Post on 14-Feb-2018
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
1/36
8908773
Nos.15-15211, 15-15213, 15-15215
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUENTE ARIZONA, et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al.,
Defendant-Appellants.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of ArizonaCase No. 2:14-CV-01356-DCG (PHX)
Honorable David G. Campbell, District Court Judge
MOTION OF PROFESSORS DORIS MARIE PROVINE AND CECILIA
MENJVARFOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES
WILLIAM L.THORPESPENCER G.SCHARFFTHORPE SHWER,P.C.3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1560Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2441Telephone: (602) 682-6100Facsimile: (602) 682-6149SScharff@thorpeshwer.com
Counsel for Amici CuriaeProfessors Doris Marie Provine andCecilia Menjvar
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 1 of 5
(1 of
mailto:SScharff@thorpeshwer.commailto:SScharff@thorpeshwer.commailto:SScharff@thorpeshwer.com7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
2/36
2
8908773
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES
Amici Curiae Professors Doris Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjvar
respectfully move for leave to file the attached amici curiae brief in support of
Plaintiff-Appellees. Amici have obtained consent of the attorneys for Plaintiff-
Appellees and Defendant-Appellant State of Arizona. Amiciendeavored to obtain
consent of Defendant-Appellants Sheriff Arpaio, Maricopa County, and County
Attorney Montgomery for filing this amicibrief, but their attorneys did not respond
toAmicis request. See9th Cir. R. 29-3.
The proposed Amici, Professors Doris Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjvar,
are professors with well-established reputations as experts in policies and practices
related to unauthorized immigrants and in the investigation of legislative intent.
Dr. Doris Marie Provine (J.D., Ph.D. Cornell) has written a well-received
book about Congressional intent in adopting various sentencing laws for violations
of federal drug lawsUnequal Under Law: Race and the War on Drugs
(University of Chicago Press 2007). Dr. Provines current research focuses on
policies affecting unauthorized immigrants, particularly in Arizona. With two
major grants from the National Science Association, she and three co-authors have
written: Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines
(University of Chicago Press, Forthcoming). Dr. Provine came to Arizona in 2001
from Syracuse University to direct the School of Justice Studies at Arizona State
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 2 of 5
(2 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
3/36
3
8908773
University. She is currently professor emeritaat Arizona State University and a
member of the board of the Arizona affiliate of the American Civil Liberties
Union, which serves as co-counsel to Plaintiff-Appellees. Her co-authorship of
this brief, however, arises out of her expertise as a scholar of immigration and
legislative intent.
Dr. Menjvar (Ph.D. U.C. Davis) is a sociologist with expertise in how law
and policy can create adverse consequences for excluded groups. She has written
widely on the situation facing women immigrant communities living under threat
of deportation and guided many doctoral students in the study of immigration
policies and their consequences. Recently, with Professor Daniel Kanstroom, she
edited a major volume on immigration and law: Constructing Immigrant
Illegality: Critiques, Experiences, and Responses(Cambridge University Press
2014). Dr. Menjvar has received much recognition for her contributions, and has
successfully sought major funding for her research. She recently accepted a
position as Foundation Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of
Kansas after a successful career at Arizona State University.
The issues raised in this appeal are within their areas of expertise.
Defendant-Appellants claim that H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, the two Arizona
statutes that are the subject of this appeal, have no immigrant-related purpose. See
Opening Br. (Dkt. #28) at 14 (contending that the Identity Theft Laws are
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 3 of 5
(3 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
4/36
4
8908773
unlike any of the previous statutes found to violate federal supremacy on
immigration because the laws include no reference to immigration.). It is,
however, important to place legislation in its historical, political, and social context
to properly analyze legislative purpose.
By this brief, Amici demonstrate that the history of anti-immigrant
legislation preceding H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, as well as the sponsorship of these
two bills by a long-standing opponent of unauthorized immigration, reveal a
motive to make state-level immigration policy in an area preempted by federal law.
As experts in policies and practices related to unauthorized immigrants and in the
investigation of legislative intent, theAmiciare uniquely positioned to offer insight
into the legislative purpose of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745. The perspective of the
proposedAmicishould therefore be valuable to the Court.
Amici respectfully request that this Court grant leave to file the brief
submitted concurrently with this motion.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2015.
THORPE SHWER, P.C.
