State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 203

MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave To File Brief on Behalf of New York University as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Exhibit A (Proposed Brief); Certificate of Service Claire Wong Black appearing for Amicus New York University (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Brief, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Black, Claire)

ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

J. Blaine Rogers
8606
Claire Wong Black
9645
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Steven E. Obus (Pro Hac Vice)
Seth D. Fiur (Pro Hac Vice)
Tiffany M. Woo (Pro Hac Vice)
Eleven Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
(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.

Case No. 1:17-CV-00050 DKW-KSC
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AS
AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER; EXHIBIT A (PROPOSED
BRIEF); CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Terrance J. Nolan (Pro Hac Vice)
General Counsel and Secretary
New York University
70 Washington Square South -1168
New York, New York 10012
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
New York University (“NYU”), by and through its undersigned
counsel, respectfully requests leave of Court to file the accompanying proposed
brief of amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, filed March 8, 2017, Dkt. No. 65. This motion is made pursuant to Rule 7 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LR7.1 and 7.2 of the Local Rules of
Practice for the United District Court for the District Court of Hawai`i.
NYU has an especially strong interest in this matter. As of 2016, NYU
hosted more international students than any other university in the United States.
International students constituted 35% of NYU’s graduate student population and
18% of its undergraduate student population. This includes approximately 120
students and ten scholars from the six countries named in the March 6, 2017
Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States” (the “Executive Order”), which is the subject of these continuing
proceedings. NYU is deeply concerned that the Executive Order will have a
significant adverse impact not merely on its numerous current and prospective
international students and scholars, but on the ability of the University as a whole
to fulfill its mission as a global educational institution for all of its constituents,

“fitting for all and graciously open to all.” See NYU Mission Statement,
www.nyu.edu/about.
Among other things, the Executive Order will have a particular
negative impact on prospective NYU students from the six Muslim-majority
countries that continue to be singled out for adverse treatment, who may not be
able to enroll despite their acceptance by the University. See, e.g., Samantha
Michaels, “I’m an Iranian Woman Whose Dream Is to Study in America. Here’s
My Message for Trump,” Mother Jones (2017), http://www.motherjones.com/
politics/2017/01/iranian-student-trump-immigration (last visited March 6, 2017).
In sum, NYU’s amicus brief would provide the Court with NYU’s unique
perspective as a global university based in New York City.
A “district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.”
Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds
by Sandin v. Conner, 512 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.” Cty
Ass’n for Restoration of the Env. (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d
974, 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999) (citing Northern Sec. Co. v. U.S., 191 U.S. 555, 556
(1903)); see also In re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (N.D. Cal.

2

1991) (stating that courts generally “have exercised great liberality in permitting an
amicus curiae to file a brief in a pending case”).
For the foregoing reasons, NYU respectfully requests the Court’s
permission to file a brief of amicus curiae attached hereto as Exhibit A on or
before a date set by the Court.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, March 14, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Claire Wong Black
J. BLAINE ROGERS
CLAIRE WONG BLACK
STEVEN E. OBUS
SETH D. FIUR
TIFFANY M. WOO
TERRANCE J. NOLAN
Attorneys for amici curiae
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

3