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

Filing 94

MOTION to Intervene Attorney Scott J Kaplan added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla), filed by Plaintiff State of Oregon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to State of Oregon's Motion to Intervene) Noting Date 3/17/2017, (Kaplan, Scott)

Download PDF
The Honorable James L. Robart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 11 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 16 17 STATE OF OREGON, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE Intervenor-Plaintiff v. NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: March 17, 2017 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; REX TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Defendants 26 STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 1 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 2 I. MOTION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, the State of Oregon moves to intervene as of right. Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 24(a)(2). In the alternative, the State of Oregon moves for permissive intervention. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). This motion is based on the declarations of Tobias Read, Howard N. 5 Kenyon, Janet Billups, Richard Birkel, David G. Ellis, Margaret Everett, Dennis Galvan, Lee Po 6 Cha, Ronald L. Adams, and Marc Overbeck, the pleadings and papers on file herein, and the 7 accompanying points and authorities. The State of Oregon’s proposed Complaint-in-Intervention 8 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 9 10 II. INTRODUCTION On January 27, 2017, after campaigning on a promise to impose “a total and complete 11 shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” (Dkt. #18, ¶¶ 42-43), President Donald J. 12 Trump signed Executive Order No. 13769, which he titled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign 13 Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). (Dkt. #18, ¶ 49). The State of 14 Washington filed suit in this Court on January 30 (Dkt. #1, 3), soon joined by the State of 15 Minnesota, to enjoin enforcement of certain portions of the Executive Order. (Dkt. #18, 19). In 16 particular, Washington and Minnesota allege that the Executive Order is motivated by a 17 discriminatory animus toward Muslims, violates a host of federal constitutional protections, and 18 runs afoul of several federal statutes. They further allege that the Executive Order harms their 19 state interests and the interests of their residents. 20 Oregon is both similarly and uniquely harmed. The Executive Order has caused—and 21 threatens to further cause—harm to Oregon and its residents, employers, agencies, educational 22 institutions, healthcare system, and economy. Moreover, the Executive Order forces Oregon to 23 violate its own laws against discrimination, frustrating Oregon’s sovereign interest in providing a 24 welcoming home to people from all over the world. In order to vindicate its rights and to protect 25 its unique interests, and because no party would be prejudiced by Oregon’s participation in this 26 matter, Oregon now seeks to intervene. STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 2 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 The procedural and substantive facts underlying this litigation are familiar to this Court 3 and were recently set forth at length by published order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 4 See Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497, at *1–*2 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017) 5 (recounting facts). In the interests of judicial efficiency and economy, Oregon does not recount 6 that history in detail here. Any additional facts relevant to Oregon’s claims are set forth below, as 7 appropriate. 8 IV. ARGUMENT 9 “Intervention is governed by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 24(a) and (b).” In re Estate of 10 Ferdinand E. Marcos Hum. Rts. Litig., 536 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, Oregon is 11 entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). In the alternative, this court should permit 12 Oregon to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). 13 A. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Oregon has a Right to Intervene Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Oregon has a right to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). That rule provides, in pertinent part: On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: . . . (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). This Court examines four factors to determine whether an applicant should be permitted 21 to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2): (1) the motion must be timely; (2) the 22 applicant must have a “significantly protectable interest” relating to the property or transaction 23 which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the 24 action may impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s 25 interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 26 STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 3 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Oregon’s motion satisfies each of these 2 factors. 3 1. 4 Oregon plainly meets the timeliness factor. To determine whether a motion to intervene is Oregon’s motion is timely. 5 timely, this Court considers (1) “the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to 6 intervene,” (2) “the prejudice to other parties,” and (3) “the reason for and length of the delay.” 7 United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, as the Ninth Circuit 8 observed less than two weeks ago, this case is at a “very preliminary stage” of the proceedings. 