By s/Spencer G. ScharffWilliam L. ThorpeSpencer G. ScharffCounsel for Amici Curiae
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 4 of 5
(4 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
5/36
5
8908773
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 28, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
MOTION OF PROFESSORS DORIS MARIE PROVINE AND CECILIA
MENJVAR FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES, with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify
that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will
be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
Dated: August 28, 2015 By s/Spencer G. ScharffWilliam L. ThorpeSpencer G. ScharffCounsel for Amici Curiae
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 5 of 5
(5 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
6/36
Nos.15-15211, 15-15213, 15-15215
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUENTE ARIZONA, et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellees,
vs.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al.,
Defendant-Appellants.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of ArizonaCase No. 2:14-CV-01356-DCG (PHX)
Honorable David G. Campbell, District Court Judge
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS DORIS MARIE PROVINE
AND CECILIA MENJVARIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES
WILLIAM L.THORPESPENCER G.SCHARFFTHORPE SHWER,P.C.3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1560Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2441Telephone: (602) 682-6100Facsimile: (602) 682-6149SScharff@thorpeshwer.com
Counsel for Amici CuriaeProfessors Doris Marie Provine andCecilia Menjvar
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 1 of 31
(6 of
mailto:SScharff@thorpeshwer.commailto:SScharff@thorpeshwer.commailto:SScharff@thorpeshwer.com7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
7/36
ii8908774
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the undersigned states
that the amicus is not a corporation that issues stock or has a parent corporation
that issues stock.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 2 of 31
(7 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
8/36
iii8908774
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 29(C)(5)
This brief is submitted pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Counsel for Amici Curiae and Counsel for Plaintiff-
Appellees consulted with each other in the drafting of this brief; however, no party
or partys counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
submitting the brief; and no person other than the amicus curiae, its members, or
its counsel, contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting
the brief.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 3 of 31
(8 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
9/36
iv8908774
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTEREST OF THE AMICI ..................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 4
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 6
I. H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 were part of a broader effort to enactstate-level immigration policy. . ...................................................................... 7
II. The strategy of attrition through enforcement that became theexpress immigration policy of the state of Arizona in 2010 wasin place when H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 were adopted. ............................... 15
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................20
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 4 of 31
(9 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
10/36
v8908774
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc, 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013) .....................17
Gonzalez v. Ariz., 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................17
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015) ..............................20
Statutes and Rules
Arizona House Bill 2154 (1996) ..............................................................................16
Arizona House Bill 2243 (2003) ................................................................................ 8
Arizona House Bill 2246 (2003) ..........................................................................8, 16
Arizona House Bill 2745 (2008) ....................... 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20
Arizona House Bill 2779 (2007)(The Legal Arizona Workers Act) .......... 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20
Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (2010) .................................................................. 7, 14, 15
Proposition 100, Bailable Offenses (2006) ..............................................................10
Proposition 102, Standing in Civil Actions (2006) .............................................8, 11
Proposition 103, English as the Official Language .............................................8, 10
Proposition 200, the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act(2004) ........................................................................................ 8, 9, 16, 17, 18
Proposition 300, Public Programs Eligibility ......................................................8, 10
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 5 of 31
(10 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
11/36
vi8908774
Other Authorities
Arizona School Boards Association, Race, Ethnicity, Poverty Factor into theResegregation of Arizonas Schools, September 15, 2014, AZEDNEWS,Accessed on 8/22/2015 at: http://azednews.com/2014/09/15/race-ethnicity-poverty-factor-into-the-re-segregation-of-arizonas-schools/.................passim
Celeste Gonzalez de Bustamante, Arizona and the Making of a State ofExclusion, 1912-2012, pp. 19 - 42, in Arizona Firestorm: GlobalImmigration Realities, National Media, and Provincial Politics, eds. OttoSanta Ana and Celeste Gonzalez de Bustamante, Rowman & Littlefied,2012passim
Leo Chavez, The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the
Nation, Stanford University Press, 2008passim
Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, RepublicanBallot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression -Or Both?, A Report to the Center for Voting Rights and Protection,September 2004. Accessed on 8/22/2015 at: http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf.passim
Roxanne Doty, The Law into Their Own Hands: Immigration and the Politics ofExceptionalism, University of Arizona Press, 2009...passim
Jeremy Duda, Ducey, Brnovich Propose $1 million for Federalism Unit,Capitol Times, February 9, 2015, Accessed on 8/20/2015 at:http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-37668000.html.............................passim
Floyd Galloway, Voting Rights in Arizona: Back to the Future, New AmericanMedia, Nov. 4, 2014. Accessed on 8/10/2015 at:http://newamericamedia.org/2014/11/voting-rights-in-arizona-back-to-the-future.php ......passim
Rob E. Hanson, The Great Bisbee I.W.W. Deportation of July 12, 1917, SignaturePress, 1989.passim
Julianne Hing, Joe Arpaio Launches Air Posse to Hunt Immigrants at Border,Colorlines News, March 30, 2011, Accessed on 8/22/2015 at:
