State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 103

MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order Steven D. Strauss appearing for Amicus American United for Separation of Church and State and Southern Poverty Law Center (Strauss, Steven)

STEVEN D. STRAUSS
(HI Bar No. 005242)
Post Office Box 11517
Hilo, HI 96721
[phone]

RICHARD B. KATSKEE*
KELLY M. PERCIVAL*
ANDREW L. NELLIS*
Americans United for
Separation of Church and
State
1310 L Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
[phone]
* Motions for admission pro hac
vice pending.

Counsel for Amici Curiae

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action
No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President
of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICANS
UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND THE
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

INTRODUCTION
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary
restraining order to halt enforcement of President Trump’s latest
Executive Order banning immigrants and refugees from predominantly
Muslim countries from entering the United States. See Exec. Order No.
13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017). Americans United for
Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center
respectfully request leave to file the accompanying proposed amicus brief
in support of Plaintiffs.
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
a. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a
national, nonsectarian public-interest organization. Its mission is to
advance the free-exercise rights of individuals and religious communities
to worship as they see fit and to preserve the separation of church and
state as a vital component of democratic government. Americans United
represents more than 125,000 members and supporters across the
country. Americans United has long defended the fundamental rights of
religious minorities in the United States by bringing and participating in
legal challenges to governmental action that singles out particular
religions for favor or disfavor. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2016 WL
7473962 (U.S. 2016) (supporting Muslim petitioners who overstayed
1

their visas and were detained and tortured after the terror attacks of
September 11, 2001, before being released as innocent of any connection
to terrorism); Hassan v. City of New York, 2014 WL 3572027 (3d Cir.
2015) (supporting challenge to New York City Police Department’s
surveillance of Muslim communities); Awad v. Ziriax, 2011 WL 2118216
(10th Cir. 2012) (supporting challenge to Oklahoma law that singled out
Islam for official disfavor).
b. The Southern Poverty Law Center has provided pro bono civilrights representation to low-income persons in the Southeast since 1971,
with particular focus on seeking justice for the most vulnerable people in
society. SPLC has litigated numerous cases to enforce the civil rights of
immigrants and refugees to ensure that they are treated with dignity and
fairness. SPLC monitors and exposes extremists who attack or malign
groups of people based on their immutable characteristics. SPLC is
dedicated to reducing prejudice and improving intergroup relations.
SPLC has a strong interest in opposing governmental action premised on
unlawful discrimination that undermines the promise of civil rights for
all.
REASONS WHY THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED
1. The issues in this case have important ramifications for persons
living across the United States and around the world. If implementation
2

of the challenged Executive Order is not restrained, family members who
currently find themselves living in different countries will be estranged.
Universities and employers throughout the United States will be barred
from recruiting top talent and competing in the global marketplace. And
people fleeing violence in war-torn countries will be trapped in lifethreatening circumstances. And religion (albeit couched in the language
of national origin) will determine whether potentially hundreds of
thousands of people have access to the opportunities of life and travel
within the United States.
2. What is more, the Muslims targeted by the Executive Order will
not be the only people affected by the order’s implementation. The seismic
shift in this Nation’s treatment of a religious minority will be felt by
families, neighborhoods, houses of worship, local businesses, and other
institutions. All will suffer the loss of valued employees, customers,
relatives, and members of the community.
3. The hardships in this country and around the world that will be
caused by official discrimination against a disfavored religious group
highlight the importance of correctly analyzing and deciding questions of
religious-freedom rights—legal issues that amici are uniquely positioned
to assist this Court in assessing. The proposed amicus brief explains why
3

the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution bars enforcement of the challenged Executive Order, and
hence why Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and why a
temporary restraining order should issue. As the proposed brief explains,
the government is forbidden to discriminate against Muslims. It is
forbidden to endorse or disfavor one religion as compared with others.
And it is forbidden to impose or apply religious tests in making official
determinations and taking official actions. Yet the Executive Order does
all of this and more.
4. Amici also filed briefs addressing these Establishment Clause
issues in the challenges to the precursor Executive Order on immigration
brought in the Western District of Washington (Brief of Amicus Curiae
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington v.
Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017)) and
appealed to the Ninth Circuit (Brief of Amici Curiae Americans United
for Separation of Church and State and Southern Poverty Law Center,
Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9,
2017)); in the challenge brought in the Eastern District of Virginia (Brief
of Amici Curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State
and Southern Poverty Law Center, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116, 2017
4

WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017)); and in the challenge brought in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Brief of Amici Curiae
Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Southern
Poverty Law Center, Pars Equality Ctr. v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-255
(D.D.C. Mar. 1, 2017)).
5. Plaintiffs have consented to this motion and the filing of the
accompanying amicus brief. Defendants have stated that they take no
position on this motion and the filing of the brief.
6. Amici waive hearing and oral argument on this motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court should grant the request to file the proposed amicus brief
and order the Clerk to accept the accompanying brief for filing.

5

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven D. Strauss
RICHARD B. KATSKEE*
KELLY M. PERCIVAL*†
ANDREW L. NELLIS*††
Americans United for
Separation of Church and
State
1310 L Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
[phone]

STEVEN D. STRAUSS
(HI Bar No. 005242)
Post Office Box 11517
Hilo, HI 96721
[phone]

* Motions for admission pro hac vice
pending.
†

Admitted in California only.
Supervised by Richard B. Katskee,
a member of the D.C. bar.

††

Admitted in New York only.
Supervised by Richard B. Katskee,
a member of the D.C. bar.

Counsel for Amici Curiae
Date: March 10, 2017

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 10, 2017, the foregoing brief was filed using
the Court’s CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered
CM/ECF users and will be served electronically via that system.
/s/ Steven D. Strauss
Counsel for Amici Curiae