IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN ...€¦ · Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document...

Christopher J. Hajec

DC Bar No. 492551

Michael M. Hethmon

DC Bar No. 1019386

Immigration Reform Law Institute

25 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.

Suite 335

Washington DC 20001

Tel: 202-232-5590

Email: [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., )

) Civil Action No.

) 1:18-cv-2921 (JMF) Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

COMMERCE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

UNOPPOSED MOTION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

MOTION OF THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN

IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS

CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND DISMISSAL

Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 175 Filed 06/11/18 of 5

1

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) respectfully moves for leave

to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief (see Attachment A) in support of Defendants’ motion

to dismiss. The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is the largest and oldest

organization in the United States seeking to educate the citizenry on and increase public awareness

of immigration issues, and hold the nation’s leaders accountable for enforcing the nation’s

immigration laws. In furtherance of its public interest mission, FAIR has litigated numerous

questions and controversies in the field of immigration law since its founding in 1979, including

the census and apportionment cases FAIR v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980), and Ridge

v. Verity, 715 F. Supp. 1308 (D. W. Pa. 1989).

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is counsel for, and a supporting organization

of, FAIR. IRLI has litigated or filed amicus curiae briefs in a wide variety of cases, including

challenges to ultra vires immigration regulations and agency violations of the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”). See, e.g., Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

74 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D.D.C. 2014); Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 16-5287

(D.C. Cir. filed Sept. 28, 2016); Keller v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2013); and Texas

v. United States, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015). IRLI is considered an expert in immigration law

1 Defendants have consented to the filing of the attached amicus brief. Plaintiffs have consented

to the “prompt” filing of the brief, and have indicated that they considered its filing “prompt” if

done by June 8, 2018. See attached email correspondence. On June 8, an identical version of the

attached brief was filed as an attachment to amicus’s first application for admission pro hac vice,

and has been available to plaintiffs and defendants through the Court’s electronic filing system

since that date. Thus, even if this Court were to consider plaintiffs’ consent withdrawn, the

granting of this motion would not prejudice any party.


2

by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and has prepared amicus briefs for the Board, at the request

of that body, for more than twenty years. See, e.g., Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 826

(B.I.A. 2016); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341 (B.I.A. 2010); and In re Q- T- -- M- T-, 21 I.

& N. Dec. 639 (B.I.A. 1996).

STANDARD

“District Courts have broad discretion to permit or deny the appearance of amici curiae in

a given case.” United States v. Ahmed, 788 F. Supp. 196, 198 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “An amicus

brief should normally be allowed when … the amicus has unique information or perspective that

can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties area able to provide.” Automobile

Club N.Y. Inc. v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., No. 11-cv-6746-RJH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

135391 *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The court is most likely

to grant leave to appear as an amicus curiae in cases involving matters of public interest.”

Andersen v. Leavitt, No. 3-cv-6115-DRH-ARL, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59108, *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.

13, 2007).

ARGUMENT

In the attached brief, amicus argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’

Information Quality Act (“TQA”) claim, in support citing holdings by this Court and other courts

that the TQA does not provide a private right of action. Proposed Amicus Brief at 5-7. Since

neither the parties nor any other amici have discussed this point, the attached amicus brief could

be particularly helpful to this Court.

In addition, glance at the amended complaint shows that Plaintiffs zealously contend that

the claims they assert regarding the form, content, and use of the 2020 Census are matters of the

highest public interest. See e.g. First Amended Complaint ¶ 2 (“The ‘decennial enumeration of


3

the population is one of the most critical constitutional functions our federal government

performs,’ … directly determin[ing] the apportionment of Representatives…, the allocation of

electors…, and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds….”) (quoting P.L. No. 105-

119, §209(a)(5) 111 Stat. 2440, 2481 (1997)); ¶ 169 (“An inaccurate census would not just result

in worse health outcomes for undercounted communities, but for the nation as a whole.”).

Plaintiffs’ characterization of the importance to the public of the issues raised is not challenged by

the Defendants.

