Doe # I is a United States citizen of Hispanic descent who was born in
Georgia in 1981 and has lived in Georgia for her entire life. Jane Doe #1 Dec.

~

1.

Her husband is an undocumented immigrant, and together they have three young
children. ld.

~~

3-4. Jane Doe #1's husband has no documentation he can show to

law enforcement officers to prove his status, making him vulnerable to detention
and arrest by the police ifHB 87 takes effect. He cannot drive due to a disabling
injury, and Jane Doe #1 regularly drives him to doctor's appointments and to
physical therapy sessions. ld.

~

4. IfHB 87 goes into effect, she worries that ifher

name was made public as part of this lawsuit, a routine traffic stop could lead to

In addition, under similar circumstances in Utah, the state defendants declined to
object to plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms. Utah Coalition ofLa
Raza v. Herbert, No. 11-401 (D. Utah). Plaintiffs moved for Doe status on May 4,
2011. ld. Rec. Doc. 20. Under the local rules for the District of Utah, defendants
had 14 days in which to file a response. D. Utah L.R. 7-1(b)(4)(B). As of the date
of filing of the instant motion, more than 14 days have passed without the state
defendants responding to Plaintiffs' motion.
1

The factual basis of Jane Doe #1's claims are also recited in the Complaint at
paragraph 50.

2

4

her and her husband being detained, followed by deportation for him and felony
charges of transporting of an undocumented immigrant for her. [d.
The balancing of interests weighs strongly in favor of Jane Doe # I being
granted Doe status. Jane Doe # I' s participation in this lawsuit requires that she
reveal sensitive information about her husband's immigration status which, ifher
name is known, could subject them both to public hostility and retaliation. Her
husband's immigration status is highly sensitive information that should be
protected from public disclosure. See Lozano v. Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477,
508-09 (M.D. Pa. 2007) aff'd in part, 620 F.3d 170; Keller v. Fremont, No. 10­
0270,2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2733 (D. Neb. Jan. 5,2011); Friendly House Order
at 2. If Jane Doe # I 's is stopped by a police officer while driving her husband, the
officer may, upon recognizing her name from this lawsuit, detain Jane Doe #I's
husband on the ground that Jane Doe #I's statements in her declaration create the
basis to arrest her husband pursuant to Section 9(d) of HB 87 for a violation of
federal immigration law. In addition, if Jane Doe #I's name is publicly disclosed,
she risks criminal prosecution under Section 7 ofHB 87 for "knowingly and
intentionally transporting" an undocumented immigrant. See Ga. Code Ann. § 16­
11-200(b). In similar situations in which plaintiffs are "compelled to admit their
intention to engage in illegal conduct and thus risk criminal prosecution," courts

5

have granted motions to proceed anonymously. PlaintiffB v. Francis, 631 F.3d
1310, 1316 (lith Cir. 2011) (anonymity favored where plaintiffs risk criminal
prosecution); see also Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1981) (sarne);'
Jane Doe #2 4

Jane Doe #2 is a twenty-three year old Mexican national and Georgia
resident. Jane Doe #2 Dec!. ~~ 1-2. Her parents brought her to the United States
approximately twelve years ago. Id.

~

2. She graduated from high school and

college in Georgia and considers Georgia her home. Id.

~

4. About two years ago,

police pulled her over for a traffic infraction and charged her for driving without a
license, and then transferred her to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") detention center where she was detained for a month while awaiting
removal from the United States. Id.

~

6. ICE granted her deferred action status

until May 2011, and later extended her deferred action grant until May 2012, but
she has no photo identification reflecting this federal decision not to seek to deport
her. Id.

~~

6-7. When Jane Doe #2 first received deferred action, she applied for

and obtained a Georgia driver's license, however, that license expired when the
The decisions of the Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981 are binding precedent
in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City a/Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th
Cir. 1981).

3

The factual basis of Jane Doe #2's claims are also recited in the Complaint at

paragraphs 57-59.

