Looky Feel Court

Looky Feel UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

This a video from a retired Marine in Afganastan. So wrong are these judges. We all knew this. It is so good to here the truth without Obama censoring it. But its been pulled by Youtube and Facebook PC police. This the original Tweet of that video. To see more goto Marine-Court post

I am basing this on my deplorable education and 60 years of listening to the liberal left try to make America socialistic and destroy the rights we have. For many years I have lived under this appeals court. At times it hard to see the difference betweet the California Supreme Court and this appeals court. After reading this, the 9 th Court appears to be the head of that a plan to support #calexit. The points below are my view based on supporting news from Washington Examiner, Jessica Vaughan, and the court case listed below.

My first complaint tourism is taking a hit from Trump’s executive order. So its tourism is now before terrorism in our nation.
Next our colleges and universities want terrorist in to attend. How many terrorist are attending our colleges. It appears by the reports below we may not know that answer.
And lastly quoting media hearsay as a supporting reason for a conclusion. ‘flying by the seat of their pants’ is data for a legal judgement. To me, it just people who hate change. As a manager I put with this everytime I did a change in operations.

This is almost comical if it wasn’t a court of law. Tourism, college, and social needs outway national security. Then using fake news from others instead of research of government data, they seem to be unaware of the 72 terrorist all ready tried and convicted from these countries. And many more from other countries.

Washington Examiner reported

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order have been convicted of terrorism, bolstering the administration’s immigration ban. According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

Which referenced:

Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order
By Jessica Vaughan, February 11, 2017
A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:
Somalia: 20
Yemen: 19
Iraq: 19
Syria: 7
Iran: 4
Libya: 2
Sudan: 1
Total: 72

US Court of Appeals Map

In Ending

I am constantly hearing from media and the left how its disrespectful to say anything bad about the honorable courts. I question anyone who takes an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of this country and then makes their own laws. We as a country have been loosing our constitutional freedoms for the past 50 years. We all must question anyone in authority that fails to fulfill his oath. That includes the courts. I want to say also that those who are unwilling to participate in our nations business may find a nation under siege. That siege, I believe almost won the last election. We are seeing how much power they have in the courts. and other parts of government. The constant leaks to media and bashing by them. Social Media creating rules to silence opinion contrary to their rule. Democrats in government trying to derail the Trump agenda. Finally this is not a battle for the faint hearted. The Soros’ and Meryl Streep have much more to do to get their power back.

Case No. 17-35105:

No. 17-35105 ___________________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ___________________________________________

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Defendant-Appellants. _____________________________________________

On Appeal from an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ______________________________________________

United States District Judge James L. Robart Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR ______________________________________________

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 20-PAGE MEMORANDUM OF LAW BY AMICI CURIAE STATES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ______________________________________________

Dated: February 6, 2017
MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts
By: GENEVIEVE C. NADEAU Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Genevieve.Nadeau@MassMail.State.MA.US (617) 963-2121

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 4
(1 of 29)
1
Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit
Rule 29(a)(5), amici curiae States1, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully move for leave to file a 20-page, or 5,600 word, memorandum of law
in support of Appellees’ Opposition to Appellants’ Emergency Motion for Stay
Pending Appeal. The Amici state as follows:
1. Amici are many States within the United States which are harmed by
the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation
from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”).
2. The Executive Order inflicts significant harm on States across the
Country, including upon the Amici. It harms, among other things, state colleges
and universities, state medical institutions, and state tax revenues from students,
tourists and business visitors.
3. The proposed amicus response explains that States have standing to
challenge the Executive Order in light of the harm it inflicts on them and that
Appellants’ Emergency Motion for Stay should be denied because granting it
would not preserve the status quo and would cause further chaos.
1 The full list of amici in addition to New York is: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 2 of 4
(2 of 29)
2
4. Though no such consent is required for States under Fed. R. App. P.
29(a)(2), counsel for Appellants and Appellees both have consented to the filing of
an amicus response.
5. Because of the number of different States involved in this response
and the desire of each to detail specific harm to it caused by the Executive Order as
well as to fully brief the issues therein, the Amici have required additional space.
6. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) states that, “[e]xcept by the Court’s
permission, an amicus brief may be no more than one-half the maximum length
authorized by these rules for a party’s principal brief.” Fed. R. App. P. 27 and
Circuit Rule 27-1(1)(d) do not speak in terms of “briefs,” instead stating that,
except with the Court’s permission, “a motion or response to a motion may not
exceed 20 pages,” or 5,600 words pursuant to Circuit Rule 32-3(2). If the Rule 29
language applies to a response to a motion, an amicus would be limited to 10
pages, or 2,800 words.
7. Out of an abundance of caution, the Amici file this motion to request
the Court’s leave to file a 20-page (or 5,600-word) memorandum of law under the
provisions of Rule 27, Circuit Rule 27-1, and Circuit Rule 32-3(2)
8. Amici believe that a 20-page memorandum is necessary to detail the
specific harm caused by the Executive Order to a number of different States and is
warranted in light of the importance and novelty of the issues presented.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 3 of 4
(3 of 29)
3
9. Accordingly, Amici respectfully request that the Court grant this
motion and permit the Amici leave to file a 20-page memorandum of law.
Respectfully Submitted, MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts