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 6 of 31
(11 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
12/36
vii8908774
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/joe-arpaio-launches-air-posse-hunt-immigrants-border..................................................................................passim
Alex Johnson, Pro-English measures being revived across U.S.: Congress, statesconsider new proposals to declare an official language, MSNBC, June 15,2009, Accessed on 8/10/2015 at: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31176525/ns/us_news-life/t/pro-english-measures-being-revived-across-us/#.VcaT7p1VhBcpassim
Cecilia Menjvar and Daniel Kanstroom (eds.) Constructing ImmigrantIllegality: Critiques, Experiences and Responses, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2014....passim
Brian Montopoli, Where Did Jan Brewers Beheading Claim Come From? CBS
News, July 9, 2010. Accessed on 8/10/2015 at:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-did-jan-brewers-beheading-claim-come-from/ ...passim
Hiroshi Motomura, Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration andCitizenship in the United States, Oxford University Press, 2006.....passim
Mae Ngai,Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America,Princeton University Press, 2004.. passim
Linda C. Noel,Debating American Identity: Southwestern Statehood and MexicanImmigration, University of Arizona Press, 2014... passim
Doris Marie Provine and Gabriella Sanchez, Suspecting Immigrants: ExploringLinks between Racialized Anxieties and Expanded Police Powers inArizona, pp. 116-127 in Stop and Search: Police Power in Global Context,Leanne Weber and Ben Bowling (eds.), Routledge, 2013.passim
Doris Marie Provine and Monica Varsanyi, Immigration Federalism in the
Shifting Political Sands of Two Neighboring States, conference paperdelivered at the 2015 annual meeting of the Law & Society Association,Seattle, Washington, June, 2015..passim
Alia Beard Rau, The Fight over States Rights is Back on the Ballot, October 20,2014, Arizona Republic, Accessed on 8/20/2015 at:
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 7 of 31
(12 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
13/36
viii8908774
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/20/federalism-state-rights-ballot/17596035/............................................................... passim
Ted Robbins, The Man Behind Arizonas Toughest Immigration Laws, NationalPublic Radio, March 12, 2008, accessed on 8/10/2015 at:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88125098........passim
Marc R. Rosenblum and Leo B. Gorman, The Public Policy Implications of State-Level Worksite Migration Enforcement: The Experiences of Arizona,
Mississippi, and Illinois,pp. 115 - 134 in Monica W. Varsanyi (ed.), TakingLocal Control: Immigration Policy Activism in U.S. Cities and States,
Stanford University Press, 2010..1920
Kyrsten Sinema, No Surprises: The Evolution of Anti-Immigration Legislation in
Arizona, pp. 62-88 in Charis E. Kubrin, Marjorie S. Zatz, and RamiroMartnez (eds.), Punishing Immigrants: Policy, Politics, and Injustice, NewYork University Press, 2012...716, 18
Zachary Alden Smith, Politics and Public Policy in Arizona, (3rdedn.), Praeger,2002... passim
Monica W. Varsanyi, Immigration Policy Activism in the U.S, States and Cities:Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 1 - 30 in Monica W. Varsanyi (ed.),Taking Local Control: Immigration Policy Activism in U.S. Cities and
States, Stanford University Press, 2010....passim
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 8 of 31
(13 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
14/36
18908774
INTEREST OF THE AMICI AND CONSENT TO FILE
Professors Doris Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjvar submit this amicus
brief in support of Appellees argument that the purpose and effect of the
challenged provisions in this case was to regulate immigration at the state level by
criminalizing fraud in the federal employment verification system. The professors
are experts in policies and practices related to unauthorized immigrants and in the
investigation of legislative intent.
Dr. Doris Marie Provine (J.D., Ph.D., Cornell) has written a well-received
book about Congressional intent in adopting various sentencing laws for violations
of federal drug lawsUnequal Under Law: Race and the War on Drugs
(University of Chicago Press 2007). Dr. Provines current research focuses on
policies affecting unauthorized immigrants, particularly in Arizona. With two
major grants from the National Science Association, she and three co-authors have
written: Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines
(University of Chicago Press, Forthcoming). Dr. Provine came to Arizona in 2001
from Syracuse University to direct the School of Justice Studies at Arizona State
University. She is currently professor emeritaat Arizona State University and a
member of the board of the Arizona affiliate of the American Civil Liberties
Union, which serves as co-counsel to Plaintiff-Appellees. Her co-authorship of
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 9 of 31
(14 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
15/36
28908774
this brief, however, arises out of her expertise as a scholar of immigration and
legislative intent.
Dr. Menjvar (Ph.D., U.C. Davis) is a sociologist with expertise in how law
and policy can create adverse consequences for excluded groups. She has written
widely on the challenges faced by women immigrants living under threat of
deportation, and she has guided many doctoral students in the study of immigration
policies and their consequences. Recently, with Professor Daniel Kanstroom, she
edited a major volume on immigration and law: Constructing Immigrant
Illegality: Critiques, Experiences, and Responses(Cambridge University Press
2014). Dr. Menjvar has received much recognition for her contributions, and has
successfully sought major funding for her research. She recently accepted a
position as Foundation Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of
Kansas after a successful career at Arizona State University.
By this brief, Amici demonstrate that the history of anti-immigrant
legislation preceding H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, as well as the sponsorship of these
two bills by a long-standing opponent of unauthorized immigration, reveal a
motive to make state-level immigration policy in an area preempted by federal law.
The preliminary injunction against enforcement of these laws as they pertain to
unauthorized immigrants, therefore, should be affirmed. The observations
contained in this brief reflect the views of the Amici, not of the universities and
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 10 of 31
(15 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
16/36
38908774
institutions with which we are affiliated with; their academic positions are noted
solely to identify them as established scholars at research-oriented institutions.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 11 of 31
(16 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
17/36
48908774
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Arizona House Bill 2779 (H.B. 2779) and Arizona House Bill 2745 (H.B.
