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)

Download PDF
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: (808) 586-1500 Fax: (808) 586-1239 Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawaii NEAL KUMAR KATYAL* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Fax: (202) 637-5910 *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: (808) 586-1500 Fax: (808) 586-1239 Email: deirdre.marie-iha@hawaii.gov 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: (202) 637-5600 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Email: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com THOMAS P. SCHMIDT* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 Fax: (212) 918-3100 SARA SOLOW* ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1735 Market St., 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 675-4600 Fax: (267) 675-4601 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?