State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 118

MOTION for Leave to File (MOTION OF PARTICIPATING LAW FIRMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT LAW ALLIANCE FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS) Anna M. Elento-Sneed appearing for Amicus The Employment Law Alliance (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Anna Elento-Sneed, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Elento-Sneed, Anna)

Of Counsel:
ES&A, INC.
A Law Corporation
ANNA ELENTO-SNEED
3412
KIMBERLY A. GREELEY 6042
Pauahi Tower, Suite 2750
1003 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae ES&A, Inc.
P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON
Oregon Bar No. 061911
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, LLP
NATASHA J. BAKER
California SBN 226981
Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP
505 Montgomery Street, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

Exhibit 1

ALISON M. HAMER
California SBN 258281
Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP
MARY ELLEN SIMONSON
Arizona SBN 009298
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL
ELSHIKH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
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,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00050DKW-KJM
BRIEF OF PARTICIPATING LAW
FIRMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT
LAW ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................................ ii
I. 

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .....................................................................1 

II. 

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................2 
A. 

The Haphazard Implementation of the Executive Orders Created
Unprecedented Chaos and Uncertainty for Employers. ........................4 
1. 
2. 

B. 

The Original Order ......................................................................4 
The New Order............................................................................9 

The Orders Harm U.S. Employers ELA represents. ...........................10 
1. 
2. 

III. 

Uncertainty About the Order is Hindering Business Travel and
Investment. ................................................................................12 

3. 
C. 

The Sudden, Chaotic Impact of the Order Harmed Many
Employers' Operations. .............................................................11 

The Orders Negatively Impact Recruitment. ............................14 

The Orders Have Harmed and Will Continue to Harm U.S.
Institutions of Higher Education. ........................................................15 

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................17 

i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Amici state as follows:
ES&A, Inc. has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation
owns 10% or more of its stock.
Hirschfeld Kraemer, LLP has no parent corporation and no publicly held
corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP has no parent corporation and no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP has no parent corporation and no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c), Amici state that no
party or person other than Amici authored or contributed funding for this brief.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of March, 2017.

/s/ Anna Elento-Sneed
ANNA ELENTO-SNEED
KIMBERLY A. GREELEY
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
ES&A, Inc.
/s/ P.K. Runkles-Pearson
P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, LLP
ii

/s/ Natasha J. Baker
NATASHA J. BAKER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP
/s/ Alison M. Hamer
ALISON M. HAMER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP
/s/ Mary Ellen Simonson
MARY ELLEN SIMONSON
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

iii

BRIEF OF PARTICIPATING LAW FIRMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT
LAW ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
I.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
The Employment Law Alliance (“ELA”) is an integrated global practice

network whose independent law firm members are well-known and wellrespected for their employment and labor law practices. With more than 3,000
lawyers across more than 120 countries, all 50 U.S. states, and every Canadian
province, the ELA is the world’s largest such network. The following U.S. law
firm members of the ELA, each of which has significant expertise in
employment-related matters, hereby submit this brief:
ES&A, Inc.
Hirschfeld Kraemer, LLP
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Collectively, ELA member law firms represent hundreds of U.S.-based
employers that have been, and would continue to be, adversely impacted by the
Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States, issued on January 27, 2017, and on March 6, 2017 (collectively,
the “Orders”). Many of the ELA member law firms represent employers that are
institutions of higher education. The Orders also adversely affect the educational
and financial interests of these educational institutions.

1

Amici submit this brief to provide examples of how the Orders adversely
affect the ability of their member clients to do business and fulfill their
educational missions.
II.

ARGUMENT
On Friday, January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an "Executive Order

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"(the
“Order” or the “original Order”). On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued the
new Executive Order, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United States” (the “Order” or the “new Order”), replacing the
original Order (the original Order and new Order are collectively referred to as
“the Orders”). The new Order, similar to the original Order, bars people from six
foreign countries (“EO Countries”) from entering the United States for an initial
period of 90 days with the potential for an indefinite ban. These people include
employees, students, affiliates, and contractors of U.S. employers that ELA
members represent.
The Orders and their implementation have caused – and, unless this court
upholds the district court's decision, will continue to cause – harmful financial
and operational consequences to ELA member clients. Although the new Order
allows lawful permanent residents (“green card holders”) and those with valid
non-immigrant visas to enter the country, the new Order still prevents those