2745) reflect a long-standing legislative approach to the presence of residents who
have migrated from Mexico and Central America without legal authorization.
Discouraging unauthorized immigrants from settling in Arizona has been the
consistent goal of more than 100 bills proposed with increasing frequency over the
past fifteen years. A number of these bills have been enacted into law. The
legislation takes various forms, but often involves (1) conditioning public benefits
upon proof of legal status; (2) requiring local law enforcement personnel to
actively engage in enforcement of federal immigration law; or (3) creating
prohibitions and penalties, often involving the private sector, that are designed to
make life more difficult for those living in Arizona without legal status. H.B. 2779
and H.B. 2745 are examples of this last form.
The groundswell of immigration-related bills in Arizona is a political
response to public hostility in Arizona over the presence of unauthorized
immigrants and anger with the federal government for its perceived failure to
prevent this situation. H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 were aimed at appeasing this
public dissatisfaction, and laid the groundwork necessary for widely publicized
workplace raids as well as the criminal conviction and deportation of hundreds of
immigrant workers.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 12 of 31
(17 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
18/36
58908774
Appellants argue that H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 are constitutional merely
because they do not mention the words immigrant, alien, illegal resident, or
any similar term. Nevertheless, their sponsorship by a long-time advocate of laws
to discourage unauthorized entry and residence, and the circumstances surrounding
their enactment, demonstrate that their actual goal was to make it difficult for
unauthorized immigrants to live in the state.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 13 of 31
(18 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
19/36
68908774
ARGUMENT
Appellants claim that H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, the two Arizona statutes
that are the subject of this litigation, have no immigrant-related purpose. See
Opening Br. (Dkt. #28) at 14 (contending that the Identity Theft Laws are
unlike any of the previous statutes found to violate federal supremacy on
immigration because the laws include no reference to immigration.). The facts
suggest otherwise, beginning with the wording of the statutes, which single out
persons using false documentation to secure employment as a particular source
of concern. This purpose does not speak to any contemporaneous problem Arizona
had at the time of enactment concerning identity theft undertaken for financial
gain.
The fact that state law-enforcement agents immediately focused on
workplace raids to enforce the new legislation suggests they understood that the
real goal of these laws was to target unauthorized immigrants and to facilitate their
deportation, regardless of federal legislation that was already in place that
addressed the hiring of unauthorized immigrants. Circumstances surrounding the
passage of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, combined with their sponsorship and
stewardship by a state legislator well-known for strident anti-immigrant advocacy
and association with anti-immigrant groups, undermines Arizonas newly-
advanced claim that this legislation has a neutral, non-immigration-related purpose.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 14 of 31
(19 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
20/36
78908774
These state laws were part of an evolving legislative and law-enforcement strategy
that culminated two years later in S.B. 1070, when attrition through enforcement
became the express policy of the State of Arizona toward undocumented
immigrants.
I. H.B. 2779 AND H.B. 2745 WERE PART OF A BROADER EFFORTTO ENACT STATE-LEVEL IMMIGRATION POLICY.
Between 2003 and 2011, a handful of Arizona legislators introduced over
100 bills focused on unauthorized immigrants living in Arizona. See Kyrsten
Sinema,No Surprises: The Evolution of Anti-Immigration Legislation in Arizona,
inPUNISHING IMMIGRANTS:POLICY,POLITICS,AND INJUSTICE85 (Charis E. Kubrin,
Marjorie S. Zatz, and Ramiro Martnez eds., 2012) (hereinafter Punishing
Immigrants). They covered a broad range of topics, including access to state-
provided housing, education, and health benefits, local enforcement of federal
immigration law, access to damages in the courts, voting, availability of
workmans compensation and bail, trespass, day labor sites, sanctuary cities,
professional licensing, and other matters. Each of these bills, however, was
designed for a singular purposeto make living and working in Arizona more
difficult for persons lacking legal status.
Table 1 provides a sampling of these proposals. As this table indicates,
many of these bills stalled in the legislative process, but as public support grew
against unauthorized immigration, so too did their prospects for passage. The
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 15 of 31
(20 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
21/36
88908774
approval by 56% of the voters of Proposition 200, a 2004 state-wide initiative
requiring proof of citizenship to vote and legal status to receive public benefits
represents an important tipping point, as evidenced by three subsequent initiatives
directed at unauthorized immigrants passed in 2006Propositions 102, 103, and
300. Each of the 2006 propositionsreceived over 70% support of the voters. H.B.
2779 and H.B. 2745, passed in the two years following the 2006 initiatives and
highlighted in bold in the table below, exemplify the legislative response to this
voter mandate.
TABLE 1Immigration-Related Bills, 2003-20111
2003
1 This table does not identify all of the 100-plus immigration-related billsintroduced in the Arizona legislature during this time period; rather, it covers asampling in attempts to provide a broader picture of the types of legislationintroduced. The table is largely based on the Appendix in Sinema, PunishingImmigrantsat 7885.