9 See Washington, 2017 WL 526497, at *1. This case has not substantially progressed since that 10 time—for example, discovery has not commenced, nor has this Court held evidentiary 11 proceedings. In the absence of any such additional proceedings, defendants cannot plausibly 12 claim that intervention would result in any form of prejudice. Moreover, any delay in 13 intervention has been short and reasonably attributable to the need to gather evidence. Cf. Day v. 14 Apoliona, 505 F.3d 963, 965–66 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding motion timely when made two years 15 after case was filed); Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843, 854 (9th Cir. 2016) 16 (finding motion timely when made twenty years after case was filed). Accordingly, Oregon’s 17 motion is timely. 18 2. 19 Oregon also meets the second factor, because it has a “significantly protectable interest” Oregon has a “significantly protectable interest” related to this case. 20 related to this case. See Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1083 (stating requirement). A significantly 21 protectable interest exists where “the interest is protectable under some law, and . . . there is a 22 relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue.” Id. at 1084 (quotation 23 marks and citation omitted). The “relationship” requirement is generally met where the 24 “resolution of the plaintiff's claims actually will affect the applicant.” Id. (quotation marks and 25 26 STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 4 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 citation omitted). Here, Oregon holds a number of legally protected interests that actually will 2 be affected by the resolution of this litigation.1 3 Effect on Oregon’s Finances 4 First, Oregon’s own finances will suffer if the unlawful immigration ban is enforced. Of 5 Oregon’s $92 billion investment portfolio, more than 19 million shares are held in technology 6 companies who have expressed alarm at the likely impacts of the Executive Order on their 7 businesses. (See Declaration of Tobias Read, ¶¶ 6-12). Additionally, because Oregon 8 companies employ immigrants, refugees, and others who would be affected by the ban in more 9 indirect ways (such as spouses of immigrants), threats to Oregon’s companies will result in 10 serious risks to Oregon’s financial investments, credit ratings, companies, and tax revenue. (See 11 Read Dec., ¶¶ 5-13.). 12 Effect on Oregon’s Educational Institutions 13 Second, the Executive Order harms Oregon’s educational institutions. Oregon has 7 state 14 universities, 17 community colleges, and at least 12 to 20 private colleges and universities. 15 Hundreds of students and professors at those universities and colleges are from one of the seven 16 countries covered by the Muslim travel ban. As a result, the work of those colleges is adversely 17 affected by the ban. For example, of the 3,016 international students currently studying at the 18 University of Oregon (“UO”), a public research university, 38 are citizens of the seven affected 19 countries, and are here on valid student visas. International students typically pay substantially 20 more than in-state students, providing more than $100 million in tuition each year, in total. That 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 “In general, an applicant for intervention need not establish Article III standing to intervene.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 906 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); but see Laroe Estates, Inc. v. Town of Chester, 828 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. granted sub nom. Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., No. 16-605, 2017 WL 125674 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2017) (noting that “there is a circuit split on this issue”). To the extent that Oregon is required to demonstrate Article III standing in order to intervene, it has standing for the same reasons that the Ninth Circuit concluded that Washington and Minnesota have standing. See Washington, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 526497, at *3–*5, *5 n 5 (concluding that the States had standing to challenge the harm to their proprietary interests at a minimum). STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 5 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 tuition allows UO to subsidize Oregon students. (See Declaration of Dennis Galvan, ¶¶ 7-8). 2 The Executive Order damages UO’s funding, its ability to attract international students, and its 3 ability to retain faculty who may not be able to return to the United States after travel. (Id., ¶¶ 9- 4 17). 5 Similarly, Portland State University (“PSU”) has over 1900 international students, 59 of 6 whom are citizens of five of the countries affected by the Executive Order: Iran, Iraq, Yemen, 7 Libya and Syria. (Declaration of Margaret Everett, ¶ 7). PSU also relies on tuition from 8 international students, which constituted approximately 13 percent of its net tuition and fees for 9 2015-2016. (Id., ¶ 8). PSU admitted thirteen international students from the affected countries 10 for the Spring 2017 term. Their tuition revenue will be lost if they are unable to travel to 11 Oregon. (Id., ¶ 16). The Executive Order has also damaged research being conducted at PSU. 12 For example, a researcher who is an Iranian national was conducting research funded by a 13 university in Finland related to water resources engineering in collaboration with faculty in 14 PSU’s Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Sciences. He returned to Finland over the 15 winter break and was scheduled to leave Europe to return to the United States on January 27, 16 2017. He was not allowed to board his flight, despite holding a valid J-1 visa. To date, the 17 visiting researcher has not returned to PSU and it is unclear at this time whether he will do so, 18 thereby harming this important research. (Id., ¶ 13). 