Amy Xu

Amy Xu is an associate at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.  She works on complex litigation and prelitigation matters in federal and state court. 

Prior to joining RBGG, Ms. Xu served as a law clerk to the Honorable Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California (2017-2019).  She was also an associate with an international law firm in Washington, D.C., where she represented clients in securities related enforcement actions and investigations.  Ms. Xu maintained an active pro bono practice, including arguing a case before the Baltimore Immigration Court that resulted in an order granting withholding of removal for a woman seeking safety from an abusive family member.

Ms. Xu received a J.D., cum laude, from Washington University in St. Louis, where she participated in the school’s Civil Rights, Community Justice & Mediation clinic, interned at the Missouri State Public Defender, instructed an undergraduate course, and served as a Marshall-Brennan fellow.  She received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Washington University in St. Louis, where she was a John B. Ervin scholar.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

• U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump:  RBGG represented a non-profit organization and several individuals and businesses in the first successful challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order 13,943 (August 6, 2020) and its implementing regulations, which would have effectively banned the WeChat social media application and cut off at least 19 million daily users in the United States from their personal, professional, and religious communities.  RBGG (with co-counsel) filed the Complaint on August 21, 2020, just over two weeks after Executive Order 13,943 was issued, alleging that the intended ban unlawfully regulated constitutionally protected speech, expression, and association, and that such a ban would have particularly dire effects on millions of Chinese-speaking American users who depend on WeChat to communicate with their contacts both at home and in China.  One week later, RBGG filed a motion for preliminary injunction that served as a model for subsequent challenges to both the WeChat ban and a similar ban on the TikTok social media app.  The motion raised pathbreaking legal theories under the First Amendment and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), offered expert testimony that the WeChat ban would do little to advance the government’s asserted national security interests, and included extensive evidence of WeChat’s critical role in connecting Chinese-speaking communities at home and abroad.  On September 19, 2020—the day before the WeChat ban was scheduled to take effect and one day after the Secretary of Commerce publicly vowed to shut down WeChat in the United States—the court granted our motion on First Amendment grounds, thereby ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of WeChat in the United States.  See U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020).  RBGG then marshalled additional testimony from experts in cyber-security and internet communications technology to fight off the government’s multiple attempts to obtain an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction in both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  President Biden rescinded EO 13,943 shortly after taking office, putting an end to the Trump Administration’s attempt to shut down entirely a public forum used by millions of Americans.
• Prison Legal News v. Ryan, 39 F.4th 1121 (9th Cir. 2022):  RBGG, as lead counsel for publisher Prison Legal News (PLN), secured a partial affirmance of a district court order finding the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) violated PLN’s First Amendment rights by censoring its eponymous news publication Prison Legal News.  The Ninth Circuit held that ADC’s policy banning sexually suggestive materials was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Prison Legal News, and awarded PLN over $200,000 in fees.  RBGG also won a ruling from the district court on summary judgment that ADC violated PLN’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, entitling PLN to damages, which ADC did not appeal.