State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 218

MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by State of Illinois. (Franklin, David)

DUANE R. MIYASHIRO (# 6513)
Adams Miyashiro Krek LLP
900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1700
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
Attorney for the State of Illinois

LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of Illinois
DAVID L. FRANKLIN*
Solicitor General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone No.: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
* Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for the State of Illinois

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, and ISMAIL
ELSHIKH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil No. 17-00050-DKW-KSC
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.

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF
ILLINOIS AND OTHER
STATES

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA,
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS,
NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT,
AND VIRGINIA, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERESTS OF AMICI ............................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3
I.

The Revised Order Will Inflict Concrete Proprietary Injuries On
The States......................................................................................................... 4
A.

The revised Order will harm state colleges and universities
and their faculty and students. ............................................................... 5

B.

The revised Order will disrupt staffing and research at
state medical institutions. .................................................................... 13

C.

The revised Order will reduce States’ tax revenues and
harm our economies more broadly. ..................................................... 15

II.

The Revised Order Will Harm The States’ Quasi-Sovereign
And Sovereign Interests In Protecting Our Residents And
Enforcing Our Laws. ..................................................................................... 19

III.

A Nationwide Temporary Restraining Order Is Necessary To Provide
Complete Relief. ............................................................................................ 26

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 27

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

Page(s)

ACLU of Ill. v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1986) ........................... 21
ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cty, 354 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2003),
aff’d, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ....................................................................................... 21
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex. rel. Barez,
458 U.S. 592 (1982) ................................................................................................... 4
Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) ............................................................ 26
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England,
454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 21
Davis v. E.P.A., 348 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 3
Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154-NMG (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2017) ................ 7
Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007) .......................................................... 3
Parents’ Ass’n of P.S. 16 v. Quinones, 803 F.2d 1235 (2d Cir. 1986) .................... 21
Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015),
aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) ..................................... 27
Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................1, 26, 27
Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR (W.D. Wash.) ..............................3, 18, 19

STATUTES AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Page(s)

740 ILCS 23/5 (a)(1) ................................................................................................ 20
775 ILCS 5/1-102 (A) .............................................................................................. 20
775 ILCS 5/10-104 (A)(1) ....................................................................................... 20
Cal. Const. art. I, § 4, 7-8, 31 ................................................................................... 20
ii

Cal. Const. art. I, § 7 ................................................................................................ 20
Cal. Const. art. I, § 8 ................................................................................................ 20
Cal. Const. art. I, § 31 .............................................................................................. 20
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11135-11137, 12900 et seq...................................................... 20
Cal. Civ. Code § 51, subd. (b).................................................................................. 20
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 ........................................................................................ 20
Ill. Const. art. I, § 3 .................................................................................................. 20
Ill. Const. art. I, § 17 ................................................................................................ 20
5 Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 784, 4551-4634 ........................................................... 20
Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B, §§ 1, 4............................................................................... 20
Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, § 102 ..................................................................................... 20
Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606 ..................................................................... 20
Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.006(1) ................................................................................... 20
R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7(1)(i) .................................................................................. 20
9 Vt. Stat. Ann. §§ 4500-07 ..................................................................................... 20
21 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 495. .......................................................................................... 20

iii

INTERESTS OF AMICI
The States of Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Virginia, and the District of Columbia submit this brief as amici curiae in support
of the State of Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order enjoining the
enforcement of the revised Executive Order issued by President Donald J. Trump
on March 6, 2017 (Am. Compl. Ex. 1) (“revised Order”). The initial version of the
Executive Order barred all nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries from
entering the United States for at least 90 days, halted the entire U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program for at least 120 days, and indefinitely barred all Syrian
refugees. See Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-79 (Jan. 27, 2017) (Am.
Compl. Ex. 2) (“initial Order”). In litigation brought by the States of Washington
and Minnesota, the District Court for the Western District of Washington entered a
nationwide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the initial Order,
Am. Compl. ¶ 71, and the Ninth Circuit denied the federal government’s request
for a stay of that judgment, Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017)
(per curiam). The Court of Appeals held that the State plaintiffs had standing to
challenge the initial Order, id. at 1158-61, and that the federal government failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiffs’ due process
claim, id. at 1164-68. Notably, the Court rejected the federal government’s
1

assertion that the initial Order was unreviewable, reasoning that the federal
government’s position was “contrary to the fundamental structure of our
constitutional democracy.” Id. at 1161.
Although the revised Order is narrower in some respects than the initial
Order, it retains the two essential pillars of that Order: a sweeping ban on entry to
the United States by nationals of several predominantly Muslim countries and a
complete suspension of the refugee program. If allowed to go into effect, the
revised Order will immediately harm the amici States’ proprietary, quasisovereign, and sovereign interests. It will inhibit the free exchange of information,
ideas, and talent between the six designated countries and the States, including at
the States’ many educational institutions; harm the States’ life sciences,
technology, health care, finance, and tourism industries, as well as innumerable
other small and large businesses throughout the States; inflict economic damage on
the States themselves through both increased costs and immediately diminished tax
revenues; and hinder the States from effectuating the policies of religious tolerance
and nondiscrimination enshrined in our laws and state constitutions.
While the amici States differ in many ways, all of us welcome and benefit
from immigration, tourism, and international student and business travel, and all of
us will face concrete and immediate harms flowing directly from the revised Order
if it is not enjoined. The harms detailed in this brief exemplify, on a nationwide
2

scale, the injuries that form the basis for state standing to challenge the revised
Order in this and other pending litigation,1 as well as demonstrating the widespread
and irreparable harms caused by the Order that necessitate nationwide injunctive
relief.
ARGUMENT
“States are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal
jurisdiction.” Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 518 (2007). On the contrary,
the Supreme Court has held that States are “entitled to special solicitude in our
standing analysis.” Id. at 520. Like any litigant, States may sue in federal court to
protect their proprietary interests, Davis v. E.P.A., 348 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir.
2003), and, in appropriate circumstances, may bring actions to vindicate the rights
of third parties such as students and instructors at state universities, Washington,
847 F.3d at 1160-61. In addition, States may invoke federal jurisdiction to protect

1

See Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR (W.D. Wash.). The District Court
in Washington is currently considering whether the nationwide injunction
previously entered in that case against the initial Order continues to bar the 90-day
ban on entry of persons from the six Muslim-majority countries and the 120-day
suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Emergency Motion to
Enforce Preliminary Injunction, Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, Dkt.
119 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 2017). Because the District Court in that case has not
yet enforced the injunction against the defendants on that basis, see Order
Regarding Defendants’ Notice of the Filing of a New Executive Order and
Plaintiffs’ Response, Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, Dkt. 117 (W.D.
Wash. Mar. 10, 2017), a pressing need for nationwide interim relief remains, and
this Court should grant Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order against
the revised Order.
3

“quasi-sovereign interests,” such as the welfare of their residents and the interest in
seeing that their “residents are not excluded from the benefits that are to flow from
participation in the federal system,” Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex.
rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607-08 (1982), as well as sovereign interests such as the
power to enforce their own laws and state constitutions, id. at 601.
State standing to challenge the revised Order is amply demonstrated by the
substantial and immediate injuries the Order will inflict on the amici States. As a
result of the Order, our States will suffer concrete proprietary injuries akin to those
inflicted on individuals, families, businesses and private institutions across the
country, as well as injuries to our quasi-sovereign and sovereign interests in
protecting our residents and enforcing our laws and constitutions. Moreover, the
breadth of the injuries immediately threatened by the revised Order—to our
residents, public and private institutions, businesses, state treasuries, and
economies as a whole—as well as the interconnectedness of our commercial and
transportation networks, counsel strongly in favor of a nationwide temporary
restraining order to return the country to the status quo that prevailed before the
initial Order went into effect.
I.

The Revised Order Will Inflict Concrete Proprietary Injuries On
The States.
The revised Order has already caused concrete, irreparable harms to the

amici States and their state institutions. Nationals from the six designated
4

countries are (or plan to become) faculty and students at our public universities,
doctors at our medical institutions, employees at our businesses, and, frequently,
guests who contribute to our economies when they come here to visit their families
or for purposes of tourism. Although some of these people already have visas, the
revised Order nonetheless harms them and the State: they may face delays in
renewal when their visas expire that could jeopardize their employment; they may
not be able to receive visits from family and friends while living in our States; and
many may decide not to stay here because of hardships arising from the revised
Order, a departure that will harm them and the State in equal measure. Others who
plan to come here to study, teach, or provide health care or other services, but who
have not yet secured a visa, may not be able to come to our States at all, causing
further injury and disruption to state institutions and economies. The injuries to
amici States detailed below are representative of the harms being suffered by
States throughout the country.2
A.

The revised Order will harm state colleges and universities
and their faculty and students.

The revised Order will irreparably injure state colleges and universities,
along with the faculty and students from around the world on whom they rely.

2

Although the specific harms and other facts described do not apply uniformly
to every State—for example, Delaware does not have a state medical school—all
of the amici States support the legal arguments put forward in this brief.
5

Impact on faculty. By barring entry for nationals of the six designated
countries, the revised Order has already created disruption, uncertainty, and fear
among current and potential faculty members and substantially hampered the
ability of state universities to attract and retain scholars from abroad. The harm is
deep and widespread. For example, the University of Massachusetts (“UMass”)
employs approximately 130 employees from the affected countries who are neither
lawful permanent residents nor U.S. citizens, including Professors, Researchers,
Visiting Faculty, and Post-Doctoral Fellows across a wide variety of academic
departments. To the extent these employees hold expired or single-entry visas,
they now stand to face unprecedented delays in the renewal of their visas,
precluding them from international travel—whether for personal reasons or to
fulfill professional obligations—during the implementation of the entry ban. The
revised Order’s 90-day entry ban also coincides with the peak period of the hiring
season, during which UMass is interviewing top candidates and extending offers to
faculty for the 2017-2018 year. UMass may be unable to hire top-ranked potential
faculty, lecturers, or visiting scholars from the affected countries because the
revised Order may preclude them from reaching the United States to fulfill their
teaching obligations.3 Baruch College, part of the City University of New York

3

Ex. C (Decl. of Deirdre Heatwole), ¶¶ 4-10.
6

(“CUNY”), which hires a significant number of foreign faculty members, already
reports that potential faculty are voicing concerns about travel restrictions that will
interfere with family obligations such as care of elderly parents, attending
important family events, and participation in cultural holidays. The CUNY
Graduate Center is currently negotiating with an international senior research
scholar who has expressed serious concerns about moving to the United States at
this time.4
Foreign-born faculty often have specialized expertise that cannot easily be
replaced. Some of these scholars were slated to join our state universities for the
Spring 2017 term. Our colleges and universities have already formed task forces
and are making contingency plans to fill the unexpected gaps in their faculty
rosters caused by the exclusion of scholars from the six designated countries, but
there is no guarantee that they will succeed in doing so. These efforts have already
required a considerable expenditure of scarce resources.5

4

Ex. H (Decl. of V. Rabinowitz), ¶ 21.

5

See, e.g., Decl. of Michael F. Collins, MD, ¶¶ 4-5, Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17cv-10154-NMG (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2017), ECF No. 52-2; Decl. of Marcellette G.
Williams, Ph. D., ¶¶ 8, 10, Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154-NMG (D.
Mass. Feb. 2, 2017), ECF No. 52-9. (describing investment of resources in faculty
hiring at the UMass more broadly, as well as the additional costs and burdens
caused by the initial Order).
7

Likewise, the research laboratories at our state universities depend heavily
on the work of foreign postdoctoral researchers to complete critical projects and
studies, many of which are grant-funded. For instance, more than 200 graduate
students, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty from the six designated countries staff
the University of Maryland’s scientific laboratories.6 A shortfall of such
researchers puts public institutions in peril of losing grant funding. The amici
States are aware of specific affected researchers who have accepted offers of
employment but are still awaiting visas abroad, their prospects of timely assuming
their positions now deeply uncertain.7
Impact on students. The revised Order has already disrupted the academic
plans of existing students and the admissions process for new students, imperiling
tuition dollars for state institutions in the process. Our state colleges and
universities enroll thousands of students from the designated countries. The
University of California (UC), which has ten campuses, has numerous
undergraduate students, graduate students, and medical residents who are nationals

6

Ex. F (Decl. of Ross D. Lewin), ¶ 8.

