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)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

JAMES W. KIM (pro hac vice pending)
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[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