Atlanta, Georgia 30303 David J. Smith Clerk of Court For rules and forms visit www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Beth Attaway Burton Georgia Department of Law Attorney General's Office

Elizabeth McRary Crowder Georgia Department of Law Attorney General's Office

Appeal Number: 24-12289-J Case Style: Barred Business, et al v. Governor of the State of Georgia, et al District Court Docket No: 1:24-cv-02744-VMC

Although not required, non-incarcerated pro se parties are permitted to use the ECF system by registering for an account at www.pacer.gov.

Barred Business, John Cole Vodicka, and Steven Williams, Plaintiffs,

Having fulling considered the Joint Motion for Stay Pending Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and the arguments made therein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

All proceedings and deadlines in this matter are hereby stayed pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit in the interlocutory appeal filed in this case (Appeal No. 24-12289), or upon further order of this Court.

So ordered this 8th day of August, 2024.

Victoria M. Calvert United States District Judge Northern District of Georgia

But none of the cases DHS cites limit standing to allegations of harm from direct regulation of a plaintiff’s own conduct.

DHS nonetheless argues that the new enforcement policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ exercise of those beliefs.

None of the cases cited by DHS support the limitation it urges; to the contrary, the Supreme Court has instructed courts to “give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression.” Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. ...

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1, Plaintiffs hereby move this Court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from carrying out immigration enforcement activities at their places of worship, absent exigent circumstances or the execution of a judicial warrant, and to stay the effective date of DHS’s 2025 Rescission Memo, for the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum of law.

Dated: February 21, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming.

DC Bar application pending, practice pursuant to Rule 49(c)(8), DC Courts, and supervised by DC Bar member

Founded in 1935 to address racial inequality, NCCC enables denominations, congregations, and people of faith to impact the State on issues such as economic justice and development, human well-being, equality, and compassion and peace, following the example and mission of Jesus Christ.

Ensuring labor and housing protection for migrant farmworkers is one of NCCC’s top priority areas, and its work includes mobilizing people of faith to participate in grassroots movements and legislative efforts to empower immigrants in North Carolina.

WNCC’s mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, which it accomplishes through creating vital and sustainable local congregations, embracing racial justice and inclusion as discipleship and sanctification, and centering the well-being and health of leadership, both clergy and laity.

In its press release announcing the policy change, a DHS spokesperson explained that “the Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”28 DHS’s website features a news article stating that ICE agents understand the rescission “to free them up to go after more illegal immigrants.”29

The looming threat of an enforcement action on church property also puts congregations in the impossible position of choosing whether to freely carry out their religious mission but risk subjecting their members and those they serve to arrest or deportation, or to change or cut back on the way they worship and minister in an effort to protect their immigrant neighbors.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Motion[s] for Admission Pro Hac Vice and Affidavit[s] [for Joseph W. Mead, Amy L. Marshak, Elizabeth R. Cruikshank, Shelby B. Calambokidis and Seth Wayne]” (Doc. No. 3-7) filed July 7, 2023.

For the reasons set forth therein, the Motions will be granted.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.

The complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing Section 4 of Senate Bill 63 and a declaration that the statutory provision is unconstitutional.

In its order granting preliminary injunctive relief, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment claim that the statutory provision at issue is unconstitutionally vague.

The Court also ruled that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, finding that the challenged provision regulates expressive conduct and fails intermediate scrutiny.

Defendants Kemp and Carr intend to file a motion to dismiss the complaint in lieu of an answer, in which they will seek to raise questions of law—including the constitutionality of the challenged statutory provision under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

In the interests of judicial economy, conserving resources, and to avoid duplicative litigation, the parties submit that it would be appropriate to stay the proceedings in this matter until the Eleventh Circuit has ruled on the current interlocutory appeal.

Plaintiffs ignore that Congress has enacted a clear jurisdictional bar to the relief they seek by prohibiting lower courts from issuing injunctions that restrain certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizing arrests.

The court, however, rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a nationwide injunction that altered the status quo by requiring Defendants to obtain a judicial warrant before carrying out enforcement actions in or near plaintiffs’ places of worship, limiting relief to the plaintiffs and their member congregations.

