UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004
JOHN DOE
JANE DOE
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 3801 Nebraska Ave. NW Washington, DC 20016
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. __________ ) ) )

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20530

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

JOHN KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 3801 Nebraska Ave. NW Washington, DC 20016

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION 1. The Plaintiffs are two Yemeni nationals and an organization of American Shi’a Muslims. The Plaintiffs bring this case to challenge President Donald J. Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order 13,780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Executive Order 13,780 is intended to, and does, temporarily bar many nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, including Yemen, from entering the United States. Executive Order 13,780 harms the Plaintiffs, and all Muslims living in the United States by subjecting them to hostile treatment under law and by inflicting a damaging stigma upon them based on their religious affiliation.
2

2. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Whether fleeing from war, tyranny, or persecution, or simply hoping to build a better life, immigrants have long traversed American shores in search of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the United States and enshrined in its Constitution. These immigrants have played a crucial role in shaping this country, and they have rightly been embraced as part of the fabric of American democracy.
3. Executive Order 13,780 taints this proud heritage. The order purports to “protect” the nation from “foreign terrorist[s].” Instead, it ushers in a sweeping ban of most nationals of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The president’s own security agencies have repudiated the broad stereotypes and crude generalizations underlying the order’s putative justification and instead shown that country of citizenship is no reliable proxy for terrorist threat.
4. During his Presidential Campaign, then-Candidate Trump repeatedly condemned what he calls “radical Islam,” linking Islam to terrorism and calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Executive Order 13,780 is the Trump Administration’s second attempt to enact this policy “legally.” Despite the Administration’s efforts to construct a “national security” justification for the order, a litany of statements from the president and his surrogates illustrate the Trump Administration’s animus toward Muslims and indicate that such a policy can never be “legal.”
5. Executive Order 13,780 and its identically-named predecessor, Executive Order 13,769, are predicated on invidious animus. The executive orders ignore the commands of the law, the courts, and the Constitution. The harms to Plaintiffs caused by Executive Order 13,780 are certain, imminent, and irreparable. Plaintiffs accordingly petition this Court for declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement and implementation.
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 7. The Court may award declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 §§ 2201-02, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (e)(1) because Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities; a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district; and one of the plaintiffs, the Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc., maintains its headquarters in this district.
PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 9. Mr. and Mrs. Doe are citizens of Yemen and reside in the United States under asylum status. The Does and their family adhere to the religion of Islam. 10. The Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. (UMAA) is the largest organization of Shi’a Muslims in the United States. It is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Maryland and registered under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. UMAA aims to provide a platform for American Shi’a Muslims to advance political, social, economic, and religious goals important to their community. UMAA provides American Shi’a Muslims a forum to foster intra-faith unity, to participate in civic and political responsibilities, to dispel misgivings about Islam and Muslims, and to help fellow Americans better understand Islam. UMAA also provides American Shi’a Muslims access to advanced levels of Islamic
4

education by offering short, intensive courses on a variety of subjects presented by senior Islamic seminary students and scholars, many of whom come from Iraq and Iran. UMAA’s email distribution list for its weekly newsletters currently includes 17,269 subscribers, and UMAA’s national convention draws thousands of attendees annually. UMAA maintains a national organization as well as local chapters across the country. In addition to the annual convention, UMAA also holds other events for the American Shi’a community throughout the year. For its events, UMAA often invites prominent Shi’a scholars—many from Iran and Iraq—to appear as speakers, so that its members may experience their teachings and perspectives.
B. Defendants 11. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States and is sued in his official capacity. President Trump issued Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. 12. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is an executive department of the United States government. DHS is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 13. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) is an administrative agency within the DHS. CBP is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 14. Defendant Department of State is an executive department of the United States government. The State Department is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 15. Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an executive department of the United States government. DOJ is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 16. Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of Homeland Security and is sued in his official capacity. Secretary Kelly is responsible for DHS’s administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
5

17. Defendant Kevin McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection and is sued in his official capacity. Acting Commissioner McAleenan is directly responsible for CBP’s implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
18. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the Secretary of State and is sued in his official capacity. Secretary Tillerson oversees the Department of State’s activities with respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
19. Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is the Attorney General of the United States and is sued in his official capacity. Attorney General Sessions oversees the DOJ’s activities with respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Does 20. Mr. and Mrs. Doe came to the United States from Yemen. The Does are Yemeni nationals living in the United States as asylees. The Does and their family adhere to the religion of Islam. 21. In 2015, Yemen collapsed into civil war. The conflict, which to this day is ongoing, has resulted in more than 10,000 civilian deaths and 40,000 civilian injuries.1 As a result of the civil war and a contemporaneous famine, United Nations officials reported this year
1 Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000, AL JAZEERA (Jan. 16, 2017), http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/death-toll-yemen-conflict-passes-10000170117040849576.html, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 43.
6

that over 10 million Yemeni civilians need urgent assistance to protect their safety, dignity, and basic human rights.2
22. In early 2015, the Does came to the United States on visas with three of their children. But they could not afford the cost of bringing their remaining two children, sons ages 10 and 12, who stayed behind in Yemen with their grandmother. Mr. Doe later received word from Yemen that militants had threatened to kill him and his family if he returned. The militants also threatened to kidnap his two sons who were still in Yemen.
23. With the help of an immigration attorney, Mr. Doe successfully applied for asylum in the United States. Mr. Doe then petitioned for his two sons who were still living in Yemen to obtain visas to enter the United States on the basis of their status as minor children of an asylee pursuant to Section 208(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Mr. Doe’s petition was approved in late 2016. The next step in the sons’ visa application process is an interview with a United States consulate or embassy abroad, but Yemen does not have a United States consulate or embassy. The boys have fled Yemen to escape the violence there and are now living in Djibouti waiting for their consular interviews to be scheduled. Given the expense of staying in Djibouti, the boys will be forced to return to Yemen unless they can receive their visas to come to the United States.
B. UMAA and the American Shi’a Muslim Community
2 Id.
7

24. Shi’ism is the second largest denomination of Islam in the world, comprising around ten to fifteen percent of the global and American Muslim populations. Shi’a Muslims believe in a hierarchical structure of religious clergy, with the most learned given the highest religious authority, transnationally. While Shi’a adherents can be found in many nations, they form the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain and make up close to half of all Muslims in the Middle East. Shi’a Islam is distinct from other major religions in that nearly all of its highest-ranking scholars live in the nations of Iran, Iraq and Syria. These three nations are also where some of the holiest sites of Shi'a Islam are located, drawing millions of Shi’a Muslims from across the world annually, including from the United States. In fact, the largest annual peaceful gathering on Earth occurs at Karbala, Iraq, on the solemn Shi’a festival known as Arba’een, which drew a reported 22 million pilgrims on a single day in 2013.
25. UMAA regularly arranges for renowned Shi’a scholars to visit the United States. so that they may speak at its events, including its national convention. Because the most renowned Shi’a scholars are centralized in Iran and Iraq, many of the foreign speakers at UMAA’s events are Iranian or Iraqi.
C. President Trump’s Campaign Pledge to Ban Muslims from the United States 26. Prior to taking office, then-candidate Donald J. Trump made discrimination against Muslims a central pillar of his campaign for the presidency.
8

27. On November 18, 2015, in response to terror attacks in Paris, Mr. Trump stated that “[w]e’re going to have no choice” but to close down some mosques in the United States, where “some bad things are happening.”3
28. On December 7, 2015, in the wake of the attack in San Bernardino, California, then-candidate Mr. Trump released a written statement, entitled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” which called for a “total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” 4
29. The statement continued: According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as
3 Nick Gass, Trump: ‘Absolutely no choice’ but to close mosques, POLITICO (Nov. 18, 2015, 6:45 AM), http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 3. 4 Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 4 .
9

murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.5 30. The survey cited in the statement had long since been discredited,6 but the
message was clear: Mr. Trump believes that many Muslims bear hostile attitudes toward the
United States and favor violent ideology over American law and—for that reason—immigration
by Muslims to the United States should be suspended.
31. This proposed “Muslim ban” became a core promise of the Trump campaign,
repeated by Mr. Trump and his advisors and surrogates at campaign events across the country.
5 Id. (emphasis added). 6 The Center for Security Policy’s study used an online “opt-in” poll, rather than a traditional sampling model. Results of these “opt-in” polls do not represent the opinions of larger populations because anyone can respond to them and the pollster has no way of knowing who the respondents are. See The Bridge Initiative Team, Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY (Dec. 7, 2015, 6:48 AM), http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-withflaws/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 61 (discussing unreliability of “opt-in” polling and explaining that the Center for Security Policy’s survey also used “leading” questions and included multiplechoice questions with non-exhaustive answer choices); Lauren Carroll & Louis Jacobson, Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US, POLITIFACT (Dec. 9, 2015, 3:48 PM), http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-citesshaky-survey-call-ban-muslims-entering/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 64 (rating the survey’s conclusion “mostly false” due to unreliable methodology an noting that the Center for Security Policy’s president, Frank Gaffney, has a history of spreading untrue theories about Islam, including arguing that President Barack Obama was a Muslim (citing Frank Gaffney, Gaffney: America’s first Muslim president?, WASHINGTON TIMES (June 9, 2009), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslim-president/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 63.)).
10

32. Asked during a televised debate on January 14, 2016, whether he had rethought
his “comments about banning Muslims from entering the country,” Mr. Trump responded, “No.”7
33. On March 9, 2016, Mr. Trump stated in a televised interview, “I think Islam hates us.”8 The full exchange between Mr. Trump and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is instructive:
Cooper: Do you think Islam is at war with the West? Trump: I think Islam hates us. There is something—there is something there that is a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us. Cooper: In Islam itself? Trump: You’re going to have to figure that out. OK. You’ll get another Pulitzer, right? But you’ll have to figure that out. But there’s a tremendous hatred. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful. And we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States . . . and of people that are not Muslim. Cooper: I guess the question is, is there a war between the west and radical Islam or between the west and Islam itself? Trump: Well, it’s radical but it’s very hard to define. It’s very hard to separate because you don’t know who is who.9
7 Gerhard Peters & John T. Wooley, Presidential Candidate Debates: Republican Candidates Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (Jan. 14, 2016), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=111395, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 7. 8 Exclusive Interview with Donald Trump: Aired March 9, 2016 - 20:00 ET, CNN (Mar. 9, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1603/09/acd.01.html, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 8. 9 Id. (emphasis added).
11

34. Amid widespread outcry that the proposed Muslim ban would be un-American and unconstitutional, Mr. Trump and his advisors began shifting their rhetoric, while clarifying that their goal continued to be some form of a ban on immigration by Muslims.
35. On June 13, 2016, after the attack on a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Mr. Trump said in a speech: “I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger, but now many are saying I was right to do so.”10
36. Mr. Trump then specified that the ban would be “temporary,” and would apply to certain “areas of the world when [sic] there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”11
37. Next, in a July 17, 2016 televised interview, Mr. Trump was confronted with his then-running mate Mike Pence’s statement that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional. Mr. Trump responded that the same purpose of stemming the flow of Muslim immigrants would be pursued by other ends: “So you call it territories, okay? We’re gonna do territories.”12
38. A week later, in a July 24, 2016 interview, Mr. Trump was asked if his shifting rhetoric signified a “rollback” from his proposed “Muslim ban.” He answered: “I don’t think so.
10 Transcript: Donald Trump’s national security speech, POLITICO (Jun. 13, 2016, 3:06 PM), http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech224273, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 10. 11 Id. 12 Lesley Stahl, The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence, CBS NEWS (Jul. 17, 2016), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 64.
12

I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. ‘Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim.’ . . . And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”13
39. And on October 9, 2016, during a televised presidential debate, Mr. Trump stated, “The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a[n] extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.”14
40. As of the date of this complaint, the Trump campaign’s December 7, 2015 press release entitled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” remains on the Donald J. Trump campaign website15 and on President Trump’s Twitter page,16 which President Trump has continued to use regularly even after taking office.
D. The First Executive Order 41. On January 27, 2017, President Trump fulfilled his campaign promise by signing Executive Order 13,769 entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
13 Meet the Press - July 24, 2016, NBC NEWS (Jul. 24, 2016, 11:47 AM), http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 11. 14 Gerhard Peters & John T. Wooley, Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (Oct. 9, 2016), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 65. 15 See Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 4. 16 See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Dec. 7, 2015); https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/673993417429524480, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 5.
13

United States” (“First Executive Order”).17 At the signing ceremony, after reading the title of the First Executive Order aloud, President Trump remarked “We all know what that means.”18
42. On January 30, 2017, President Trump confirmed what he meant, referring to Executive Order 13,769 as “the ban.” 19
43. Among other things, the First Executive Order temporarily banned entry of all nationals from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries, temporarily suspended the entire United States Refugee Admissions Program, established a policy of prioritizing certain religious denominations over others upon resuming the program, and indefinitely barred entry of Syrian refugees.20 The First Executive Order also provided that the President could expand the list of seven countries initially designated.21 In addition, the First Executive Order included among its “purposes” that the United States should not admit individuals who “place violent ideologies
17 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). 18 Matt Shuham, Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out ‘Extreme Vetting,’ TALKING POINTS MEMO (Jan. 27, 2017, 4:56 PM), http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-signs-vettingexecutive-order, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 66. 19 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Jan. 30, 2017), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 67; see also Donald J. Trump (@real DonaldTrump), TWITTER (Feb. 1, 2017), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 68 (“Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!”). 20 See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 §§ 3(c), 5(b)-(c). 21 Id. § 3(e)-(f).
14

over American law” or who engage in acts of hatred or bigotry “including so called ‘honor killings’ or other forms of violence against women.”22
44. Section 10 of the First Executive Order mandated that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, collect and make publicly available information related to “foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States” and “honor killings in the United States by foreign nationals.”
45. On the day he signed the First Executive Order, asked whether he saw Christian refugees as a priority, President Trump responded unequivocally: “Yes.”23
46. This religious preference was reflected in Sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the First Executive Order, which prioritized refugee claims based on religious-based persecution for individuals whose religion is a “minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” As a practical matter, the vast majority of the 38,000 Muslim refugees admitted to the United States
22 Id. § 1. 23 David Brody, Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority Status As Refugees, CHRISTIAN BROADCAST NETWORK (Jan. 27, 2017), http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trumpsays-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 18. (“If you were a Muslim [in Syria] you could come in [to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible . . . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them [Christian refugees]”); see also Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Jan. 29, 2017, 7:03 AM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858; Weiner Declaration at Ex. 69 (“Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”).
15

in 2016 were nationals of Muslim-majority countries, thus rendering the majority of Muslim refugees ineligible for the religious-based persecution preference.24
47. The following day, January 28, 2017, President Trump’s advisor and surrogate Rudy Giuliani admitted that the policy implemented in the First Executive Order resulted from an instruction by the President to find “the right way” to “legally” implement the “Muslim ban.”25
E. The First Executive Order Was Enjoined by the Courts. 48. The First Executive Order was immediately met with a series of legal challenges across the country, including in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, the Western District of Washington, and the Eastern District of Virginia. 49. The day after the First Executive Order was issued, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, enjoining executive-branch officials from removing individuals with approved applications under the United States Refugee Admissions Program, holders of immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals legally authorized to enter the United States from the seven countries designated in the First Executive Order. Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480, ECF 8 at 2
24 See Phillip Connor, U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Oct. 5, 2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-recordnumber-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 70. 25 See Rebecca Savransky, Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban ‘legally,’ THE HILL (Jan. 29, 2017, 8:48 AM), http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giulianitrump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 12.
16

(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017). The district court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs could establish that such removals would violate their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the United States Constitution. Id. at 1.
50. Days later, on February 3, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the First Executive Order on a “nationwide basis.” Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, ECF 52 at 5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The Washington lawsuit was brought by the States of Washington and Minnesota and, like in the New York lawsuit, the district court in Washington found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the states’ claims, which included challenges to the First Executive Order on the bases of, inter alia, the Free Exercise, Establishment, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. See id. at 4; see also Complaint, Washington v. Trump, No 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, ECF 1 at 10-13 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2017) (asserting constitutional and other causes of action).
51. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the District Court in Washington, in an opinion declining to stay the District Court’s order. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit’s opinion determined that Washington and Minnesota showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural-due-process claim but reserved an analysis of the states’ other claims for future proceedings and more-extensive briefing. See id. at 1168.
52. While the Washington case proceeded, yet another lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, resulted in a preliminary injunction of the Executive Order. The district court examined the litany of statements by President Trump and members of his Administration indicating their intent to ban Muslims from the United States and
17

found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claims. See Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB, ECF 111 at 7-9, 20 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017).
53. In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the President signaled his apparent intent to continue litigation over the First Executive Order, tweeting: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”26 Yet just one week after the decision, the DOJ informed the Ninth Circuit that the President intended to rescind the First Executive Order and replace it with a “new substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns.” DefendantsAppellants’ Supplemental Brief on En Banc Consideration, Washington v. Trump, No. 17:35105, ECF 154 at 4 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017) (emphasis added).
F. The Administration Contradicted Its Representations to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
54. Despite the DOJ’s representation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the President would “rescind” the First Executive Order and issue an updated order, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at a February 21 press conference that President
26 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Feb. 9, 2017, 3:35 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/829836231802515457, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 22 (capitalization included in original).
18

Trump would not rescind the First Executive Order.27 Instead, Spicer continued, the First Executive Order would be “updated.”28
55. The next day, Stephen Miller, a White House Senior Policy Advisor, said in an interview with Fox News that the planned revised executive order would include “mostly minor technical differences” but that “[f]undamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country.”29
56. Like the February 21 statement by Mr. Spicer, Mr. Miller’s statement contradicted the DOJ’s representations to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that the new executive order would be “substantially revised.”
57. The contradictory statements from the Administration and its attorneys regarding whether the President would rescind the First Executive Order and whether the Replacement Executive Order would be “substantially revised” was noted by the court in the lawsuit proceeding in the Western District of Washington. Ali v. Trump, No. C17-0135JLR, ECF 49 at 3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2017).
27 Matthew Nussbaum, Josh Gerstein, & Christiano Lima, White House creates confusion about future of Trump’s travel ban, POLITICO, (Feb. 21, 2017), http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-confusion-235241, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 71. 28 Id. 29 Matt Zapotosky, A new travel ban with ‘mostly minor technical differences’? That probably won’t cut it, analysts say, WASH. POST (Feb. 22, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-new-travel-ban-with-mostly-minortechnical-differences-that-probably-wont-cut-it-analysts-say/2017/02/22/8ae9d7e6-f918-11e6bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.4b2c8de99d5f, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 2. (emphasis added).
19

58. The Administration’s doublespeak confirms its intention to satisfy the courts by claiming to “revoke” and “revise” the First Executive Order, while simultaneously championing its “same basic policy” of banning Muslims from the United States.
G. Lack of Justification for the Executive Orders 59. On February 24, the Associated Press obtained a DHS report prepared at the request of the Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis.30 The report, entitled “Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States,” analyzed the terrorist threats posed by the seven countries targeted by the First Executive Order.31 60. Even though the First Executive Order purported to “Protect[] the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry,” one of the DHS report’s key findings is that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”32 As support for this finding, the report explains that “Citizens of Countries Affected by [the First Executive Order are] Rarely Implicated in US-Based Terrorism,” and that “Few of the Impacted Countries Have Terrorist Groups that Threaten the West.”33 The report stated that since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, 82 primarily U.S.-based individuals either died in the pursuit of or were
30 Rick Jervis, DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump’s travel ban, USA TODAY (Feb. 24, 2017, 7:09 PM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memo-contradicttravel-ban-trump/98374184/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 72. 31 See id. 32 Id. 33 Id.
20

convicted of terrorism-related federal offenses inspired by a foreign terrorist organization.34 Of these 82 individuals, slightly more than half were native-born United States citizens, with the rest coming from 26 different countries, including some—but not all—of the countries designated by the First Executive Order, and many other countries besides.35 The report also explains that nationals of the seven designated countries already have relatively limited access to the United States.36
61. Additionally, even though the First Executive Order required the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and report whether foreign states were providing sufficient information for the United States government to adjudicate visa decisions,37 the First Executive Order—and now the revised Executive Order, as well—banned immigration from the designated Muslim-majority countries before that review had even been conducted.
H. The Replacement Executive Order 62. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a new executive order under the same name as the First Executive Order. The new executive order replaces the First Executive Order (hereinafter “Replacement Executive Order”) and includes some differences. Namely, it removes Iraq from the list of targeted countries but subjects Iraqis to enhanced vetting
34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Executive Order 13,769 § 3(a), (b).
21

requirements in order to travel to the United States. It also creates exceptions to the travel restriction for legal permanent residents and people who held visas as of March 16, 2017. And finally, the Replacement Executive Order eliminates the priority for refugees of minority religions, but it maintains the First Executive Order’s restriction on the total number of refugees permitted into the United States. Just as Mr. Miller predicted, aside from these and other minor differences, the Replacement Executive Order has the “same basic policy outcome” envisioned by the first and continues to implement President Trump’s promise—a “Muslim ban.”
63. On March 15, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Replacement Executive Order. Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 1:17-00050-DKW-KSC, ECF 219 at 2, 42-43 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017). The next day, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Replacement Executive Order (the provision restricting travel to the United States by nationals of Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia). IRAP v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, ECF149, at 2, 40-43 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017).
64. Speaking at a rally in Nashville, Tennessee, on the same day that the Hawai‘i Court issued its ruling, President Trump called the ruling “terrible.”38 He continued, stating that
38 Matt Zapatosky, et al., Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban, WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 16, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/socialissues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wednesday-
Footnote continued on next page
22

the Replacement Executive Order was a “watered-down version of the first one” and that he thinks “we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way.”39
D. Effects of the Executive Orders on Plaintiffs i. UMAA
65. After the First Executive Order was issued, UMAA was forced to cancel an event that it had planned and to issue refunds for tickets that it had sold for the event. Specifically, UMAA had arranged for a renowned Shi’a eulogy reciter, Basm Nameliti, an Iranian national, to visit the United States for an event in Dearborn, Michigan, on February 4, 2017, commemorating the birthday of the granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad. Mr. Nameliti uses the professional name Basim Karbalaei (hereinafter “Mr. Karbalaei” or “Karbalaei”). UMAA had invited Mr. Karbalaei to speak at the February 4th event on April 20, 2016. In the months and weeks leading up to February 4, UMAA heavily publicized the event among its members and sold approximately 2,200 tickets at $30 each.
66. At that time, Mr. Karbalaei had received his United States travel visa. Because of the First Executive Order, however, his visa was revoked and he was prohibited from traveling to
Footnote continued from previous page
morning/2017/03/14/b2d24636-090c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 75. 39 Id.
23

the United States. UMAA was thus forced to cancel the event and provide refunds to people who had purchased tickets. Providing these refunds cost UMAA over $15,000. Instead of the originally planned event, UMAA organized a “No Ban, No Wall” rally at the same venue in Dearborn, Michigan, in order to bring members of the community together in opposition to the First Executive Order.
67. The Replacement Executive Order harms UMAA and its members because it effectively prevents UMAA from bringing Shi’a clergy to the United States to speak at its 2017 national convention and other events. As a consequence, the Replacement Executive Order restricts American Shi’a Muslims’ access to many of the learned figures of their faith, and it harms UMAA’s ability to attract paying attendees to its events. Moreover, the Replacement Executive Order’s purported limitations fail to mitigate this harm.
68. The Replacement Executive Order places UMAA in a position where it is effectively unable to invite speakers to its upcoming national convention, from June 30 to July 3, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland, and other future events.
69. For example, UMAA is unable to bring Mr. Karbalaei to the United States to speak at future events because his travel visa has expired. After the Ninth Circuit left in place the district court’s preliminary injunction of the First Executive Order, UMAA invited Mr. Karbalaei to its 2017 national convention, for which he requires a new travel visa. Although Mr. Karbalaei wants to attend and speak at the convention, he is unable to secure a visa because of the Replacement Executive Order, and thus UMAA will again be unable to bring him to the United States to speak to its members.
70. Inability to secure speakers has also harmed UMAA’s ability to advertise and draw attendees to its events. For example, in previous years, UMAA has advertised its national
24

convention by providing prospective attendees with an advance schedule of speakers that includes the foreign speakers it has invited. This year, UMAA has been unable to advertise its event to include Iranian and Iraqi speakers because of the Executive Orders. And since these foreign speakers are one of the primary attractions for the national convention, the Replacement Executive Order significantly harms UMAA’s ability to attract attendees.
71. Consequently, the Replacement Executive Order harms UMAA’s members because they cannot receive the teachings of their religion’s most important scholars.
72. Even though the Replacement Executive Order purports to allow case-by-case waivers for certain individuals, because it applies to all Iranian nationals and because there is no guarantee that any particular applicant will be granted a waiver, UMAA cannot determine which speakers to invite to its convention and other events because it does not know which speakers would be granted waivers.
73. Because the scholars whom UMAA would invite to its convention are popular figures with multiple engagements, it is not practicable for UMAA to wait 90 days from the Replacement Executive Order’s effective date of March 16 before inviting Iranian speakers. Ninety days from the effective date would be on or about June 12, 2017—less than three weeks from the start of UMAA’s national convention—an insufficient amount of time to negotiate with and secure speakers and apply for and obtain their visas. The extreme vetting to which Iraqis are subjected under the Replacement Executive Order also raises a substantial risk that Iraqi invitees would be unable to obtain visas in time to attend the convention. For these reasons, UMAA also cannot advertise particular speakers ahead of time and thus is prevented from attracting paying attendees to its events.
25

74. Accordingly, because the Replacement Executive Order effectively prevents UMAA from securing speakers from Iraq and Iran for its national convention and effectively prevents UMAA’s members from receiving the teachings of their religion’s most important clergy, UMAA seeks immediate relief from this Court.
75. In addition to preventing UMAA’s members from receiving the teachings of foreign Shi’a scholars, the Replacement Executive Order prevents UMAA’s members living in the United States on single-entry visas from visiting Shi’a Islam’s holy sites in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and from making the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, a sacred rite for all Muslims. Moreover, UMAA’s members with family living in countries targeted by the Replacement Executive Order are harmed because it prevents them from bringing their relatives to the United States as visitors or immigrants.
76. Regardless of whether UMAA’s individual members or their relatives abroad may be entitled to case-by-case waivers under the Replacement Executive Order, it still impermissibly subjects them to disparate treatment and additional procedural hurdles on the basis of their national origin or religion. Even if some waivers are ultimately granted, the waiver provision imposes significant barriers to entry and subjects applicants to the requirement that they demonstrate to the satisfaction of consular officials that their entry is in the national interest.
77. UMAA seeks relief on behalf of its members because these harms are germane to UMAA’s purpose of facilitating the religious, social, and political lives of American Shi’a Muslims. Because the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by UMAA in this case would also afford relief to its members, participation of any individual members would not be necessary for UMAA to obtain the relief it seeks.
ii. The Does
26

