International Refugee Assistance Project et al v. Trump et al

Filing 183

NOTICE by Daniel Coats, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, John F. Kelly, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Rex W. Tillerson, Donald J. Trump re 93 Amended Complaint re Intent to File Unopposed Motion to Stay Response Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Garg, Arjun)

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Via U.S. Mail:
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Arjun Garg
Trial Attorney

Via Courier:
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
[e-mail]

April 14, 2017
The Honorable Theodore D. Chuang
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, MD 20770

Re:

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-000361-TDC

Dear Judge Chuang:
We write pursuant to Section II.A of the Case Management Order in connection with the
April 17, 2017 deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Defendants seek leave, should the Court find it necessary, to file an unopposed motion to
stay that response deadline pending resolution of the appeal of this Court’s preliminary injunction
of Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780. Absent such a stay, Defendants would file a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), raising many of the same arguments
they raised in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction—arguments that are now
before the Fourth Circuit. Consistent with this Court’s analysis in its April 10, 2017 Order,
resolution of the appeal “would provide this Court with useful guidance on how to resolve the
issues to be presented” in a motion to dismiss, and staying the deadline in the interim would
“conserve the resources of both the Court and the parties.” ECF No. 182 at 5-6. The Court, of
course, “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own
docket,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), and may exercise that discretion to promote
“economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” DeRosa v. Walsh, 541 F.
App’x 250, 252 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
Counsel for Defendants has consulted with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who state that Plaintiffs
consent to the requested relief. The parties have mutually agreed on a proposed order that is
submitted with this letter for the Court’s consideration.
In the alternative, Defendants seek leave to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Defendants expect to argue under Rule 12(b)(1) that Plaintiffs’
challenge is not justiciable and under Rule 12(b)(6) that Plaintiffs fail to state claims upon which
relief can be granted.

2
Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
United States Attorney
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Arjun Garg
ARJUN GARG (Bar No. 806537)
MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Bar No. 806456)
DANIEL SCHWEI
BRAD P. ROSENBERG
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants