Apple, Facebook, Google, Uber, Spotify, Netflix, and Kickstarter are just a few among 97 of the United States' most influential and dynamic companies who have officially filed an "Amicus Brief" in the State of Washington, as opposition to President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration. The order, signed on January 27, suspended for 90 days entry of immigrants and non-immigrants into the United States from the following seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
An Amicus Brief is a legal document filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants where issues of public national interest, such as social questions or civil liberties, are being debated. .The intention of the brief is to advise the court of critical and noteworthy information and to call the court's attention to the potential deleterious societal consequences of the case that the court might wish to consider when rendering an opinion. In the instant case, the 97 companies are seeking to demonstrate, through their Amicus Brief, that President Trump's Executive Order, which is widely considered a Muslim Ban, has significantly disrupted their business operations and is making it more "difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to hire, recruit, and retain some of the world's best employees."
The Amicus Brief was issued in support of the State of Washington wherein the state's Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, has been spearheading a compelling campaign against the executive order, citing it as both "unlawful and unconstitutional." On Friday, District Court Senior Judge James L. Robart granted a temporary restraining order on the travel restrictions, which the federal government asked the appeals court to stay through an emergency motion.
New Jersey-based Immigration Attorney Edward Shulman of The Shulman Law Group said in an interview "On behalf of my Muslim clients from the seven countries implicated, I applaud the efforts of the 97 companies in filing the Amicus Brief. I should also like to highlight the profound psychological and familial toll the ban would cause, in addition to the adverse business and economic impact." Mr. Shulman also posited the likelihood that the case would end up before the United States Supreme Court.