FAIR agrees, and has particular interest in census issues as they pertain to citizenship

because of its involvement in the census and apportionment cases FAIR v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp.

564 (D.D.C. 1980), and Ridge v. Verity, 715 F. Supp. 1308 (W.D. Pa. 1989).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the instant motion should be granted.

DATED: June 11, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, Amicus Curiae,

By its Attorneys,

/s/ Christopher J. Hajec

Christopher J. Hajec, DC Bar No. 492551

Michael M. Hethmon, DC Bar No. 1019386


25 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 335

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: 202-232-5590

Fax: 202-464-3590



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 11, 2018, I electronically filed a copy of this Motion, as well

as the attached proposed Brief Amicus Curiae, using the CM/ECF System for the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York, which will send notification of that filing

to all counsel of record in this litigation.



Attorney for Amicus Curiae FAIR



DC Bar No. 492551

Michael M. Hethmon

DC Bar No. 1019386


25 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.

Suite 335

Washington DC 20001

Tel: 202-232-5590




)

)


) Civil Action No.


)

v. )

)


COMMERCE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

REFORM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND DISMISSAL

Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 175-1 Filed 06/11/18 Page 1 of 12

ii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) is a non-profit charitable

corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia and having its principal place of

business at 25 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20001. FAIR does not have

a parent corporation and does not issue stock.


1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is the largest and oldest

organization in the United States seeking to educate the citizenry on and increase public awareness

of immigration issues, and hold the nation’s leaders accountable for enforcing the nation’s

immigration laws.

In furtherance of its public interest mission, FAIR has litigated numerous questions and

controversies in the field of immigration law since its founding in 1979, including the census and

apportionment cases FAIR v. Klutznick, 486 F.Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980), and Ridge v. Verity, 715

F. Supp. 1308 (D. W. Pa. 1989).

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is counsel for, and a supporting organization

of, FAIR. IRLI has litigated or filed amicus curiae briefs in a wide variety of cases, including

challenges to ultra vires immigration regulations and agency violations of the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”). See Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 74 F.

Supp. 3d 247 (D.D.C. 2014); Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 16-5287 (D.C.

Cir. filed Sept. 28, 2016); Keller v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2013); and Texas v.

United States, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015). IRLI is considered an expert in immigration law by

the Board of Immigration Appeals, and has prepared amicus briefs for the Board, at the request of

that body, for more than twenty years. See, e.g., Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 826

(B.I.A. 2016); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341 (B.I.A. 2010); and In re Q- T- -- M- T-, 21 I.

& N. Dec. 639 (B.I.A. 1996).

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs, in their First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), mistakenly allege that the

decision of the Secretary of Commerce to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 census


2

violates the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. See Complaint, First Claim for Relief, ¶¶ 177-178;

Third Claim for Relief, ¶¶ 180-191. Plaintiffs further mistakenly allege that the decision of the

Secretary of Commerce to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 census violates the

Information Quality Act (“IQA”), 114 Stat. 2763, 106 P.L. 554 § 515 (2000). See Complaint,

Second Claim for Relief, ¶¶ 184-185. Plaintiffs also restate these arguments as constitutional

claims, in violation of the requirement for an “actual enumeration,” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Census Act should be dismissed both because plaintiffs

cannot establish that the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census will cause it to fall short

of any legally-mandated level of accuracy and because whether there will even be any significant

loss of accuracy is based on mere speculation. As for plaintiffs’ IQA claim, a claim very similar

to it has been rejected by this Court, on grounds directly applicable here.

I. The Citizenship Question Will Not Result In Unlawful Inaccuracy.

No one contests that Congress’s authority “to take from the States the power to determine

methodology [suggests] a strong constitutional interest in accuracy. ….” Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S.

452, 478 (2002). But plaintiffs support their claims of inaccuracy with mere speculation, and have

absolutely failed to allege how existing Census Bureau methodology will fail to provide a legally

mandated level of accuracy.