78. The Replacement Executive Order harms the Does because its enforcement renders them unable to bring their two children to the United States from Yemen and because it conveys a message to the Does that they and their religion are disfavored in the United States.
79. The Does have not seen their two children in over 800 days. They remain in fear for their children’s lives and wish to bring them to the United States where they can be safe and so that their family can be together.
80. Despite their attorney’s best efforts to schedule interviews for the Does’ sons, the State Department has not yet scheduled consular interviews for them.
81. As with the First Executive Order, the Replacement Executive Order includes Yemen as one of the countries whose nationals are subject to the travel ban.40
82. As long as Section 2(c) of the Replacement Executive Order is in effect, the Does’ children will be categorically barred from entering the country for at least 90 days.
83. The Replacement Executive Order does provide for discretionary “case-by-case waivers” for individuals seeking admission to the United States who can demonstrate to consular officials that their admission would be “in the national interest.”41 But the Does cannot seek a
40 See Replacement Executive Order § 1(e)(vi). 41 See id. § 3(c) (stating that case-by-case waivers may be available, “in the consular officer’s or the CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] official’s discretion” “if the foreign national has demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest.”).
27

waiver for their children if consular officials will not, at minimum, grant their children the interviews necessary to adjudicate their visa applications.
84. Additionally, the Replacement Executive Order’s “case-by-case” waiver provision harms the Does because it imposes an additional hurdle to securing visas for their two children and reuniting their family. This additional hurdle forces the Does and their immigration attorney to provide additional information and representations to consular officials in excess of what other visa applicants must provide. Moreover, the waiver provision imposes additional levels of review for the Does’ children’s visa applications, which must be conducted before the children can travel to the United States. This additional scrutiny further complicates and delays the Does’ reunification with their children.
85. The Does are also harmed by the Replacement Executive Order’s implicit condemnation of Islam. The Does’ religion is important to them, and they are pained by President Trump’s denouncements of the Islamic faith and of Muslims generally. The Does fear that they will face increased prejudice and hate as a result of the Replacement Executive Order.
86. Because their two sons are in constant danger of being killed in Yemen, the Does cannot wait for the 90-day suspension of entry by Yemeni nationals provided in the Replacement Executive Order to expire.42 While the boys are now in Djibouti, they cannot afford to stay there
42 See id. § 2(c).
28

indefinitely, and will soon need to return to Yemen if the Replacement Executive Order is not placed on hold.
87. Accordingly, because the Replacement Executive Order applies to their two sons who are in physical danger in Yemen, and because consular officials have effectively denied any efforts to request case-by-case waivers, the Does seek immediate relief from this Court.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
(Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
88. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
89. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from enacting policies that “differentiate[] among religions.” Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 695 (1989) (citing Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982)).
90. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing or disapproving of a religion or certain religious beliefs. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000).
91. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from taking actions that lack a preeminently secular purpose, that have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or that
29

result in excessive entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971).
92. The Replacement Executive Order and President Trump’s own statements reveal that Sections 2(c) and 4 of the order seeks to discriminate against Muslims. The President stated repeatedly that he would ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States.
93. The Replacement Executive Order differentiates among religions because it singles out for unfavorable treatment countries that are almost entirely Muslim.
94. The Replacement Executive Order violates the Lemon test because its text, development and implementation show that the measure lacks a predominantly secular purpose and has the effect of disfavoring and penalizing Islam and Muslims. Notably, the President’s and his surrogates’ repeated statements show that the Executive Order’s primary purpose is to exclude Muslims, and that its effect is to disapprove of Islam, Muslims, and their religious exercise.
95. The Replacement Executive Order and the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
96. The Replacement Executive Order and the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it have harmed Plaintiffs.
97. The Doe plaintiffs are harmed because they are unable to bring their two sons from Yemen to the United States. UMAA is harmed because it is unable to arrange to bring speakers from Iran and Iraq to the United States to its national convention and other events. UMAA’s members are harmed because they are unable to receive the teachings of their religion’s scholars and clergy. UMAA’s members are also harmed because many are separated
30

from their family members. All Plaintiffs (including UMAA’s members) are also injured because of the government’s endorsement of hostility toward Islam that is reflected in the Executive Order. All Plaintiffs are also harmed by the waiver provision under Section 3(c) of the Replacement Executive Order because the provision creates an additional hurdle that was imposed with a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory effect to disfavor Muslims.
98. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
99. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 100.
COUNT II (Violation of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment:
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 101. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 102. Plaintiffs are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 103. In enacting and implementing the Replacement Executive Order, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their religion in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 104. The Replacement Executive Order was substantially motivated by animus toward Muslims. 105. The Replacement Executive Order has a disparate impact on Muslims.
31

106. Defendants’ numerous public calls for a ban on Muslim immigration demonstrate that the Replacement Executive Order is designed to have a virtually exclusive impact on Muslims.
107. Defendants’ overt statements singling out Muslims for exclusion further reveal invidious discriminatory intent.
108. Statements by advisers to Defendant Trump demonstrate that Defendants intend the Replacement Executive Order to yield the same results as the First Executive Order, that is, to exclude categories of foreign nationals that are almost entirely composed of Muslims.
109. The Replacement Executive Order’s targeting of certain countries on the basis of religion is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
110. The Replacement Executive Order is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
111. The Replacement Executive Order was issued in bad faith and is not supported by bona fide and facially legitimate reasoning.
112. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
113. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III
(Violation of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment: Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
114. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth here.
115. Plaintiffs are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment.
32

116. Defendants’ enactment, implementation, and threatened enforcement of the Replacement Executive Order discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their national origin, in violation of the right to equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
117. The Replacement Executive Order singles out nationals of specific countries for exclusion from the United States, regardless of their individual circumstances.
118. The Replacement Executive Order’s discrimination on the basis of national origin is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
119. The Replacement Executive Order’s discrimination on the basis of national origin is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
120. The Replacement Executive Order was issued in bad faith and is not supported by bona fide and facially legitimate reasoning.
121. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and from the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
122. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT IV
(Violation of the First Amendment: Right to Receive Information and Ideas) (UMAA Against All Defendants)
123. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
124. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects not only the right to engage in speech, but also the “right to receive information and ideas.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969).
33

125. The Replacement Executive Order and Defendants’ implementation of it violate the right of UMAA and its members to receive information and ideas under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
126. The Replacement Executive Order is not narrowly tailored to achieve a substantial governmental interest.
127. The Replacement Executive Order was issued in bad faith and is not supported by bona fide and facially legitimate reasoning.
128. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and from the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
129. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT V
(Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and Regulations)
(UMAA Against All Defendants) 130. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 131. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 132. In implementing the Replacement Executive Order, Defendants have acted contrary to § 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) by discriminating on the basis of national origin in the issuance of immigrant visas.
34

133. Defendants’ violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Regulations have harmed UMAA and its members. Many of UMAA’s members have pending or approved petitions for their family members to obtain immigrant visas to travel to the United States. The Replacement Executive Order prevents these individuals from being able to bring their family members to visit or live in the United States.
134. The Replacement Executive Order has divided the families of UMAA’s members, undermining UMAA’s mission, which includes promoting the welfare of the Shi’a community in the United States and dispelling misgivings about Muslims and Islam.
135. The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
136. Plaintiffs have no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
137. This Court accordingly should declare that Defendants’ implementation of the Replacement Executive Order violates the APA and INA.
138. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and from the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
139. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs seek an order and judgment to:
35

140. Declare that Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order violate the Constitution and laws of the United States;
141. Enjoin Defendants from: a. Enforcing Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order, including
at any United States embassy, consulate, border, or point of entry; b. Applying Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order to deny,
revoke, restrict, cancel, or delay issuance of any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa; c. Applying Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order to deny or
suspend entry or admission to any person; d. Applying Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order to prohibit
any person from applying for any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act; e. Denying any person subject to the Replacement Executive Order access to
legal counsel of his or her choice; f. Applying Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order to instruct
any airline or other common carrier to deny passage to any person; g. Imposing or threatening to impose any financial penalty on any airline or
other common carrier for allowing passage to any person covered by Sections 2 and 4 of the Replacement Executive Order; 142. Order Defendants promptly to provide written guidance to employees, contractors, and agents of DHS, the State Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and all other United States government officials and entities necessary to ensure full and timely compliance with all terms of the order to be entered by the Court;
36

143. Require Defendants promptly to rescind any guidance, directive, memorandum, or statement interpreting or applying the Replacement Executive Order that conflicts with any term of the order to be entered by the Court;
144. Require Defendants promptly to post a copy of the written guidance required under paragraph 141 on government websites, including state.gov;
145. Issue a nationwide injunction; 146. Require Defendants promptly to update all relevant public guidance, documentation, and FAQs to reflect the terms of the order to be entered by the Court; 147. Require Defendants promptly to reissue any and all physically cancelled visas; 148. Require Defendants to instruct the consular officials handling the visa applications of the Doe children to schedule visa interviews within 10 days and to adjudicate the Doe children’s visa applications within 7 days of their interviews; 149. Require Defendants to process without undue delay visa applications submitted by nationals of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq. 150. Require Defendants to file with the Court, on the tenth day of each month following the entry of the Court’s order, a signed and verified declaration stating:
a. The number of United States visas granted during the previous month to nationals of each of the following countries: Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq;
b. The number of United States visa applications denied during the previous month to nationals of each of the following countries: Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq;
37

c. For each denied visa application under the above subparagraph (b), the identifying information or numbers for the application for the Court’s reference;
d. For each denied visa application under the above subparagraph (b), a detailed explanation of the reason or reasons why the application was denied. The explanation under this subsection must state the facts, authorities, and reasoning relevant to the Defendants’ decision to deny the application.
151. Require Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
152. Any other relief that the Court deems necessary or just to cure the violations specified in this Complaint or that justice may otherwise require.
DATED: March 23, 2017.
38

Johnathan Smith (application for admission pending) Aziz Huq (pro hac vice application forthcoming) MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-1484 Johnathan@muslimadvocates.org huq@chicago.edu jsulahry@gmail.com
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (application for admission pending) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-3234 Facsimile: (202) 466-3353 Katskee@au.org Girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Naomi R Tsu (pro hac vice application forthcoming) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org

David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda Johnson (application for admission pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner@apks.com Charles.blanchard@apks.com Amanda.johnson@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (pro hac vice application forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 Facsimile: (312) 583-2360 Emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman (pro hac vice application forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 Andrew.bergman@apks.com
Kimberly Gelfand (pro hac vice application forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 Kimberly.gelfand@apks.com

39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certified that I have mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 23, 2017.
/s/ David J. Weiner David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 David.weiner@apks.com
40

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,
V.

) ) )
) Civil Action No.: - - - - - - - -
) ) )

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity )

as President of the United States; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN

)

KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary )

of the Department of Homeland Security; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official )

capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. )

Customs and Border Protection; REX W. )

TILLERSON, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON

)

BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his

)

official capacity as Attorney General of the )

United States,

) )

Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs- the Universal Muslim Association of America and John and Jane Doehereby move for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as set forth below and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("Memorandum"). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Plaintiffs seek to restrain and enjoin Defendants from enforcing or implementing President Donald J. Trump's Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209,

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 5 §§ 2, 4 (Mar. 6, 2017), entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," (the "Executive Order"). As demonstrated in the Memorandum, the Executive Order and Defendants implementation of it, violate the First and Fifth Amendments ofthe U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), counsel for Plaintiffs state that they were unable to discuss this motion with opposing counsel because the initial Complaint was filed today and opposing counsel has not yet been identified.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
A proposed Order is attached.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 5

Dated: March 23, 2017

By:
David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar #499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar #1 022256) Amanda Johnson (application for admission pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner@apks.corn Charles.blanchard@,apks.com Amanda.johnson@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (pro hac vice admission forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 Facsimile: (312) 583-2360 Emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman (pro hac vice admission forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 Andrew.bergman@apks.com
Kimberly Gelfand (pro hac vice admission forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 83 6-8000

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 5
Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 Kimberly.gelfand@apks.com
Johnathan Smith (application for admission pending) Aziz Huq (pro hac vice application forthcoming) MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-1484 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org huq@chicago.edu
Gillian B. Gillers (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Naomi R Tsu (pro hac vice application forthcoming) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 gillian. gill ersialsplcenter. org kristi. graunke@splcenter. org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar #474250) Bradley Girard (application for admission pending) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-3234 Facsimile: (202) 466-3353 Katskee@au.org Girard@au.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/17 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.
I
avid J. Weiner Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 David.weiner@apks.com

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; and JANE

)

DOE,

)

')

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity )

as President of the United States; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN

)

KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary )

of the Department of Homeland Security;

)

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official )

capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S.

)

Customs and Border Protection; REX W.

)

TILLERSON, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON

)

BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his

)

official capacity as Attorney General of the )

United States,

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No.: - - - - - - -

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 A. Mr. Trump's Campaign Pledge to Ban Muslims from the United States ............... 3 B. Chaos Caused by Implementation of January 27, 2017 Executive Order .............. 6 C. The March 6, 2017 Executive Order....................................................................... 8 D. The Sham "National Security" Purpose of the Executive Orders......................... 10 E. Effects of the Replacement Executive Order on Plaintiffs ................................... 15
III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 20 A. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims......................... 21 B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Immediate, Irreparable Harm Absent Preliminary Injunctive Relief.................................................................................................... 40 C. The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Support Preliminary Relief...................................................................................................................... 41
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 43

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)
Cases
Am. Acad. ofReligion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2009)...............................................................................................30, 35
Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 20 15) ...................................................................................................31
Aziz v. Trump, Case No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TC, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) ................................................................................................................................2, 8, 29
Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TC, ECF 11 ....................................................................................40
Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1982).....................................................................................................39
Bonham v. D. C. Library Admin., 989 F.2d 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ...............................................................................................27
C.f Sugarman v. Dougall,
413 u.s. 634 (1973) ..................................................................................................................33
Capital Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette,
515 u.s. 753 (1995) .................................................................................................................30
Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................39
Chaplaincy ofFull Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................40
City ofCleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
473 u.s. 432 (1985) .................................................................................................................34
County ofAllegheny v ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ..................................................................................................................30
Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480, ECF 8 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017) ................................................................ 8
Edwards v. District ofColumbia, 755 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................36
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 56
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .................................................................................................................40
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) ...................................................................................................................21
Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................42
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) .................................................................................................................34
Hassan v. City ofNew York, 804 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 20 15)...............................................................................................27, 31
Hawaii v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, slip op. (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017)............................ .24, 28,29
Int 'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. TDC-17-0361, slip. op (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) ....................................................... passim
Jewish War Veterans ofthe United States ofAmerica, Inc. v. Gates, 506 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2007) ........................................................................................... 30
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) ............................................................................................................. 39
Kleindienst v. Mandel,
408 u.s. 753 (1972) ...............................................................................................34, 38, 39, 40
Korematsu v. United States,
323 u.s. 214 (1944) .................................................................................................................26
Larson v. Valente,
456 u.s. 228 (1982) ...........................................................................................................21, 22
League of Women Voters ofthe United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................20
Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep 't ofState, 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds by US. Dept. of State, Bureau ofConsular Affairs v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc., 519 U.S. 1 (1996) ..............................................................................................37
Lemon v. Kurtzman,
403 u.s. 602 (1971) .................................................................................................................27
111

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 5 of 56
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 607 (1971) ................................................................................................................. 21
McCreary Cty., Ky. v. ACLU ofKy., 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ......................................................................................................... passim
Mills v. District ofColumbia, 571 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................40
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) .................................................................................................................37
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) .................................................................................................................41
Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) ................................................................................................38
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) .................................................................................................................30
Regents ofUniv. ofCal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ................................................................................................................. 33
Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) .....................................................................................................21, 23, 26
Simms v. District ofColumbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2012) ...........................................................................................43
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) .................................................................................................................37
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) .................................................................................................................34
Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................31
Tabbaa v. Cherto.IJ, 509 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................22
United States v. 0 'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ................................................................................................................. 35
United States v. US. Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971) .................................................................................................................41
lV

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 6 of 56
Vill. ofArlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.,
429 u.s. 252 (1977) .....................................................................................................31, 32,33
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring) .................................................................23, 28
Washington v. Davis,
426 u.s. 229 (1976) ..................................................... ,.....................................................30, 32
Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... passim
Washington v. Trump, C8;se No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) ......................2, 8
Winter v. Nat. Res. Dej Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .....................................................·................................................................20
Statutes 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) ...................................................................................................36, 37, 38
8 u.s.c. § 1182(±) .......................................................................................................................... 37
8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) ..........................................................................................................................37 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................39 Immigration and Nationality Act ........................................................................................... passim U.S. Constitution First Amendment............................................................................... 1, 21, 34, 35 U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment ........................................................................................... 1, 30 Other Authorities Ahmed al-Haj, Yemen civil war: 10,000 civilians killed and 40,000 injured in
conflict, UN reveals, The Independent (Jan. 17, 2017) ........................................................... 19 Alex Nowrasteh, Guide to Trump's Executive Order to Limit Migration for
"National Security" Reasons (Jan. 26, 2017) ..........:...............................................................33 Alex Nowrasteh, Little National Security Benefit to Trump's Executive Order on
Immigration, Cato Institute (Jan. 25, 20 17), ............................................................................ 14 Alex Nowrasteh, Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations Named in
Trump Ban, NEWSWEEK (Jan. 31, 2017) .............................................................................22
v

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 7 of 56
Alexander Bums, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump's Latest Travel Ban, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 15, 2017) ........................................................................................................ 2
Andrew Kaczynski, Michael Flynn in August: Islamism a "vicious cancer" in body ofall Muslims that "has to be excised" (Nov. 22, 2016) .................................................6
Aziz Huq, The "Travel Ban" Executive Order as Separation-of-Powers Test Case, Just Security (Mar. 10, 2017).........................................................................................24
Charles Kurzman, Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism, 2016 ....................... 13 CIA World Factbook ......................................................................................................................22 Darlene Superville, Trump lashes Out at Federal Judge Over Ruling on Travel
Ban, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Feb. 4, 2017)........................................................................... .26 David Brody, Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians
Will Be Given Priority as Refugees, CBN NEWS (Jan. 27, 20 17) ..............................................7 David Caplan and Benjamin Siegel, Trump Spars With Sens. McCain and
Graham After They Criticize Travel Ban (Jan. 29, 2017) ....................................................... .42 Dep't of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Jan. 26, 2017) ·~···················· ..... 13 Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders...................... 11 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Feb. 9, 2017) ............................................... 8 Donald J. Trump, Donald J Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,
DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015) .............................................................................3, 4 Evan Perez et al., Inside the Confusion ofthe Trump Executive Order and Travel
Ban, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017) ........................................................................................................ 10 ·Exclusive Interview with Donald Trump: Aired March 9, 2016- 20:00 ET, CNN
(Mar. 9, 2016) ............................................................................................................................4 Executive Order 13,769,82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017) ................................................. passim Executive Order No. 13,780,82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017) ........................................ passim Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the
United States (Mar. 6, 2017) ....................................................................................................27 Farhana Khera & Johnathan Smith, Don't Be Fooled, Trump's New Muslim Ban
Is Still Illegal, New York Times (Mar. 6, 2017) ......................................................................24
vi

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 8 of 56
Fotini Christia, Elizabeth Dekeyser, & Dean Knox, Shiites are participating in the world's largest pilgrimage today. Here's how they view the World, Washington Post (Nov. 21, 2016). https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/20 16111 /21/shiitesare-participating-in-the-worlds-largest-pilgrimage-today-heres-how-theyview-the-world/?utm term=.f253d3a5e9d7 ............................................................................ 16
Gerhard Peters & John T. Wooley, Presidential Candidate Debates: Republican Candidates Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (Jan..14, 2016) ................................................................................4
Gordon R. Friedman,·Trump Used Failed Portland Car Bomb Plot as Justification for New Travel Ban, OREGONIAN (Mar. 7, 2017) .............................................. .15
Hadi Ghaemi, Opinion, Trump's Travel Ban Is a Gift to Iran's Rulers, WASH. PosT (Jan. 29, 2017) ................................. ~ ..............................................................................42
https://www.nytimes.com/20 17/01/31 /world/americas/state-dept-dissent-cabletrump-immigration-order.html ................................................................................................. 11
Jeffrey Gettleman, State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump's Ban Draws I, 000 Signatures, New York Times (Jan. 31, 20 17).......................................................................... 11
Jens Manuel Krogstad & Jynnah Radford, Key Facts About Refugees to the U.S., Pew. Research Center (Jan. 30, 2017) .................................................................................... .24
Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa 0. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, ECF 28-2 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2017) ............................................................................ 12
Jon Greenberg, Christie says neighbors ofSan Bernardino shooters knew more than they did, (Jan. 28, 2016) .....................................................................................................4
Kareem Shaheen, Yemen death toll has reached 10,000, UN says, The Guardian (Jan.16,2017).......................................................................................................................... 19
Lara Jakes, Trump's Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced by 134 Foreign Policy Experts, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 11, 2017) ...................................................................................... 13
Laura Jarrett eta!., Trump Delays New Travel Ban After Well-Reviewed Speech, CNN (Mar. 1, 2017) .................................................................................................................26
Mapping the Global Muslim Population, PEW RESEARCH CENTER 2, 10 (Oct. 7, 2009) .................................................................................................................................... 16
Mariam Khan, Donald Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn Has Called Islam "a Cancer" (Nov. 18, 2016) ............................................................................................6
vii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 9 of 56
Matt Zapotosky, A New Travel Ban with 'Mostly Minor Technical Differences'? That Probably Won't Cut It, Analysts Say, WASH. POST (Feb. 22, 2017} .................................3
Matt Zapotosky, DHS Report Casts Doubt on Needfor Trump Travel Ban, WASH. POST (Feb. 24, 2017) ................................................................................................................25
Meet the Press, NBC NEWS (July 24, 2016) ....................................................................................5
Memorandum Opinion, Int 'l Refugee Assistance Project, slip op. at 21 .................................... ~ ..36
Miriam Valverde, No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel bans?, Politifact (Jan. 29, 2017) .....................................................................33
Nick Gass, Trump: 'Absolutely no choice' but to close mosques, POLITICO (Nov. 18, 2015) ..........................................................................................................................3
Peter Bergen & David Sterman, Trump 's travel ban wouldn 't have stopped these deadly terrorists, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017).................................................................................... 13
Phil McCausland & Hallie Jackson, Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline, NBC News (Mar. 6, 2017) .................................................26
Rebecca Savransky, Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban 'legally,' THE HILL (Jan. 29, 2017) .........................................................................................................5
Ron Nixon, More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Originally Said, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 31, 2017) ............................................................................................... 7
Ronn Blitzer, President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order, Law Newz (Mar. 6, 2017) ................................................................................................................24
Scott Shane, Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say, New York Times (Jan. 28, 2017) .................................................................................... .13
Senator Jefferson Sessions and Senator Ted Cruz, Letter to President Obama (June 14, 2014)............................................................................................ ,............................ 14
Statement by Senators McCain & Graham on Executive Order on Immigration (Jan. 29, 2017) ............................................................................................................................ 8
Steve Holland and Ginger Gibson, After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance · on Muslims (June 14, 2016) .......................................................................................................5
Steve Reilly, Bannon, Flynn and Sessions: How Trump's top advisers view Muslims, in their own words (Feb. 9, 2017) ..............................................................................6
Steve Reilly & Brad Heath, Steve Bannon's own words show sharp break on security issues (Jan. 31, 2017) ...................................................................................................6
Vlll

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 10 of 56 Sunni and Shi'a, BBC (Aug. 19, 2008) ......................................................................................... 16 Terrorism in America After 9/11, Part II: Who are the Terrorists?, New America..................... 13 Tom McCarthy, Steve Bannon's Islamophobic film script just one example of
anti-Muslim views (Feb. 3, 2017) ..............................................................................................6 Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech, POLITICO (Jun. 13, 2016,
3:06PM) .................................................................................................................................... 5 U.S. DEP'TOF STATE, CoUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM 2015 ................................................... 14
lX

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 11 of 56

The Universal Muslim Association of America and individual plaintiffs John and Jane

Doe respectfully request a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing

Defendants from implementing or enforcing sections 2 and 4 of President Donald J. Trump's

Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017), entitled "Protecting The

Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States" (the "replacement Executive

Order"). The replacement Executive Order and Defendants' implementation of it violate the

First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act

and its implementing regulations. Absent preliminary injunctive relief, the replacement

Executive Order and its implementation will irreparably harm Plaintiffs.

I.

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, the principle that all people are created equal is more than mere

words: It is the bedrock of our Constitution, and it is why so many people come from every part

of the world to make their lives in America. President Donald J. Trump's replacement Executive Order tramples on this constitutional
principle. If not restrained, the replacement Executive Order will inflict great harm on people for one reason and one reason alone: their chosen faith. Parents like the Does will remain separated from their children living in danger halfway around the world. Students who sought out educational opportunities in the United States will be denied contact with their families. People attempting to escape poverty, famine, and war will be denied the chance to make new lives in the land of opportunity. And all will suffer these consequences for the lone reason that they are

Muslim. At the same time, Muslims in America receive an impermissible message of disfavor.
The replacement Executive Order tells them that they are outsiders, not real Americans. It unequivocally conveys that the United States does not want or need Muslims-that America

