State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 370

Declaration re #369 MOTION for Leave to Proceed Under Psyeudonyms and for In Camera Review , #368 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Deirdre Marie-Iha. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, Decl. of John Doe 1, #2 Exhibit B, Decl. of John Doe 2, #3 Exhibit C, Decl. of Jane Doe 3, #4 Exhibit D, Decl. of John Doe 4, #5 Exhibit E, Decl. of John Doe 5, #6 Exhibit F, Decl. of Straney, #7 Exhibit G, Decl. of Chan, #8 Exhibit H, Decl. of Sharma, #9 Exhibit I, Decl. of Elshikh, #10 Exhibit J, Decl. of Szigeti, #11 Exhibit K, Decl. of Salaveria, #12 Exhibit L, Decl. of Ouansafi, #13 Certificate of Service)(Marie-Iha, Deirdre)

DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465)
Attorney General of the State of Hawaii
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawaii

NEAL KUMAR KATYAL*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, and
Prospective Plaintiffs John Does 1
& 2 and Muslim Association of
Hawaii, Inc.

(See Next Page For Additional Counsel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DECLARATION OF
DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
STATE OF HAWAII and ISMAIL ELSHIKH,
(1) MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY
Plaintiffs,
RESTRAINING ORDER,
AND (2) MOTION FOR
v.
LEAVE FOR DOE
PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as UNDER PSEUDONYM, AND
President of the United States; U.S.
FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; OF DOE PLAINTIFFS’ AND
ELAINE DUKE, in her official capacity as
DOE DECLARANTS’
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S.
SIGNED STATEMENTS;
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX
EXHIBITS A-L IN SUPPORT
TILLERSON, in his official capacity as
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES
FOR TEMPORARY
OF AMERICA,
RESTRAINING ORDER;
CERTIFICATE OF
Defendants.
SERVICE
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00050DKW-KSC

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
CLYDE J. WADSWORTH (Bar No.
8495)
Solicitor General of the State of Hawaii
DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA (Bar No. 7923)
DONNA H. KALAMA (Bar No. 6051)
KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY (Bar No. 7813)
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI (Bar No. 6743)
KALIKO‘ONALANI D. FERNANDES
(Bar. No. 9964)
KEVIN M. RICHARDSON (Bar No.
10224)
Deputy Attorneys General
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawaii

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
**Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming
†
Admitted only in Maryland; supervised by
firm members
††
Admitted only in Virginia; supervised by
firm members

COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK*
MITCHELL P. REICH*
ELIZABETH HAGERTY*
YURI S. FUCHS**
SUNDEEP IYER**†
REEDY C. SWANSON**††
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
THOMAS P. SCHMIDT*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SARA SOLOW*
ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1735 Market St., 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, and
Prospective Plaintiffs John Does 1
& 2 and Muslim Association of
Hawaii, Inc.

DECLARATION OF DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ (1) MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
AND (2) MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR DOE PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED
UNDER PSEUDONYM, AND FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF DOE
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DOE DECLARANTS’ SIGNED STATEMENTS
I, DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA, hereby state and declare as follows:
1.

I am a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii. I have

personal knowledge of and am competent to testify to the truth of the matters
stated herein. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ (1) Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (the “TRO Motion”), and (2) Motion for Leave for
Doe Plaintiffs to Proceed Under Pseudonym, and for In Camera Review of Doe
Plaintiffs’ and Doe Declarants’ Signed Statements (the “Confidentiality Motion”),
both filed concurrently herewith.
2.

Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a declaration

submitted by declarant John Doe 1, a naturalized U.S. citizen who resides in
Hawaii and wishes to join this action as a Plaintiff. He originally is from one of
the countries targeted by Defendant Donald J. Trump’s September 24, 2017
“Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for
Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other PublicSafety Threats” (“EO-3”). Exhibit A explains how declarant John Doe 1 has been
injured by EO-3, as well as his reasons for fearing severe retaliation in the event
that his name is disclosed to the public, Defendants, or their counsel. I spoke
3

personally with John Doe 1 regarding the need to protect his identity and his fear
of public reprisals, and his concern that, should his identity be released, negative
consequences might result for the immigration processes currently underway for
his family. These concerns are so deep-seated that he would not have agreed to
submit the declaration if we had not acted to protect his identity. An unredacted,
signed copy of Exhibit A bearing declarant John Doe 1’s name, which is highly
confidential information, is being submitted to the Court for in camera review
pursuant to Local Rule 10.2 and Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed Confidentiality
Motion. Aside from its redaction of declarant John Doe 1’s name, the publiclyfiled copy of Exhibit A is identical to the unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit A
being submitted to the Court for in camera review.
3.

Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a declaration

submitted by declarant John Doe 2, a lawful permanent resident of the United
States who resides in Hawaii and wishes to join this action as a Plaintiff. He
originally is from one of the countries targeted by EO-3. Exhibit B explains how
declarant John Doe 2 has been injured by EO-3, as well as his reasons for fearing
severe retaliation in the event that his name is disclosed to the public, Defendants,
or their counsel. I spoke personally with John Doe 2 regarding the need to protect
his identity and his fear of public reprisals, and his concern that, should his identity
be released, negative consequences might result for the immigration processes

4

currently underway for his family. These concerns are so deep-seated that he
would not have agreed to submit the declaration if we had not acted to protect his
identity. An unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit B bearing declarant John Doe 2’s
name, which is highly confidential information, is being submitted to the Court for
in camera review pursuant to Local Rule 10.2 and Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed
Confidentiality Motion. Aside from its redaction of declarant John Doe 2’s name,
the publicly-filed copy of Exhibit B is identical to the unredacted, signed copy of
Exhibit B being submitted to the Court for in camera review.
4.

Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a declaration

submitted by declarant Jane Doe 3, a naturalized American citizen residing in the
United States. She originally is from one of the countries targeted by EO-3.
Exhibit C explains how declarant Jane Doe 3 has been injured by EO-3, as well as
her reasons for fearing severe retaliation in the event that her identity is disclosed
to the public, Defendants, or their counsel. I spoke personally with Jane Doe 3
regarding the need to protect her identity and her fear of public reprisals, and her
concern that, should her identity be released, negative consequences might result
for the immigration processes currently underway for her family. These concerns
are so deep-seated that she would not have agreed to submit the declaration if we
had not acted to protect her identity. Furthermore, the relevant community is so
small that disclosing the location where the declaration was signed would

5

effectively disclose Jane Doe 3’s identity. An unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit
C bearing declarant Jane Doe 3’s name and the location where her declaration was
signed, which are highly confidential, is being submitted to the Court for in camera
review pursuant to Local Rule 10.2 and Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed
Confidentiality Motion. Aside from its redaction of declarant Jane Doe 3’s name
and the location where her declaration was signed, the publicly-filed copy of
Exhibit C is identical to the unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit C being submitted
to the Court for in camera review.
5.

Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a declaration

submitted by a foreign national, declarant John Doe 4, residing in the United
States. He originally is from one of the countries targeted by EO-3. Exhibit D
explains how declarant John Doe 4 has been injured by EO-3, as well as his
reasons for fearing severe retaliation in the event that his identity is disclosed to the
public, Defendants, or their counsel. I spoke personally with John Doe 4 regarding
the need to protect his identity and his fear of public reprisals, and his concern that,
should his identity be released, negative consequences might result for the
immigration processes currently underway for his family. These concerns are so
deep-seated that he would not have agreed to submit the declaration if we had not
acted to protect his identity. Furthermore, the relevant community is so small that
disclosing the location where the declaration was signed would effectively disclose

6

John Doe 4’s identity. An unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit D bearing declarant
John Doe 4’s name and the location where his declaration was signed, which are
highly confidential, is being submitted to the Court for in camera review pursuant
to Local Rule 10.2 and Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed Confidentiality Motion.
Aside from its redaction of declarant John Doe 4’s name and the location where his
declaration was signed, the publicly-filed copy of Exhibit D is identical to the
unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit D being submitted to the Court for in camera
review.
6.

Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a declaration

submitted by a foreign national, declarant John Doe 5, residing in the United
States. He originally is from one of the countries targeted by EO-3. Exhibit E
explains how declarant John Doe 5 has been injured by EO-3, as well as his
reasons for fearing severe retaliation in the event that his name is disclosed to the
public, Defendants, or their counsel. I spoke personally with John Doe 5 regarding
the need to protect his identity and his fear of public reprisals. This concern is so
deep-seated that he would not have agreed to submit the declaration if we had not
acted to protect his identity. An unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit E bearing
declarant John Doe 5’s name, which is highly confidential information, is being
submitted to the Court for in camera review pursuant to Local Rule 10.2 and
Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed Confidentiality Motion. Aside from its redaction of

7

declarant John Doe 5’s name, the publicly-filed copy of Exhibit E is identical to
the unredacted, signed copy of Exhibit E being submitted to the Court for in
camera review.
7.

Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

Donald O. Straney, Vice President for Academic Planning and Policy at the
University of Hawaii system (the “University”), addressing the impacts of EO-3 on
the University of Hawaii community, including with respect to limiting the travel
of the University’s faculty, staff, and students; hindering the international
exchange of ideas and research partnerships at the University; reducing the
diversity of the University’s faculty, staff, and students; negatively impacting the
University’s applicant pool; and undercutting the welcoming, diversity-embracing
values of the University and State of Hawaii.
8.

Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

Gaye Chan, Chair of the Department of Art and Art History (the “Department”) at
the University of Hawaii at Manoa, addressing the impacts of EO-3 on the
diversity of the Department’s faculty, staff, and student bodies, the Department’s
ability to offer exposure to international and varied art, and the Department’s
capacity to recruit and host nationals from the countries targeted by EO-3.
9.

Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

Nandita Sharma, an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the

8

University of Hawaii at Manoa and Director of the University’s International
Cultural Studies Program, addressing the negative impacts of EO-3 on the
University’s scholastic development and ability to recruit and host nationals from
the countries targeted by EO-3.
10.

Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

Ismail Elshikh, PhD, a U.S. citizen who resides in Hawaii and is a Plaintiff in this
action. He is of Egyptian descent and a community leader, as the Imam of the
Muslim Association of Hawaii. He and his family have been personally affected
by EO-3, including with respect to interrupted travel plans and separation from
family members abroad.
11.

Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

George Szigeti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Hawaii Tourism
Authority (“HTA”), providing and explaining data maintained by HTA for the last
five years with respect to visitor expenditures, total visitor arrivals and mode of
transport, and the flow of visitors from Africa and the Middle East.
12.

Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

Luis P. Salaveria, Director of the State of Hawaii Department of Business,
Economic Development and Tourism, addressing the impacts of EO-3 on the
tourism industry in Hawaii, including with respect to collaborative projects, sisterstate relationships, tourism branding, and visa reductions.

9

13.

Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of

Hakim Ouansafi, who has been a resident of the United States for over thirty years
and is the Chairman of The Muslim Association of Hawaii, Inc., a nonprofit entity
that is the only formal Muslim organization in Hawaii and serves approximately
5,000 Muslims statewide. He has held the position of Chairman of The Muslim
Association of Hawaii, Inc. for about fifteen years. His declaration addresses the
harassment, threats of violence, delayed travel plans, and religious burdens
experienced by members of his organization as a result of EO-3 and its predecessor
Executive Orders, as well as the pecuniary and membership harms they have
caused The Muslim Association of Hawaii, Inc. as an organization.
14.

Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E hereto are submitted in support of

Plaintiffs’ TRO Motion by five declarants—John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3,
John Doe 4, and John Doe 5 (the “Doe Declarants”)—each of whom originally is
from one of the countries targeted by EO-3, which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ TRO
Motion.
15.

Following the issuance of EO-3, members of my staff and I spoke

with the Doe Declarants, each of whom conveyed grave concern that the disclosure
of his or her name would pose a risk of severe retaliation by Defendants; others
associated with them, including immigration officials; anti-Muslim members of the
public; and/or the governments or residents of the Doe Declarants’ countries of

10

origin. The Doe Declarants overwhelmingly expressed fear, frustration, and anger
over EO-3, which in numerous instances has split them from their families and
jeopardized their own travel arrangements. These individuals are highly
apprehensive of retaliation from Defendants, their associates, and members of the
public if they participate in this action using their names, particularly based on
retaliation that they have seen directed toward Plaintiff Ismail Elshikh on the same
basis.
16.

The Doe Declarants are filing the substance of their declarations

publicly, using pseudonyms of John and Jane Doe, but respectfully request that the
Court review their full, signed declarations (disclosing their names and, in some
instances, their signing locations) in camera, to protect their identities from being
shared publicly or with Defendants and their counsel. In the event that the
Confidentiality Motion is denied, Plaintiffs request the opportunity to withdraw
Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E hereto in accordance with Local Rule 83.12.
17.

Pursuant to Local Rule 10.2, Plaintiffs are submitting full, signed

copies of Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E hereto for in camera review in sealed
envelopes marked to indicate that they should be so reviewed by the Court. The
Doe Declarants’ names and, in some instances, signing locations have been
redacted on the versions of Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E hereto that are being filed
publicly via the Court’s electronic filing system.

11

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

Washington, DC, October 10, 2017.

/s/ Deirdre Marie-Iha
Deirdre Marie-Iha

12