By: GENEVIEVE C. NADEAU Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Genevieve.Nadeau@MassMail.State.MA.US (617) 963-2121

February 6, 2017
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 4 of 4
(4 of 29)
No. 17-35105

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.,

Defendant-Appellants.

On Appeal from an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND VIRGINIA, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS AMICI CURIAE STATES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8921

JOSH SHAPIRO Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dated: February 6, 2017

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 1 of 25
(5 of 29)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTERESTS OF AMICI ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 ARGUMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 I. Washington, Minnesota, and Other States Have Standing to Challenge the Executive Order Because of the Harm It Inflicts on the States Themselves. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 A. Disruption and Additional Costs at State Colleges and Universities. ………………………………………………………………………………… 3 B. Disruption to State Medical Institutions………………………………………….. 8 C. Diminished Tax Revenues from Students, Tourists, and Business Visitors ………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 D. Irreparable Harm from Establishment Clause Violations ………………… 12 E. Harm to Sovereign and Quasi-Sovereign Interests …………………………. 13 II. The Emergency Motion for a Stay Should Be Denied Because Granting It Would Cause Further Chaos. ……………………………………………… 16 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 2 of 25
(6 of 29)
INTERESTS OF AMICI The State of New York, together with the States California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island,
and Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsyvania, and Virginia,
and the District of Columbia submit this brief as amici curiae in support of appellees
the States of Washington and Minnesota. The Executive Order at issue in this suit
bars entry into the United States of nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries,
including those who hold valid U.S. visas for work, study, and travel. It hinders the
free exchange of information, ideas, and talent between the affected countries and
the States, including at the States’ many educational institutions; harms the States’
life sciences, technology, health care, finance, and other industries, as well as
innumerable small businesses throughout the States; and inflicts economic harm on
the States through diminished tax revenues and other means.
Although the residents, institutions, industries, and economies of the amici
States differ, all stand to face the concrete, immediate, and irreparable harms caused
by the Executive Order. Indeed, several amici have filed or intervened or sought to
intervene in parallel lawsuits raising similar claims. Those lawsuits may well be
affected by the decision in this case.

