//  4/24/17  //  Latest Developments

Last week, amicus curiae briefs addressing President Trump's revised travel ban (a.k.a. the "Muslim Ban") were filed in the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Many briefs were filed, reflecting the broad range of affected interests. Here we offer a quick and concededly rough guide to these briefs (taken from the Ninth Circuit, which has helpfully posted all filings here). Breaking the case into a manageable number of discrete issues, we aim to identify the most relevant amicus briefs for each of them.  

Of course, many of the amicus briefs address a wide array of issues. This post reflects only a first crack at organizing them. Briefs supporting the executive order are listed together at the end of this post. If you are counsel to amici and believe that your filing has been miscategorized, please submit a comment here.

For ease of reference, each brief is identified only by the name of the first listed party. 

HISTORICAL & CURRENT FACTUAL CONTEXT

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 3-10
  • MacArthur Justice Center Brief at 5-25
  • Khizr Khan Amicus Brief at 1-7
  • Scholars of American Religious History Brief at 7-24
  • Members of the Clergy Brief at 8-13

STANDING 

State Standing

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 17-21
  • Illinois Brief at 3-27

Individual Standing

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 14-17
  • Muslim Justice League Brief at 4-23

MERITS 

Constitutional Relevance of the National Security & Immigration Context 

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 21-23 and 42-47
  • Muslim Rights Organizations Brief at 2-11
  • Korematsu Center Amicus Brief at 10-22 
  • American Bar Association Brief 21-25
  • Constitutional Law Scholars Brief at 24-28

Irrationality, Mismatches, and Contradictions in the Structure of the Order 

  • Former National Security Officials Brief at 3-27
  • Former Federal Immigration and Homeland Security Officials Brief at 20-30
  • Interfaith Coalition Amicus Brief at 11-24
  • Foundation for the Children of Iran Brief at 14-26
  • T.A. Amicus Brief at 4-28
  • CATO Institute Brief at 10-27
  • Muslim Justice League Brief at 23-30

Why Revisions from the Original Executive Order are Insufficient

  • Former National Security Officials Brief at 22 to 27
  • Muslim Rights Organizations Brief at 11-13

The Revised Travel Ban is Forbidden as a Statutory Matter

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 23-42
  • Foundation for the Children of Iran Brief at 26-29
  • Khizr Khan Brief at 13-17
  • NYU Brief at 17-18 and 19-26
  • Chicago Brief at 13-19
  • American Bar Association Brief at 6-21
  • Former Federal Immigration and Homeland Security Officials Brief at 4-30
  • Members of Congress Brief at 19-28
  • National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Brief at 4-26
  • National Immigrant Justice Center Brief at 8-28
  • Technology Companies Brief at 15-28

The Revised Travel Ban Violates the Establishment Clause

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 42-57
  • Constitutional Law Scholars Brief at 5-17
  • Members of the Clergy Brief at 4-22
  • Members of Congress Brief at 7-15
  • Interfaith Group of Religious and Interreligious Organizations Brief at 4-10
  • Chicago Brief at 8-13
  • Interfaith Coalition Brief at 8-11
  • Episcopal Church Brief at 3-12
  • Khizr Khan Brief at 7-11
  • NYU Brief at 16-17 and 19-26

The Revised Travel Ban Violates the Equal Protection Clause 

  • NYU Brief at 15-16 and 19-26
  • Members of the Clergy Brief at 22-29

The Revised Travel Ban Violates the Due Process Clause

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 57-59
  • Members of Congress Brief at 15-19

The Full Context of the Order Must be Considered

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 42-47, 51-56
  • Constitutional Law Scholars Brief at 18-28
  • MacArthur Justice Center Brief at 25-27
  • Interfaith Coalition Brief at 24-26
  • Scholars of American Religious History Brief at 24-28
  • Muslim Rights Organizations Brief at 2-11 and 13-17
  • CATO Institute Brief at 5-10

Lessons from International Law

  • International Law Scholars Brief at 3-15 

THE ORDER HAS CAUSED IRREPARABLE HARM  

  • Plaintiffs-Appellees Brief at 59-61
  • NYU Amicus Brief at 4-15
  • Colleges and Universities Brief at 4-29
  • American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Brief at 4-33
  • Interfaith Group of Religious and Interreligious Organizations Brief at 10-30
  • Chicago Brief at 19-25
  • Illinois Brief at 27-30
  • Members of the Clergy Brief at 29-31
  • SEIU Brief at 4-21
  • IRC Brief at 5-22
  • Oxfam America Brief at 4-31
  • Association of Art Museum Directors Brief at 5-11
  • Tahirih Justice Center Brief at 7-29
  • Technology Companies Brief at 1-15

AMICUS BRIEFS SUPPORTING THE ORDER

  • American Civil Rights Union Brief
  • Immigration Reform Law Institute Brief
  • Victor Williams Brief
  • Alliance Defending Freedom Brief
  • American Center for Law and Justice Brief
  • Southeastern Legal Foundation Brief
  • State of Texas Brief


Disclaimer: Joshua Matz, the Publisher of Take Care, is Counsel of Record to Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae.  Other Take Care contributors are among counsel or amici opposing the revised travel ban in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. 


Versus Trump: An Impeachment Primer...

10/3/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Gotcha! No impeachment dessert until you eat your immigration broccoli. On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha (back from parental leave!) and Charlie (just starting parental leave) discuss two immigration losses for the Trump administration. The first concerns Trump’s attempts to roll back court-ordered protections for migrant children; the second, Trump’s attempt to subject more immigrants to expedited removal. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

The Supreme Court’s Indefinite Immigration Detentions Of Children And Families

10/1/19  //  Commentary

How the Supreme Court facilitated DHS’s plan to indefinitely detain minors and their families.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Same Flores Song, Different Verse

9/30/19  //  Commentary

Judge Gee’s earlier ruling on DOJ’s “application for relief” from the Flores settlement makes clear why her recent ruling invalidating DHS’s new regulation is correct.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School