State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 123

MOTION for Leave to File First Amended 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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL
ELSHIKH,

Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00050DKW-KSC

Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United
States; et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
In support of their Motion, proposed Amici states as follows:
I.

IDENTITY AND INTEREST
The Employment Law Alliance (“ELA”) is an integrated, global practice

network whose independent law firm members are well known and well respected
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 experience in employment-related matters, hereby
submit this brief:
Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew PC;
Fortney & Scott, LLC;
1

Hirschfeld Kraemer, LLP;
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP;
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP;
Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP;
Shawe Rosenthal LLP; and
Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan, & Jackstadt, P.C.
(collectively, the “Participating Law Firms of the ELA” or “Amici”).
The ELA has a substantial interest in this case because its member law firms
collectively represent hundreds of employers nationwide who have been and will
continue to be adversely impacted by Executive Order Protecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, issued March 6, 2017 (“Executive
Order”). Many of these employers are institutions of higher education whose
educational missions are adversely affected. In light of the above disruption of ELA
member clients’ ability to do business, the undersigned respectfully submit this brief
on behalf of the Participating Law Firms of the ELA in order to explain the grave
impact of the Executive Order on U.S. employers.
II.

REASONS THE COURT SHOULD GRANT AMICUS COUNSEL’S
BRIEF
The privilege of being heard amicus lies solely within the discretion of a

district court. Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration of Env't (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros.
Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,
2

1260 (9th Cir. 1982) (a district court has “broad discretion to appoint amici curiae”),
abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “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 (CARE), 54 F. Supp. 2d
at 975.
As noted above, many of the ELA’s Participating Member’s clients (and their
employees and students) will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the Executive
Order. As such, the ELA is well situated to provide the Court with significant
guidance as to how the Executive Order is and will negatively affect employers (and
their employees and students) across the nation, including in Hawaii.
We respectfully request that the court accept our brief and allow us to appear
as amici curiae.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 11, 2017.

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

3

/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
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

4