Plaintiffs repeatedly insinuate that personal Presidential bias was a cause for inclusion of

the citizenship question on the 2020 census. In claiming that this question will result in

inaccuracies, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Census Bureau has found that “any effort to

ascertain citizenship will inevitably jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count.” ¶¶

38-46. Plaintiffs speculate that such “risks”… “are heightened because of President Trump’s anti-

immigrant rhetoric and this Administration’s pattern of policies and actions that target immigrant


3

communities ” which “has led to significant public distrust and fear of providing information to

the federal government,” ¶¶ 47-48, as well as an “unprecedented anxiety in immigration

communities,” ¶ 52. Plaintiffs then must further speculate that these are social trends which “could

increase non-response rates and adversely affect data quality….” ¶ 77 (emphasis added). These

claims are merely amorphous and speculative.

In any event, plaintiffs fail to allege that existing Census Bureau statistical methodologies

will not be sufficient to identify and adjust possible undercounts. Under existing census procedure,

the original enumeration (“capture”) is followed by a limited post-enumeration survey

(“recapture”) in which representative geographical areas are more intensively surveyed, and the

results compared with the original headcount in those areas. City of Los Angeles v. Evans, 2001

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25977, *12-13, (C.D.Ca. 2001). “By itself, this would produce an error rate

over the entire population, but would not shed light on the differential undercount.” Id. But by

comparing “post-stratified data” to the results of the initial enumeration, “the Bureau is able to

estimate not only an overall undercount rate, but also an undercount rate for each post-strata. This

process enables the Bureau to determine whether certain strata, and by extension, certain

demographic groups, were undercounted. Id. (citing Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1,

10 (1996)). Census results at the national level are also verified by comparison to another

population estimate derived through a process known as demographic analysis (“DA”). City of

Los Angeles, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25977, *13. “DA is a calculation of the national population

based on the net sum of all records of births, deaths, legal immigration, Medicare enrollments, and

estimates of emigration and net undocumented immigration.” Id. at *13-14 (emphasis added).

For non-constitutional purposes, Congress expressly intended the Census Act to grant the

Secretary broad statutory discretion to select alternative methodologies, such as the statistical


4

procedures described above. Allocation of federal funds expressly linked to census data, at issue

here, is one such non-constitutional purpose. For example, the Act delegates to the Secretary

authority to determine the content of census questionnaires “... in such form and content as he may

determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). In

1976, Congress amended the Census Act to provide: “[e]xcept for the determination of population

for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the

Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as

‘sampling’ in carrying out the provisions of this title.” Pub. L. No. 94-521, § 10, 90 Stat. 2459,

2464 (1976), codified as 13 U.S.C. § 195. Questions concerning citizenship, for the purposes of

enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, are clearly “special surveys” for non-apportionment

purposes within the meaning of the Act.

The Department of Commerce itself acknowledges and fully regulates the public interest

in census accuracy:

It is the policy of the Census Bureau to provide the most accurate population

estimates possible given the constraints of time, money, and available statistical

techniques [and] to provide governmental units the opportunity to seek a review

and provide additional data to these estimates and to present evidence relating to

the accuracy of the estimates.

15 CFR§ 90.2. Pursuant to Congress’s broad delegation of discretion to the Secretary in

developing the methodology to be used for new enumeration, Census Act statutes and regulations

provide “a procedure for a governmental unit to request a challenge of a population estimate of the

Census Bureau.” 15 CFR § 90.4. “‘Population estimate’ means a statistically developed

calculation of the number of people living in a governmental unit to update the preceding census

or earlier estimate.” 15 CFR § 90.3(d). “‘Population Estimates Challenge’ means, in accordance

with this part, the process a governmental unit may use to provide additional input data for the


5

Census Bureau’s population estimate and the submission of substantive documentation in support

thereof.” 15 CFR § 90.3(b). “A request for a challenge of a population estimate generated by the

Census Bureau may be filed only by the chief executive officer or highest elected official of a

governmental unit.” 15 CFR § 90.5. A request “may be filed any time up to 90 days after the

release of the estimate by the Census Bureau, [or]… any time up to 90 days after the date the

Census Bureau, on its own initiative, revises that estimate.” 15 CFR § 90.6(a).

