Tag: amicus brief

Posted on

NAPABA Applauds Eleventh Circuit Ruling Halting Enforcement of Florida’s Discriminatory Alien Land Law

For Immediate Release: 
Date: February 2, 2024 		Contact: Rahat N. Babar, Deputy Executive Director for Policy 

WASHINGTON – In the ongoing litigation against Florida’s discriminatory alien land law (“SB 264”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in favor of two of the plaintiffs and halted enforcement of the law against them. In temporarily blocking SB 264, the court held that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the statute is preempted by federal law and that they have shown an imminent risk that the law would cause them irreparable harm. The plaintiffs, lawfully present Chinese immigrants, first brought the suit because they were stymied in their efforts to purchase homes when the law went into effect.

“We are grateful that the court recognized the real harm that discriminatory statutes such as SB 264 are imposing on the Asian American community,” said Anna Mercado Clark, President of NAPABA. “As litigation continues, NAPABA will continue to oppose alien land laws, whether in the halls of Congress, in statehouses, or in court, until these discriminatory policies return to the dustbin of history, where they belong.”

In a robust concurrence, Judge Nancy Abudu acknowledged that “SB 264 was enacted for the specific purpose of targeting people of Chinese descent.” Judge Abudu concluded that the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood that statute also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. In doing so, Judge Abudu excoriated the District Court’s fraught reliance on the widely discredited century-old Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923), case, determining that it “may have had support in 1923, but it is now 2024” and such laws are now subject to strict scrutiny.

NAPABA, together with its four Florida affiliates, joined an amicus brief before the Eleventh Circuit in the case, continuing our long history for over a decade of leading efforts to overcome the state’s legacy of anti-Asian alien land laws. This includes when Florida became the last state in the United States over five years ago to abolish such discriminatory language from its constitution, only to enact SB 264 last year. Throughout the country, NAPABA and its affiliates continue to fight these discriminatory measures through legislative advocacy and educating lawmakers and the wider public on the painful history and legal implications of wrongfully restricting the property rights of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities.

###

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.

Posted on

NAPABA Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case

For Immediate Release:
Date: August 3, 2022

Contact: Priya Purandare, Executive Director

WASHINGTON – The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) filed an amicus brief in the cases challenging affirmative action before the Supreme Court, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. We were joined on the brief by the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association.

In the brief, the bars reiterated their support for the principles laid out in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which allowed the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions as part of a holistic admissions process. The brief lays out the importance of diversity in the legal profession and the impact overturning holistic admissions in college on current efforts to diversify the legal pipeline. The brief did not address the second question posed by the Court about the practices and policies implemented by either Harvard or the University of North Carolina.

NAPABA has consistently supported the principle of holistic admissions since it first submitted an amicus brief in Grutter with a coalition of Asian Pacific American organizations. NAPABA was joined by other diverse bars reiterating their support for affirmative action and the impact on the legal profession in both Fisher v. Texas (2013) and Fisher v. Texas (2016). This principle was codified and most recently affirmed by the NAPABA Board of Governors as the organization’s standing policy in 2015.

NAPABA thanks Dan Bromberg, Appellate Practice leader, and Shelby Dyl of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for serving as pro bono counsel on this brief. We thank Albert Giang of King & Spalding LLP and Radha Pathak of Stris & Maher LLP, for their leadership as Co-Chairs of NAPABA’s Amicus Committee and contributions to the brief. A special thanks to Kevin Fong, former NAPABA Amicus Chair, for his advice and contributions.

###

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting APA communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.

Posted on

AABANY Joins NAPAWF and AAJC’s Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Roe v. Wade

AABANY has joined as a co-signatory to the amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed by the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) and Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC).

In a press release, AAJC stated:

The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) and Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), with Duane Morris LLP, filed an amicus brief urging the nation’s highest court to reject a call by the state of Mississippi to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow individual states to ban or end the legal right to abortion.

The amicus, or the “friend of the court” brief, represents 29 community and civil rights organizations, as well as bar associations, representing the interests of Asian American and Pacific Islander women in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs case is a challenge, brought by the independent and sole abortion care in Mississippi, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, to the state’s 2018 ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

To read the full press release and the amicus brief, click here.

Posted on

AABANY Joins NAPABA’s Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court Opposing the Addition of a Proposed Citizenship Question to the 2020 Census.