7

See, e.g., Decl. of Michael F. Collins, MD, supra n.5, ¶ 9 (describing importance
of work done by post-doctoral students, as well as two cases of individuals from
the affected countries who had accepted employment offers from the University of
Massachusetts Medical School); Decl. of Marcellette G. Williams, Ph. D., supra
n.5, ¶ 8 (noting that the UMass spent over $650 million on research in 2016 and
describing risks to research funding).
8

of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are 436 students on
student visas from these countries at UC’s six largest campuses (Los Angeles,
Berkeley, San Diego, Irvine, Davis, Santa Barbara). The California State
University System has approximately 250 students on visas from these countries.8
The University of Illinois has approximately 280 students from the six designated
countries, with about 50 more admitted for Fall 2017.9 Many students from the
designated countries find themselves unable to make study and travel plans. For
instance, the revised Order likely will delay the return to the University of
Maryland of a student who has applied for renewal of his expired student visa, a
process which typically requires a 90-day waiting period. If this student’s visa is
not issued prior to the effective date of the revised Order, the 90-day ban will
increase his wait time to return to the United States to 180 days, thus impeding his
academic progress and the University research in which he is engaged.10 The
revised Order’s travel ban also will likely prevent family members from the
designated countries from traveling to the United States for milestone events such

Information provided to the California Attorney General’s Office by the
Institutional Research and Academic Planning (IRAP) division of the University of
California and by the Assistant Vice Chancellor of International and Off-Campus
programs at the California State University System.
8

9

These figures were provided to the office of the Illinois Attorney General by the
general counsel of the University of Illinois.
10

Ex. F (Decl. of Ross D. Lewin), ¶ 5.
9

as graduations, unless they are able to obtain the case-by-case waivers that “may,
in the consular officer’s or the [Customs and Border Patrol] official’s discretion,”
be granted under the open-ended standards set forth in the Order. Am. Compl. Ex.
1, § 3(c).
Even before going into effect, the revised Order has already deterred many
students from the designated countries from beginning or continuing their studies
at our state universities. For instance, roughly half of the students newly admitted
to the Ph. D. program at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s civil engineering
department—ten students out of roughly 20—are from Iran and thus will be unable
to enroll because of the entry ban. Some of the department’s projects may need to
be cancelled, and reportedly, several of the Iranian students have chosen to pursue
their studies in Canada instead.11 Portland State University in Oregon admitted
thirteen international students from the designated countries for the Spring 2017
term; their tuition revenue will be lost if they are unable to travel to Oregon.12 A
number of students from the affected countries are currently enrolled in or have
been accepted to Vermont’s public and private colleges and universities. The

11

Miles Bryan, 10 Prospective UIC Students Ineligible To Enroll Due To Travel
Ban, WBEZ News (Mar. 6, 2017), https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/10prospective-uic-students-ineligible-to-enroll-due-to-travel-ban/d29224a4-fb114184-a8a9-f03fb45a3be1.
12

Ex. B (Decl. of Margaret Everett), ¶ 16.
10

Vermont Attorney General was recently contacted by an Iranian graduate student,
currently studying in Canada, who has been accepted and was planning to attend a
doctoral program at the University of Vermont but is now unable to enter the
United States because of the revised Order.13
The competitive harms caused by the revised Order are already being felt in
the student recruitment process as well. Our university officials have learned that
graduate schools in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere are
aggressively recruiting international applicants with the assertion that their
countries are more welcoming to international students than the U.S.
Consequently, the Graduate School at the City University of New York (“CUNY”)
expects the yield on its outstanding offers to applicants—who must respond by
April 15, 2017—to decline, as newly admitted students from the affected countries
are concerned about their ability to travel to the United States to begin their studies
in the Fall.14 The Rochester Institute of Technology (“RIT”), a state institution in
New York, has already experienced a 10% decrease in applicants from the Middle
East and various Muslim majority countries for the 2017-18 academic year and

13

The information in these two sentences was provided to the Vermont Attorney
General’s Office by personnel from the University of Vermont and the Vermont
State Colleges and an affected student.
14

Ex. H (Decl. of V. Rabinowitz), ¶ 12.
11

anticipates further declines in the future.15 Close to 400 individuals from the six
designated countries have submitted applications for Fall 2017 admission to the
University of Maryland at College Park (“UMCP”), more than 90% of whom are
from Iran. If just half of these students are admitted but do not enroll because of
the revised Order, UMCP will incur a revenue loss of approximately $1.6 million
for academic year 2017-18. Moreover, the State of Maryland will lose these
students’ long-term economic contributions, as most of these students are in highdemand science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines.16
The initial and revised Orders not only interfere with the matriculation of
students from the six designated countries but also severely harm those who are
already enrolled at our state institutions (as well as jeopardizing their continued
enrollment) by deterring them from travelling for research, conferences, study
abroad, and family visits.17 For example, in New York, RIT has 32 students from
the designated countries on its main campus; it has advised students, faculty and
staff from those countries not to leave the United States for fear that they will not
be able to return.18

15

Ex. K (Decl. of L. Warren), ¶ 24.

16

Ex. F (Decl. of Ross D. Lewin), ¶ 10.

17

See, e.g., Decl. of Marcellette G. Williams, Ph. D., supra n.5, ¶¶ 7, 9.

18

Ex. K (Decl. of L. Warren), ¶¶ 22-23.
12

B.

The revised Order will disrupt staffing and research at state
medical institutions.

Public medical institutions employ people from the designated countries as
medical residents, fully trained physicians, research faculty, and postdoctoral
researchers. Public medical institutions in the amici States have extended offers of
employment that have already been accepted by individuals from the designated
countries. But these would-be employees are now waiting for visas to be approved
and are uncertain if and when they will be able to start work.19 Because our
patients must be cared for, our facilities must immediately adapt to these changed
circumstances, and spend precious time and resources to do so. The risks posed by
understaffing medical facilities are of course among the gravest irreparable harms
that could befall our residents.
Additional disruption has occurred in the context of medical residency
staffing, endangering our public health and placing our communities at risk. State
medical schools participate in a “match” program that assigns residents to
university hospital programs. These medical residents perform crucial services,
including providing medical care to underserved populations. The process has
already begun, with candidate applications and interviews and medical schools’
rankings of future residents already completed. The computerized “match” is

19

See, e.g., Decl. of Michael F. Collins, MD, supra n.5, ¶ 9.
13

scheduled for March 17 (one day after the revised Order is scheduled to go into
effect), and matched residents are expected to begin work on July 1. Many
programs regularly match medical residents from the six designated countries.
Indeed, prior to the revised Order, institutions like the University of Massachusetts
Medical School had already interviewed specific applicants from the designated
countries. These programs now must forgo ranking applicants from these
countries or risk having insufficient medical residents to meet staffing needs if
their preferred choices are precluded from obtaining a visa or banned from entry
even if they have one.20 Similarly, in New York, the uncertainty created by the
initial and revised Orders has had “a profound chilling effect on international
medical students applying to New York hospitals’ residency programs and [has
been] a major disincentive for hospitals to select foreign nationals for their
residency programs.”21

If a program “matches” with an applicant who is then unable to come into the
country, the program is left with an open slot. The only way to fill the slot is to
seek a waiver from the National Resident Matching Program. Such a waiver puts a
medical school in the difficult position of trying to hire a resident from the pool of
applicants who did not match anywhere else, and the school may be unable to find
a resident at all. These problems are described in detail in Decl. of Michael F.
Collins, MD, supra n.5, ¶¶ 6-8.
20

21

Ex. I (Decl. of Eric Scherzer), ¶ 15.
14

C.

The revised Order will reduce States’ tax revenues and
harm our economies more broadly.

Lost tax revenues. Even before its implementation, the revised Order has
caused the States to lose tax revenues—economic damage that cannot be undone.
Every foreign student, tourist, and business visitor to the amici States contributes
to our respective economies. They do so not only by direct payments, including
tuition, room, and board payments to state schools, but also through the tax
receipts that their presence generates. The revised Order will block thousands of
travelers—potential consumers all—from entering the amici States, thereby halting
their tax contributions as well. The broader chilling effect on tourism will be much
larger; indeed, preliminary reports already suggest a significant downturn in
international tourists traveling to the United States. For example, for the first time
in seven years, New York City officials are expecting a drop in the number of
foreign visitors, a decrease that they attribute to the President’s anti-immigrant
actions and rhetoric.22 The city now expects to draw 300,000 fewer foreigners this
year than in 2016, a decline that will cost New York City businesses at least $600
million in sales.23 Similarly, the Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board has

22

Tourism Economics, The Economic Impact of Tourism in New York: 2015
Calendar Year, https://cdn.esd.ny.gov/Reports/NYS_Tourism_Impact_2015.pdf.
23

Patrick McGeehan, New York Expects Fewer Foreign Tourists, Saying Trump Is
to Blame, New York Times (Feb. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/
nyregion/new-york-foreign-tourists-trump-policies.html?_r=0.
15

estimated that it might see 300,000 fewer international visitors in 2017, a three to
four percent decrease from expectations, at least in part as a result of the initial and
revised Orders. This decrease would amount to an estimated loss of $220 million,
which jeopardizes the employment of the hundreds of thousands of Los Angeles
residents whose jobs rely on tourism.24
Absent preliminary relief during the pendency of challenges to the revised
Order, the amici States will lose weeks or even months of otherwise available tax
revenues. The States will never recover these revenues, even if those challenges
ultimately prevail. The dollars at issue are immense, even just with respect to the
contribution of foreign students. California universities and colleges host the
largest number of students from the six designated countries, with 1,286 student
visa-holders from Iran alone in 2015.25 Students from the six designated countries
who were enrolled in New York State institutions contributed $28.8 million to the

Information provided to the California Attorney General’s Office by the Vice
President, Global Communications, Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board;
see also “Trump’s Travel Ban Could Hurt LA’s Tourism Industry,” KPCC (March
7, 2017), http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2017/03/07/55468/trump-stravel-ban-could-hurt-la-s-tourism-industr/.
24

25

See Teresa Watanabe & Rosanna Xia, Trump Order Banning Entry from Seven
Muslim-Majority Countries Roils California Campuses, L.A. Times (Jan. 30,
2017), http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-trump-universities20170130-story.html.
16

State’s economy, including direct payments for tuition, fees, and living expenses.26
And these amounts do not include indirect economic benefits, such as the
contributions of international students and scholars to innovation in academic and
medical research. Our States, of course, are not the only ones affected. The six
countries singled out by the revised Order account for more than 14,000 students
who attended institutions of higher education nationally during the 2014-15
academic year.27 During that period, Iran alone sent 11,338 students to colleges
and universities across the United States, yielding an estimated economic impact of
$323 million.28
Broader economic impacts. The initial and revised Orders have also already
inflicted harms on the amici States’ economies more broadly, even if those harms
will not be fully quantifiable for some time. The health of our economies depends
in large part on remaining internationally competitive and attractive destinations
for companies in the life sciences, technology, finance, health care, and other
industries, as well as for tourists and entrepreneurs. In Illinois alone, for example,
22.1% of entrepreneurs are foreign-born; immigrant- and refugee-owned

26

This figure is based on information provided by the Institute of International
Education to the office of the New York Attorney General on March 10, 2017.
27

See Institute of International Education, Open Doors Data, International
Students: All Places of Origin, http://bit.ly/1ObpkM2.
28

See Institute of International Education, Open Doors Data Fact Sheets: Iran,
http://bit.ly/2lmPhjg.
17

businesses employ more than 281,000 people; and immigrants represent 37.7% of
the State’s software developers.29 A recent study found that if even half of the
more than 3,900 foreign-born graduates of Illinois universities in so-called STEM
fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) stayed in the United
States after graduation, it could result in the creation of more than 5,100 new jobs
for U.S.-born workers by 2021.30 A survey by the Urban Institute examined 2006
data and found that foreign-born residents accounted for 27% of Maryland’s
scientists, 21% of its health care practitioners, and 19% of its mathematicians and
computer specialists.31 Similarly, in the State of Washington, immigrant and
refugee-owned businesses employ 140,000 people.32 In addition, Washington’s
technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program, with Redmondheadquartered Microsoft alone employing nearly 5,000 people through that
program.33 Other Washington companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and

29

See The Contributions of New Americans in Illinois, New American Economy,
2, 10 (Aug. 2016), http://bit.ly/2kRVaro.
30

Id. at 13.

Randy Capps & Karina Fortuny, The Integration of Immigrants in Maryland’s
Growing Economy, The Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/publication/31521/411624-Integration-of-Immigrants-in-Maryland-sGrowing-Economy.PDF.
31

32

See Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order at 22, Washington v. Trump, No.
2:17-cv-00141-JLR (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2017), ECF No. 3.
33

Id.
18

Starbucks, likewise employ thousands of H-1B visa holders.34 Loss of these highly
skilled workers puts companies across the United States at a disadvantage
compared to their global competitors.35
The revised Order suggests that some people might be able to receive
discretionary waivers from the 90-day travel ban on a “case-by-case basis.” Am.
Compl. Ex. 1, § 3(c). That possibility does not alleviate the injury that the revised
Order inflicts on the States. The revised Order does not explain the process for
applying for a waiver or the timeframe for receiving one or set concrete standards
governing the issuance of waivers, and the ultimate decision regarding whether to
issue a waiver appears to be entirely discretionary. The waiver provision is of little
assistance to state institutions, such as universities and public hospitals, who need
certainty when filling classes and vacant positions.
II.

The Revised Order Will Harm The States’ Quasi-Sovereign And
Sovereign Interests In Protecting Our Residents And Enforcing
Our Laws.
The harms inflicted on the States by the revised Order extend far beyond the

proprietary interests described above. The Order also harms the States’ ability to
protect “the well-being of [our] populace,” Alfred L. Snapp & Son, 458 U.S. at

34

Id.

