Opposition to Texas's Motion to Participate in Oral Argument — Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas

Record facts

Full text

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 19, 2022 
__________________________________________________________________ 
 
No. 21-5200 
__________________________________________________________________ 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 
_________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, on behalf of 
herself and others similarly situated, et al., 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
v. 
 
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendants-Appellants. 
________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
On Appeal from the United States District Court  
for the District of Columbia 
No. 1:21-cv-100 
Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan  
________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO AMICUS CURIAE THE 
STATE OF TEXAS’S MOTION TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
Stephen B. Kang 
Cody Wofsy 
Morgan Russell 
My Khanh Ngo  
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation, Immigrants’ Rights 
Project 
39 Drumm Street 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 343-0774 
 
 
 
 
Lee Gelernt 
Omar Jadwat 
Daniel A. Galindo 
Ming Cheung 
David Chen 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation, Immigrants’ Rights 
Project 
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 
New York, NY 10004 
(212) 549-2600 
lgelernt@aclu.org 
   Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
 (Additional Counsel on Next Page) 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 1 of 8

 
Andre Segura 
Kathryn Huddleston 
Brantley Shaw Drake 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation of Texas, Inc. 
5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350 
Houston, Texas 77007 
(713) 942-8146 
 
Karla M. Vargas 
Texas Civil Rights Project 
1017 W. Hackberry Ave. 
Alamo, Texas 78516 
(956) 787-8171 
 
Jamie Crook 
Blaine Bookey 
Karen Musalo 
Neela Chakravartula 
Center for Gender &  
Refugee Studies 
200 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 565-4877 
Robert Silverman 
Oxfam American 
Suite 500 
Boston, MA 02115 
(617) 482-1211 
 
Scott Michelman  
Arthur B. Spitzer 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation of the District of 
Columbia 
915 15th Street, NW, 2nd floor 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 457-0800 
 
Tamara F. Goodlette 
Refugee and Immigrant Center for 
Legal Education and Legal 
Services (RAICES) 
802 Kentucky Avenue 
San Antonio, TX 78201 
(210) 960-3206 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 2 of 8

 
 
1
This Court has already denied Texas’s attempt to intervene in this appeal, 
instead allowing it to file an amicus brief like the other eight amici.  Texas seeks to 
interject itself again by requesting to participate in oral argument.  Its participation, 
opposed by both parties, should be denied.  However, if the Court grants oral 
argument time to Texas, Plaintiffs respectfully request they be afforded oral 
argument time equal to the total time allotted to Defendants and the State of Texas. 
Texas provides no good reasons to grant it oral argument time, let alone the 
“extraordinary reasons” it must show.  D.C. Cir. Rule 34(e); see D.C. Cir. 
Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 52 (2021) (such motions are 
“sparingly granted”).  Its interests in this litigation are adequately represented by 
Defendants and its arguments are already laid out in a 24-page amicus brief.  
Texas’s further participation at argument would not contribute to the Court’s 
consideration of the issues presented in this case. 
Texas argues that it should be permitted to participate in oral argument 
because it advances an alternative theory not pressed by Defendants, but that is not 
an “extraordinary reason” warranting oral argument participation.  See, e.g., 
Blumenthal v. Trump, No. 19-5237 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2019) (denying opposed 
motion to participate in oral argument by amicus curiae presenting alternative 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 3 of 8

 
 
2
ground for reversal).  To the extent Texas’s merits argument is relevant, it has 
already laid out its position in its amicus brief.1 
Nor does Texas have any unique interest or expertise in this litigation 
justifying participation in oral argument.  Filing a raft of suits against the federal 
government about immigration issues is not an extraordinary reason warranting 
participation in this case about the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 265.  And this 
Court has already determined that Texas does not meet the standard for 
intervention, which considers whether a putative intervenor’s interests are already 
adequately represented by the parties.  See Order, Huisha-Huisha v. Biden, No. 21-
5200 (Oct. 21, 2021); Amalgamated Transit Union Int’l, AFL-CIO v. Donovan, 
771 F.2d 1551, 1553 (D.C. Cir. 1985).  Indeed, Texas explicitly quotes 
Defendants’ own statements about the purported harms, Amicus Br. 22, and 
embraces Defendants’ view of the equities.  Id. at 20 (stating that “Appellants’ 
                                                 