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 12 of 56
would be better off if they were not here. And it ·cmnmunicates that America's rich religious tapestry has no space for Islam.
Our Constitution unequivocally prohibits all these messages. Yet one week into his presidency, President Trump barred from the United States nationals of seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries and implemented a system to ban even more Muslims from other countries in the future, thus fulfilling his campaign promise to exclude Muslims from the United States. See Executive Order 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). Within days, federal courts across the country held that President Trump's Muslim ban could not stand. See, e.g., Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017); Washington v. Trump, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W:D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, Case No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TC, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017).
Blocked in court, President Trump withdrew the first ban and issued its replacement: Executive Order 13,780. This replacement Executive Order continues to single out for disapprobation and exclusion persons from six of the same overwhelmingly Muslim countries, while creating special enhanced screening and exclusion procedures for persons from the seventh. By its own terms, the replacement Executive Order is the original Executive Order repackaged to "avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation" (Exec. Order 13,780 § 1(i))or, in President Trump's words, "a watered-down version of the first one." 1 But nothing of substance has changed. In the words of President Trump's Senior Policy Analyst, the
1 Alexander Bums, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump's Latest Travel Ban, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 15, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html; Declaration of David Weiner ("Weiner Decl."), attached hereto as Exhibit A,~ 3.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 13 of 56
replacement Executive Order is designed to produce, and does produce, the "same basic policy outcome" as the first: 2 the promised ban on Muslims.
The replacement Executive Order, if implemented, will inflict certain, imminent, irreparable, and unconstitutional harms on countless individuals. This Court should grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Muslim ban.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Mr. Trump's Pledge to Ban Muslims from the United States
Long before becoming President, then-candidate Donald Trump made discrimination against Muslim~ a cornerstone of his campaign.
On November 15, 2015, Mr. Trump stated that the United States would have "absolutely no choice" but to close down mosques, where "some bad things are happening."3 Three weeks later, on December 7, in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, Mr. Trump released a written statement, entitled "Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration," in which he called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."4 In other words, his first press release on immigration policy documented his belief that all Muslims should be categorically barred from entering the United States, based on his view that Muslims collectively bear hostile attitudes toward the United States and favor violent ideologies over the
2 Matt Zapotosky, A New Travel Ban with 'Mostly Minor Technical Differences'? That Probably Won't Cut It, Analysts Say, WASH. PosT (Feb. 22, 2017), http://wapo.st/2mmmECm; Weiner Decl. ~ 4. 3 Nick Gass, Trump: 'Absolutely no choice' but to close mosques, POLITICO (Nov. 18, 2015), http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008; Weiner Decl. ~ 5. 4 Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donaldj.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-iriunigration; Weiner Decl. ~ 6.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 14 of 56
American legal system. 5 The day after issuing the press release·, Mr. Trump defended his proposed Muslim ban, falsely accusing American Muslims of failing to report the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shooting.6
During a televised debate on January 14, 2016, when asked whether he had rethought his "comments about banning Muslims from entering the country," Mr. Trump unequivocally responded, "No."7 On March 9, 2016, in a televised interview, Mr. Trump stated, "I think Islam hates us .... [T]here's a tremendous hatred. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful. And we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States... and of people that are not Muslim." When asked ifhe made a distinction between Islam and radical Islam, Mr. Trump responded, "It's very hard to separate, because you don't know who is who."8
On June 13, after the attack on a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Mr. Trump, then the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for President, delivered a speech in which he accused Muslims of "trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how
5 As of the date of filing of this memorandum, this press release remains on the Donald J. Trump campaign website and on President Trump's Twitter page, which he has continued to use with regularity even after taking office. See Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 20 15), https://www. donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j. -trumpstatement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration, and https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/673993417429524480; Weiner Decl. ~ 7. 6 Jon Greenberg, Christie says neighbors ofSan Bernardino shooters knew more than they did, (Jan. 28, 20 16), http://www.politi[act. com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/28/chrischristie/christie-says-neighbors..,san-bernardino-shooters-kn/; Weiner Decl. ~ 8. 7 Gerhard Peters & John T. Wooley, Presidential Candidate Debates: Republican Candidates Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (Jan. 14, 2016), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=111395; Weiner Decl. ~ 9. 8Exclusive Interview with Donald Trump: Aired March 9, 2016-20:00 ET, CNN (Mar. 9, 20 16), http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1603/09/acd.O 1.html; Weiner DecI. ~ 10.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 15 of 56
wonderful Islam is."9 Mr. Trump also stated, "I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger, but now many are saying I was right to do so."10 Mr. Trump then pledged to suspend immigration where "there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats." 11 Later in the summer, he candidly explained that because "[p]eople were so upset when [he] used the word Muslim," he would henceforth be "talking territory instead ofMuslim."12
According to public statements made by the co-chair of Mr. Trump's transition team, Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump's reformulation of the "Muslim ban" into a ban on immigration from specific countri~s was the product of an instruction from Mr. Trump to find a way to implement the Muslim ban. According to Mr. Giuliani, "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally." 13
Key advisers and members of the Trump administration have also consistently espoused an anti-Muslim viewpoint. On August 10,2016, after the Republican Party had officially nominated Mr. Trump as its candidate for President, Mr. Trump's future first National Security
9Steve Holland and Ginger Gibson, After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims (June 14, 20 16), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCNOYZl GE; Weiner Decl. ~ 11. 10Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech, POLITICO (Jun. 13, 2016, 3:06PM), http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech224273; Weiner Decl. ~ 12. ''Jd. 12 Meet the Press, NBC NEWS (July 24, 2016), http://nbcnews.to/29TqPnp; Weiner Decl. Ex. ~ 13. 13See Rebecca Savransky, Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban 'legally,' THE HILL (Jan. 29, 2017), http:/lthehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-askedme-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally; Weiner Decl. Ex.~ 14.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 16 of 56
Advisor, Michael Flynn, referred to Islam as "a cancer" during remarks before an anti-Muslim group. 14 He made similar remarks at another speech later that month:. "This is Islamism, it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised."15 Steve Bannon, a key adviser to the Trump campaign and now White House Chief Strategist, has referred to Islam as "the most radical" religion16 and has declared that the United States is "at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism." 17 And Sebastian Gorka, appointed three days before the first travel ban as Deputy Assistant to the President and a member of the "Strategic Initiatives Group" tasked with advising the President outside the structure of the National Security Council, has stated in an interview with Mr. Bannon: "[W]hat the bad guys do-what al-Qaeda does or what ISIS is doing right now-is not fundamentally un-Islamic." 18
B. The January 27 Executive Order On January 27, 2017, less than a week after his inauguration, President Trump fulfilled
his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the United States by signing Executive
14 Mariam Khan, Donald Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn Has Called Islam "a Cancer" (Nov. 18, 20 16), http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-national-securityadviser-mike-flyim-called/story?id=43575658; Weiner Decl. 'i[15. 15 Andrew Kaczynski, Michael Flynn in August: Islamism a "vicious cancer" in body ofall Muslims that "has to be excised" (Nov. 22, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/2016111/22/politics/kfilemichael-f1ynn-august-speech/; Weiner Decl. 'j[16. 16 Steve Reilly & Brad Heath, Steve Bannon's own words show sharp break on security issues (Jan. 31, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/31/bannon-odds-islam-chinadecades-us-foreign-policy-doctrine/97292068/; Weiner Decl. 'j[17. 17 Tom McCarthy, Steve Bannon's Islamophobic film script just one example ofanti-Muslim views (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/steve-brumonislamophobia-film-script-muslims-islam; Weiner Decl. 'j[18. 18 Steve Reilly, Bannon, Flynn and Sessions: How Trump's top advisers view Muslims, in their own words (Feb. 9, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/09/how-some-trumpadvisors-see-islam-their-own-words/97662862/; Weiner Decl. 'i[19.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 17 of 56
Order 13,769. Among other things, this first Executive Order immediately, if temporarily, banned entry of all nationals from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), including lawful permanent residents ofthe United States. It also temporarily suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, gave priority to the refugee applications of "religious minorities"-which President Trump clarified was intended to benefit Christian refugees19-and indefinitely barred entry of Syrian refugees. It also mandated that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, collect and publicize information about "foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States" and "honor killings in the United States by foreign nationals." Exec. Order 13,769 § 10.
So zealously did the Trump administration act to ban Muslims from the country that it did not adequately inform or consult the senior (or any) government officials responsible for the country's defense and border security ahead of time, leading to chaos regarding the first Executive Order's implementation.20 U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officials immediately blocked both visa holders and lawful permanent residents from entering the country--even those who were already in transit when the first Executive Order was issued-without any consideration of the personal circumstances of the affected travelers.21 And the State Department, "in implementation of section 3(c) of the first Executive Order," issued a one-page
19 David Brody, Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority as Refugees, CBNNEWS (Jan. 27, 2017), http://bit.ly/2kCqG8M; Weiner Decl.
~20.
20 See Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. TDC-17-0361, slip. op at 5 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017). 21 See, e.g., Ron Nixon, More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Originally Said, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-banimmigrants-refugees.html; Weiner Decl. ~ 21.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 18 of 56
document "provisionally revok[ing] all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of' the seven designated majority-Muslim countries?2 That revocation affected tens of thousands of valid visas held by students, workers, and families, both in the United States and around the world-again with no consideration of individual circumstances.
The hasty implementation of the discriminatory policy sparked protests around the country and bipartisan criticism from members of Congress and other federal officeholders.23
The first Executive Order also spawned lawsuits across the country seeking immediate injunctive relief, including suits by States against the federal goveinment. The courts responded with injunctions to halt implementation. See; e.g., Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480, ECF 8 at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017); Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 462040, at 5; Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d at 1156; Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at 7-9, 20 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017).
C. The March 6 Executive Order In response to the Ninth. Circuit's ruling, President Trump declared his intention to
continue litigating the first Executive Order, tweeting to the Ninth Circuit, "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"24 One week later, however, the
22 See https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3440712-DOS-letter.html; Weiner Decl. ~ 22: 23 For example, on January 29, U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a statement that "[i]t is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump's executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security....This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security." Statement by Senators McCain & Graham on Executive Order on Immigration (Jan. 29, 2017); Weiner Decl.
~23.
24 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Feb. 9, 2017), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/829836231802515457; Weiner Decl. ~ 24.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 19 of 56
Department of Justice informed the Ninth Circuit that the Trump administration would instead withdraw and replace the first Executive Order with a "new substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns." Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Briefon En Bane Consideration, No. 17:35105, ECF 154 at 4 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017).
Meanwhile, however, the White House has repeatedly stated that the "revised" replacement Executive Order would remain effectively the same as the original. According to Stephen Miller, a White House Senior Policy Advisor, the revised Executive Order would include "mostly minor technical differences" but "fundamentally" reflect "the same basic policy outcome for the country."25 As President Trump himself put it, the replacement Executive Order is just "a watered-down version of the first one."26
On March 6, President Trump revoked Executive Order 13,769 and issued the replacement Executive Order, which bears the same name as the first: "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States." The replacement continues the ban on entry to the United States of persons from six ofthe same seven predominantly Muslim countries, while creating special enhanced procedures for addressing persons from the seventh.27 To be sure, the replacement purports to address some concrete failings of the original version that the courts have identified, such as the exclusion of legal permanent residents and those who already possess visas,28 but these changes do not address the basic defect: The replacement
25 See supra n. 2. 26 See supra n. 1. 27 Executive Order 13,780 §§ 1(f), 1(g), 2(c), 4. 28 !d. § 3(b).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 20 of 56
Executive Order is still, as President Trump and his surrogates have always intended, a Muslim ban. And despite the removal of Iraq from the list of targeted countries, the replacement Executive Order still affects nationals solely from countries that are more than 90% Muslim, and it does so with no valid national security justification. It also still contains increased vetting procedures for Iraqis and a requirement that Secretary of Homeland Security collect and publicize information related to "honor killings in the United States by foreign nationals." D. The Sham "National Security" Purpose of the Executive Orders
While national security is the stated purpose of both Executive Orders, the evidence is overwhelming that this is merely a pretext for discrimination. The first Executive Order was developed by the President's political advisors, without consulting the agencies tasked with the nation's security?9 Nor did the government present evidence in court of national-security threats that would support an absolute travel and immigration ban. See, e.g., Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d at 1168 n.7. (noting that "the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation" that would "justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated").
The first Executive Order did require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct an immediate review to determine the information needed from any country to make visa and immigration decisions, and to report to the President within thirty days a list of countries that do not provide adequate information30-the type of information that should have been gathered before all travel from the seven countries was prohibited. The thirty days for that review and report have come and gone, but no report has been disclosed to the public, presented to any 29 Evan Perez et al., Inside the Confusion ofthe Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017), http://cnn.it/2kGdcZy; Weiner Decl. ~ 25. 30 Executive Order 13,769 § 3(a), (b).
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 21 of 56
court, or referred to in the replacement Executive Order. Instead, according to a document published by the Associated Press on February 24, the Department of Homeland Security has concluded that citizenship from one of the seven countries identified in President Trump's first Executive Order is "unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity."31 And rather than complete its review of the information available to adjudicate admissions before issuing a replacement Executive Order, the administration reinstituted the ban and gave the Department of Homeland Security twenty more days to carry out the review. 32
What is more, current and former national security officials at all levels have expressed grave doubts regarding the stated purpose of the Executive Orders. Within days of the first Executive Order's issuance, more than 1,000 diplomats and other State Department officials, including current foreign service officers responsible for processing visas, signed a dissent cable warning that the travel ban "will not achieve its stated aim ... to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States" but instead will render the United States less safe from terrorist attacks.33
In a joint declaration filed in the Ninth Circuit, former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, stated:
31 See https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730-DHS-intelligence-document-onPresident-Donald.html (emphasis added); Weiner Decl. ~ 26. 32 Executive Order 13,780 § 2(a), (b). 33 Jeffrey Gettleman, State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump's Ban Draws I, 000 Signatures, New York Times (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/worldlamericas/state-deptdissent-cable-trump-immigration-order.html (Weiner Decl. ~27 ); Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438487/Dissent-Memo.pdf; Weiner Decl. ~ 28.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 22 of 56
We ... are ... unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of"protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States." To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests .... There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries.... [T]he Administration offers no reason why it abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested vetting system developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective.... The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national security partnerships.... As a national security measure, the Order is unnecessary.... [I]n our professional opinion, the January 27 Executive Order does not furtherbut instead harms-sound U.S. national security and foreign policy.34 And more than 100 former national security officials from both Republican and Democratic
administrations authored a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, then-Acting
Attorney General Sally Yates, and then-Acting Secretary of State Thomas Shannon to express concern regarding the "long-term damage to our national security" that the first Executive Order
would cause. The letter urged the cabinet to "recommend that the President revisit and rescind
34 Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa 0. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, ECF 28-2 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2017), http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/06/1735105%20opposition%20exhibit.pdf; Weiner Decl. ~ 29.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 23 of 56
this Order. Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people is inhumane, unnecessary and counterproductive from a security standpoint, and beneath the dignity of our great nation."35
The replacement Executive Order met with a similar response from the experts responsible for keeping the country safe. On March 10, more than 130 of the nation's foreign policy and national security officials wrote a letter to President Trump denouncing the replacement Executive Order as counterproductive to the nation's domestic security and strategic foreign interests.36
The replacement Executive Order's national-security justification purports to rely on a State Department report that focuses largely on conditions in each country.37 Yet the ban applies even to nationals who have not lived in or had any contact with those countries for decades. In addition, the replacement Executive Order does not explain why the six countries present a greater threat to national security than do other countries (or their nationals) also identified in the report but not covered by the ban. The replacement Executive Order purports to justify the
35 See https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalrefugeeletter01302017.pdf; Weiner Decl. ~ 30. See also Scott Shane, Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say, New York Times (Jan. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0l/28/us/politics/a-sweepingorder-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html (Weiner Decl. ~ 31 ), citing Charles Kurzman, Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism, 2016, Dep't of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Jan. 26, 2017), https :/Isites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2017/0 1/FINAL Kurzman MuslimAmerican Involvement in Violent Extremism 2016.pdf(Weiner Decl. ~ 32); Peter Bergen & David Sterman, Trump's travel ban wouldn't have stopped these deadly terrorists, CNN (Jan. 30, 20 17), http://www.cnn.com/20 17/01/30/opinions/travel-ban-wouldnt-have-stopped-thesedeadly-terrorists-bergen-sterman/ (Weiner Decl. ~ 33), citing Terrorism in America After 9111, Part II: Who are the Terrorists?, New America, https://www.newamerica.org/indepth/teiTorism-in-america/who-are-teiTorists/ (Weiner Decl. ~ 34). 36 Lara Jakes, Trump's Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced by 134 Foreign Policy Experts, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 11, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/politics/trump-travel-bandenounced-foreign-policy-experts.html; Weiner Decl. ~ 35. 37 Executive Order 13,780 § I(e).
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 24 of 56
selection of these countries by stating that each is "a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones." Executive Order§ 1(d). Yet numerous other countries-including many that are not Muslimalso meet these criteria, but are not included in the ban. 38
The replacement Executive Order's justifications also grossly and erroneously inflate the numbers of immigrants who have "prove[n] to be threats to our national security," purportedly relying on reports regarding the criminal activities of immigrants and refugees provided to the President by Attorney General Sessions.39 At least one of those reports refers to 580 individuals identified by the Department of Justice as being convicted of"terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2014."40 According to a CATO Institute study, however, "only 40 of the 580 convictions (6.9 percent) were for foreigners planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil."41
Moreover, the replacement Executive Order does not detail the number of these cases that involved the six countries included in the travel ban. Instead, it gives only two examples of refugees who were purportedly threats to national security, and neither supports the replacement Executive Order. The first example is of two Iraqi nationals convicted of terrorism offenses.
38 See U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM 2015, https://tinyurl.com/jap2fpf (classifying countries including Colombia and Venezuela as "Terrorist Safe Havens"); Weiner Decl. ~ 36. 39 Executive Order 13,780 § 1(e). 40 Senator Jefferson Sessions and Senator Ted Cruz, Letter to President Obama (June 14, 2014), https://web.archive.org/web/20 161109030307/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/ cache/file s/f9d1 d9f4-6ee8-42ff-a5f2-29a2518fe2f7/06.14.16-sens.-sessions-cruz-to-president-obama-onterrorism-immigration.pdf; Weiner Decl. ~ 37. 41 Alex Nowrasteh, Little National Security Benefit to Trump's Executive Order on Immigration, Cato Institute (Jan. 25, 2017), https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-tmmpsexecutive-order-immigration; Weiner Decl. ~ 38.
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 25 of 56
The travel ban, of course, no longer includes a categorical exclusion of Iraqis. The second example is a Somali national who entered the United States as a young child and was convicted of a terrorism offense many years later, as an adult.42 This single incident hardly qualifies as a basis to exclude all Somali visitors, immigrants, and refugees-to say nothing of individuals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen as well. And the inclusion of this example in the replacement Executive Order demonstrates that the ban is not based on any identifiable security risks but instead simply discriminates on the basis of faith and nationality.
In summary, although the language of the first Executive Order has been revised, the replacement is, as promised by White House aide Stephen Miller, "technically" different from but fundamentally the same as the first version, and it reflects the same purpose: to discriminate against Muslims. E. Effects of the Replacement Executive Order on Plaintiffs
1. UMAA The Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. ("UMAA") is the largest organization ofShi'a Muslims in the United States. Over seventeen thousand people subscribe to UMAA's weekly newsletters and its national convention draws more than three thousand attendees annually. UMAA maintains a national organization as well as local chapters across the country. UMAA also holds other events for the American Shi'a community throughout the year. Declaration of Azmat Husain ("Husain Decl."), attached hereto as Exhibit B, ~~ 4-5.
42 Gordon R. Friedman, Trump Used Failed Portland Car Bomb Plot as Justification for New Travel Ban, OREGONIAN (Mar. 7, 2017), http://bit.ly/2nt4aRV; Weiner Decl. ~ 39.
15

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 26 of 56
Shi'ism is the second largest denomination of Islam, comprising around ten to fifteen percent of the global and American Muslim populations.43 Shi'a Muslims believe in a hierarchical structure of religious clergy, with the most learned given the highest spiritual authority.44 While Shi'a adherents can be found in several nations, they form the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain and make up close to half of all Muslims in the Middle East.45 Shi'a Islam is distinct from other major religions in that all its major centers oflearning (/:lawza 'ilmfyya) are found in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. These three countries are also where some of the holiest sites of Shi'i Islam are located, drawing millions of Shia Muslims from across the world annually, including from the United States. In fact, the largest annual peaceful gathering on Earth occurs at Karbala, Iraq on the solemn Shia festival known as Arba'een; the event drew a reported 22 million pilgrims on a single day in 2013.46
UMAA regularly arranges for renowned Shi'a scholars to visit the United States so that they may speak at its events, including at UMAA's national convention. Because the most renowned Shi'a scholars reside in Iran and Iraq, nearly all the scholars invited to UMAA's events are Iranian or Iraqi. Husain Decl. ~~ 7-8, 12.
43 Mapping the Global Muslim Population, PEW RESEARCH CENTER 2, 10 (Oct. 7, 2009), http://www.pewforum.org/2009/1 0/07/mapping-the-global-muslimpopulation/#footnotes; Weiner Decl. ~ 40; Husain Decl. ~ 6. 44 See Sunni and Shi'a, BBC (Aug. 19, 2008), http://www.bbc.co.uk!religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sunnishia 1.shtml (explaining the clerical hierarchy in Shi'a Islam and how it differs from Sunni Islam, the other major Islamic denomination); Weiner Decl. ~ 41; Husain Decl. ~ 6. 45 Sunni and Shi 'a, supra n. 44. 46 Fotini Christia, Elizabeth Dekeyser, & Dean Knox, Shiites are participating in the world's largest pilgrimage today. Here's how they view the world, Washington Post (Nov. 21, 2016), https://v..rww.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/21/shiites-are-participating-inthe-worlds-largest-pilgrimage-today-heres-how-they-view-the-world/?utm terrn=.f253d3a5e9d7 (explains significance and size of annual Arbaeen festival); Weiner Decl. ~ 42; Husain Decl. ~ 6.
16

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 27 of 56
The replacement Executive Order harms UMAA and its members because it effectively prevents UMAA from bringing Shi'a clergy to the United States to speak at its events and thereby restricts American Shi'a Muslims' access to many of the learned figures of their faith. For example, UMAA had arranged for a renowned Shia eulogy reciter, Basim Karbalaei, an Iranian national, to visit the United States in February 2017 for an event in Michigan to commemorate the birthday of the granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad. UMAA had advertised for the event and sold some two thousand tickets. At that time, Mr. Karbalaei held a U.S. travel visa. After the first Executive Order, however, Mr. Karbalaei's visa was revoked and he was prohibited from traveling to the United States. UMAA was forced to cancel the event and issue refunds to people who had purchased tickets, at a cost of over $15,000. Husain Decl. ~~ 14-19.
More generally, the replacement Executive Order prevents UMAA from inviting Mr. Karbalaei to the United States to speak at future events, as his travel visa has now expired, and the order bars issuance of new visas to Iranian nationals. After the Ninth Circuit rejected the government's motion to stay the TRO on the first Executive Order, UMAA planned to invite Mr. Karbalaei to its 2017 national convention from June 30 to July 3 in Bethesda, Maryland, for which Mr. Karbalaei would have sought a new travel visa. But because of the replacement Executive Order, Mr. Karbalaei is unable to secure a visa, and UMAA will again be unable to bring him to the United States to speak to its members. Husain Decl. ~~ 9-11, 25.
The replacement Executive Order leaves UMAA unable to invite scholars to its upcoming national convention and other events. This inability to secure scholars has harmed UMAA's ability to advertise and draw attendees to its events and hence has inhibited UMAA's and its members' ability to practice their faith. For example, in previous years, UMAA has
17

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 28 of 56
advertised its national convention by providing prospective attendees with an advance schedule that lists the participating foreign scholars. This year, UMAA has been unable to advertise its event to include Iranians and Iraqis. Because these foreign scholars are one of the primary attractions for the national convention, the replacement Executive Order significantly harms UMAA's ability to attract attendees. Moreover, the enforcement of the replacement Executive Order's travel restrictions harms UMAA's members because they now cannot receive the teachings of their religion's most important scholars. Husain Decl. ,-r,-r 20-24.
The replacement Executive Order does include a discretionary "case-by-case" waiver provision, but this provision does not prevent harm to UMAA and its members. Because the replacement Executive Order applies to all Iranian nationals and because there is no guarantee that any particular applicant will be granted a waiver under the Order's stringent, largely undefined, and entirely discretionary standards, UMAA cannot determine which scholars to invite to its convention and other events because it does not know who might be granted a waiver. The additional scrutiny to which Iraqi visitors are subjected, see Executive Order 13,780 § 4, also leaves UMAA uncertain as to whether and when Iraqi scholars will be able to accept UMAA's invitation. Husain Decl. ,-r,-r 20-24, 26-27.
Finally, the replacement Executive Order harms UMAA and its members by preventing UMAA's members who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from bringing their family to live in the United States with them. Many ofUMAA's members are of Iranian or Iraqi descent and have pending petitions for their family members from those countries to obtain immigrant visas to come to the United States. Family members from the six countries will be unable to obtain these visas, and family members from Iraq will have increased difficulty in obtaining these visas. Husain Decl. ,-r,-r 28-29.
18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 29 of 56
2. The Doe Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Doe (the "Doe Plaintiffs") are Muslim Yemeni citizens who have asylum status in the United States. Declaration of John Doe #1 ("John Doe Decl."), attached hereto as Exhibit C, ~~ 2-3; Declaration of Jane Doe #1 ("Jane Doe Decl."), attached hereto as Exhibit D, ~~ 2-3. The replacement Executive Order harms the Does because it prevents them from bringing their two young sons from Yemen to the United States. In 2015, Yemen descended into civil war. The conflict, which is ongoing, has result~d in more than 10,000 civilian deaths and 40,000 civilian injuries.47 This year, United Nations officials reported that nearly 19 million Yemeni civilians need urgent assistance to protect their safety, dignity, and basic human rights.48 In early 2015, the Doe Plaintiffs came to the United States on visas with three oftheir children, but they could not afford to bring their other two children, ages 10 and 12, who therefore stayed behind in Yemen with their grandmother. John Doe Decl. ~~ 3-4; Jane Doe Decl. ~~ 3-4. While in the United States, Mr. Doe received word from Yemen that militants had threatened to kill him and his family if he returned. John Doe Decl. ~ 5; Jane Doe Decl. ~ 5. With the help of an immigration attorney, Mr. Doe successfully applied for asylum in the United States. John Doe Decl. ~ 6; Jane Doe Decl. ~ 6. Mr. Doe then petitioned for his children in Yemen to obtain visas to come to the United States based on their status as minor children of
47 Ahmed al-Haj, Yemen civil war: 10,000 civilians killed and 40,000 injured in conflict, UN reveals, The Independent (Jan. 17, 2017), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middleeast/yemen-civil-war-civilian-death-toll-1 0000-killed-40000-inj ured-con:flcit-un-revealsa7530836.html; Weiner Decl. ~ 43. 48 Kareem Shaheen, Yemen death toll has reached 10,000, UN says, The Guardian (Jan. 16, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/world/20 17/jan/16/yemen-war-death-toll-has-reached10000-un-says; Weiner Decl. ~ 44.
19

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 30 of 56
an asylee pursuant to Section 208(b)(3) of the INA. John Doe Decl. ~~ 8-9; Jane Doe Decl. ~ 8. Mr. Doe's petition was approved in late 2016. John Doe Decl. ~ 9.
In order to complete the visa application process, the Doe sons must be interviewed at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. Yemen does not have a U.S. consulate or embassy, however, requiring the children to travel to another country for their interviews. The Does arranged for the children to travel to Djibouti, where they both completed the medical examinations required for their visa interviews, but the State Department has yet to schedule those interviews. John Doe Decl. ~ 10; Jane Doe Decl. ~ 8. And though the replacement Executive Order provides for "caseby-case waivers" for individuals seeking admission to the United States if they can show, among other things, that their entry would be in the "national interest," Executive Order 13,780 § 3(c), the State Department has failed to respond to inquiries by the Does' immigration lawyer about the process of applying for a waiver. John Doe Decl. ~ 13. Living expenses in Djibouti are very high, and if the sons are not granted visas soon, they will have to return to Yemen, where their lives are in danger. John Doe Decl. ~ 12; Jane Doe Decl. ~ 9.
III. ARGUMENT To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must establish: (1) that they are likely to succeed on the merits oftheir claims; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) that injunctive relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); League ofWomen Voters ofthe United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs satisfy all four requirements. A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claims 1. The Replacement Executive Order Continues to Violate the Establishment Clause.
20

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 31 of 56
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and "mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion." Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). Despite this explicit constitutional requirement, the Trump administration has singled out Muslims for discriminatory treatment. By instituting a Muslim travel ban, the government has run roughshod over the First Amendment.
At least three tests apply in determining whether the replacement Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause. First, when the government acts to disfavor a particular religion, its conduct is subject to strict scrutiny and presumptively cannot stand. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 (1982). Second, this Court must review the government's action to determine whether it is endorsing religion or certain religious beliefs. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. . v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000). Third, the government's action must be evaluated under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 607 (1971), to determine, among other things, whether the government acted with a religious purpose and whether the effect of the government's action is to disfavor religion or a particular faith. The replacement Executive Order fails all three tests.
a. The Replacement Executive Order Fails the La:rson Test. "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Larson, 456 U.S. at 244; see also McCreary Cty., Ky. v. ACLU ofKy., 545 U.S. 844, 875 (2005) ("the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals"). When the government singles out one religion for unfavorable treatment, its action is subject to strict scrutiny.
21

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 32 of 56
In keeping with President Trump's campaign pledges, the replacement Executive Order singles out six countries that are overwhelmingly Muslim49 and bans nationals from those countries-i.e., Muslims-from entering the United States. This straightforward religious favoritism warrants "strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality," requiring that the government show that its action is the least restrictive means to serve a compelling interest. Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.
The government has sought to justify its denominational preference by citing nationalsecurity concerns and a need to "to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists." Executive Order § 3(c). While national security and preventing terrorism are compelling interests (see, e.g., Tabbaa v. Chertojf, 509 F.3d 89, 103 (2d Cir. 2007)), the replacement Executive Order must be "closely fitted to further th[ose] interest[s]" (Larson, 456 U.S. at 248). Yet its fit with the government's asserted interests is wholly absent. In more than forty years of recorded and carefullydocumented history, people from the six listed countries have not killed a single person in
terrorist attacks in the United States.5° The replacement Executive Order does not ban any of the
top five countries of origin of foreigners who have committed terrorism in the United States; nor does it address the threat of homegrown terrorism perpetrated by non-Muslims living in the United States.51 See id. Further, the replacement Executive Order does not cover any ofthe nonmajority-Muslim countries that the State Department has identified as "Terrorist Safe Havens."52
49 The population of each of these countries is over 90% Muslim. See CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook; Weiner Decl. ~ 45. 50 See Alex Nowrasteh, Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations Named in Trump Ban, NEWSWEEK (Jan. 31, 2017), http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-terrorists-come-notseven-countries-named-550581; Weiner Decl. ~ 46. 51 See id. 52 See supra n 38.
22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 33 of 56
Hence, as explained in Section II.D below, the replacement Executive Order is both overly broad and not broad enough to even potentially accomplish the goal of protecting the United States against terrorism, thus failing the narrow-tailoring requirement.
b. The Replacement Executive Order Fails the Endorsement Test. "[T]he government may not favor one religion over another" by endorsing one religion or condemning another. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 875. Both "perceived and actual endorsement of religion" violate the Establishment Clause. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 305. The question for this Court, therefore, is "'whether an objective observer ... would perceive" the government to have endorsed or shown disapproval of a particular faith. !d. at 308 (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 76 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring)). The hypothetical objective observer is "presumed to be familiar with the history of the government's actions and competent to learn what history has to show." McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866. Even officially repudiated past actions are not "dead and buried" but remain in the objective observer's memory, giving content to the latest governmental action. !d. at 870. As a matter oflaw, then, the public's understanding of the replacement Executive Order and the history of its introduction (including the issuance and enjoining of its forebear) must be considered in determining whether it is an unconstitutional religious endorsement. !d. at 866. Disapproval of Islam is apparent from the very text of the replacement Executive Order. Sections 1, 2, and 4 single out for unfavorable treatment individuals from seven nations with more than 90% Muslim populations. Section 4 requires additional screening procedures for people from Iraq, which is 99% Muslim. Section 6 temporarily suspends the entire U.S. refugee program, which disproportionately affects Muslims, who made up a plurality of all refugees
23

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 34 of 56

settled in the United States in 2016.53 Employing terminology that plays to anti-Muslim

stereotypes, Section 11 mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with

the Attorney General, collect and make publicly available information related to "foreign

nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States" and "honor killings in the United States by foreign nationals."54 The intention to disfavor Islam and

Muslims is clear.