35

See Br. for Technology Companies and Other Businesses as Amici Curiae In
Support of Appellees at 8-20, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, Dkt. 19-2 (9th
Cir. Feb. 5, 2017).
19

602, including via our antidiscrimination laws, and to ensure that our “residents are
not excluded from the benefits that are to flow from participation in the federal
system,” id. at 608.
Decreased ability to enforce state antidiscrimination laws. Most
fundamentally, the revised Order prevents States from honoring the commitments
to openness, tolerance, and diversity that lie at the heart of our state constitutions
and laws. The amici States have exercised their sovereign prerogative to adopt
constitutional provisions and enact laws that protect their citizens from
discrimination. Our residents and businesses—and, indeed, many of the amici
States ourselves—are prohibited by those state enactments from taking national
origin and religion into account in determining to whom they can extend
employment and other opportunities.36 The revised Order stands in stark
opposition to these core expressions of the States’ sovereignty. To be sure, under
the Supremacy Clause these state provisions and laws must give way if they
conflict with valid federal law. But the revised Order is unlawful and

See, e.g., Cal. Const. art. I, §§ 4, 7-8, 31; Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11135-11137,
12900 et seq.; Cal. Civ. Code § 51, subd. (b); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60; Ill. Const.
art. I, § 3; Ill. Const. art. I, § 17; 740 ILCS 23/5 (a)(1); 775 ILCS 5/1-102 (A); 775
ILCS 5/10-104 (A)(1); 5 Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 784, 4551-4634 (2013); Mass.
Gen. L. ch. 151B, §§ 1, 4; Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, § 102; Md. Code Ann., State
Gov’t § 20-606; Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.006(1); R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7(1)(i); 9 Vt.
Stat. Ann. §§ 4500-07; 21 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 495.
36

20

unconstitutional, and the States’ interest in enforcing their state constitutions and
laws gives them a distinct basis to so argue in federal court.
More specifically, the revised Order inflicts a distinctive harm on the States
by violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The historical
background of the revised Order demonstrates that it, no less than the initial Order,
has the purpose and effect of conveying the message that Islam is a disfavored
religion. When a party “alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause, this is
sufficient, without more, to satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purposes of the
preliminary injunction determination.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v.
England, 454 F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also ACLU of Ill. v. City of St.
Charles, 794 F.2d 265, 275 (7th Cir. 1986); cf. ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cty, 354
F.3d 438, 445 (6th Cir. 2003), aff’d, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (presuming irreparable
harm where plaintiffs were likely to succeed on merits of Establishment Clause
claim); Parents’ Ass’n of P.S. 16 v. Quinones, 803 F.2d 1235, 1242 (2d Cir. 1986)
(same). Moreover, States are uniquely positioned to vindicate Establishment
Clause claims against the federal government in view of that Clause’s unique
history. Although the Clause indisputably protects individual rights against both
state and federal infringement, several commentators have suggested that one of
the Clause’s original purposes was to prevent the federal government from

21

interfering with the States as to core matters of religion.37 The revised Order does
just that by requiring the amici States to tolerate a federal policy disfavoring Islam,
in violation of their own profound commitments to religious pluralism. In view of
all the harms detailed above, States are appropriate parties to make good on those
commitments by seeking to enjoin such a policy.
Contribution to an environment of fear and mistrust. In addition, the initial
and revised Orders have contributed to an environment of fear and insecurity
among immigrant and minority populations that not only puts additional strain on
state and local law enforcement resources but also runs counter to the amici States’
deeply held commitment to inclusiveness and equal treatment. In the Chicago area
alone, for example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has counted 175
hate-related incidents in 2017 so far, as compared to 400 hate crimes reported in all
of 2016.38
Harm to refugee resettlement efforts. The revised Order also hinders the
efforts of the amici States to resettle and assist refugees. Between 2012 and 2015,

37

See, e.g., 2 J. Story, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES § 1873 (5th ed. 1891); see also A. Amar, THE BILL OF RIGHTS 32–42
(1998); id. at 246–257.
38

Marwa Eltagouri, Hate Crime Rising, Report Activists at Illinois Attorney
General’s Summit, Chicago Tribune (Feb. 24, 2007),
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-madigan-immigrationhate-crimes-summit-20170223-story.html.
22

California accepted 23,393 refugees, including 5,668 from Iran, 225 from Syria,
and 119 from Sudan.39 Between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016, California
resettled 1,454 Syrian refugees, more than any other state.40 According to the
Maryland Office for Refugees and Asylees, during the five-year period ending
September 30, 2016, 1,121 refugees from the six designated countries were
resettled in Maryland, including 404 refugees from Syria.41 In Chicago alone,
approximately 795 refugees from four of the six designated countries were
resettled in 2016.42 Vermont is also home to a vibrant refugee population. Since
1989, approximately 1,000 refugees from the six designated countries have
resettled in Vermont pursuant to the federal refugee resettlement program, which is
administered in Vermont by the state Agency of Human Services.43 In one public
school district in the Burlington metropolitan area, roughly ten percent of the

39

Office of Refugee Resettlement, Refugee Arrival Data, (November 24, 2015)
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/refugee-arrival-data.
“California Leads the Nation in Resettlement of Syrian Refugees,” CBS SF Bay
Area (Sept. 29, 2016), http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/in-the-u-smost-syrian-refugees-are-being-resettled-in-california/.
40

Maryland Office for Refugees and Asylees, “Refugees and SIV’s Resettled in
Maryland by Nationality, FY 2012 – FY 2016, https://tinyurl.com/hec8j8y.
41

42

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Office
of Admissions – Refugee Processing Center, http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/.
This information was provided to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office by
personnel from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants: Vermont
Refugee Resettlement Program; see also http://humanservices.vermont.gov/
departments/office-of-the-secretary/state-refugee-coordinator.
43

23

student body—nearly 100 children, mostly refugees—are from Somalia or
Yemen.44
By suspending the U.S. refugee program, the revised Order strands
thousands of refugees—who have already been extensively vetted—in crisis zones,
in many cases keeping them separate from family members who are already in the
United States. In addition, even if the suspension is lifted rather than extended
after 120 days, the revised Order indefinitely excludes tens of thousands of
otherwise eligible refugees by reducing the cap on admissible refugees for Fiscal
Year 2017 by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Am. Compl. Ex. 1, § 6(b).
Resettlement agencies such as the International Rescue Committee of New York,
whose funding is allocated on a per-arrival basis under a contract with the State
Department, face a reduction in resources.45 Similarly, the revised Order will
cause refugee resettlement organizations in Oregon to lose federal funding, which
will force them to lay off staff and reduce operations, resulting in fewer services
for refugees.46 World Relief, a Baltimore-based non-profit organization that helps
resettle refugees, has announced that it will lay off more than 140 staff and close

This information was provided to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office by
personnel from the Winooski School District.
44

45

Ex. J (Decl. of J. Sime), ¶¶ 11-12.

46

See generally Ex. A (Decl. of Richard Birkel); Ex. D (Decl. of Howard N.
Kenyon); Ex. A (Decl. of Richard Birkel); Ex. E (Decl. of Lee Po Cha).
24

five offices across the country as a result of the provision in the initial Order,
virtually identical to § 6(b) of the revised Order, allowing fewer refugees to enter
the United States.47
Harm to residents seeking medical care. The revised Order will harm
residents seeking medical care in our States, particularly those in underserved
communities. According to the Immigrant Doctors Project, at least 7,000 doctors
practicing in the United States attended medical school in one of the six designated
countries.48 In New York, “safety-net hospitals”—which include all of New York
City Health and Hospitals, public acute care hospitals, as well as most of the
hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx—rely heavily on foreign national
resident physicians.49 For example, of the 91 resident physicians in the
Department of Internal Medicine at Interfaith Medical Center, a safety-net hospital
in Brooklyn, 43 are on H-1B visas, 12 are on J-1 visas, 20 are legal permanent

47

Colin Campbell, Baltimore-based World Relief to lay off 140, close Glen Burnie
office after Trump’s refugee order, Baltimore Sun (Feb. 16, 2017),
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-world-relief-layoffs20170215-story.html.
See https://immigrantdoctors.org/; see also Anna Maria Barry-Jester, Trump’s
New Travel Ban Could Affect Doctors, Especially In The Rust Belt And
Appalachia, FiveThirtyEight (Mar. 6, 2017), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/
trumps-new-travel-ban-could-affect-doctors-especially-in-the-rust-belt-andappalachia/.
48

49

Ex. I (Decl. of Eric Scherzer), ¶¶ 10-12.
25

residents, and only 16 are U.S. citizens.50 The medical staff includes Sudanese
resident physicians who are concerned about leaving the country for fear of not
being allowed to return, and whose family members may not be able to visit them
here because of the revised Order.51 And in Oregon, one physician from a country
affected by the revised Order who had been willing to work in the town of
Florence—a community facing a physician shortage—has indicated through his
counsel that because of the Order he will be unlikely to obtain a visa.52 The
revised Order thus directly harms the welfare of our most vulnerable populations.
III.

A Nationwide Temporary Restraining Order Is Necessary To
Provide Complete Relief.
A nationwide injunction is necessary to return the country to the status quo

that obtained prior to the issuance of the initial Order, provide complete relief to
the plaintiffs, and prevent the irreparable harms described above. The “scope of
injunctive relief is dictated by the extent of the violation established.” Califano v.
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). The Ninth Circuit confronted a similar issue
when it rejected the government’s request to limit the geographic scope of a
nationwide injunction regarding the initial Order. See Washington, 847 F.3d at
1166-67. The Ninth Circuit highlighted the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit, also in

50

Id. ¶ 12.

51

Id.

52

Ex. G (Decl. of Marc Overbeck), ¶ 4.
26

an immigration case, that a limited injunction resulting in “a fragmented
immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement
for uniform immigration law and policy.” Id. at 1166-67 (citing Texas v. United
States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court,
136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016)). As the Ninth Circuit further observed, the interconnections among this country’s economic, transportation, and educational
systems frustrate any attempt to provide effective interim relief on less than a
nationwide basis. 847 F.3d at 1167. A temporary restraining order limited to the
geographical boundaries of a particular State would not sufficiently protect either
firms and institutions that conduct business in multiple states or noncitizens who
must arrive through entry points elsewhere. Only a nationwide injunction will
provide complete relief.

27

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the plaintiffs’ motion and
enter a temporary restraining order enjoining the operation of the revised Order on
a nationwide basis.
Dated: March 13, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
DUANE R. MIYASHIRO (# 6513)
Adams Miyashiro Krek LLP
900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1700
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]

LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of Illinois
DAVID L. FRANKLIN*
Solicitor General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone No.: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
* Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for the State of Illinois

Attorney for the State of Illinois

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General
State of California
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244

MATTHEW DENN
Attorney General
State of Delaware
820 N. French St.
Wilmington, DE 19801

GEORGE JEPSEN
Attorney General
State Of Connecticut
55 Elm St.
Hartford, CT 06106

THOMAS J. MILLER
Attorney General
State of Iowa
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50319

28

BRIAN E. FROSH
Attorney General
State of Maryland
200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202

PETER F. KILMARTIN
Attorney General
State of Rhode Island
150 South Main Street
Providence, RI 02903

MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.
Attorney General
State of Vermont
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609

HECTOR BALDERAS
Attorney General
State Of New Mexico
408 Galisteo St.
Santa Fe, NM 87501

MARK R. HERRING
Attorney General
State of Virginia
202 North 9th Street
Richmond, VA 23219

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General
State of New York
120 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10271

KARL A. RACINE
Attorney General
District of Columbia
Suite 1100 South
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
State of Oregon
1162 Court Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97301

29

Ex. A - Birkel Declaration

Ex. A - Birkel Declaration

Ex. A - Birkel Declaration

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 1 of 3

Responses, Replies & Supporting Documents
2:17-cv-00141-JLR State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
APPEAL
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Kaplan, Scott on 2/22/2017 at 7:30 PM PST and filed on 2/22/2017
Case Name:
State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
Case Number:
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Filer:
State of Oregon
Document Number: 102
Docket Text:
DECLARATION of Richard Birkel in Support of State of Oregon's Motion to Intervene filed by Plaintiff State of Oregon re
[
94]MOTION to Intervene Attorney Scott J Kaplan added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla) (Kaplan, Scott)
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Alan I. Gilbert

[e-mail]

Andrew Nellis

[e-mail]

Andrew M Volk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angelo J Calfo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anne Elizabeth Egeler
Arjun Garg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Bradley Girard

[e-mail]

Claire Loebs Davis [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Colleen M Melody [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dmitri Iglitzin

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Emily Chiang

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Eric Rothschild

[e-mail]

Jacob Campion

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Lee Robbins
Jessica Walder
John R Tyler

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kelly M Percival

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Kristin W Silverman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ex. A - Birkel Declaration

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?470490758215742

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Kymberly K. Evanson
Marsha J. Chien

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew Phineas Bergman
Melissa R Lee

Page 2 of 3

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michelle R. Bennett

[e-mail]

Noah Guzzo Purcell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricio A. Marquez

[e-mail]

Paul J Lawrence

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B Katskee

[e-mail]

Robert Seungchul Chang
Robert W Ferguson
Scott J Kaplan
Steve W. Berman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Tiffany Scott Connors

