AHMED v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-01892
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In AHMED v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Tigar allowed several States and the District of Columbia to file an amicus brief.
The States of Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon, and the District of Columbia, were permitted to file an amicus brief; the defendants and the court will receive and consider that filing.
What happened
In AHMED v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon, along with the District of Columbia, asked to file a brief offering information to the court in a case of public interest.
The defendants objected because they believed the request was too late. The court agreed that there was no reason to reopen briefing, but noted that the hearing on the underlying motions had been continued, so considering the States’ arguments would no longer occur under a shortened schedule.
The court granted the motion and treated the proposed brief as filed. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order on July 26, 2023.
The detailed version
- AHMED v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · No. 4:23-cv-01892
- Jon Tigar
- July 26, 2023
Background
The States of Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon, together with the District of Columbia, moved for permission to file an amicus brief. An amicus brief is a filing by a person or organization that is not a party but seeks to assist the court in deciding a case. The defendants objected based on timeliness.
Reasoning
The court agreed with the defendants that there was no reason to reopen briefing. But the hearing on the underlying substantive motions had been continued. As a result, the defendants would no longer have to consider the States’ arguments on what the court called a “truncated timeline.” The court also concluded that the States would serve the traditional role of an amicus by assisting in a case of general public interest, supplementing the parties’ efforts, and bringing legal authorities to the court’s attention.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for leave to file the amicus brief. It ordered that the proposed brief at ECF No. 90-1 be deemed filed. The order addressed only the amicus filing and did not decide the underlying substantive motions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.