4

6

first period of deferred action expired. Id. ~ 7. Currently, she has none of the
identity documents required by HB 87, nor can she apply for a Georgia driver's
license or identification card because she has no paperwork that would make her
eligible under Georgia's motor vehicle rules. Id.
As stated above, immigration status is a sensitive matter that courts have
found warrants the grant of Doe status. See Lozano, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 508-09;

Keller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2733; Friendly House Order at 2. Jane Doe #2 has
particular concerns because encounters with Georgia law enforcement may trigger
the reopening of her removal proceedings. Although the federal immigration
authorities know of Jane Doe #2's presence and have decided not to seek her
removal, that decision is discretionary and subject to change. Jane Doe #2 Decl.
~

6. In addition, a Georgia law enforcement officer who recognizes her name from

this lawsuit may retaliate for her participation by exercising his discretionary
authority to check immigration status, thereby subjecting Jane Doe #2 to an
unlawful detention. See Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d
1058, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2000) (granting workers' request for anonymity where
they faced retaliation from their employers, which could lead to their arrest and
deportation).

7

John Doe #1 5
John Doe #1 is a nineteen year old Latino born in Mexico. John Doe # 1

n 1-2. His parents brought him to the United States, seeking work and better
educational opportunities for their children, when he was approximately nine years
old. [d. ~ 2. He and his parents are undocumented, however, he considers Georgia
his home, having grown up here, and with many of his aunts, uncles, and cousins
also living in Georgia. [d.

n 3-4,9.

John Doe # I graduated from a Georgia high

school with a 3.5 GPA, as a member ofthe Reserve Officer Training Corps
("ROTC"), and as vice-president of the senior class. [d.

~

6. He was accepted into

college, and although he was unable to matriculate because he could not afford the
tuition, his goal is to eventually attend college and become a political journalist or
high school Advanced Placement English teacher. [d.

~

7. John Doe #1 lacks a

Georgia driver's license or other document accepted as proof oflegal status under
HB 87 Section 8. Id.

~

12. He has been racially profiled in the past while a

passenger sitting in the back seat of a friend's car that stopped at a police
checkpoint. [d.

~

10. The officer asked to see his ID, although he was a passenger,

but did not ask to the see ID of the white, female passenger in the front seat, and

The factual basis of John Doe # I's claims are also recited in the Complaint at
paragraphs 53-54.
5

8

the officer did not leave until John Doe #1 asked whether ID was required for a
passenger and began filming the incident on his cell phone. Id.
John Doe #1 should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. The public
disclosure of his name would expose intimate information about his immigration
status and that of his family. See Lozano, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 508-09; Keller, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2733; Friendly House Order at 2. He fears that exposure of his
name could lead to his family having to leave the life they have forged for
themselves in Georgia due to fears of detention through interaction with the police.
Id.

~

9. Although he will try to curtail his time outdoors ifHB 87 goes into effect,

id. ~ 8, John Doe # I will still have to travel on the streets to get life necessities and

may enter police encounters where his immigration status is checked because he
lacks a qualifying identity document under HB 87's Section 8. Id.

~

12. As stated

above, should John Doe # I be stopped by a police officer who recognizes his name
from this lawsuit, the officer may arrest John Doe #1 upon recognition of his name
on the ground that his declaration creates the basis for an arrest under Section 9 of
HB 87. In analogous situations where plaintiffs must declare their non-compliance
with a law in the course oflitigating their claims, courts have granted motions to
proceed under a pseudonym. PlaintiffB, 631 F.3d at 1316; Stegall, 653 F.2d at
185. In addition, John Doe # 1's youth weighs in favor of allowing him to proceed

9

anonymously. See PlaintiffB, 631 F.3d at 1314-1317 (considering the ages of
young women, no longer minors, while granting anonymity); Stegall, 653 F.2d at
186 ("A final factor we find especially persuasive is the fact that plaintiffs are

children.").