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
Northern Cheyenne Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFIR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Sec Am Tek Tek Tribe
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Washitaw Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Yamassee Mund Bareefan Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Mikki the Mime(Terminated)
P01102062
C/O JOSEPH A CAMP
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL
PO BOX 16700
GOLDEN, CO 80402
Harry E. Ries
PO BOX 1849
MOSES LAKE, WA 98837

Ex. A - Birkel Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?470490758215742

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 3 of 3

James J O'Hagan(Terminated)
2298 CRANBERRY RD
GRAYLAND, WA 98547
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1035929271 [Date=2/22/2017] [FileNumber=6520451-0
] [a30f9efdcb25925db25e3e3a810dfaf3832c45c191d46efd0e043e91857156ff82c
c0e7a54e2d9c76e0d69896dbfe280f523f168de758cd65fee9b7e93f9e809] ]

Ex. A - Birkel Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?470490758215742

2/22/2017

EX. B - Everett Declaration

EX. B - Everett Declaration

EX. B - Everett Declaration

EX. B - Everett Declaration

EX. B - Everett Declaration

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 1 of 3

Responses, Replies & Supporting Documents
2:17-cv-00141-JLR State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
APPEAL
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Kaplan, Scott on 2/22/2017 at 7:28 PM PST and filed on 2/22/2017
Case Name:
State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
Case Number:
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Filer:
State of Oregon
Document Number: 101
Docket Text:
DECLARATION of Margarett Everett in Support of State of Oregon's Motion to Intervene filed by Plaintiff State of Oregon
re [
94]MOTION to Intervene Attorney Scott J Kaplan added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla) (Kaplan, Scott)
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Alan I. Gilbert

[e-mail]

Andrew Nellis

[e-mail]

Andrew M Volk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angelo J Calfo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anne Elizabeth Egeler
Arjun Garg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Bradley Girard

[e-mail]

Claire Loebs Davis [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Colleen M Melody [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dmitri Iglitzin

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Emily Chiang

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Eric Rothschild

[e-mail]

Jacob Campion

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Lee Robbins
Jessica Walder
John R Tyler

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kelly M Percival

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Kristin W Silverman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

EX. B - Everett Declaration

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?877951160211548

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Kymberly K. Evanson
Marsha J. Chien

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew Phineas Bergman
Melissa R Lee

Page 2 of 3

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michelle R. Bennett

[e-mail]

Noah Guzzo Purcell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricio A. Marquez

[e-mail]

Paul J Lawrence

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B Katskee

[e-mail]

Robert Seungchul Chang
Robert W Ferguson
Scott J Kaplan
Steve W. Berman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Tiffany Scott Connors

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
Northern Cheyenne Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFIR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Sec Am Tek Tek Tribe
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Washitaw Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Yamassee Mund Bareefan Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Mikki the Mime(Terminated)
P01102062
C/O JOSEPH A CAMP
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL
PO BOX 16700
GOLDEN, CO 80402
Harry E. Ries
PO BOX 1849
MOSES LAKE, WA 98837

EX. B - Everett Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?877951160211548

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 3 of 3

James J O'Hagan(Terminated)
2298 CRANBERRY RD
GRAYLAND, WA 98547
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1035929271 [Date=2/22/2017] [FileNumber=6520448-0
] [d9804fd17b0243d24ed8db6356a72a57b1adb1b3238367e9c81cae876297a3e37f9
8f3d15ca236890e5fbfa6cfbdb89376f32ac4fe5b6d1a007a4bfe186d92 ec]]

EX. B - Everett Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?877951160211548

2/22/2017

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9

STATE OF WASHINGTON and
STATE OF MINNESOTA,

10
Plaintiffs,
11

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

v.
12
13
14
15
16
17

DONALD 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 the Department of
Homeland Security; REX W.
TILLERSON, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of State; and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

I, Deirdre Heatwole, hereby declare as follows:
1.

I am General Counsel for the University of Massachusetts (“UMass” or

“University”). UMass is public land grant university with five campuses located in Amherst,
Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester, Massachusetts, with administrative offices in
Shrewsbury and Boston. I have been employed at the University in this capacity since 2009,
and have been employed as an attorney in the University’s legal office for a total of 27 years.

1

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

1

My current duties include oversight of all the University’s legal work, and supervising the

2

attorneys in my office who provide legal advice and assistance to the offices that serve and

3

support students and employees, and the offices which support and promote the University’s

4

many international associations and opportunities for both students and faculty.

5

2.

I have either personal knowledge of the matters set forth below or, with respect

6

to those matters for which I do not have personal knowledge, I have reviewed information

7

gathered from University records by others within the organization, including the numbers of

8

students and employees and their various home countries.

9

3.

The March 6, 2017 Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign

10

Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Revised Executive Order”) will negatively affect the

11

ability of the University to continue to offer excellent public education in undergraduate,

12

graduate, and professional programs at affordable rates. This in turn will affect UMass’ ability

13

to provide a well-educated workforce for the Commonwealth, reducing the significant amount

14

of business and tax revenue these UMass-educated workers provide to the Commonwealth.

15

UMass is the only public land-grant university in the Commonwealth, and the only public

16

university authorized to award doctoral degrees. Additionally, the UMass Medical School at

17

Worcester is the only public medical school in the Commonwealth, and UMass School of Law

18

at the Dartmouth campus is the only public law school in the Commonwealth.

19

4.

The University currently employs approximately 130 people who are from the six

20

countries referenced in the Revised Executive Order (Syria, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and

21

Yemen, or the “affected countries”), and who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent

22

residents and are therefore not exempted from the Revised Executive Order (hereinafter, “visa

23

holders”).

24

5.

Specifically, these approximately 130 visa-holder employees from the affected

25

countries are employed in positions including, but not limited to, Visiting Faculty, Associate

26

Lecturer, Researcher, Post-Doc, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Research Assistant, and

2

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

1

Graduate Medical Education Resident. These employees are located on all of our campuses

2

and in a wide variety of academic departments.

3

6.

The University currently has approximately 155 enrolled students who are from the

4

six affected countries and who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.

5

Approximately 100 of these students are also among the University’s employees, including, for

6

example, as graduate teaching and research assistants.

7

7.

For at least the period of the 90-day entry ban, all of the University’s single-entry

8

visa holders from the six affected countries whose visa date stamps expire before the end of the 90-

9

day period will be unable, absent a discretionary waiver (the obtaining of which is deeply uncertain),

10

to return to the United State and to their schooling or work at the University if they travel abroad—

11

whether for personal, academic or professional reasons, or to renew their visas. Of course, the delay

12

in their ability to return may be considerably longer, given the need to obtain a visa following

13

expiration of the 90-day period.

14

8.

Like the Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017, the Revised Executive

15

Order will have a significant negative impact on the ability to UMass to operate its core business:

16

education and research. The impact will be financial as well as reputational. UMass is a top-ranked

17

research institution and must hire highly qualified research faculty from around the world to

18

continue our significant research enterprise. UMass spent over 650 million dollars last year in its

19

research enterprise.

20

9.

UMass needs to fill dozens of tenure track positions each academic year. The time

21

required to identify, evaluate, and negotiate with potential new faculty and researchers takes many

22

months, and the Revised Executive Order will interfere with that process for the 2017-2018

23

academic year. The month of March is part of the peak time (spanning from January through

24

March) for interviews of candidates, typically three to six candidates per position. Such interviews

25

can extend into May. Typically, new teaching faculty will start in the fall semester, such that offers

26

will need to be made and finalized in the spring. Offers are typically given February through May—

3

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

1

a period largely overlapping with the Revised Executive Order’s 90-day entry ban. Prospects who

2

accept offers will also need to move family and secure housing by summer and thus will need to

3

obtain visas by that time.

4

10.

Given the Revised Executive Order’s 90-day entry ban, in conjunction with the

5

decision by USCIS to suspend premium processing on H-1B work status, departments within the

6

University are considering delaying their candidate selection and interview processes, aiming for a

7

spring 2018 rather than fall 2017 start date. Such delays would mitigate the Revised Executive

8

Order’s impact on the selection of the strongest candidates for each position, but they would leave

9

empty positions that will need to be filled for the fall 2017 semester. The entry ban and the

10

continuing level of uncertainty because of the Revised Executive Order will thus delay and may

11

prevent the University from actively recruiting international faculty and related personnel. This

12

will translate into thousands of additional dollars spent by each campus, delays in research efforts,

13

and potential delays or loss of federal funding for new research.

14

11.

UMass operates in a very competitive research environment but does not have the

15

financial resources of many of our sister institutions in the Commonwealth. We have limited

16

financial resources to provide affected faculty incentives to come to Massachusetts or to offer other

17

support or resources that might mitigate the impact of the Revised Executive Order on them or their

18

families. As a result, the Revised Executive Order’s negative effects on recruitment of top

19

international candidates may fall more heavily on UMass as an institution than on institutions with

20

greater resources.

21

12.

The Revised Executive Order provisions allowing for potential discretionary

22

“waivers” of the entry ban for particular applicants from the affected countries does not

23

meaningfully diminish the uncertainty around hiring that was created by Executive Order 13769

24

and continued by the Revised Executive Order. For example: a student wishing to visit an ailing

25

family member back in his home country, a faculty member wishing to attend a conference abroad

26

that is important to obtaining tenure, or prospective students or faculty members all will not be able

4

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

1

to count on the existence of a discretionary waiver of the ban on entering the United States. The

2

Revised Executive Order thus curtails travel opportunities outside the United States for holders of

3

single-entry or expired visas from the affected countries. Although such visa-holders always need

4

to apply for a visa to re-enter the United States if they travel outside the country, the Revised

5

Executive Order greatly diminishes or eliminates the possibility of getting such a visa. It thus

6

effectively precludes from international travel visa-holders who wish to remain in school or remain

7

employed in the United States.

8
9

13.

The Revised Executive Order will negatively affect the University’s ability to

continue to attract and enroll students from the six affected countries.

The University’s

10

admissions processes for graduate and undergraduate programs vary across the University’s five

11

campuses. Most campuses are still admitting students for fall 2017 enrollment. Following

12

admission, students are sent a Form I-20 to use in applying for the F-1 international student visa

13

stamp. The University begins sending admitted students Form I-20s in the late winter and early

14

spring. Most Form I-20s are sent in April, May, and June, for fall enrollment. Therefore, the

15

impact of the Revised Executive Order’s 90-day suspension will occur during “high season” for

16

international student visa processing for the 2017-2018 academic year.

17

14.

Although, as described, the admissions season is still in process, and the

18

University is just beginning sending Form I-20s to admitted international students, UMass has

19

already extended at least 40 offers of admission for the 2017-2018 academic year to prospective

20

undergraduate and graduate students who are nationals of these countries. We expect to extend

21

additional offers in the coming weeks.

22

15.

Higher education is very much international in nature.

Students, faculty,

23

researchers, and staff regularly travel all over the world to participate in conferences, exchange

24

programs, seminars, and symposia with fellow students abroad. The manner in which Executive

25

Order 13769 was issued and implemented: as an abrupt travel ban, with no advance notice and

26

with no guidance, and without notice of implicit visa revocations, has made all travelers who are

5

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

1

not United States citizens concerned about whether they can continue to move about the world.

2

The Revised Executive Order perpetuates that uncertainty, barring entry of travelers from six

3

countries for 90 days, absent a discretionary waiver. Prospective students and faculty have many

4

options and they can certainly elect to attend or work at schools in the UK, Africa, or the EU,

5

rather than risk travel to the United States.

6

16.

It has required a considerable outlay of scarce resources to mitigate the effects of

7

federal action that has been so immediate and is constantly changing. Efforts to identify affected

8

UMass individuals outside the United States started within hours of notice of Executive Order

9

13769. In the weeks thereafter, UMass was continually gathering data on the impact from a variety

10

of sources: official federal statements, news reports, internal immigration updates prepared and

11

sent to senior administrators, outreach to the international campus community in the form of legal

12

resources, and discussions with retained immigration counsel. Additionally, UMass has had to

13

create an internal crisis communication structure for alerting senior leadership and management of

14

immigration changes with campus level task forces closely monitoring executive actions, initiating

15

outreach to impacted members of the campus community, and identifying needs and resources.

16

Retained outside counsel has repeatedly been engaged to assist in these campus community support

17

efforts. Following conflicting statements from the federal government about whether Executive

18

Order 13769 would be rescinded, UMass was forced to continue preparing to respond to and

19

mitigate its effects while awaiting further action. Upon issuance of the Revised Executive Order,

20

the University was once again forced to devote additional resources to analyze the Revised

21

Executive Order’s impact on our faculty and other employees, students, medical residents, and

22

graduate and undergraduate admissions processes; to consult with retained immigration counsel

23

regarding the same; to craft guidance for our campuses on how to respond and advise administrators

24

on ongoing business operations; and once again offer support to very concerned campus

25

communities—all to account for the additional 90-day entry ban.

26

6

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

1

17.

For academic institutions, the timing of the Revised Executive Order is particularly

2

challenging with respect to both faculty hiring, as discussed above, and student admissions. UMass

3

campuses have been issuing offers of admission for some weeks and will continue to do so for the

4

next several months. Students have a short time to review offers and make decisions. Generally,

5

students will be required to confirm their acceptance by paying a fee to secure their space, and some

6

may be hesitant to do so in light of concerns about the two executive orders. In turn, the University’s

7

calculation of whom to admit is now jeopardized by having to take into account whether a student

8

from an affected country might be willing to accept, or instead, will decide not to attend UMass.

