Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Cites APSAC's Amicus Brief in Opinion Ruling Against Trump's Revised

On Monday, June 13th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals became the second federal appeals court to rule against President Trump’s revised travel ban and to affirm the injunction issued by the Federal District Court of Hawai’i in March.


APSAC submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, who were seeking a preliminary injunction against enactment of the travel ban. The Court cited APSAC’s brief in the decision, which helped in “bolstering the conclusion that the injunction is in the public interest.”[1]

The Court of Appeals based its ruling on statutory law, stating that President Trump’s travel ban exceeded the power granted to him by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because his decisions on immigration and national security are unjustified. The INA gives the President “broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public.”[2] It gives the President the power to prohibit foreigners from entering the country if it would be “detrimental to the interest of the United States.”[3]Trump, the court said, failed to meet the preconditions necessary for him to exercise this delegated authority because the justifications he offered in support of the ban “failed to make a sufficient finding that entry of these classes of people would be detrimental to the United States.”[4]

Further, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the preliminary injunction granted by the Federal District Court in Hawai’i was appropriate, in part, because the injunction serves the public interest of “uniting families and supporting humanitarian efforts in refugee resettlement.”[5] To support this conclusion, the Court of Appeals cited APSAC’s amicus brief, which stated that one specific harm that would come from allowing the travel ban to take effect is that it would “impose additional hardships for child refugees already facing violence and trauma.”[6]

APSAC would like to express its gratitude to Mary Kelly Persyn and Keith Bradley, who authored the brief, pro-bono, on behalf of APSAC.

Read the full text of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Opinion here; APSAC’s brief is cited on page 67 of the opinion.


This is not the first time that APSAC's amicus briefs have been influential in important court decisions. In June 2015 the United States Supreme Court decided Ohio v. Clark, a criminal case that addressed the question of whether a prosecutor could introduce a three year old boy’s statements to his preschool teacher identifying Mr. Clark, his mother’s boyfriend and the defendant, as the person who physically abused him injuring his face, eye and head. The court ruled unanimously that use of the boy’s statements did not violate Clark’s right to confront witnesses against him. In doing so, the Court relied, in part, on APSAC’s amicus brief which was filed “to assist the Court in understanding the perspectives of children who disclose maltreatment and of mandatory reporters –such as teachers, doctors and social workers—who have a statutory duty to report it.”


Download the full text of the amicus brief:

AmicusBriefAPSAC1
.pdf
Download PDF • 155KB

Download the full text of the court's opinion (brief is mentioned on page 67):

NinthCircuitOpinion1
.pdf
Download PDF • 758KB

Footnotes:


[1] State of Hawaii, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, No. 17-15589, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00050-DK-KSC (9th Cir. R 36-3) (per curiam), 67.


[2] Id. at 2.


[3] Id.


[4] Id.


[5] Id. at 66.


[6] Id. at 67.

Back to Top 

All materials copyright 2020 - The Center for Child Policy