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 3 of 25
(7 of 29)
2
ARGUMENT I. Washington, Minnesota, and Other States Have Standing to Challenge the Executive Order Because of the Harm It Inflicts on the States Themselves. The Executive Order is inflicting actual, concrete, and particularized injuries to
the States’ proprietary, sovereign, and quasi-sovereign interests. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v.
Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601-08 (1982).1 These injuries2 include
harm to state colleges and universities, medical institutions, tax revenues; States’
interests in seeing the Establishment Clause upheld within our jurisdictions; and
States’ interests in ensuring the health, welfare, and civil rights of our residents.3
1 See also Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518-20 (2007) (recognizing that a state’s “stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests” entitles it to “special solicitude” in a standing analysis); United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 689 n.14 (1973) (emphasizing that the standing inquiry focuses on the fact of an injury, not its magnitude). 2 All of the amici States support the legal arguments put forward in this brief, although some of the facts alleged do not apply uniformly to them. For example, the State of Delaware does not have a state medical hospital and is still in the process of attempting to verify some of the other specified harms incurred by other amici states. 3 Moreover, because many of these harms are caused directly by the Executive Order’s effect on nonimmigrant visa-holders, these injuries are not ameliorated by the federal government’s current position that long-term permanent residents are unaffected by the Executive Order (notwithstanding the plain language in Section 3(c) of the order).
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 4 of 25
(8 of 29)
3
A. Disruption and Additional Costs at State Colleges and Universities. The Executive Order has inflicted and continues to inflict harm on state
colleges and universities across the country, including in the amici States, which rely
on faculty and students from across the world.
First, the Executive Order has disrupted our state educational institutions’
ability to meet their staffing needs. The Order is already preventing and dissuading
scholars from coming to our institutions—including scholars who had already
committed to filling positions. The University of Massachusetts has more than 120
employees who are affected by the Executive Order; the City University of New
York has 46 such employees; and the University of Maryland, College Park, has
about 350 such members of its community. While there is no absolute right to the
maintenance or continuation of a visa, our state educational institutions rely on
predictability in the visa system. Moreover, foreign-born faculty who are here on
visas typically have specialized expertise that cannot easily be replaced. Colleges
and universities are already forming task forces and making contingency plans to fill
these particular voids in their faculty rosters. These efforts represent a considerable
expenditure of scarce resources and may not be successful.
Contrary to the federal government’s suggestion, these expenditures are
compelled by the Executive Order, and are not merely elective or speculative. The
amici States are aware of numerous staffing-related harms to specific programs in
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 5 of 25
(9 of 29)
4
our state institutions. These include foreign scholars from the affected countries
holding duly-issued, otherwise-valid J-1 visas who have abandoned their plans to
come to the United States and teach because of the Executive Order. In some such
cases, the scholars were expected to teach during the spring semester of 2017,
leaving holes in faculty rosters that our institutions must immediately fill.
Additional immediate disruption to staffing has occurred in the context of
medical residency staffing. State medical schools participate in the “match” program
for purposes of placing residents in their various university hospital programs. These
medical residents perform crucial services at our hospitals, including, in many cases,
providing medical care for underserved residents. The state institutions’ decisions
on ranking these future residents are due on February 22; the computerized “match”
occurs on March 17; and matched residents are expected to begin work on July 1.
Many programs regularly match medical residents from the seven affected countries
and, prior to the Executive Order, medical schools like the University of
Massachusetts Medical School were already actively considering and had
interviewed specific applicants from the affected countries. These programs must
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 6 of 25
(10 of 29)
5
forgo ranking applicants from the affected countries or risk having insufficient
medical residents to meet staffing needs.4
Second, the Executive Order creates uncertainty and will impose additional
costs related to nonimmigrant faculty and other employees who are already present
in the United States. Because of the “at least” 90-day freeze on processing of visa
applications under section 3(c) of the Executive Order, state institutions face the
imminent prospect of paying an additional $1,225 fee per visa for “Premium
Processing Service” to expedite the approval of certain eligible visas.5
Third, the Executive Order has disrupted the process of admitting students for
enrollment and imminently threatens the loss of hundreds of millions of tuition
dollars. State colleges and universities across the country enroll thousands of
students from the affected countries. The City University of New York has more
than 800 affected undergraduate students; the University of California’s ten
