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)

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
[e-mail]

10

By: s/ Jonathan Hafetz
Jonathan Hafetz
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11

By: s/ Jonathan Hafetz
Jonathan Hafetz
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
[e-mail]
By: s/ Jonathan Hafetz
Jonathan Hafetz
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]