Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`AUGUST FLENTJE
`Special Counsel to the Acting
`Assistant Attorney General
`ALEXANDER K. HAAS
`Branch Director
`
`DIANE KELLEHER
`Assistant Branch Director
`SERENA M. ORLOFF
`MICHAEL DREZNER
`STUART J. ROBINSON
`
`Trial Attorneys
`
`United States Department of Justice
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box No. 883
`Washington, DC 20044
`Phone: (202) 305-0167
`Fax: (202) 616-8470
`E-mail: serena.m.orloff@usdoj.gov
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`U.S. WECHAT USERS ALLIANCE, et al.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United
`)
`States, and WILBUR ROSS, Secretary of
`
`)
`Commerce,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION, MOTION TO
`STAY INJUNCTION
`PENDING APPEAL,
`AND MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT; NOTICE OF
`CERTAIN RECORD
`MATERIALS
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL ......... 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 2
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.................................................................................................... 4
`
`DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`B. The Balance Of Equities Strongly Supports A Stay Of The Injunction ............................. 5
`
`C. Defendants And The Public Interest Will Be Irreparably Harmed ..................................... 8
`
`D. Defendants Have A Strong Likelihood Of Success On The Merits ................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`The Challenged Restrictions Are Not Subject to First Amendment Scrutiny
`Because They Are Directed at Business Transactions ............................................. 10
`
`2. Alternatively, the Prohibited Transactions Satisfy Intermediate Scrutiny .............. 11
`
`E. Alternatively, The Court Should Stay at Least Part of its Preliminary Injunction ........... 16
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17
`
`NOTICE OF CERTAIN RECORD MATERIALS ...................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Record Materials
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
`284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-cv-01846, 2012 WL 2527044 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012) .................................................. 4
`
`Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc.,
`478 U.S. 697 (1986) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Boumediene v. Bush,
`553 U.S. 723 (2008) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`California v. Azar,
`911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper,
`254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.,
`501 U.S. 663 (1991) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills,
`321 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`CTIA - The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley,
`928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Drummond Co., Inc. v. Collingsworth,
`No. 13-mc-80169, 2013 WL 6074157 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) ............................................ 15
`
`E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr,
`934 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`G.K. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego,
`436 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Goldie’s Bookstore v. Superior Ct.,
`739 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Record Materials
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`607 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`Hilton v. Braunskill,
`481 U.S. 770 (1987) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
`561 U.S. 1 (2010) ................................................................................................................. 5, 6, 7
`
`Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme,
`433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., Inc.,
`500 F. App’x 678 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
`827 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Mayweathers v. Newland,
`258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`McCullen v. Coakley,
`573 U.S. 464 (2014) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`OKKO Bus. PE v. Lew,
`133 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2015) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`Pac. Coast Horseshoeing Sch., Inc. v. Kirchmeyer,
`961 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Ramos v. Wolf,
`No. 18-16981, 2020 WL 5509753 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2020) ....................................................... 5
`
`Rostker v. Goldberg,
`453 U.S. 57 (1981) ....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Short v. Brown,
`893 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`Stagg P.C. v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`158 F. Supp. 3d 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).......................................................................................... 7
`
`Trump v. Hawaii,
`138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ........................................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Record Materials
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`United States v. Albertini,
`472 U.S. 675 (1985) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Virginia v. Hicks,
`539 U.S. 113 (2003) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Winter v. NRDC, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) ......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`Regulation
`
`Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat, and Taking Additional Steps To Address the National
`Emergency With Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services
`Supply Chain,
`85 Fed. Reg. 48641 (Aug. 11, 2020, first issued Aug. 6, 2020) .................................................. 2
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 .................................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Facebook, Inc., Account Settings, Where can I find and manage my Facebook language
`settings?