On April 1, 2019, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), joined by Sixty-four (64) bar associations and AAPI-serving community organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v. New York (18-966) opposing the addition of a proposed citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

In a press release, NAPABA stated:

On April 23, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal in Department of Commerce v. New York (18-966).  In January, the Southern District of New York found that the Administration’s decision to add the question was ‘arbitrary’ and ‘capricious,’ and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In a related challenge, California v. Ross, the Northern District of California found the Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution. A decision is pending in a third challenge, involving AAPI and Hispanic plaintiffs, in the District of Maryland.

The AAPI organizations urge the Court to uphold the district court’s ruling to enjoin the addition of the citizenship question: Amici agree with the district court ’s finding that the addition of a citizenship question will likely lead to an undercount of noncitizen households of at least 5.8 percent. . . . This chilling of participation in the 2020 Census will have a disproportionate effect on the AAPI community. . . . These heightened concerns for the AAPI community come at a crucial moment, because Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial group in the country and stand to make substantial gains in political representation based on that population growth.

AABANY is pleased to announce that it is a co-signatory to NAPABA’s amicus brief in the Supreme Court opposing the addition of a proposed citizenship question to the 2020 census. The addition of the citizenship question will negatively impact the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. It will depress response rates from Asian Americans, the fastest growing racial group and the largest segment of new immigrants in the country, and impact our ability to protect our rights and ensure political representation.

To read the full press release and the amicus brief, click here.

Posted on

NAPABA Files Amicus Briefs in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits Challenging the President’s Revised Muslim and Refugee Ban

image

For Immediate Release

Dec. 1, 2017

WASHINGTON — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) filed amicus briefs in both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to support the preliminary injunction of President Trump’s September 24, 2017, revised executive order barring refugees and individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and North Korea, along with government officials from Venezuela, from entering the United States.

The Trump Administration’s appeals in these cases, State of Hawaii v. Trump and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, arise from the legal challenges to the third revised executive order, which was announced in September 2017 and set to take effect October 18, 2017. On October 17, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted the temporary restraining order. NAPABA filed an amicus brief in this case on November 22. The U.S. district court in Maryland also enjoined the visa ban on October 17, 2017, and the Administration’s appeal in that case is pending in the Fourth Circuit, where NAPABA filed an amicus brief on November 17, 2017.

“This third order continues the discriminatory and unlawful exclusion promoted by its predecessors,” said NAPABA President Pankit J. Doshi. “As a bar association committed to promoting diversity and inclusion, we are proud to continue to speak out in these cases. As an Asian Pacific American community, we have experienced the harms of exclusionary laws and we will continue to oppose this anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant order.”

NAPABA’s amicus briefs describe decades of statutory exclusion of citizens of Asian and Pacific Island countries under early U.S. immigration law, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the first federal law to ban a group of people on the basis of their race. The Civil Rights Era marked a dramatic turning point that saw Congress dismantle nationality-based discrimination with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The brief explains that presidential discretion in the area of immigration and refugee admission, while broad, is limited by statute. NAPABA argues that President Trump’s revised order, with its anti-Muslim underpinnings, violates the unambiguous prohibition on discrimination established by Congress.

NAPABA opposed earlier iterations of the executive order, including submitting amicus briefs at the District, Circuit, and Supreme Court level.

NAPABA recognizes lead pro bono counsel, James W. Kim, a NAPABA member and partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Kim’s team (including Andrew Genz, Joshua Rogaczewski, Philip Levine, Matthew Girgenti, and Llewelyn Engel), NAPABA Amicus Committee co-chairs, Professor Radha Pathak of Whittier Law School and Albert Giang, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP in Los Angeles, and NAPABA Civil Rights Committee co-chair Meredith Higashi for their leadership drafting the brief, which also involved the efforts of NAPABA staff.

The Ninth Circuit will hear the case on December 6, 2017, in Seattle, WA. The Fourth Circuit will hear the case on December 8, 2017 in Richmond, VA.

For more information, the media may contact Brett Schuster, NAPABA communications manager, at 202-775-9555 or [email protected].

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American (APA) attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of over 50,000 attorneys and over 75 national, state, and local bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government. NAPABA engages in legislative and policy advocacy, promotes APA political leadership and political appointments, and builds coalitions within the legal profession and the community at large. NAPABA also serves as a resource for government agencies, members of Congress, and public service organizations about APAs in the legal profession, civil rights, and diversity in the courts.

NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.

To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).

