State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 140

MOTION for Leave to File Brief of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Pamela W. Bunn appearing for Amicus National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" - Brief, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Bunn, Pamela)

Download PDF
ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP PAMELA W. BUNN 6460 JOHN RHEE 9681 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Telephone: (808) 524-1800 Facsimile: (808) 524-4591 Email: JAMES W. KIM (pro hac vice pending) The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 756-8386 Facsimile: (202) 591-2865 Email: Attorneys for Amicus Curiae (See Next Page for Additional Counsel) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I 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. / 9999 - 2 Case No. 1:17-CV-00050 DKW-KSC MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS; EXHIBIT “A”; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDITIONAL COUNSEL NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TINA MATSUOKA (pro hac vice pending) MEREDITH S.H. HIGASHI (pro hac vice pending) NAVDEEP SINGH (pro hac vice pending) RACHANA PATHAK (pro hac vice pending) 1612 K Street NW, Suite 510 Washington D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 775-9555 Facsimile: (202) 775-9333 E-mail: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association hereby submits this Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae in support of Plaintiffs in the form concurrently submitted as Exhibit “A” hereto. Defendants take no position with respect to this motion. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE AND REASON WHY THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (“NAPABA”) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students, representing the interests of over seventy-five state and local Asian Pacific American bar associations and nearly 50,000 attorneys who work in solo practices, large firms, corporations, legal services organizations, nonprofit organizations, law schools, and government agencies. Since its inception in 1988, NAPABA has served as the national voice for Asian Pacific Americans in the legal profession and has promoted justice, equity, and opportunity for Asian Pacific Americans. In furtherance of its mission, NAPABA opposes discrimination, including on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, and promotes the equitable treatment of all under the law. The court should use its discretion to grant this Motion, and permit the Amicus to file its concurrently submitted Brief of Amicus Curiae because NAPABA fulfills “the classic role of amicus curiae by assisting in a case of general public interest, supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the court’s attention to law that escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Missouri v. Harris, No. 2:14CV-00341-KJM, 2014 WL 2987284, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2014) (citing Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)) (discussing district courts’ “broad discretion regarding the appointment of amici”). Plaintiffs’ Complaint concerns an American citizen whose wife is Syrian, and whose Syrian mother-in-law will be unable to obtain a visa to visit him in the United States as a result of Executive Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“Executive Order”). Compl. at 6, 25. The Complaint also asserts that the new Executive Order affects the interest of the Plaintiff State of Hawai‘i, which is home to a large body of foreign workers and students, and whose residents will be unable to receive family from the six affected countries. Compl. at 27. Plaintiffs seek a nationwide injunction against the implementation of Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order. Compl. at 37. Amicus writes to highlight the history of nationality-based immigration discrimination as it has affected the Asian Pacific Islander community, including the State of Hawai‘i, and to address statutory limitations on executive discretion 2 imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which Congress intended to serve as a bar against nationality-based discrimination, as well as the United States Constitution. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and permit it to file its Brief of Amicus Curiae in the form concurrently submitted as Exhibit “A” hereto. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 12, 2017. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Pamela W. Bunn PAMELA W. BUNN JOHN RHEE JAMES W. KIM* TINA R. MATSUOKA* MEREDITH S.H. HIGASHI* NAVDEEP SINGH* RACHANA PATHAK* Attorneys for Amicus Curiae *Pro hac vice application pending 3

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?