`https://www.facebook.com/help/327850733950290 ................................................................. 14
`
`Facebook Inc., Select Your Language,
`https://m.facebook.com/language.php ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Help, Line, Signing Up,
`https://help.line.me/line/win/categoryId/10000309/pc?lang=en ............................................... 15
`
`Instagram, Help Center – Mangaging Your Account, How do I change my language settings on
`Instagram?,
`https://help.instagram.com/111923612310997?helpref=search&sr=6&query=How%20do%
`20I%20add%20and%20switch%20between%20multiple%20Instagram%20accounts%3F/.... 15
`
`Instagram Translations for 25 Languages (Dec. 21, 2012),
`https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/instagram-translations-for-25-languages ... 15
`
`Linkedin, Select Language Setting,
`https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/997 ................................................................ 14
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Record Materials
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`Marissa Perino, Business Insider, Tech Reference, How to change your support language on
`Snapchat to the language you need (May 14, 2020),
`https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-change-language-on-snapchat ................................. 14
`
`Microsoft, Skype Help, What languages are supported in Skype?,
`https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA34781/what-languages-are-supported-in-
`skype?q=Chinese+language ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Microsoft, Skype Help, How do I change my language in Skype?,
`https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA34779/how-do-i-change-my-language-in-skype ............. 14
`
`Panda Buddy Editoral Team, Can you use Skype, WhatsApp or FaceTime in China? (June 9,
`2020),
`https://pandabuddy.net/use-skype-whatsapp-or-facetime-in-china/ .......................................... 14
`
`Signal, Support, Signal Messenger Features, Language Options,
`https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360049188372-Language-Options ........................ 15
`
`Steven Millward,Tech in Asia, Social Media, Line App Lauches in China, Keen to Fight with
`WeChat (Dec. 12, 2012),
`https://www.techinasia.com/line-app-launched-china ............................................................... 15
`
`Twitter, Help Center – Account Settings, How to change you language settings,
`https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-change-language-
`settings#:~:text=Sign%20in%20to%20your%20Twitter,the%20Language%20drop%2D
`down%20menu .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Waseem Patwegar, Techbout, How to Change Support Language in Snapchat,
`https://www.techbout.com/change-language-in-snapchat-32591/ ............................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Record Materials
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`AUGUST FLENTJE
`Special Counsel to the Acting
`Assistant Attorney General
`DIANE KELLEHER
`Assistant Branch Director
`SERENA M. ORLOFF
`MICHAEL DREZNER
`STUART J. ROBINSON
`
`Trial Attorneys
`
`United States Department of Justice
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box No. 883
`Washington, DC 20044
`Phone: (202) 305-0167
`Fax: (202) 616-8470
`E-mail: serena.m.orloff@usdoj.gov
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`U.S. WECHAT USERS ALLIANCE, et al.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United
`)
`States, and WILBUR ROSS, Secretary of
`
`)
`Commerce,
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION, MOTION TO
`STAY INJUNCTION
`PENDING APPEAL,
`AND MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT; NOTICE OF
`CERTAIN RECORD
`MATERIALS
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Donald J. Trump, President of the United
`
`States, and Wilbur Ross, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, by and through
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby move to stay the preliminary injunction entered against Defendants
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Certain Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`pending any appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, pending
`
`any further review by the Supreme Court, for the reasons more fully set forth in the following
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Defendants hereby move the Court to stay its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction, ECF No. 59 (“Order”), pending any appeal to the Ninth Circuit and, if
`
`necessary, any further review by the Supreme Court. Separately, Defendants respectfully submit
`
`that the Court may modify any aspect of its injunction in light of the additional points and
`
`authorities and factual materials presented in connection with the merits of this motion, which
`
`reflect the materials that the Secretary relied on in reaching his Identification decision.1
`
`Defendants request a ruling by the Court on or before October 1, 2020, to provide Defendants
`
`time to request relief from the Ninth Circuit, if necessary.
`
`A stay is amply warranted. First, the balance of harms weighs strongly in favor of a stay.
`
`The Court’s preliminary injunction permits the continued, unfettered use of WeChat, a mobile
`
`application that the Executive Branch has determined constitutes a threat to the national security
`
`and foreign policy of the United States. See Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat, and
`
`Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Information
`
`and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain, 85 Fed. Reg. 48641, 48641 (Aug.
`
`11, 2020, first issued Aug. 6, 2020); Identification of Prohibited Transactions to Implement
`
`Executive Order 13943 and Address the Threat Posed by WeChat and the National Emergency
`
`
`1 As set forth in greater detail below, the materials provided herewith relate to the Secretary’s
`September 17, 2020 Identification, and were cleared, in part, for release today, September 24,
`2020; the prior briefing schedule did not permit the Court to consider any portion of the record of
`the Secretary’s decision because the briefing almost exclusively occurred before the Secretary’s
`action, see ECF Nos. 17-37, and Defendants were not able to submit the materials to the Court in
`the 36-hour period occurring after the Secretary’s decision (ECF Nos. 48, 49, 52), in advance of
`the Court’s consideration of the renewed Rule 65 request. Defendants submit these record
`materials here to inform this proceeding.
