NOS. 16-1436, 16-1540 In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al., Respondents. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners, v. HAWAII, et al., Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF INTERNATIONAL LAW SCHOLARS AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS Elisabeth C. Frost Aaron X. Fellmeth Amanda R. Callais Counsel of Record PERKINS COIE LLP Sandra Day O’Connor 700 13th Street, NW College of Law Suite 600 Mail Code 9520 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Arizona State University 111 E. Taylor St. Phoenix, AZ 85004-4467 480.727.8575 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae International Law Scholars and Non-Governmental Organizations Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... ii RULE 29 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............. 1 I. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT........ 2 II. ARGUMENT.......................... 4 A. International Law Is Relevant to Assessing the Legality of the Executive Order............................. 4 B. International Law Regarding Discrimination on the Basis of Religion and National Origin ................. 9 1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights............... 9 2. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.................. 14 C. Relevant Provisions of the Executive Order............................ 16 III. CONCLUSION ....................... 18 APPENDIX Appendix A ............................App. 1 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) ....................... 6 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) ................. 7 Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) ....................... 6 Kerry v. Din, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring)............................. 12 Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) ....................... 12 Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804) ................. 6 Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1994) ....................... 6 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) ....................... 7 Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801) .................. 6 United States v. The Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1801) ................ 8 Other Cases TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg v. Germany ............................... 15 iii Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. Article II, § 3 ..................... 7 U.S. Const. Article VI........................ 7 U.S. Const. Article VI, cl. 2................... 14 Legislative Materials 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed., Apr. 2, 1992) .................. 4, 9 140 Cong. Rec. S7634-02 (daily ed., June 24, 1994) ............... 14, 15 Treaties Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), June 26, 1987, 1465 U.N.T.S. 113............................. 5 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), Dec. 21, 1965, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 660 U.N.T.S. 195........................ passim International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 2(2), Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1976) (“CCPR”) ..................... passim International Declarations Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law, 25 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 287 (1995/96) ........................... 13 iv Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts. 2, 7, 12, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948) ................................. 13 Other International Materials Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrim., Commun. No. 48/2010 (Feb. 26, 2013), U.N. Doc. CERD/C/82/D/48/2010 .................... 16 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 30, para. 4, 64th Sess., U.N. Doc. CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 (2004) ............ 10 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 35: Combating Racist Hate Speech, para. 6, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/OC/35 (2013) ................ 15 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 15, para. 5 (1986), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) ................................. 11 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, paras. 6 and 12, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1Rev.1 (1994) .............. 10, 12 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 19, para. 5 (1990), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) .................. 11 State Reports—Convention Against Torture— U.S.A., U.N. Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, para. 57-60 (Feb. 9, 2000) .......................... 5, 6 v Other Authorities Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law 119-21 (2016) .......... 10 Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1 (June 29, 1793), reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33 (Harold C. Syrett ed. 1969) ...... 8 Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the- world-factbook/geos/xx.html ............... 17 Hearing Before the Comm. on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 101st Cong. (1990) ............. 5 O.A.S. Res. XXX (1948), Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter- American System, OEA/Ser.L/V/I.4 rev. 13 (2010) ................................. 13 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 111(3) ................ 7 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 111(3)-(4) (1987) ........................ 4 Sen. Exec. Rpt. 101-30, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification (1990) ............... 4 Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, Report on International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, S. Exec. Rep. No. 103-29 (1994) ..................... 6 1 RULE 29 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The Amici are eighty-five international law scholars and several nongovernmental organizations. See Appendix A (listing all Amici). The international law scholars include practitioners and tenured faculty members at law schools in the United States who have devoted extensive efforts to the study and practice of international law. They research, teach, speak, and publish widely on international law issues, and they routinely advise and practice in matters addressing such issues before American courts. They include members of the International Human Rights Committee of the International Law Association, American Branch,1 as well as university professors and practicing lawyers with expertise in these subjects. The nongovernmental organizations are experts in civil rights law, immigration law, and international human rights law. Amici submit this brief to vindicate the public interest in ensuring a proper understanding and application of the international human rights law relevant to this case. As scholars and practitioners in the area, the Amici have a strong interest in ensuring that the Court reaches a decision that conforms to the 1 Petitioners have filed blanket letters of consent to the filing of amicus briefs with the Clerk of the Court, and Respondents have consented in writing to the filing of this brief in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37.3. Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amicus curiae states that no counsel for a party authored any part of this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. 2 existing body of international law binding on the United States. The Amici support the Respondents in this matter and urge affirmance of the decision below. I. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The purpose of this brief is to bring to the Court’s attention U.S. treaty provisions and customary international law principles that bear on the legality of Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (“EO”), which replaces the now-rescinded Executive Order No. 13769 of January 27, 2017. The United States government is bound by the international treaties it ratifies as well as by customary international law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. These treaties and customary international law must be faithfully executed by the President and enforced by U.S. courts except when clearly inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or subsequent acts of Congress. The United States is a party to and bound by several international human rights treaties relevant to the subject matter of the EO. Those treaties, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), prohibit distinctions based on either religion or national origin, except when necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim of the state. Such distinctions violate international human rights law binding on the United States whenever they have either the purpose or effect of disadvantaging a group on the prohibited grounds. 3 The EO makes a prohibited distinction in immigration policy based on national origin on its face. The government has offered no coherent rationale for the distinction between the countries subject to the immigration suspension and other countries. As such, the EO violates the human right to freedom from discrimination based on national origin under the CCPR, CERD, and customary