2

employees, students, affiliates, and contractors who do not possess current valid
visas, and who pose absolutely no security risk, from entering the United States,
some of whom may be separated from their families and homes potentially
indefinitely. For those reasons, the Orders hamper travel for ordinary and
legitimate travelers on business for and related to ELA member clients.
Even if such employees and contractors are eventually admitted, many have
been subjected to lengthy investigation and questioning by Department of
Homeland Security ("DHS") officers and detained upon arrival for, sometimes,
several hours. These investigations often include searches of cell phones and
social media accounts, inquiries into religious practices and beliefs, extensive
interrogation of personal residence and travel histories and other subjects. The
investigations and detentions may separate families of business travelers,
including young children. This is not only personally frightening, it also severely
disrupts work, study, and business of the travelers and their ELA-represented
institutions.
These concerns are causing employers to suspend travel for vulnerable
employees and advise vulnerable students not to travel. This, of course, causes
further disruption to their business efforts and relationships.
Such disruption – should it be allowed to continue – would inevitably and
irreparably erode business opportunities for U.S. employers. Employers may lose

3

valuable employees, students, affiliates, and contractors who – precisely because
of their skills, talents, education, experience, foreign origin, knowledge of
language, culture and business practices, and special relationships – are uniquely
able to advance employers’ interests in and connections to the EO Countries.
A.

The Haphazard Implementation of the Executive Orders Created
Unprecedented Chaos and Uncertainty for Employers.
1.

The Original Order

The original Order took effect on January 27, 2017. In the week after
implementation, and before the Western District of Washington enjoined
enforcement of various sections of the original Order in its February 3, 2017
Temporary Restraining Order, the scope and effect of the original Order remained
fluid, and the federal government implemented it in an inconsistent and
contradictory manner.
Amici address the shifting interpretation of the original Order here because
it contributes directly to the sense of unpredictability they face. While every new
law or regulation is subject to interpretation, the inconsistencies and
contradictions associated with the Orders are truly unprecedented in our
experience. The changes whipsawed back and forth with life-changing
consequences for the affected employees and students each time. As we describe
more fully in Sections B and C, the resulting climate stunts the growth, and

4

disrupts the orderly administration of the business and educational enterprises that
amici represent.
For example, the Department of State ("DOS") and DHS applied the
original Order inconsistently to lawful permanent residents from the affected
countries. By its plain language, the original Order purported to bar immigrants
and nonimmigrants – including lawful permanent residents and other long-time
U.S. residents – from entering the United States.1 The same day the original
Order was issued, Edward J. Ramatowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of Consular Affairs for DOS, provisionally revoked all valid
nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of the EO Countries, except
certain specified diplomatic visas, and visas of foreign nationals granted the
national interest exception under Section 3(g) of the original Order. The DOS
estimated that this provisional revocation impacted 60,000 people, while the

“Immigrants” include individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
often referred to as LPRs or green card holders. LPRs have been “accorded the
privilege of residing permanently in the United States ... in accordance with
immigration laws,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20), and they often reside in, work, and
raise their families in the United States over period of many years. LPRs are also
eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after a specified period of time, typically five
years. “Nonimmigrants” include visitors, individuals with student visas (F, J, or M
visas), highly-skilled workers (H-1Bs), intracompany transferees (L-1As and L1Bs), and numerous other temporary classifications (Os, TNs, etc.). See 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(A)-(V).
1

5

Department of Justice estimated the impact at 100,000. The provisional
revocation of these visas renders the affected individuals potentially deportable.
Even long-term permanent residents of the U.S. were denied return to the
U.S. upon the signing of the original Order if they had been born in EO
Countries. But on January 29, 2017, two days after the Order was signed, John
Kelly, the Secretary of DHS, stated that the entry of lawful permanent residents
would be deemed to be in the national interest and that “absent the receipt of
significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and
welfare, permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in [the agency’s]
case-by-case determinations.” That guidance was welcome, but because it
addressed an entire category of people at once, it contradicted the original Order's
statement that determinations would be made on a case-by-case basis.2 That
guidance could be changed at any time, and there still is no guidance regarding
how to apply or qualify for a case-by-case waiver or exemption.
On January 31, 2017, Secretary Kelly and other leaders from DHS spoke at
a news conference about how DHS and the DOS were implementing the Order.
Kevin McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

The Order provides a highly discretionary exception, stating that “the Secretaries
of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the
national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries
for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.” See Order, § 3(g).