John Doe #2 6
John Doe #2 was born in Mexico in 1976. John Doe #2 Decl, 'III. He
entered this country without authorization in order to find work to support his
family in Mexico. Id. '11'112, 8. He does not have a Georgia driver's license or any
of the other documents required by HE 87 to show that he is legally within the
United States. Id. '113. Therefore, if stopped by police, he fears he would be
exposed to a prolonged detention while the police check his immigration status.
Id. '11'114-5, 8. He has been racially profiled by police in the past, and he fears being
racially profiled again and detained by the police while they check his immigration
status, thereby potentially leading to his arrest and removal from this county. Id.
'11'113, 8.
As with other Doe Plaintiffs, John Doe #2 fears that ifhis name is made
public in the context of this lawsuit, Georgia state and local law enforcement
officers with whom he comes in contact will retaliate against him for his
The factual basis of Jone Doe #2's claims are also recited in the Complaint at
paragraphs 55-56.
6

10

participation in the lawsuit. See Does I Thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1070-71.
Additionally, law enforcement officers may take his participation in this lawsuit as
evidence of his removability, and may arrest him under HB 87's Section 9. As
stated above, courts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym where
plaintiffs have had to admit their non-compliance with the law as part of a lawsuit.
PlaintiffB, 631 F.3d at 1316; Stegall, 653 F.2d at 185; Southern Methodist
University Ass 'n v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979).

B. DOE PLAINTIFFS FACE SOCIAL STIGMA, HARASSMENT, AND
PERHAPS VIOLENCE IF THEIR IDENTITIES ARE MADE PUBLIC
The hostility and anti-immigrant sentiment surrounding the immigration
debate strongly counsels in favor of allowing each of the Doe Plaintiffs to proceed
anonymously. See Lozano, 620 F.3d at 195 (anonymity warranted where "ethnic
tensions had escalated" and plaintiffs "would face an 'exponentially greater' risk of
harassment, and even physical danger, if their identities were revealed") (citation
omitted); Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr.for Choice, 253 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2001)
(anonymity warranted in abortion case, where the abortion issue had elsewhere
"lead to death, injury, harassment, [and] fear ...."); Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186
(anonymity warranted where plaintiffs faced "extensive harassment and perhaps
even violent reprisals if their identities are disclosed to a . .. community hostile to
the viewpoint reflected in plaintiffs' complaint").
11

The debate in Georgia over HB 87, its short-lived Senate counterpart SB 40,
and immigration in general has been heated, with private citizens and legislators
making disparaging comments about immigrants. See Tsu Dec!. Ex. C (online
readers' comments to blog post reporting that Governor Deal was likely to sign HB
87 describing immigrants as "unintelligent cowards that can not create anything
other than crime, violence, poverty and babies"); Benjamin Dec!.

~~

4-5

(describing his students' sharing "intense anger" about Latinos' presence including
descriptions of Latinos as "dirty and dangerous"; statements that Latinos are
"taking over and we need to do something about it"; references to immigration as
an "invasion"; use of terms such as "beaner" to describe Latinos; and comparisons
of Latinos with "cancer" or a "virus" in our nation); id. ~ 6 (public comments on
newspaper discussion boards describing immigrants as "diseased," or "carry[ing]
leprosy); Rees Dec!. ~ 7 (foreign exchange students and students of color asked
"Why don't you go home?" and targeted with anti-immigrant hostility). In
Georgia, this debate about unauthorized immigration has taken on an ugly,
sometimes violent tone. See Tsu Dec!. Ex A (newspaper article reporting Georgia
State Senator Jack Murphy, sponsor of SB 40, advocating that U.S. border agents
should "shoot to kill" immigrants under certain circumstances); id. Ex. B at *47,
51 (online readers' comments to newspaper article on the indictment of an

12

undocumented student; posts include: "I have a solution, put armed soldiers along
the border and every illegal alien ... that trys [sic] to cross, just shoo[t] them" and
"impose summary executions for any [and] all illegal immigrants."); id. Ex. C at
*34 (online readers' comments to blog post reporting the passage ofHB 87; posts
include the following response to a comment that "[cjrossing the border illegally is
not a capital offense": "Not yet, but maybe if we're lucky."); Rees Dec!. ~ 6
(discussing "hateful" and "ugly" tone of the public discourse on immigration in
Georgia).
The harsh anti-immigrant and anti-Latino tone of the public discourse on
immigration in Georgia quells the free expression even of people with legal status.
See Benjamin Decl. at ~ 8 (explaining that a Latino professor and two Latino

students elected to office hours and classes, respectively, rather than be subjected
to racial profiling and scrutiny at a police checkpoint); id. ~ 9 (describing how
students decided not to participate in a conference on immigration in the southeast
after its targeting by anti-immigrant activists). The charged debate on immigration
exposes those who publicly take a stand in favor of immigrants' rights to conflict
and harassment. See id. ~ 10 (describing how he has been called "terrorist" and
someone who "hate]s] America" after speaking publicly in support of immigrants'
rights and diversity); Rees Decl. ~ 5 (detailing harassing phone call accusing her of

