By Andrew Solis
97 tech companies in the U.S. joined together and filed an Amicus Brief in support Washington and Minnesota’s case against Trump’s EO 13769.  Major players include Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Intel, Lyft, Uber, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Netflix. The tech companies began their brief by reminding the 9th Circuit that the United States is “nation of immigrants” and that the immigration policy reflected that we as a nation are descendants of immigrants of refugees.  However, they were not shy about their own commercial interests in being able to hire top talent from around the world. The brief explained how the immediate and unpredictable implementation of EO created substantial disruptions to the business operations of these tech companies.  The EO created uncertainty in the future of these companies’ ability to hire “some of the world’s best talent” and negatively affected their ability to compete in the global market place. 
The tech companies explained how they operate in a global market place and the practice of hiring and sending employees around the world was essential for their growth. They expressed fear of retaliation that would affect their global business operations citing to a General Electric deal in Iraq that was being harmed by the EO.  While the EO attempts to protect the U.S. from external threats, the unpredictability of the EO is hurting American companies and limiting their ability to secure top talent and remain competitive in a global marketplace.
About the Author
Andrew Solis is an Associate Attorney at the Law Office of James N. Vasilas where he practices family and removal based immigration law. Andrew Solis graduated from Southern Illinois University Magna Cum Laude and served as an Articles Editor on SIU Law Journal. Andrew Solis currently serves as a Vice-Chair in the ABA International Refugee Law Committee and as Editor of The Refuge.
 Brief for Technology Companies and Other Business as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees, State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141-JLR (9th Circuit 2016).
 Id. at 1-2.
 Id. at 8-11.
 Id. at 12.
[Source: The Refuge (March 2017), Volume 1, Edition 1, pages 10-11]