DOCSLIB.ORG

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 1 of 32

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 No. 21-1369 ════════════════════════════════════════ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ────────────────────────────── PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of South Carolina, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and HENRY MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, et al., Intervenors-Appellants, and ANNE G. COOK, et al., Defendants. ────────────────────────────── On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Case No. 21-cv-00508 ════════════════════════════════════════ BRIEF OF 20 STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF SOUTH CAROLINA APPELLANTS ════════════════════════════════════════ STATE OF ALABAMA STEVE MARSHALL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Edmund G. LaCour Jr. Montgomery, AL 36130 Solicitor General (334) 242-7300 Counsel of Record [email protected] A. Barrett Bowdre Deputy Solicitor General Counsel for Amici Curiae [Additional counsel listed on signature page] USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 2 of 32 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT As governmental parties, amici are not required to file a certificate of inter- ested persons. Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(a). i USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 3 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. As Laws From Other States Demonstrate, The Act’s Unchallenged Provisions Are “Capable Of Being Executed In Accordance With The Legislative Intent, Independent Of The Rejected Portion.” ................................................................................. 5 II. The District Court’s Severability Analysis Violates Principles Of Separation Of Powers, Federalism, And Article III ............................ 13 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 22 ii USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 4 of 32 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ass’n of Am. Railroads v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 896 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................13 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) ................................................................................... 4, 13, 14 Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) ................................................................................... 13, 14 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) ..............................................................................................16 Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985) ................................................................................................ 4 Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 803 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................16 Edwards v. Beck, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Ark. 2014), aff’d, 786 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................10 EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Beshear, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................9, 10 EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Meier, 140 S. Ct. 655 (2019) .............................................................................................. 9 Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 60 S.E.2d 682 (S.C. 1950) ...................................................................................... 6 Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ..............................................................................................15 Falls Church Med. Ctr., LLC v. Oliver, 412 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Va. 2019) ...................................................................10 iii USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 5 of 32 Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) ..............................................................................................14 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ..............................................................................................13 Hodges v. Rainey, 533 S.E.2d 578 (S.C. 2000) .................................................................................... 5 Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 249 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................16 In re DNA Ex Post Facto Issues, 561 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 3, 5, 7, 13 In re Gee, 941 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................16 Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020).............................................................................18 Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. South Carolina, 528 S.E.2d 647 (S.C. 1999) ..................................................................... 3, 5, 7, 13 Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) ................................................................................................ 2 Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137 (1996) ..................................................................................... 3, 6, 18 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) ..............................................................................................14 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ..............................................................................................16 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)..............................................................................................14 Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) ..............................................................................................15 iv USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 6 of 32 Media Gen. Commc’ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 694 S.E.2d 525 (S.C. 2010) ................................................................................5, 6 Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ..........................................................................................10 Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................17 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ..................................................................................... 2, 9, 13 Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984) ..............................................................................................14 Reprod. Health Servs. v. Marshall, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (M.D. Ala. 2017) ...............................................................10 Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) ..........................................................................................15 Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) ..............................................................................................15 Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................10 Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................10 United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021) ..........................................................................................15 STATUTES Ala. Code § 26-23A-4 ....................................................................................... 