State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al

Filing 125

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion, filed by Amicus International Law Scholars and Nongovernmental Organizations. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/13/2017, (McMillan, Joseph)

Download PDF
Exhibit A 134714847 THE HONORABLE JAMES ROBART 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF INTERNATIONAL LAW SCHOLARS AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 Page I. II. III. 5 6 7 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 A. International Law Is Relevant to Assessing the Legality of the Executive Order. ..................................................................................................................... 2 B. International Law Regarding Discrimination on the Basis of Religion and National Origin ...................................................................................................... 5 1. 2. 8 9 10 IV. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ......................... 5 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ................................................................................ 8 C. Relevant Provisions of the Executive Order ........................................................ 10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – i 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 2 Page 3 U.S. CASES 4 15 F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) ...................................................................................................................4 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).......................................................................................................4 Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) ...................................................................................................................3 Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) ............................................................................................7 Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) .....................................................................................................................7 Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804).......................................................................................................4 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) ...................................................................................................................4 Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801).........................................................................................................4 TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg v. Germany, ____________ [NEED CITE] .................................................................................................10 United States v. The Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1801).....................................................................................................5 16 CONSTITUTION 17 19 U.S. Const. Article II, sec. 3 ............................................................................................................4 U.S. Const. Article VI, cl. 2 .............................................................................................................2 U.S. Constitution Article VI ............................................................................................................4 U.S. Constitution Supremacy Clause ...............................................................................................2 20 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 21 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 1992) (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) ......................................................................................................3, 5 140 Cong. Rec. S7634-02 (daily ed., June 24, 1994) ......................................................................9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 22 23 24 25 26 TREATIES International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) Art. 1(3) ...........................................................................................9 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) Art. 2, paragraph (1)(a) ...................................................................9 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – ii 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 1 2 Page 3 7 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) Art. 5 ...............................................................................................9 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”) Art. 2 ................................ passim International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”) Art. 23 ........................................6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”) Art. 26 ..........................7, 8, 9, 11 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”) supra note 6, art. 22(1) ...........................................................................................................................................7 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 111(3)-(4) (1987) ...........................................2, 4 8 INTERNATIONAL DECLARATIONS 9 11 Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law, 25 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 287 (1995/96) ...........................8 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts. 2, 7, 12, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948) .....................................................................................................................8 12 OTHER INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS 13 21 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 30, para. 4, 64th Sess., U.N. Doc. CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 (2004) .............................................................................................6 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 35: Combating Racist Hate Speech, para. 6, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/OC/35 (2013)............................................................................................................10 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 15, para. 5 (1986), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) ..........................................................................................................7 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, para. 6, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1Rev.1 (1994) .......................................................................................................6, 8 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 19, para. 5 (1990), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) ..........................................................................................................7 State Reports—Convention Against Torture—U.S.A., U.N. Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, para. 57 (Feb. 9, 2000), citing Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1994) ...................................................................................................................4 22 OTHER SOURCES 23 AARON XAVIER FELLMETH, PARADIGMS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 119-21 (2016).............................................................................................................................6 Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1 (June 29, 1793), reprinted in 15 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 33 (Harold C. Syrett ed. 1969) .......................................................5 Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html ..........................11 4 5 6 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – iii 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 1 2 Page 3 Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrim., Commun. No. 48/2010 (Feb. 26, 2013), U.N. Doc. CERD/C/82/D/48/2010 ...............................................................................10 Hearing Before the Comm. on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 101st Cong. (1990) ......................3 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 2(2), Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1976) ..................................................................................................................3 O.A.S. Res. XXX (1948), Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L/V/I.4 rev. 13 (2010) .........................................................8 Sen. Exec. Rpt. 101-30, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification (1990) ........................3 Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, Report on International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, S. Exec. Rep. No. 103-29 (1994) .........................................................................................................................................3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – iv 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 2 3 CONSENT OF THE PARTIES Counsel for Plaintiffs have consented to the filing of this brief. Counsel for Defendants have stated that they take no position with respect to the filing of this brief. 4 5 March 13, 2017 6 7 8 9 By: s/ Aaron X. Fellmeth Aaron X. Fellmeth Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Mail Code 9520 111 E. Taylor St. Phoenix, AZ 85004-4467 Telephone: 480.241.8414 aaron.fellmeth@asu.edu 10 By: s/ Jonathan Hafetz Jonathan Hafetz Seton Hall University School of Law One Newark Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 917.355.6896 jonathan.hafetz@shu.edu 11 12 13 14 15 Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) 16 By: s/ Joseph M. McMillan By: s/ Michelle L. Maley Joseph M. McMillan, WSBA No. 26527 Michelle L. Maley, WSBA No. 51318 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 JMcMillan@perkinscoie.com MMaley@perkinscoie.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Local Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae 24 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 I. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 2 The individual amici whose views are presented here are international law scholars 3 4 specializing in public international law and international human rights law. They include 5 members of the International Human Rights Committee of the International Law Association, 6 American Branch, and the Human Rights Interest Group of the American Society of 7 International Law,2 as well as university professors and practicing lawyers with expertise in these 8 subjects. Amici also include nongovernmental organizations with expertise in civil rights law, 9 immigration law, or international human rights law. Amici submit this brief to vindicate the 10 11 12 13 public interest in ensuring a proper understanding and application of the international human rights law relevant to this case. The nongovernmental organizations and individual scholars are listed in the Appendix. II. 14 INTRODUCTION 15 The purpose of this brief is to bring to the Court’s attention U.S. treaty provisions and 16 customary international law principles that bear on the legality of Executive Order 13780 of 17 March 6, 2017 (“EO”), which replaces the now-rescinded EO dated January 27, 2017. 18 International law, which includes treaties ratified by the United States as well as 19 20 customary international law, is part of U.S. law and must be faithfully executed by the President 21 and enforced by U.S. courts except when clearly inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or 22 subsequent acts of Congress. The United States is a party to and bound by several international 23 24 25 26 1 No counsel for a party has authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or counsel for a party has made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. No person other than amici or its counsel has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E). 2 This brief represents the opinion of the Committee and Interest Group members, not that of the American Society of International Law, International Law Association, or International Law Association American Branch. AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 1 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 human rights treaties relevant to the subject matter of the EO. In assessing the legality of the 2 EO, the Court should be cognizant of those treaty obligations, and of customary international 3 law, which should influence constructions of the U.S. Constitution and statutes that prohibit 4 discrimination based on religion or national origin. 