13

instilling hatred after she gave testimony critical of certain aspects of HB 87). The
Doe Plaintiffs reasonably fear that their public association with this lawsuit would
cause them to be targeted for backlash and retribution. Benjamin Dec!. ~~ 10-11;
Rees Dec!. ~~ 8, 10. In similar cases where plaintiffs risked backlash and
harassment if their names were disclosed, the courts have granted leave to proceed
anonymously. See PlaintiffB, 631 F.3d at 1317-18 (risk to reputation); Lozano,
620 F.3d at 194-96 (unlawful status plus risk of harassment); Stegall, 653 F.2d at
186 (risk of harassment and potential violence); Doe v. Barrow County, 219 F.R.D.
189, 193-94 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (risk of community disapproval and hostility).
C.

PERMITTING THE DOE PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED
ANONYMOUSLY WILL NOT HARM THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN OPEN PROCEEDINGS

The public interest in open court proceedings would not be harmed by
permitting four individual plaintiffs in this action to proceed under pseudonyms.
Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, party anonymity has only a limited impact on
the public's access to the courts and "does not obstruct the public's view of the
issues joined or the court's performance in resolving them." Stegall, 653 F.2d at
185. Shielding the Doe Plaintiffs from having their names publicized here will not
hinder the resolution of the constitutional issues in an open and public forum. See
Barrow County, 219 F.R.D. at 193 ("The resolution of the underlying

14

constitutional issue in this case ... will be decided in an open and public forum.
Should this case progress to trial, the public will be free to attend the proceedings.
Any court orders or opinions concerning the merits of this case will be available
for public inspection. In the end, the only thing potentially being shielded from the
public is plaintiffs name and any court proceedings or opinions that might be
necessary to determine standing.").

D.

PERMITTING THE DOE PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED
ANONYMOUSLY WOULD NOT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS

Finally, Defendants will suffer no prejudice if the Court permits the Doe
Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, as this case involves strictly legal issues and
does not tum on questions of the individual Plaintiffs' background or credibility.

See Barrow County, 219 F.R.D. at 194 ("[T]he inconvenience to defendants [from
allowing plaintiff to proceed anonymously] should be relatively low. This is not a
case that will be determined by plaintiffs credibility or recitation of facts. Rather,
as long as plaintiff has standing to sue, this case will depend on the resolution of a
legal question .... The relevant facts ... will likely come from witnesses other
than the plaintiff. The legal issues, while possibly the subject of expert testimony,
will be determined by the arguments of counsel. At the end of the day, plaintiff
plays a relatively minor role in this litigation ...."). Unlike anonymous lawsuits
against private parties, anonymous lawsuits "challenging the constitutional,
15

statutory, or regulatory validity of government activity ... involve no injury to the
Government's reputation." S. Methodist Univ. Ass 'n of Women Law Students, 599
F.2d at 713; see also Stegall, 653 F.2d at 185-86 (one factor weighing in favor of
anonymity is that the parties seeking anonymity are challenging governmental
activity). The State of Georgia faces no prejudice here if the Doe Plaintiffs are
allowed to proceed under pseudonyms.

III.

CONCLUSION
All four Doe Plaintiffs would be at risk of great harm if their identities were

revealed. Permitting them to proceed anonymously would not materially harm the
public interest in open court proceedings; nor would it prejudice Defendants.
Therefore, the Doe Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under pseudonyms in
this action.

