Court filing
IRLI Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief — East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump
Filed November 16, 2018 in East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump; one of 67 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2018-11-16 |
U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. · No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST · Doc. 34 · 2018-11-16 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
WARNING: AT LEAST ONE DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE INCLUDED!
You were not billed for these documents.
Please see below.
Document Number
Document Description Pages
Document Error
Document 34
attachment
Attachment
2
DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED!
However, it may still be viewable individually.
Document 34
attachment
Attachment
9
DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED!
However, it may still be viewable individually.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, No. 3:18-cv-6810-JST
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Lawrence J. Joseph (SBN 154908)
Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 700-1A
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-355-9452
Fax: 202-318-2254
Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Counsel for Movant Immigration Reform Law Institute
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Al Otro
Lado; Innovation Law Lab; and Central
American
Resource
Center
in
Los
Angeles,
Plaintiff,
v.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United
States, in his official capacity; Matthew G.
Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, in his
official capacity; U.S. Dep’t of Justice;
James McHenry, Director of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review, in his
official capacity; the Executive Office for
Immigration Review; Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary of Homeland Security, in her
official capacity; U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
Security; Lee Francis Cissna, Director of
the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration
Services, in his official capacity; U.S.
Citizenship & Immigration Services;
Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner of
U.S. Customs & Border Protection, in his
official capacity; U.S. Customs & Border
Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting
Director of Immigration & Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity;
Immigration & Customs Enforcement,
Defendants.
_________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:18-cv-6810-JST
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
OF IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW
INSTITUTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS IN
OPPOSITION TO INTERIM RELIEF
NO HEARING NOTICED
Complaint filed: November 9, 2018
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 34 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 4
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, No. 3:18-cv-6810-JST
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that movant Immigration Reform Law Institute (“IRLI”)
respectfully moves this Court for leave to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support
of the federal defendants and their opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”). As a motion for administrative relief, Local Rule 7-11 does not require a hearing
for this motion. Although IRLI’s motion does not require a hearing, IRLI’s amicus brief concerns
the matter being heard on November 19, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., before Judge Jon S. Tigar in San
Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor.
At the hearing on November 19, 2018, plaintiffs will seek a TRO against actions by the
federal defendants. The amicus brief that is the subject of IRLI’s motion questions the
justiciability of plaintiff’s claims. The issue raised in IRLI’s motion (i.e., this motion) is whether,
in the exigencies of briefing a TRO, the Court should allow an amicus brief that raises additional
arguments on which to question the jurisdictional appropriateness of this Court’s entertaining
plaintiffs’ suit or grant interim relief. The parties take no position on IRLI’s motion.1
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
IRLI is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) public-interest law firm incorporated in the District of
Columbia. IRLI is dedicated to litigating immigration-related cases on behalf of, and in the
interests of, United States citizens and legal permanent residents and to assisting courts in
understanding and accurately applying federal immigration law. IRLI has litigated or filed
amicus briefs in many important immigration cases. For more than twenty years, the Board of
1
Specifically, defendants’ counsel indicated that the defendants “take no position on your
motion to submit an amicus brief at this point unless we hear in writing from plaintiffs that they
will have sufficient time to respond to your brief,” and the plaintiffs’ counsel indicated “Plaintiffs
take no position, but note that your proposed amicus brief would be filed, at most, only hours
before our reply is due, leaving us no time to address it. Plaintiffs also note that the one amicus
brief filed in support of our side was filed the day before the government’s opposition brief was
due, allowing the government time to address the brief.”
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 34 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 4
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, No. 3:18-cv-6810-JST
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Immigration Appeals has solicited amicus briefs drafted by IRLI staff from IRLI’s affiliate, the
Federation for American Immigration Reform, because the Board considers IRLI an expert in
immigration law. For these reasons, IRLI has direct interests in the issues here.
REASONS TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE
At the outset, IRLI and the undersigned counsel regret the timing of this motion in the
fast-moving briefing of plaintiffs’ TRO motion. The undersigned counsel receives notice of court
filings in district court via LexisNexis’s CourtLink product, which provides next-day notice of
filings. Accordingly, IRLI and the undersigned counsel did not learn of yesterday’s order
unsealing the case until this morning; prior to this morning, it had been IRLI’s plan to move to
unseal the case today, as IRLI had done in. Sajous v. Decker, No. 1:18-cv-2447-AJN (S.D.N.Y.),2
with the eventual goal of moving for leave to file an amicus brief here after IRLI had the
opportunity to review the parties’ filings.
Now that IRLI has access to the parties’ filings, IRLI has prepared the accompanying
four-page amicus brief, confined to justiciability and standing for diverted-resource injuries
under Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U. S. 363 (1982), and its progeny. IRLI respectfully
submits that its short amicus brief could aid this Court’s consideration of the federal courts’
proper role in this dispute:
All of the doctrines that cluster about Article III — not only standing but
mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like — relate in part, and in
different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an
intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the
constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected,
unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.
2
IRLI thanks the Court for unsealing the case without the need for (and expense of) limited-
purpose intervention to move to unseal the case.
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 34 Filed 11/16/18 Page 3 of 4
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, No. 3:18-cv-6810-JST
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984) (interior quotation marks omitted). Courts thus
consider these issues sua sponte, even if the parties do not raise them. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). For that reason, jurisdictional arguments are an
exception to courts’ hesitation to consider arguments raised solely by an amicus. Kamen v.
Kemper Fin. Servs., 500 U.S. 90, 97 n.4 (1991). Moreover, the federal defendants did raise all
the relevant issues about Havens Realty, with IRLI’s merely providing a few additional
arguments in support of those issues to distinguish Havens Realty. Insofar as the defendants have
raised these issues sufficiently to raise IRLI’s supporting arguments on appeal, Yee v. Escondido,
503 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1992), this Court clearly can and should consider IRLI’s arguments now.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant leave to file IRLI’s amicus brief.
Dated: November 16, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
Lawrence J. Joseph (SBN 154908)
Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 700-1A
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-355-9452
Fax: 202-318-2254
Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Counsel for Movant
/s/ Lawrence J. Joseph
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 34 Filed 11/16/18 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, No. 3:18-cv-6810-JST
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 16th day of November, 2018, I electronically filed the
foregoing motion for leave to file together with the accompanying amicus curiae brief, with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by
using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be
served by the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by mail to anyone unable to
accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic filing. Parties may access this
filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.
Lawrence J. Joseph (SBN 154908)
Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 700-1A
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-355-9452
Fax: 202-318-2254
Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Counsel for Movant
/s/ Lawrence J. Joseph
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 34-3 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 1File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.334557.34.0.pdf
- Size
- 207,259 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5b5557455b476fbdbce8541c18fc0ec3aed1927a0209725afef4e9ae332ad4ea
- Original
- archive.org