From: Ed Lazowska <lazowska@cs.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:50 AM
Subject: [cs-ugrads] The “100 tech companies” brief opposing the immigration ban
To: Researchers <researchers@cs.washington.edu>, Staff <cs-staff@cs.washington.edu>, “cs-ugrads@cs.washington.edu” <cs-ugrads@cs.washington.edu>
You’ve probably seen news of last night’s filing of a brief in the 9th
Circuit by nearly 100 companies (mostly tech companies) opposing the
immigration ban, for example:
http://www.reuters.com/
Several people have noted that Amazon is not among the companies. The
reason is that Amazon and Expedia jumped into the fray before all
those other companies, by participating in the Washington State filing
on Friday that resulted in a temporary ban – and they were asked by
the WA Attorney General to sit out the new filing for that reason.
(Expedia, too, is not among the 100 companies.)
Here’s a note I received from Amazon’s corporate counsel regarding the
situation:
=====
Amazon and Expedia submitted formal declarations in support of the
Attorney General’s case when it was first filed last week, and we have
been a core part of the challenge since the beginning (before other
companies became involved).
Because we are a witness in the case, and our sworn declaration is
part of the record that will be argued on appeal, it would be
inappropriate for us to participate in the amicus filing, and the
Washington Attorney General specifically asked both Amazon and Expedia
not to sign on to the Technology Companies brief filed last night. We
applaud the support offered by the other companies, however, and I
believe the brief they filed is persuasive and well written.
______________________________
Cs-ugrads mailing list
Cs-ugrads@cs.washington.edu
https://mailman.cs.washington.