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
2246 Proof of Citizenship to Vote Pearce Failed in
Committee2243 Requiring Emergency Medical Personnel to
Report Suspected Undocumented Immigrants;Authorizing Local Law Enforcement toEnforce Federal Immigration Laws;Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrations toEnroll in Public Universities; Requiring AllPublic Agencies to Report SuspectedUndocumented Immigrants; Authorizing Local
Pearce Not Heard
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 16 of 31
(21 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
22/36
98908774
2004BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
Prop.200
Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Register toVote, an ID to Receive a Ballot, Proof ofCitizenship to Receive Public Benefits, andAgencies to Report Suspected UndocumentedImmigrants
Adoptedwith 56% ofthe Vote
2248 Authorizing the Arizona Attorney General toSuspend Business Licenses for 6 Months forViolations of Federal ImmigrationEmployment Laws
Pearce Held inCommittee
2005
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
2394 Requiring Report Undocumented StateMedicaid Applicants to Federal Authorities
Pearce Not Heard
2395 Requiring State Department of EconomicSecurity to Verify Immigration Status of AllApplicants
Pearce Not Heard
2030 Prohibiting Undocumented Students fromReceiving In-State Tuition or Scholarships atPublic Universities; Requiring Proof of LegalStatus for Adult Education and FamilyAssistance Programs
Nichols Passed, butVetoed
2030 Constitutional Amendment Making EnglishArizonas Official Language.
Pearce PassedHouse, Held
in Senate2259 Imposing Longer Sentences for Violations of
Federal Immigration Laws and Adding FiveImmigration-Related Aggravating Factors
Gray Enacted
2709 Building a Private Prison in Mexico forMexican Nationals Convicted in Arizona
Jones Passed, butVetoed
Law Enforcement to Enforce FederalImmigration Laws in Connection with AllArrests
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 17 of 31
(22 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
23/36
108908774
2389 No Bail for Undocumented ImmigrationsCharged with Class 1, 2, or 3 Felonies(Referred to November 2005 Ballot)
Pearce PassedHouse andSenateCommittee
2028/Prop.100
Constitutional Amendment Outlawing Bail forSerious Felons without Legal Status Pearce Adoptedwith 78% ofthe Vote
2384 Imposing Additional Sanctions on BusinessesSanctioned by Federal Authorities for HiringUndocumented Immigrants
Pearce Not Heard
2592 Prohibiting Day Labor Centers from AssistingUndocumented Immigrants
Rosati Enacted
2386,1306
Authorizing Local Law Enforcement toApprehend and Remove Undocumented
Immigrants from U.S. (OK to cross state lines)
Pearce,Johnson
Initially NoHearing,
then Passed,but Vetoed
2006
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
2448 Requiring State Medicaid to Verify CitizenshipStatus of Applicants and Report Violations toFederal Immigration Authorities
Burges Enacted
2068/9 Prohibiting Undocumented Students fromReceiving In-State Tuition or Financial Aid
Gray Not Heard
1031/Prop.300
Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrants fromReceiving State-Assisted Adult Education andChildcare, In-State Tuition, and Financial Aid;Requiring Annual Reports to Legislature onUndocumented Applicants
Martin Adoptedwith 71% ofthe Vote
2036/Prop.
103
Adopting English as Arizonas OfficialLanguage; Providing Private Right of Action
Pearce Adoptedwith 74% of
the Vote2761 Building a Private Prison in Mexico forMexican Nationals Convicted in Arizona
Jones Passed, thenHeld
1057 Stripping Undocumented Immigrants ofStanding to File Civil Suits, Except for ActualDamages
Huppenthal Held inHouse
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 18 of 31
(23 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
24/36
118908774
1001/Prop.102
Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrants fromObtaining Punitive Damages in Lawsuits
Huppenthal Adoptedwith 74% ofthe Vote
2044 Establishing Immigration-Related Employer
Sanctions (Fines, License Revocation, andCriminal Sanctions)
Pearce Passed in
House, Heldin Senate2582 Authorizing Local Law Enforcement to
Investigate, Apprehend, Detain, or RemoveUndocumented Immigrants.