2

6

(“CBP”), part of DHS, addressed dual nationals (i.e., individuals who are
nationals of both an EO Country and another country), stating that “[t]ravelers
will be assessed at our border based on the passport they present.” In other
words, foreign nationals from one of the EO Countries would still be able to enter
the United States if they present a valid passport from a non-EO Country.
But on or about February 1, 2017, DOS announced on its website that it
had “temporarily stopped scheduling appointments and halted processing of
immigrant visa applications for individuals who are nationals or dual nationals"
of the EO Countries. The announcement further stated that all interviews
scheduled for these applicants in February, 2017, had been cancelled. This
directly contradicted the January 31 statements that dual nationals would not be
affected.
The same day, on January 31, 2017, CBP also published additional
information relating to the Order in a "question and answer" format on its
website, stating that “USCIS will continue to adjudicate N-400 applications for
naturalization and administer the oath of citizenship consistent with prior
practices.” That guidance is inconsistent with reports amici have received from
clients who have been told that processing of their naturalization applications
and/or administration of the oath have been suspended.

7

On February 1, 2017, Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President,
released a Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney
General, and the Secretary of DHS providing “Authoritative Guidance” on the
Executive Order. In this memorandum, Mr. McGahn acknowledged that there
had been “reasonable uncertainty” about whether the 90-day ban on entries
applies to lawful permanent residents from the EO Countries, and clarified that
Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Order do not apply to such individuals.
The unclear government interpretations and communications regarding the
intended scope of the Order and the lack of advance notice, agency guidance and
inter-agency collaboration on the Order's scope caused substantial concern and
chaos. Dual nationals of the U.S and EO Countries, and their employers, fearing
they were subject to the travel ban, sought legal counsel to confirm they still were
authorized to return to the U.S. in their capacity as U.S. citizens with U.S.
passports. Lawful permanent residents of the U.S. whose country of origin is
among the EO Countries were informed the travel ban applied to them and were
blocked from their planned return to the U.S. for several days. Some lawful
permanent residents were even forced to sign an I-407, abandoning their rights as
a permanent resident, at which time they were immediately deported. The fear
associated with both the Orders has even resulted in foreign nationals questioning
the ability to travel domestically within the U.S.

8

This uncertainty did cause and is causing ELA-represented employers
substantial harm. Not only did it cause actual harm as to those who were unable
to travel or who were traveling and could not return, but it also causes future
harm for those who fear the original and new Orders’ impact, and the potential
expansion, or further issuance of additional executive orders on immigration, and
are thus cancelling work-related or education-related travel on behalf of their
organizations. The prospect that additional executive orders could be issued with
a similar lack of clarity and guidance amplifies the climate of uncertainty for U.S.
employers.
2.

The New Order

On Monday, March 6, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order
replacing the previously issued Executive Order. The new Order still contains a
90-day suspension of entry for certain citizens and nationals of Iran, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This travel ban begins on March 16, 2017.
Citizens and nationals of Iraq are no longer included, but they may still be
subjected to additional screening when seeking to enter the United States. The
revised travel ban only suspends entry into the United States of individuals who
are citizens or nationals of the six designated countries if those individuals:
1. Are outside the United States on March 16, 2017;
2. Did not have a valid visa by 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 2017; and

9

3. Do not have a valid visa on March 16, 2017.
Lawful permanent residents (i.e., “green card holders”) are also excluded from
the ban. The new Order also clarifies that dual nationals (i.e., individuals who are
nationals or citizens of one of the six designated countries and a non-designated
country) will be permitted to enter the United States when traveling on a passport
issued by a country not designated in the Order.
Although the new Order does provide consular officers and U.S. Customs
and Border Protection officers discretion to authorize the issuance of a visa, or
allow entry of a foreign national covered by the ban on a case-by-case basis if the
foreign national demonstrates that denying entry during the suspension period
would cause undue hardship, and that entry would not pose a threat to national
security and would be in the national interest, neither of the Orders provide
specific details or procedures on how to seek a waiver of the travel ban.
B.

The Orders Harm U.S. Employers ELA represents.

The Order has harmed and is harming U.S. employers, as the new Order will
continue to do, in several ways.
The ban was implemented so suddenly that many executives and
employees were stranded abroad, potentially indefinitely, or had to cancel workrelated travel plans for meetings, conferences and other travel on behalf of their
employers.

10

Employers cancelled work-related travel extensively across many
industries out of fear of the ban being reinstated or expanded.
These circumstances harm U.S. employers’ ability to recruit and retain
employees who had been previously vetted and approved, and who have
specialized skill and knowledge.
All of this puts U.S. employers at a competitive disadvantage. It cannot
continue without severe harm to U.S. employers and the U.S. economy.
1.

The Sudden, Chaotic Impact of the Order Harmed Many
Employers' Operations.