9

Campuses are attempting to adjust to the current environment, but they are limited in what they can

10
11

do as long as the actual terms and effects of the Revised Executive Order remain unclear.
18.

These concerns all speak to potential long term financial and reputational damage

12

to UMass – the quality of its students, researchers, faculty and staff will decline, UMass’s reputation

13

as a top research institution will decline, federal funding for research will decline, and enrollment

14

will decline. A decrease in applications or enrollment at UMass will reduce revenue to the

15

Commonwealth.

16

19.

UMass, an institution with over 150 years of service to the Commonwealth, years

17

of continued growth, and a strong commitment to its mission, is very seriously concerned about the

18

long-term impact of the executive orders on its future. The Revised Executive Order significantly

19

impairs the University’s ability to recruit and retain a diverse faculty and staff, and to teach and

20

support a diverse student body, enriched by a culture of inclusiveness and a high quality of

21

international research participants. It will take years for UMass to recover from the financial and

22

reputational damage due to the loss of personnel, students, programs, grants.

23
24
25
26

7

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

Ex. C - Heatwole Declaration

Ex. D - Kenyon Declaration

Ex. D - Kenyon Declaration

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 1 of 3

Responses, Replies & Supporting Documents
2:17-cv-00141-JLR State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
APPEAL
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Kaplan, Scott on 2/22/2017 at 7:17 PM PST and filed on 2/22/2017
Case Name:
State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
Case Number:
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Filer:
State of Oregon
Document Number: 97
Docket Text:
DECLARATION of Howard N. Kenyon in Support of State of Oregon's Motion to Intervene filed by Plaintiff State of
Oregon re [
94]MOTION to Intervene Attorney Scott J Kaplan added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla) (Kaplan, Scott)
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Alan I. Gilbert

[e-mail]

Andrew Nellis

[e-mail]

Andrew M Volk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angelo J Calfo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anne Elizabeth Egeler
Arjun Garg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Bradley Girard

[e-mail]

Claire Loebs Davis [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Colleen M Melody [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dmitri Iglitzin

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Emily Chiang

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Eric Rothschild

[e-mail]

Jacob Campion

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Lee Robbins
Jessica Walder
John R Tyler

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kelly M Percival

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Kristin W Silverman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ex. D - Kenyon Declaration

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?567571130203655

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Kymberly K. Evanson
Marsha J. Chien

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew Phineas Bergman
Melissa R Lee

Page 2 of 3

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michelle R. Bennett

[e-mail]

Noah Guzzo Purcell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricio A. Marquez

[e-mail]

Paul J Lawrence

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B Katskee

[e-mail]

Robert Seungchul Chang
Robert W Ferguson
Scott J Kaplan
Steve W. Berman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Tiffany Scott Connors

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
Northern Cheyenne Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFIR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Sec Am Tek Tek Tribe
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Washitaw Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Yamassee Mund Bareefan Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Mikki the Mime(Terminated)
P01102062
C/O JOSEPH A CAMP
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL
PO BOX 16700
GOLDEN, CO 80402
Harry E. Ries
PO BOX 1849
MOSES LAKE, WA 98837

Ex. D - Kenyon Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?567571130203655

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 3 of 3

James J O'Hagan(Terminated)
2298 CRANBERRY RD
GRAYLAND, WA 98547
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1035929271 [Date=2/22/2017] [FileNumber=6520436-0
] [5feaf13ebba3a1463893f65e0fe5f1f1bcd21976e3be14d358c36ec2ef11be9c07c
ec7ce1d90a31cccfed173f0295176677bd1bdbc14a91703e389f180479f96 ]]

Ex. D - Kenyon Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?567571130203655

2/22/2017

1
2
3
I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

T H E WESTERN D I S T R I C T OF WASHINGTON

5

AT S E A T T L E

6
7

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et

8

No. C17-0141JLR
DECLARATION OF LEE PO CHA

Plaintiffs,

9
V.

10
DONALD J. TRUMP, et
11
Defendants.
12
13
I , Lee Po Cha, declare:

14

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and I am

15
16

competent to testify about them.
2.

17

I work at IRCO's office in Portland, Oregon.

18
3.

19
20

I am the Executive Director of Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization

IRCO's mission is to promote the integration of refugees, immigrants and the

community at large into a self-sufficient, healthy, and inclusive multi-ethnic society.
4.

21

IRCO is a community-based organization that serves the needs of immigrants,

22

refugees, and community members in Oregon, empowering people from around the world to

23

build new lives and become self-sufficient by providing more than

24

linguistically specific social services, including employment and vocational training, English

25

language learning, community development, early childhood and parenting education, youth

26

academic support, and gang prevention.
1-

DECLARATION OF LEE PO CHA

culturally and

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
(971)

Ex. E - Lee Po Cha Declaration

[phone]

5.

IRCO works closely with the State of Oregon and various local faith-based

9

organizations that specialize in providing immediate resettlement services to Oregon's refugee
populations.
6.

A substantial portion of IRCO's clients come from countries

Trump's Executive Order of January 27,

to President

particularly Iraq, Somalia, and Syria. The pause

to the refugee admissions program and travel suspension imposed by the Executive Order
immediately disrupts IRCO's ability to fulfill its mission, serve its clients, maintain its programs
o

and operations, maintain current levels of employment, and work with government and
community partners. Already, in the

fiscal year to date, we have experienced a 50%

reduction from the anticipated number of refugee arrivals seeking employment services. In
addition, I expect the pause to the refugee admissions program and travel suspension to have
fiscal consequences on IRCO beginning in the
7.

fiscal year.

I f the 120-day travel ban is given effect, the local refugee service system will be

impacted, potentially forcing IRCO to reduce services and lay off employees.
8.

The indefinite suspension of Syrian refugees entering the United States will have

both an immediate and long-term negative impact on IRCO, by reducing the number of refugees
that IRCO serves and had planned to serve, causing disruption to IRCO's programs, operations,
and funding.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
20
EXECUTED on February

2017.

21
22
23

25
26
2-

DECLARATION OF LEE PO CHA

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
[phone] / Fax: [phone]

Ex. E - Lee Po Cha Declaration

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 1 of 3

Responses, Replies & Supporting Documents
2:17-cv-00141-JLR State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
APPEAL
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Kaplan, Scott on 2/22/2017 at 7:24 PM PST and filed on 2/22/2017
Case Name:
State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
Case Number:
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Filer:
State of Oregon
Document Number: 99
Docket Text:
DECLARATION of Lee Po Cha in Support of State of Oregon's Motion to Intervene filed by Plaintiff State of Oregon re [
94]
MOTION to Intervene Attorney Scott J Kaplan added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla) (Kaplan, Scott)
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Alan I. Gilbert

[e-mail]

Andrew Nellis

[e-mail]

Andrew M Volk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angelo J Calfo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anne Elizabeth Egeler
Arjun Garg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Bradley Girard

[e-mail]

Claire Loebs Davis [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Colleen M Melody [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dmitri Iglitzin

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Emily Chiang

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Eric Rothschild

[e-mail]

Jacob Campion

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Lee Robbins
Jessica Walder
John R Tyler

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kelly M Percival

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Kristin W Silverman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ex. E - Lee Po Cha Declaration

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?371074087692321

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Kymberly K. Evanson
Marsha J. Chien

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew Phineas Bergman
Melissa R Lee

Page 2 of 3

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michelle R. Bennett

[e-mail]

Noah Guzzo Purcell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricio A. Marquez

[e-mail]

Paul J Lawrence

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B Katskee

[e-mail]

Robert Seungchul Chang
Robert W Ferguson
Scott J Kaplan
Steve W. Berman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Tiffany Scott Connors

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
Northern Cheyenne Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFIR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Sec Am Tek Tek Tribe
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Washitaw Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Yamassee Mund Bareefan Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Mikki the Mime(Terminated)
P01102062
C/O JOSEPH A CAMP
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL
PO BOX 16700
GOLDEN, CO 80402
Harry E. Ries
PO BOX 1849
MOSES LAKE, WA 98837

Ex. E - Lee Po Cha Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?371074087692321

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 3 of 3

James J O'Hagan(Terminated)
2298 CRANBERRY RD
GRAYLAND, WA 98547
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1035929271 [Date=2/22/2017] [FileNumber=6520442-0
] [7e0af003141ee063bf30f0e5bf86d2213dca03206edf13daef41883c56d8926b3a1
0c1ec3973442e8c162fde016ce73ce623662d1b5cf8494b17bd19e3167623]]

Ex. E - Lee Po Cha Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?371074087692321

2/22/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
*
Plaintiffs,
v.

*

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

*

Defendants.
*

*

Civil No. 2:17-cv-00141

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

DECLARATION OF ROSS D. LEWIN
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Ross D. Lewin, declare as follows:
1.

I am over eighteen years of age, am competent to testify, and have personal

knowledge of the matters in this declaration.
2.

I serve as Associate Vice President for International Affairs at the

University of Maryland College Park (“the University”). I have held this position since
2012. Before joining the University, I was Executive Director of the Office of Global
Programs and Director of the Office of Study Abroad at the University of Connecticut.
As Associate Vice President for International Affairs, I am responsible for the direction
and management of the Office of International Affairs, which includes International
Student Scholar Services, Education Abroad, and the Office of China Affairs. The Office
of International Affairs coordinates international activities within the University’s seven
colleges and five schools, advancing a strategic plan for internationalization, fostering

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

and nurturing international partnerships, and developing innovative programming for
faculty and students to facilitate their development as global leaders committed to the
improvement of the common good.
3.

The University currently enrolls more than 6,100 international students and

employs 1,500 international faculty from 137 countries.

It sends more than 2,000

students abroad to more than sixty countries each year. It currently has 273 active
international agreements with more than 213 partners in 53 countries.
4.

I have reviewed the March 6, 2017 Executive Order: Protecting the Nation

from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

(“Executive Order”), which

temporarily bars entry into the United States by persons who are citizens of six countries:
Syria, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen (the “designated countries”). The
implementation of the Executive Order on March 16, 2017 will directly impair the
University’s ability to carry out its mission of teaching, research and support for the
State’s economic development.

Implementation of the Executive Order will prevent

some students and faculty from traveling for academic activities and will impede some
students’ academic progress and the progress of scholarly research. It will prevent some
students from seeing family members, and it has already caused anxiety, depression and

2

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

alienation among all international members of the campus community. It will lead to
enrollment declines, causing economic harm to the University.
5.

The Executive Order will likely delay the return of one student who has

applied for renewal of his expired student visa, a process which typically requires a 90day waiting period. If this student’s visa is not issued prior to the effective date of the
Executive Order, the 90-day ban will increase his wait time to return to the United States
to 180 days, thus impeding his academic progress and the University research in which
he is engaged. The 90-day travel ban will likely prevent some students’ family members
from coming to the United States to visit for upcoming important milestone events, such
as the May 2017 graduation and awards ceremonies.
6.

Students from the designated countries whose visas have expired or will

soon expire will not be eligible to apply for new visas until the 90-day ban has elapsed,
thus delaying any travel abroad for academic or personal reasons.
7.

Even students with valid visas have expressed hesitancy to travel abroad.

They fear they will be subjected to heightened scrutiny upon their return to the United
States, or that there may be additional executive orders forthcoming that will affect their
immigration status. As a result, some students have opted not to study abroad, an activity
the University regards as an important component of an undergraduate education.
3

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

Moreover, fewer graduate students will present their research at academic conferences
abroad and carry out field work at global experimental stations, thereby making those
students less competitive in the global job market.
8.

The Executive Order is disrupting critical University research.

For

example, honeybee colonies have declined precipitously in the last several years,
threatening crops that many humans depend on for their primary source of nutrition. The
University is exploring the possible causes and potential remedies for this condition,
known as colony collapse disorder, by surveying and mapping global honeybee
populations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recognized the University’s critical
role in this work by funding its research since 2009. This work requires a team of
experts, each of whom has unique knowledge and skills. None is easy to replace. After a
long search, the University identified a statistician with singular expertise. Excited to
join in this important work, she accepted the offer and was ready to relocate from Europe
to College Park to begin her appointment. Because she was uncomfortable about the
focus of the January 27, 2017 executive order upon predominantly Muslim countries, she
decided to reverse her decision, leaving the University with a knowledge gap that will
slow the progress of this urgent research. The University operates numerous scientific
laboratories, each of which is a complex organization with myriad interdependent parts.
4

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

More than 200 graduate students, post-docs, and faculty from the designated countries
staff the University’s laboratories. The loss of just one of these researchers will disrupt
work and delay progress for an entire lab.
9.

The Executive Order has generated deep anxiety among the University’s

international population, particularly among Muslim students.

They have expressed

intense feelings of insecurity, depression, and alienation. The University has mobilized a
team of professionals to provide special counseling services and has engaged legal
counsel specializing in immigration to advise students. Staff in the University’s Office of
International Affairs have worked many hours beyond their regular work schedules to
assist students affected by the January 27, 2017 executive order and this Executive Order,
diverting their attention from other critical matters.
10.