The objective observer is also aware that both the original and the replacement Executive

Orders are rooted in President Trump's repeated promises of a Muslim ban, reiterated before and after his inauguration.55 Further, actions taken by President Trump and members of his

administration in issuing the replacement Executive Order serve only to reinforce the conclusion

that the replacement Executive Order serves the same discriminatory purpose as the previous

version did: First, President Trump initially announced that he would issue the replacement

Executive Order as a supplement to the original while continuing to litigate the original's

legality.

6 5

Second, the replacement Executive Order on its face states that its purpose is to

continue the work of its enjoined predecessor. See Executive Order§ 1(i). Third, as noted

53 Jens Manuel Krogstad & Jynnah Radford, Key Facts About Refugees to the US., Pew. Research Center {Jan. 30, 2017), http://pewrsr.ch/2kk7r08; Weiner Decl. ~ 47.
54 Farhana Khera & Johnathan Smith, Don't Be Fooled, Trump's New Muslim Ban Is Still Illegal, New York Times (Mar. 6, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/dont-be-fooledtrumps-new-muslim-ban-is-still-illegal.html? r=O (Weiner Decl. ~ 48); Aziz Huq, The "Travel Ban" Executive Order as Separation-of-Powers Test Case, Just Security (Mar. 10, 2017), https://www.justsecurity.org/38675/travel-ban-executive-order-separation-of-powers-test-case/ (Weiner Decl. ~ 49).
55 See Hawaii v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, slip op. at 33-36 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017).
56 Ronn Blitzer, President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order, Law Newz (Mar. 6, 20 17), http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-president-trump-signs-new-executive-order-onimmigration-ends-indefinite-ban-on-syrian-refugees/; Weiner Decl. ~50.

24

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 35 of 56
above, Stephen Miller, the President's Senior Policy Advisor, stated outright that the replacement Executive Order would have the "same basic policy outcome" as the earlier version.57 And fourth, President Trump has made clear that the replacement Executive Order is just a "watered-down version of the first one," and that he would prefer "to go back to the first one."58
The objective observer also knows from the government's own reports, widely disseminated statements by national security experts, both within and outside the government, and extensive media reportage that although the stated purpose of both Executive Orders is national security, the first Executive Order was drafted not by President Trump's national security advisors or other policy experts but instead by Trump's political advisors, who, as explained above, have publicly expressed hostility toward Islam.59 And although the identities of the drafters of the replacement Executive Order are not publicly known, the Department of Homeland Security itself has determined that "citizenship is an 'unreliable' threat indicator and that people from the seven [now six] countries have rarely been implicated in U.S.-based terrorism,"60 suggesting once again that those who are actually knowledgeable about national security had no role in the drafting -leaving no plausible justification for the measure.
In addition, the objective observer is aware that the timing of the replacement Executive Order conflicts with its stated purpose of increasing national security. When the federal court in the Western District of Washington issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on the first
57 See supra n. 2. 58 See supra n. 26. 59 See supra ns. 14-18. 60 Matt Zapotosky, DHS Report Casts Doubt on Needfor Trump Travel Ban, WASH. PosT (Feb. 24, 2017), http://wapo.st/210kpKW; Weiner Decl. ~51.
25

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 36 of 56
travel ban on February 3, President Trump declared that the government needed to take immediate measures to prevent imminent threats of terrorist acts.61 The administration then promised several dates for the issuance of a replacement executive order-but missed all of them. Finally, an administration official announced that the President would issue his replacement Executive Order the day after his first address to a joint session ofCongress.62 After favorable press response to his speech, however, President Trump delayed his plans yet again so that the replacement Executive Order could "have its own 'moment'"63-which really meant to allow the President to have his own moment, before having to face widespread condemnation of his renewed attempt at his Muslim ban.
Ultimately, the replacement Executive Order communicates to the world that Muslims are not welcome in the United States, sending the message that the federal government condemns Islam and that it perceives Muslims as "outsiders, not full members of the political community." Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 309-10. It also sends the message that all Muslims bear collective responsibility and are under collective suspicion for what others have done, purportedly in the name of Islam. Yet "to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system oflaw individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights." Korematsu v.
61 See, e.g., Darlene Superville, Trump lashes Out at Federal Judge Over Ruling on Travel Ban, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Feb. 4, 2017), http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-andpolitics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-travel/article 40fcf6cf-8dd3-5ffla561-d0897195aecO.html; Weiner Decl. ~52. 62 Phil McCausland & Hallie Jackson, Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline, NBC News (Mar. 6, 2017), http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trumpexpected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186; Weiner Decl. ~53. 63 Laura Jarrett et al., Trump Delays New Travel Ban After Well-Reviewed Speech, CNN (Mar. 1, 20 17), http://www.ctm.com/20 17/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/; Weiner Decl.
~54.
26

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 37 of 56

United States, 323 U.S. 214,240 (1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting).· Collective maltreatment on the

basis of faith sends the strongest possible message that a religion is disfavored-evoking some of

the most sordid episodes in American history: "Jewish-Americans during the Red Scare,

African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement, and Japanese-Americans during World

War II are examples that readily spring to mind." Hassan v. City ofNew York, 804 F.3d 277,

309 (3d Cir. 2015). That message is not one that our government can or should convey.

c.

The Replacement Executive Order Fails the Lemon Test.

The replacement Executive Order likewise violates the Establishment Clause under the

test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971), which requires that a

governmental action must have both a preeminently secular purpose and a "principal or primary

effect ... that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Failure to satisfy either requirement

constitutes a violation ofthe Establishment Clause. !d. at 612-13.

1. Pumose Again, the Trump administration contends that the purpose of the replacement Executive

Order is to protect the United States "from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals"64-an ostensibly secular rationale. When the government asserts a secular

purpose, however, the reviewing court must ensure that it is "genuine, not a sham, and not

merely secondary to a religious objective." McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864. The reviewing court

must account for the origin and implementation of the policy,.its evolution over time, and

contemporaneous statements of relevant decision-makers. Bonham v. D. C. Library Admin., 989

F.2d 1242, 1244-45 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The court must also scrutinize all "probative evidence,"

64 Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States
(Mar. 6, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-orderprotecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states; Weiner Decl. ~55.

27

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 38 of 56
exercise "common sense," and refuse "to tum a blind eye to the context in which the policy arose." McCreary, at 866. In doing so, the court should look carefully at the "historical context" of the government's action and "the specific sequence of events leading to [its] passage." !d.
Here, the text, history, implementation, and express statements of purpose leave no room for doubt that the replacement Executive Order's true aim is to discriminate against Muslims-in other words, to "endorse or disapprove of religion." Wallace v. Jaffrey, 472 U.S. 38,75-76 (1985).
The stated secular purpose for the replacement Executive Order is an after-the-fact rationalization that is not, and cannot be, substantiated. Cf Hawaii, slip op. at 35-36.
The purported rationale of the protecting national security is belied by the process by which the Executive Orders were developed-by political advisers, without input from the Department of Homeland Security or other national-security experts, and without evidence that the targeted countries presented a threat warranting an absolute travel ban. See Int 'l Refugee Assistance Project, slip op. at 35. The first Executive Order's sweeping application to legal permanent residents, many of whom have been in the United States for years and know no other home, reveals a political intention to ban as many Muslims as possible-an impermissible purpose that taints the replacement Executive Order as well. The decision to ban first and gather evidence later-and then to ban once again before the evidence has come in-further demonstrates that the administration's true objective is unrelated to any legitimate nationalsecurity considerations. Cf id. at 36 ("[T]hat the national security rationale was offered only after courts issued injunctions against the First Executive Order suggests that the religious purpose has been, and remains, primary.").
28

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 39 of 56
This Court need only review statements made by President Trump and his advisors to understand the replacement Executive Order's unstated premise: the false proposition, explicitly stated in the first Executive Order, that Muslims, because of their faith, are likely to "bear hostile attitudes toward [the United States] and its founding principles."65 This baseless, irrational animus toward Muslims has been part of the fabric of the replacement Executive Order since its conception.
"Just as the Supreme Court has held that 'the world is not made brand new every morning[,]' a person is not made brand new simply by taking the oath of office." Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *8 (quoting McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866) (alteration in original). A reasonable .observer-indeed, anyone even vaguely aware of President Trump's campaign pledges and his statements and actions since taking office-would perceive the replacement Executive Order as disapproval of Islam. In short, "any reasonable, objective observer would conclude ... that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims." Hawaii, slip op. at 36 (quoting McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864); see also Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, slip op. at 35 ("the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban"). The President's incantation of national security-absent any evidence that the travel ban is necessary for, or even beneficial to, national security-cannot be taken at face . value.
2. Effect The replacement Executive Order also violates Lemon's secular-effect requirement by inhibiting Islam and advancing other faiths for the reasons explained above. See Section 111.1.b.
65 Executive Order 13,780 § 1.
29

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 40 of 56
The effect requirement is violated whenever governmental action "is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by nonadherents as disapproval, of their individual religious choices." Jewish War Veterans ofthe United States ofAmerica, Inc. v. Gates, 506 F. Supp. 2d 30, 45 (D.D.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting County ofAllegheny v ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 597 (1989) (plurality opinion of Blackmun, J.)). "What counts is the ... effect on a 'reasonable observer"' ... who is "'deemed aware of the history and context of the community and forum."' Jewish War Veterans, 506 F. Supp. 2d at 45 (quoting Capital Square Review & Advisory Bd v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-80 (1995)). Thus, just as the Executive Order violates the Endorsement Test because a reasonable observer familiar with its history would perceive it as a measure geared to disfavoring Islam rather than genuinely promoting national security, it likewise violates Lemon's principal-effect requirement.
3. The Replacement Executive Order Continues to Violate Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Rights Under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component that prohibits the government from "invidiously discriminating between individuals or groups." Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). It applies equally to both citizens and noncitizens. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202,210 (1982). The replacement Executive Order violates the Due Process Clause by discriminating without adequate justification against the Does, UMAA, and UMAA's members on the basis of religion and national origin.
a. Religion To demonstrate a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against unequal treatment of protected groups, Plaintiffs need not show that the intent to discriminate against Muslims "was the sole purpose of the challenged action, but only that it was a 'motivating
30

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 41 of 56
factor."' Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 978 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Vill. ofArlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev.· Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977)). "When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, ... judicial deference is no longer justified." Vill. ofArlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265-66.
The replacement Executive Order violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component by discriminating against potential immigrants and visitors on the basis of religion without adequate justification. Classifications based on religion are inherently suspect and trigger strict scrutiny as a matter of equal protection just as denominational preferences do under the Establishment Clause. See Hassan v. City ofNew York, 804 F.3d 277, 299 (3d Cir. 2015) (religion is an inherently suspect distinction); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677, 689 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("Classifications based on race or religion, of course, would trigger strict scrutiny."). While the replacement Executive Order does not explicitly discriminate against Muslims, it is clearly motivated by animus toward Muslims and disproportionately affects Muslims, including Muslims living in the United States who either wish to hear Muslim scholars or are applying for Muslim family members to join them in the United States.
The record unequivocally demonstrates that the purpose and effect of the replacement Executive Order are to ban Muslims from entering the country: The President's advisors publicly stated that the first Executive Order was the culmination ofthe President's campaign promise to institute a Muslim ban and that the geographic criteria were an attempt to mask (or simply relabel) the first Executive Order's true purpose. Cf Vill. ofArlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267 ("The historical background of the decision is one evidentiary source [of purpose], particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes," and "[t]he
31

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 42 of 56
specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision also may shed some light on the decisionmaker's purposes").
The replacement Executive Order was also the product of procedural and substantive departures from usual decision-making- further evidence of discriminatory purpose. !d. at 266 ("Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role. Substantive departures too may be relevant, particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached."). The President's replacement Executive Order is parallel to the first, which was itself issued in a highly unusual manner, without consultation with the government officials responsible for the country's defense and border security. Moreover, the President delayed issuance of the replacement Executive Order so that he could ride a wave of positive press coverage for a speech, belying his claim that it is urgently needed for national-security reasons.66 And the President's own Department of Homeland Security has determined that suspending nationals of the six countries will not promote national security.
Further, the replacement Executive Order disproportionately affects Muslims: more than 90% of the citizens of the listed countries are Muslim.67 Cf Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976) ("an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if it is true, that the law bears more heavily on one [protected class] than another"). And the replacement Executive Order's impact on Shi'a Islam is especially pronounced. As so many prominent Shi'a scholars are based in Iran, the free flow of communication and ideas central to development of and instruction in the theology of Shi'a
66 See supra n. 63. 67 See supra n. 49.
32

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 43 of 56
Islam will be impaired by a ban on Iranian nationals entering the United States. Furthermore, the ban may cause Shi'a Muslims to avoid traveling to study with Shi'a scholars for fear of not being able to return home afterwards.
The disparate impact of, and the discriminatory intent behind, the replacement Executive Order both trigger strict scrutiny review. Vill. ofArlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-67. Under strict scrutiny, the Government must show that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Regents ofUniv. ofCal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 357 (1978). As already explained it cannot do so here.
Though the prevention of terrorism is a compelling interest, the replacement Executive Order is wildly over- and under-inclusive and, therefore fails strict scrutiny. C.f Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 641 (1973) ("It is at once apparent, however, that appellants' asserted justification proves both too much and too little."). Not a single recent, fatal terrorist attack in the United States has been committed by nationals of any ofthe six listed nations. Conversely, countries not listed have produced multiple terrorists who have killed Americans on U.S. soil.68 As already explained, the replacement Executive Order is both overly broad and not broad enough to even potentially accomplish the goal of protecting the United States against terrorism.
b. National Origin. The replacement Executive Order also discriminates on the basis of national origin: it explicitly treats people differently based on national origin by limiting access to U.S. immigration benefits by nationals and citizens of one of six listed countries. By discriminating 68 Alex Nowrasteh, Guide to Trump's Executive Order to Limit Migration for "National Security" Reasons (Jan. 26, 2017), https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-orderlimit-migration-national-security-reasons (Weiner Decl. ~56); Miriam Valverde, No terrorist attacks post 9111 by people from countries in Trump's travel bans?, Politifact (Jan. 29, 2017), http://www.politifact.com!truth-o-meter/statements/2017/j an/29/j errold-nadler/have-there-beenterrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/; Weiner Decl. ~57.
33

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 44 of 56
against people of certain nationalities who are seeking to enter the United States, the replacement Executive Order also discriminates against people (including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents) like the Does and UMAA members who are in the United States and are petitioning for their family members to join them. The family members in the United States are very likely to be of the same national origin as the people excluded by the replacement Executive Order for whom they are petitioning.
National origin is a suspect class, discrimination on the basis of which triggers strict scrutiny. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372 (1971) ("Classifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny" (emphasis added)); City ofCleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985) (holding that national origin-based classifications trigger strict scrutiny because they are "deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy-a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others"). As demonstrated above, none of the Government's proffered rationales is sufficient to withstand this review.
4. The Replacement Executive Order Violates PlaintiffUMAA's and Its Members' First Amendment Right to Receive Information and Ideas.
The replacement Executive Order also violates the First Amendment rights ofUMAA and its members by restricting their ability to receive information and ideas from religious leaders and other speakers who would ordinarily travel from the six countries designated in the Executive Order to meet with and present to UMAA members. The Supreme Court has long held that "the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom (of speech and press) ... necessarily protects the right to receive" information. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-63 (1972) (quoting Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969)). Thus the Court has held that the denial of a visa to a foreign scholar implicated the First
34

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 45 of 56
Amendment rights of the university professors who invited him to speak. !d. The Court emphasized the value of"sustained, face-to-face debate, discussion and questioning," and rejected the government's argument that the First Amendment was not implicated because the university professors had access to Mandel's ideas through books, speeches, tapes and phone. conversations. !d.; see also Am. Acad. ofReligion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 137 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that "[t]he Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right to 'hear, speak, and debate with' a visa applicant").
Likewise, the replacement Executive Order here infringes on the First Amendment right ofUMAA and its members to receive information and ideas. The second Executive Order prevents UMAA from inviting Basim Karbalaei and others to the United States to speak at its events, including its national convention, because they are barred from obtaining visas. See, e.g., Am. Acad. ofReligion, 573 F.3d at 115. The replacement Executive Order thus also prohibits UMAA's members from hearing from their religion's most renowned scholars.
The Supreme Court has held that "when 'speech' and 'nonspeech' elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms." United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968). The court then must apply intermediate scrutiny, under which
a government regulation is constitutional if it is (1) it is within the constitutional power of the Government; (2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; (4) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest; and (5) the regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. The failure to satisfy any prong of the test invalidates the regulation.
35

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 46 of 56
Edwards v. District ofColumbia, 755 F.3d 996, 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The second and fourth parts of this test require that the government action be "narrowly tailored to further a substantial government interest." !d. Narrow tailoring requires the Government to show that "the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree." !d. Substantial overbreadth and underinclusiveness defeat intermediate scrutiny. !d. at 1008-9. In light of the facts outlined in Section II, the replacement Executive Order fails intermediate scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to further the President's asserted interest in national security.
5. The Replacement Executive Order Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act The replacement Executive Order also violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INA provides, "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). The replacement Executive Order violates this clear prohibition by denying visas-including immigrant visas-to nationals of the six countries, Executive Order 13,780 § 2(c), and subjecting visa applicants from a seventh country, Iraq, to "additional scrutiny," Executive Order §§ 1(g), 4. Although section 2(c) expressly suspends only "entry" of nationals from the six countries, it is clear from the text of the Order and its implementation that the President is also suspending the issuance of visas to nationals of these countries. Indeed, the government recently acknowledged to another court that "as a result of the Second Executive Order, any individual not deemed to fall within one of the exempt categories, or to be eligible for a waiver, will be denied a visa." Memorandum Opinion, Jnt'l Refugee Assistance Project, slip op. at 21.69
69 The text of the replacement Executive Order confirms the government's admission. The stated purpose of the suspension on entry is to allow the government to determine whether additional
36

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 47 of 56
UMAA has standing to challenge the Executive Order's violation of the INA because it has members who have pending petitions for their relatives to obtain immigrant visas to travel to the United States. Husain Decl. ~ 28. See Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep 't ofState, 45 F.3d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (holding that U.S. resident sponsors had standing to assert that the State Department's failure to process visa applications of Vietnamese citizens violated 8 U.S.C. § 1152), vacated on other grounds by US. Dept. ofState, Bureau of Consular Affairs v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc., 519 U.S. 1 (1996).
In the Executive Order, the President contends that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) provide legal authority for excluding nationals from six nations. See Executive Order § 2(c). The government is incorrect. Section 1182(f) authorizes the president to suspend the entry of aliens under certain circumstances, while§ 1185(a) makes it unlawful for aliens to "enter ... the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders ... as the President may prescribe." Both provisions, enacted in 1952, are limited by the specific probation against discrimination in§ 1152(a)(1)(A), enacted thirteen years later. See Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992) ("[I]t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general."); Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1024 (1984) (recognizing that a later enacted, more specific statute amends an earlier, more general statute). As the D.C. Circuit observed, "Congress could hardly have chosen more explicit language" in crafting§ 1152's antidiscrimination mandate. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, 45 F.3d at 473 information is needed to adjudicate visa applications to ensure that the applicant is not a security threat, and to "temporarily reduce investigative burdens on the relevant agencies during the review period." See Executive Order No. 13,780 § 2, 2(c). That purpose would be ill-served by a rule that required government officials to continue adjudicating visa applications while denying entry at the border. The "waiver" provision further reflects that the suspension on entry is in fact a halt on the issuance of visas, as it allows government officials to "decide on a case-by-case basis to authorize the issuance ofa visa to ... a foreign national for whom entry is otherwise suspended." Executive Order No. 13,780 § 3(c) (emphasis added).
37

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 48 of 56
(holding that the State Department's interpretation and application of its regulation to discriminate against Vietnamese on the basis of their nationality violated§ 1152). The legislative history ofthe 1965 INA, including§ 1152, confirms its broad anti-discriminatory purpose. The INA was "passed alongside the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965" and its legislative history "is replete with the bold anti-discriminatory principles of the Civil Rights Era." Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31, 37 (D.D.C. 1997). Sections 2(c) and 4 of the replacement Executive Order therefore violate the INA's prohibition against discrimination against national origin in the issuance of immigrant visas. See Int 'l Refugee Assistance Project, slip op. at 24 (holding that plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the second Executive Order violates§ 1152(a) as to the issuance of immigrant visas).
6. The Limited Review Applied in Kleindienst v. Mandel Does Not Apply to Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims.
In defending the first Executive Order, the President argued that the justification for the Order need only be "facially legitimate and bona fide" within the language of Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769 (1972), to survive a constitutional challenge. But as the Ninth Circuit held in rejecting that argument, the more limited standard of review does not apply to the "President's promulgation of sweeping immigration policy." Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 2017). Rather, limited review was warranted in Mandel only because the lawsuit challenged "an executive branch official's decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the application ofa congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application." Id. (emphasis added). In Mandel, the Court emphasized that deference was appropriate because the Attorney General, in denying a single visa, had "exercised the plenary power that Congress delegated to the Executive." 408 U.S. at 769. In contrast, the
38

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 49 of 56
replacement Executive Order is not a valid exercise of plenary power over particular visas delegated by Congress; rather, the Order is a violation of an express statutory prohibition.
The replacement Executive Order purports to borrow the list of countries from a list already compiled by Congress and the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security pursuant to statutory authorization. See Executive Order 13,780 § 1(b)(i). This justification ignores the purpose of the existing list, which was simply to exclude the six countries (and Iraq) from the streamlined entry procedures of the Visa Waiver Pro.gram,70 not to block the entry of people from these countries altogether. There is no congressional authorization flatly to ban nationals of the six countries from the United States or subject nationals of a seventh to extreme vetting. Because the replacement Executive Order is not applying a congressional delegation of powerand in fact violates the INA-the limited review applied in Mandel does not apply here.
Even if the court were to apply Mandel's limited review, however, the replacement Executive Order would still fail the test. Government action is not "bona fide," within the language of Mandel, if it is taken in bad faith. See Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2141 (2015) (Kennedy, J. concurring) (courts may "look behind" the government's stated purpose if there is an affirmative showing of bad faith on the part of the executive official whose actions are being challenged); Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1172 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that a plaintiff may demonstrate that the reason given for a government action was not "bona fide" by making "an affirmative showing of bad faith"); Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204, 212 (2d Cir. 1982) (noting that discrimination "against a particular race or group" would not be "legitimate and bona fide within the meaning of Kleindienst v. Mandel").
70 The Visa Waiver Program ("VWP") permits nationals of certain countries to enter the United States without a visa on the condition that they agree to waive their rights to contest their removal on any ground except asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b)(2).
39

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 50 of 56
Plaintiffs have amply demonstrated bad faith. The text of the replacement Executive Order and its predecessor, the Order's timing, and the President's statements over the course of the past year and a half demonstrate that the replacement Executive Order is motivated by animus against. Muslims, not by reasoned national security concerns. Indeed, the replacement Executive Order continues to target seven majority Muslim countries even in the face of the government's own determination showing that national origin is not a predictor of terrorist intent, and despite expert opinions that the replacement Executive Order will sow further mistrust and hostility in the international community and make us less safe. The replacement Executive Order therefore fails even the limited level of review applied in Mandel. See Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TC, ECF 11 at 16 (holding that Mandel's standard did not apply to the first Executive Order issued on Jan. 27, but that even if it did, the "proffered reason for the EO [was not] the real reason"). B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Immediate, Irreparable Harm Absent Preliminary Injunctive
Relief Without preliminary relief from this Court, Plaintiffs are at serious risk of immediate and irreparable harm. As an initial matter, irreparable harm is presumed because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their Establishment Clause claim. See, e.g., Mills v. District ofColumbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("loss of constitutional freedoms, 'for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury"'), quoting Elrodv. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality); Chaplaincy ofFull Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("[W]here a movant alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause, this is sufficient, without more, to satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purposes of the preliminary injunction determination.").
40

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 51 of 56
Although the constitutional violations suffice to demonstrate irreparable harm, Plaintiffs will suffer additional harms if the replacement Executive Order is not enjoined. For example, without an injunction, the Doe Plaintiffs' sons will be unable to travel to the United States, forcing them to return to extremely dangerous conditions in Yemen, and the Doe Plaintiffs will continue to suffer the pain of an already traumatic family separation. UMAA will continue to be unable to recruit prominent scholars and speakers for its events, including its upcoming national convention, which is the organization's largest annual fundraiser. UMAA's members will be unable to access scholars whose teachings are important to the practice of these members' faith. UMAA' s members will also continue to be separated from their families, who will be unable to obtain immigrant visas to come to the United States. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1169 (9th Cir. 2017), reconsideration en bane denied, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 992527 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017) (noting that the separation of families is an irreparable harm).
The possibility of a waiver is no answer because simply being forced to apply for a waiver--on an illegitimate and discriminatory basis through a special, more onerous procedure-is itself a cognizable harm imposed by the replacement Executive Order. The replacement Executive Order creates greater procedural hurdles for the Does and UMAA while simultaneously conveying a message of disfavor on the basis of religion and nationality. See Int 'l Refugee Assistance Project, slip op. at 16. C. The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Support Preliminary Relief
The balance of equities and the public interest, which "merge when the Government is the opposing party," see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009), also support preliminary injunctive relief. The government has no legitimate interest in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws or actions by the President. United States v. US. Coin & Currency, 401
41

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 52 of 56
U.S. 715, 726 (1971). Rather, "enforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest." Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Any alleged national security justification for enforcement of the replacement Executive Order is mere pretext for invidious religious discrimination. As noted, the Department of Homeland Security's findings support that conclusion, and the Trump administration has provided not a shred of credible evidence to the contrary.
Simply put, the replacement Executive Order cannot be squared with long-standing U.S. immigration policy and, as recognized by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham in analyzing the first Executive Order, it is likely to "do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."71 The United States has fought for decades to promote religious freedom and to condemn terrorism, including by governments of some of the countries identified in the replacement Executive Order. But banning nationals of those countries from traveling to the United States, regardless of where they are actually residing or what the circumstances of their requests for entry might be, does nothing to protect the safety of Americans. 72
Ultimately, the replacement Executive Order treats all the nationals of all six countries as proponents of "radical Islam" who intend to carry out terrorist acts against the United States. This invidious stereotyping is offensive to those who trace their roots to these countries and to the Muslim community at large. Nothing about the replacement Executive Order is in the interest of the American public. Plaintiffs therefore have a strong and overriding interest in 71 David Caplan and Benjamin Siegel, Trump Spars With Sens. McCain and Graham After They Criticize Travel Ban (Jan. 29, 2017), http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/handful-gop-senatorsrepresentatives-criticize-trump-travel-ban/story?id=45121595; Weiner Decl. ~58. 72 See, e.g., Hadi Ghaemi, Opinion, Trump's Travel Ban Is a Gift to Iran's Rulers, WASH. POST (Jan. 29, 2017), http://wapo.st/2kDw1NR; Weiner Decl. ~59.
42

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 53 of 56

obtaining preliminary relief and in enjoining the enforcement of a policy that infringes on their basic constitutional rights. The public shares that interest: "It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." Simms v. District ofColumbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). No other remedy exists that will adequately protect the individuals harmed by the replacement Executive Order.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be granted.

