AG Mark Herring, 16 Other State AGs File SCOTUS Briefs Opposing Trump’s Immigration Ban

RICHMOND (June 12, 2017) – Today, Attorney General Mark R. Herring joined a coalition of 17 Attorneys General in filing amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing President Trump’s immigration ban.

The case – IRAP v. Trump – was originally brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC). In March, a federal court in Maryland blocked key parts of President Trump’s immigration ban; last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of the ban.

Attorneys General have also directly filed suit against President Trump’s first and second immigration bans. Just today, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction secured against the immigration ban in March in a federal district court in Hawaii.

In the first brief filed today, authored by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and joined by a total of 17 states, the Attorneys General oppose the Trump administration’s petition for certiorari, arguing that the preliminary injunction against the immigration ban should be maintained and the Supreme Court should not review the decision at this point. Click here to read the brief opposing cert.

In the second brief filed today, authored by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and also joined by a total of 17 states, the Attorneys General oppose the Trump administration’s request to allow the ban to go into effect pending appeal. Click here to read the brief opposing the stay.

The two briefs were filed by Attorney General Herring and 16 other state attorneys general, including attorneys general from New York, Maryland, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

In opposing the Trump administration’s petition for certiorari and stay request, the states explain that allowing the ban to take effect would harm their people, institutions, and economies, including by inhibiting the free exchange of information, ideas, and talent between the six designated countries and the amici States, including at the States’ many educa­tional institutions; disrupting the provision of medical care at the States’ hospitals; harming the life sciences, technology, health care, finance, and tourism indus­tries, as well as innumerable other small and large businesses throughout the States; inflicting economic damage on the States themselves through both increased costs and immediately diminished tax revenues; and hindering the States from effectuating the policies of religious tolerance and nondiscrimination enshrined in our laws and our state constitutions.

The States also argue that this is not the right time for the Supreme Court to hear this case, because the travel ban calls for its own imminent modification, making review at this juncture premature.  The Court should follow its usual practice of awaiting a fully-developed record that is better suited to Supreme Court review.