United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(1 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 1 of 34 Case No. 20-16908 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, and WILBUR ROSS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce Defendants and Appellants, v. U.S. WECHAT USERS ALLIANCE, CHIHUO INC., BRENT COULTER, FANGYI DUAN, JINNENG BAO, ELAINE PENG, and XIAO ZHANG Plaintiffs and Appellees. From The United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB, Honorable Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC ROSEN BIEN Keliang (Clay) Zhu GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 7901 Stoneridge Drive #208 Michael W. Bien Pleasanton, California 94588 Ernest Galvan Telephone: (925) 399-5856 Benjamin Bien-Kahn Email: [email protected] Van Swearingen Alexander Gourse Amy Xu 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Additional counsel on following page (2 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 2 of 34 AFN LAW PLLC DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Angus F. Ni David M. Gossett 502 Second Avenue, Suite 1400 1301 K Street N.W., Suite 500 East Seattle, Washington 98104 Washington, D.C. 20005-3366 Telephone: (773) 543-3223 Telephone: (202) 973-4216 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Thomas R. Burke John M. Browning 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor San Francisco, California 94111-6533 New York, New York 10020-1104 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Telephone: (212) 603-6410 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees (3 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 3 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................... 5 I. DEFENDANTS CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR A STAY ......... 5 A. The Government Is Not Likely to Succeed On the Merits. .................. 6 1. The District Court Properly Treated the Government’s Action as a Complete Ban on WeChat. ..................................... 6 2. The District Court Appropriately Reviewed the Government’s National Security Showing ................................ 8 3. The District Court Correctly Held That Plaintiffs Showed Serious Questions On Their First Amendment Claims. ........... 10 (a) The First Amendment Applies. ..................................... 10 (b) The District Court Properly Held That Plaintiffs Have Raised Serious Questions Under Strict Scrutiny Theories. ......................................................... 12 (c) The District Court Properly Held That Plaintiffs Have Raised Serious Questions Under an Intermediate Scrutiny Theory........................................ 14 4. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Ultra Vires Claims. ................................................................. 17 B. Defendants Cannot Show They Will Suffer Irreparable Injury if the Preliminary Injunction is Not Stayed. .......................................... 18 C. A Stay Would Irreparably Harm Plaintiffs ........................................ 21 D. A Stay Would Be Against the Public Interest. ................................... 23 II. NO PARTIAL STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED ....................................... 24 [3629426.3] i (4 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 4 of 34 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 25 [3629426.3] ii (5 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 5 of 34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996) ....................................................................................11 Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treas., 686 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................10 Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................ 8 Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986) ....................................................................................12 Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) .......................................................................11 Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) ..................................................................................... 8 Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick, 847 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................12 City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) ................................................................................ 11, 12 Currier v. Potter, 379 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................11 Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 6 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ....................................................................................21 G.K. Ltd. Travel v City of Lake Oswego, 436 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................17 [3629426.3] iii (6 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 6 of 34 Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936) ....................................................................................11 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)......................................................................................... 8 HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019) .......................................................................11 Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) ....................................................................................14 Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 34 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................24 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................24 Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) ....................................................................................13 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) ..................................13 NIFLA v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ................................................................................11 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986)........................................................................................23 Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) ................................................................................11 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155 (2015) ....................................................................................13 Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................18 Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) ....................................................................................13 [3629426.3] iv (7 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 7 of 34 TikTok Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-02658(CJN), 2020 WL 5763634 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-5302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 8, 2020)................... 17, 18, 20 Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ................................................................................. 9 Trump v. IRAP, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (per curiam) ............................................................ 9 U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993) ....................................................................................24 United States v. New York Times Co., 328 F. Supp. 324 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), aff’d sub nom. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) ...................................................10 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) ....................................................................................15 Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 8 Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)......................................................................................... 8 STATUTES International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1707 ...................................................................................... 2, 9, 17 [3629426.3] v (8 of 190) Case: 20-16908, 10/09/2020, ID: 11855000, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 8 of 34 INTRODUCTION Defendants seek this Court’s assistance to do something previously considered unthinkable—ban an entire communication platform, WeChat, which is the “‘primary source of communication and commerce’” for the Chinese diaspora in the United States and is “irreplaceable for its users[.]” ADD-4-5. The district court correctly ruled