Pearce Passed inHouse, Heldin Senate
1157 Creating State Crime of Trespassing;Establishing First Offence of UnlawfulPresence as a Misdemeanor, and SubsequentOffenses as a Felony
Gray Passed, butVetoed
2071 Authorizing Local Law Enforcement to
Question Detained Suspected CriminalsRegarding Immigration Status
Gray Not Heard
2837 Stripping Local Governments AdoptingSanctuary Policies of State-Shared Revenues
Pearce Failed inFinal House
2577 Requiring Local Law Enforcement to EnforceFederal Immigration Laws; Denying PunitiveDamage Awards to UndocumentedImmigrants; Creating a State Crime ofTrespassing; Denying Adult Education,
Childcare Assistance, and Tuition Assistance toUndocumented Immigrants; EstablishingImmigration-Related Employer Sanctions;Creating Border Enforcement Security Team;Appropriating Funds for Border Security
Pearce Passed, butVetoed
2007
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
2471 Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrants fromReceiving Public Benefits, Including Access toK-12 and Higher Education, Grants, Loans,Professional Licenses and Employment,Retirement Benefits, Public Welfare Benefits,Healthcare, Public Housing, and DisabilityBenefits
Pearce Not Heard
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 19 of 31
(24 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
25/36
128908774
2779 Legal Arizona Workers Act Pearce Enacted2589 Criminalizing Soliciting Employment or Labor
in Certain LocationsKavanagh Passed, but
Vetoed2022 Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrants from
Entering Private or Public Land
Pearce Passed
Committee,then Held2461 Requiring Local Law Enforcement to Inquire
into Legal Status of Detained CriminalSuspects
Pearce Not Heard
2751 Requiring Local Law Enforcement to Complywith and Enforce Federal Immigration Laws
Pearce Passed ThreeHouseCommittees,then Held
2049 Proposing Ballot Referendum Requiring Local
Law Enforcement to Comply with and EnforceFederal Immigration Laws
Pearce Passed
HouseCommittee,then Held
2008
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
2043 Proposing Ballot Referendum that WouldProhibit Public Education Without Proof of
Legal Status
Pearce Not Heard
2745 Adjustments to H.B. 2779 (Legal ArizonaWorkers Act)
Pearce Enacted
2750 Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrations fromReceiving Workmans Compensation
Pearce Not Heard
2412 Redefining Criminal Trespass to IncludeKnowingly Standing on a Public Street,Highway, or Adjacent Areas for the Purpose ofSoliciting Employment
Kavanagh PassedHouse,Failed inSenate
2039 Proposing Ballot Referendum Requiring LocalLaw Enforcement to Comply with and EnforceFederal Immigration Laws and ProhibitingUndocumented Immigrants from EnteringPrivate or Public Land
Pearce PassedHouseCommittee,then Held
2625 Prohibiting Landlords from Knowingly andRecklessly Renting or Leasing any Property or
Pearce PassedHouse
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 20 of 31
(25 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
26/36
138908774
Dwelling to Undocumented Immigrants Committee,the Held
2807 Requiring Local Law Enforcement to TrainOfficers in Federal Immigration Laws, or to
Imbed ICE Officers in the Police Force
Nelson Passed, butVetoed
2064 Proposing Ballot Referendum for H.R. 2807 Nelson PassedHouseCommittee,the Held
2009
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
1172 Requires Department of Education to CollectPopulation Data of Undocumented Studentsand Estimate Cost of Educating UndocumentedStudents; Authorizing Superintendent toWithhold Funds for Non-Compliance
Pearce Not Heard
1334 Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrations fromReceiving Workmans Compensation
Pearce Not Heard
1177 Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrations fromApplying for Work or Working
Pearce Not Heard
2533 Criminalizing the Act of Soliciting
Employment from an Individual in a MotorVehicle While Standing on Street, Highway, orSidewalk
Kavanagh Passed
House, Heldin Senate
2280 Requiring Local Law Enforcement to EnforceFederal Immigration Laws and ProhibitingUndocumented Immigrants from EnteringPrivate or Public Land
Kavanagh PassedHouse andSenate,Failed onFinal Read
1159/
1010
Creating State Crime of Trespassing that
Imposed Civil and Criminal Penalties onUndocumented Immigrants who Entered orRemained on Private or Public Land
Pearce Not Heard
2331 Prohibiting Local Governments from EnactingOrdinances that Prohibited Enforcement ofFederal Immigration Laws
Boone PassedHouse, Heldin Senate
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 21 of 31
(26 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
27/36
148908774
2010
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
1097 Requires Department of Education to Collect
Population Data of Undocumented Studentsand Estimate Cost of Educating UndocumentedStudents; Authorizing Superintendent toWithhold Funds for Non-Compliance
Pearce Passed
Senate, Heldin House
1070 Creating State Penalties Relating toImmigration Law Enforcement IncludingTrespassing, Harboring and TransportingUndocumented Immigrants, Alien RegistrationDocuments, Employer Sanctions, and HumanSmuggling.