4 If a program “matches” with an applicant who is then unable to come into the country, the program is left with an open slot. The only way to fill the slot is to seek a waiver from the National Resident Matching Program. Such a waiver puts a medical school in the difficult position of trying to hire a resident from the pool of applicants who did not match anywhere else, and the school may be unable to find a resident at all. These problems are described in detail in Louhghalam v. Trump, Declaration of Michael F. Collins, MD, No. 17-cv-10154-NMG, Dkt. No. 52-2, at 2 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2017). 5 Information regarding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ expediting service, including the fee, is available at https://www.uscis.gov/i-907.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 7 of 25
(11 of 29)
6
campuses have almost 500 affected graduate students and 40 affected
undergraduates; the State University of New York has 320 affected undergraduates;
the University of Massachusetts has 300 affected graduate and undergraduate
students; the California State University System has more than 1,300 students from
the affected countries with immigrant status and more than 250 students on student
visas; and there are more than 350 affected students at Virginia’s public institutions,
including Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech, George Mason
University, the University of Virginia, and William & Mary. The University of
Illinois has over 300 enrolled students from the affected countries and has already
admitted 20 students for Fall 2017 from the affected countries. Other public
institutions like the Pennsylvania State University, Texas A&M University, the
University of Central Florida, the University of Houston System, the University of
Texas at Arlington, and Arizona State University each have hundreds of affected
students.6
The Executive Order has already disrupted the on-going admissions process
for the 2017-2018 school year. The amici States’ colleges and universities have
already extended some offers of admission to students from the affected countries
6 Abby Jackson, The 10 U.S. Colleges That Stand to Lose the Most from Trump’s Immigration Ban, Business Insider (Feb. 1, 2017), https://amp.businessinsider.com/colleges-potentially-most-affected-trumpimmigration-ban-2017-2.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 8 of 25
(12 of 29)
7
who may now be unable to attend, and anticipate that—but for the Executive
Order—they would admit many more over the coming months. Already, the amici
States are aware of students from the affected countries who have had to abandon
plans to enroll in their programs due to the Executive Order and students who have
withdrawn applications. As a result, these public institutions must now alter their
admissions processes because admitted students may not be able to accept or attend,
depriving these schools of tuition dollars. While public colleges and universities are
always subject to federal immigration law and policy, the Executive Order has
injured them unexpectedly, by up-ending with no advance notice the established
framework around which these institutions have designed their enrollment
processes.
Finally, the President’s Order has in many cases eliminated the ability of
faculty and students from the affected countries with nonimmigrant visas to travel.
The amici States are aware of specific examples where that inability to travel is
harming our institutions’ core missions of education and scholarship. These include
graduate and undergraduate students who traveled to see families abroad over winter
break and became trapped abroad; admitted students and recent faculty hires who
cannot now reach the United States; and faculty and doctoral students who are in the
United States but unable to travel abroad for fieldwork or conferences because they
will not be able to reenter. In some cases, such travel is necessary to complete a
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 9 of 25
(13 of 29)
8
dissertation or remain on the tenure track. Even if reentry ultimately may become
possible for foreign faculty and students who leave the country, the amici States are
concerned that the Executive Order’s suspension of the Visa Interview Waiver
Program will greatly prolong visa approval wait times, making travel more difficult
and unpredictable. See Executive Order, Sec. 8.
B. Disruption to State Medical Institutions The Executive Order has also inflicted or imminently threatens to inflict
similar injuries on state medical institutions and the provision of medical care within
the amici States—including at institutions serving some of our neediest populations.
In addition to disrupting the matching process by which our state medical schools
staff hospitals through medical residents, the Executive Order also has affected
medical residents who are already here and serving our patient populations as they
train in multi-year programs. If such residents are unable to renew or extend their
nonimmigrant visas, state medical schools will be unable to continue to employ
them; the schools will be left with unfilled positions in their years-long programs for
training physicians; and staffing gaps will open up at hospitals. Moreover, if the
residents are unable to complete their medical residencies, they will not be able to
become licensed physicians to serve the public. The University of Massachusetts
Medical School, for example, is particularly known for its primary care program—
at a time when primary care physicians are in short supply in many areas across the
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 10 of 25
(14 of 29)
9
country—and currently has six medical residents from the affected countries under
employment contracts.
Public medical institutions, including medical schools and public hospitals,
also employ individuals from the affected countries in many other positions,
including as fully trained physicians, research faculty, and post-doctoral researchers.
For example, 307 licensed healthcare professionals in Pennsylvania have trained in
one of the affected countries. The amici States are aware of employment offers from
public entities that have already been extended to and accepted by individuals from
the affected countries, who are now waiting for visas to be approved and uncertain
if and when they will be able to begin their employment. And the amici States have
current employees, located in the United States, who, for the time being, cannot
