The Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at UC Irvine School of Law has joined a coalition of civil rights and labor organizations in filing a slate of amicus curiae briefs challenging expansive assertions of executive power that threaten core constitutional protections.
Professor Robert S. Chang, Professor Susan McMahon and the Korematsu Center joined co-amici in support of the law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale in their cases challenging recent Executive Orders that aim to punish law firms for providing pro bono legal services disfavored by the current administration.
The amicus briefs, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — in support of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — warn against the constitutional dangers of the Executive Orders, which the amici argue violate the First Amendment rights of law firms and their clients. Drawing on historical parallels to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, the briefs urge the court not to repeat the mistakes of Korematsu v. United States by deferring uncritically to vague claims of national security.
The Executive Orders in question are part of a troubling pattern of government efforts to suppress disfavored legal arguments by punishing the lawyers who make them.Professor Robert S. ChangExecutive Director of the Korematsu Center
“The Executive Orders in question are part of a troubling pattern of government efforts to suppress disfavored legal arguments by punishing the lawyers who make them,” said Professor Robert S. Chang, executive director of the Korematsu Center. “As we’ve seen throughout history — from the Red Scare to Japanese American incarceration — unchecked executive power can lead to grave injustices. Our briefs remind the court of that legacy.”
Also joining the briefs were the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and several other race and law centers and legal advocacy groups. Together, the amici call on the court to reject the government’s attempt to deter disfavored pro bono litigation and to affirm the vital role that legal advocacy plays in upholding constitutional rights.
In a separate matter, Professor Chang, Professor McMahon and the Korematsu Center led an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case, State of Washington v. Donald Trump, challenging the federal government’s recently issued Citizenship Stripping Order.
Filed in support of the plaintiffs-appellees, the brief urges the Ninth Circuit to reject the Order, which seeks to deny or revoke birthright citizenship for certain individuals born on U.S. soil. The Korematsu Center is joined by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice at Seattle University School of Law, and 82 additional race and law centers and grassroots organizations from across the country. “The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American democracy,” said Professor Susan McMahon. “This brief draws on hard-learned lessons from U.S. history to show that undermining this principle risks repeating the injustices inflicted on marginalized communities through denaturalization campaigns and discriminatory expatriation laws.”
This brief draws on hard-learned lessons from U.S. history to show that undermining this principle risks repeating the injustices inflicted on marginalized communities through denaturalization campaigns and discriminatory expatriation laws.Professor Susan McMahon
The amicus brief places the current challenge in historical context, tracing parallels to past government actions such as the post-United States v. Thind denaturalization of South Asian Americans and the Expatriation Act of 1907, which stripped citizenship from American women who married non-citizens. It warns that the Order not only jeopardizes constitutional protections but could create a “permanent underclass” of individuals born in the U.S. who are denied full membership in society.
In the brief, the amici argue that upholding the Citizenship Stripping Order would invite future attempts to revoke citizenship retroactively — an unprecedented and dangerous erosion of rights. The brief calls on the Ninth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision and protect the constitutional promise of equal citizenship for all born in the United States.
Original source can be found here.