Pearce Enacted
2162 Adjustments to S.B. 1070 Nichols Enacted
2011
BILL # SUMMARY PRIMARYSPONSOR
OUTCOME
1308/1309
Limiting Arizona Citizenship to IndividualsBorn in the U.S. to Parents Who Are Citizensor Legal Permanent Residents; Precluding theU.S. Constitutions Fourteenth AmendmentFrom Applying to Children of UndocumentedImmigrants
Gould Failed inSenate
1222 Conditioning HUD-Funded Public Housing onDemonstrating Lawful Presence
Biggs Passed Senate,Held in House
1405 Requiring Hospitals to Determine CitizenshipStatus of Patients and to Notify ImmigrationAuthorities of Undocumented Immigrants
Smith Failed inSenate
1407 Requires Department of Education to CollectPopulation Data of Undocumented Students
and Estimate Cost of Their Education
Smith Failed inSenate
2191 Retroactively Denying Punitive DamageAwards to Undocumented Immigrants
Weiers Enacted
1490 Prohibits counties from issuing food handlerscards without proof of legal status
Gould Passed Senate,held in House
2102 Prohibiting the Issuance of a License,Fingerprint Clearance Card, or Any State
Kavanagh Enacted
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 22 of 31
(27 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
28/36
158908774
Identification to Undocumented Immigrants
1117/2537
Permitting House and Senate Leaders toParticipate in S.B. 1070 Litigation WithoutSeeking Authorization from the Legislature
Pearce/Adams
Enacted
1611 Omnibus Legislation Combining a Number ofFormer Pearce-Sponsored Bills from 2006 to2010 and Adding New Restrictive ImmigrationMeasures; Restricting Eligibility of Federal,State, and Local Benefits; ProhibitingUndocumented Immigrations from OperatingMotor Vehicles, Enrolling in K-12 and HigherEducation; Expanding E-Verify Program to AllArizona Employers
Pearce Failed inSenate
Table 1 demonstrates that the broader effort to enact state-level immigration
policy began as a drive by Representative, and later Senator, Russell Pearce. It
also shows that with time he convinced others to join his cause. The proposals
themselves range from areas reserved for state policyeligibility for tuition at
state-supported institutions of higher educationto matters reserved exclusively
by the federal governmentthe creation of immigration-related crimes. H.B. 2779
and H.B. 2745 exemplify the latter.
II. THE STRATEGY OF ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENTTHAT BECAME THE EXPRESS IMMIGRATION POLICY OF THE
STATE OF ARIZONA IN 2010 WAS IN PLACE WHEN H.B. 2779
AND H.B. 2745 WERE ADOPTED.
Russell Pearce, the man whose name is most frequently associated with
attrition through enforcement because of his sponsorship of S.B. 1070 in 2010,
has a long record of policy proposals that aim at unauthorized immigrants.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 23 of 31
(28 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
29/36
168908774
H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, both of which he sponsored, are relative latecomers in
this line of bills.
Pearce began promoting various methods of attrition through enforcement
when he became director of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department in 1995. From
that vantage point, he drafted H.B. 2154, a law that would for the first time require
legal status to obtain a drivers license. Elected four years later to the Arizona
House of Representatives, Pearce began to promote attrition through
enforcementduring his second two-year term. He introduced two restrictive laws
in 2003, neither of which moved forward.
From this point on, Pearce appears to have made immigration the
centerpiece of his activity. After a series of legislative defeats in 2003, including
the failure to get H.B. 2246a bill requiring proof of citizenship to voteout of
committee, Pearce began working with outside groups to take his issues directly
the voters via ballot referendums. Sinema, Punishing Immigrants, at 6263.
These efforts culminated in the passage of Proposition 200, the Arizona Taxpayer
and Citizen Protection Act, which appeared on the November 2004 ballot.
Section 2 of Proposition 200, entitled Findings and declaration,provided that:
This state finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardshipto this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged by publicagencies within this state that provide public benefits withoutverifying immigration status. This state further finds that illegalimmigrants have been given a safe haven in this state with the aid ofidentification cards that are issued without verifying immigration
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 24 of 31
(29 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
30/36
178908774
status, and that this conduct contradicts federal immigration policy,undermines the security of our borders and demeans the value ofcitizenship. Therefore, the people of this state declare that the publicinterest of this state requires all public agencies within this state tocooperate with federal immigration authorities to discourage illegalimmigration.2
Proposition 200 represented the first significant victory for such efforts and
ultimately changed Arizonaspolitical and legislative landscape.3
Polls taken in the ensuing months reflected the political momentum behind
anti-immigrant measures. An October 2005 poll conducted by the Arizona
Republic revealed antipathy for unauthorized immigrants and pessimism about the
current success of the federal government in securing the border. Nearly six in ten
called unauthorized immigration an extremely high priority in an August 2006
survey of likely voters. Nearly two thirds of these respondents stated that illegal
immigration hurt the state more than helped it and most opined that the issue of
enforcement was too important to leave to the federal government alone.
These attitudes were reflected in the passage of three anti-immigrant
referenda in 2006. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema, who was a state
2 Text of Proposition 200 (2004), available at http://apps.azsos.gov/-election/2004/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop200.pdf (last visited Aug. 28, 2015).3 In 2013, the Supreme Court held that the provision of Proposition 200 thatrequired voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or casting aballot was preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Arizona v.Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc, 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013) (affirming Gonzalez v.Ariz., 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)).
