United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Advocates Johnathan J. Smith, Sirine Shebaya, Matthew W.
Callahan, The Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center
Aziz Hug Attorney For Muslim Advocates
Huq, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Attorneys for Muslim Advocates
and The Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center
Joseph P. Hoag.
MOTIONTOFILE BRIEF OF AMICI MUSLIM ADVOCATES AND THE
MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY
L. Robart Judge.
Advocates and the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice
Center ("MJC") respectfully move for leave to file
the accompanying amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties have
consented to the filing of the associated amicus brief.
Advocates is a national legal advocacy and educational
organization formed in 2005 that works on the frontlines of
civil rights to guarantee freedom and justice for Americans
of all faiths. The issues at stake in this case directly
relate to Muslim Advocates' work fighting institutional
discrimination against the American Muslim community.
MacArthur Justice Center is a not-for-profit organization
founded by the family of J. Roderick MacArthur to advocate
for human rights and social justice through litigation. MJC
has represented clients facing myriad human rights and civil
rights injustices, including issues of discrimination, the
unlawful detention of foreign nationals, and the rights of
marginalized groups in the American justice system. MJC has
an interest in the rule of law and the independence of the
judiciary in determining whether government officials have
acted with discriminatory animus against an unpopular
submit this brief to document the long history of religious
animus that led to the order under consideration by the
Court. This includes the President's extensive record of
hostility against people of the Muslim faith, his open desire
to curtail their rights, and his specific, sustained promise
to inhibit their entry to the U.S.-including specifically by
prohibiting the entry of Muslim refugees. It also describes
express anti-Muslim terminology used in the predecessor
Executive Orders that created the basis for the present
order. MJC's prior briefing was relied upon by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii in enjoining
Executive Order 13780, see Hawai'i v. Trump, 241
F.Supp.3d 1119, 1137 n.14 (D. Haw. 2017), and by parties in
the various proceedings challenging the President's
Court has broad discretion to permit a non-party to
participate in an action as amicus curiae. See, e.g.,
Gerritson v. de la Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511, 1514
n.3 (9th Cir. 1987); Skokomish Indian Tribe v.
Goldmark, No. 13-cv-5071-JLR, 2013 WL 5720053, at *1
(W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013) ("The court has 'broad
discretion' to appoint amicus curiae.") (citing
Hoptowitv. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir.
1982)); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Evans, 243
F.Supp.2d 1046, 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (amici "may file
briefs and may possibly participate in oral argument" in
district court actions). Indeed, "[d]istrict courts
frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning
legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the
parties directly involved or if the amicus has 'unique
information or perspective that can help the court beyond the
help that the lawyers for the parties are able to
provide.'" Sonoma Falls Dev., LLC v. Nev. Gold
& Casinos, Inc., 272 F.Supp.2d 919, 925 (N.D. Cal.
2003) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 F.Supp.2d 59,
62 (D.D.C. 2003) (citation omitted)). No special
qualifications are required; "an individual seeking to
appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his
participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the
court." In re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F.Supp.
987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991).
Amici have special interest and expertise in anti-Muslim
animus-both historically and with regard to the present
administration-their participation as amici curiae is
appropriate in this matter in which the Court will consider
issues of particular public interest. See Liberty Res.,
Inc. v. Phila. Hous. Auth, 395 F.Supp.2d 206, 209 (E.D.
Pa. 2005). ("Courts have found the participation of an
amicus especially proper ... where an issue of general public
interest is at stake."). This is because the primary
role of an amicus is "to assist the Court in reaching
the right decision in a case affected with the interest of
the general public." Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing
Examiners of Cty. of Westchester, 74 F.Supp.2d 349, 351
accordingly request leave to file the accompanying brief as
amici curiae in support of Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.