Dated: June 2, 2011

R pectfully submitted,"

~

:- \z:

Na mi Tsu

On behalfofAttorneys for Plaintiffs
Linton Joaquin*
Karen C. Tumlin*
Nora A. Preciado*
Melissa S. Keaney*
7

Omar C. Jadwat*

Andre Segura*

Elora Mukherjee*

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Counsel certifies this document has been prepared in accordance with L.R. 5.1.
16

FOUNDATION

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10004

T: [phone]

F: [phone]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

CENTER

3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850

Los Angeles, California 900 10

T: [phone]

F: [phone]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Naomi Tsu (GSB No. 507612)

Michelle R. Lapointe (GSB No. 007080)

Daniel Werner (GSB No. 422070)

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

233 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2150

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

T: [phone]

F: [phone]

naomi. [e-mail]
[e-mail]
daniel. [e-mail]
Mary Bauer (GSB No. 142213)

Andrew H. Turner*

Samuel Brooke*

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

400 Washington Ave.

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

T: [phone]

F: [phone]

[e-mail]
andrew. [e-mail]
samuel. [e-mail]
Tanya Broder*

Jonathan B lazer*

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

17

Cecillia D. Wang*

Katherine Desormeau*

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS'

RIGHTS PROJECT

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111

T: [phone]

F: [phone]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Chara Fisher Jackson (GSB No. 386101)

Azadeh N. Shahshahani (GSB No.

509008)

ACLU OF GEORGIA

1900 The Exchange, Suite 425

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

T: [phone]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
G. Brian Spears (GSB No. 670112)

1126 Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30306

T: [phone]

F: [phone]

[e-mail]

CENTER
405 14th Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, California 94612
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

R. Keegan Federal, Jr. (GSB No. 257200)
FEDERAL & HASSON, LLP
Two Ravinia Drive, Ste 1776
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
Charles H. Kuck (GSB No. 429940)
Danielle M. Conley (GSB No. 222292)
KUCK IMMIGRATION PARTNERS
LLC
8010 Roswell Road, Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30350
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Sin Yen Ling*
ASIAN LA W CAUCUS
55 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, California 94111
T: [phone] x 110
F: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming

18

Declaration of Jesse Benjamin

I, Jesse Benjamin, declare:

I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge. If called to testify, I

could and would competently state what follows.

1. I am Coordinator of African and African Diaspora Studies, Facilitator of
Cultural and Regional Studies (Latin American and Latino Studies, Gender
and Women's Studies, American Studies, Asian Studies, African and
African Diaspora Studies, Environmental Studies, and Peace Studies),
Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, and the incoming
chair of the Presidential Diversity Commission un Race and Ethnicity at
Kennesaw State University ("KSU"). I received my Ph.D. in Sociology and
MA in Cultural Anthropology from the State University of New York,
Binghamton. I have received many honors and awards including four
Teacher of the Year or Professor of the Year awards.
2. For the past five years at KSU, I have taught courses including Race and
Ethnicity, a survey of racial and ethnic relations concentrating on the
American experience. In that class, my students collect and share extensive
personal observations from daily life about race and racism. Many students
have reported being racially profiled, or witnessing this happening to others.

1

Latino students have talked about how they were told in a routine traffic
stop, "Why don't you go back where you come from?" These were U.S.
citizen students who were born and raised in Georgia. One student recently
shared about being stopped by police while she was travelling in a car with
three other young women. Two of the women were white and two were, or
looked, Latina. The police asked the white women questions such as "Are
you okay? Why are you out? Are these your friends?" The police told the
Latina-appearing students to get out of the car and required them to show
several IDs in order to establish their residency in Georgia.
3. I have encountered racial profiling through my own interactions. Law
enforcement officers who are students enrolled in my classes have reported
thinking of all Latinos as Mexican immigrants. Another law enforcement
officer student told me that he can tell someone is an undocumented
immigrant ifthey speak with a Spanish accent.
4. Many of my students have expressed intense anger about the presence of
Latino communities, either in their own voices or sharing the sentiments of
friends, family, or coworkers, with comments such as, "I don't want to be
around those people"; "They are dirty and dangerous, I don't go there
because I could get robbed"; "They are taking over and we need to do