Dated: March 23, 201 7

By: Davi . Weiner #499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar #1022256) Amanda Johnson (application for admission pending) ARNOLD &PORTERKAYE SCHOLERLLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David. weiner(a{apks.com Charles. blanchard@apks.com Amanda. johnson@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (pro hac vice admission forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 Facsimile: (312) 583-2360 Emily.dillingham@apks.com

43

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 54 of 56
Andrew D. Bergman (pro hac vice admission forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 Andrew.bergman@apks.com Kimberly Gelfand (pro hac vice admission forthcoming) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLERLLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 Kimberly.gelfand@apks.com
44

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 55 of 56
Johnathan Smith (application for admission pending) Aziz Huq (pro hac vice application forthcoming) MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-1484 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org hug@chicago.edu
Gillian B. Gillers (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Naomi R Tsu (pro hac vice application forthcoming) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 gillian.gillers(a)splcenter.org kristi. graunke@spIcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar #474250) Bradley Girard (application for admission pending) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-3234 Facsimile: (202) 466-3353 Katskee@au.org Girard@au.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
45

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-1 Filed 03/27/17 Page 56 of 56
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF pmiicipante indicated on the attoche<l Manual Noti~~
~David J. Weiner Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 60 l Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 David.weiner@apks.com
46

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-2 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA and JOHN and JANE DOE, )

)

Plaintiffs,

) Civil Action No.: - - - - - - - -
)

V.

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity )

as President of the United States; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN

)

KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary )

of the Department of Homeland Security; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official )

capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. )

Customs and Border Protection; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as

~ )

Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON

BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the

~ )

United States,

)

Defendants.

) )

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Court, having considered Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction ("Motion") and any opposition thereto, and find that good cause appears,

orders as follows: 1. Sections 2 and 4 of Executive Order No. 13, 780 violate the Constitution and laws

ofthe United States. 2. Defendants are hereby temporarily restrained and preliminarily enjoined, across

the Nation, from:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-2 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 4
a. Enforcing Sections 2 and 4 of Executive Order No. 13,780, including at any United States embassy, consulate, border, or point of entry;
b. Applying Sections 2 or 4 of Executive Order No. 13,780 to deny, revoke, restrict, cancel, or delay issuance of any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa;
c. Applying Sections 2 or 4 ofExecutive Order No. 13,780 to deny or suspend entry or admission to the United States to any person;
d. Applying Sections 2 or 4 of Executive Order No. 13,780 to prohibit any person from applying for any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965;
e. Denying any person subject to the Executive Order access to legal counsel of his or her choice;
f. Applying Sections 2 or. 4 of Executive Order No. 13,780 to instruct any airline or other common carrier to deny passage to any person; and
g. Imposing or threatening to impose any financial penalty on any airline or other common carrier for allowing passage to any person covered by Executive Order No. 13,780.
3. Defendants will promptly reissue any and all visas physically cancelled pursuant to Executive Order No. 13,780.
4. Defendants will instruct the consular officials handling the visa applications of the Doe children to schedule their visa interviews within 10 calendar days of the entry of this Order and to adjudicate those visa applications within 7 calendar days of their interviews.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-2 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 4
5. Defendants will process without undue delay visa applications submitted by nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
6. · Defendants will promptly provide written guidance to employees, contractors, and agents ofthe Department ofHomeland Security, the Department of State, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and all other necessary U.S. government officials and entities to ensure full and timely compliance with this Order. Defendants will promptly post such written guidance on federal government websites, including but not limited to www.whitehouse.gov, www.dhs.gov, www.state.gov, www.doj.gov, and www.cpb.gov.
7. Defendants will promptly rescind any guidance, directive, memorandum or statement interpreting or applying Executive Order 13,780 that conflicts with any term of this Order. Defendants will promptly post such rescission on federal government websites, including but not limited to www.whitehouse.gov, www.dhs.gov, www.state.gov, www.doj.gov, and www.cpb.gov.
8. Defendants will promptly update all relevant public guidance, documentation, and FAQs to reflect the terms ofthis Order and post such updates on federal government websites, on federal government websites, including but not limited to www.whitehouse.gov, www.dhs.gov, www.state.gov, www.doj.gov, and www.cpb.gov.
9. Defendants will file with this Court, on the tenth day of each month following the entry of this Order, a signed and verified declaration stating:
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 11-2 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 4

a. The number of United States visas granted during the previous month to nationals of each of the following countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen;
b. The number of United States visa applications denied during the previous month to nationals of each of the following countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen;
c. For each denied visa application as referenced in subparagraph (b), the identifying information or visa application number for the Court's reference; and
d. For each denied visa application as referenced in subparagraph (b), a detailed explanation of the reason(s) the application was denied, including facts, legal authority, and reasons for denial.
10. Defendants will pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March _, 2017

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 12 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1

CLERK=S OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

C0-932 Rev. 4/96

NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF RELATED CIVIL CASES PENDING IN TillS OR ANY OTHER UNITED STATES COURT

Civil Action No. _ _ __ (To be supplied by the Clerk)

NOTICE TO PARTIES:
Pursuant to Rule 40.5(b)(2), you are required to prepare and submit this form at the time of filing any civil action which is related to any pending cases or which involves the same parties and relates to the same subject matter of any dismissed related cases. This form must be prepared in sufficient quantity to provide one copy for the Clerk:s records, one copy for the Judge to whom the cases is assigned and one copy for each defendant, so that you must prepare 3 copies for a. one defendant case, 4 copies for a two defendant case, etc.

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

Rule 40.5(b)(2) of this Court requires that you serve upon the plaintiff and file with your first responsive pleading or motion any objection you have to the related case designation.

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

Rule 40.5(b)(3) of this Court requires that as soon as an attorney for a party becomes aware of the existence of a related case or cases, such attorney shall immediately notify, in writing, the Judges on whose calendars the cases appear and shall serve such notice on counsel for all other parties.

The plaintiff, defendant or counsel must complete the following:

I.

RELATIONSIDP OF NEW CASE TO PENDING RELATED CASE(Sl.

A new case is deemed related to a case pending in this or another U.S. Court if the new case: [Check appropriate box(e:s) below.]

D (a) 0 (b)
0 (c)

relates to common property involves common issues offact grows out ofthe same event or transaction

D (d) D (e)

involves the validity or infringement ofthe same patent is filed by the same pro se litigant

2.

RELATIONSHIP OF NEW CASE TO DISMISSED RELATED CASE(ES)

A new case is deemed related to a case dismissed, with or without prejudice, in this or any other U.S. Court, if the new case involves the~ parties and same subject matter.
D Check box ifnew case is related to a dismissed case:

3.

NAME THE UNITED STATES COURT IN WinCH THE RELATED CASE IS FILED (IF OTHER THAN THIS

COURT):

United States District Court of the District of Columbia

4.

CAPTION AND CASE NUMBER OF RELATED CASE(E=S). IF MORE ROOM IS NEED PLEASE USE OTHER SIDE.

PARS EQUALITY CENTER et al.

3/23/2017 DATE

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 58

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 I. Statutory Background ......................................................................................................... 2 II. The Revoked Order............................................................................................................. 4 III. The Order ............................................................................................................................ 4 IV. Subsequent Litigation ......................................................................................................... 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 8 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9 I. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Justiciable ................................................................................. 9
A. UMAA Lacks Standing to Sue in its Own Right .................................................... 9 1. The Organization Has Not Suffered a Redressable Injury-in-Fact Related to Its Annual Convention ............................................................... 9 2. Stigma Is Not Itself a Cognizable Injury-in-Fact...................................... 13 3. UMAA Is Outside the Zone of Interests ................................................... 13
B. UMAA Lacks Associational Standing .................................................................. 14 1. UMAA Has Not Adequately Identified a Specific Member ..................... 14 2. The Organization’s Members Would Lack Article III and Prudential Standing .................................................................................................... 15
C. The Individual Doe Plaintiffs Lack Standing Because the Order Does Not Affect Their Children’s Ability to Come to the United States .............................. 18
D. No Plaintiff Has Standing to Seek Relief as to Potential Future Actions ............. 20
-ii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 58
E. Plaintiffs’ Visa Application-Related Claims Are Barred by Consular Nonreviewability Principles.................................................................................. 21
II. Plaintiffs Are Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits .......................................................... 22 A. The Order Is A Valid Exercise of the President’s Statutory Authority.................. 22 1. The Order Falls Squarely Within the President’s Broad Authority Under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) ......................................................... 22 2. Section 1152 Does Not Prevent the President from Suspending the Entry of Nationals from the Designated Foreign Countries ..................... 23 B. Plaintiffs’ Religious Discrimination Claims Fail .................................................. 27 1. Mandel is the Appropriate Standard ......................................................... 27 2. The Order More Than Satisfies the Mandel Standard .............................. 29 3. The Order Complies with the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses ...................................................................................................... 32 a. The Order’s Text and Purpose Are Religion-Neutral.................... 32 b. The Order Cannot be Enjoined Based on Campaign Statements or Other Unofficial Comments ................................... 36 C. Plaintiffs’ Right to Receive Information Claim Fails ........................................... 39 D. Plaintiffs Cannot Prevail on Their Section 4 Claims ............................................ 40
III. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate Irreparable Harm ............................................................. 42 IV. The Balance of Equities and the Public Interest Make Injunctive Relief
Inappropriate ..................................................................................................................... 43 V. The Scope of Any Relief Must Be Limited to the Harm Found ....................................... 44 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 45
-iii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 4 of 58
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987)........................................................ 22
Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .............................................................................................. 8, 44
Am. Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 14
Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Reno, 199 F.3d 1352 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................ 13
Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003).................................................................................................................. 29
Am. Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................... 12
Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994).................................................................................................................. 32
Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 14
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S 520 (1993)................................................................................................................... 33
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).................................................................................................................. 10
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 21
Daily Caller v. Dep’t of State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) .............................................................................................. 45
*Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).................................................................................................................. 44
___________________________________________ * indicates authorities on which counsel chiefly relies
-iv-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 5 of 58
DKT Mem’l Fund v. Agency for Int'l Dev., 887 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................. 17
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988).................................................................................................................. 26
Ehlers-Renzi v. Connelly Sch. of the Holy Child, Inc., 224 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 35
*Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform (FAIR) v. Reno, 93 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 13
*Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)............................................................................................................ 21, 28
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992).................................................................................................................. 29
Glassman v. Arlington Cty., 628 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 37
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981).................................................................................................................. 43
*Haitian Refugee Center v. Gracey, 809 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................... 13, 14, 15
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)............................................................................................................ 27, 28
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982).................................................................................................................. 12
Hawai’i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017) appeal docketed, No. 17-5589 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2017) ....................................................... 8, 42
*Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), 561 U.S. 1 (2010).......................................................................................................... 30, 35, 44
*In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 13, 16, 17
Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump, No. 17-0361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017) ................................................. 8, 18, 42
-v-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 6 of 58
Jackson v. Okaloosa County, 21 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 18
Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 472 U.S. 846 (1985) ...................................................... 32
Jones v. Dist. of Columbia, 177 F. Supp. 3d 542 (D.D.C. 2016) .......................................................................................... 42
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015). ............................................................................................................. 31
*Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)........................................................................................................... passim
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004).................................................................................................................. 16
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982).................................................................................................................. 33
Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated, 519 U.S. 1 (1996) ....................................................... 26
Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 104 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 24
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).................................................................................................................. 45
*Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).................................................................................................................. 11
Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1 (2012) .................................................................................................................... 43
McCollum v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 17
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).................................................................................................................... 10
McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005)................................................................................................ 33, 36, 37, 38
-vi-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 7 of 58
*Miller v. Christopher, 96 F.3d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)............................................................ 28
Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867)..................................................................................................... 44
Modrovich v. Allegheny Cty., 385 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 37
Morfin v. Tillerson, --- F.3d ----, No. 15-3633, 2017 WL 1046112 (7th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) ................................... 21
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983).................................................................................................................. 35
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008).................................................................................................................... 8
N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 43
Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ...................................................................................... 26, 29, 32
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders (NAHB) v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007).................................................................................................................. 36
Nat’l Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................. 12
Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................ 12
Nat’l Wrestling Coaches Ass’n v. Dep’t of Educ., 366 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 10
Ne. Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993).................................................................................................................. 18
New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345 (1977)................................................................................................................ 43
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).................................................................................................................. 28
-vii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 8 of 58
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).................................................................................................................. 43
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971).................................................................................................................. 37
Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin, 848 F.3d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 10
Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 37
Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................... 27, 28, 32
Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. (AAADC), 525 U.S. 471 (1999)............................................................................................................ 30, 44
Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).................................................................................................................. 37
*Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999)............................................................................... 15, 21, 22, 41
Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010).................................................................................................................. 37
Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).................................................................................................................. 43
*Saleh v. Holder, 84 F. Supp. 3d 135 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ......................................................................................... 41
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................. 44
Sarsour v. Trump, No. 1:17cv00120 (AJT/IDD), 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017)........................ 7, 39
*Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2015) .......................................................................................... 42
Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 15-CV-0615 (TSC), 2016 WL 5396663 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2016) appeal docketed, No. 16-5287 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) ........................................................ 13
-viii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 9 of 58
*Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 14
Smith v. Jefferson County Board of School Commissioners, 641 F.3d 197 (6th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 17
Smith v. Obama, ---F. Supp. 3d----, No. 16-843 (CKK), 2016 WL 6839357 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2016), appeal docketed, No. 16-5377 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 21, 2016)......................................................... 41
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)............................................................................................................ 14, 20
Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 28
Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998)............................................................................................................ 12, 15
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014) .............................................................................................................. 34
Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 35
United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)............................................................................................................ 27, 29
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).................................................................................................................. 36
United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (1926)...................................................................................................................... 36
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)............................................................................................................ 21, 29
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)........................................................................................................ 8, 25, 44
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).................................................................................................................. 17
*Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)...................................................................................................... 13, 16, 18
-ix-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 10 of 58
Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 1978) .................................................................................................... 41
Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008).................................................................................................................... 8
Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0141 JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) .......................................... 4
Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0141 JLR, 2017 WL 1045950 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017) ..................................... 7
Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 4, 17, 28
Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 37
Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)........................................................................................................................ 8
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).................................................................................................................. 34
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015).............................................................................................................. 29
STATUTES 6 U.S.C. § 236............................................................................................................................... 21 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et. seq.................................................................................................................. 1 8 U.S.C. § 1101 ................................................................................................................. 19, 24, 32 8 U.S.C. § 1104 ............................................................................................................................. 21 8 U.S.C. § 1152 ................................................................................................................. 24, 25, 40 8 U.S.C. § 1158 ............................................................................................................................. 19 8 U.S.C. § 1181 ............................................................................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. § 1182 ............................................................................................................... 2, 3, 22, 23 8 U.S.C. § 1185 ................................................................................................................... 3, 23, 26
-x-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 11 of 58
8 U.S.C. § 1187 ............................................................................................................................... 3 8 U.S.C. § 1201..................................................................................................................... 2, 9, 21 8 U.S.C. § 1202............................................................................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. § 1203............................................................................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. § 1204............................................................................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. § 1225............................................................................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. § 1361............................................................................................................................... 9 Pub. L. No. 65-154, 40 Stat. 559 (1918)....................................................................................... 23 Pub. L. No. 95-426, 92 Stat. 963 (1978)....................................................................................... 23 REGULATIONS 8 C.F.R. § 208.21 .......................................................................................................................... 19 22 C.F.R. § 41.102 .......................................................................................................................... 2 22 C.F.R. § 41.121 .......................................................................................................................... 2 22 C.F.R. § 42.62 ............................................................................................................................ 2 22 C.F.R. § 42.81 ............................................................................................................................ 2 Exec. Order No. 12,172, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,947 (Nov. 26, 1979)
as amended by Exec. Order No. 12,206, 45 Fed. Reg. 24,101 (Apr. 7, 1980) ......................... 25 Exec. Order No. 12,807, 57 Fed. Reg. 23,133 (May 24, 1992) .................................................... 23 Exec.Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017) ........................................................... 4 Exec. Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017)............................................... passim Proclamation No. 5517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30,470 (Aug. 22, 1986) .................................................... 23 Proclamation No. 6958, 61 Fed. Reg. 60,007 (Nov. 22, 1996)..................................................... 23 Proclamation No. 8342, 74 Fed. Reg. 4093 (Jan. 21, 2009) ......................................................... 23
-xi-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 12 of 58 Proclamation No. 8693, 76 Fed. Reg. 44,751 (July 24, 2011) ..................................................... 23 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 ................................................................................................................... 38 U.S. Const. art. II, § 2 ................................................................................................................... 21 U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 ................................................................................................................... 36 OTHER AUTHORITIES Immigration Laws and Iranian Students,
4A Op. O.L.C. 133 (Nov. 11, 1979) .......................................................................................... 25
-xii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 13 of 58

INTRODUCTION This is the second challenge to Executive Order 13,780 (“Order”)1 to be heard by this Court in the context of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs in this case consist of an organization—the Universal Muslim Association of America (“UMAA”)—and two “Doe” plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenge Section 2 of the Order which, among other things, suspends the entry of nationals from six countries that Congress determined pose a heightened terrorism risk. Plaintiffs also challenge Section 4 of the Order, which applies thorough screening standards as it concerns visa applicants who are Iraqi nationals. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied for at least three reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable. UMAA is an organization that hosts various conferences for which it would like to invite speakers from Iran or Iraq. While UMAA alleges that the Order hinders its ability to host these conferences, the organization lacks standing in its own right because it has not suffered a redressable injury-in-fact, and it also lacks associational standing to represent the interests of its members. As for the Doe plaintiffs, they are Yemeni asylees who are seeking derivative asylum for their overseas minor children. However, the Order does not affect the processing of those children’s applications in any manner whatsoever. Because the Does’ sole claim relates to their children, they lack standing to challenge the Order. Second, Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits. Two separate provisions of the immigration laws grant the President broad authority that plainly encompasses the Order’s temporary suspension of entry provisions. Plaintiffs’ statutory and procedural arguments are inconsistent with the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., as well as historical practice. And as a constitutional matter, the President’s national-security justification

1

See 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017).

-1-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 14 of 58
provides “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the Order. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972). Even were Establishment Clause cases from the domestic setting relevant, those cases make clear that the Order must be judged by what it says and does—not, as Plaintiffs suggest, by what supposedly lies in the hearts of its drafters. Plaintiffs also present a First Amendment “right to receive information” claim, but that claim is foreclosed by Mandel. Finally, the Iraqi screening procedures in Section 4 of the Order fall well within the Executive’s discretion, and any challenge to those procedures would raise substantial separation-of-powers concerns.
Third, at a minimum, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a need for preliminary relief. Plaintiffs ignore that the suspension-of-entry provision has already been preliminarily enjoined and, in any event, Plaintiffs would suffer no irreparable harm from implementation of the Order. The balance of equities and public interest also tilt sharply in Defendants favor. For these reasons, as set forth in more detail below, this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief.
BACKGROUND I. Statutory Background
The INA governs admission of aliens into the United States. In addition to other criteria, admission generally requires a valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, or another valid travel document. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1181, 1182(a)(7)(A)(i), (B)(i)(II), 1203. The process of applying for a visa typically includes an in-person interview and results in a decision by a State Department consular officer. Id. §§ 1201(a)(1), 1202(h), 1204; 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.102, 41.121, 42.62, 42.81. Although a visa usually is necessary for admission, it does not guarantee admission; the alien still must be admissible upon arriving at a port of entry. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201(h), 1225(a).
Congress has created a Visa Waiver Program, which enables nationals of approved countries to seek temporary admission for tourism or certain business purposes without a visa.
-2-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 15 of 58
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(7)(B)(iv), 1187. In 2015, Congress excluded from travel under that Program aliens who are dual nationals of or had recently visited Iraq or Syria, where “[t]he Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) . . . maintain[s] a formidable force,” and dual nationals of and recent visitors to countries designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of terrorism (currently Iran, Sudan, and Syria).2 Id. § 1187(a)(12)(A)(i)-(ii). Congress authorized the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to designate additional countries of concern, considering whether a country is a “safe haven for terrorists,” “whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence” in the country, and “whether the presence of an alien in the country . . . increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to” U.S. national security. Id. § 1187(a)(12)(D)(i)-(ii). Applying those criteria, in February 2016, DHS excluded recent visitors to Libya, Somalia, and Yemen from travel under the Program.3
Although Congress created these various avenues to seek admission, it accorded the Executive broad discretion to suspend or restrict admission of aliens. Section 1182(f) provides:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may . . . for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). In addition, Section 1185(a)(1) grants the President broad authority to adopt “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” governing entry of aliens, “subject to such limitations and exceptions as [he] may prescribe.” Id. § 1185(a)(1).

2

U.S. Dep’t of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2015, at 6, 299-302 (June 2016),

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258249.pdf.

3

DHS, DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program (Feb. 18,

2016), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-

waiver-program.

-3-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 16 of 58
II. The Revoked Order On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13,769 (the “Revoked Order”).
See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). It directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to assess current screening procedures to determine whether they were sufficient to detect individuals who were seeking to enter this country to do it harm. Revoked Order § 3(a)-(b). While that review was ongoing, the Revoked Order suspended for 90 days entry of foreign nationals of the seven countries already identified as posing heightened terrorism-related concerns in the context of the Visa Waiver Program. Id. § 3(c). It also authorized the Secretaries to make caseby-case exceptions to the suspension. Id. § 3(g).
The Revoked Order was challenged in multiple courts. On February 3, 2017, a district court in Washington enjoined enforcement nationwide of, among other things, Section 3(c)’s suspension of entry. Wash. v. Trump, No. C17-0141 JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). On February 9, a Ninth Circuit panel declined to stay that injunction pending appeal. Wash. v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Although acknowledging that the injunction may have been “overbroad,” the court declined to narrow it, concluding that “[t]he political branches are far better equipped” to do so. Id. at 1166-67. III. The Order
Responding to the Ninth Circuit’s invitation, on March 6—in accordance with the joint recommendation of the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security—the President issued the Order. See Joint Ltr. to President (Mar. 6, 2017) (attached as Ex. A). The Order, which took effect on March 16, 2017, revokes and replaces the Revoked Order, and adopts significantly revised provisions, in part to respond to the Ninth Circuit’s concerns.
-4-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 17 of 58
Section 2(c) of the Order temporarily suspends entry of certain nationals from six countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The suspension’s explicit purpose is to enable the Executive Branch—based on the recommendation of the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence—to assess whether current screening and vetting procedures are adequate to detect terrorists seeking to infiltrate the Nation. Order § 1(f). As the Order explains, each of the designated countries “is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones.” Id. § 1(b)(i), (d). The Order details the circumstances of each country that both give rise to “heightened risks” of terrorism and diminish those foreign governments’ “willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States” to screen them properly. Id. § 1(d)-(e).
The Order “suspend[s] for 90 days” the “entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries.” Order § 2(c). Addressing concerns the Ninth Circuit raised, however, the Order clarifies that the suspension applies only to aliens who (1) are outside the United States on the Order’s effective date, (2) do not have a valid visa on that date, and (3) did not have a valid visa on the effective date of the Revoked Order (5:00 PM EST on January 27, 2017). Id. § 3(a). It also explicitly excludes other categories of aliens, including any lawful permanent resident and any foreign national admitted to or paroled into the United States or granted asylum or refugee status. See id. § 3(b).
The Order also contains a set of detailed waiver provisions, which permit consular officers or officials of Customs and Border Patrol to grant case-by-case waivers when denying entry under Section 2 of the Order “would cause undue hardship” and “entry would not pose a threat to national
-5-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 18 of 58

security and would be in the national interest.” Order § 3(c). The Order describes illustrative circumstances when waivers could be appropriate, including:
• individuals who seek entry “to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a [U.S.] citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa”;
• individuals who were previously “admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity” but are currently outside the country and seeking to reenter; and
• individuals who seek entry for “significant business or professional obligations.” Id. Information to support a wavier can be provided during the visa application process, and may be acted on by a consular officer “as part of [that] process.” Id.; see DHS, Q&A: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States (Mar. 6, 2017) (attached as Ex. B); U.S. Dep’t of State, Executive Order on Visas (Mar. 22, 2017) (“State Guidance”) (attached as Ex. C).
Critically, the Order recognizes that Iraqi nationals are entitled to different treatment under the President’s national security judgment. Although the Revoked Order also suspended entry of foreign nationals of Iraq, the new Order recognized changed national security circumstances and exempts Iraq from the temporary travel suspension because, “since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.” Order § 1(g); see also id. § 4.4 The Order acknowledges, however, that portions of Iraq “remain active combat zones” with substantial territories controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”). Order § 1(g). Accordingly, the Order provides that applications by Iraqi nationals for visas, admission, or other immigration benefits should undergo a “thorough review” to include

4

The Order also acknowledges the ‘close cooperative relationship between the United States

and the democratically elected Iraqi government,” as well as other factors, for excluding Iraq from

the temporary travel suspension. Order § 1(g).