5 In addition, the Immigration and Nationality Act and other statutes must be read in 6 7 harmony with these international legal obligations pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the 8 Constitution and long established principles of statutory construction requiring acts of Congress 9 to be interpreted in a manner consistent with international law, whenever such a construction is 10 reasonably possible. In this case, the international law obligations described below reinforce 11 interpretations of those statutes forbidding discrimination of the type threatened by Sections 2 12 and 11 of the EO. 13 III. 14 15 16 A. ARGUMENT International Law Is Relevant to Assessing the Legality of the Executive Order. International law is relevant to this case because the U.S. Constitution makes treaties part 17 of U.S. law. Customary international law is also part of U.S. law and is enforceable by U.S. 18 courts. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, “treaties made . . . under the authority 19 of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges of every state shall be 20 bound thereby.”3 Although the Constitution does not require legislation prior to treaties taking 21 legal effect, the Supreme Court distinguishes between self-executing and non-self-executing 22 23 treaties.4 The Senate or the President have declared that the relevant human rights treaties to 24 25 26 3 4 U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 111(3)-(4) (1987). AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 2 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 which the United States is a party are non-self-executing.5 Nevertheless, by ratifying those 2 treaties, the United States bound itself to provide judicial or other remedies for violations of 3 treaty obligations.6 Thus, even if the treaty provisions themselves are not directly enforceable in 4 U.S. courts, the rights they grant should be protected by courts through their interpretation of 5 6 constitutional provisions and statutes addressing the same or similar subject matter. 7 This is consistent with the positions taken by both the Executive Branch and Congress in 8 those cases in which Congress has not passed implementing legislation.7 When submitting 9 human rights treaties to the Senate for its advice and consent, both Presidents George H.W. Bush 10 and William Clinton assured the Senate that the United States could and would fulfill its treaty 11 commitments by applying existing federal constitutional and statutory law.8 Courts generally 12 construe federal constitutional and statutory law to be consistent with human rights treaties in 13 14 15 part because the Senate has relied on such assurances as a basis for its consent to ratification.9 The United States acknowledged this principle in its comments to the U.N. Committee Against 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 See, e.g., 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 1992) (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); Sen. Exec. Rpt. 101-30, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification (1990), at II(2) (Convention Against Torture). 6 See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 2(2), Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1976) [hereinafter “CCPR”]. 7 See, e.g., U.N. Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, paras. 58-60 (“Where domestic law already makes adequate provision for the requirements of the treaty and is sufficient to enable the United States to meet its international obligations, the United States does not generally believe it necessary to adopt implementing legislation.”). 8 During Senate hearings on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), June 26, 1987, 1465 U.N.T.S. 113, the State Department Legal Advisor told the Senate: “Any public official in the United States, at any level of government, who inflicts torture . . . would be subject to an effective system of control and punishment in the U.S. legal system.” Hearing Before the Comm. on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 101st Cong. (1990), at 8. Similarly, with respect to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), Dec. 21, 1965, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, the Clinton Administration told the Senate: “As was the case with the prior treaties, existing U.S. law provides extensive protections and remedies sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the present Convention.” Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, Report on International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, S. Exec. Rep. No. 103-29, at 25-26 (1994). 9 See, e.g., Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 426 (1984). AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 3 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 Torture: “Even where a treaty is ‘non-self-executing,’ courts may nonetheless take notice of the 2 obligations of the United States thereunder in an appropriate case and may refer to the principles 3 and objectives thereof, as well as to the stated policy reasons for ratification.”10 “Taking notice” 4 of treaty obligations comports with a core principle of statutory construction announced by the 5 6 Supreme Court in Murray v. The Charming Betsy: “[A]n act of Congress ought never to be 7 construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.” 11 That 8 doctrine has been consistently and recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.12 9 Moreover, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 10 observed that a treaty that is not self-executing may provide evidence of customary international 11 law.13 Customary international law must be enforced in U.S. courts even in the absence of 12 implementing legislation, regardless of whether customary rules appear in a treaty. 14 In The 13 14 Paquete Habana, the Supreme Court held that customary international law “is part of our law” 15 and directly enforceable in courts when no conflicting treaty, legislative act, or judicial decision 16 controls.15 As discussed below, several human rights treaty rules applicable in this case are also 17 customary international law. 18 19 The President is also obligated to respect international law pursuant to his constitutional duty faithfully to execute the law.16 Because Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties the 20 21 10 22 23 24 25 26 State Reports—Convention Against Torture—U.S.A., U.N. Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, para. 57 (Feb. 9, 2000) (citing Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1994)). 11 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804); accord Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1, 43 (1801). 12 See, e.g., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004). 13 630 F.2d 876, 882 n.9 (2d Cir. 1980). 14 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 111(3). 