The Executive Order threatens the University’s enrollment. Close to 400

individuals from the designated countries have submitted applications for Fall 2017
admission. More than 90% are from Iran. If just half of these students are admitted and
accepted but choose not to attend the University because of the Executive Order’s
chilling effect, the University will incur a revenue loss of approximately $1.6 million for
Academic Year 2017-18. Moreover, the State of Maryland will lose these students’ long-

5

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

term economic contribution, particularly because the overwhelming majority are in highdemand STEM disciplines.
11.

The Executive Order affects the University’s ability to attract talented

international students, which has and will continue to financially impact the University
and the State of Maryland. According to the 2016 NAFSA Association of International
Educators report, international students contribute $150 million annually to the
University in payments for tuition, housing, and academic materials, generating and/or
maintaining

more

than

2,200

jobs

in

https://istart.iu.edu/nafsa/reports/state.cfm?state=MD&year=2015.

2016
The

alone.
uncertainty

surrounding the United States’ immigration policy and the perception that the United
States does not welcome students from predominantly Muslim countries will deter
students from choosing to study at the University. The loss of just one of these students
reduces the University’s revenues.
12.

The loss of students from the designated countries will also diminish the

educational experiences of all of the University’s students, because their access to the
views and perspectives of students from these countries will be limited. Particularly
affected will be those students who are preparing for positions requiring global
involvement and leadership.
6

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

Ex. F - Lewin Declaration

Ex. G - Overbeck Declaration

Ex. G - Overbeck Declaration

Ex. G - Overbeck Declaration

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 1 of 3

Responses, Replies & Supporting Documents
2:17-cv-00141-JLR State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
APPEAL
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Kaplan, Scott on 2/22/2017 at 7:26 PM PST and filed on 2/22/2017
Case Name:
State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
Case Number:
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Filer:
State of Oregon
Document Number: 100
Docket Text:
DECLARATION of Marc Overbeckin Support of State of Oregon's Motion to Intervene filed by Plaintiff State of Oregon re
[
94]MOTION to Intervene Attorney Scott J Kaplan added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla) (Kaplan, Scott)
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Alan I. Gilbert

[e-mail]

Andrew Nellis

[e-mail]

Andrew M Volk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angelo J Calfo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anne Elizabeth Egeler
Arjun Garg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Bradley Girard

[e-mail]

Claire Loebs Davis [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Colleen M Melody [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dmitri Iglitzin

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Emily Chiang

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Eric Rothschild

[e-mail]

Jacob Campion

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Lee Robbins
Jessica Walder
John R Tyler

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kelly M Percival

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Kristin W Silverman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ex. G - Overbeck Declaration

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?477539575607328

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1
Kymberly K. Evanson
Marsha J. Chien

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew Phineas Bergman
Melissa R Lee

Page 2 of 3

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michelle R. Bennett

[e-mail]

Noah Guzzo Purcell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricio A. Marquez

[e-mail]

Paul J Lawrence

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B Katskee

[e-mail]

Robert Seungchul Chang
Robert W Ferguson
Scott J Kaplan
Steve W. Berman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Tiffany Scott Connors

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

2:17-cv-00141-JLR Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
Northern Cheyenne Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFIR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Sec Am Tek Tek Tribe
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Washitaw Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Yamassee Mund Bareefan Nation
C/O SILVER CLOUD MUSAFUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD SUITE 101-256
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
Mikki the Mime(Terminated)
P01102062
C/O JOSEPH A CAMP
JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL
PO BOX 16700
GOLDEN, CO 80402
Harry E. Ries
PO BOX 1849
MOSES LAKE, WA 98837

Ex. G - Overbeck Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?477539575607328

2/22/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 6.1

Page 3 of 3

James J O'Hagan(Terminated)
2298 CRANBERRY RD
GRAYLAND, WA 98547
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1035929271 [Date=2/22/2017] [FileNumber=6520445-0
] [39e1ab7dc880f1fa914cd91e3579e2e27c1ee66dc50e638e216d23f4882f1196662
07b9233793669c4bfca4d41cc5762cb440e523f1af8144e5ddd60a7881704]]

Ex. G - Overbeck Declaration
https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?477539575607328

2/22/2017

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 12

DECLARATION OF
VITA RABINOWITZ

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 12

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

STATE OF WASHINGTON and
STATE OF MINNESOTA,

5
Plaintiffs,
6

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

v.
7
8
9
10
11
12

DONALD 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 the Department of
Homeland Security; REX W.
TILLERSON, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of State; and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13
14

Defendants.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I Vita C. Rabinowitz, hereby declare as follows:

15
16
17

1.

I am Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost at The City University of

New York, (“CUNY” or “University”), a position I have held since July 2015.

As Executive

18
19

Vice Chancellor and University Provost, I am the chief academic officer of the University,

20

responsible for leading the planning, development, and implementation of University policies

21

and initiatives relevant to all aspects of its academic programs, research, instructional

22

technology, global engagement, student development, and enrollment management.

23
24

Prior to

holding my current position, I served as Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at
Hunter College, a senior college of CUNY, for approximately ten years, and prior to that I was

25
26

a faculty member at Hunter College as well as a member of the doctoral program in psychology

1

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 12

1

at CUNY Graduate Center. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below, or have

2

knowledge of those matters based on my review of information and records gathered by

3

members of my staff.

4
5
6
7
8

2.

The City University of New York is the nation’s largest urban university, with

twenty-four campuses, including senior and community colleges and graduate institutions
including the CUNY Graduate School and University Center, the CUNY Graduate School of
Journalism, the CUNY School of Law, the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health

9
10

Policy and the CUNY School of Medicine at City College. CUNY has approximately 1,600

11

different academic programs running the gamut from certificate programs to Ph.D. and

12

professional programs. The University has an enrollment of approximately 274,000 full and

13

part-time undergraduate and graduate students and has nearly 276,000 students enrolled in adult

14

and continuing education programs.

15
16

3.

Since the founding of what is now City College (the oldest college in the CUNY

17

system) in 1847, CUNY has had a special mission to provide an affordable and excellent

18

education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. More than 42 percent of CUNY’s

19
20

students are in the first generation of their families to attend college.

With its home in the

nation’s largest and most diverse city, CUNY recruits and attracts a student body that is

21
22

extraordinarily diverse by any measure, including in language, culture, race, ethnicity, religion,

23

geography, family income, age, and educational background. CUNY students identify with 216

24

different ancestries and speak 189 different languages. Thirty seven percent of CUNY students

25

were born outside of the United States mainland.

26

2

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 4 of 12

1
2
3

4.

As is described in its 2016-2020 Master Plan adopted by the University’s Board

of Trustees, CUNY has recognized the increasing importance of providing global perspectives
to its students. Studying with faculty and alongside students from other countries can expose

4
students to different cultures and ideas, enliven their classroom experiences, expand their
5
6

networks and horizons and engender a sense of global citizenship. The Master Plan also

7

specifically highlights CUNY’s goal to further diversity its faculty and increase the geographic

8

diversity of its students by recruiting more international students to enroll in and transfer to

9

CUNY.

10

5.

The March 6, 2017 Presidential Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation

11
12
13

from Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“EO”) restricted entry to the United States from six
countries: Syria, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen (“affected countries”). The EO will

14

impede CUNY’s ability to offer its students an excellent and affordable education, as well as the

15

ability of CUNY’s faculty to engage in research and collaboration with foreign scholars.

16

EO will affect CUNY by, among other things: impeding the ability of current students to leave

17

the United States for personal reasons and to take part in “study abroad” programs; chilling

18

The

CUNY’s ability to recruit and enroll foreign students; interfering with the ability of CUNY

19
20

faculty, postdoctoral researchers and graduate students, and their collaborators abroad, to travel

21

for research purposes; and limiting CUNY’s ability to hire and retain foreign faculty and to host

22

foreign scholars in the United States.

23

Student International Travel and Related Issues

24
25
26

6.

The University has more than 850 students born in the affected countries,

including approximately 116 students from those countries who attend CUNY on F or J visas

3

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 5 of 12

1

(including 18 doctoral students from Iran.) The implementation of the EO will have a negative

2

impact on the lives of students from the affected countries as well as other students. CUNY’s

3

Citizenship Now! Program, which provides free immigration law services to help individuals

4
and families on their path to U.S. citizenship, reports that since the promulgation of the first
5
6

Executive Order on January 27, 2017 and continuing to date, it has been assisting dozens of

7

international students who have concerns and fears about the impact of the EO on them and their

8

families. Many of these inquiries are from students who are not from the six affected countries;

9

they include students from Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, among others. These students are

10

afraid to travel abroad, including for study abroad programs, because they fear being unable to

11

return to the United States.

12
13
14
15

7.

The EO will diminish CUNY’s ability to continue and expand a number of

international study abroad programs. Studying abroad is a formative educational experience that
can provide tremendous personal growth and marketable global competencies for students. The

16
17
18

University has more than 1,500 students and faculty traveling and participating in study abroad
programs annually, and CUNY’s undergraduate colleges are actively developing more such
The viability of CUNY’s study abroad programs depends on the ability of CUNY

19

programs.

20

students (as well as faculty) to travel outside of the United States. By affecting the right to travel,

21

the EO is jeopardizing these programs, and will adversely affect students and faculty, regardless

22

of their immigration or citizenship status.

23
24
25

8.

International programs and partnerships at CUNY campuses are already being

affected. At the Spitzer School of Architecture at City College, a partnership with institutions

26

4

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 6 of 12

1

in Mexico City has been put on hold because the School cannot at this time risk taking all of its

2

students out of the country since some may not be able to return. Current students are losing a

3

valuable opportunity and future students may as well because international professional

4
relationships cannot be regularly sustained. Both the Urban Design program and the Landscape
5
6

Architecture program in that same School have supported the travel of entire studios of students

7

to study foreign locations where urban areas are in crisis or major transition, including Ecuador,

8

Southern China and Ireland, among others. These irreplaceable educational experiences are not

9

possible at this time because it could put certain foreign students in jeopardy.

10
11

9.

The EO is also posing an administrative burden on CUNY’s study abroad offices,

12

and adding uncertainty into study abroad planning. CUNY study abroad program offices now

13

need to systematically record each study abroad participant’s full nationality and immigration

14

status from the moment the student expresses interest in a program, to allow them to advise

15

students appropriately and to anticipate whether and how the student’s status will impact the

16
viability of the program, for example, by increasing the number of student withdrawals due to
17
18

possible travel issues. If there are additional changes to immigration policies after students are

19

admitted to study abroad programs and pay fees, colleges will generally not be able to reimburse

20

students who withdraw, as most of the costs (such as to hotels and airlines) are paid in advance

21

and non-refundable. Programs that depend on minimum enrollments will face greater challenges

22

in meeting their targets, which may result in a higher than usual program cancellation rate.

23
24
25

10.

Students at CUNY from the affected countries who are preparing to graduate are

also fearful and anxious about potential changes in their plans to work post-graduation under

26

5

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 7 of 12

1

Optional Practical Training (OPT) status.

2

these students the ability to work in their area of study and some financial security.

3

Post-graduation employment in OPT status gives
Now,

however, students from the affected countries will at a minimum experience delays in obtaining

4
work authorization. This will affect the ability of these students to obtain job offers that were
5
6
7

the hoped-for culmination of their CUNY education.

Admissions and Enrollment

8
9
10
11

11.

The EO will also harm CUNY’s ability to continue to attract and enroll students

from the affected countries and elsewhere. Higher education has become international, and
CUNY is no exception. CUNY currently enrolls over 8,000 international students on F and J

12
13
14

visas from over 100 countries. International students expect to be able to travel to their countries
of origin to maintain family relationships and, in the case of graduate students, to cultivate

15

professional opportunities because postgraduate employment in the United States is not

16

guaranteed. The EO threatens to scare away prospective students from the affected countries as

17

well as from other countries with large Muslim populations. It is also expected to reduce

18
19

applications and admissions from other international students, who may well decline to pursue
higher education in the United States in light of the EO.

20
21
22
23

12.

For example, the lifeblood of CUNY’s Graduate School is its doctoral students,

and its programs grow more competitive each year. During the admissions cycle for Fall 2017,
24.8 percent of the Graduate School’s 4,255 applications were from international students. The

24
25
26

deadline by which students must accept or decline the Graduate School’s offer of admission is
April 15. Graduate schools in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere are currently

6

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 8 of 12

1

making a strong recruitment pitch to international applicants, stating that their countries are more

2

welcoming to international students than the U.S. In this climate of uncertainty and fear, the

3

Graduate School expects a negative impact on its student yield this year and on admissions

4
during the next academic year.

The Graduate School has already been contacted by a number

5
6
7

of just-admitted applicants from the affected countries who have expressed concerns about their
ability to travel to the United States to begin their studies in Fall 2017.

8
13.

Similarly, the Spitzer School of Architecture at City College, which has

9
10

applicants each year from predominantly Muslim countries, anticipates that the uncertainty of

11

being granted a student visa will discourage international students from applying to City College.

12

Baruch College expects a similar impact on its master’s degree programs in business

13

administration, public affairs, international affairs and financial engineering, and its doctoral

14
15

program in business administration, each of which enroll significant numbers of foreign students
including students from one of the affected countries, Iran.