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Certain Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`with Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain
`
`(“Identification”). See Decl. of John Costello, Ex. C. As previously explained, and as elaborated
`
`on in certain materials considered by the Secretary in conjunction with his decision, see id. Ex. A
`
`& Ex. B, WeChat provides the capability for the government of the People’s Republic of China
`
`(“PRC”) to, inter alia, surveil the American people and collect and use vast swaths of personal
`
`and proprietary information from American users to advance its own interests. Furthermore,
`
`Executive Branch officials have determined that, if WeChat continues to be widely available for
`
`use in the United States, the PRC may use WeChat for these purposes. Moreover, compared to
`
`the irreparable harm to national security and foreign policy posed by a preliminary injunction,
`
`10
`
`the harm to Plaintiffs is minimal. They do not face a ban on their ability to communicate or
`
`11
`
`engage in other expression protected by the First Amendment; rather, they must merely (and
`
`12
`
`eventually) use one of the many alternative means of communication available to them that do
`
`13
`
`not pose such risks, many of which are available in a vast number of languages, including
`
`14
`
`Chinese. Further, although this Court need not find that its decision was in error in order to stay
`
`15
`
`its injunction, Defendants respectfully submit that the Court erred in holding that “the plaintiffs
`
`16
`
`have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim[.]” Order at 3;
`
`17
`
`see id. at 16-18. The Court should therefore grant Defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary
`
`18
`
`injunction pending any appeal.
`
`19
`
`The Court also has the authority to grant a partial stay or to revise its remedy in light of
`
`20
`
`the considerations set forth in this motion and the record materials provided herewith that detail
`
`21
`
`the harms to national security specifically flowing from WeChat. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
`
`22
`
`(recognizing that an interlocutory order like the one at issue “may be revised at any time before
`
`23
`
`the entry of a [final] judgment”); City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper,
`
`24
`
`254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants are concurrently moving to expedite
`
`25
`
`consideration of this Motion to Stay, and respectfully request that the Court rule on this Motion
`
`26
`
`or otherwise grant relief from the injunction no later than October 1, 2020.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Certain Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`Whether the Court should stay pending appeal or otherwise modify its Order granting
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, where the Court appears to have applied an
`
`incorrect standard in weighing the balance of harms; where the preliminary injunction
`
`irreparably harms the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, as
`
`further demonstrated in the record materials filed herewith; and where the balance of equities tips
`
`sharply in the Government’s favor; and where the Government is likely to show, or at least has
`
`presented a substantial case, that the Court’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim is in
`
`error.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) grants district courts discretion to “‘suspend,
`
`modify, restore, or grant an injunction’ during the pendency of the defendant’s interlocutory
`
`appeal.” Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`62(c)). “Deciding whether to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction pending an appeal is an
`
`equitable inquiry.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846, 2012 WL 2527044, at
`
`*2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012). In determining whether to grant such a stay, district courts consider
`
`four factors: (1) the applicant’s likely success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the
`
`applicant absent a stay; (3) substantial injury to the other parties; and (4) the public interest.
`
`Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34
`
`(2009). Additionally, “[e]ach factor in the analysis need not be given equal weight.” Apple, Inc.
`
`2012 WL 2527044, at *2 (citation omitted). The factors for “assessing the harm to the opposing
`
`party and weighing the public interest . . . merge when the Government is the opposing party.”
`
`Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. at 435.
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Certain Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Balance Of Equities Strongly Supports A Stay Of The Injunction
`
`Though the Court weighed the balance of the equities in its Order, that weighing was in
`
`error. A proper analysis of the equities demonstrates that a stay is warranted.
`
`In the Ninth Circuit, when a plaintiff has only shown “serious questions” about the merits
`
`of a claim rather than a likelihood of success on the merits, a preliminary injunction cannot issue
`
`unless “‘the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor’ and the other two factors
`
`are satisfied.” Ramos v. Wolf, No. 18-16981, 2020 WL 5509753, at *10 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2020)
`
`(quoting Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added)). Here, the Court
`
`concluded only that “[t]he balance of equities favors the plaintiffs”; it did not hold that the
`
`balance tips sharply in their favor. Order at 20; see also id. at 3, 15. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have
`
`not satisfied the applicable standard for a preliminary injunction.