19 Oregon State University (“OSU”) has 3,529 international students enrolled, comprising 20 more than 11 percent of its student body of 30,354 students. Approximately 165 current students 21 are citizens of the affected countries, studying in Oregon on student visas. As with other students 22 from outside Oregon, those 165 students typically pay full non-resident rates; OSU’s international 23 students represent approximately $85 million in annual gross tuition revenue to OSU. (See 24 Declaration of Ronald Adams, ¶¶ 5-8.) Those students, as well as the school’s international 25 scholars (faculty, post-doctoral students, and others) are all affected by the Executive Order in 26 STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 6 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 ways that are affecting OSU’s resources and staff, and draining away time and resources that 2 otherwise would be spent on other community needs. (Id., ¶¶ 9-19.) 3 Oregon’s private colleges and universities are also affected by the Executive Order, 4 resulting in a loss of tax dollars, employment, and diversity that these students bring to the state. 5 For example, Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon has approximately 200 international 6 students from six continents and more than 70 counties. (Declaration of David G. Ellis, ¶ 4. 7 Lewis & Clark has at least one student from the affected counties who cannot participate in the 8 college’s overseas study program. (Id., ¶ 5-6). Additionally, if the Executive Order takes effect, 9 it will harm the college’s efforts to recruit international students, causing not only a loss of tuition 10 revenue, but also harming Lewis & Clark’s efforts to foster a diverse and global student body. 11 (Id., ¶ 8) 12 Impact on Oregon’s Voluntary Organizations 13 Third, the Executive Order harms Oregon’s voluntary organizations (“VOLAGS”) that 14 work in the field of refugee resettlement. Since 2010, more than 8,500 refugees have arrived in 15 Oregon, with the majority resettling in Portland, and the numbers have steadily increased each 16 year. Three of the six most common refugee groups come from Iran, Iraq, and Somalia.2 Once 17 those refugees arrive in Oregon, the resettlement process is facilitated by VOLAGS. But if the 18 immigration ban is enforced, Oregon VOLAGS will lose federal funding for refugee resettlement 19 programs, which will force those organizations to lay off staff and reduce operations—resulting 20 in a loss of tax revenue to Oregon. (See generally Declaration of Howard N. Kenyon; 21 Declaration of Richard Birkel; Declaration of Lee Po Cha). 22 23 24 25 26 2 See Refugees in Oregon Data, Oregon Department of Human Services, available online at (last accessed Feb. 21, 2017). STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 7 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 Impact on Oregon’s Health Care System 2 Fourth, the Executive Order harms Oregon’s health care system. Six medical residents at 3 Oregon Health & Science University—a public academic medical center—are from the countries 4 affected by the Executive Order. Those residents perform critically needed medical care in a 5 variety of fields. If they were prevented from returning to the United States after a trip abroad, 6 or if they left the country due to the effects of the Executive Order, OHSU likely would not be 7 able to replace them. As a result, OHSU would lack the necessary work force to provide the 8 services currently provided by those Residents. The loss of even one Resident to a program 9 carries a very high risk of an adverse impact on OHSU’s ability to provide the patient care that 10 11 the State of Oregon and Oregonians need. (See Declaration of Janet Billups ¶¶ 3, 5, 7-9). The Executive Order also threatens Oregon’s ability to attract and retain physicians to 12 practice in rural and underserved areas, though the J-1 visa program. (See Declaration of Marc 13 Overbeck, ¶¶ 3-6). Already, one physician from a country affected by the Executive Order who 14 had been willing to work in Florence, Oregon, an area affected by a physician shortage, has 15 indicated through his counsel that because of the Executive Order, he was unlikely to obtain a 16 visa. (Overbeck Dec., ¶ 4). Currently, J-1 visa physicians from Iran and Iraq are practicing in 17 underserved areas in Oregon. Without those J-1 visa physicians, Oregon patients will have to 18 either delay treatment or travel farther to obtain it, resulting in additional Oregon Health Plan and 19 Medicare Costs to the State. (See Overbeck Dec., ¶¶ 5-6.). 20 21 Impact on Oregon’s Sovereign Interests Sixth, the Executive Order harms Oregon’s sovereign interest in enforcing its own laws. 22 Oregon has codified its state policy that practices of unlawful discrimination against any of its 23 inhabitants because of religion or national origin are “a matter of state concern,” and that such 24 discrimination “menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.” See Or. Rev. 25 Stat. § 659A.006(1). But the Executive Order gives effect to discriminatory policies and 26 STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 8 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 practices that necessarily affect Oregon’s inhabitants, thereby frustrating Oregon’s ability to 2 effectuate its statutorily codified sovereign duty toward its residents. 3 In short, because the executive order harms Oregon’s finances, educational institutions, 4 voluntary organizations, health care system, and sovereign interests, Oregon has a significantly 5 protectable interest related to this case. 6 3. 