State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 154

MOTION for Leave to File [Motion of the State of Illinois for Leave to File Amicus Brief] Duane R. Miyashiro appearing for Amicus Parties State of California, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Maryland, State of Massachusetts, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, The District of Columbia (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of David L. Franklin, # 3 Exhibit 1-Brief Amicus Curiae of Illinois and Other States, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Miyashiro, Duane)

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

CIVIL NO. 17-00050-DKW-KSC
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION

vs.
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.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
The State of Illinois 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 L. Franklin. Plaintiffs consent to the filing of the
amicus brief; the Government takes no position on this motion. Franklin Decl. ¶ 4.
Further, this Court has broad discretion to grant this motion.

The State of Illinois and the States of Illinois, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia have important
proprietary, sovereign, and quasi-sovereign interests that are affected by the
executive order that is challenged in this lawsuit. These States seek to submit their
brief to inform the Court’s analysis of the standing of a State to challenge the
government action at issue here and to provide context to the real-world impact of
the challenged order.
A district court has broad discretion to grant 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., Inc. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203,
204 (9th Cir. 1982). “An amicus brief should normally be allowed” if 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. 1999).

2.

Here, the amici States offer their brief to supplement the efforts of counsel
and to assist and draw the Court’s attention to factual and legal considerations
concerning the effects of the challenged executive order on the States’ interests for
the purposes of establishing Article III standing.
Based on the foregoing, the State of Illinois respectfully requests leave to file
the amicus brief.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 13, 2017.
/s/ Duane R. Miyashiro
DUANE R. MIYASHIRO
Attorney for the STATES OF
ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA,
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE,
IOWA, MARYLAND,
MASSACHUSETTS, NEW MEXICO,
NEW YORK, OREGON, RHODE
ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA and
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

3.