`
`Further, Defendants respectfully submit that the Court erred in concluding that the
`
`balance favors Plaintiffs at all. While acknowledging that “the threats that the government has
`
`identified generally are significant,” the Court nonetheless held that “the specific evidence about
`
`WeChat is modest.” Id. at 20. The Court’s disagreement with the assessment by responsible
`
`Executive Branch officials charged with national-security decisions about the strength of the
`
`evidence related to WeChat—and the threat it poses to national security—is not a basis to
`
`impose a preliminary injunction. See Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-
`
`34(2010) (“That evaluation of the facts by the Executive” regarding “sensitive and weighty
`
`interests of national security and foreign affairs” “is entitled to deference.”). The Supreme Court
`
`has repeatedly emphasized that “‘neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges
`
`begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its
`
`people.’” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
`
`723, 797 (2008)). And the Court’s stated need for “specific evidence” on WeChat bears no
`
`resemblance to how national security decisions are reached, which must rest on considered
`
`judgments about risk, foreign policy, and necessary preventive measures. See Trump v. Hawaii,
`
`138 S. Ct. 2392, 2409 (2018) (“[W]hen the President adopts “a preventive measure . . . in the
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Certain Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`context of international affairs and national security,” he is “not required to conclusively link all
`
`of the pieces in the puzzle before [courts] grant weight to [his] empirical conclusions.” (quoting
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 35 (2010)); see also OKKO Bus. PE v. Lew,
`
`133 F. Supp. 3d 17, 28 (D.D.C. 2015) (whether government action was an “effective strategy” in
`
`fulfilling certain “foreign policy objectives . . . is not a question for this Court”).
`
`The materials provided with this filing, which are a subset of the materials considered by
`
`the Secretary in connection with his decision, make clear that the threat posed specifically by
`
`WeChat is significant. See, e.g., Costello Decl. Ex. A, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Memorandum
`
`for the Secretary from John K. Costello, Deputy Assistant Sec. for Intelligence and Security
`
`10
`
`(Sept. 17, 2020) (“Decision Mem.”) at 5-14 (detailing the PRC’s long-term espionage efforts
`
`11
`
`against the United States; the Chinese Communist Party’s (“CCP”) influence over companies
`
`12
`
`such as Tencent; the PRC’s legal requirements that private companies assist in intelligence and
`
`13
`
`surveillance efforts; and Tencent’s history of assisting the PRC’s monitoring, surveillance, and
`
`14
`
`censorship efforts); see also Section C, infra.
`
`15
`
`By contrast, Plaintiffs have not established irreparable harm. In light of the principle that
`
`16
`
`“[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably
`
`17
`
`constitutes irreparable injury[,]” the Court found that “[t]he immediate threat is the elimination
`
`18
`
`of [Plaintiffs’ preferred] platform for communication, which results in irreparable injury absent
`
`19
`
`an injunction.” Order at 20 (citing California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2018), and
`
`20
`
`Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). However, even absent an injunction, Plaintiffs will
`
`21
`
`be able to continue using WeChat in the short-term to some extent, such that their “platform for
`
`22
`
`communication” will not in fact be “eliminat[ed],” Order at 20, further demonstrating that they
`
`23
`
`face no immediate, substantial burden on their speech. Additionally, as set forth below, the
`
`24
`
`prohibitions at issue in this case do not impact First Amendment rights – instead, they bar
`
`25
`
`economic transactions that enable hostile action by a foreign adversary and thus threaten national
`
`26
`
`security; the impact on speech is incidental. Moreover, “[i]t is the ‘purposeful unconstitutional
`
`27
`
`suppression of speech [that] constitutes irreparable harm for preliminary injunction purposes.’”
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Notice of Certain Record Materials
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 68 Filed 09/24/20 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`CTIA - The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 928 F.3d 832, 851 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting
`
`Goldie’s Bookstore v. Superior Ct., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984)) (emphasis added).
`
`Defendants respectfully submit that the Court incorrectly concluded the Executive Order and its
`
`implementing decision—which aim at economic activity, not speech—meet this controlling
`
`standard.
`
`The Court’s analysis also appears to have been substantially influenced by Plaintiffs’
`
`suggestion that other social media applications and news sources are not available to users whose
`
`predominant language is Chinese. See Order at 4 (“WeChat provides content (such as the news)
`
`in Chinese, which is critical for the many U.S. WeChat users with limited proficiency in
`
`10
`
`English.”). But as set forth below, numerous other mobile applications and news sources are
`
`11
`
`available in Chinese, see infra note 3, a point the Government did not have the opportunity to
`
`12
`
`develop in light of the rapidly shifting landscape between the morning of Friday, September 18,
`
`13
`
`2020, when the Secretary announced his decision, and later that evening, when the Government
`
`14
`
`was required to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin that decision. See infra Section C.
`
`15
`
`Even if Plaintiffs have established a serious question about their First Amendment
`
`16
`
`claim—which they have not—that serious question does not outweigh the national security and
`
`17
`
`foreign policy interests at stake. See, e.g., Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 838 F.3d 451
`
`18
`
`(5th Cir. 2016) (“The fact that national security might be permanently harmed while Plaintiffs-
`
`19
`
`Appellants’ constitutional rights might be temporarily harmed strongly supports our conclusion
`
`20
`
`that the district court did not abuse its discretion in