City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-04717
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Judge Hamilton denied twenty motions to file amicus briefs before the injunction hearing.
The twenty movants seeking permission to file amicus briefs were affected by the denials; the order also concerned the parties and previously participating amici in the three related cases.
What happened
City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services involved twenty requests from nonparties to file briefs offering information or arguments to the court. The requests concerned three related cases and were made before the court ruled on the plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunctions.
The court denied each motion for leave to file an amicus brief at that stage. It said the proposed briefs appeared duplicative and cumulative of arguments already submitted by the parties and other amici, and that the court could not consider all the new briefs before the October 2, 2019 hearing. The court stated that the movants could seek permission to file amicus briefs at later stages of the litigation.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order on September 16, 2019.
The detailed version
- City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 4:19-cv-04717
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 16, 2019
Background
The court considered twenty motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs. An amicus curiae is a nonparty who seeks to provide information or arguments that may assist the court. The motions were filed in three related cases identified by the court as Case Nos. 19-cv-04717-PJH, 19-cv-04975-PJH, and 19-cv-04980-PJH. The requests were made before the court ruled on pending motions for preliminary injunctions.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to allow amicus participation and generally may accept a brief when the proposed participation is useful or desirable to the court. The court nevertheless concluded that the proposed briefs concerning the preliminary-injunction motions appeared duplicative and cumulative of arguments already advanced by the parties and by amici who had already filed briefs. The court also stated that it could not reasonably consider all the newly filed briefs before the preliminary-injunction hearing scheduled for October 2, 2019.
Disposition
The court denied each of the identified motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief before its order on the pending preliminary-injunction motions. The order did not preclude the movants from seeking permission to file amicus briefs during later stages of the litigation. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.