renew or extend their visas or statuses. Hospitals and medical schools will suffer
decreased staffing as a result. Although the federal government dismisses such
eventualities as speculative, they are not. Patients at our medical facilities cannot
wait for care, and those facilities must immediately adapt to these changed
circumstances—and spend precious time and resources to do so.
C. Diminished Tax Revenues from Students, Tourists, and Business Visitors The Executive Order is also immediately causing the amici States to lose tax
revenue—and poses a grave, long-term threat to internationally-linked industries
that, in many cases, are the lifeblood of our economies. Such economic injuries, even
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 11 of 25
(15 of 29)
10
by themselves, give rise to Article III standing. See, e.g., City of Sausalito v. O’Neill,
386 F.3d 1186, 1199 (9th Cir. 2004).
Every foreign student, tourist, and business visitor to the amici States
contributes to our respective economies—through tuition and room and board
payments to state schools as well as through sales tax receipts from our hotel,
retailers, and other businesses. The Executive Order abruptly halted the entry of such
consumers from seven countries—and their tax revenue. As described above, the
amici States are aware of specific individuals—scholars, students, and others—
whose trips were abruptly cancelled. If the Order is not enjoined during the pendency
of this litigation, it will cost the States weeks or months of additional tax revenues
from such visitors, even if Washington and Minnesota ultimately prevail. Indeed,
even assuming the Executive Order continues to be enjoined, it has already created
economic damage that cannot be undone.
The collective amounts at issue are immense, even just with respect to student
tax dollars. In New York, in 2015, there were almost 1,000 nationals from the
affected countries studying on temporary visas, who collectively contributed $30.4
million to the State’s economy, including direct payments for tuition and fees and
living expenses.7 This figure does not include indirect economic benefits, such as
7 See http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/ Economic-Impact-of-International-Students.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 12 of 25
(16 of 29)
11
the contributions of international students and scholars to innovation in academic
and medical research. In 2014-15, more than 50,000 foreign students contributed an
estimated $1.5 billion to the economy of Illinois.8 And these are not the only States
affected. For example, in the 2014-2015 academic year, Iran sent 11,338 students to
institutions across the United States, yielding an estimated economic impact of $323
million.9 California universities and colleges host the largest number of students
from the seven targeted countries. The overwhelming majority of them are from Iran,
with 1,286 visas issued to students headed to California institutions in 2015.10 The
Executive Order abruptly prevented a large number of anticipated tourists and
students from traveling to the States, directly and immediately decreasing the
revenues flowing to state academic institutions and tax authorities.11
8 See Open Doors 2016 Fact Sheet: Illinois, Institute of International Education, http://bit.ly/2lfVfBr. 9 Open Doors Data, Fact Sheets for Iran: 2015, at http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fact-Sheets-byCountry/2015#.WJfgjGczWUk. 10 See T. Watanabe and R. Xia, Trump Order Banning Entry from Seven Muslim-Majority Countries Roils California Campuses, Los Angeles Times (January 30, 2017). 11 This case is thus unlike Pennsylvania v. Kleppe, 533 F.2d 668, 679-80 (1976) and Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir. 1985)
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 13 of 25
(17 of 29)
12
The long-term harms to the amici States’ tax revenue caused by the Executive
Order from loss of tourism and business investment are certainly greater. Although
our regional economies may vary, we all depend on remaining internationally
competitive, attractive destinations for companies in the life sciences, technology,
finance, health care, and other industries, and for tourists and entrepreneurs. In
Illinois alone, for example, 22.1% of entrepreneurs are foreign-born, and immigrant-
and refugee-owned businesses employ more than 281,000 people.12 The Executive
Order will create broad harm because it hampers the movement of people and ideas
from the affected countries into our States.
D. Irreparable Harm from Establishment Clause Violations The amici States have also suffered irreparable harm because the Executive
Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Where an
Establishment Clause violation is alleged, “infringement occurs the moment the
government action takes place—without any corresponding individual conduct.”
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
This conclusion follows from “the inchoate, one-way nature of Establishment Clause
violations, which inflict an ‘erosion of religious liberties [that] cannot be deterred by
awarding damages to the victims of such erosion[.]’” Id. (quoting ACLU of Ill. v.
12 See The Contributions of New Americans in Illinois at 2, New American Economy (Aug. 2016), http://bit.ly/2kRVaro.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 14 of 25
(18 of 29)
13
City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265, 275 (7th Cir. 1986)). Thus, “where a movant
alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause, this is sufficient, without more, to
satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purposes of the preliminary injunction
determination.” Id.13 E. Harm to Sovereign and Quasi-Sovereign Interests In addition to the injuries that the Executive Order is inflicting on States’
proprietary interests, the Executive Order also harms the amici States’ well
established sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests. See, e.g., Snapp, 458 U.S. at
602-608 (describing those interests). These harms further underscore the existence
of State standing to sue the federal government to invalidate the Executive Order.
1. Enforcing Antidiscrimination Laws

