MARCH 2018

State of Hawai'i v. Trump (U.S. Supreme Court) | NAPABA and 62 bar associations filed a brief challenging President Trump's third revised executive order barring individuals from particular countries and refugees from entering the United States. The brief outlines the history of statutory exclusion of Asian Pacific Americans and the changes made by Congress with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The brief argues that the executive order violates the prohibition on discrimination established by Congress in statute. (3/30/2018)

NOVEMBER 2017

State of Hawai'i v. Trump (Ninth Circuit) | NAPABA filed a brief challenging President Trump's third revised executive order barring individuals from particular countries and refugees from entering the United States. the brief outlines the history of statutory exclusion of Asian Pacific Americans and the changes made by Congress with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The brief argues that the executive order violates the prohibition on discrimination established by Congress in statute. (11/22/2017)

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (Fourth Circuit) | NAPABA filed a brief challenging President Trump's third revised executive order barring individuals from particular countries and refugees from entering the United States. the brief outlines the history of statutory exclusion of Asian Pacific Americans and the changes made by Congress with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The brief argues that the executive order violates the prohibition on discrimination established by Congress in statute. (11/17/2017)

SEPTEMBER 2017

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project; Trump v. State of Hawai'i (U.S. Supreme Court) | NAPABA, joined by 62 Asian Pacific American bar associations, filed a brief challenging President Trump's March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States. NAPABA’s Supreme Court 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. (9/18/2017)

APRIL 2017

State of Hawaii v. Trump (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)| NAPABA, joined by 43 affiliate Asian Pacific American bar associations, filed a brief in support of the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai`i affecting the President Trump's March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States. NAPABA’s amicus brief describes decades of statutory exclusion of citizens of Asian and Pacific Island countries under early U.S. Immigration law. The brief explains that presidential discretion in the area of immigration, while broad, is limited by statute. NAPABA argues that the revised executive order, motivated by anti-Muslim purpose, violates the unambiguous prohibition on discrimination established by Congress. (4/21/2017)

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit) | NAPABA, joined by 43 affiliate Asian Pacific American bar associations, filed a brief in support of the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland affecting the o the March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. NAPABA’s amicus brief describes decades of statutory exclusion of citizens of Asian and Pacific Island countries under early U.S. immigration law. The brief explains that presidential discretion in the area of immigration, 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. (4/19/2017)

MARCH 2017

Hawaii v. Trump (U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii) | NAPABA filed a brief in support of the State of Hawaii's challenge to the March 6, 2017, revised executive order barring individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees from entering the United States. NAPABA’s amicus brief describes decades of statutory exclusion of citizens of Asian and Pacific Island countries under early U.S. immigration law. 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. (3/12/2017)

NOVEMBER 2016

Lee v. Tam (Supreme Court of the United States) | NAPABA and a national coalition of bar associations of color and the national LGBT Bar supported the petitioner, the U.S. government, in a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act by an Asian American band, “The Slants,” stemming from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial to register the band's trademark. (11/16/2016)

FEBRUARY 2016

Pro Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit) | NAPABA and Native American bar associations filed a brief in support of the defendants and in affirmance of the district court ruling upholding the cancellation of a trademark by a football team, which uses a racial slur against Native Americans. (2/11/2016)

OCTOBER 2015

Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner, v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court of the United States) | NAPABA as part of the Coalition of Bar Associations of Color (CBAC) supported the respondents, the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions policy. (10/30/2015) 

JULY 2015

In re Simon Shiao Tam (Fed. Cir. en banc) | NAPABA supported the appellee, the U.S. government, in a challenge by an Asian American band, “The Slants,” to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register the band’s mark. (7/23/2015)