1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AHMED, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01892-JST g Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 Vv. LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF 10 U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Re: ECF No. 90 SECURITY, et al., Defendants. 12

13 The States of Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 14 || New York, and Oregon, and the District of Columbia (collectively, ““States”) seek leave to file an 3 15 amicus brief. ECF No. 90. Defendants object on timeliness grounds. ECF No. 91. a 16 The Court agrees with Defendants that there is no reason to re-open briefing. But, 3 17 || particularly now that the hearing on the underlying substantive motions has been continued, 18 || Defendants’ consideration of the States’ contentions will no longer be “on a truncated timeline.” 19 || Jd. at 2. 20 The States will “fulfill[] the classic role of amicus curiae by assisting in a case of general 21 || public interest, supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the court’s attention to law that 22 escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Lab. & Indus,

, 204 (9th Cir. 23 1982). Accordingly, their motion is granted, and the proposed brief at ECF No. 90-1 shall be 24 || deemed filed. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: July 26, 2023 .

27 JON S. TIGA 28 nited States District Judge