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)

Download PDF
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: (808) 524-1800 Facsimile: (808) 524-4591 Email: 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: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2100 Email: 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: (212) 998-2257 Facsimile: (212) 995-3048 Email: 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, 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), 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

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?