Petition for Certiorari “When A

No. _______ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States INTERNATIONALdREFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al., Petitioners, —v.— DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Karen C. Tumlin Omar C. Jadwat Nicholas Espíritu Counsel of Record Melissa S. Keaney Lee Gelernt Esther Sung Hina Shamsi Marielena Hincapié Hugh Handeyside NATIONAL IMMIGRATION Sarah L. Mehta LAW CENTER David Hausman 3450 Wilshire Boulevard, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES #108-62 UNION FOUNDATION Los Angeles, CA 90010 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2500 [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioners IRAP, et al. (Counsel continued on inside cover) Justin B. Cox Cecillia D. Wang NATIONAL IMMIGRATION Cody H. Wofsy LAW CENTER Spencer E. Amdur P.O. Box 170208 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Atlanta, GA 30317 UNION FOUNDATION David Rocah 39 Drumm Street Deborah A. Jeon San Francisco, CA 94111 Sonia Kumar David Cole Nicholas Taichi Steiner Daniel Mach AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Heather L. Weaver UNION FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES MARYLAND UNION FOUNDATION 3600 Clipper Mill Road, 915 15th Street NW Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 Baltimore, MD 21211 Linda Evarts Kathryn Claire Meyer Mariko Hirose INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT 40 Rector Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10006 Attorneys for Petitioners IRAP, et al. Johnathan Smith Mark H. Lynch Sirine Shebaya Mark W. Mosier MUSLIM ADVOCATES Herbert L. Fenster P.O. Box 66408 Jose E. Arvelo Washington, D.C. 20035 John W. Sorrenti Katherine E. Cahoy Richard B. Katskee Rebecca G. Van Tassell Eric Rothschild Karun Tilak Andrew L. Nellis* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP AMERICANS UNITED FOR One City Center SEPARATION OF CHURCH 850 10th Street, NW AND STATE Washington, D.C. 20001 1310 L St. NW, Ste. 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys for Petitioners I.A.A.B., et al. Charles E. Davidow Lena F. Masri Robert A. Atkins Gadeir Abbas Liza Velazquez COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC Andrew J. Ehrlich RELATIONS Steven C. Herzog 453 New Jersey Avenue SE PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, Washington, D.C. 20003 WHARTON & GARRISON LLP Faiza Patel 1285 Avenue of the Americas Michael Price New York, NY 10019-6064 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE Jethro Eisenstein AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW PROFETA & EISENSTEIN 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 45 Broadway, Suite 2200 New York, NY 10271 New York, NY 10006 Attorneys for Petitioners Zakzok, et al. * Admitted only in New York; supervised by Richard B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. Bar QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has granted certiorari to consider four significant questions of national importance in Trump v. Hawai‘i, No. 17-965, which concerns the lawfulness of Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 24, 2017) (“the Proclamation”). The Proclamation is the President’s third attempt to prohibit most travel to the United States by over 150 million individuals, the vast majority of whom are Muslim. The Court previously granted certiorari to review the President’s second attempt at a travel ban, Executive Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“EO-2”), in Trump v. Hawai‘i, No. 16- 1540, and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, No. 16-1436, and consolidated the cases. At that earlier stage, the Ninth Circuit ruled on statutory grounds in Hawai‘i, and the Fourth Circuit ruled on constitutional grounds in IRAP. That is once again the situation here. The court of appeals denied the cross-appeal below, which argued that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity. This petition seeks certiorari on that question, which is not presented in Hawai‘i. In addition, this petition raises the same four questions already before the Court in Hawai‘i, and requests that the cases be consolidated once again. Accordingly, the questions presented are: 1. Whether the challenges to the President’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad are justiciable. i 2. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad. 3. Whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. 4. Whether the scope of the injunction is overbroad. 5. Whether the preliminary injunction was properly limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners were plaintiffs in three consolidated cases below. The IRAP petitioners are: International Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”), on behalf of itself and its clients; John Does #1 & 3; Jane Doe #2; Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc. (“MESA”), on behalf of itself and its members; Arab American Association of New York (“AAANY”), on behalf of itself and its clients; Yemeni-American Merchants Association, on behalf of itself and its members; HIAS, Inc., on behalf of itself and its clients; Muhammed Meteab; Mohamad Mashta; Grannaz Amirjamshidi; Fakhri Ziaolhagh; Shapour Shirani; Afsaneh Khazaeli; John Doe #4; John Doe #5. The IAAB petitioners are: Iranian Alliances Across Borders (“IAAB”); Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; Jane Doe #3; Jane Doe #4; Jane Doe #5; Jane Doe #6; and Iranian Students’ Foundation, an IAAB affiliate at the University of Maryland College Park. ii The Zakzok petitioners are: Eblal Zakzok; Sumaya Hamadmad; Fahed Muqbil; John Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; and Jane Doe #3.1 Respondents, who were defendants in the proceedings below, are: Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of State; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; Rex Tillerson, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and Daniel R. Coats, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence. 1 The IAAB and Zakzok petitioners did not cross-appeal the district court’s limitation of the scope of the injunction, and they therefore join the petition only with respect to the first four questions presented. This Court may review petitions filed by “any party to any civil or criminal case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (emphasis added). Prevailing parties retain Article III standing to seek review from this Court where they have a “personal stake in the appeal.” Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 702 (2011). Here, where the Fourth Circuit’s ruling remains stayed and there is a live dispute in the Hawai‘i appeal, the IAAB and Zakzok petitioners have not “receive[d] all that [they have] sought.” Deposit Guar. Nat. Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333 (1980). This Court could therefore grant review even if the IAAB and Zakzok petitioners alone had sought certiorari, as there is a “policy reaso[n] . of sufficient importance to allow an appeal.” Camreta, 563 U.S. at 704 (quoting Deposit Guar. Nat. Bank, 445 U.S. at 336 n.7). iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In accordance with United States Supreme Court Rule 29.6, petitioners make the following disclosures: 1) The parent corporation of petitioner International Refugee Assistance Project is the Urban Justice Center, Inc. 2) Petitioners HIAS, Inc., Middle East Studies Association of North America, Inc., Arab American Association of New York, Yemeni-American Merchants Association, Iranian Alliances Across Borders, and Iranian Students’ Foundation do not have parent corporations. 3) No publicly held company owns ten percent or more of the stock of any petitioner. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........... iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............. 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................... 1 A. The First Ban ................................................ 2 B. The Second Ban ............................................. 3 C. The Third Ban ............................................... 5 D. The Petitioners .............................................. 6 E. Proceedings Below ......................................... 8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 15 I. Unless the Court Grants the Petition, the Full Scope of Injunctive Relief Will Not Be Squarely Presented. .................................... 15 II. Granting Review Will Provide a Better Vehicle for the Court to Decide the Establishment Clause Issue. ...................... 17 III. Granting Certiorari Will Not Delay the Current Briefing Schedule. ......................... 20 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 20 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Trump, 2017 WL 6551491 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2017) ................................................................ 17 Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 260 (2003) ........... 19 Hawai‘i v. Trump, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Haw. 2017) ........................................................................ 4 Hawai‘i v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017) ..... 11 Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 241 F. Supp. 3d 539 (D. Md. 2017)....................................

Load more