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 25 of 31
(30 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
31/36
188908774
representative at the time, attributed the support for H.B. 2779 to the outcome of
the November 2006 election, with its strong voter endorsement of the three anti-
immigrant referenda:
After the 2006 election, the Legislature saw the increasing popularityof anti-immigration legislation in Arizona and forged ahead. By thetime, it was clear to the Legislature that the public supported anti-immigrant measures, at least when presented with no clear sign of anypositive solutions to the growing immigration crisis Arizona wasexperiencing. As such, the political pressure to approve anti-immigrant measures increased exponentially, with Republicans, inparticular, concerned about primary election challenges from the right
as political payback for failure to support these measures. Withgrowing public pressure to do something about immigration andthinly veiled threats from the political right about repercussions forthose who opposed anti-immigrant measures, most legislativeRepublicans began voting for Pearces measures.
Sinema, Punishing Immigrants, at 68. Proposition 200, the three 2006 ballot
referendums, and the general anti-immigrant political environment provided
momentum for H.B. 2779, the Legal Arizona Workers Act,and H.B. 2745, its
2008 companion legislation.
The power of the movement to discourage unauthorized immigrants from
living in the state can be gauged, in part, by the inability of the Arizona business
community to block the Legal Arizona Workers Act. The concern of business
leaders was that this new law would weaken the states economy. SeeMarc R.
Rosenblum and Leo B. Gorman, The Public Policy Implications of State-Level
Worksite Migration Enforcement: The Experiences of Arizona, Mississippi, and
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 26 of 31
(31 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
32/36
198908774
Illinois, in TAKING LOCAL CONTROL: IMMIGRATION POLICY ACTIVISM IN U.S.
CITIES AND STATES121 (Monica W. Varsanyi ed., 2010) (hereinafter State-Level
Worksite Migration Enforcement). These factors appear to have been ignored in
the rush to support H.B. 2779, which passed both houses of the legislature by four-
to-one margins. Id.
These laws were unambiguously aimed at unauthorized immigrants. While
they impose a series of potentially escalating civil penalties on employers who
knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, they imposed much harsher penalties on
the immigrant employees they hire, criminalizing applicants who use false
documentation to gain employment. At the same time, Arizona was also implicitly
challenging the federal governments long-time approach to employment by
unauthorized immigrants.
In 2007 and 2008, elected officials, faced with the polling results mentioned
above, supported H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, overcoming any doubts they may have
had about the legitimacy of occupying the federal domain in immigration policy.
In this respect they had the support of Arizona voters, who, the polling data
suggests, saw no problem with granting the state significant immigration
enforcement responsibilities. The idea that Arizona must step in where the federal
government has failed to act was a major selling point for H.B. 2779. In fact, co-
sponsor Representative John Kavanagh contended that that People want a
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 27 of 31
(32 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
33/36
208908774
crackdown. Rosenblum and Gorman, State-Level Worksite Migration
Enforcement, at 121. Then-Governor Napolitano justified her signature
authorizing the bill by citing the apparent inability of Congress to address state
immigration needs. Indeed, the District CourtsPreliminary Injunction Order aptly
cited to statements made by Governor Napolitano and members of the legislature
that clearly evidence the intent of the drafters and supports of these bills:
Senator OHalleran stated that people convicted under the identitytheft law would be encouraged to self-deport instead of serving long
prison sentences. Doc. 30-3 at 45. Senator Robert Burns supportedH.B. 2779 because it would show that Arizona was tough on illegalimmigration. Id. at 42. . . . When signing H.B. 2779 into law,Governor Napolitano noted that a state like Arizona [has] no choicebut to take strong action to discourage the further flow of illegalimmigration through our borders.
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015).
CONCLUSION
It is important to place legislation in its historical, political, and social
context to properly analyze legislative purpose. The history of anti-immigrant
legislation preceding H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, and the sponsorship of these two
bills by a long-standing opponent of unauthorized immigration in Arizona, reveal a
motive to make state-level immigration policy in an area preempted by federal law.The preliminary injunction against enforcement of these laws as they pertain to
unauthorized immigrants therefore should be affirmed.
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 28 of 31
(33 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
34/36
218908774
DATED this 28th day of August, 2015.
THORPE SHWER, P.C.
By s/Spencer G. ScharffWilliam L. ThorpeSpencer G. ScharffCounsel for Amici Curiae
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 29 of 31
(34 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
35/36
228908774
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C), I certify that
this brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and (6),
because it is written in 14-pt Times New Roman font, and with the type-volume
limitations of Rules 28.1(e)(2)(B) and 29(d), because it contains 4,068 words,
excluding the portions excluded under Rule 32(a)(7)(A)(iii). This count is based
on the word-count feature of Microsoft Word 2013.
Dated: August 28, 2015 By s/Spencer G. ScharffWilliam L. ThorpeSpencer G. ScharffCounsel for Amici Curiae
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 30 of 31
(35 of
7/23/2019 Amicus Curiae Brief from Professors Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjivar
36/36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 28, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS DORIS MARIE PROVINE AND
CECILIA MENJVAR, with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that
all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
Dated: August 28, 2015 By s/Spencer G. ScharffWilliam L. ThorpeSpencer G. ScharffCounsel for Amici Curiae
Case: 15-15211, 08/28/2015, ID: 9665368, DktEntry: 59-2, Page 31 of 31
(36 of