-6-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 19 of 58
“consideration of whether the applicant has connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations or with territory that is or has been under the dominant influence of ISIS.” Id. § 4. IV. Subsequent Litigation
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit in Washington, acting sua sponte, denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of five judges, who issued three separate opinions. Amended Order, Wash. v. Trump, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017), ECF No. 191. Judge Bybee explained that Mandel provides the governing “test for judging executive and congressional action [for] aliens who are outside our borders and seeking admission.” Id., slip op. at 11, ECF No. 191-5 (Bybee, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (Washington Bybee Dissent). Judge Kozinski opined that using campaign and other unofficial statements made outside the process of “crafting an official policy” to establish “unconstitutional motives” is improper, unprecedented, “unworkable,” and would produce “absurd result[s].” Id., slip op. at 5-7, ECF No. 191-4 (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (Washington Kozinski Dissent).
In the underlying Western District of Washington case, the district court held that the TRO issued against the Revoked Order did not extend to the new Order due to the “substantial distinctions” between them, “both in the manner in which [the Order] is implemented and the rationale [the Order] gives for its implementation.” Wash. v. Trump, No. C17-0141 JLR, 2017 WL 1045950, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2017).
The Order has been subject to challenge in other cases as well. One district court declined to enter preliminary relief against any portion of the Order. See Sarsour v. Trump, No. 1:17cv00120 (AJT/IDD), 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017). The District of Hawaii enjoined Section 2 of the Order nationwide, as well as Section 6 (which contains provisions, not being challenged here, regarding refugees). See Hawai’i v. Trump, 2017 WL 1167383, at *9 (D.
-7-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 20 of 58
Haw. Mar. 29, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-5589 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2017). And the District of Maryland enjoined Section 2(c) of the Order nationwide. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 1018235, at *18 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) (“IRAP”), appeal docketed, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017).
STANDARD OF REVIEW Emergency relief is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008) (citation omitted). The movant “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citation omitted). Injunctive relief that “deeply intrudes into the core concerns of the executive branch”—including foreign affairs and national security—may be awarded only upon “an extraordinarily strong showing” as to each element. Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954-55 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Plaintiffs assert facial challenges to the Order. “Facial challenges are disfavored” compared to as-applied challenges. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450-51 (2008). They are thus “the most difficult challenge[s] to mount successfully.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). Plaintiffs must show more than that the Order “might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances.” Id. (emphasis added). Instead, they bear the “heavy burden” of “establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exist under which the [Order] would be valid.” Id.
-8-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 21 of 58
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Justiciable
A. UMAA Lacks Standing to Sue in its Own Right UMAA lacks standing to sue in its own right because it has not suffered an injury-in-fact related to its annual convention; a feeling of stigma is not by itself a cognizable injury-in-fact; and UMAA is outside the zone of interests protected by the INA.
1. The Organization Has Not Suffered a Redressable Injury-in-Fact Related to Its Annual Convention
UMAA’s primary claim to injury-in-fact relates to its upcoming national convention, for which UMAA allegedly wants to invite speakers from Iran or Iraq to attend. See Pls.’ Br. at 17-18 (ECF No. 11-1); UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 20-25 (ECF No. 10-2). UMAA’s purported injuries, however, are not concrete or imminent, nor are they sufficiently ripe. Thus, UMAA lacks standing to challenge the Order.
a. UMAA’s main theory of injury is that the Order creates “barriers to entry by Iranian and Iraqi nationals,” which means “UMAA cannot know whether a given speaker would be able to attend the convention when it invites him or her.” UMAA Decl. ¶ 21. That uncertainty allegedly makes speakers less likely to accept UMAA’s invitation to attend the convention, see id. ¶ 22, and also makes it harder for UMAA to advertise the convention, see id. ¶ 23.
These purported injuries, however, were not caused by the Order; uncertainty has always existed regarding the admission of foreign nationals into the United States. For example, Iranian and Iraqi nationals are generally required—wholly apart from the Order—to apply for and obtain a visa prior to visiting the United States. See Background, Section I, supra. No visa applicant is entitled to issuance of a visa or admission to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201(g)-(h), 1361. Thus, even prior to the Order, there was always uncertainty regarding a foreign national’s ability
-9-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 22 of 58
to actually attend an event, i.e., they might be unable to establish eligibility for a visa or determined to be ineligible at a port of entry. Indeed, UMAA’s own declaration makes this point clear. See UMAA Decl. ¶ 14 (discussing how UMAA extended an invitation to a person who only afterwards “submitted an application for a nonimmigrant visa to travel to the United States”). Because the uncertainty causing UMAA’s purported injuries existed even prior to the Order, an injunction against the Order would not redress UMAA’s claimed harms. See, e.g., McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 229 (2003) (holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge to a particular statutory provision, because even “if the Court were to strike down” that provision, “it would not remedy the . . . plaintiffs’ alleged injury because” other provisions imposing that injury “would remain unchanged”), overruled on other grounds by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); Nat’l Wrestling Coaches Ass’n v. Dep’t of Educ., 366 F.3d 930, 939-40 (D.C. Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin, 848 F.3d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
UMAA might believe that the Order will introduce greater uncertainty as compared to the prior system. But that assumption is wholly speculative, and UMAA has offered no factual basis for it. Nor could UMAA offer any facts regarding the effect of Section 2(c) of the Order: The State Department has not yet been allowed to implement the waiver process contemplated by the that section of the Order. In essence, UMAA’s injury would be wholly a matter of probabilities— i.e., hoping that an injunction against the Order would decrease the uncertainty surrounding future speakers’ visa applications. That theory is not sufficiently concrete to establish standing. Cf. Nat’l Wrestling Coaches Ass’n, 366 F.3d at 939 (“[A] quest for ill-defined ‘better odds’ is not close to what is required to satisfy the redressability prong of Article III.”). Because UMAA’s claimed injury—uncertainty about speakers’ ability to travel to the United States—existed even prior to the Order, that injury does not provide standing to challenge the Order.
-10-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 23 of 58
b. UMAA also has not submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating an injury-in-fact regarding its inability to bring speakers to its annual convention. UMAA’s declaration states generally that “many of the scholars UMAA seeks to invite to the United States in the future are Iranian and Iraqi nationals.” UMAA Decl. ¶ 12. But that assertion, by itself, is insufficient to establish an actual, imminent injury-in-fact. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992) (“Such ‘some day’ intentions—without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require.”).
With respect to the annual convention, UMAA’s declaration fails to describe how the Order “leaves UMAA unable to invite scholars to its upcoming national convention and other events.” Pls.’ Br. at 17. Indeed, when describing last year’s national convention, UMAA’s declaration does not describe hosting any speakers from Iran, and states that out of the “approximately 30 speakers, three or four . . . were invited to the United States from Iraq.” UMAA Decl. ¶ 13. Given this small percentage of speakers from Iran or Iraq, UMAA’s declaration does not demonstrate that the Order “significantly harms UMAA’s ability to attract attendees” to its convention. Pls.’ Br. at 18.
The only specific individual identified by UMAA as a potential invitee for its 2017 convention is Mr. Karbalaei. See UMAA Decl. ¶ 25. According to UMAA’s declaration, however, Mr. Karbalaei possessed a valid visa to travel to the United States for an event on February 4, 2017. See id. ¶¶ 14, 16-17. Thus, Mr. Karbalaei is not subject to the Order. See Order § 3(a)(ii) (stating that “the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order” does not apply to individuals who had “a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017”). Mr. Karbalaei would of course need to apply for a new visa once his prior visa expires, see UMAA Decl. ¶ 16, but that application would be processed and adjudicated pursuant to normal procedures—not subject to the
-11-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 24 of 58

Order. Cf. Ex. B, DHS Q&As, Questions 6 and 16. The only particular individual that UMAA has concrete plans to invite to its 2017 convention is therefore not subject to the Order, and cannot provide standing for UMAA to challenge the Order.
c. Even assuming UMAA could otherwise establish standing to challenge the Order’s suspension of entry in Section 2(c), any such challenge would not be ripe. The potential speakers UMAA seeks to bring to its convention may not be eligible for visas under existing law, or if they are otherwise found eligible may be able to obtain waivers under the Order. Indeed, the Order provides that “[c]ase-by-case waivers could be appropriate” when a “foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations[.]” Order § 3(c)(iii). In fact, UMAA says it oftentimes arranges for foreign scholars to attend its events, and has “served as an institutional sponsor for some of its speakers’ visa applications,” UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 12, 13, thus further increasing the possibility that UMAA’s invited speakers could obtain a waiver. Accordingly, unless and until UMAA’s invited speakers are found otherwise eligible for visas but then denied waivers under the Order, UMAA’s asserted injuries are not ripe. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” (citation omitted)).5

5

UMAA does not appear to claim standing in its own right pursuant to Havens Realty Corp.

v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982). See Pls.’ Br. at 15-18. In any event, any such theory would be

meritless because UMAA’s mission of promoting the interests of American Shia Muslims, see

UMAA Decl. ¶ 7, is not necessarily “at loggerheads with” the Order itself, which applies only to

foreign nationals abroad. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1429 (D.C.

Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Moreover, UMAA has not identified any expenditure of additional

resources necessary to counteract the Order’s alleged injury to its mission. Cf. Am. Soc. for

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting that

“a ‘self-inflicted’ budgetary choice . . . cannot qualify as an injury in fact for purposes of

standing”); Nat’l Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

(“NTU cannot convert its ordinary program costs into an injury in fact[.]”).

-12-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 25 of 58
2. Stigma Is Not Itself a Cognizable Injury-in-Fact UMAA also asserts injury in its own right because “UMAA and its members are hurt and upset” by the Order and its effects. UMAA Decl. ¶ 27. Even assuming that an organization can meaningfully suffer such a “psychological” harm, it is well-settled that such harm, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute an Article III injury-in-fact. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 485-86 (1982) (“[T]he psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees . . . is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms.”); In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 764-65 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, UMAA’s purported psychological injuries are likewise insufficient to establish standing.
3. UMAA Is Outside the Zone of Interests As for UMAA’s claims arising under the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), UMAA is outside the relevant zone of interests. The D.C. Circuit has repeatedly rejected organizations’ attempts to challenge immigration policies that do not apply directly to them. See Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Gracey, 809 F.2d 794, 815 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (refugee counseling organization was outside the INA’s zone of interests because the statutes reflected “no intent to protect or regulate the HRC’s interest in counseling, or its members’ interests in associating with, interdicted Haitians”); Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform (FAIR) v. Reno, 93 F.3d 897, 900-04 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (immigration restriction advocacy group was outside the zone of interests of the INA); cf. Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Reno, 199 F.3d 1352, 1361, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2000). For an organization to establish it is within the relevant zone of interests under the INA, the organization must point to a specific statutory provision promoting its interests. See FAIR, 93 F.3d at 901; cf. Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 15-CV-0615 (TSC), 2016 WL
-13-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 26 of 58
5396663, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2016) (organization was within INA’s zone of interests based on specific statutory provisions protecting their interests), appeal docketed, No. 16-5287 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016). Here, UMAA has pointed to no statutes purportedly protecting their interests. And to the extent UMAA’s interest is simply in associating with foreign nationals, that is precisely the interest that was held to be insufficient in Haitian Refugee Center, 809 F.2d at 815. Thus, UMAA is outside the zone of interests, and cannot bring its INA claims directly or under the APA.
B. UMAA Lacks Associational Standing UMAA also relies on a theory of associational standing, seeking to represent the interests of UMAA’s members who wish to bring family members to the United States. See Pls.’ Br. at 18; UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 28-31. In order to establish associational standing, an organization must demonstrate that “(1) at least one of its members would have standing to sue in his own right, (2) the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to its purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires that an individual member of the association participate in the lawsuit.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2002). UMAA does not satisfy these requirements.
1. UMAA Has Not Adequately Identified a Specific Member In order to satisfy the first factor, “[w]hen a petitioner claims associational standing, it is not enough to aver that unidentified members have been injured. Rather, the petitioner must specifically ‘identify members who have suffered the requisite harm.’” Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 199–200 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 499 (2009)). Where plaintiffs have “not identified a single member who was or would be injured by [a Government action],” associational standing is lacking. Id. at 200; see also Am. Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810, 815, 820 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“Our standard has
-14-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 27 of 58
never been that it is likely that at least one member has standing. At the very least, the identity of the party suffering an injury in fact must be firmly established.”).
Here, UMAA fails to identify even a single member who would be harmed by application of the Order. In fact, UMAA does not even maintain a membership list. See UMAA Decl. ¶ 4. The lack of such a list is fatal to a claim of associational standing. Even if “it is certainly possible” that such a member exists, such “speculation does not suffice.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 499. Accordingly, UMAA’s attempt to establish associational standing fails on this basis alone.
2. The Organization’s Members Would Lack Article III and Prudential Standing
a. Even if UMAA had adequately identified one of its members, any such member would individually lack standing. As discussed above, even if an individual wishes to have a family member subject to the suspension of entry provision in Section 2(c) join them in the United States, those claims are not yet ripe: Unless and until those individuals’ relatives are found otherwise eligible for visas but then denied waivers, those individuals’ asserted injuries are not ripe because they assume “contingent future events that . . . may not occur at all.” Texas, 523 U.S. at 300 (citation omitted). Moreover, UMAA members would be outside the relevant zone of interests for the INA and APA claims. See Haitian Refugee Ctr., 809 F.2d at 815; Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1163-64 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
b. Plaintiffs attempt to argue that UMAA’s members would have standing based on the mere existence of the waiver provision. See Pls.’ Br. at 41. Even assuming UMAA could pursue those members’ claims, however, this theory is incorrect for several reasons.
First, the waiver process is integrated into the existing visa-adjudication procedure, which travelers must already apply under. Applicants would provide information relevant to the wavier inquiry during visa application interviews with consular officers, and again those interviews would
-15-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 28 of 58
occur even in the absence of the Order. See Order § 3(c); State Guidance, supra. Thus, the Order does not create a “special, more onerous procedure,” Pls.’ Br. at 41, at least from the perspective of visa applicants who would have to submit an application and undergo a consular interview even absent the Order.
Second, the waiver procedure does not actually apply to any of UMAA’s members who are here in the United States. See UMAA Decl. ¶ 4. The Order (and its waiver process) would apply only to UMAA members’ foreign national relatives who are seeking admission to the United States and were otherwise covered by the Order. Because UMAA’s members are not denied equal treatment, they lack standing to challenge the Order regardless of the perceived “message of disfavor on the basis of religion and nationality” that they believe the waiver process embodies. Pls.’ Br. at 41 (citation omitted); see Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 485-86 (stating that “the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees” is not the type of “personal injury” that confers Article III standing); In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d at 764 (plaintiff not personally subject to religious discrimination cannot manufacture standing by “re-characteriz[ing]” his abstract challenge to “government action” that “allegedly violates the Establishment Clause” as a challenge to “a governmental message [concerning] religion” to which he is personally subjected).
Third, any claims by UMAA members would be barred by prudential standing limitations. A plaintiff “generally must assert his own legal rights and interests,” except in the limited circumstances where he has “third party standing to assert the rights of another.” Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129-30 (2004). That exception is inapplicable here, however, because UMAA members cannot assert an Establishment Clause claim on behalf of the third party aliens abroad who are subject to the Order. Lacking any substantial connections to this country, those
-16-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 29 of 58
aliens abroad possess no Establishment Clause rights, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990); DKT Mem’l Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 887 F.2d 275, 285 (D.C. Cir. 1989), and no constitutional rights regarding entry into this country, see Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762. Thus, unlike in the Washington stay decision—where the Revoked Order was held to apply to individuals who did have constitutional rights (e.g., lawful permanent residents)—Plaintiffs cannot assert “third party standing” on behalf of aliens subject to the Order because those aliens have no “first party” rights to begin with. Cf. Washington, 847 F.3d at 1160, 1165.
Accordingly, UMAA members could assert an Establishment Clause claim only if their own rights under that Clause are being violated. They are not. The UMAA members’ religion is entirely immaterial to their alleged familial injuries, which would arise from purported discrimination against their family members abroad. Thus, the UMAA members’ own Establishment Clause rights are not implicated by how the Order treats aliens abroad seeking entry. See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d at 764-65 (plaintiffs lacked standing to “complain[] about employment discrimination suffered by other[] [co-religionists], not by the plaintiff himself”); see also, e.g., Smith v. Jefferson County Board of School Commissioners, 641 F.3d 197, 207 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (public-school teachers who sued school district for closing their school and replacing it with a private religious one lacked “prudential . . . standing” under the Establishment Clause because they “d[id] not allege any infringement of their own religious freedoms,” but rather “only economic injury to themselves”); McCollum v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 647 F.3d 870, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2011) (Wiccan chaplain who sued prison that refused to hire him lacked “prudential standing” under the Establishment Clause because the “claim, at bottom, assert[ed] not his own rights, but those of third party inmates”).
-17-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 30 of 58
In short, even assuming UMAA could otherwise satisfy the criteria for associational standing, its members would still lack standing because the Order’s treatment of aliens abroad does not implicate the UMAA members’ own rights.6 UMAA has therefore failed to establish standing, either in its own right or on behalf of its members.
C. The Individual Doe Plaintiffs Lack Standing Because the Order Does Not Affect Their Children’s Ability to Come to the United States
The two other plaintiffs are John Doe #1 and Jane Doe #1, a husband and wife who are Yemeni citizens, who live in the United States with four of their six children, and who are now trying to bring their two remaining children to live with them here in the United States. See Decl. of John Doe #1 ¶¶ 2-8 (ECF No. 17-2); Decl. of Jane Doe #1 ¶¶ 2-8 (ECF No. 17-3). These individual plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Order, however, because the Order does not restrict their two remaining children’s ability to come to the United States.
As described in John Doe #1’s declaration, he was previously granted asylum by the United States on the basis of religious and political persecution. See Decl. of John Doe #1 ¶ 6. His wife and three children also “received asylum status through their family relationship” to him, and John Doe #1 has now filed a petition for his two remaining sons to join him in the United States. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. That petition is a Form I-730 petition, see id. ¶ 8, which is known as a “Refugee/Asylee

6

Plaintiffs cite the district court’s decision in IRAP as support for their theory. Pls.’ Br. at 41.

The district court in IRAP in turn supported this theory by citing Jackson v. Okaloosa County, 21

F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). See IRAP v. Trump, 2017 WL 1018235, at *7. But in that case, the

denial of equal treatment to minority residents regarding public housing was itself a legally

cognizable injury. See Jackson, 21 F.3d at 1537-41; Ne. Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors

v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666 (1993). Here, in contrast, the Order does not operate against

UMAA’s members themselves and does not deny them equal treatment based on their nationality

or religion. They therefore have not suffered “any personal injury” based on their own non-

discriminatory treatment. Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 485-86.

-18-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 31 of 58
Relative Petition,” or more colloquially a petition for “derivative asylum” or “follow-to-join asylee” benefits. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.21(d).
Once a principal asylee’s I-730 petition is approved, the I-730 petition’s beneficiary (the family member still abroad) is then scheduled for an interview. The beneficiary must provide certain documentation, and assuming that the interviewer confirms the beneficiary’s eligibility, the beneficiary is then issued a travel document to the United States. See generally U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, Application and Processing Instructions for Following-to-join Asylum Cases (Visas 92), https://dj.usembassy.gov/visas/immigrant-visas-refugee-asylee-follow-join/. The travel document is known as a “Visa 92” or “V-92.” See id. Despite the title, that travel document is not technically a visa, but functions similarly to permit the beneficiary to schedule travel to the United States.7
Critically, nothing in the Order suspends processing of I-730 petitions, scheduling of interviews for approved I-730 petition beneficiaries, or issuing travel documents for those individuals. The processing of those petitions will therefore continue in the normal course. Assuming a beneficiary’s eligibility is confirmed during an interview, nothing in the Order prevents the beneficiary from obtaining a V-92 travel document or scheduling travel to the United States. The Order itself provides that the suspension of entry does not apply to individuals who obtain travel documents “other than a visa” that are issued even after the Order’s effective date:

7

The V-92 travel document is not a visa because visas may only be issued by State

Department consular officers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(16), (26) (only consular officers may issue

visas); id. § 1101(a)(9) (defining “consular officer”). Asylum claims (including follow-to-join

asylee benefits), in contrast, may only be adjudicated by DHS or by the Attorney General. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(b). Thus, even when State Department consular officers conduct interviews of I-

730 petition beneficiaries (such as at the Embassy in Djibouti), those consular officers are acting

on behalf of DHS, and therefore they do not formally issue “visas” to approved beneficiaries. See

generally 9 Foreign Affairs Manual 203.5-2 (describing the different DHS and State Department

roles in processing follow-to-join asylee cases).

-19-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 32 of 58
The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to . . . any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission[.] Order § 3(b)(iii). That language includes V-92 travel documents, such as those that would be issued to the Doe plaintiffs’ children once they are interviewed and confirmed to be eligible. Accordingly, the Order does not affect the Doe children in any manner whatsoever. It does not postpone the scheduling of their interviews, nor does it prevent them from entering the United States assuming they are confirmed to be eligible at an interview. The Doe plaintiffs’ sole claim of injury is that the Order “prevents them from bringing their two young sons from Yemen to the United States.” Pls.’ Br. at 19. Because the Order does not apply to their two young sons, however, the individual Doe plaintiffs clearly lack standing to challenge the Order. D. No Plaintiff Has Standing to Seek Relief as to Potential Future Actions Plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction is exceedingly broad: requesting an injunction as to the entirety of Sections 2 and 4, and also as to certain affirmative directives and reporting requirements. See Proposed Order (ECF No. 11-2). Not only is this relief vastly overbroad, see Section V, infra, but Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing for it. See Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (plaintiff “bears the burden of showing that he has standing for each type of relief sought” (citation omitted)). Even if Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the temporary suspension on entry and/or the enhanced screening for Iraqi nationals, Order §§ 2(c), 4, Plaintiffs do not and cannot show any imminent harm from the remainder of the provisions they seek to enjoin. Sections 2(a)-(b) and 2(d)-(g) relate to internal governmental reviews, recommendations, and reporting to be undertaken by Cabinet members, and to future inter-governmental diplomatic activities. Plaintiffs’ motion nowhere describes how these provisions harm them; indeed these provisions cannot plausibly have any immediate impact on Plaintiffs because they relate to future
-20-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 33 of 58

actions. Any purported harm to Plaintiffs from these provisions therefore amounts, at best, to a “theory of future injury” that “is too speculative to satisfy the well-established requirement that threatened injury must be certainly impending.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1143 (2013) (quotation omitted).8
E. Plaintiffs’ Visa Application-Related Claims Are Barred by Consular Nonreviewability Principles
Longstanding principles reflected in the doctrine of consular nonreviewability also preclude review of Plaintiffs’ claims related to the President’s authority to issue the Order and of any prospective visa applications. “[T]he power to expel or exclude aliens” is “a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments” and thus “largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (citation omitted). “[T]he doctrine of consular nonreviewability,” which long predated the INA, provides that the “decision to issue or withhold a visa,” or to revoke one, “is not subject to judicial review . . . unless Congress says otherwise.” Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1159; see also id. at 1158-60 (citing authorities); Morfin v. Tillerson, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-3633, 2017 WL 1046112, at *1 (7th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) (“[F]or more than a hundred years courts have treated visa decisions as discretionary and not subject to judicial review for substantial evidence and related doctrines of administrative law.”). Far from saying otherwise, Congress has reaffirmed the doctrine: It has expressly forbidden “judicial review” of visa revocation (subject to narrow exceptions not relevant here), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i), and it has not authorized any judicial review of visa denial, see, e.g., 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1), (c)(1), (f); 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1).

8

There would also be serious constitutional questions associated with a judicial order

enjoining these provisions—i.e., prohibiting the President from engaging with foreign nations in a

certain way, or from receiving the recommendations of his Cabinet. See generally United States

v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936); U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.

-21-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 34 of 58
There is, at most, limited jurisdiction available “when United States sponsors of a foreign individual claim that the State Department’s denial of a visa to an alien violated their constitutional rights.” Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1163 (citation omitted). But no review is available for statutory claims. Id. at 1164. And whatever limited review may be available to a U.S. citizen asserting her own constitutional rights and seeking review of a specific visa denial, it plainly does not encompass Plaintiffs’ sweeping challenge, which is based largely if not entirely on asserted constitutional rights held by others. II. Plaintiffs Are Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits
A. The Order Is A Valid Exercise of the President’s Statutory Authority 1. The Order Falls Squarely Within the President’s Broad Authority Under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a)
“[T]he power to exclude aliens is ‘inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers—a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of the government.’” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 765 (citation omitted). Congress has conferred expansive authority on the President, including in the two statutory provisions that the Order expressly invokes. Order § 2(c).
First, Section 1182(f) provides that, “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants,” or “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” “The President’s sweeping proclamation power [under Section 1182(f)] provides a safeguard against the danger posed by any particular case or class of cases that is not covered by one of the [inadmissibility] categories in section 1182(a).” Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1049 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S.
-22-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 35 of 58
1 (1987). Every President over the last thirty years has invoked that authority to suspend or restrict entry of certain classes of aliens.9
Second, Section 1185(a) broadly authorizes the “President” to “prescribe” reasonable “rules, regulations, and orders,” and “limitations and exceptions” regarding entry of aliens. That provision is the latest in a line of statutory grants of authority tracing back nearly a century. See Pub. L. No. 65-154, §1(a), 40 Stat. 559 (1918). Originally limited to times of war or declared national emergency, Congress removed that limitation in 1978, when it enacted Section 1185(a) in its current form. Pub. L. 95-426, §707(a), 92 Stat. 963, 992-93 (1978).
Both of those statutory sections encompass the Order’s temporary suspension of entry of aliens from six countries that the President concluded required special precautions while the review of existing screening and vetting protocols is completed. That temporary measure is a paradigmatic exercise of the President’s authority to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” he finds may be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), and to prescribe reasonable “limitations” on entry, id. §1185(a)(1).
2. Section 1152 Does Not Prevent the President from Suspending the Entry of Nationals from the Designated Foreign Countries
Plaintiffs argue that Section 2 of the Order violates Section 1152 of the Immigration and Nationality Act because it has the practical effect of suspending the issuance of visas to nationals of six countries. Plaintiffs’ argument misconstrues the effect of Section 1152.

9

See, e.g., Proclamation No. 5517 (1986) (Reagan; Cuban nationals as immigrants); Exec.

Order No. 12,807 (1992) (George H.W. Bush; government officials who impeded anti-human-

trafficking efforts); Proclamation No. 8342 (2009) (George W. Bush; same); Proclamation No.

6958 (1996) (Clinton; government officials and armed forces of Sudan); Proclamation No. 8693

(2011) (Obama; aliens subject to U.N. Security Council travel bans and individuals meeting the

criteria for economic sanctions under certain Executive Orders).