As the United States Supreme Court has observed, States have a sovereign
interest in “the exercise of sovereign power over individuals and entities within . . .
[their] jurisdiction” that includes “the power to create and enforce a legal code, both
civil and criminal.” Id. at 601. States also possess a quasi-sovereign interest in
protecting the civil rights of all residents within their jurisdiction. Id. at 609.
13 See also ACLU v. McCreary Cnty, 354 F.3d 438, 445 (6th Cir. 2003) (presuming irreparable harm where plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim); Parents’ Ass’n of P.S. 16 v. Quinones, 803 F.2d 1235, 1242 (2d Cir 1986) (same).

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 15 of 25
(19 of 29)
14
The Executive Order harms these sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests by
preventing states from enforcing regimes of non-discrimination created by their state
constitutions and laws. Residents and businesses in many of the amici States—and
indeed many of the amici States themselves—are prohibited by state law from taking
national origin and religion into account in determining to whom to extend
employment and other opportunities.14 Although the States, state residents and state
businesses are always constrained in their employment decisions by validly-enacted
federal immigration law, the Executive Order represents an act of unconstitutional
discrimination. It is well recognized that States have standing to sue the federal
government where a federal law or federal action with the force of law impairs their
legitimate, sovereign interest in the continued enforceability of their own statutes.15
14 See, e.g., Cal. Const. art. I, §§ 7-8; Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11135-11137; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60; 5 Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 784, 4551-4634 (2013). Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B, §§ 1, 4; Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, § 102; Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20606; N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 291 (1)-(2); 296(1)a-e; 296(1-a) a-d; 296(2); 296(2-a); 296(3-b); 296(4); 296(5)(a)1-3,(b)1-2, (c)1-2,(d); 296(10)a; 296(13);296-c (2)a-c; 43 P.S. § 952(a); 43 P.S. § 952(b); 43 P.S. § 953; 43 P.S. § 955; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 1; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 3; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 26. 15 See, e.g., Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 273-75 (2006) (state challenge to federal rule that purported to bar dispensing of controlled substances in the face of state medical regime permitting such conduct); Wyoming ex rel. Crank v. United States, 539 F.3d 1236, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2008) (state challenge to federal agency’s assertion that the federal definition of a statutory term controlled the meaning of the same term in a state statute that defined the term differently).