15 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900); see also Filartiga, 603 F.2d at 886 (“Appellees . . . advance the proposition that the law of nations forms a part of the laws of the United States only to the extent that Congress has acted to define it. This extravagant claim is amply refuted by the numerous decisions applying rules of international law uncodified by any act of Congress.”). 16 U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 3. AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 4 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 supreme law of the land, the President is constitutionally required to comply with U.S. treaty 2 obligations as well as with customary international law. This was the intent of the Framers. 17 3 Courts therefore have a duty to restrain federal executive action that conflicts with a duly ratified 4 treaty. As the Supreme Court wrote in ordering the President to restore a French merchant ship 5 6 to its owner pursuant to a treaty obligation: “The constitution of the United States declares a 7 treaty to be the supreme law of the land. Of consequence its obligation on the courts of the 8 United States must be admitted.”18 9 Even if the President were not directly bound by international law, however, he is still 10 obligated to comply with the Constitution itself and all applicable legislation enacted by 11 Congress within its authority, which (as noted) must be interpreted in a manner consistent with 12 international law whenever possible. 13 The following sections identify the treaties and customary international law relevant to 14 15 the legality of the EO. 16 B. International Law Regarding Discrimination on the Basis of Religion and National Origin 17 1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 18 Discrimination based on religion or national origin is prohibited by the International 19 20 21 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”). The United States ratified the CCPR in 1992.19 22 Article 2 of the CCPR states in relevant part: 23 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights 24 25 26 17 Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1 (June 29, 1793), reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33, 33-43 (Harold C. Syrett ed. 1969). 18 United States v. The Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 109 (1801). 19 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed., Apr. 2, 1992). AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 5 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, . . . religion, . . . national or social origin, . . . or other status. 2 3 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: 4 5 6 7 8 (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; 9 10 11 (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (“HRC”) is charged by the CCPR to 12 monitor implementation by state parties and to issue guidance on its proper interpretation. The 13 14 HRC interprets article 2 to prohibit “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference” based 15 on a prohibited ground, and which has “the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the 16 recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing.”20 To justify a derogation 17 from the nondiscrimination (or any other human rights) duty, a measure must pursue a legitimate 18 aim and be proportionate to that aim.21 A “proportionate” measure is one effective at achieving 19 the aim and narrowly tailored (or “necessary”) to it.22 20 21 22 23 The substantive rights guaranteed by the CCPR, which must be protected without discrimination based on religion or national origin under article 2, include the protection of the family. Article 23 provides in relevant part: “The family is the natural and fundamental group 24 25 20 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, para. 6, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1Rev.1 at 26 (1994). Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 30, para. 4, 64th Sess., U.N. Doc. CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 (2004). 22 See Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law 119-21 (2016). 21 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 6 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”23 The HRC has interpreted this 2 right to include living together, which in turn obligates the state to adopt appropriate measures 3 “to ensure the unity or reunification of families, particularly when their members are separated 4 for political, economic or similar reasons.”24 5 Restrictions on travel and entry caused by the EO that impose disparate and unreasonable 6 7 burdens on the exercise of this right violate CCPR article 2. The HRC has explained that, 8 although the CCPR does not generally 9 recognize a right of aliens to enter or reside in the territory of a State party . . . , in certain circumstances an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant even in relation to entry or residence, for example, when considerations of nondiscrimination, prohibition of inhuman treatment and respect for family life arise.25 10 11 12 Thus, the right of entry is not beyond the scope of the CCPR. On the contrary, the 13 14 CCPR’s nondiscrimination principles and protections for family life should be considered by 15 courts in interpreting government measures affecting family unification. 16 protection for family life is consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence respecting the role of 17 due process of law in governmental decisions affecting family unity.26 18 This treaty-based More generally, article 26 of the CCPR prohibits discrimination in any government 19 measure, regardless of whether the measure violates a Covenant right: 20 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against 21 22 23 23 24 24 CCPR, supra note 6, art. 22(1). Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 19, para. 5 (1990), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 28 (1994). 25 25 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 15, para. 5 (1986), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 18 (1994). 26 26 See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34, 37 (1982); Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140–41 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 7 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 2 3 As interpreted by the HRC and consistent with its wording, this provision “prohibits 4 discrimination in law or fact in any field regulated” by the government.27 Notably, unlike CCPR 5 article 2, the equal protection provisions of CCPR article 26 lack article 2’s limitation to “all 6 individuals within [the state party’s] territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” 7 The nondiscrimination provisions of the CCPR are also customary international law 8 binding on the United States, forming part of U.S. law unless contrary to the Constitution or a 9 10 11 statute. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States approved in 1948, mandates nondiscrimination in religion and national origin, equal protection of the law, and 12 protection from arbitrary interference in family life.28 The American Declaration of the Rights 13 and Duties of Man, which the United States approved when it signed and ratified the Charter of 14 the Organization of American States the same year, has similar provisions in articles 6 and 17.29 15 These nondiscrimination principles and the right to family unity have become sufficiently 16 widespread and accepted by the international community that they have entered into customary 17 18 international law in the present day.30 2. 19 20 21 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) also bars discrimination based on national origin. The United States has been a party 22 23 27 28 24 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, supra note 20, para. 12 (emphasis added). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts. 2, 7, 12, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948). 25 26 29 O.A.S. Res. XXX (1948), Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L/V/I.4 rev. 13, at 13 (2010). 30 See Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law, 25 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 287, 329 (1995/96). AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 8 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 to the CERD since 1994.31 Under article 2, paragraph (1)(a), each state party commits to 2 refraining from and prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination, and each further undertakes “to 3 4 engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination . . . and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national or local, shall act in conformity with this obligation.” CERD 5 6 defines “racial discrimination” to include distinctions and restrictions based on national origin.32 7 With regard to immigration practices, CERD makes clear that states are free to adopt only such 8 “nationality, citizenship or naturalization” policies that “do not discriminate against any 9 particular nationality.”33 Like the nondiscrimination provisions of CCPR article 26, CERD 10 article 2 does not limit its application to citizens or resident noncitizens. While CERD does not 11 speak specifically to restrictions on entry of nonresident aliens, the general language of CERD 12 expresses a clear intention to eliminate discrimination based on race or national origin from all 13 14 areas of government activity: “States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial 15 discrimination in all its forms . . . without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic 16 origin . . . .”34 17 Article 4 of CERD further provides that state parties “[s]hall not permit public authorities 18 or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination,” which (as 19 noted) includes discrimination based on national origin. The Committee on the Elimination of 20 21 22 Racial Discrimination, the body of independent experts appointed to monitor CERD’s implementation, interprets article 4 to require states to combat speech stigmatizing or 23 24 25 31 See 140 Cong. Rec. S7634-02 (daily ed., June 24, 1994). Id. art. 1(1). 33 Id. art. 1(3). 34 Id. art. 5. 32 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 9 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 stereotyping non-citizens generally, immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers,35 with statements 2 by high-ranking officials causing “particular concern.”36 3 In TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg v. Germany, for example, the Committee specifically determined that 4 Germany violated the Convention when it failed to discipline or punish a minor government 5 6 official who had inter alia drawn attention to low employment rates of Turkish and Arab 7 populations in Germany, suggested their unwillingness to integrate into German society, and 8 proposed that their immigration should be discouraged.37 These statements, the Committee 9 determined, implied “generalized negative characteristics of the Turkish population” and incited 10 racial discrimination.38 11 The legality of the EO in this case, and the proper interpretation of the statutes and 12 constitutional provisions cited by the parties, should be assessed with those proscriptions in 13 14 mind. Those international law principles require courts to reject any attempt by the President to 15 define classes based on national origin or religion, and then to impose on those classes disparate 16 treatment, except to the extent necessary to achieve a legitimate government purpose. 17 C. 18 19 20 Relevant Provisions of the Executive Order Section 2 categorically suspends immigration from six specified countries—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and imposes special requirements on immigrants from Iraq. Section 2(a), moreover, authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to demand “certain 21 22 information” from “particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.” 23 24 25 26 35 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 35: Combating Racist Hate Speech, para. 6, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/OC/35 (2013). 36 Id. para. 22. 37 Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrim., Commun. No. 48/2010 (Feb. 26, 2013), U.N. Doc. CERD/C/82/D/48/2010. 38 Id. para. 12.6. AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 10 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 The EO thus makes an explicit distinction based on national origin that, unless necessary 2 and narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government aim, would violate U.S. obligations 3 under international law. In effect, the EO also makes a distinction based on religion, as plaintiffs 4 have argued. Notably, every one of the designated countries has a population that is 5 6 overwhelmingly Muslim,39 and the EO does not suspend immigration from any state with a non- 7 Muslim majority, including some countries identified by the United States as state sponsors of 8 terrorism. 