-23-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 36 of 58
a. Regarding the entry suspension provision in Section 2(c), Plaintiffs argue that the President cannot draw nationality-based distinctions under § 1182(f), due to the later-enacted § 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. See Pls.’ Br. at 37. Even if that argument were correct, it would not narrow the President’s authority under § 1185(a)—which was substantially amended in 1978, after § 1152(a)(1)(A)’s enactment. Nothing in § 1185(a)’s current text or post-1978 history limits the President’s authority to restrict entry by nationals of particular countries.
b. Even if Plaintiffs were correct that Section 1152(a)(1)(A) limits the President’s authority, that would have no bearing on the vast majority of the Order’s applications. By its terms, that provision governs only the issuance of “immigrant” visas. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A); see id. § 1101(a)(15)-(16), (20). Plaintiffs appear to concede as much, repeatedly describing how Section 1152 applies to those visas. See Pls.’ Br. at 37 (asserting that UMAA members “have pending petitions for their relatives to obtain immigrant visas to travel to the United States”); id. at 38 (asserting that the Order violates “the INA’s prohibition against discrimination against national origin in the issuance of immigrant visas.”). UMAA’s alleged injuries, however, relate to its desire to have Shi’a scholars visit the United States to speak at events, such as UMAA’s national convention, rather than immigrate to the United States. Pls.’ Br. at 16-18. These alleged injuries (to the extent they exist at all, see Part I.A.1, supra) relate to the suspension of nonimmigrant visas.
Moreover, even in the context of immigrant visas, Congress made clear that Section 1152(a)(1)(A) does not “limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications,” id. §1152(a)(1)(B), which at most is all the Order’s temporary pause does. Cf. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 104 F.3d 1349, 1353 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot meet the “heavy burden”
-24-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 37 of 58
of “establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exist under which the [Order] would be valid.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745. To the contrary, it would still be valid in the vast majority of applications.
c. In any event, Plaintiffs’ statutory argument is simply wrong. Even where it applies, Section 1152(a)(1)(A) does not restrict the President’s authority to draw nationality-based distinctions under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a). Section 1152(a)(1)(A) was enacted in 1965 to abolish the prior system of nationality-based quotas for immigrant visas. Congress replaced that system with uniform, per-country percentage limits. Section 1152(a)(1)(A) addresses the subject of relative “preference” or “priority” (and reciprocal disadvantage or “discrimination”) in the allocation of immigrant visas by making clear that the uniform percentage limits are the only limits that may be placed on the number of immigrant visas issued to nationals of any country.
Section 1152(a)(1)(A) thus governs the ordinary process of allocating and issuing immigrant visas. Its plain text governs only “the issuance of an immigrant visa”; it does not purport to restrict the President’s antecedent, longstanding authority to suspend entry of “any class of aliens” or to prescribe reasonable “rules, regulations, and orders” regarding entry as he deems appropriate. And it has never been understood to prohibit the President from drawing nationalitybased distinctions under § 1182(f).
Section 1185(a), too, has long been understood to authorize nationality-based distinctions. In 1979, the Office of Legal Counsel construed it as authorizing the President to “declare that the admission of Iranians or certain classes of Iranians would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Immigration Laws and Iranian Students, 4A Op. O.L.C. 133, 140 (Nov. 11, 1979). Two weeks later, President Carter invoked Section 1185(a) to direct “limitations and exceptions” regarding “entry” of certain “Iranians.” Exec. Order No. 12,172, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,947 (Nov. 26, 1979), as amended by Exec. Order No. 12,206, 45 Fed. Reg. 24,101 (Apr. 7, 1980) (expanding the
-25-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 38 of 58
prior Executive Order to apply to all Iranians, not just those “holding nonimmigrant visas”). Plaintiffs are thus simply wrong to assert that nationality-based distinctions are improper in administering the immigration laws. See also, e.g., Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 746-748 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (upholding regulation that required nonimmigrant-alien post-secondary-school students who were Iranian natives or citizens to provide residence and immigration status to INS).
Interpreting § 1152(a)(1)(A) to prohibit the President from drawing these and other nationality-based distinctions would raise serious constitutional questions that the Court must avoid if possible. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988). As these examples illustrate, limiting the entry of nationals of particular countries can be critical to the President’s ability to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs and protect its security. Yet Plaintiffs’ statutory interpretation would completely disable the President from restricting the entry of immigrants from any country—even one with which the United States was on the verge of war.
Plaintiffs offer no sound reason to adopt that constitutionally dubious interpretation or to upset the long-settled understanding of the President’s statutory authority. Plaintiffs cite Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, 45 F.3d 469, 472-73 (D.C. Cir. 1995), but that case was about the processing of immigrant visas, did not involve an exercise of the President’s authority under §§ 1182(f) or 1185(a), and ultimately was vacated after Congress amended the law while the decision was on appeal. See 519 U.S. 1 (1996). That decision hardly reflects a categorical bar on nationality-based distinctions. In fact, “given the importance to immigration law of, inter alia, national citizenship, passports, treaties, and relations between
-26-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 39 of 58
nations, the use of such classifications is commonplace and almost inevitable.” Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 435 (2d Cir. 2008).10
B. Plaintiffs’ Religious Discrimination Claims Fail Plaintiffs claim the Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it “single[s] out Muslims for discriminatory treatment.” Pls.’ Br. at 21. These claims—along with Plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims—fail under Mandel given the President’s facially legitimate, bona fide reason for issuing the Order. In any event, even applying domestic-law standards rather than Mandel’s test, Plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims are untenable.
1. Mandel is the Appropriate Standard The Supreme Court has made clear that “[w]hen the Executive exercises” its authority to exclude aliens from the country “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the” asserted constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770. This rule reflects the Constitution’s allocation of power over immigration matters, which is “to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government[.]” Id. at 765. Control of the borders is “vitally and intricately interwoven with” matters at the heartland of the President’s inherent authority, including “the conduct of foreign relations” and “the war power.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952). Immigration matters therefore “are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Id. at 589; United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950).
10 Plaintiffs also cite the District of Maryland’s analysis regarding § 1152(a)(1)(A), see Pls.’ Br. at 36, but that court’s interpretation would lead to the non-sensical result that an alien must be issued a visa even though they are validly barred from entering the country.
-27-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 40 of 58
Mandel’s rule governs Plaintiffs’ claims alleging that the Executive’s decision suspending entry of aliens violates Plaintiffs’ asserted constitutional rights. Mandel itself rejected a claim that the Executive’s exclusion of an alien violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who sought to “hear[] and meet[] with” the alien. 408 U.S. at 760, 763-70. Because the Attorney General had a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for denying the waiver—that the alien had violated the conditions of prior visas—the Court declined to “look behind the exercise of that discretion” or “test it by balancing its justification against the [plaintiffs’] First Amendment interests.” Id. at 769-70. And Fiallo applied that same rule to reject a claim that an Act of Congress unconstitutionally discriminated against certain aliens based on their sex and the legitimacy of their children, 430 U.S. at 792-96. The D.C. Circuit did the same in Miller v. Christopher, 96 F.3d 1467, 1470-71 (D.C. Cir. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998). Other courts of appeals have also applied the Mandel standard to reject claims that immigration policies unlawfully discriminated on the basis of “religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Rajah, 544 F.3d at 438; Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying Mandel to reject equalprotection challenge to INA provision); Washington Bybee Dissent at 16-18 (collecting cases).
Plaintiffs contend the Mandel standard is better suited to reviewing individual visa decisions than broad immigration policy. See Pls.’ Br. at 38-39 (citing Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d at 1162). But that is contrary to both Fiallo and Miller. More fundamentally, the argument that courts “cannot look behind the decision of a consular officer, but can examine the decision of the President[,] stands the separation of powers on its head” and “cannot withstand the gentlest inquiry.” Washington Bybee Dissent 12. “The President’s unique status under the Constitution distinguishes him from other executive officials,” and his singular “constitutional responsibilities and status” call for added “judicial deference and restraint.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731,
-28-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 41 of 58
750, 753 (1982). And in few areas is the President’s authority greater than in matters involving foreign relations and national security. See, e.g., Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 41415 (2003); Knauff, 338 U.S. at 542; Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. at 320. The President’s power in this area “is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2083-84 (2015). The President’s “unique constitutional position” and “respect for the separation of powers” compel even greater solicitude for policy decisions made by the President himself than those made by his subordinates. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800 (1992).11
2. The Order More Than Satisfies the Mandel Standard Mandel’s rule compels rejection of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The Order’s entry suspension is expressly premised on a facially legitimate, bona fide purpose: protecting national security. The President determined that a review of the Nation’s screening and vetting procedures is necessary, and that a temporary pause in entry from six countries of concern is important to “prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists” and “reduce investigative burdens” while the review is ongoing. Order § 2(c). The six countries were chosen because they present heightened risks,
11 Plaintiffs cannot avoid Mandel, Fiallo, and Miller by arguing that those cases represent deference only to Congressional policy choices. Mandel itself involved a challenge to Executive Branch action—i.e., the Attorney General’s denial of a waiver. See 408 U.S. at 767-68. And the courts of appeals, including the D.C. Circuit, have likewise applied Mandel and Fiallo’s limited standard of review to Executive Branch policies. See, e.g., Narenji, 617 F.2d at 747 (“Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational they must be sustained.” (emphasis added, citations omitted)). Fundamentally, there is no basis for distinguishing between Congressional and Executive Branch policy judgments given that “the power of exclusion of aliens” is not only a Congressional prerogative, but “is also inherent in the executive department of the sovereign[.]” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543.
-29-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 42 of 58
which the Order explains country-by-country. The risk of continued entry from those countries during the review was, in the President’s judgment, “unacceptably high.” Id. § 1(f).
Plaintiffs urge this Court to cast aside the President’s judgment, asserting that the government’s asserted national-security interests are “wholly absent.” Pls.’ Br. at 22. As support, Plaintiffs rely on an opinion piece in Newsweek indicating that “people from the six listed countries have not killed a single person in terrorist attacks in the United States,” as well as Plaintiffs’ own view that other or additional countries should have been included in the Order. Id.; see id. at 33.12 This line of argument only underscores the need for the Mandel standard, as any significant action of the President with respect to nationals security will likely face criticism and scrutiny in the media. As the Supreme Court has recognized, when “[t]he Executive . . . deem[s] nationals of a particular country a special threat,” “a court would be ill equipped to determine the[] authenticity and utterly unable to assess the[] adequacy” of that determination. Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. (AAADC), 525 U.S. 471, 491 (1999); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 34 (2010) (“[N]ational security and foreign policy concerns arise in connection with efforts to confront evolving threats in an area where information can be difficult to obtain and the impact of certain conduct difficult to assess.”). Here, the plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court to ignore the national security judgment of the President, as informed by his cabinet, and instead substitute its own judgment based on media critiques. On the contrary, Mandel itself made clear that the inquiry into whether the Attorney General’s stated reason was “facially legitimate and bona fide” does not include “look[ing] behind” that reason. 408 U.S. at 769-70. A court can ensure that the stated rationale is valid and consistent with the government’s action, but
12 Citing http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-terrorists-come-not-seven-countries-named550581.
-30-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 43 of 58
its review should be limited to the face of the Order, instead of scouring the public record for criticisms that cannot be adequately vetted or addressed in the context of litigation involving sensitive national security concerns. Because the Order plainly outlines legitimate and neutral national security rationales for the President’s action in detail, the Order more than satisfies the Mandel standard.
Plaintiffs also urge the Court to reject the Order’s stated purpose because it purportedly was given “in bad faith.” Pls.’ Br. at 39. But, at the most, separate opinions in one Supreme Court case have suggested that a court may question a consular officer’s stated statutory basis for denying a particular immigrant visa upon “an affirmative showing of bad faith . . . plausibly alleged with sufficient particularity,” and even then only where denial of the alien’s visa is alleged to violate a U.S. citizen’s spouse’s fundamental rights. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2141 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment); see id. at 2141-47 (Breyer, J., dissenting). That circumstance is far removed from Plaintiffs’ broadside challenge to a formal national-security determination by the President of the United States, pursuant to express statutory authority and in accordance with the recommendations of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
In any event, Plaintiffs have not established that the Order’s stated purpose was given in bad faith. To the contrary, the President’s actions in response to concerns raised by courts regarding the Revoked Order—and taken after consultation with the Executive officers responsible for legal, foreign-relations, national-security, and immigration matters—demonstrate good faith. As the Order explains, the Revoked Order had two provisions addressing religion that were aimed at aiding victims of religious persecution. Order § 1(b)(iv). When the Ninth Circuit and other courts expressed concern that the provisions might draw improper religious distinctions, the President removed them to make clear that national security, not religion, is the Order’s focus. The
-31-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 44 of 58
new Order also limited the scope of the Revoked Order in numerous other significant respects. That is the exact opposite of bad faith.
3. The Order Complies with the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses
Plaintiffs seek to apply precedents from the domestic context, involving things like local religious displays and school prayers. See Pls.’ Br. 21-33. But those cases are not properly applied to foreign-policy, national-security, and immigration judgments of the President. The “unreasoned assumption that courts should simply plop Establishment [and Equal Protection] Clause cases from the domestic context over to the foreign affairs context ignores the realities of our world.” Washington Bybee Dissent at 8 n.6. Doing so would be a potentially dangerous extension of religious discrimination analysis, extending to “every foreign policy decision made by the political branches, including our dealings with various theocracies across the globe.” Washington Kozinski Dissent 3 n.2. This Court should reject such “intrusion of the judicial power into foreign affairs” committed to the political branches. Id. In any event, the Order complies with these precedents.13
a. The Order’s Text and Purpose Are Religion-Neutral The Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses both require the government to “‘pursue a course of neutrality toward religion,’ favoring neither one religion over others nor religious adherents collectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet,
13 In addition to their religious discrimination claims, Plaintiffs also contend that the Order discriminates on the basis of national origin. See Pls. Br. at 33-34. This claim fails, too. The Order does not distinguish on the basis of national origin insofar as that term implicates ethnic heritage; rather, discrimination on the basis of nationality implicates whether “a person ow[es] permanent allegiance to a state.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21) (defining “national”). Moreover, courts—including the D.C. Circuit—have repeatedly affirmed that “[d]istinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive.” Narenji, 617 F.2d at 747 (explaining that distinctions based on nationality “must be sustained” “[s]o long as [they] are not wholly irrational”); see also, e.g., Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 978 n.30 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc), aff’d, 472 U.S. 846 (1985); Rajah, 544 F.3d at 435.
-32-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 45 of 58
512 U.S. 687, 696 (1994) (internal citation omitted); see McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540 (1993) (noting that in the context of the Establishment Clause, “[n]eutrality . . . requires an equal protection mode of analysis”). The Order fully comports with that principle. It does not draw “explicit and deliberate distinctions” based on religion. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 n.23 (1982); see Pls.’ Br. at 31 (conceding that the Order “does not explicitly discriminate against Muslims”). To the contrary, on its face, the Order is entirely neutral in terms of religion. The only provisions in the Revoked Order touching on religion—provisions addressing the Refugee Program that were intended to assist victims of religious persecution—were removed.14
The entry suspension also was not adopted “with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 860. The facially neutral Order’s stated “secular purpose”—protecting against terrorism—cannot properly be deemed a “sham” or “merely secondary to a religious objective.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864. In judging the government’s true “object,” the Supreme Court has looked to the law’s “operation,” because “the effect of a law in its real operation is strong evidence of its object.” Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 535. Here, the suspension applies to six countries based on risk, not religion; and in those six countries, the suspension applies irrespective of any alien’s religion.
14 Plaintiffs attempt to impute anti-Muslim animus from references in the Order to collecting and publishing information about foreign nationals who have been “radicalized” and about “socalled ‘honor killings’” among other “acts of gender-based violence against women.” Order § 11; see Pls.’ Br. at 24. This is grasping at straws. A person can be “radicalized” for any reason, and “[h]onor crimes are not specific to any religion nor are they limited to any one region of the world.” Human Rights Watch, Oral Intervention at 57th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (Apr. 6, 2001), available at http://pantheon.hrw.org/legacy/press/2001/04/un_oral12_0405.htm.
-33-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 46 of 58
Plaintiffs note that each of the six countries is “overwhelmingly Muslim.” Pls.’ Br. at 22; see id. at 32-33. But that fact does not establish that the suspension’s object is to single out Islam. Those countries were previously identified by Congress and the Executive for reasons that Plaintiffs do not contend were religiously motivated: each “is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones.” Order § 1(d). In addition, those countries represent a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslimmajority nations and approximately 10% of the global Muslim population.15 Moreover, to regard the dominant religion of a foreign country as evidence of an Establishment or Equal Protection Clause violation could intrude on “every foreign policy decision made by the political branches.” Washington Kozinski Dissent 3 n.2. Such measures often address particular nations with a dominant religion. See Washington Bybee Dissent 16-18 (collecting cases rejecting challenges to National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which applied to certain nationals of 24 Muslim-majority nations and North Korea). Where the government acts, as here, on secular grounds, courts may not infer religious animus or improper purpose based on how the impact of that action happens to fall. See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811, 1824 (2014) (So long as the government “maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders . . . in an effort to achieve religious balancing.”); see also Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 658 (2002).
Moreover, the Order’s treatment of Iraq, another Muslim-majority nation that was subject to the Revoked Order, further underscores the Order’s neutrality with respect to religion. The Order specifically concluded that, “since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government
15 Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project, Muslim Population by Country (2010), http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/muslims.
-34-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 47 of 58
has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.” Order § 1(g). Thus, the Order determined that Iraq should not be subject to a temporary suspension of travel based on plainly neutral criteria related to national security. At the same time, the Order recognizes that security circumstances in Iraq require additional scrutiny to ensure that visa applicants are not connected to ISIS or other terrorist organizations. Id. § 4. The careful treatment of Iraq in the Order and the President’s acknowledgment of enhanced cooperation demonstrate that the Order is based solely on national security risk and not on any other factor.
Nor does Plaintiffs’ disagreement with the President’s national security judgment or the timing of the Order’s issuance, see Pls.’ Br. at 25-26, 32-33, render the Order’s stated purpose a sham. Courts “must defer to [the Executive’s] stated reasons if a ‘plausible secular purpose . . . may be discerned from the face of the [Order].’” Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394-95 (1983)); see Ehlers-Renzi v. Connelly Sch. of the Holy Child, Inc., 224 F.3d 283, 288 (4th Cir. 2000). Such deference is particularly warranted where the Executive is making predictive judgments that “implicate[] sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs.” Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 33-34. Here, the Order’s aim is to predict where the risk exists going forward. And it is well-established that, in making such predictive judgments, the government “is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle before [courts] grant weight to its empirical conclusions.” Id. at 35. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ attempt to undermine the President’s judgment here—including through reliance on a leaked, draft report based solely on backward-looking evidence—must be rejected. See Pls.’ Br. at 25, 32. This draft document could not possibly overcome the forward-looking and final, official assessment of the President and multiple Cabinet
-35-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 48 of 58
Secretaries. Ex. A, Joint Ltr. to President (Mar. 6, 2017); see Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife (NAHB), 551 U.S. 644, 658-59 (2007). Nor should the Court question the bona fides of the new Order based on Plaintiffs’ assumptions about how quickly the Executive Branch should have been able to proceed. See Pls.’ Br. at 25-26. The President moved expeditiously to issue a revised order that satisfied the Washington Court’s concerns, in consultation with senior advisors.
b. The Order Cannot be Enjoined Based on Campaign Statements or Other Unofficial Comments
Plaintiffs assert that statements by the President—nearly all before assuming office, while still a private citizen and political candidate—and informal remarks of his aides demonstrate that the entry suspension is intended to target Muslims based on their religion. See Pls.’ Br. at 3-6, 24. Plaintiffs’ reliance on such statements in the face of a religion-neutral Order is wrong.
First, under the Constitution’s structure and its separation of powers, courts evaluating a presidential policy should not second-guess the President’s stated purpose by looking beyond the policy’s text and operation. The “presumption of regularity” that attaches to all federal officials’ actions, United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926), applies with the utmost force to the President himself. Indeed, that presumption applies to subordinate Executive officials precisely “because they are designated . . . as the President’s delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).
Second, even in the domestic context, courts evaluate whether official action has an improper religious purpose by looking at “the ‘text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute,’ or comparable official act,” not through “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts,” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862-63. Divining purpose outside the operative terms of governmental action and official pronouncements is “extremely difficult,” posing practical
-36-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 49 of 58
“pitfalls” and “hazards.” Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224 (1971). And it makes no sense in the Establishment Clause context, because only an “official objective” of favoring or disfavoring religion gleaned from “readily discoverable fact” implicates the Clause. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862; see Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 715 (2010) (plurality op.) (rejecting a finding that Congress’s stated purpose for land-transfer statute was “illicit” because the court “took insufficient account of the context in which the statute was enacted and the reasons for its passage”).
Third, even if courts could look beyond official acts and statements to identify governmental purpose, they should not rely (as Plaintiffs suggest here) on statements by political candidates made as private citizens before assuming office. Statements by private persons cannot reveal “the government’s ostensible object.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 860. The Courts of Appeals have accordingly declined to rely on private communications that “cannot be attributed to any government actor” to impute an improper purpose to government action. Glassman v. Arlington Cty., 628 F.3d 140, 147 (4th Cir. 2010); see Modrovich v. Allegheny Cty., 385 F.3d 397, 411-12 (3d Cir. 2004); Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017, 1031 (10th Cir. 2008).
Using comments by political candidates to question the stated purpose of later official action is particularly problematic. Statements of what candidates might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not “official act[s].” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862. They are made without the benefit of advice from an as-yet-unformed Administration, and they cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different course is warranted. See Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 780 (2002); see also Washington Kozinski Dissent 4-5. Permitting campaign statements to contradict official pronouncements of the government’s objectives would inevitably “chill political debate during campaigns.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995) (declining to rely on campaign statements).
-37-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 50 of 58
It also would encourage scrutiny of the past religion-related statements of all manner of government officials. Throughout American history, politicians have invoked religious doctrines and texts on the campaign trail in support of positions on a host of issues. If a candidate’s religiously related campaign statements could form the basis of an Establishment Clause challenge to a facially neutral law, numerous important laws could be subject to colorable Establishment Clause challenges. And it would suggest that it is somehow improper for elected representatives to base their support for legislation in part on religious beliefs.
Moreover, attempting to assess what campaign statements reveal about the motivation for later action would “mire [courts] in a swamp of unworkable litigation,” forcing them to wrestle with intractable questions, including the level of generality at which a statement must be made, by whom, and how long after its utterance the statement remains probative. Washington Kozinski Dissent at 5. That approach would inevitably devolve into the “judicial psychoanalysis” of a candidate’s “heart of hearts” that McCreary repudiated. 545 U.S. at 862.
This case illustrates these difficulties. Virtually all of the President’s statements on which Plaintiffs rely were made before he assumed office—before he took the prescribed oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Taking that oath marks a profound transition from private life to the Nation’s highest public office, and manifests the singular responsibility and independent authority to protect the welfare of the Nation that the Constitution necessarily reposes in the Office of the President. Virtually all of the statements also preceded the President’s formation of a new Administration, including Cabinet-level officials who recommended adopting the Order. And they predated the President’s decision—made after courts expressed concern regarding the Revoked Order—to avoid further litigation and instead to adopt the new, revised Order in response to courts’ concerns. As another district court recently held, “the
-38-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 51 of 58
substantive revisions reflected in [the Order] have reduced the probative value of the President’s [past] statements” and undercut Plaintiffs’ argument that “the predominate purpose of [the Order] is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion.” Sarsour, 2017 WL 1113305, at *12.16
C. Plaintiffs’ Right to Receive Information Claim Fails Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order infringes on their First Amendment rights to “receive information and ideas” because it “prevents UMAA from inviting” various speakers who “are barred from obtaining visas.” Pls.’ Br. at 35. As noted elsewhere, nothing in the Order “prevents” UMAA from conducting its programming, inviting foreign speakers, or encouraging the free flow of information and ideas. The Order therefore will not have the effect that UMAA ascribes to it. See Part I.A.1, supra. In any event, Plaintiffs’ claim is squarely foreclosed by Mandel, which itself involved a First Amendment claim and which Plaintiffs appear to agree governs their claim here. See Pls.’ Br. at 34 (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762-63). Plaintiffs, however, fail to cite the Court’s holding that, in the immigration context, “courts will neither look behind the exercise [of Executive] discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770. That holding
16 Plaintiffs point to two statements made after the President assumed office. See Pls.’ Br. at 25. In the first, a presidential advisor described the then-forthcoming new Order as serving the “same basic policy outcome” as the Revoked Order. Id. In the second, the President characterized the new Order as “a watered-down version of” the Revoked Order. Id. But neither of these informal statements—which were not part of the official process in issuing the new Order—display any religious bias or purpose. The statements merely reflect the fact that the new Order and the Revoked Order aimed at the same fundamental national-security objective of facilitating a review of the sufficiency of existing screening and vetting procedures. See Order § 1(b)-(i). The new Order pursues that objective through substantially revised provisions, which account for the Washington Court’s concerns, and the differences between the new Order and the Revoked Order are clear on the face of the documents.
-39-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 52 of 58
forecloses Plaintiffs’ claim, particularly because, as discussed above, the Mandel standard is more than satisfied here. See Section II.B.2, supra.17
D. Plaintiffs Cannot Prevail on Their Section 4 Claims Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Section 4 of the Order, but say virtually nothing about why that Section is unlawful. And even setting aside the above arguments, Section 4 is entirely lawful. A contrary ruling by this Court would raise substantial separation-of-powers concerns. First, as a threshold matter, UMAA lacks standing to challenge Section 4 because UMAA fails to identify any concrete harm that arises from implementing Section 4’s screening procedures. Those procedures impose no substantive restrictions on issuing visas, but instead merely call for thoroughly screening Iraqi nationals’ visa applications in light of the ongoing conflict in Iraq and ISIS’s influence over a significant portion of Iraq’s territory. Order §§ 1(g), 4. Even if UMAA had standing to challenge the Order’s suspension on entry provision, that is a far cry from establishing standing to challenge the increase in screening procedures required by Section 4. Second, Plaintiffs’ vaguely argue that Section 1152(a)(1)(A)’s nondiscrimination provision precludes heightened screening for Iraqi nationals. See Pls.’ Br. at 36. That provision, however, does not apply at all to “the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Section 4’s instruction to consider certain information when reviewing Iraqi nationals’ applications for visas, admission, or other immigration benefits is procedural, thus falling within the carve-out of Section 1152(a)(1)(B). And in any event, Plaintiffs do not contest that Section 1185 would provide independent authority for Section 4 of the Order.
17 Because Mandel is dispositive, it would be inappropriate to apply intermediate scrutiny as Plaintiffs request. See Pls.’ Br. at 35-36. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ argument that the Order “is not narrowly tailored,” id. at 36, wholly ignores all of the Order’s exceptions and waiver provisions. See Order § 3(a) (limited scope), § 3(b) (six exceptions), § 3(c) (nine waiver provisions).
-40-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 53 of 58
Third, even if consular non-reviewability does not foreclose a challenge to the temporary suspension on entry, the doctrine clearly forecloses Plaintiffs’ attempt to micro-manage the visa adjudication process. Plaintiffs’ challenge thus runs headlong into the doctrine that “courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the visa-issuing process itself.” Saleh v. Holder, 84 F. Supp. 3d 135, 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation and quotation omitted); cf. Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1159 (“a consular official’s decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to judicial review, at least unless Congress says otherwise”); Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1181 (2d Cir. 1978) (“no jurisdictional base exists for review of the action of the American Consul . . . suspending or denying the issuance of immigration visas”).
Finally, Plaintiffs’ challenge to Section 4 raises substantial separation-of-powers concerns. Section 4 represents nothing more than a directive that applications for Iraqi nationals “be subjected to thorough review,” with consideration of certain information “as appropriate.” Order § 4. Section 4 demonstrates the neutrality of the order because it excludes Iraq from the suspension on travel while recognizing that nationals from Iraq may still require some additional scrutiny during the visa issuance process. Courts are wholly ill-equipped to evaluate or decide this nuanced foreign policy decision. Cf. Smith v. Obama, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2016 WL 6839357, at *11-15 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2016), appeal docketed, No. 16-5377 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 21, 2016) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction “to determine whether the President is correct that operations against ISIL are necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States” (modifications omitted)). Plaintiffs’ request that this Court intercede and impose its own judgment as to what level of screening is appropriate for Iraqi nationals in light of the many national security, military, and foreign policy considerations described in the Order, see Order §§ 1(g), 4, would
-41-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 54 of 58
clearly be inappropriate and raise substantial separation-of-powers concerns. For this reason as well, Plaintiffs’ challenge to Section 4 should be rejected. III. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate Irreparable Harm
This Court has previously recognized that Plaintiffs must make a significant showing in order to demonstrate sufficient irreparable harm: “The standard for irreparable harm is particularly high in the D.C. Circuit. Proving irreparable injury is a considerable burden, requiring proof that the movant’s injury is certain, great and actual—not theoretical—and imminent, creating a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent harm.” Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 112 (D.D.C. 2015) (modifications and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs offer a meager one-page analysis of how they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. That analysis is wrong: Even assuming Plaintiffs have satisfied Article III standing, they cannot demonstrate irreparable harm.
First, Plaintiffs wholly ignore that Section 2 of the Order has already been preliminarily enjoined nationwide. See Hawai’i, 2017 WL 1167383, at *9 (enjoining Sections 2 and 6); see also IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *18 (enjoining Section 2(c)). Given these existing injunctions of the Order’s temporary entry suspension, which was the near-exclusive focus of Plaintiffs’ preliminaryinjunction motion, Plaintiffs cannot possibly “demonstrate[] that they will suffer great, concrete, corroborated and certain irreparable harm absent the injunctive relief” they seek. Jones v. Dist. of Columbia, 177 F. Supp. 3d 542, 545 (D.D.C. 2016) (Chutkan, J.).
Second, even if the Order were to start being enforced, none of the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm. UMAA offers no evidence regarding specifically how the Order would impair its upcoming 2017 convention. And based on the 2016 convention, it appears that a relatively small percentage—only three or four people out of thirty speakers—would have been potentially
-42-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 55 of 58
affected by the Order. See UMAA Decl. ¶ 13. UMAA has not explained how the (potential) inability of a relatively small number of speakers to attend this particular convention, at this particular time, would cause irreparable harm to UMAA. As for the individual Doe plaintiffs, implementation of the Order would have no effect on them or their children.
Third, Plaintiffs cannot simply rely on an alleged Establishment Clause violation to support irreparable harm. Plaintiffs must establish irreparable harm “with respect to each claim[.]” N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008). And on their Establishment Clause claim, Plaintiffs not only lack standing, but the First Amendment does not confer constitutional rights on the only persons subject to the Order—aliens abroad. It would therefore be inappropriate to base a finding of irreparable harm on that purported claim. IV. The Balance of Equities and the Public Interest Make Injunctive Relief Inappropriate
An injunction would cause direct, irreparable injury to the government and public interest, which merge in this context. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). “[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers); accord New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). A fortiori, the same principle applies to a national-security judgment of the President made pursuant to express statutory authorization. “[N]o governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation,” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981), and “the President has unique responsibility” in this area, Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 188 (1993).
Those foreign relations concerns are appropriately within the province of the President and Congress to decide, not for this Court to oversee at the behest of private parties. See Sanchez-
-43-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 56 of 58
Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (holding that discretionary relief “interjecti[ng] into so sensitive a foreign affairs matter as this” would be inappropriate based on generalized claims not “specifically addressed to such concerns”); Adams, 570 F.2d at 955.
Given that the political branches’ “[p]redictive judgment[s]” on matters of foreign policy and national security are entitled to the greatest possible deference, Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988), courts should not second-guess the Executive’s determination that “a preventive measure” here is necessary to address a particular risk. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 35; see AAADC, 525 U.S. at 491. The Court should thus decline to enjoin enforcement of the Order. V. The Scope of Any Relief Must Be Limited to the Harm Found
Even if the Court were to conclude some injunctive relief were necessary, that relief must be appropriately tailored.
First, an injunction cannot be issued against the President directly, as courts have recognized for over 150 years. Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1866).
Second, facial invalidation of Sections 2 and 4 of the Order would be inappropriate because Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden of showing that “no set of circumstances exists under which the [Order] would be valid.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745. The Order is clearly lawful as applied to some aliens—for example, aliens abroad with no significant connection to the country or to a U.S. citizen or resident. Moreover, much of Section 2 involves provisions that pertain solely to internal governmental operations and inter-governmental communications—such as preparing reports and the collecting information from foreign governments—that can have no impact on Plaintiffs at all. As for Section 4, enjoining that provision would have the effect of constraining the Government’s ability to review relevant, terrorism-related information when reviewing applications submitted by
-44-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 57 of 58
Iraqi nationals. Both these provisions that concern solely internal or diplomatic matters and the vetting procedures regarding Iraqi nationals clearly have lawful applications.
Third, any relief must be “limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996). Thus, the relief for any individual plaintiff with standing would be to enjoin the Order as applied to that individual and/or their family members. For UMAA, the relief could extend only to particular individuals invited to speak at UMAA’s events. For the Doe children, the relief would be to process their applications in the normal course, which is already occurring because they are not covered by the Order.
Finally, in no event should the Court adopt paragraphs 5-9 of Plaintiffs’ proposed order, which purports to regulate the timing of Defendants’ processing of visa applications, would require Defendants to provide and/or rescind various forms of guidance, and would also require monthly reports to the Court concerning the details of certain visa applications and decisions. See Proposed Order ¶¶ 5-9. Plaintiffs’ motion nowhere explains how any of this relief would redress their purported harms, rather than positioning Plaintiffs as private attorneys general to police third-party visa adjudications. Moreover, this relief “would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo by commanding some positive act,” and Plaintiffs have not acknowledged or satisfied the “higher standard” for imposing mandatory injunctive relief of this nature. Daily Caller v. Dep’t of State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2015). Plaintiffs’ proposed order is effectively a discovery request, and an unreasonably burdensome and intrusive one at that.
CONCLUSION The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
-45-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31 Filed 04/10/17 Page 58 of 58