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 16 of 25
(20 of 29)
15
2. Ensuring the Benefits of Existing Federal Laws and Regulations
A State has a legally cognizable “interest, independent of the benefits that
might accrue to any particular individual, in assuring that the benefits of the federal
system are not denied to its general population.” Snapp, 458 U.S. at 608. Here, in
direct violation of that interest, individuals arriving at the amici States from the seven
designated countries have been denied a variety of rights and procedures established
by federal statutes and regulations.
Individuals arriving at a port of entry in the United States are entitled to certain
rights and procedures specified by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8
U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. Sections 1158 and 1225 of the INA entitle aliens present or
arriving in the United States to apply for asylum. Section 1231 provides that an alien
may not be removed to a country where his or her life or freedom would be
threatened on certain specified grounds, and entitles an alien to attempt to make such
a showing. Id. § 1231(b)(3). Federal regulations set out detailed procedures for
effectuating these rights. For example, where an arriving alien subject to expedited
removal “indicates an intention to apply for asylum, or expresses a fear of
persecution or torture, or a fear of return to his or her country,” the alien is entitled
to a credible fear interview with an asylum officer and review by an immigration
judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(1)(i), (4); see also id. §§ 208.30(g), 208.30(g)(2).
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 17 of 25
(21 of 29)
16
3. Protecting Our Residents, Businesses, and Communities
The Executive Order also harms state interests far broader than the injuries to
any single person who has been denied entry under the Executive Order. These
interests include States’ unique concern for their economies, academic institutions,
and public health. See, e.g., Snapp, 458 U.S. at 602 (noting States’ independent
interest “in the well-being of [their] populace”).
The harm that the Executive Order threatens to non-state academic institutions
and non-state providers of essential health-care services exacerbates the injuries that
research and public health sectors already suffer from the Executive Order’s effect
on state institutions. See supra at 3-9. In addition, the Executive Order threatens key
sectors of the States’ economies, such as technology and finance, that rely heavily
upon the talents and contributions of immigrants. See Br. for Tech. Cos. & Other
Bus. as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees at 8-21, Washington v. Trump,
No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2017), ECF No. 19-2.
II. The Emergency Motion for a Stay Should Be Denied Because Granting It Would Cause Further Chaos. A stay is not a matter of right, but an “exercise of judicial discretion that is
dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d
1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In
evaluating a stay motion, this Court’s discretion is guided by a four factor analysis
that asks (1) whether the applicant “is likely to succeed on the merits;” (2) “whether
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 18 of 25
(22 of 29)
17
the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;” (3) whether issuance of the
stay will “substantially injure” other interested parties; and (4) “where the public
interest lies.” Id. (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).) The party
requesting the stay “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an
exercise of this Court’s discretion.” Lair, 697 F.3d at 1203 (quoting Nken, 556 U.S.
at 433-34) (brackets omitted).16
As the District Court concluded, Washington is likely to succeed on the
merits of its challenge to the Executive Order. Indeed, in the ten days since the
Executive Order was signed, district courts across the Nation have determined—
both expressly and by implication—that claims like those advanced by Washington
and Minnesota are likely to succeed on the merits.17
16 In the past, this Court has sometimes applied an alternative standard in the context of issuing stays, allowing the moving party to demonstrate that the case raised “‘serious legal questions’” and that the balance of the hardships tipped “‘sharply in its favor.’” Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Nken, this Court has indicated that this alternative approach remains available in the stay context. See Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964-966 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Regardless of which approach this Court applies, the stay requested by the federal government in this case should be denied. 17 See, e.g., Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17-cv-480, Dkt. No. 8 (E.D. N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017); Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. 17-cv-702, Dkt. No. 6 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2017); Mohammed v. United States, No. 17-cv-786 (C.D. Cal., Jan 31, 2017); Arab
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 19 of 25
(23 of 29)
18
The States have already been harmed by this Executive Order and its shifting
implementation by the federal government. See Emergency Mot. Ex. C at 4-5
(district court order); see supra Section I.A.-I.E. The Executive Order “unleashed
global chaos” almost as soon as it was issued on January 27.18 Customs and border
control officials arrived at airports on January 28 without instructions on how to
implement it.19 The lack of advance warning led to “homeland security officials
‘flying by the seat of their pants[]’ to try to put policies in place.”20 Officials at
different airports applied different policies.21 Visitors to our country—and many
lawful permanent residents as well—were detained for days at airports, often without
American Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10310, Dkt. No. 8 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv-116, Dkt. No. 38 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2017). 18 M. Shear & R. Nixon, How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos, N.Y. Times (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigrationorder-chaos.html?_r=0 (last visited Feb. 5, 2017) 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 See, e.g., J. Allen & B. O’Brien, How Trump’s Abrupt Immigration Ban Sowed Confusion at Airports, Agencies, Reuters (Jan. 29, 2017), available at www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-confusion-idUSKBN15D07S (last visited Feb. 5, 2017) (while many visa-holders reported being “allowed into the country without a problem,” some lawful permanent residents were “turned away”).
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 20 of 25
(24 of 29)
19
access to counsel.22 If this Court were to grant the stay that the federal government
now seeks, it would only exacerbate that harm.
This uncertainty was compounded by the actions of officials at the highest
levels of the federal government, who vacillated over how to interpret and apply the
Executive Order. For example, the federal government changed its mind multiple
times about whether the Executive Order applies to lawful permanent residents.23
On February 1, the White House Counsel acknowledged “that there has been