2

something about it"; and referring to Latino immigration as an "invasion."
One student shared how her brother and his friends, while in high school,
would routinely pass their lunch hour by throwing rocks at Latinos who
gathered on a particular street corner as day laborers looking for work.
5. My students have reported anti-Latino hostility in their communities.
Students who work at stores have told me that their bosses have asked them
to racially profile Latinos by following them around the store and watching
what they do. Students who work in restaurants have shared that patrons
have been so racist toward Latino waiters that the Latino waiters switched
jobs to the lower-paid positions in the back of the restaurants. Students have
talked about, and I have seen, anti-Latino sentiments-such as "no habla
Espafiol - and never will" and "INS agents eat free" -expressed on a sign
outside a local bar and grill on Roswell Road, one of the major
thoroughfares close to campus. Students have brought me newspaper
articles, some with anonymous reader discussion boards attached, that use
offensive language, such as "beaner," to refer to Latinos, or refer to Latinos
as "a cancer," or a "virus" in our nation.
6. I pay attention to the debate on immigration in Georgia. Xenopbobic
language is regularly used in newspaper discussion boards related to articles

3

about Latinos or immigrants. People posting to these discussion boards
routinely blame immigrants for common social problems such as traffic
congestion, unemployment, and violent crime. Others write that immigrants
are diseased and carry illnesses such as leprosy.
7. Students have discussed HE 87 in my classes, reporting that other students
and faculty have made anti-immigrant statements during other classes on our
campus in the course of debating HE 87.
8. Latinos' fear of profiling and interference by law enforcement is also quite
prevalent, even here on my own campus. One day in 201 0, police
established a roadblock near campus. An undocumented KSU student had
just been arrested on campus for a traffic violation, held for over a month,
and then released from ICE detention, creating a great deal of discussion
about immigrants at KSU and in the community. A Latino professor and
two Latino students told me that they saw the roadblock and turned around
and went home, foregoing office hours and class for the day. Although each
has legal status, they did not want to go through that scrutiny in front of their
peers.
9. Last year I spoke at the "2010 KSU Conference on Immigration in the
Southeast: Defining Problems, Finding Solutions." Threatened protests by

4

anti-immigrant activists led to debates about shutting down the conference.
Students and faculty discussed with me whether to participate in the
conference, and whether they would be safe doing so or whether violence or
other retribution would occur. In the end, the conference was held, but some
students decided not to participate.
I O.I have seen instances of backlash against those who speak out in favor of
diversity and immigration. I have experienced a backlash for speaking in
support of immigrants' rights and diversity, with people saying thing like,
"You just hate white people," "You hate America," and "You're a terrorist,"
when I speak out for diversity and against xenophobia against immigrants.
Further, my taking one particularly public stance on this issue-s-during the
20 I0 KSU Conference-s-was sufficient cause for me to again be targeted by
this kind of backlash.
l l.Based on my own personal experiences, my training in sociology, my
research, and my observations of the tenor of the public debate on
immigration in Georgia, I believe there is a high risk of public backlash
against people who speak publicly against HE 87. I believe that there is a
high likelihood that any immigrant who publicly associates with a lawsuit

5

challenging HB 87, regardless of that immigrant's status, will be targeted for
retribution.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Signed this

L

day of June, 2011 in Kennesaw, Georgia.

6

DECLARATION OF MARTHA WOODSON REES
I, Martha W. Rees hereby declare:

I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge and if

called to testify I could and would do so competently as follows:

1. I am a Professor of Anthropology, Co-Director of Environmental and

Sustainability Studies and Co-Director of the Program in Public
Health at Agnes Scott College in Atlanta, Georgia. [received my
PhD in Anthropology from the University of Colorado in 1989.
2. For the past twenty years I have carried out research into the relations
between U.S. immigrants from Mexico and their home countries,
communities, and ethnic groups. I have written numerous articles and
chapters, as well as presented academic papers, carried out research
(and submitted reports) on immigrants generally, Latinos in Atlanta
specifically, regional systems and communities, worker safety,
households, economies, and more.
3. I have received several grants and awards for my scholarship and
teaching including a Fulbright Lectureship in 2000, a Rockefeller
Humanities Fellowship in 2004, and grants from the National Science

1

Foundation and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health/CDC, among others.
4. In addition to my academic work, I have volunteered, served as expert
witness, and testified about the effects of immigration on family life
and economies, as well as on destination communities and local
economies.
5. In February, 2011 I testified before the Georgia House Judiciary Non­
Civil Committee on HB 87. My testimony was critical of certain
aspects of the bill. After this testimony, I received an anonymous call
at my office from a woman who referred to my testimony at the
hearing and then accused me of instilling hatred in 'our' children.
6. This call highlighted for me the lengths that some people are willing
to go when someone speaks out in favor of immigrants. My contact
information was not given out at the committee hearing and yet
someone took my name, found my contact information and called me.
While I am relatively protected as a professor, I believe that if the
name of an undocumented person were revealed related to this
lawsuit, there would be similar and most likely worse negative
attention that could even lead to physical harm.

