In a major victory for unhoused New Yorkers, the New York Court of Appeals recently adopted the analysis of an amicus brief that was filed by Proskauer on behalf of the Coalition for the Homeless. The amicus brief supported the City of New York’s defense of a proposed project to convert a midtown Manhattan hotel into a residential facility for homeless adults seeking employment opportunities.
Earlier this month, Proskauer filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ ban on assault weapons, such as the AK-47 or the AR-15, and large-capacity magazines. We filed the brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Worman v. Healey, a case challenging the ban on Second Amendment grounds. Partner Kimberly Mottley and I led the team, with Lindsey Olson Collins and Steven A. Sutro co-authoring the brief.
Since 1998, Massachusetts has banned the sale and possession within the state of military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines. These same weapons were used in some of America’s deadliest mass shootings: Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut; the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida; the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada; Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; and most recently, the Temple of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The popularity of such assault weapons among perpetrators led the New York Times to dub them the “rifles of choice for mass shootings.”
Yesterday, 23 law professors represented by Proskauer were granted permission to participate as amici curiae in a class action lawsuit contesting a recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy change affecting minors in New York who seek Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). This policy change has resulted in SIJS denials for immigrant children who would otherwise qualify for SIJS based on well-established state and federal law.
SIJS is a form of immigration relief that provides unmarried children under age 21 with a path to citizenship if they can provide a determination from a state juvenile court that they are dependent on the court or are committed by the court to the custody of a State entity or an individual; that reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under state law; and that it is not in their “best interest” to return to their country of origin.
On March 30, 2018, Proskauer filed an amicus brief on behalf of New York University in the United States Supreme Court. The brief was filed in support of the State of Hawaii and its challenge to Proclamation 9645, the most recent version of the Trump Administration’s “travel ban.” The Proclamation at issue in the litigation sets significant restrictions on immigration from specified countries, most of which have a large Muslim-majority population. Both the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have upheld injunctions preventing the Proclamation from fully taking effect.
A team of Proskauer attorneys, on behalf of 12 leading non-profit organizations specializing in advocacy for victims of domestic violence, drafted an amicus brief in support of a mother seeking to uphold a district court’s determination that her child would be subject to a grave risk of harm were he to be returned to his country of residence with his father. The respondent and her minor child, K.D., fled French St. Martin to the United States to escape abuse at the hands of K.D.’s father. In response to a petition filed under the Hague Convention by the child’s father, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the Southern District of New York determined that the minor child could not safely be returned to his home country with his father. The father appealed to the Second Circuit.