1 Texas’s additional merits argument is that the expulsion authority Defendants 
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 265 is unnecessary because (it asserts) sources of 
authority outside the public health laws authorize expulsion.  Amicus Br. 11-15.  
Its brief otherwise echoes Defendants’ contention that Section 265 permits the 
government to suspend the immigration laws.  Id. at 15-20.  Texas’s motion 
puzzlingly suggests that Defendants’ current arguments are somehow different in 
this regard from those made by the “previous administration.”  Mot. 3.  That is 
incorrect: Defendants’ justifications have not changed, and they have never 
claimed any authority besides the public health laws to expel asylum seekers under 
the Title 42 Process.  App. 149; see P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 510-16 
(D.D.C. 2020) (addressing same arguments presented by Defendants in this 
appeal). 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 4 of 8

 
 
3
opening brief (at 45-54) correctly described why a preliminary injunction is 
unwarranted”).    
Ultimately, Texas seeks to advance the same interests as Defendants and its 
motion to participate in oral argument, like its intervention motion, should be 
denied.  If, however, the Court grants Texas’s motion, Plaintiffs respectfully 
request that they be allotted argument time equal to the total time allotted to 
Defendants and the State of Texas, so that Plaintiffs are not forced to respond to 
both Defendants and Texas with less overall argument time.   
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny 
Texas’s motion to participate in oral argument or, if the Court grants the motion, to 
allocate to Plaintiffs oral argument time equal to the total time allotted to 
Defendants and the State of Texas. 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 5 of 8

 
 
4
Dated:  December 6, 2021 
 
 
Stephen B. Kang 
Cody Wofsy 
Morgan Russell 
My Khanh Ngo 
American Civil Liberties  
Union Foundation, Immigrants’  
Rights Project 
39 Drumm Street 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 343-0770 
 
Andre Segura 
Kathryn Huddleston 
Brantley Shaw Drake 
American Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation of Texas, Inc. 
5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350 
Houston, Texas 77007 
(713) 942-8146 
  
Karla M. Vargas  
Texas Civil Rights Project 
1017 W. Hackberry Ave. 
Alamo, Texas 78516 
(956) 787-8171 
 
Jamie Crook  
Blaine Bookey 
Karen Musalo 
Neela  Chakravartula 
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies 
200 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 565-4877 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 /s/ Lee Gelernt 
Lee Gelernt 
Omar Jadwat 
Daniel A. Galindo 
Ming Cheung 
David Chen 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation, Immigrants’ Rights Project 
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 
New York, NY 10004 
(212) 549-2600 
lgelernt@aclu.org 
 
Robert Silverman 
Irit Tamir 
Oxford Fam 
Suite 500 
Boston, MA 02115 
(617) 482-1211 
 
Scott Michelman  
Arthur B. Spitzer  
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation of the District of Columbia 
915 15th Street, NW, 2nd floor 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 457-0800 
 
Tamara F. Goodlette 
Refugee and Immigrant Center for 
Legal Education and Legal Services 
(RAICES) 
802 Kentucky Avenue 
San Antonio, TX 78201 
(210) 960-3206 
 
 
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 6 of 8

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 
This motion response complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal 
Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(1)(E) and (2)(A) because: 
1. It contains 625 words. 
2. It complies with the typeface and type-style requirements of Federal Rules 
of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a 
proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word Professional Plus 2019 in 14-
point Times New Roman font. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Lee Gelernt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lee Gelernt 
 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 7 of 8

 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on December 6, 2021, I electronically filed the 
foregoing with the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 
by using the CM/ECF system. A true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 
served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Lee Gelernt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lee Gelernt 
 
USCA Case #21-5200      Document #1925595            Filed: 12/06/2021      Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cadc.38067.01208382016.0.pdf

Size

192,246 bytes

SHA-256

727676e9d0b6ad536db1afdfb2e075f18281bc862f117c28b19b8b168e325e6c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cadc.38067.01208382016.0.pdf

Original

archive.org