Plaintiffs’ Are Unlikely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their Claims A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing “[N]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006)).

As noted above, several of Plaintiffs’ declarants state that since the Huffman Memorandum was issued, they have experienced a reduction in worship and social service ministry attendance and have taken or are contemplating taking “protective measures to prevent congregants from being placed at risk.” Pls.’ Mem.

As the President has recognized, “[m]illions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws.” Id.

None of these intrusions on the expressive rights of Plaintiffs and other charitable bail funds are justified by a narrowly tailored, sufficiently weighty government interest.

Re: Leave of Absence in Barred Business et al v. Kemp et al, 1:24-CV- 02744

Please accept this letter pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(E)(4) regarding a leave of absence.

I am a lead counsel for Plaintiff Barred Business et al in the above-referenced matter, and request that the case not be calendared for the following dates:  December 27, 2024 – January 1, 2025 (vacation)  April 14, 2025 (religious holiday)  April 28, 2025 – May 7, 2025 (family event)  June 2-3, 2025 (religious holiday)  September 23-24, 2025 (religious holiday)  October 2, 2025 (religious holiday)  October 7-8, 2025 (religious holiday)  October 13, 2025 (religious holiday) Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Please let me know if I need to provide the court with any further information.

It appearing to the Court that the requirements stated in LR 83.l(B) for admission pro hac vice have been satisfied, the application of Joseph Mead to appear pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the subject case is GRANTED .

Orders on Motions 1:24-cv-02744-VMC Barred Business et al v. KemR et al 4months,SUBMDJ,VMCLC1 U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/28/2024 at 1 :33 PM EDT and filed on 6/28/2024 Case Name: Barred Business et al v. Kemp et al Case Number: l:24-cv-02744-VMC Filer: Document Number: 33 Docket Text: ORDER granting the [24] Application for Admission Pro Hae Vice of Joseph Mead.

Signed by Judge Victoria M. Calvert on 6/28/2024.

If the applicant does not have CM/ECF access in the Northern District of Georgia already, they must request access at http://pacer.gov.

If they have electronically filed in this district in a previous case, please omit this step.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 David J. Smith Clerk of Court For rules and forms visit www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Beth Attaway Burton Georgia Department of Law Attorney General's Office

Elizabeth McRary Crowder Georgia Department of Law Attorney General's Office

Appeal Number: 24-12289-J Case Style: Barred Business, et al v. Governor of the State of Georgia, et al District Court Docket No: 1:24-cv-02744-VMC

Information and training materials related to electronic filing are available on the Court's website.

Specifically, the memo required officers to receive prior written approval by a district director or chief patrol agent before conducting any “[e]nforcement operations which are likely to involve apprehensions on the premises” of a place of worship or the site of a funeral or other religious ceremony, unless exigent circumstances existed.

Agency action is “final” for purposes of APA review if it “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process,” rather than “be[ing] of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,” and if the decision is “one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 178 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Rescission Memo simply declares that, “effective immediately,” “[i]t is not necessary ... for the head of the agency to create bright line rules regarding where our immigration laws are permitted to be enforced,” including “in or near areas that [DHS] previously determined require special protection,” such as places of worship and sacred religious observances.

The risk that these services might draw immigration enforcement agents into their houses of worship—and that worshippers might be made vulnerable simply by visiting their churches and synagogues—likely will cause many Plaintiffs to scale back or cease altogether these offerings, which will have ripple effects throughout their communities, including to U.S. citizen family members and minor children.

V. The Court Should Enjoin DHS From Further Burdening Plaintiffs’ Religious Exercise And Stay The Effective Date of the Rescission Memo Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on their claims that DHS’s new enforcement policy violates their rights under RFRA and the First Amendment.

Barred Business, John Cole Vodicka, and Steven Williams, Plaintiffs,

Having fulling considered the Joint Motion for Stay Pending Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and the arguments made therein, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

All proceedings and deadlines in this matter are hereby stayed pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit in the interlocutory appeal filed in this case (Appeal No. 24-12289), or upon further order of this Court.

So ordered this _________ day of ___________, 2024.

Victoria M. Calvert United States District Judge Northern District of Georgia