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)

Download PDF
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.

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?