The governmental unit shall provide whatever evidence it has relevant to the

request at the time of filing. … The evidence submitted must be consistent with

the criteria, standards, and regular processes the Census Bureau employs to

generate the population estimate. … In the revised challenge process, the Census

Bureau will only accept a challenge when the evidence provided identifies the use

of incorrect data, processes, or calculations in the estimates.

15 CFR § 90.7(a). “The Census Bureau, upon receipt of the appropriate documentation, will

attempt to resolve the estimate with the governmental unit.” 15 CFR § 90.4. “[T]he Census Bureau

shall respond in writing with a decision to accept or deny the challenge. In the event that the

Census Bureau finds that the population estimate should be updated, it will also post the revised

estimate on the Census Bureau's Web site.” 15 CFR § 90.9.

This detailed regulatory scheme, 13 C.F.R. § 90.1 et seq., is clearly intended to be the

Department’s procedure for correcting undercounts or other inaccurate results. Plaintiffs have

failed even to allege that the Secretary’s reliance on it, as a means to correct any theoretical

impermissible undercounting occasioned by the citizenship question, would be misplaced.

II. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Plaintiffs’ Claims Based On The Information

Quality Act.

The IQA does not require either the Secretary of Commerce or the Director of the Bureau

of the Census to adopt plaintiff’s view as to the accuracy and reliability of the final data, set prior


6

to the “actual” data collection activity at issue. The IQA, moreover, does not provide plaintiffs

with a private cause of action.

The IQA requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to issue

guidelines under 44 USC §§ 3504(d)(1) and 3516 (Paperwork Reduction Act) to “provide policy

and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity,

utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal

agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of … the Paperwork Reduction Act.” IQA

§ 515(a).

The IQA further requires “that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply – (A)

issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of

information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency” and “… (B) establish

administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information

maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under

subsection (a).” IQA §515(b). In other words, the Department of Commerce must to provide an

administrative complaint system wherein any of the plaintiffs might “seek and obtain correction

of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the

guidelines….” Id.

On information and belief, none of the plaintiffs has made the requisite administrative

complaint. Even if such a complaint had been filed, the IQA limits the administrative remedy to

“correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with

the guidelines….” Since DOC has not yet “maintained or disseminated” final information from

the 2020 census, plaintiffs’ claims that “Defendants have failed to act in a manner consistent with”

IQA standards, see, e.g., ¶¶ 184, 190-192, “by failing to adequately test the citizenship demand,


7

[or] minimize the burden such a demand imposes on respondents, [or] maximize data quality,” ¶

184, are at best unripe.

Furthermore, the IQA only directs the OMB to draft guidelines concerning information

quality, and specifies what those guidelines should contain. It creates no legal rights in any third

parties. Salt Inst. v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156, 159 (4th Cir. 2006). The Salt plaintiffs had alleged a

data error similar to that of the plaintiffs in this case: that Department of Health and Human

Services (“HHS”) public health findings on sodium consumption “had to be qualified according

to such factors as race, history of hypertension, sex, age, body-mass index, and education level.”

Id. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of an

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim against HHS after the agency denied an

administrative petition challenging, under the IQA, HHS’s refusal to correct “information

disseminated by [sub-agency] NHLBI, which directly states and otherwise suggests that reduced

sodium consumption will result in lower blood, pressure in all individuals,” on the ground that

“the studies’ findings do not meet the standards for data quality set out in the IQA….” Id.; see

also Harkonen v. United States DOJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171415, *27-29 (N.D. Ca. 2012)

(affirming that courts “that have reviewed the IQA have uniformly found that it “does not create

any legal right to information or its correctness” and “that, as a result, the agencies’ actions did

not determine the plaintiff’s rights or cause any legal consequence, and thus that there was no final

agency action [for APA jurisdictional purposes],” and noting that “[p]laintiff offers no cases in

which a court has held to the contrary.”); Miss. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138,

185, (D.C. Cir. 2015) (dismissing challenge that agency failed to use the best scientific methods

and data analysis available because the IQA “does not constitute a statutory mechanism by which


8

the EPA’s conclusions reached while making its nonattainment determinations can be

challenged.”).

