East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden
- Jon Tigar
- 4:18-cv-06810
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, Judge Tigar granted two motions allowing proposed amici to file briefs supporting plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion.
The proposed amici, the parties to East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, and the court were affected: the court allowed both proposed groups to file their briefs, which were deemed filed.
What happened
In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, two groups asked to file briefs supporting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. One group consisted of former immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals; the other was the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119.
The court found that both groups could assist with a case of general public interest, add to the work of the parties’ lawyers, and bring relevant legal arguments to the court’s attention. It granted both motions for permission to file, and treated the proposed briefs as filed.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued this order on June 23, 2023. The order addressed only permission to file the amicus briefs, not the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion itself.
The detailed version
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden · No. 4:18-cv-06810
- Jon Tigar
- June 23, 2023
Background
The court considered two motions for permission to file amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. An amicus brief is a filing by a nonparty intended to help the court decide a case. The proposed amici were a group of former immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119.
Reasoning
The court concluded that both proposed amici would serve the traditional role of an amicus by assisting in a matter of general public interest, supplementing the efforts of the parties’ lawyers, and drawing the court’s attention to law that might otherwise be overlooked.
Disposition
The court granted both motions for leave to file. It ordered that the proposed briefs at ECF Nos. 172 and 174-1 be deemed filed. This order did not decide the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion or the underlying dispute. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.