State of Hawaii v. Trump
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief; Memorandum in Support of Motion; Declaration of David J. Minkin; Exhibit "1"; Certificate of Service David J. Minkin appearing for Amicus Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of David J. Minkin, # 3 Exhibit "1", # 4 Certificate of Service)(Minkin, David)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL
) CIVIL NO. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United
States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F.
KELLY, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX
TILLERSON, in his official capacity as )
Secretary of State; and the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
The Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center respectfully requests
leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, filed March 8, 2017 [Dkt. No. 65]. The proposed
amicus brief is attached as Exhibit “1” to the Declaration of David J. Minkin.
Plaintiffs consent to the filing of the amicus brief; the Government takes no
position on this motion. Minkin Declaration at ¶ 4. Further, this Court has broad
discretion to grant this motion.
The MacArthur Justice Center is a not-for-profit organization founded in
1985 by the family of J. Roderick MacArthur to advocate for human rights and
social justice through litigation. The MacArthur Justice Center has represented
clients facing a myriad of human rights and civil rights injustices, including issues
of discrimination, the unlawful detention of foreign nationals, and the rights of
marginalized groups in the United States’ justice system. The MacArthur Justice
Center has an interest in the independent role of the judiciary in determining
whether government officials have acted with discriminatory animus.
The MacArthur Justice Center seeks to submit its brief to inform the Court’s
analysis of animus, including through historic information that preceded the
present action, and to contextualize this dispute in the history of judicial scrutiny of
discriminatory government actions.
A district court has broad discretion to grant or refuse a prospective amicus
participation. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on
other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). In deciding whether to
grant a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, a court should consider whether the
brief “assist[s] in a case of general public interest,” “supplement[s] the efforts of
counsel,” or “draw[s] the court’s attention to law that escaped consideration.”
Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204
(9th Cir. 1982). “An amicus brief should normally be allowed . . . when the
amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the
help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” Cmty. Ass’n for
Restoration of Env’t v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wash.
Based on the foregoing, the MacArthur Justice Center respectfully requests
leave to file the amicus brief.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 10, 2017.
/s/ David J. Minkin
DAVID J. MINKIN
LISA W. CATALDO
JESSICA M. WAN
AMIR H. ALI (Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Attorneys for RODERICK AND
SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE
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?