International Refugee Assistance Project et al v. Trump et al
MOTION for Leave to File Brief As Amicus Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs by Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program's Amicus Brief)(Salzman, Donald)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as :
President of the United States, et al.,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
Amicus curiae, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC), respectfully
moves this Court for leave to file the attached Brief of Amicus Curiae in support of the Plaintiffs
IRAP, et al. For over thirty years, HIRC, in partnership with Greater Boston Legal Services, has
focused on the direct representation of individuals applying for U.S. asylum and related
protections, as well as on the representation of individuals who seek avoidance of forced removal
in immigration proceedings. With the help of law school students, HIRC represents victims of
human rights abuses from all over the world, including from countries affected by the January
27, 2017 Executive Order that is at issue in this case. Executive Order 13769, Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017).
Accordingly, HIRC and its clients have a direct interest in the outcome of the abovereferenced case. In light of HIRC’s familiarity and experience with refugee law and the
legislative history of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the proposed amicus brief focuses on
refugee law and legislative history, as well as on issues of statutory interpretation and the
interplay between INA § 212(f)—the authority on which much of the Executive Order relies—
and other provisions of the INA.
“The decision to grant leave to proceed as amici at the trial court level is discretionary.”
Bryant v. Better Bus. Bureau of Greater Maryland, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 720, 728 (D. Md. 1996).
“The aid of amici curiae has been allowed at the trial level where they provide helpful analysis
of the law, they have a special interest in the subject matter of the suit, or existing counsel is in
need of assistance.” Id. (recognizing that amici “represent large constituencies of individuals
which have a vested interest in how the provisions of the [law at stake] are construed and
applied,” “have not enlarged the issues presented by the parties,” and “can be useful in resolving
the issues presented by the parties.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Am. Humanist Ass’n v.
Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 303 F.R.D. 266, 269 (D. Md. 2014)
(allowing amicus brief where “[p]rospective [a]mici have demonstrated a special interest in the
outcome of the suit”).
Counsel for Plaintiffs has indicated to the undersigned counsel that the Plaintiffs consent
to the filing of an amicus brief in this matter. Counsel for the Defendant has indicated to the
undersigned counsel that the United States takes no position on the request by HIRC to file an
amicus brief in this matter.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the Court’s permission to file an
amicus brief in the aforementioned matter.
John Willshire Carrera*
HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND
REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM
6 Everett Street, WCC 3106
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Phone: (617) 384-8165
Donald Salzman (Bar #: 16501)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
1440 New York Avenue NW
Phone: (202) 371-7983
Fax: (202) 661-9063
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
*Not admitted in this jurisdiction
Dated: March 2, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 2, 2017, I caused a PDF version of the foregoing ‘Motion
for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ to be electronically transmitted
via the Court’s CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all
Donald P. Salzman (Bar #: 16501)
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?