Like the Fourth and D.C. Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ IQA claims,

because the IQA does not create a private cause of action. This Court has expressly so found:

Plaintiffs are mistaken that the IQA provides any limit on the types of information

on which an agency may rely in reaching its decision. Rather, the IQA applies only

to the quality of information “disseminated” by federal agencies. 114 Stat. 2763,

2763A-153; see also 67 Fed. Reg. 8460 (“‘Dissemination’ is defined to mean

‘agency[-]initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public.’”).

Habitat for Horses v. Salazar, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107267, *21 (S.D. N.Y. 2011) (dismissing

IQA claim for lack of jurisdiction).

In any event, … the statute “creates no legal rights in any third parties.” Salt Inst.

v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156, 159 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Single Stick, Inc. v. Johanns,

601 F. Supp. 2d 307, 316 (D.D.C. 2009), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Prime

Time Int’l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678, 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Ams. for Safe Access

v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 07-01049 (WHA), 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 55597, 2007 WL 2141289, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007); In re

Operation of the Mo. R. Sys. Litig., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Minn. 2004) (“Absent

any ‘meaningful standard’ against which to evaluate the agency's discretion, the

Court finds that Congress did not intend the IQA to provide a private cause of

action.”), aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 421 F.3d 618 (8th Cir.

2005).

Id. at *21-22. “Nor has this Court located any authority supporting Plaintiffs’ contention that they

may bring such a claim under the APA. Absent such authority, this Court declines to fashion a

new remedy.” Id. This Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ IQA claims.


9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DATED: June 11, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, Amicus Curiae,

By its Attorneys,


Christopher J. Hajec, DC Bar No. 492551

Michael M. Hethmon, DC Bar No. 1019386


25 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 335

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: 202-232-5590

Fax: 202-464-3590



1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 11, 2018, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing Brief

Amici Curiae using the CM/ECF System for the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York, which will send notification of that filing to all counsel of record in this

litigation.



Attorney for Amicus Curiae


From: Saini, Ajay <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 10:56 AM To: Chris Hajec Cc: Goldstein, Elena; Colangelo, Matthew Subject: RE: Request for consent to appear as amicus- State of New York v. US DOC

18-cv-2921

Chris,

Our consent was based on IRLI’s representation that the brief would be filed “promptly” after

DOC’s filing on May 25. Accordingly, if IRLI’s brief is filed later than today, you may no

longer represent that the plaintiffs consent.

Thank you,

Ajay Saini

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Bureau

New York State Office of the Attorney General

28 Liberty Street, 20th Floor

New York, NY 10271

(212) 416-8714 From: Chris Hajec <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:02 AM To: Saini, Ajay <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Request for consent to appear as amicus- State of New York v. US DOC 18-cv-2921 Hello, Ajay, Yes, we do plan to file, today or tomorrow. Yours sincerely, Christopher J. Hajec Director of Litigation

25 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 335


mailto:[email protected]


Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 www.irli.org To learn more about IRLI’s national network of attorneys, click here. C O N F I D E N TI AL I T Y N O TI C E : This transmission is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This transmission, and any documents attached, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and/or other privileges. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals and/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not read, disclose, forward, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.

From: Michael Hethmon Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 6:13 PM To: Chris Hajec <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Request for consent to appear as amicus- State of New York v. US DOC 18-cv-2921

Michael M. Hethmon Senior Counsel

DC Bar No. 1019386 Maryland Bar 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 335 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 www.irli.org ------------------------------------------------------------------- C O N F I D E N TI AL I T Y N O TI C E : This transmission is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This transmission, and any documents attached, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and/or other privileges. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals and/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not read, disclose, forward, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. To learn more about IRLI’s national network of attorneys click www.ausamerica.org.