11, 12 Ala. Code § 26-23A-10 ............................................................................................12 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153 .......................................................................................12 v USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 7 of 32 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2156 ...............................................................................11 Ark. Code § 20-16-1703 ..........................................................................................12 Ark. Code § 20-16-602 (as amended by 2021 Arkansas Laws Act 498 (S.B. 85) .....................................11 Ark. Code § 20-16-1710 ..........................................................................................12 Fla. Stat. § 390.0111 ................................................................................................11 Ga. Code § 31-9A-3 .................................................................................................12
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sean D. Reyes Attorney General
    STATE OF UTAH OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEAN D. REYES ATTORNEY GENERAL Spencer E. Austin Ric Cantrell Tyler R. Green Brian L. Tarbet Chief Criminal Deputy Chief of Staff Solicitor General Chief Civil Deputy August 28, 2020 Donald J. Trump The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 RE: H.R.4172, The National Child ID Act Dear Mr. President, First, thank you for your steadfast and continued leadership and all you do to keep families safe across America. The purpose of this letter is to ask for your support through any federal agency including the United States Department of Justice to make available funds, whether those currently identified to fight human trafficking or from other sources, to immediately fortify our defenses as parents throughout America against child exploitation, abduction and human trafficking. Statistics show that more than 800,000 children go missing each year including runaways and those abducted. That is one child gone every 40 seconds. And we are seeing those statistics rise along with child sexual abuse, exploitation and human trafficking. You recently met with our friend and NFL Hall of Fame Player Mike Singletary to discuss a program he and many other Collegiate and NFL Coaches champion called the National Child ID Program. We also support this effort as we fight daily to protect children in our role as state Attorneys General. The Child ID Program began in 1997 with the American Football Coaches Association in response to findings that parents did not have fingerprints or DNA for their children in the case of an emergency or abduction.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 U.S. Political Contribution and Expenditure Policy and Statement
    2019 U.S. Political Contribution and Expenditure Policy and Statement The Company’s policy is to participate in public policymaking by informing government officials about our positions on issues significant to the Company and our customers. These issues are discussed in the context of existing and proposed laws, legislation, regulations, and policy initiatives, and include, for example, commerce, intellectual property, trade, data privacy, transportation, and web services. Relatedly, the Company constructively and responsibly participates in the U.S. political process. The goal of the Company’s political contributions and expenditures is to promote the interests of the Company and our customers, and the Company makes such decisions in accordance with the processes described in this political contribution and expenditure policy and statement, without regard to the personal political preferences of the Company’s directors, officers, or employees. Click here for archives of previous statements. Approval Process The Company’s Vice President of Public Policy reviews and approves each political contribution and expenditure made with Company funds or resources to, or in support of, any political candidate, political campaign, political party, political committee, or public official in any country, or to any other organization for use in making political expenditures, to ensure that it is lawful and consistent with the Company’s business objectives and public policy priorities. The Company’s Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs and the Senior Vice President and General Counsel review all political expenditures. In addition, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors annually reviews this political contribution and expenditure policy and statement and a report on all of the Company’s political contributions and expenditures, including any contributions made to trade associations or 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Ks-Ag-21-0185
    February 8, 2021 VIA FACSIMILE Assistant Attorney General Philip Michael Kansas Attorney General’s Office Memorial Hall 120 SW 10th Street, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612-1597 Fax: (785) 296-6296 Re: Kansas Open Records Act Request Dear Assistant Attorney General Michael: Pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. §§ 45-215 et seq., American Oversight makes the following request for records. In early December 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit seeking to block various states from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the Electoral College.1 Seventeen additional states, including Kansas, filed motions backing Texas’s efforts.2 Later public reporting indicated that in the days leading up to Texas’s filing, a group of Republican state attorneys general solicited U.S. Justice Department support from then-Attorney General William Barr. Accordingly, American Oversight seeks records concerning any attempts to petition the U.S. Department of Justice to support efforts to overturn election results. Requested Records American Oversight requests that the Kansas Attorney General’s Office produce the following records within three business days: 1. All email communications (including emails, email attachments, calendar invitations, and calendar attachments) between (a) any of the Kansas Attorney General’s Office officials listed in Column A, below, and (b) any of the external parties listed in Column B, below. 1 Emma Platoff, In New Lawsuit, Texas Contests Election Results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tex. Tribune, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/08/texas-ken-paxton-election-georgia/. 2 Todd J. Gillman, 17 States and Trump Join Texas Request for Supreme Court to Overturn Biden Wins in Four States, Dallas Morning News (Dec.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Here – Option 1