reasonable uncertainty about whether” the travel ban applies to lawful permanent
residents of the United States, and “clarif[ied] that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) [of the
Order] do not apply to such individuals.”24
22 M. Shear et al., Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos and Outcry Worldwide, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/OrUJEr (last visited Feb. 5, 2017); A. Whiting, Despite Court Order, US Officials Won’t Allow Lawyers at Dulles to See Detainees, Washingtonian (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/01/29/customs-and-border-protectionstill-not-allowing-lawyers-to-see-detainees/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2017). 23 See, e.g., E. Perez, Inside the Confusion of the Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban (Jan. 30, 2017), available at http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html (last visited Feb. 5, 2017); Press Release, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/6krafi (last visited Feb. 5, 2017). 24 See Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security from Donald F. McGahn II (Feb.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 21 of 25
(25 of 29)
20
The District Court’s temporary restraining order returned the policies and
procedures regarding travel to the United States to the status quo that existed before
the Executive Order. Emergency Mot. Ex. C at 5-6 (district court order). As a result
of the court’s order, the Department of Homeland Security announced on February
4 that it “has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of
the Executive Order” and that “DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers
in accordance with standard policy and procedure.”25 In the aftermath of that
announcement, international airlines announced that they would allow citizens of
the affected nations onto flights bound for the United States.26 News outlets are
reporting that travelers from those countries have already boarded planes headed to
the United States.27
1, 2017), available at www.politico.com/f/?id=00000159-fb28-da98-a77dfb7dba170001 (last visited Feb. 5, 2017). 25 Press Release, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Statement on Compliance with Recent Court Order (Feb. 4, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/02/04/dhs-statement-compliance-recent-courtorder (last visited Feb. 5, 2017). 26 A. Dewan, Airlines Allow Passengers After Judge Blocks Travel Ban (Feb. 4, 2017), available at http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/airlines-airportstrump-travel-ban/index.html (last visited Feb. 5, 2017). 27 See J. Kaleem, Department of Homeland Security Halts Enforcement of Controversial Travel Ban, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 4, 2017), available at http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updatesdepartment-of-homeland-security-halts-1486224232-htmlstory.html
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 22 of 25
(26 of 29)
21
If this Court were to grant a stay, it would resurrect the chaos experienced in
our airports beginning on the weekend of January 28 and 29, and cause harm to the
States—including to state institutions such as public universities, to the businesses
that sustain our economies, and to our residents. See supra Sections I & II. Travelers
with valid visas to enter the United States, who boarded planes to our country in
reliance on the order below and the guidance of the Department of Homeland
Security, will be stopped, detained, and turned around yet again. That shift would
exacerbate the confusion and uncertainty that has already harmed the amici States
and the public at large. See supra Section I.D.28
Under these circumstances, the federal government cannot carry its burden of
showing that a stay is warranted. The District Court’s temporary restraining order
merely preserves the status quo that existed before President Trump’s Executive
Order. In contrast to the abstract injuries that the federal government asserts it has
suffered, a stay would lead to real and immediate hardships for the States, our
28 See also Pl.’s Emergency Mot. for TRO at 21-22, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2017), ECF No. 3; Br. for Am. Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae Supporting Pl. at 3-10, Washington, No. 17-cv00141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2017), ECF No. 26-1; Br. for Serv. Employees Int’l Union as Amici Curiae Supporting Pl. at 2-7, Washington, No. 17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2017), ECF No. 42-2; Br. for Wash. State Labor Council as Amici Curiae Supporting Pl. at 8-11, Washington, No. 17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2017), ECF No. 46-1; Decl. of Emily Chiang Supporting Pl.’s Emergency Mot. for TRO at 2-8, Washington, No. 17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2017), ECF No. 3.
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10303835, DktEntry: 58-2, Page 23 of 25
(27 of 29)
22
residents, businesses, and institutions. The interests of the public, the States, and the
Nation would be best served by keeping the temporary restraining order in place—
and avoiding further turmoil—pending a more thorough review by the Court. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the Temporary Restraining
Order and deny the Emergency Motion for Stay.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN   Attorney General   State of New York BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD    Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA   Deputy Solicitor General 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271
Respectfully submitted, MAURA HEALEY   Attorney General   Commonwealth of Massachusetts ELIZABETH N. DEWAR GENEVIEVE C. NADEAU JONATHAN B. MILLER    Assistant Attorneys General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
JOSH SHAPIRO   Attorney General   Commonwealth of Pennsylvania JONATHAN SCOTT GOLDMAN   Executive Deputy Attorney General Civil Law Division Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California Suite 11000 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

MATTHEW P. DENN Attorney General State of Delaware Carvel State Building, 6th Floor 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801

GEORGE JEPSEN Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106

LISA MADIGAN Attorney General State of Illinois 100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60601

THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General State of Iowa 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319

PETER F. KILMARTIN Attorney General State of Rhode Island 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903

JANET T. MILLS Attorney General State of Maine 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609

BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General State of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202

MARK R. HERRING Attorney General State of Virginia 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219

HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General State of New Mexico 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, NM 87501

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General District of Columbia Suite 1100 South 441 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General State of Oregon 1162 Court Street N.E. Salem, OR 97301