Many U.S. employers with global operations employ temporary
nonimmigrant foreign workers and U.S. permanent resident green card holders
who are based in the United States but who travel internationally for work. Such
workers require flexible international travel to attend meetings at worldwide
company offices, to visit various customer locations, and to participate in global
industry activities. U.S. employers that are institutions of higher education also
routinely admit students from other countries, including hundreds of students
from the seven countries named in the original Order, and the six countries named
in the new Order.
The Order's sudden implementation immediately affected employees and
students who were traveling outside the U.S. and were not able to return, despite

11

being already vetted and approved for employment or scholarship in this country
and actively engaged in such activities in the United States.
A few examples demonstrate the problems ELA-employer clients face
across the country. For example, employees with valid visas who were traveling
abroad temporarily when the Order was issued were unable to return, with no
warning. Employees with valid visas were unable to travel on behalf of their
employers and had to cancel long-standing meetings and professional
engagements. Visiting researchers and tenure-track university faculty members
employed in H-1B status and traveling abroad temporarily when the Order was
issued were unable to return to campus to resume teaching and research duties,
with no warning. Students who have already been admitted or were temporarily
away have been barred from traveling to their campuses.
Employers have lost the work that those employees would have performed
upon their return to the United States. They have covered the lodging and travel
costs of stranded employees. In addition, employers' interest is not limited to
immediate financial loss. In many cases, the loss of a critical employee damages
future business plans.
2.

Uncertainty About the Order is Hindering Business Travel
and Investment.

The harm to U.S. employers is not limited to stranded individuals.
Reasonable employers are concerned that the manner in which the original Order
12

has already been implemented is a warning of other radical changes in the new
Order or its interpretation. Employers are concerned that the list of countries will
be expanded to other countries in a similar manner. Changing the list without
notice would strand other employees outside the U.S., separated from family,
school, and jobs. Employers are also concerned about the "case-by-case" waiver
process described in the Orders. We do not know what that process will involve,
or what criteria will be used to make a determination.
As a result of this uncertainty, many employees are afraid to travel, even if
they are not from one of the six EO Countries in the new Order. The fear of
being denied entry or re-entry has increased employee unwillingness to come to
the U.S. for business, and to leave the U.S. for business. This has caused
multinational business executives with visas or admission stamps for visiting one
of the listed countries on business or holiday to question their continued ability to
travel to the U.S. for business purposes. It has caused physicians from non-EO
Countries in the Middle East who are employed in the U.S. on H-1B visas to
question whether the U.S. government will allow them to stay in this country to
provide medical care in underserved areas of the United States.
U.S. employers with cross-border business are restricted as to which
foreign national employees are eligible to travel to and from work on a daily
basis. Many cross-border commuters now fear entering the U.S. for work, and

13

fear departing the U.S. for work regardless of whether they are from the named
countries in the Order. Such fear has caused disruption in business in border
states where employees are electing to remain on one side or the other until they
fully understand what risks they face when traveling internationally.
The uncertainty is not limited to employees. U.S. investors and
entrepreneurs who work with U.S. employers are putting their plans to bring startup and other business ventures to the U.S. on hold, given the immediate and
potential impact of the original or new Order. Those from the EO Countries may
not have the opportunity to invest in the U.S. economy, and the ban may deter
others from doing so entirely.
Due to these circumstances, employers are hesitant to require employees to
travel, because there is no certainty that employees will be admitted into (or back
into) the U.S. Some employers are putting business on hold, at significant
expense. This cannot continue indefinitely, or the companies and institutions will
lose their competitive edge and standing in the global economy.
3.

The Orders Negatively Impact Recruitment.

U.S. employers are already experiencing a negative impact on recruitment,
hiring, and retention practices as a result of the original Order, and will continue
to experience this under the new Order. For example, U.S. employers in the
STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) have difficulty

14

recruiting and hiring qualified U.S. workers to fill STEM roles. Workers and
students from other countries, including EO Countries, fill STEM roles that U.S.
workers are not otherwise able to fill. But because of the Orders, U.S. employers
do not know whether they may continue to employ workers from EO Countries,
or whether they can pursue qualified workers from EO Countries for future
positions.
Examples of these recruitment problems are already arising. For example,
valued recruits for employment in the United States have been unable to travel to
the U.S. for scheduled job interviews and worksite tours based on their country of
birth, even if they are currently residing in a country not subject to the Order. New
permanent residents in the U.S. whose immediate family still reside elsewhere
(pending the long immigration process) are suddenly facing a much longer family
separation because the family members were born in a country subject to the Order.
These hardships will make it less likely that these valuable employees will come
here, or that they will stay. The loss of their expertise will be substantial.
C.

The Orders Have Harmed and Will Continue to Harm U.S.
Institutions of Higher Education.

