Coalition of 16 Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting
Washington State Lawsuit against President Trumpís Executive Order
Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts Co-Author Brief
Outlining Orderís Impact on Residents, Economies and Institutions
Attorney General George Jepsen has joined with 15 other attorneys general in asking a federal appeals court to leave in place a temporary restraining order issued by the federal District Court in Seattle that has halted President Donald Trump's executive order barring individuals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.
In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit this afternoon, the attorneys general argue that a stay of the District Court's order would cause concrete, immediate and irreparable harms to the states, notably their colleges and universities, medical institutions and tax revenues; and would harm the ability of states to ensure the health, welfare and civil rights of their residents.
"We believe that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority in issuing this executive order," said Attorney General Jepsen. "The state of Connecticut and, indeed, states across our country cannot and should not have to bear the confusion, cost and economic loss caused by this unconstitutional executive order. We are asking the court today to uphold the restraining order obtained by the Washington and Minnesota attorneys general late last week and to allow individuals from these seven countries Ė who already face significant vetting procedures prior to the granting of access to the United States Ė to continue to travel on their properly issued visas while this case is further litigated."
"The states have already been harmed by this executive order and the federal government's shifting implementation of it," the states wrote in today's brief. "The District Court's temporary restraining order returned the policies and procedures regarding travel to the United States to the status quo that existed before the executive orderÖIf this court were to grant a stay at this juncture it would resurrect the chaos experienced in our airports beginning on the weekend of January 28 and 29, and cause harm to the states Ė including state institutions such public universities, to the businesses that sustain our economies, and to our residents."
In the brief, the states cite specific examples where public universities, hospitals and medical institutions that rely on medical residents to provide care to the most vulnerable populations have already felt the impact of the executive order.
The states further argue that the executive order has already caused and would continue to cause untold economic damage to local economies in the form of diminished tax revenues from loss of tourism and loss of business investment.
Attorney General Jepsen continues to consult closely with state officials, including Governor Dannel P. Malloy, as well as others, to evaluate the consequences of the executive order for the state of Connecticut and any additional legal options that may be available and appropriate.
In addition to Connecticut, the multistate coalition filing today's brief includes the states of California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Jaclyn M. Falkowski