2

7. I follow the public discourse on immigration in Georgia, and I am
aware of the hateful and racist tone of much of the conversation.
Readers' comments on internet journalism have taken an ugly tone
when discussing immigrants and particularly Latinos. The anti-Latino
and anti-immigrant discourse has worsened since the debate on HB 87
and its passage. The hateful discourse has become more unveiled and
is expressed beyond the internet through television and radio
personalities and political pundits as well. This anti-Latino and anti­
immigrant rhetoric now permeates the public discourse generally in
Georgia.
8. In the past, some of my foreign exchange students and students of
color have been targets of anti-immigrant hostility. Their right to be
present both on campus and in our society more broadly has been
scrutinized and they have received disparaging comments such as
"Why don't you go home?" I believe that HB87 has generally
emboldened the public's willingness to openly question a person's
presence or belonging based on appearance and/or manner of
speaking.

3

9. The tension around the HB 87 has created an academic atmosphere
where students are generally silent on the issue of immigration. I
believe the climate of hate and hostility towards immigrants and the
issue of immigration have stifled any conversation around the subject.
I do not ask about documentation status in my classes but I believe
that undocumented students fear being turned over to ICE if they were
to speak out.
10. Through my studies I have observed that there is also anti-immigrant
sentiment as it relates to agricultural labor and other low-wage work.
This can be seen throughout the state, from agricultural areas around
the South Georgia onion fields, to North Georgia's Carpet City
(Dalton in Whitfield County) and in more urban areas among
construction workers. The perceptions that immigrant laborers take
American's jobs and drive down wages fuel this hostility and anti­
immigrant sentiment. This hostility is often expressed in cultural
terms, such as telling immigrants to go back to where they came from
and blaming immigrants for the nation's economic downturn, even
when research shows no ties. This anti-immigrant sentiment has

4

skyrocketed precisely as our nation has experienced the worse
economic downturn since The Great Depression.
II. Based on my personal experience and observation of the discourse
around immigration in Georgia, I fear that anyone publicly associated
with the lawsuit against HB 87 will be targeted for backlash and
retribution. This could include being a target of hate speech or hate
actions as well as concrete repercussions on that individual's daily
living, working, medical and residential life. The fear that this would
create for these individuals would be extensive.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

EXECUTED this _ _ of June, 2011.

Martha W. Rees

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

)
)
)
)
)

Georgia Latino Alliance for Human
Rights, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

)

v.

Case No.

_

)
)
)
)
)

Governor Nathan Deal, et a!.,
Defendants.

-------------)

Declaration of Naomi R. Tsu

I, Naomi R. Tsu declare as follows:

The following is based on my personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I could

and would testify competently to these facts.

1. I am a staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center and a member of
the Georgia State Bar.
2. I submit this declaration to provide to the Court copies of publicly available
documents that are cited in the Doe Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Proceed
under Pseudonyms.

1

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the article "Ga.
Lawmaker: Us. border agents should 'shoot to kill' to defend themselves"

published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on January 20, 2011, available
at http://www.ajc.comlnews/ga-lawmaker-u-s-809971.html.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the article
"Georgia illegal immigrant college student indicted' published by

Associated Press on February 13,2011, available at
http://onlineathens.comlstories/0213111new 784955598.shtml and the
linked pages containing additional readers' comments (i.e.,
http://www.athenstalks.comlgeorgia-illegal-immigrant-college-student­
indicted?page= I, etc).

2

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the blog post

"Georgia shoots itself in the onion fields" published by ajc.com on April 20,
2011, available at http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2011/04/20/georgia­
shoots-itself-in-the-onion-fields/?cp=all.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge.

Executed this 2d day of June, 2011 in Atlanta, GA.

~MO\L
aomi R. Tsu

3