Amici represent many employers who are higher education institutions.
The original and new Order present particular challenges for them.
Knowledge is universal, and teachers, researchers, and students are part of
a global academic community. U.S. colleges and universities employ numerous
15

instructors and researchers from the seven EO Countries. The Order has barred
scholars from entering the country. Others have been afraid to leave the country
for conferences or research for fear they would not be allowed to return. The new
Order will pose the same issues.
The inability to invite scholars from the EO Countries causes more harm
than the loss of those scholars alone. In some cases, academics may hold
conferences in other countries so that all can attend. Research and scholarship
will move elsewhere, causing both economic and academic loss.
Students are also significantly affected. U.S. colleges and universities
enroll many students from EO countries. Students who are already admitted to
colleges and universities for this, and the upcoming term may not be able to enter
the country to attend class. Since the original and new Order, universities are
prudently advising vulnerable students who are already here not to leave the
country to visit family, to study abroad, for internships and field work, or to
vacation over the upcoming spring break, because they will not be allowed to
return. These travel restrictions create impossible dilemmas for students who in
some cases must leave the country to renew student visas, only to be denied
reentry. Even students whose visas are intact for now must cope with the loss of
family visits. Some families may not be able to attend their student's graduation
ceremonies.

16

The loss of international students and scholars is more than financial. It
represents a hole in the fabric of the university community – a loss of scholarship,
innovation, understanding, and perspective that is simply not replaceable. This
loss will quickly have a significant negative impact on the economy of the United
States.
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Amici respectfully request that the Court grant

Plaintiff’s Motion.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of March, 2017.

/s/ Anna Elento-Sneed
ANNA ELENTO-SNEED
KIMBERLY A. GREELEY
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
ES&A, Inc.
/s/ P.K. Runkles-Pearson
P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, LLP
/s/ Natasha J. Baker
NATASHA J. BAKER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP
/s/ Alison M. Hamer
ALISON M. HAMER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP

17

/s/ Mary Ellen Simonson
MARY ELLEN SIMONSON
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

18

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R.
App. P. 28.1(e)(2) because this brief contains 3640 words, excluding the parts of
the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). This brief complies with the
typeface requirement of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally
spaced typeface using Microsoft Word for Windows software in 14 pt. Times New
Roman.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of March, 2017.

/s/ Anna Elento-Sneed
ANNA ELENTO-SNEED
KIMBERLY A. GREELEY
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
ES&A, Inc.
/s/ P.K. Runkles-Pearson
P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, LLP
/s/ Natasha J. Baker
NATASHA J. BAKER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP
/s/ Alison M. Hamer
ALISON M. HAMER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP

1

/s/ Mary Ellen Simonson
MARY ELLEN SIMONSON
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the dates and by the methods of service noted
below, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following at their
last known addresses:
Served Electronically through CM/ECF:
Alexander Bowerman

[e-mail]

Clyde J. Wadsworth

[e-mail]

Colleen Roh Sinzdak

[e-mail]

Deirdre Marie-Iha

[e-mail]

Donna H. Kalama

[e-mail]

Douglas S.G. Chin

[e-mail]

Elizabeth Hagerty

[e-mail]

Kimberly T. Guidry

[e-mail]

Mitchell Reich

[e-mail]

Neal Katyal

[e-mail]

Robert T. Nakatsuji

[e-mail]

Sara Solow

[e-mail]

Thomas Schmidt

[e-mail]

Brad P. Rosenberg

[e-mail]

Daniel Schwei

[e-mail]

Edric Ming-Kai Ching

[e-mail]

Florence T. Nakakuni

[e-mail]

Michelle R. Bennett

[e-mail]

Mark S. Davis

[e-mail]

Clare M. Hanusz

[e-mail]

John B. Harris

[e-mail]

Nicole Y.C. L. Altman

[e-mail]

1

Served Electronically through CM/ECF:
Denise M. Hevicon

[e-mail]

David J. Minkin

[e-mail]

Jessica M. Wan

[e-mail]

Lisa W. Cataldo

[e-mail]

Louise K.Y. Ing

[e-mail]

Claire Wong Black

[e-mail]

Lisa W. Munger

[e-mail]

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 10, 2017.

/s/ Anna Elento-Sneed
ANNA ELENTO-SNEED
KIMBERLY A. GREELEY
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
ES&A, Inc.
/s/ P.K. Runkles-Pearson
P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn, LLP
/s/ Natasha J. Baker
NATASHA J. BAKER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP
/s/ Alison M. Hamer
ALISON M. HAMER
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP

2

/s/ Mary Ellen Simonson
MARY ELLEN SIMONSON
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

3