Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Al Otro Lado v. Alejandro Mayorkas (2024-10-23) — reversed in part; Al Otro Lado v. Kristi Noem (2025-05-14) — reversed in part — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion by three organizations for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in connection with a pending motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed brief would assist the court in resolving the issue of non-refoulement under international law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file brief as amici curiae granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 602).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that district courts have broad discretion to appoint amici curiae. The order identifies a specific legal issue (non-refoulement) that is central to the plaintiffs' claims but not fully briefed by the parties, satisfying the requirement that the amicus brief provides assistance to the court. The court's decision to grant leave despite the lack of defendant consent is consistent with the principle that consent is not required when the circumstances justify it. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review (broad discretion) and applies it to the specific facts of the case (the need for assistance on the non-refoulement issue). The court cites sufficient authority to support its decision to grant leave despite the lack of consent from the opposing party. The reasoning directly addresses the motion and provides a clear basis for the ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AL OTRO LADO, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF 13 v. AS AMICI CURIAE 14 CHAD F. WOLF, et. al., (ECF No. 602) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is a motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae (“Motion”) in 18 connection with Plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 602.) 19 Movants are The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Harvard Immigration & Refugee 20 Clinical Program, and Boston University School of Law Immigrants’ Rights and Human 21 Trafficking Program (“Proposed Amici”). Defendants have not consented to filing an 22 amicus brief after October 27, 2020, but the Proposed Amici state that because of delays 23 caused by COVID-19 and other litigation, they were unable to submit the brief by that 24 deadline. 25 “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 26 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 27 515 U.S. 472 (1995). This discretion is exercised with “great liberality” and “it is within 28 [the Court’s] discretion to allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances.” N. 1 || Sec. Co. v. U.S., 191 U.S. 555, 556 (1903). “Even when a party is very well represented, 2 |) an amicus may provide important assistance to the court.” Jamul Action Comm. v. Stevens, 3 || No. 13-CV-01920-KJM-KJN, 2014 LEXIS 107582, at *18 CE.D. Cal. 2014) (quotation 4 || omitted). “District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from nonparties concerning 5 || legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the 6 || amicus has ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help 7 || that the lawyers for the party are able to provide.’” NGV Gaming, Ltd. V. Upstream Point 8 || Molate, LLC, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 9 || 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)); see also Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t 10 || (CARE) v. Deruyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999). 11 The Court finds it appropriate to permit the filing of this brief. The Proposed Amici 12 || seek to address “the status of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, 13 || including whether non-refoulement is an actionable norm of international law under the 14}} Alien Tort Statute and whether the Government’s Turnback Policy violates this 15 || principle.” (Mot. at 2.) Considering that non-refoulement forms a distinct legal basis for 16 || Plaintiffs’ claims and, according to Proposed Amici, is not briefed in detail by the parties 17 || in their briefs, the Court finds that the brief would assist the Court in the resolution of the 18 || issue on summary judgment. (/d.; see also Second Am. Compl. J] 227-235, □□□□□□□□□ 19 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 602). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 , fl YZ 22 || DATED: November 2, 2020 CU yu MW □□ Hohe □□ 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28