18 Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Opposing the Ban, Citing Harm to States' Residents, Institutions, and Economies
Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin, part of a coalition of 18 attorneys general, filed a new amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing President Trump's travel ban.
The brief was filed in related cases Trump v. IRAP (No. 16-1436) and Trump v. Hawaii (No. 16-1540), ahead of arguments scheduled for October 10th. In both cases, the district courts entered nationwide preliminary injunctions prohibiting, among other things, enforcement of President Trump's 90-day ban on the entry to the U.S. of nationals from six overwhelmingly Muslim countries, the suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, and the reduction of the Program's refugee cap. Both the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunctions.
"From the first day the President attempted to impose his constitutionally flawed travel ban, attorneys general have been there to protect the rule of law and the rights of those the ban attempted to infringe upon. We always knew this case would end up before the Supreme Court, which will bring some finality to this issue, and hopefully provide a clear path on which the country can move forward," said Attorney General Kilmartin.
Click here to read the brief, which was signed by New York, Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
In the brief, the attorneys general argue:
"Amici have a strong interest in respondents' challenges to the Order, and to its travel ban in particular, which has already caused – and absent the continuation of the injunctions, will continue to cause – substantial harm to our universities, hospitals, businesses, communities, and residents," the brief reads.
"While the amici States differ in many ways, all welcome and benefit from immigration, tourism, and international travel by students, academics, skilled professionals, and businesspeople. Notwithstanding the injunctions now in place, the travel ban has inflicted economic damage on the States themselves through lost tuition and increased administrative costs at the States' public universities and colleges, as well as diminished tax revenues. The ban has also disrupted the provision of medical care at the States' hospitals and harmed our science, technology, health care, finance, and tourism industries by inhibiting the free exchange of information, ideas, and talent between the six designated countries and the amici States. In addition, the ban has hindered the States from effectuating our own constitutional and statutory policies of religious tolerance and nondiscrimination."