http://www.irli.org/

mhtml:file://O:/Documents/Documents/Documents/RE%20Request%20for%20consent%20to%20appear%20as%20amicus-%20State%20of%20New%20York%20v.%20US%20DOC%2018-cv-2921.mht!https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ausamerica.org_&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=omaq8hFoSNL8lWEZa_pzSQ&m=4W0qcWBa1wyjiDwl0ByJNYLiNEajoBnvjy1MHjV2LsY&s=S13bJkxV5d00zDGzrDbhbpJt9W_wGW5J_3tdUBBjXfE&e=



mhtml:file://O:/Documents/Documents/Documents/RE%20Request%20for%20consent%20to%20appear%20as%20amicus-%20State%20of%20New%20York%20v.%20US%20DOC%2018-cv-2921.mht!https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ausamerica.org&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=omaq8hFoSNL8lWEZa_pzSQ&m=4W0qcWBa1wyjiDwl0ByJNYLiNEajoBnvjy1MHjV2LsY&s=tDSTITGBFvnPiaLP46wW_-VeJaYE8x8vt_ck0-LApps&e=

From: Saini, Ajay <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 4:56 PM To: Michael Hethmon <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request for consent to appear as amicus- State of New York v. US DOC 18-cv-2921

Michael,

Is FAIR still planning to submit an amicus brief in this case, and if so when do you plan to file?

Thank you,

Ajay Saini

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Bureau

New York State Office of the Attorney General

28 Liberty Street, 20th Floor

New York, NY 10271

(212) 416-8714 From: Michael Hethmon <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:49 PM To: Rosado, Lourdes <[email protected]> Cc: Lucas, Diane <[email protected]>; Saini, Ajay <[email protected]> Subject: Request for consent to appear as amicus- State of New York v. US DOC 18-cv-2921 Importance: High

Dear Plaintiffs’ Counsel: The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) respectfully requests consent of the Plaintiffs for our client Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to file a brief amicus curiae in State of New York et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce et al., No. 1:18-cv-2921 (JMF), pending in the Southern District of New York. This request is directed to you as lead counsel for State of New York on behalf of all Plaintiffs; most other plaintiffs’ counsel appear to be seeking admission PHV. If I have directed this request to you in error, kindly forward it to the correct lead attorney with authority to consent. IRLI intends to file a brief by FAIR in support of the Department of Commerce, in support of an anticipated government motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgement, as appropriate. IRLI has reviewed Judge Furman’s May 9 scheduling order, and plan to file our brief promptly after DOC’s filing on May 25, so that Plaintiffs will have time for review prior to filing your response on June 13.








Consent has also been requested from Defendants’ counsel. Thank for your assistance,

Michael M. Hethmon Senior Counsel

DC Bar No. 1019386 Maryland Bar 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 335 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 232-5590 Fax: (202) 464-3590 www.irli.org ------------------------------------------------------------------- C O N F I D E N TI AL I T Y N O TI C E : This transmission is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This transmission, and any documents attached, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and/or other privileges. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals and/or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not read, disclose, forward, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this communication in error, please reply and notify the sender (only), or call (202) 232-5590, and destroy and/or delete this message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. To learn more about IRLI’s national network of attorneys click www.ausamerica.org.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential,

privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received

this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not

disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender

immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.



mhtml:file://O:/Documents/Documents/Documents/RE%20Request%20for%20consent%20to%20appear%20as%20amicus-%20State%20of%20New%20York%20v.%20US%20DOC%2018-cv-2921.mht!https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ausamerica.org&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=v1urxTj7563LVotr1YXN8nUqBEoHboOrtx8PP9O6TYI&m=FtcliwPttKglKVw6r8M2nGtaF7-Yk1c1NtGB4IjKAkA&s=uLcS7m0HB39rhQDFhLIzYYE1wcsiZP-hsNMNWilyd2I&e=




) Civil Action No.


)

v. )

)


COMMERCE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

On considering the unopposed motion of Federation for American Immigration Reform

for leave to file a memorandum of law as amici curiae in support of defendants’ motion to

dismiss, the memorandum of law submitted therewith, and the lack of any opposition thereto, the

Court holds that the motion should be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File is

GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the Memorandum

of Law submitted with the Motion for Leave to File.

Dated: ______________________, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN ...€¦ · Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN ...€¦ · Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document...