The CUNY School of Journalism

16
17
18
19

also foresees a similar negative impact on an intensive summer workshop that attracts many
international students and has included participants from the affected countries.

International Travel by Faculty and Other CUNY-Affiliated Researchers

20
21
22

14.

CUNY currently has over 80 faculty members who specialize in Middle Eastern

and diaspora studies. It also has numerous faculty in different fields (including STEM fields)

23
who conduct research and collaborate with foreign researchers in the affected countries and other
24
25

Muslim-majority countries.

The uncertainty of travel for individuals from the six affected

26

7

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 9 of 12

1

countries or any Muslim-majority country harms the ability of CUNY faculty to engage in

2

research abroad or to enter into partnerships with academic colleagues abroad.

3
4

15.

I am aware of at least five CUNY faculty members currently working on research

5

projects relating to the Middle East and/or East Africa funded by grants from the National

6

Science Foundation. Their project topics include dispute resolution in the Middle East and an

7

archaeological and genetic study of East Africa, among others, and to different degrees will

8
involve research about and in the affected countries.

Based on my experience in higher

9
10

education, I am confident that some or all of these faculty members will encounter considerable

11

difficulties in carrying out research in countries whose citizens are prohibited from entering the

12

United States, even if the faculty members themselves are not prohibited from re-entering the

13

United States.

14
15

16.

I am also aware of an assistant professor at Baruch who conducts archaeological

16

research in Sudan. The EO will likely prevent her Sudanese colleagues from traveling to Baruch

17

for symposia, workshops, and exhibitions, and will make it difficult or impossible for her and

18
19

other American researchers to continue this and other active research projects in Sudan. The
project at issue aims to recover lost data about Meroe, the capital of the Meroitic Kingdom (ca.

20
21
22
23

400 BCE-350 CE) and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, which is in unstable condition. This
research is critical to the recovery of data before it is lost to researchers.
17.

Additionally, I am aware of a Lehman College faculty member who is engaged

24

in research on Syrian television drama production, much of which takes place outside Syria in

25

neighboring countries. She expects that her research will be impeded due to the difficulty of

26

8

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 10 of 12

1

traveling to and returning from Muslim majority nations, given the enhanced scrutiny of travelers

2

returning from the affected countries and other Muslim-majority countries.

3
4

18.

It is becoming clear at CUNY and at other research institutions that I am aware

5

of that the EO is having and will have a significant impact not only on academic research directly

6

involving the affected countries or Muslim-majority countries, but on research activity and

7

collaboration in the United States more generally.

At least one CUNY faculty member has

8
reported that several British and Canadian colleagues have advised that they are no longer
9
10

willing to visit the United States for conferences or academic meetings as a result of the EO, and

11

that some U.S. academic organizations are experiencing calls from members to boycott

12

conferences (such as the American Psychiatric Association Conference in San Diego) unless

13

they are moved outside of the United States.

14
15

CUNY faculty will suffer significant harm if, as

appears likely, academic conferences are moved out of the United States, as conference travel
will be prohibitively expensive. The boycott by foreign scholars of U.S.-based conferences will

16
17
18
19

also diminish the ability of CUNY faculty to engage in academic collaborations and exchange
of research findings.
Faculty Recruitment and Retention

20
21
22
23

19.

Although CUNY faculty have always engaged in research, within the past decade

CUNY has expanded its research enterprise significantly to become a major research institution,
spending over $450 million on research within the past year.

In 2014, the University opened

24
25
26

the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center to support and accelerate high-level science
research and development and the faculty whose work is concentrated on cutting-edge research.

9

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 11 of 12

1
2
3

20.

In light of this commitment to research, it is critical that CUNY be able to recruit

and retain highly qualified research faculty.

Identifying, recruiting and negotiating with

potential new faculty and researchers takes many months. Ideally, new teaching faculty start in

4
the fall semester, requiring offers made and arrangements finalized months prior to August.
5
6

Prospects who accept offers will also need to move family and secure housing by summer. The

7

uncertainty in the process caused by the EO will delay and may prevent the University and its

8

colleges and units from pursuing prospects, resulting in delays in research efforts and potential

9

delay or loss of federal funding for new research.

10
11

21.

Moreover, potential foreign faculty recruits have already expressed concerns

12

about coming to CUNY and the U.S. Baruch College, for example, which hires a significant

13

number of foreign faculty members, reports that as a result of the EO it has received many more

14
15

questions from potential employees about travel restrictions that will interfere with normal
family obligations such as care of elderly parents, attending family weddings and anniversary

16
17
18

events, or participation in cultural holidays. New York City College of Technology has many
faculty members in engineering technology from the Middle East, especially Iran, as well as

19

other countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Algeria, that could potentially be affected in

20

the future. The college fears that its ability to recruit and retain faculty from those countries who

21

have family at home or in temporary visa statuses will be seriously affected by the EO.

22

The

CUNY Graduate Center is currently negotiating with an international senior research scholar

23
who has expressed serious concerns about moving to the United States at this time.
24
25

Summary

26

10

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-24 Filed 03/13/17 Page 12 of 12

1
2
3

22.

The concerns raised above all reflect potential short- and long-term harm to

CUNY from the EO.

The EO seriously affects CUNY’s educational mission to provide

education to a geographically and intellectually diverse student body; to provide opportunities

4
for students to obtain a global perspective by studying with students from all nationalities; to
5
6

recruit and retain a diverse faculty, including international scholars; and to support wide-ranging

7

and critically important research by faculty, postdoctoral researchers and graduate students. In

8

my judgment, the EO will harm not only CUNY’s educational and research missions, but also

9

its financial health, due to reduced federal grant funding for research and a decline in student

10

enrollment, and its reputation as a cutting-edge research university. It would take years for

11

CUNY to recover from this damage.

12
13

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

14
Executed on this 11th day of March, 2017
15
16
17
18

Vita C. Rabinowitz
____________________________________
Vita C. Rabinowitz, Ph.D.
Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost
The City University of New York,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

11

Ex. H - Rabinowitz Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Breakdown of CIR Residents in New York State

CIR RESIDENTS IN NEW YORK STATE
543
466

456

438
389

387
340

321

299

268

249
211

203

187

162

158

154

151

146

126

125

96

86

26

Ex. I - Scherzer Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 7

DECLARATION OF
JENNIFER SIME

Ex. J - Sime Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 7

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

STATE OF WASHINGTON and
STATE OF MINNESOTA,

5
Plaintiffs,
6

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

v.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DONALD 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 the Department of
Homeland Security; REX W.
TILLERSON, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of State; and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

14
15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I, Jennifer Sime, hereby declare as follows:

16

1. I am Jennifer Sime, Senior Vice President, US Programs of the International Rescue

17

Committee (IRC). I am responsible for providing executive oversight and management of

18

IRC’s refugee resettlement programs in the United States.

19
20
2. IRC is a non-profit, non-sectarian global organization founded in 1933 and currently
21
22

operating in over 40 countries around the world. The IRC’s core mission is to serve

23

people forced to flee from war, conflict, and disaster and help them survive, recover, and

24

gain control of their lives. A substantial part of the IRC’s work is providing aid to

25
26

Ex. J - Sime 1
Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 7

1

refugees, which it does recognizing that refugees are the victims of terror, not the

2

perpetrators of it.

3
4

3. Responding to the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the IRC helps people whose lives

5
6

and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to recover and gain control of their

7

futures. Starting from the moment a new refugee arrives at the airport, the IRC provides

8

essential services to maximize successful resettlement through its 28 U.S. offices. These

9

offices serve as a free, one-stop center for refugees’ needs during their pivotal first

10

months in the United States, providing immediate aid, including food, housing, and

11

medical attention.

12
13
14

4. The March 6, 2017 Executive Order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Program

15

has interfered with IRC’s ability to carry out its mission and injured those the IRC serves,

16

characteristically extinguishing the glimmer of hope of refugees awaiting a safe life in

17

the United States.

18
19

5. The IRC is one of only nine resettlement agencies approved by the U.S. Department of

20
21
22

State. Over the past forty-years, the IRC has resettled roughly 370,000 global refugees
in cities throughout the United States.

23
6. The IRC operates in 28 U.S. cities to oversee domestic refugee resettlement. The IRC in
24
25
26

New York opened in 1975, and since then has resettled over 28,000 refugees by using a
combination of services including case management, employment assistance, education

Ex. J - Sime 2
Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 4 of 7

1

programming, and legal services. The IRC of New York is headquartered in New York

2

City and is operated by a staff of 21 employees and 400 volunteers annually.

3
4

7. During fiscal year 2016 (October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016), the IRC in New York

5

resettled 125 individuals from fifteen different countries of origin. The office anticipated

6

resettling approximately 125 individuals again in fiscal year 2017, and thus far the IRC

7

in New York has resettled only 45 individuals from 10 different countries of origin.

8
9
10

8. The March 6, 2017 “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United

11

States” Executive Order directly harms refugees awaiting resettlement to the U.S. and those

12

already residing here.

13
14
15

9. Families separated because they obtained refugee status at different times, who have been
waiting to be reunited, will have to wait even longer. One case overseen by IRC of New

16
17
18
19

York involves a 17-year old waiting to be reunited with his father, stepmother, and
siblings, all of whom reside in New York City. However, because of the Executive Order,
his family does not know when he will be permitted to join them.

20
21
22
23

10. Currently, the IRC in New York has 25 cases (56 people) in its pipeline waiting for
resettlement in New York City, from countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, El
Salvador and Cuba. However, as a result of the EO’s limits on and suspension of the US

24
25

Refugee Admissions Program, it is possible that none of these people will now be resettled.

26

Ex. J - Sime 3
Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 5 of 7

1

11. In this way, the Executive Order also directly impacts refugees already living in the U.S.

2

Resettlement agencies including the IRC in New York are allocated funding on a per

3

arrival basis through a contract with the U.S. State Department, but that does not account

4
for ongoing services to individuals already in the country.
5
6
7

12. The Order not only suspends refugee resettlement for 120 days, but reduces the number of
refugee arrivals this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. As a result, the IRC in New York

8
is facing a reduction in resources. This puts in jeopardy the capacity for resettlement
9
10

agencies to provide continued services for those refugees who are already here and in

11

need of case management, employment and other support services, such as developing

12

and refining job skills, connecting clients to professional work, offering English-

13

language instruction or other training opportunities, providing access to legal services,

14

and connecting clients to other community-based organizations.

15
16

13. As of the issuance of the Executive Order, the United States had already vetted 60,000

17

individuals for resettlement in the country. These refugees are now stranded in crisis

18
19

zones, even though they have established to the satisfaction of Consular Officers that
their lives are in danger and they pose no threat to the United States. In many cases, these

20
21
22

are individuals who have been separated from family members already in the United
States.

23
14. Refugees are vetted more intensively than any other group seeking to enter the U.S. In
24
25

fact, the hardest way to come to the country is as a refugee. Once those refugees most in

26

Ex. J - Sime 4
Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 6 of 7

1

need are registered by the UNHCR, the U.N. refugee agency, the U.S. then hand-selects

2

every person who is admitted.

3
4
15. The U.S. resettlement program gives priority to refugees, usually vulnerable families,
5
6

who have been targeted by violence. The U.S. does not recognize as refugees people who

7

have committed violations of humanitarian and human rights law, including the crime of

8

terrorism, as refugees. They are specifically excluded from the protection accorded to

9

refugees.

10
11

16. Security screenings are intense and led by U.S. government authorities, including the

12
13
14
15

FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and multiple
security agencies. The process typically takes up to 36 months and is followed by further
security checks after refugees arrive in the States.

16
17
18
19

17. Refugees undergo biographic and biometric checks, medical screenings, forensic
document testing, and in-person interviews. Because of the complexity of the conflict in
their country, Syrian refugees must go through extra review steps with intelligence

20
21
22

agencies and Department of Homeland Security officers who have particular expertise
and training in conditions in Syria and the Middle East.

23
24
25
26

Ex. J - Sime 5
Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-16 Filed 03/13/17 Page 7 of 7

1
2
3

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 10th day of March, 2017

4
5
6
7

________________________________________
Jennifer Sime

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Ex. J - Sime 6
Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 7

DECLARATION OF
LOVELY WARREN

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 7

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

STATE OF WASHINGTON and
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

v.
DONALD 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 the Department of
Homeland Security; REX W.
TILLERSON, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of State; and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Declaration of
Mayor Lovely A. Warren,
City of Rochester, New York,
Regarding Immediate and
Irreparable Harm

Defendants.

14
15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), I Lovely A. Warren, hereby declare as follows:

16

1. I am the Mayor of the City of Rochester, New York (the “City”), with offices at City Hall,

17

30 Church Street, Rochester, New York. I have been the City’s Mayor since January 2014.

18

2. I make this declaration based in part on personal knowledge and in part on information City

19

staff has collected from community organizations, colleges and universities in the Rochester

20

area, and published reports. The City of Rochester Law Department has reviewed Executive

21

Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,”

22

issued March 6, 2017, and to be implemented March 16, 2017, and the predecessor to that

23

order, Executive Order 13769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the

24

United States,” issued January 27, 2017.