9 International law is also relevant to Section 11 of the EO, which requires the Secretary of 10 Homeland Security to “collect and make publicly available” certain information relating inter 11 alia to convictions of terrorism-related offenses, government charges of terrorism, and “gender- 12 based violence against women” by foreign nationals. The EO requires no publication of similar 13 14 information relating to U.S. nationals. By mandating that the Secretary publish pejorative 15 information about noncitizens without publishing comparable information about U.S. citizens, 16 Section 11 makes a suspect distinction based on national origin. While Section 11 has not been 17 challenged specifically by the plaintiffs, it may bear on the intent to discriminate, because the 18 decision to publish derogatory information about noncitizens alone is stigmatizing, and appears 19 to be motivated by a desire to characterize noncitizens as more prone to terrorism or gender20 21 22 23 based violence than U.S. citizens. Apart from what it may indicate with respect to intent, a measure designed to stigmatize noncitizens cannot be proportionate and thus violates article 26 of the CCPR and articles 2 and 4 of the CERD. 24 25 26 39 See Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-worldfactbook/geos/xx.html. AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 11 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 IV. 1 2 3 4 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, amici request that the Court consider U.S. obligations under international law, which forms part of U.S. law, in evaluating the legality of the EO. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of March, 2017. 5 6 By: s/ Aaron X. Fellmeth Aaron X. Fellmeth Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Mail Code 9520 111 E. Taylor St. Phoenix, AZ 85004-4467 Telephone: 480.241.8414 aaron.fellmeth@asu.edu 7 8 9 10 11 By: s/ Jonathan Hafetz Jonathan Hafetz Seton Hall University School of Law One Newark Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 917.355.6896 jonathan.hafetz@shu.edu 12 13 14 15 16 Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) 17 18 By: s/ Joseph M. McMillan By: s/ Michelle L. Maley Joseph M. McMillan, WSBA No. 26527 Michelle L. Maley, WSBA No. 51318 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 JMcMillan@perkinscoie.com MMaley@perkinscoie.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 Local Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 12 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 2 3 APPENDIX The amici are nongovernmental organizations and legal scholars specializing in public international law and international human rights law. They have substantial expertise in issues 4 directly affecting the outcome of this case. These amici are identified below. 5 6 Organizations 7 8 Human Rights Advocates Legal Aid Society (New York) Human Rights & Gender Justice Clinic, City University of New York School of Law MADRE 9 10 11 12 National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty International Association of Democratic Lawyers National Lawyers Guild 13 14 15 International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination Secular Communities of Arizona T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights International Justice Project 16 International Justice Resource Center 17 18 Individuals 19 20 21 Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only; opinions in this brief do not reflect those of any affiliated organization. 22 23 1. William Aceves, Dean Steven R. Smith Professor of Law, California Western School of Law 24 25 26 2. Dr. Johannes van Aggelen, former senior human rights official, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 3. Wanda M. Akin, Esq., Co-Founder, International Justice Project AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 13 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 2 3 4. Shifa Alkhatib, Esq., Phoenix, AZ 5. Don Anton, Professor of International Law & Director, Law Future Centre, Griffith University Law School, Australia 4 6. Paige Berges, Esq., London, United Kingdom 5 6 7 7. Wendi Warren H. Binford, Associate Professor of Law; Director, Clinical Law Program, Willamette University 8 8. Carolyn Patty Blum, Interim Director, Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School 9 9. Anthony P.X. Bothwell, Esq., Law Offices of Anthony P.X. Bothwell 10 11 10. Bill Bowring, Professor & Director of the LLM/MA in Human Rights, University of London, Birkbeck College School of Law, U.K. 12 11. Raymond M. Brown, Co-Founder, International Justice Project 13 12. Gráinne de Búrca, Florence Ellinwood Allen Professor of Law, New York University Law School 14 15 13. Elizabeth Burleson, Esq., Greenwich, CT 16 14. Roderick P. Bushnell, Esq., Law Offices of Roderick P. Bushnell, San Francisco, CA 17 15. Linda Carter, Professor of Law Emerita, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law 18 19 16. Dr. Grace Cheng, Associate Professor of Political Science, Hawai’i Pacific University 20 17. Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita, Thomas Jefferson School of Law 21 18. Jorge Contesse, Assistant Professor, Rutgers (Newark) Law School 22 19. Michael D. Cooper, Managing Director, The Ploughshare Group LLC 23 20. Omar Dajani, Professor, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law 24 25 26 21. Thomas A. Dallal, Esq., Deputy Director, Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Resource Center, Jerusalem 22. Margaret M. deGuzman, Associate Professor, Temple University, Beasley School of Law AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 14 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 2 3 23. Daniel H. Derby, Professor, Touro Law Center 24. Margaret Drew, Associate Professor & Director, Human Rights at Home Clinic, University of Massachusetts Law School 4 25. Ariel Dulitzky, Clinical Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law 5 6 7 26. Monica Feltz, Esq., Executive Director, International Justice Project 27. Martin S. Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor of International Human Rights Law, CoDirector, Leitner Center for International Law & Justice, Fordham Law School 8 28. Daniel Fullerton, Counsel, Public International Law & Policy Group 9 10 11 29. Hannah Garry, Clinical Professor of Law & Director, International Human Rights Clinic, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law 12 30. Seyedeh Shannon Ghadiri-Asli, Legal Office, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 13 31. Peter Halewood, Professor of Law, Albany Law School 14 32. Alexandra Harrington, Adjunct Professor, Albany Law School 15 33. Deena Hurwitz, Esq., Charlottesville, VA 16 34. Dr. Alice de Jonge, Senior Lecturer, Monash University, Australia 17 18 35. Christine Keller, Esq., Legal Officer, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 19 20 21 22 36. Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Telford Taylor Visiting Clinical Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 37. Nigel N.T. Li, President, International Law Association, Chinese (Taiwan) Branch; Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law 23 38. Robert Lutz, Paul E. Treusch Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School 24 39. Daniel Barstow Magraw, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute and Professorial Lecturer, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies 25 26 40. Anna R. Maitland, Schuette Clinical Fellow, Center for International Human Rights, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 15 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 2 3 41. Kathleen Maloney, Adjunct Professor, Lewis & Clark School of Law 42. Annette M. Martínez-Orabona, Adjunct Professor, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico, School of Law 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 43. Thomas M. McDonnell, Professor of Law, Pace University, Elisabeth Haub School of Law 44. Jeanne Mirer, Esq., President, International Association of Democratic Lawyers 45. Catherine Moore, LLB, LLM, Coordinator for International Law Programs, University of Baltimore School of Law 46. Steven S. Nam, Distinguished Practitioner, Center for East Asian Studies, Stanford University 47. Dr. Andrew Novak, Term Assistant Professor of Criminology, Law & Society, George Mason University 12 48. Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan, President, National Lawyers Guild 13 14 49. Aparna Polavarapu, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina School of Law 15 50. Dianne Post, Esq., Central Arizona National Lawyers Guild 16 51. William Quigley, Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans, Loyola College of Law 17 18 52. Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Professor of Law & Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 19 20 21 22 53. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, I. Herman Stern Professor of Law, Temple University, Beasley School of Law 54. Nicole Rangel, Esq., Associate Legal Officer, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 23 55. Marny Requa, Associate Professor, Georgian Court University (Lakewood, NJ) 24 56. Nani Jansen Reventlow, Associate Tenant, Doughty Street Chambers, U.K. 25 57. Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi, Director, International Human Rights Clinic, Santa Clara University School of Law 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 16 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 58. Gabor Rona, Visiting Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School 2 59. Joshua Root, Esq., Instructor of Human Rights and International Law, Newport, RI 3 4 5 6 7 60. Leila Sadat, Henry H. Oberschelp Professor of Law; Director, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute, Washington University School of Law 61. Margaret L. Satterthwaite, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law 62. Beth Van Schaack, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School 8 9 10 63. Mortimer Sellers, Regents Professor and Director, Center for International and Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law 11 64. Corey Shenkman, Esq., Principal Investigator, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding 12 65. Dr. Anette Sikka, Asisstant Professor of Legal Studies, University of Illinois, Springfield 13 66. Matiangai Sirleaf, Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh Law School 14 67. David L. Sloss, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University Law School 15 68. Rachel A. Smith, International Law Association, American Branch, Program Director 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 69. Juliet S. Sorensen, Harry R. Horrow Professor of International Law, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law 70. Dr. Michael Stein, Executive Director & Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School Project on Disability 71. Milena Sterio, Professor of Law & Associate Dean, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law 72. Jessica Stern, Executive Director, OutRight Action International 23 73. Anastasia Sarantos Taskin, Esq., Taskin Law & Mediation 24 74. Juliet S. Sorensen, Harry R. Horrow Professor of International Law, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law 25 26 75. Beth Stephens, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers (Camden) Law School AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 17 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 1 76. Dr. Tara Van Ho, Assistant Professor, Aarhus University Department of Law 2 77. Constance de la Vega, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco 3 78. Meghan Waters, Esq., Denver, CO 4 79. Dr. Ralph Wilde, Reader, University College of London Faculty of Laws, U.K. 5 6 7 80. Matthew Zagor, Associate Professor, Australia National University College of Law 81. Katja Ziegler, Sir Robert Jennings Professor International Law, Director, Centre of European Law and Internationalisation, University of Leicester School of Law, U.K. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 18 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I hereby certify that on March 13, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 3 of the Court using the United States District Court ECF system, which will send notification of 4 such filing to all attorneys of record. 5 DATED: March 13, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 By: s/ Aaron X. Fellmeth Aaron X. Fellmeth Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Mail Code 9520 111 E. Taylor St. Phoenix, AZ 85004-4467 Telephone: 480.241.8414 aaron.fellmeth@asu.edu By: s/ Jonathan Hafetz Jonathan Hafetz Seton Hall University School of Law One Newark Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 917.355.6896 jonathan.hafetz@shu.edu 12 13 14 15 Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) 16 17 23 By: s/ Joseph M. McMillan By: s/ Michelle L. Maley Joseph M. McMillan, WSBA No. 26527 Michelle L. Maley, WSBA No. 51318 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 JMcMillan@perkinscoie.com MMaley@perkinscoie.com 24 Local Counsel for Proposed Amici Curiae 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 AMICUS BRIEF OF INT’L LAW SCHOLARS AND NGOS (NO. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR) – 1 134622511 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000

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?