Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: I have a few additional updates for the group: 1. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and add 34 new plaintiffs and 2 new defendants in San Francisco v. Trump. You can access the court's order here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444175/gov.uscourts.cand.444175.186.0.pdf. The court rejected the defendants' argument that because the majority of the plaintiffs the second amended complaint sought to add reside outside the District, venue is improper. The court noted the defendants cited no authority for this argument and the court reasoned that the caselaw disfavored the federal government's position. The court also found that joinder was proper as the plaintiffs claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence - the challenged Executive Orders and resulting agency directives. In terms of judicial economy, the court noted: At least at this stage, allowing 34 more jurisdictions to enter this case and two new defendants will not unduly delay it or render it unwieldy. Of course, there may be circumstances during this litigation that will make me rethink how the case should best proceed. That is true in any case. But this matter appears far less complicated to manage than, for example, mass tort multi district litigation or complex class action cases. It would appear, instead, that judicial economy will be enhanced by their joinder-if all the plaintiffs were severed, there would be numerous district courts engaged in the same analysis around the country while the parties on each side utilized a "whack a mole" strategy to protect their interests. The defendants' argument runs counter the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1's admonition to construe, administer and employ the rules of procedure "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." 1. I am attaching Boston's response to Attorney General Bondi's letter regarding sanctuary jurisdictions. If there are other letters you'd like to share with the group, feel free to send them to me and I'll pass them along. 1. The parties submitted additional PI briefing in New York v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, the PRWORA case (defendants submitted their opposition to the PI and the plaintiffs submitted their reply). Here is the opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60060/gov.uscourts.rid.60060.48.0_1.pdf. Here is the reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60060/gov.uscourts.rid.60060.54.0.pdf Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.

Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group Just a reminder that we have a call starting now (2 pm eastern) if you are able to join, here is the zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85143092604 Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming. From: Amanda Karras via Immigration <immigration@lists.imla.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:05 PM Cc: immigration@lists.imla.org Subject: [Immigration] IMLA Immigration Working Group Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: I have a few additional updates for the group: 1. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and add 34 new plaintiffs and 2 new defendants in San Francisco v. Trump. You can access the court's order here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444175/gov.uscourts.cand.444175.186.0.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__storage.courtlistener.com_recap_gov.uscourts.cand.444175_gov.uscourts.cand.444175.186.0.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=0PfZaAFU2fqFJ0F8KL856TcUK2cB3WM2GpX-cYk7jWs&e=>. The court rejected the defendants' argument that because the majority of the plaintiffs the second amended complaint sought to add reside outside the District, venue is improper. The court noted the defendants cited no authority for this argument and the court reasoned that the caselaw disfavored the federal government's position. The court also found that joinder was proper as the plaintiffs claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence - the challenged Executive Orders and resulting agency directives. In terms of judicial economy, the court noted: At least at this stage, allowing 34 more jurisdictions to enter this case and two new defendants will not unduly delay it or render it unwieldy. Of course, there may be circumstances during this litigation that will make me rethink how the case should best proceed. That is true in any case. But this matter appears far less complicated to manage than, for example, mass tort multi district litigation or complex class action cases. It would appear, instead, that judicial economy will be enhanced by their joinder-if all the plaintiffs were severed, there would be numerous district courts engaged in the same analysis around the country while the parties on each side utilized a "whack a mole" strategy to protect their interests. The defendants' argument runs counter the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1's admonition to construe, administer and employ the rules of procedure "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." 1. I am attaching Boston's response to Attorney General Bondi's letter regarding sanctuary jurisdictions. If there are other letters you'd like to share with the group, feel free to send them to me and I'll pass them along. 1. The parties submitted additional PI briefing in New York v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, the PRWORA case (defendants submitted their opposition to the PI and the plaintiffs submitted their reply). Here is the opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60060/gov.uscourts.rid.60060.48.0_1.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__storage.courtlistener.com_recap_gov.uscourts.rid.60060_gov.uscourts.rid.60060.48.0-5F1.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=EZmXDGOLmUftT7QZjvRAzTv6vXnRoPRfI0R3LdpJPrs&e=>. Here is the reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60060/gov.uscourts.rid.60060.54.0.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__storage.courtlistener.com_recap_gov.uscourts.rid.60060_gov.uscourts.rid.60060.54.0.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=MbCsAIj0f9ynJjMeQWXsKQh2nkxK5POng0t4FhbHHh0&e=> Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=3E5FWuglQ3bvIvcbswqdJ_ToWKZ1OLtOX-O_acP98zg&e=> [facebook icon]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=NJuaonFFjV1w5S0IlbM_IcA6629F9Ic0IXTPUxw8mko&e=>[twitter icon]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_imlalegal&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=Czpbv_IBsclntpj9_k5z0WYjvlIzmIqac-dD0dHn_cI&e=>[linkedin icon]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_international-2Dmunicipal-2Dlawyers-2Dassociation-2Dinc._&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=_ie76sq3vINfE8npqAcpiotwAIiCsQRRJ0QSmw4xoV8&e=> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_events_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=z0xnmIKd8jTQph30M9M9pGIm2nvrJFpQD4N9BAVZhLvgacJmWJBnyWsIiKSUFI8c&s=rjMUwCvC0fAAA64iOro4ycZBWEnGYlk0ZLfQfgzNNLc&e=>, calls and programming.