25
26

1

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

3. The City of Rochester, the home of Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony, has a long
tradition of support for equal rights for all people, including immigrants and refugees.
4. In 1986, Rochester City Council Resolution No. 86-29 recognized Rochester as a City of
Sanctuaries.
5. On February 21, 2017, the Rochester City Council passed Resolution No. 2017-5
reaffirming the City’s status as a Sanctuary City and adopting Sanctuary City policies. The
resolution reiterated that the City is one community that is welcoming and inclusive of all,
united and strengthened by its diversity, and committed to upholding and protecting the civil
and human rights of all individuals that come within its borders, including immigrants and
refugees.
6. The City of Rochester is the third largest city in New York State with a population of
approximately 210,000 people.
7. Approximately 8.5% of the City’s residents were born outside the United States—more than
17,000 Rochesterians, according to 2015 data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
8. Immigrants in the City of Rochester—members of our community born outside the United
States but who have made Rochester their home—contribute significantly to the City
economically, socially, and culturally.1
9. In the past decade, approximately 6,300 refugees have settled in Rochester, making
Rochester one of the top three cities in refugee resettlement in New York State during that
period, according to a published report.2

21
22
23
24
25
26

1

See, e.g., Brief for Association of American Universities as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners’
Requested Relief at 28, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17-cv-480 (E.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 16, 2017), ECF No. 139
[hereinafter “AAU Amicus Brief”] (discussion of Saudi Arabian hepatologist who was recently hired by
University of Rochester and the University of Rochester’s Division of Solid Organ Transplantation’s Chief, a
Mexican national, who is a world-renowned liver-transplant surgeon and has recruited an international team to
join him in Rochester).
2

See Joseph Spector, Immigration order hits home across NY, DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE (Feb. 3, 2017),
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2017/02/03/immigration-order-hits-homeacross-ny/97303656

2

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 4 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

10. According to the Catholic Family Center, which handles refugee resettlement in the
Rochester area, in 2016, a total of 1,180 refugees settled in Rochester, including from
countries named in Executive Order 13780: 231 from Somalia and 72 from Syria.
11. In 2015, 756 refugees resettled in Rochester, according to a published report.3
12. Refugees are the fastest growing population in the Rochester City School District.
13. The Rochester International Academy (“RIA”), a school in the Rochester City School
District that helps newly arrived students learn English and become part of the community,
and which most refugee children attend for some time after arriving in Rochester, has
experienced a significant increase in enrollment this school year, with 426 students enrolled,
according to a published report.4
14. Rochester City School District School No. 15, the Children’s School of Rochester, has
approximately 333 students in Pre-K through grade 6. Some of those students are originally
from three countries named in the executive order—Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Those
students are predominantly Muslim.
15. If Executive Order 13780 is implemented, it will cause significant harm and upheaval in the
City of Rochester, including in immigrant and refugee communities, and for organizations
that serve them.
16. The 120-day suspension of the United States Refugee Assistance Program as set forth in
Executive Order 13780 may cause refugees to face delays in entry to the United States. Such
Delays in entry may prevent Rochester’s refugee resettlement agency, Catholic Family
Center, from doing its work effectively. When entry is delayed, Catholic Family Center
must refile paper work, reissue checks, and secure housing again for arriving refugees.

23
24
25
26

3

See Justin Murphy, Rochester’s refugee population booms, DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE (Dec. 27, 2016),
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/12/27/rochester-international-academy-refugeesenrollment/95713600
4

See id.

3

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 5 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

17. Catholic Family Center not only serves refugees, it employs many former refugees. As a
result of the executive order, however, its work force may face cuts.
18. While Catholic Family Center had been planning for an increase in refugees from Syria and
Somalia due to ongoing crisis conditions in those countries, Executive Order 13780’s
reduction in the number of refugees allowed to resettle may force Catholic Family Center
to reduce its resettlement services. That reduction could result in lost jobs in its Resettlement
Office.
19. International students in New York’s 25th Congressional District, which encompasses the
City of Rochester, have a major economic impact on the area, according to data from
NAFSA, the Association of International Educators. During the 2015–2016 academic year,
the presence of 7,138 international students in the district contributed $253.3 million to the
economy and supported 3,613 jobs.5
20. Rochester Institute of Technology (“RIT”) employs approximately 3,900 faculty and
staff. Of RIT’s more than 18,600 students, approximately 2,700 are international
students, from more than 100 countries.6
21. During the 2015–2016 academic year, RIT’s international students were responsible for
financial contributions of $105.4 million in the 25th Congressional District, supporting
1,567 jobs, according to NAFSA.7
22. RIT has 32 students on its main campus who are from the countries named in Executive
Order 13780.8

21
22
23
24
25
26

5

NAFSA, New York Congressional District 25 Benefits from International Students,
http://istart.iu.edu/nafsa/reports/district.cfm?state=NY&year=2015&district=25 (last visited Mar. 10, 2017).
6

Rochester Institute of Technology, RIT in Brief, https://www.rit.edu/overview/rit-in-brief (last visited
March 10, 2017); Rochester Institute of Technology, A message from RIT President Bill Destler regarding U.S.
Presidential executive orders pertaining to immigration (Jan. 29, 2017), http://www.rit.edu/immigration.
7

NAFSA, supra note 5.

8

See Rochester Institute of Technology, A message from RIT President Bill Destler regarding U.S.
Presidential executive orders pertaining to immigration (Mar. 8, 2017), http://www.rit.edu/immigration.

4

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 6 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

23. RIT has advised its students, faculty, and staff from the countries covered by Executive
Order 13780 not to leave the United States due to the risk they may be unable to reenter the
country.9
24. Even before the announcement of Executive Order 13780, RIT faced a 10% decrease in
applicants from the Middle East and various predominantly Muslim countries around the
world for the 2017–2018 school year, according to a published report. Applicants from
the countries affected named in the previous travel ban, Executive Order 13769, have
expressed concerns about studying in the United States.10
25. The University of Rochester is Rochester’s largest employer, with more than 28,000
employees.11 Of those employees, more than 2,000 serve as faculty and instructional staff
to approximately 11,100 students.12
26. The University of Rochester is critical to Rochester’s economy. Its operations produce an
economic impact estimated at $3.26 billion per year.13
27. The University of Rochester has 3,432 International Students.14

15
16
17
18
19

9

Id.

10

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

See James Goodman, Fear and economic conditions account for RIT drop, DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE
(Feb. 20, 2017), http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2017/02/20/rit-finds-drop-applicationsmiddle-east/98147154
11

See Brian Sharp, Study highlights UR’s economic impact, DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE (June 16, 2016),
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/06/16/study-highlights-urs-economic-impact/85951436/;
see also University of Rochester, About Us, http://www.rochester.edu/aboutus (last visited March 10, 2017);
University of Rochester, Working Here http://www.rochester.edu/working (last visited March 10, 2017).
12

See University of Rochester, About Us, supra note 11.

13

See KENT GARDNER, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER & AFFILIATES 2015 NYS ECONOMIC IMPACT at ii
(Center for Governmental Research 2016), http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/NYS-economic-impact-report-UR-affiliates-2015.pdf.
14

See AAU Amicus Brief, supra note 1, at Appendix A.

5

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 118-50 Filed 03/13/17 Page 7 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

28. During the 2015–2016 academic year, the University of Rochester’s international students
were responsible for financial contributions of $132.7 million in the 25th Congressional
District, supporting 1,951 jobs, according to NAFSA.15
29. Applicants to the University of Rochester have also expressed concerns to the University
about studying in the United States since the release of the original travel ban, Executive
Order 13769, according to a published report.16
30. According to the Catholic Family Center, delays in refugee resettlement and reduction in
the number of refugees allowed to resettle may also negatively affect employers in the City
of Rochester that hire refugees, including Kraft, Wegmans Food Markets, and the
University of Rochester.
31. Thus, by impeding foreign-born visitors, workers, and students from entering the City or
traveling freely, Executive Order 13780 would negatively impact the City of Rochester as
well as its residents, its economy, and educational institutions.

14
15

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

16
17

Executed on this 11th day of March, 2017

18
19
20
21

Mayor Lovely A. Warren

22
23
24
25
26

15

NAFSA, supra note 5.

16

See Goodman, supra note 10.

6

Ex. K - Warren Declaration

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332

DUANE R. MIYASHIRO (# 6513)
ADAMS MIYASHIRO KREK LLP
900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1700
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of Illinois
DAVID L. FRANKLIN*
Solicitor General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone No.: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
* Pro Hac Vice admission pending

Attorney for the State of Illinois

Attorneys for the State of Illinois
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.

Civil No. 17-00050-DKW-KSC

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

1

I hereby certify, pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, that the interest of Amici Curiae
and Brief of the States of Illinois (fill in other States) as Amici Curiae in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order contains 6,292 words.
Dated: March 13, 2017
/s/ David L. Franklin
DAVID L. FRANKLIN
Attorney for STATE OF
ILLINOIS

2

DUANE R. MIYASHIRO (# 6513)
ADAMS MIYASHIRO KREK LLP
900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1700
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of Illinois
DAVID L. FRANKLIN*
Solicitor General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone No.: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
* Pro Hac Vice admission pending

Attorney for the State of Illinois

Attorneys for the State of Illinois
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.

Civil No. 17-00050-DKW-KSC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1

I hereby certify that, on the date and by the methods of service indicated
below, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was duly served upon the
following persons:

Served Electronically through CM/ECF:
DOUGLAS S. CHIN, ESQ.
Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i
CLYDE J. WADSWORTH, ESQ.
Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i
DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA, ESQ.
DONNA H. KALAMA, ESQ.
KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY, ESQ.
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STATE OF HAWAI‘I

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

NEAL K. KATYAL, ESQ.
[e-mail]
COLLEN ROH SINZDAK, ESQ.
[e-mail]
MITCHELL P. REICH, ESQ.
[e-mail]
ELIZABETH HAGERTY, ESQ.
[e-mail]
THOMAS P. SCHMIDT, ESQ.
[e-mail]
SARA SOLOW, ESQ.
[e-mail]
ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STATE OF HAWAI‘I and
ISMAIL ELSHIKH
EDRIC MING-KIA CHING, ESQ.
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI, ESQ.
BRAD P. ROSENBERG, ESQ.
DANIEL SCHWEI, ESQ.
MICHELLE R. BENNETT, ESQ.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
2

Attorneys for Defendants
CLAIRE LOEBS DAVIS, ESQ.
[e-mail]
MARK S. DAVIS, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Law Professors

AARON FELLMETH, ESQ.
[e-mail]
CLARE J. HANUSZ, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
International Law Scholars and
Nongovernmental Organizations
JOHN B. HARRIS, ESQ.
[e-mail]
NICOLE Y.C.L. ALTMAN, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Anti-Defamation League
CHRISTOPHER J. HAJEC, ESQ.
[e-mail]
DENISE M. HEVICON, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Immigration Reform Law Institute
DAVID J. MINKIN, ESQ.
[e-mail]
LISA W. CATALDO, ESQ.
[e-mail]
JESSICA M. WAN, ESQ.
[e-mail]
AMIR H. ALI, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Roderick and Solange MacArthur
Justice Center
JESSICA M. WEISEL, ESQ.
[e-mail]
LOUISE K.Y. ING, ESQ.
[e-mail]
PRATIK A. SHAH, ESQ.
[e-mail]
ROBERT A. JOHNSON, ESQ.
[e-mail]
CLAIRE WONG BLACK, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Jay Hirabayashi, Fred T. Korematsu Center
3

For Law and Equality, Holly Yasui, Karen Korematsu,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC, Asian Law
Caucus, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles), Asian
American Legal Defense and Education Fund, HNBA,
JACL Honolulu, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Inc.,
National Bar Association, and SABA North America
ALAN C. TURNER, ESQ.
[e-mail]
HARRISON J. FRAHN, ESQ.
[e-mail]
LISA W. MUNGER, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Human Rights First, KIND, Tahirih
Justice Center, and HIAS
THOMAS BENEDICT, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Congregation B’nai Jeshurun, Reverend
Curtis W. Hart, Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum,
Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, Reverend Timothy Tutt,
Rabbi Joy Levitt, The Sikh Coalition, The Right
Reverend Andrew Dietsche, Episcopal Bishop of New
York, and others.
ANNA M. ELENTO-SNEED, ESQ.
KIMBERLY ANN GREELEY, ESQ.
MARY ELLEN SIMONSON, ESQ.
NATASHA J. BAKER, ESQ.
P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON, ESQ.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Employment Law Alliance
ANDREW L. NELLIS, ESQ.
[e-mail]
KELLY M. PERCIVAL, ESQ.
[e-mail]
RICHARD B. KATSKEE, ESQ.
[e-mail]
STEVEN D. STRAUSS, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
and Southern Poverty Law Center
4

JOHN S. RHEE, ESQ.
[e-mail]
PAMELA W. BUNN, ESQ.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
ROBERT K. MATSUMOTO, ESQ. [e-mail]
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
American Center for Law and Justice

Dated: March 13, 2017
/s/ David L. Franklin
DAVID L. FRANKLIN
Attorney for STATE OF
ILLINOIS

5