    Post Election Briefing - State Attorneys General Stephen Cobb: Partner, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia Jim Schultz: Partner, Former Senior Associate White House Counsel, Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor Bill Shepherd: Partner, Florida’s Former Statewide Prosecutor December 8, 2020 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP. All Rights Reserved Thank you for joining today’s program • All participants are on mute • Please ask questions via Q&A box • Today’s program is being recorded and will be posted on our website • For technical assistance please reach out to the host via the chat box 2 Today’s Presenters Stephen Cobb Jim Schultz Bill Shepherd Partner Partner Partner Former Deputy Former Senior Associate Florida’s Former Attorney General White House Counsel, Statewide Prosecutor of Virginia Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor 3 The Growing Role of State Attorneys General Looking Back on 2020 The Election Results 2021 – What to Expect 4 Priorities of State Attorneys General During 2020 • Consumer Protection • False Claims Act • Antitrust • Environmental Enforcement Actions • COVID-19 • Data Breach/Data Privacy 5 State Attorney General Race Results . Indiana . Pennsylvania . Todd Rokita (R) defeated Jonathan Weinzapfel (D) . Josh Shapiro* (D) defeated Heather Heidelbaugh (R) . Missouri . Utah . Eric Schmitt* (R) defeated Richard Finneran (D) . Sean D. Reyes* (R) defeated Greg Skordas (D) . Montana . Vermont . Austin Knudsen (R) defeated Ralph Graybill (D) vs. T.J. Donovan* (D) defeated H Brooke Paige (R) . North Carolina . Washington . Josh Stein* (D) defeated Jim O’Neill (R) . Bob Ferguson* (D) defeated Matt Larkin (R) . Oregon . West Virginia . Ellen Rosenblum* (D) defeated Michael Cross (R) . Patrick Morrisey* (R) defeated Sam Brown Petsonk (D) Aside from the 10 races detailed above, Maine’s next state legislature and the governors of New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are due to appoint new AGs.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Complaint
    Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; COMMONWEATH OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF Civ. Action No. 3:21-cv-00065 MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State; MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 59 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy; MICHAEL S. REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Agriculture; PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; SCOTT A. SPELLMON, in his official capacity as Commanding General of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • February 9, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden the White House 1600
    Austin Knudsen ATTORNEY GENERAL February 9, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Biden: As the chief legal officers of our states, we write with alarm regarding your unilateral and rushed decision to revoke the 2019 Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Your decision will result in devastating damage to many of our states and local communities. Even those states outside the path of the Keystone XL pipeline—indeed all Americans—will suffer serious, detrimental consequences. In your January 20, 2021 Executive Order, you concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline “disserves the U.S. national interest.”1 You supported that determination with vague statements about the “climate crisis,” how “[t]he world must be put on a sustainable climate pathway,” and that “[t]he United States must be in a position to exercise vigorous climate leadership ….”2 Nowhere, however, do you explain how killing the Keystone XL pipeline project directly advances the goals of “protect[ing] Americans and the domestic economy from harmful climate impacts.”3 Nor does your decision actually cure any of the climate ills you reference. Observers are thus left with only one reasonable supposition: it is a symbolic act of virtue signaling to special interests and the international community. The real-world costs are devastating. Nationally, your decision will eliminate thousands of well-paying jobs, many of them union jobs. Your order hearkened back to the 2015 determination from the Obama Administration “that the significance of the proposed 1 Exec. Order No. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Common Pleas Court Delaware County, Ohio Civil Division
    IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION STATE OF OHIO ex rel. DAVE YOST, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Case No. 21 CV H________________ 30 East Broad St. Columbus, OH 43215 Plaintiff, JUDGE ___________________ v. GOOGLE LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway COMPLAINT FOR Mountain View, CA 94043 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Also Serve: Google LLC c/o Corporation Service Co. 50 W. Broad St., Ste. 1330 Columbus OH 43215 Defendant. Plaintiff, the State of Ohio, by and through its Attorney General, Dave Yost, (hereinafter “Ohio” or “the State”), upon personal knowledge as to its own acts and beliefs, and upon information and belief as to all matters based upon the investigation by counsel, brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Google LLC (“Google” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION The vast majority of Ohioans use the internet. And nearly all of those who do use Google Search. Google is so ubiquitous that its name has become a verb. A person does not have to sign a contract, buy a specific device, or pay a fee to use Good Search. Google provides its CLERK OF COURTS - DELAWARE COUNTY, OH - COMMON PLEAS COURT 21 CV H 06 0274 - SCHUCK, JAMES P. FILED: 06/08/2021 09:05 AM search services indiscriminately to the public. To use Google Search, all you have to do is type, click and wait. Primarily, users seek “organic search results”, which, per Google’s website, “[a] free listing in Google Search that appears because it's relevant to someone’s search terms.” In lieu of charging a fee, Google collects user data, which it monetizes in various ways—primarily via selling targeted advertisements.
    [Show full text]
  • April 1, 2021 Hon. Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House H-232, The
    April 1, 2021 Hon. Nancy Pelosi Hon. Kevin McCarthy Speaker of the House Minority Leader H-232, The Capitol H-204, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Hon. Charles E. Schumer Hon. Mitch McConnell Majority Leader Minority Leader 322 Hart Bldg. 317 Russell Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 Hon. Steny Hoyer Hon. Steve Scalise Majority Leader Minority Whip H-107, The Capitol 2049 Rayburn Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Hon. James E. Clyburn Hon. Richard J. Durbin Majority Whip Majority Whip H-329, The Capitol 711 Hart Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 Hon. John Thune Hon. Sherrod Brown Minority Whip Chair 511 Dirksen Bldg. Senate Committee on Banking, Washington, DC 20510 Housing, & Urban Affairs 503 Hart Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Hon. Patrick J. Toomey Ranking Member Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs 455 Dirksen Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Dear Congressional Leaders: We are a bipartisan group of state and territorial attorneys general committed to public safety, financial transparency, and the rule of law. On May 8, 2019, 38 state and territorial attorneys general urged passage of the Safe and Fair Enforcement (“SAFE”) Banking Act, or similar legislation, providing access to the regulated banking system for marijuana-related businesses in states with robust regulatory controls that ensure accountability in the marijuana industry. The undersigned attorneys general reiterate that support here and encourage Congress to take action expeditiously. During the November 2020 election, voters in multiple states approved ballot measures to regulate cannabis for medical and/or adult use.1 Currently, forty-seven states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wayne Stenehjem (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ATTORNEY GENERAL of the STATE of NORTH DAKOTA 500 N
    Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 273 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 9 Wayne Stenehjem (admitted pro hac vice) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 500 N. 9th Street Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 328-2925 Email: [email protected] Paul M. Seby (admitted pro hac vice) Special Assistant Attorney General Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 572-6584 Email: [email protected] Robert J. Walker (Wyo. Bar No. 7-4715) Hickey & Evans, LLP 1800 Carey Street, Suite 700 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Phone: (307) 634-1525 Fax: (307) 638-7335 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner-Intervenor State of North Dakota UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING STATE OF WYOMING, ) STATE OF MONTANA, ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, and ) STATE OF TEXAS ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No. 16-cv-00285-SWS ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) THE INTERIOR, et al. ) ) Respondents, ) Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 273 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 9 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA’S, STATE OF TEXAS’, STATE OF WYOMING’S, AND STATE OF MONTANA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT NOTICE OF RESOLUTION OF RELATED LITIGATION AND MOTION TO LIFT STAY INTRODUCTION Petitioners and Petitioner-Intervenors the States of North Dakota, Texas, Wyoming and Montana (collectively “State Petitioners”) respectfully notify this Court that on July 15, 2020 the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements: Final Rule, 83 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • August 25, 2021 the Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General
    MARK BRNOVICH DAVE YOST ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL August 25, 2021 The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Re: Constitutionality of Illegal Reentry Criminal Statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 Dear Attorney General Garland, We, the undersigned attorneys general, write as chief legal officers of our States to inquire about your intent to appeal the decision in United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, No. 3:20-cr- 00026-MMD-WGC, ECF. 60 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2021). As you know, in that decision, Chief Judge Du found unconstitutional 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the statute that criminalizes the illegal reentry of previously removed aliens. We appreciate that you recently filed a notice of appeal, preserving your ability to defend the law on appeal. We now urge you to follow through by defending the law before the Ninth Circuit and (if necessary) the Supreme Court. We ask that you confirm expeditiously DOJ’s intent to do so. Alternatively, if you do not intend to seek reversal of that decision and instead decide to cease prosecutions for illegal reentry in some or all of the country, we ask that you let us know, in writing, so that the undersigned can take appropriate action. Section 1326, as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, is unremarkable in that it requires all aliens—no matter their race or country of origin—to enter the country lawfully. In finding the law racially discriminatory against “Latinx persons,” Chief Judge Du made some truly astounding claims, especially considering that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mexico has more legal permanent residents in the United States, by far, than any other country.1 Chief Judge Du determined that, because most illegal reentrants at the border are from Mexico, the law has an impermissible “disparate impact” on Mexicans.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the United States District Court for the District Of
    Case 3:21-cv-03009-RAL Document 47 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 950 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM, in her ) official capacity as the Governor of ) South Dakota, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:21-cv-03009 ) DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity ) as United States Secretary of the ) Interior, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS The States of Kansas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia move for leave to file the attached amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs. “A district court has inherent authority to allow amicus curiae to participate in proceedings.” Avellino v. Herron, 991 F. Supp. 730, 732 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The proposed amici have an interest in the outcome of this case because their citizens may wish to attend the Mount Rushmore fireworks display or view it on television. The States also have an interest in ensuring that the Department of Interior, which manages land within the States, makes reasoned permitting decisions, unlike the 1 Case 3:21-cv-03009-RAL Document 47 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 951 arbitrary and capricious decision at issue here. Given these interests, the States respectfully request this Court grant them leave to file the attached amicus brief. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James E. Moore James E. Moore DEREK SCHMIDT Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C. Kansas Attorney General 300 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Status Report: U.S. and Plaintiff States V
    Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 189 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA United States of America, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM v. HON. AMIT P. MEHTA Google LLC, Defendant. State of Colorado, et al., Plaintiffs, Case. No 1:20-cv-03715-APM v. HON. AMIT P. MEHTA Google LLC, Defendant. JOINT STATUS REPORT In accordance with the Court’s Minute Order dated June 29, 2021, the parties in United States v. Google LLC and State of Colorado v. Google LLC submit the following Joint Status Report summarizing the state of discovery and identifying any issues between the parties, and the parties’ respective positions, that will be raised at the status hearing scheduled for August 31, 2021. I. Case No. 1:20-cv-03010 A. Google’s Discovery of Plaintiffs A summary of Google’s First Set of Requests for Production and prior document Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 189 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 31 productions made by Plaintiffs are set forth in the parties’ earlier Joint Status Reports, including their reports dated February 23 (ECF No. 111), March 26 (ECF No. 124), April 23 (ECF No. 131), May 24 (ECF No. 135), June 24 (ECF No. 149), and July 27 (ECF No. 165). B. Plaintiffs’ Discovery of Google A summary of Plaintiffs’ First and Second Sets of Requests for Production and the document productions made by Google prior to May 24 are set forth in the parties’ earlier Joint Status Reports, including their reports dated February 23 (ECF No.
    [Show full text]