Posted on

NAPABA Leads 43 APA Bar Associations in Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief to Continue Fight in First Legal Challenge to President’s Revised Muslim and Refugee Ban

News Release

For Immediate Release
April 21, 2017

For More Information, Contact:
Brett Schuster, Communications Manager
[email protected], 202-775-9555

WASHINGTON — The
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) led 43 of its
national associate and affiliate bar associations in filing an amicus brief
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to support the
preliminary injunction of President Trump’s March 6, 2017, revised
executive order barring refugees and individuals from six
Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

The Trump Administration’s appeal in this case, State of Hawaii v. Trump, arises from the first legal challenge to the revised executive order, which was
brought on March 7, 2017, on behalf of the State and Ismail Elshikh,
Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. NAPABA filed an amicus brief
on March 12 supporting the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. On March 15,
Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii granted the temporary restraining order, which he converted into a
preliminary injunction on March 29
to extend the block on the travel and refugee restrictions. The U.S.
district court in Maryland has also enjoined the six-country visa ban,
and the Administration’s appeal in that case is pending in the Fourth
Circuit, where NAPABA filed an amicus brief on April 19.

“Having
challenged the revised executive order from this initial lawsuit,
NAPABA is proud of the growing momentum across our national network as
we continue our advocacy in the courts,” said NAPABA President Cyndie M.
Chang. “As leaders in the legal profession and as Asian Pacific
Americans whose communities have experienced the harms of exclusionary
laws, NAPABA has an imperative to stand against this unlawful
anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant order.” 

NAPABA’s
amicus brief describes decades of statutory exclusion of citizens of
Asian and Pacific Island countries under early U.S. immigration law,
including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the first federal law to
ban a group of people on the basis of their race. The Civil Rights Era
marked a dramatic turning point that saw Congress dismantle
nationality-based discrimination with the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1965. The brief explains that presidential discretion in the area
of immigration and refugee admission, while broad, is limited by
statute. NAPABA argues that President Trump’s revised order, with its
anti-Muslim underpinnings, violates the unambiguous prohibition on
discrimination established by Congress.

NAPABA recognizes lead pro bono counsel, James W. Kim, a NAPABA member and partner at McDermott
Will & Emery LLP, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Kim’s team (including
Andrew Genz, Philip Levine, Joshua Rogaczewski, Matthew Girgenti, and
Michael Stanek), and NAPABA Amicus Committee co-chairs, Professor Radha
Pathak of Whittier Law School and Albert Giang, a partner at Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP in Los Angeles, for their leadership drafting
the brief, which also involved the efforts of NAPABA staffers.

The Ninth Circuit will hear the case on May 15, 2017, in Seattle.

NAPABA’s brief was endorsed by:

  • Arizona Asian American Bar Association              
  • Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area              
  • Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago              
  • Asian American Bar Association of New York              
  • Asian American Bar Association of Ohio              
  • Asian American Criminal Trial Lawyers Association              
  • Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts              
  • Asian Bar Association of Washington              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Central Ohio              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Pennsylvania              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of South Florida              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Tampa Bay              
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Virginia              
  • Asian Pacific American Lawyers Association of New Jersey              
  • Asian Pacific American Women Lawyers Alliance              
  • Asian/Pacific Bar Association of Sacramento              
  • Austin Asian American Bar Association              
  • Chinese American Bar Association of Greater Chicago              
  • Connecticut Asian Pacific American Bar Association              
  • Filipino American Lawyers Association of Chicago              
  • Filipino American Lawyers of San Diego              
  • Filipino Bar Association of Northern California              
  • Japanese American Bar Association              
  • Korean American Bar Association of Chicago              
  • Korean American Bar Association of Northern California              
  • Korean American Bar Association of Southern California              
  • Korean-American Bar Association for the Washington, DC Area              
  • Korean American Lawyers Association of Greater New York              
  • Michigan Asian Pacific American Bar Association              
  • Minnesota Asian Pacific American Bar Association              
  • Missouri Asian American Bar Association              
  • National Asian Pacific American Bar Association – Hawaii Chapter   
  • National Filipino American Lawyers Association              
  • Orange County Asian American Bar Association              
  • South Asian Bar Association of Chicago              
  • South Asian Bar Association of Northern California              
  • South Asian Bar Association of Southern California              
  • South Asian Bar Association of Washington              
  • Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association              
  • Tennessee Asian Pacific American Bar Association              
  • Thai American Bar Association         
    —-

Read the amicus brief here.

Read NAPABA’s amicus brief in the district court in State of Hawai‘i v. Trump.

Read NAPABA’s amicus brief the parallel Fourth Circuit case, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.

Read the March 6, 2017, statement of NAPABA and the South Asian Bar Association – North America, joined by 14 affiliates, against the revised executive order.