7 8 9 The disposition of this action may impair Oregon’s ability to protect its interests. Oregon also meets the third requirement, because the disposition of the action “may as a practical matter” impair or impede Oregon’s ability to safeguard its protectable interests. See 10 Smith, 830 F.3d at 862; Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1083. For the reasons discussed above, that test is 11 met here. A decision in favor of defendants would have far-reaching practical consequences for 12 Oregon’s ability to safeguard its protectable interests—both those that it shares with Washington 13 and Minnesota, and its unique interests arising under Oregon law. Therefore, Oregon meets the 14 third Rule 24(a)(2) factor. 15 4. 16 Finally, Oregon’s interests are inadequately represented by the parties to this action. The Oregon’s interests are inadequately represented by the parties to the action. 17 burden on a proposed intervenor to demonstrate inadequate representation is “minimal,” and is 18 satisfied by a showing that representation of its interests “may be” inadequate. Arakaki, 324 F.3d 19 at 1086 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). Three factors are relevant to 20 that inquiry: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all 21 of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to 22 make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary 23 elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Id. (citation omitted). Those 24 factors weigh in favor of intervention here. 25 26 Oregon has an interest separate from, and as critical as, the interest advanced by Washington and Minnesota—Oregon’s statutorily codified sovereign interest in protecting its STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 9 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 residents from discrimination. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.006(1). As noted above, this statute 2 provides that discrimination because of religion or national origin is “a matter of state concern,” 3 and that such discrimination “menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.” 4 Oregon seeks to protect this unique Oregon legislative policy in this case. The State of Oregon 5 also seeks to protect its state coffers and universities from damage, as well as its citizens and 6 organizations; the States of Washington and Minnesota are not in a position to speak to the 7 injuries suffered in Oregon. 8 If Washington and Minnesota prevail in this case, as they should, it is possible that this 9 Court may craft a more limited remedy, short of a nationwide injunction, that will not address the 10 harm to Oregon’s unique sovereign interests. Moreover, because it has no independent power to 11 regulate federal immigration law, Oregon has no independent recourse to remediate that harm. 12 In short, for all of the foregoing reasons, Oregon is entitled to intervene in this action as a 13 matter of right. 14 B. 15 16 Should the Court determine that Oregon does not have a right to intervene, it should grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). In the alternative, this Court should exercise its discretion to grant Oregon permission to 17 intervene under Rule 24(b). That rule provides in pertinent part that, “On timely motion, the 18 court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the 19 main action a common question of law or fact.” Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith 20 Inc., 712 F3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)). Generally, 21 permissive intervention requires “(1) an independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; 22 and (3) a common question of law and fact between the movant’s claim or defense and the main 23 action.” Blum, 712 F3d at 1353 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining whether 24 to exercise its discretion to grant permissive intervention, the Court considers “whether the 25 intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Oregon meets the requirements for permissive intervention here. STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 10 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000 1 First, jurisdiction is easily established, because this is a federal-question case. See 2 Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F3d 836, 844 (9th Cir 2011) (explaining 3 that jurisdictional requirement of permissive intervention satisfied where case presented federal 4 question). See also 28 U.S.C. §1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all 5 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Second, 6 Oregon’s motion is timely, as explained above. Third, also for the reasons described above, this 7 case squarely presents a common question of law and fact between Oregon’s claims and the 8 main action. Finally, defendants will suffer no conceivable prejudice, at this very early stage in 9 the proceedings, due to intervention by Oregon. Allowing Oregon to intervene will aid the Court 10 to better assess the effects and lawfulness of the Executive Order. For all of those reasons, this 11 Court should, in the alternative, exercise its discretion to allow Oregon to intervene. 12 13 14 IV. CONCLUSION Oregon’s motion should be granted and it should be given leave to file its Complaint-inIntervention, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 15 16 DATED February 22 , 2017. 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General 19 20 s/ Scott Kaplan SCOTT J. KAPLAN, WSBA #49377 Senior Assistant Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 Email: Of Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 STATE OF OREGON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (2:17-cv-00141-JLR) SK/rh2/8069134-v1 PAGE - 11 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 / Fax: (971) 673-5000

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?