For more information, the media may contact Brett Schuster, NAPABA communications manager, at 202-775-9555 or [email protected].

The
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the
national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law
professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of almost
50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and local Asian
Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo
practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and
non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.

NAPABA
continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting
Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of
committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased
diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal
opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and
anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of
people of color in the legal profession.

To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association | 1612 K St. NW, Suite 510 | Washington, D.C. 20006 | www.napaba.org

Posted on

Press Release: NAPABA Applauds Restraining Order Against President’s Revised Muslim and Refugee Ban

For Immediate Release
March 15, 2017

For More Information, Contact: 
Brett Schuster, Communications Manager
[email protected], 202-775-9555

WASHINGTON — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) applauds the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii’s nationwide order to halt President Trump’s March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States, which would have gone into effect on March 16.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson granted the State of Hawaii’s motion for a temporary restraining order hours after the hearing, which was held earlier today. He concluded that Hawaii had met its burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury would likely occur if the executive order was not halted, and that the “balance of the equities and public interest” warranted the relief.

On March 12, NAPABA filed an amicus brief in support of Hawaii, describing the history of the statutory exclusion of Asians and Pacific Islanders under early U.S. immigration law — including the first federal law to ban a group of people from entering the country on the basis of race — prior to the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which outlawed nationality-based discrimination. NAPABA argued that President Trump’s revised order, with its anti-Muslim underpinnings, violates this unambiguous prohibition on discrimination established by Congress.

The court agreed with Hawaii’s assertion that religious animus motivated the revised order. Noting the Muslim-majority populations of the countries at issue, Judge Watson wrote, “It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam.”

NAPABA will continue to work to ensure the executive order is permanently struck down by the courts.

Read Judge Watson’s order here (PDF).

Read NAPABA’s amicus brief here.

Read the statement of NAPABA and the South Asian Bar Association – North America, joined by 14 affiliates, against the revised executive order.

Read the March 6, 2017, statement of NAPABA and the South Asian Bar Association – North America, joined by 14 affiliates, against the revised executive order.

For more information, the media may contact Brett Schuster, NAPABA communications manager, at202-775-9555 or [email protected].

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of almost 50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.

NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.

To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).

Posted on

NAPABA Files Amicus Brief Supporting the First Legal Challenge to President’s Revised Muslim and Refugee Ban

For Immediate Release

March 13, 2017

For More Information, Contact: 

Brett Schuster, Communications Manager

[email protected], 202-775-9555

WASHINGTON — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) filed an amicus brief in State of Hawaii v. Trump to support Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States.

Filing just before midnight on March 7, Hawaii became the first state to challenge the revised order and the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii agreed to hear the case on an expedited schedule. Judge Derrick K. Watson will hear oral argument on the State’s motion for a temporary restraining order on March 15, the day before the revised order is to take effect.

“I look no further than NAPABA’s mission to underscore the imperative for NAPABA to file its own amicus brief on this very issue. The new executive order is no less invidious than its predecessor,” said NAPABA President Cyndie M. Chang. “Asian Pacific American communities historically have been excluded and restricted in immigration and naturalization policies and have experienced the tragedy of forced incarceration during WWII. We understand first-hand the harms that this kind of discrimination will inflict upon Muslim and refugee communities. We will not forget this particular anti-immigrant history, and we are compelled to share our historically-based legal perspectives with the Court.”

NAPABA’s amicus brief describes decades of statutory exclusion of citizens of Asian and Pacific Island countries under early U.S. immigration law, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the first federal law to ban a group of people on the basis of their race. The Civil Rights Era marked a dramatic turning point that saw Congress dismantle nationality-based discrimination with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The brief explains that presidential discretion in the area of immigration and refugee admission, while broad, is limited by statute. NAPABA argues that President Trump’s revised order, motivated by anti-Muslim purpose, violates the unambiguous prohibition on discrimination established by Congress.

“I thank the many members of the NAPABA legal community who supported NAPABA’s drafting and filing of this expedited brief,” continued Chang. “Particular thanks goes to our pro bono counsel at McDermott Will & Emery LLP and pro bono local counsel at Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing for their leadership on this important brief.“

NAPABA recognizes lead counsel, James W. Kim, a NAPABA member and partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Kim’s team (Mark Calaguas, David Gacioch, Andrew Genz, Matthew Girgenti, Emre Ilter, Neha Khandhadia, Philip Levine, Riley Orloff, Sara Raaii, Joshua Rogaczewski, Amandeep Sidhu, and Michael Stanek), and NAPABA Amicus Committee chair, Professor Radha Pathak of Whittier Law School, for their leadership drafting the brief, which also involved the efforts of NAPABA staffers. NAPABA is represented by local counsel Pamela W. Bunn and John Rhee, with the support of William Kaneko, of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Read the amicus brief here.

Read the March 6, 2017, statement of NAPABA and the South Asian Bar Association – North America, joined by 14 affiliates, against the revised executive order.

For more information, the media may contact Brett Schuster, NAPABA communications manager, at202-775-9555 or [email protected].

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of almost 50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.

NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.

To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).

Posted on

Press Release: Asian American Bar Association of New York Applauds New York’s Highest Court for Decision Prohibiting Skin-Color Discrimination in Jury Selection

Press Release: Asian American Bar Association of New York Applauds New York’s Highest Court for Decision Prohibiting Skin-Color Discrimination in Jury Selection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 28, 2016

Contact: Yang Chen, Executive Director
(212) 332-2478

Asian American Bar Association of New York Applauds New York’s Highest Court for Decision Prohibiting Skin-Color Discrimination in Jury Selection

NEW YORK – On December 22, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals held in People v. Bridgeforth that skin color-based discrimination in jury selection is prohibited under Batson v. Kentucky, the New York State Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. While Batson has long been understood to prohibit racial discrimination, the Court concluded that its holding “extend[s] the application of Batson to challenges based on color to ensure that the jury is not used as a tool to accomplish such discrimination.” As one of many community organizations that co-signed the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality (“Korematsu Center”) and Akin Gump’s amicus brief in support of this decision, the Asian American Bar Association of New York (“AABANY”) applauds this decision.

Key to the Court of Appeals’ decision was its recognition that “[d]iscrimination on the basis of one’s skin color – or colorism – has been well researched and analyzed, demonstrating that ‘not all colors (or tones) are equal.’”  In so holding, the Court expressly relied on several sources set forth in the amicus brief filed by the Korematsu Center and over 50 bar associations, non-profit organizations, and law school professors in this case.  Professor Robert S. Chang, executive director of the Korematsu Center, commented, “We are pleased the Court found the scholarship on the history and effects of color discrimination that were cited in our amicus brief helpful and informative in finding that Batson does apply to color-based challenges under New York law.”

Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (“LDF”) observed, “The Court of Appeals has taken a significant step towards reducing the impact of color-based discrimination in our justice system. We hope New York’s leadership in this area will encourage other jurisdictions across the country to protect the role of the jury as an instrument of public justice that is truly representative of the community.”

Professor Vinay Harpalani from Savannah Law School, who served as of counsel for amici, applauded the Court of Appeals for “recognizing that Indian Americans, like African-Americans, can face discrimination based on their skin color.”  The Bridgeforth case involved a dark-skinned Indian American woman who was excluded from the jury along with several other dark-skinned women.

Attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP served as pro bono counsel on the brief. “Akin Gump is proud to represent this national coalition and be part of this resounding victory for justice,” said Alice Hsu, a partner in Akin Gump’s New York office representing the amici.

The Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY) is proud to be among the organizations to sign on to the amicus brief. “As the leading bar association for Asian Americans in New York, we supported theamicus brief and we are pleased with the court’s decision,” stated Susan L. Shin, President of AABANY. “Discrimination on the basis of skin color, just as discrimination on the basis of race, should have no place in jury selection and the proper administration of justice.”

In total, 32 law professors and 20 organizations joined the amicus brief, including: the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Atlanta, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Chicago, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Los Angeles, the Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Inc., the Metropolitan Black Bar Association (MBBA), the National Asian Pacific Bar Association  (NAPABA), the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the National Bar Association, the National Native American Bar Association (NNABA), the Society of American Law Teachers, Inc. (SALT), the South Asian Bar Association of New York (SABANY), and the South Asian Bar Association of North America (SABA North America).

The Court’s decision can be found here.  The amicus brief is available here.

For more information, please contact Yang Chen, AABANY Executive Director, at (212) 332-2478, or direct any inquiries to [email protected].

The Asian American Bar Association of New York is a professional membership organization of attorneys concerned with issues affecting the Asian Pacific American community. Incorporated in 1989, AABANY seeks not only to encourage the professional growth of its members but also to advocate for the Asian Pacific American community as a whole. AABANY is the New York regional affiliate of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).

Additional information about AABANY is available at www.aabany.org

Follow our blog at www.blog.aabany.org

Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/aabany

Find us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/aabany

Find us on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/aabany