Dated: April 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Brad P. Rosenberg BRAD P. ROSENBERG (D.C. BAR NO. 467513) DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar) MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Co. Bar No. 37050) ARJUN GARG (D.C. Bar No. 975335) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
Tel.: (202) 514-3374 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: brad.rosenberg@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

-46-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 3
Exhibit A

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT B

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 21

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Contact Us Quick Links Site Map A-Z Index

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States
Release Date:d March 6, 2017
March 6, 2017 11:30 a.m. EST Office of Public Affairs Contact: 202-282-8010
Q1. Who is subject to the suspension of entry under the Executive Order?
Per the Executive Order, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, who are outside the United States and who did not have a valid visa at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017, and do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order are not eligible to enter the United States while the temporary suspension remains in effect. Thus any individual who had a valid visa either on January 27,
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 2 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 21
2017 (prior to 5:00 PM) or holds a valid visa on the effective date of the Executive Order is not barred from seeking entry.
Q2. Will “in-transit” travelers within the scope of the Executive Order be denied entry into the United States and returned to their country of origin?
Those individuals who are traveling on valid visas and arrive at a U.S. port of entry will still be permitted to seek entry into the United States.d All foreign nationals traveling with a visa must continue to satisfy all requirements for entry, including demonstrating that they are admissible.d Additional information on applying for admission to the United States is available on CBP.gov. (https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-
visitors/applying-admission-united-states)
Q3. I am a national from one of the six affected countries currently overseas and in possession of a valid visa, but I have no prior travel to
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 3 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 4 of 21
the United States. Can I travel to the United States?
Per the Executive Order, foreign nationals from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who have valid visas will not be affected by this Executive Order. dNo visas will be revoked solely based on this Executive Order.
Q4. I am presently in the United States in possession of a valid single entry visa but I am a national of one of the six impacted countries. Can I travel abroad and return to the United States?
Regardless of the Executive Order, your visa is not valid for multiple entries into the Unites States. While the Executive Order does not apply to those within the United States and your travel abroad is not limited, a valid visa or other document permitting you to travel to and seek admission to the United States is still required for any subsequent entry to the United States.
Q5. I am presently in the United States in possession of a valid multiple entry visa
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 4 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 5 of 21
but am a national of one of the six affected countries, can I travel abroad and return to the United States?
Yes. Individuals within the United States with valid multiple entry visas on the effective date of the order are eligible for travel to and from the United States, provided the visa remains valid and the traveler is otherwise admissible.d All foreign nationals traveling with a visa must satisfy all admissibility requirements for entry.d Additional information on applying for admission to the United States is available on CBP.gov.
(https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/applyingadmission-united-states)
Q6. I am from one of the six countries, currently in the United States in possession of a valid visa and have planned overseas travel. My visa will expire while I am overseas, can I return to the United States?
Travelers must have a valid visa to travel to the United States, regardless of the Executive Order.d Travelers who
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 5 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 6 of 21
do not have a valid visa due to its expiration while abroad must obtain a new valid visa prior to returning to the United States.d
Q7. Will the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) be revoking the visas of persons ineligible to travel under the revised Executive Order?
Visas will not be revoked solely as a result of the Executive Order.d The Department of State has broad authority under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to revoke visas.d
Q8. What is the process for overseas travelers affected by the Executive Order to request a waiver?
Waivers for overseas travelers without a valid U.S. visa will be adjudicated by the Department of State in conjunction with a visa application.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 6 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 7 of 21
Q9. How are returning refugees and asylees affected by the Executive Order?
Returning refugees and asylees, i.e., individuals who have already been granted asylum or refugee status in the United States, are explicitly excepted from this Executive Order. As such, they may continue to travel consistent with existing requirements.
Q10. Are first-time arrival refugees with valid /travel documents allowed to travel to the United States?
Yes, but only refugees, regardless of nationality, whose travel was already formally scheduled by the Department of State, are permitted to travel to the United States and seek admission.d The Department of State will have additional information.
Q11. Will unaccompanied minors within the scope of the Executive Order be denied boarding and or
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 7 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 8 of 21
denied entry into the United States?
The Executive Order applies to those who do not have valid visas.d Any individuals, including children, who seek entry to the United States must have a valid visa (or other approved travel document) before travel to the United States. The Secretary of State may issue a waiver on a case-by-case basis when in the national interest of the United States. With such a waiver, a visa may be issued. d
Q12. Is DHS complying with all court orders?
DHS is complying, and will continue to comply, with all court orders in effect.
Q13. When will the Executive Order be implemented?
The Executive Order is effective at 12:01 A.M., Eastern Standard Time, on March 16, 2017.
Q14. Will the Executive Order impact Trusted Traveler Program membership?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 8 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 9 of 21
No.d Currently, CBP does not have reciprocal agreements for a Trusted Traveler Program with any of the countries designated in the Executive Order.
Q15. When will CBP issue guidance to both the field and airlines regarding the Executive Order?
CBP will issue guidance and contact stakeholders to ensure timely implementation consistent with the terms of the Executive Order.
Q16. Will first-time arrivals with valid immigrant visas be allowed to travel to the U.S.?
Yes. Individuals holding valid visas on the effective date of the Executive Order or on January 27, 2017 prior to 5:00 PM do not fall within the scope of the Order.
Q17. Does this affect travelers at all ports of entry?
Yes, this Executive Order applies to travelers who are applying for entry into the United States at any port of
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Homela... Page 9 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 10 of 21
entry—air, land, or sea—and includes preclearance locations.
Q18. What does granting a waiver to the Executive Order mean? How are waivers applied to individual cases?
Per the Executive Order, the Departments of Homeland Security and State can review individual cases and grant waivers on a case-by-case basis if a foreign national demonstrates that his or her entry into the United States is in the national interest, will not pose a threat to national security, and that denying entry during the suspension period will cause undue hardship.
Q19. Does “from one of the six countries” mean citizen, national, or born in?
The Executive Order applies to both nationals and citizens of the six countries.d
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 10 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 11 of 21
Q20. How does the lawsuit/stay affect DHS operations in implementing this Executive Order?
Questions regarding the application of specific federal court orders should be directed to the Department of Justice.
Q21. Will nationals of the six countries with valid green cards (lawful permanent residents of the United States) be allowed to return to the United States?
Per the Executive Order, the suspension of entry does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States. d
Q22. Can a dual national who holds nationality with one of the six designated countries traveling with a passport from an
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 11 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 12 of 21
unrestricted country travel to the United States?
The Executive Order exempts from its scope any dual national of one of the six countries when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a different nondesignated country.
Q23. Can a dual national who holds nationality with one of the six designated countries and is currently overseas, apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States?
Please contact the Department of State for information about how the Executive Order applies to visa applicants.
Q24. Are international students, exchange visitors, and their dependents from the six countries (such as F, M, or J visa holders)
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 12 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 13 of 21
included in the Executive Order? What kind of guidance is being given to foreign students from these countries legally in the United States?
The Executive Order does not apply to individuals who are within the United States on the effective date of the Order or to those individuals who hold a valid visa. Visas which were provisionally revoked solely as a result of the enforcement of Executive Order 13769 are valid for purposes of administering this Executive Order. Individuals holding valid F, M, or J visas may continue to travel to the United States on those visas if they are otherwise valid.
Please contact the State Department for information about how the Executive Order applies to visa applicants.
Q25. What happens to international students, exchange visitors or their dependents from the six countries, such as F, M or J visa holders if their visa
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 13 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 14 of 21
expires while the Executive Order is in place and they have to depart the country?
The Executive Order does not affect F, M, or J visa holders if they currently have a valid visa on the effective date or held a valid visa on January 27, 2017 prior to the issuance of the Executive Order. With that said, travelers must have a valid visa to travel to the United States, regardless of the Executive Order.d Travelers whose visa expires after the effective date of the Executive Order must obtain a new, valid visa to return to the United States.d
Q26. Can U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continue refugee interviews?
The Departments of Homeland Security and State will conduct interviews as appropriate and consistent with the Executive Order. However, the Executive Order suspends decisions on applications for refugee status, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine, on a case-by-case basis, that the entry of an individual as a refugee is in the national interest and would not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 14 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 15 of 21
Q27. Can the exception for refugee admission be used for Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (Form I-730) cases where a family member is requesting a beneficiary follow to join?
No. Individuals who already have valid visas or travel documents that permit them to travel to the United States are exempt from the Executive Order. To the extent that an individual does not yet have such documents, please contact the Department of State.
Q28. Does the Executive Order apply to those currently being adjudicated for naturalization or adjustment of status?
USCIS will continue to adjudicate Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400) and Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) and grant citizenship consistent with existing practices.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 15 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 16 of 21
Q29. Will landed immigrants of Canada affected by the Executive Order be eligible for entry to the United States?
Landed immigrants of Canada who hold passports from one of the six countries are eligible to apply for a visa, and coordinate a waiver, at a location within Canada.
Q30. Has CBP issued clear guidance to CBP officers at ports of entry regarding the Executive Order?
CBP has and will continue to issue any needed guidance to the field with respect to this Executive Order.
Q31. What coordination is being done between CBP and the carriers?
CBP has been and will remain in continuous communication with the airlines through CBP regional carrier liaisons. In addition, CBP will hold executive level calls with airlines in order to provide guidance, answer questions, and address concerns.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 16 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 17 of 21
Q32. What additional screening will nationals of restricted countries (as well as any visa applications) undergo as a result of the Executive Order?
In making admission and visa eligibility determinations, DHS and DOS will continue to apply all appropriate security vetting procedures.
Q33. Why is a temporary suspension warranted?
The Executive Order signed on March 6, 2017, allows for the proper review and establishment of standards to prevent terrorist or criminal infiltration by foreign nationals.d The Executive Order protects the United States from countries compromised by terrorism and ensures a more rigorous vetting process. Protecting the American people is the highest priority of our Government and this Department.
Congress and the Obama Administration designated these six countries as countries of concern due to the national security risks associated with their instability and the prevalence of terrorist fighters in their territories.The conditions in the six designated countries present a recognized threat, warranting additional scrutiny of their nationals seeking to travel to and enter the United States.d In order to ensure that the U.S.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 17 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 18 of 21
Government can conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the national security risks, the Executive Order imposes a 90-day suspension on entry to the United States of nationals of those countries.
Based on commitments from the Government of Iraq, the suspension of entry in this Executive Order will not apply to nationals of Iraq. Iraq has taken steps to increase their cooperation with the United States in the vetting of Iraqi nationals and as such it was determined that a temporary suspension is not warranted.
DHS will faithfully execute the immigration laws and the President’s Executive Order, and will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.
Q34. Why is a suspension of the refugee program warranted?
Some of those who have entered the United States as refugees have also proved to be threats to our national security.d For example, in October 2014, an individual admitted to the United States as a refugee from Somalia, and who later became a naturalized U.S. citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction in connection with a plot to set off a bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.d The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that approximately 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 18 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 19 of 21
Q35. How were the six countries designated in the Executive Order selected?
The six countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, had already been identified as presenting concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.Specifically, the suspension applies to countries referred to in, or designated under—except Iraq—section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12).In that provision Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program by dual nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Syria and Iraq, (B)dany country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C)dany other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.In 2016, the former Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern regarding aliens recently present in those countries.
For the purposes of this Executive Order, although Iraq has been previously identified, based on commitments from the Government of Iraq, the suspension of entry in this Executive Order will not apply to nationals of Iraq. However, those who are dual nationals of Iraq and aliens recently present in Iraq continue to have restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program.
On the basis of negotiations that have taken place between the Government of Iraq and the U.S. Department of State in the last month, Iraq will increase
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 19 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 20 of 21
cooperation with the U.S. Government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.As such it was determined that a temporary suspension with respect to nationals of Iraq is not warranted at this time.
Q36. Why was Iraq treated differently in this Executive Order?
The close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically-elected Iraqi government, the strong U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment.In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have fought to regain more than half of the territory previously dominated by ISIS have earned special status.In addition, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to provide additional information about its citizens for purposes of our immigration decisions.Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to include Iraq in the temporary suspension applicable to the other six countries, but visa applications and applications for admission to the United States by Iraqi nationals will be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if they have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations.
Q37. Are Iraqi nationals subject to the Executive Order? Will they require a
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States | Hom... Page 20 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 21 of 21
waiver to travel to the United States?
This Executive Order does not presently suspend the entry of nationals of Iraq. dHowever, all travelers must have a valid travel document in order to travel to the United States. Admissibility will be determined by a CBP officer upon arrival at a Port of Entry. Please contact the Department of State for information related to visa eligibility and application.
Topics:d Border Security (/topics/border-security) , Homeland Security Enterprise (/topics/homeland-security-enterprise) , Immigration Enforcement (/topics/immigration-enforcement) Keywords:d immigration (/keywords/immigration) , immigration enforcement (/keywords/immigration-enforcement) Last Published Date: March 6, 2017
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-... 4/10/2017

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-3 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT C

Important Announcement

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-3 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 4

travel.state.gov

U.S. Passports & International Travel

Alert

Important Announcement Executive Order on Visas

March 22, 2017

Students Abroad U.S. Visa

Intercountry Adoption

International Parental Child Abduction

|

Contact Us

Find U.S. Embassies & Consulates

Alert
MARCH 22, 2017

Important Announcement

travel.state.gov > Newsroom > Important Announcement

Executive Order on Visas

Print Email

Federal district courts in Hawaii and Maryland have issued nation-wide orders barring the Department from implementing portions of Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry,” including Section 2(c) regarding the suspension of entry for certain nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. U.S. embassies and consulates continue to process visa applications for nationals of these six countries as before.

The guidance below regarding implementation processes for Executive Order 13780 is not currently in effect; it was posted before the aforementioned court orders and describes how the Department intended to implement Executive Order 13780.

On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed a new Executive Order On Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States which directs us to review current screening procedures, while protecting national security – our top priority when issuing visas.

We are working closely with the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to ensure that we implement the Executive Order in accordance with its terms, in an orderly fashion, and consistent with any applicable court orders, with the objective of maximizing national security.

The Executive Order becomes effective 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2017, providing time to make orderly operational adjustments. We will keep the public informed about changes affecting travelers to the United States.
We do not plan to cancel any previously scheduled visa appointments. After the new Executive Order goes into effect, any individual who believes he or she is eligible for a waiver or exemption should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver/exemption. A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the Executive Order, and, if so, whether the applicant qualifies.
The Executive Order provides specifically that no visas issued before the effective date of the Executive Order will be revoked pursuant to the Executive Order, and it does not apply to nationals of affected countries who have valid visas on the date it becomes effective.

The order further instructs that any individual whose visa was marked revoked or cancelled solely as a result of the original Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017, (E.O. 13769) will be entitled to a travel document permitting travel to the United States, so that the individual may seek entry. Any individual in this situation who seeks to travel to the United States should contact the closest U.S. embassy or consulate to request a travel document.

·

FAQs on the Executive Order - Department of Homeland Security

Frequently Asked Questions

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html

4/10/2017

Important Announcement

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-3 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 4

Q: Does this Order apply to dual nationals?
This Executive Order does not restrict the travel of dual nationals, so long as they are traveling on the passport of an unrestricted country and, if needed, hold a valid U.S. visa.
Our embassies and consulates around the world will process visa applications and issue nonimmigrant and immigrant visas to otherwise eligible visa applicants who apply with a passport from an unrestricted country, even if they hold dual nationality from one of the six restricted countries.
Q: Does this apply to U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents?
No. As stated in the Order, lawful permanent residents of the United States are not affected by the Executive Order.
Q: Are there special rules for legal residents of Canada?
Legal residents of Canada who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to the United States if the individual presents that passport, and proof of legal resident status, to a consular officer. These applications must be made at a U.S. consular section in Canada. A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver.
Q: Will you process waivers for those affected by the E.O.? How do I qualify for a waiver to be issued a visa?
As specified in the Executive Order, consular officers may issue visas to nationals of countries identified in the E.O. on a case-bycase basis, when they determine: that issuance is in the national interest, the applicant poses no national security threat to the United States, and denial of the visa would cause undue hardship.
An individual who wishes to apply for a waiver should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver. A consular officer will review each case to determine if the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver.
Waiver decisions will be made by the consular officer abroad at the time of adjudication.
Q: I sponsored my family member for an immigrant visa, and his interview appointment is after the effective date of the Order. Will he still be able to receive a visa?
The Executive Order provides several examples of categories of cases that may qualify for a discretionary waiver, to be considered on a case-by-case basis, if in the national interest entry would not threaten national security, and denial would cause undue hardship. Among the examples provided, a foreign national who seeks to enter the United States to reside with a close family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) may be considered for a waiver if the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship.
An individual who wishes to apply for a waiver should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver. A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver.
Q: Can those needing urgent medical care in the United States still qualify for a visa?
The Executive Order provides several examples of categories of cases that may qualify for a waiver, to be considered on a case-bycase basis when in the national interest, when entry would not threaten national security, and denial would cause undue hardship. Among the examples provided, a foreign national who seeks to enter the United States for urgent medical care may be considered for a waiver.
An individual who wishes to apply for a waiver should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver. A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver.
Q: I’m a student or short-term employee that was temporarily outside of the United States when the Executive Order went into effect. Can I return to school/work?

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html

4/10/2017

Important Announcement

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-3 Filed 04/10/17 Page 4 of 4

If you have a valid, unexpired visa, the Executive Order does not apply to your return travel.
If you do not have a valid, unexpired visa, the Executive Order provides several examples of categories of cases that may qualify for a discretionary waiver. These waivers will be considered, on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the traveler’s entry would be in the national interest, would not threaten national security, and if denial would impose undue hardship. Among the examples provided, a foreign national who has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, who is outside the United States on the effective date of the Order, may be considered for a waiver if they seek to reenter the United States to resume that activity and the denial of reentry during the suspension period would impair the activity.
An individual who wishes to apply for a waiver should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might qualify the individual for a waiver. A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the E.O. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for a waiver.

About Us Newsroom Reports and Statistics Legal Considerations

Find a U.S. Embassy or Consulate
Contact Us
Careers
Consular Notification and Access

STAY CONNECTED
Dipnote Blog Facebook Flickr

@travelgov Youtube RSS

travel.state.gov

U.S. Passports & International Travel

Students Abroad

U.S. Visa

Intercountry Adoption

International Parental Child Abduction

Privacy Copyright & Disclaimer FOIA No FEAR Act Data Office of the Inspector General This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

USA.gov

GobiernoUSA.gov

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html

4/10/2017

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 31-4 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The

Court has considered the motion, any response and reply thereto, and the complete record in the

matter. Having considered the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is hereby DENIED.

DATED: ___________________________.

______________________________ Tanya S. Chutkan U.S. District Judge

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF

)

AMERICA, INC.

)

1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20004

)

)

JOHN DOE

)

)

JANE DOE

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as )

President of the United States;

)

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20500

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY

)

3801 Nebraska Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20016

)

)

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION )

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20004

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

)

2201 C Street NW

)

Washington, DC 20530

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

)

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20530

)

)

JOHN KELLY, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security )

3801 Nebraska Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20016

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 40

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity )

as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and

)

Border Protection

)

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20004

)

)

REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as )

Secretary of State

)

2201 C Street NW

)

Washington, DC 20530

)

)

JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in )

his official capacity as Attorney General of the )

United States

)

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

)

Washington, DC 20530

)

)

Defendants.

)

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are two Yemeni nationals and an organization of American Shi’a Muslims. Plaintiffs bring this case to challenge President Donald J. Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order 13,780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Executive Order 13,780 is intended to, and does, temporarily bar many nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, including Yemen, from entering the United States. It also subjects Iraqi nationals to unprecedented and extremely burdensome screening procedures before they may be considered for admission to the United States. Executive Order 13,780 harms the Plaintiffs, and all Muslims living in the United States by subjecting them to hostile treatment under law and by inflicting a damaging stigma upon them based on their religious affiliation. 2. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Whether fleeing from war, tyranny, or persecution, or simply hoping to build a better life, immigrants have long traversed American shores in search of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the United States and enshrined in its Constitution. These immigrants have played a crucial role in shaping this

2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 40
country, and they have rightly been embraced as part of the fabric of American democracy. The United States has also long welcomed temporary visitors who travel here to study or teach and exchange ideas and knowledge with U.S. residents.
3. Executive Order 13,780 taints this proud heritage. The order purports to “protect” the nation from “foreign terrorist[s].” Instead, it ushers in a sweeping ban of most nationals of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The President’s own security agencies have repudiated the broad stereotypes and crude generalizations underlying the order’s putative justification and instead determined that country of citizenship is no reliable proxy for terrorist threat.
4. During his presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump repeatedly condemned what he calls “radical Islam,” linking Islam to terrorism and calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Executive Order 13,780 is the Trump Administration’s second attempt to enact this policy “legally.” Despite the Administration’s efforts to construct a “national security” justification for the order, a litany of statements from the President and his surrogates illustrate the Trump Administration’s animus toward Muslims and indicate that such a policy can never be “legal.”
5. Executive Order 13,780 and its identically-named predecessor, Executive Order 13,769, are predicated on invidious animus. The executive orders ignore the commands of the law, the courts, and the Constitution. The harms to Plaintiffs caused by Executive Order 13,780 are certain, imminent, and irreparable. Plaintiffs accordingly petition this Court for declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement and implementation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 40
7. The Court may award declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 §§ 2201-02, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (e)(1) because Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities; a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district; and one of the plaintiffs, the Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc., maintains its headquarters in this district.
PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 9. Mr. and Mrs. Doe are citizens of Yemen and reside in the United States under asylum status. The Does and their family adhere to the religion of Islam. 10. The Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. (UMAA) is the largest organization of Shi’a Muslims in the United States. It is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Maryland and registered under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. UMAA aims to provide a platform for American Shi’a Muslims to advance political, social, economic, and religious goals important to their community. UMAA provides American Shi’a Muslims a forum to foster intra-faith unity, to participate in civic and political endeavors, to dispel misgivings about Islam and Muslims, and to help fellow Americans better understand Islam. UMAA also provides American Shi’a Muslims access to advanced levels of Islamic education by offering short, intensive courses on a variety of subjects presented by senior Islamic seminary students and scholars, many of whom come from Iraq and Iran. UMAA’s email distribution list for its weekly newsletters currently includes over 17,000 subscribers, and UMAA’s national convention draws thousands of attendees annually. UMAA maintains a national organization as well as local chapters across the country. In addition to the annual
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 40
convention, UMAA also holds other events for the American Shi’a community throughout the year. For its events, UMAA often invites prominent Shi’a scholars—many from Iran and Iraq— to appear as speakers, so that its members may experience their teachings and perspectives.
B. Defendants 11. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States and is sued in his official capacity. President Trump issued Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. 12. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is an executive department of the United States government. DHS is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 13. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) is an administrative agency within DHS. CBP is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 14. Defendant Department of State is an executive department of the United States government. The State Department is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 15. Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an executive department of the United States government. DOJ is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 16. Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of Homeland Security and is sued in his official capacity. Secretary Kelly is responsible for DHS’s administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 17. Defendant Kevin McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection and is sued in his official capacity. Acting Commissioner McAleenan is directly responsible for CBP’s implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 18. Defendant Rex W. Tillerson is the Secretary of State and is sued in his official capacity. Secretary Tillerson oversees the Department of State’s activities with respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 40
19. Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is the Attorney General of the United States and is sued in his official capacity. Attorney General Sessions oversees the DOJ’s activities with respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Does 20. Mr. and Mrs. Doe came to the United States from Yemen. The Does are Yemeni nationals living in the United States as asylees. The Does and their family adhere to the religion of Islam. 21. In 2015, Yemen collapsed into civil war. The conflict, which to this day is ongoing, has resulted in more than 10,000 civilian deaths and 40,000 civilian injuries.1 As a result of the civil war and a contemporaneous famine, United Nations officials reported this year that over 10 million Yemeni civilians need urgent assistance to protect their safety, dignity, and basic human rights.2 22. In early 2015, the Does came to the United States on visas with three of their children. But they could not afford the cost of bringing their remaining two children, sons ages 10 and 12, who stayed behind in Yemen with their grandmother. Mr. Doe later received word from Yemen that militants had threatened to kill him and his family if he returned. The militants also threatened to kidnap his two sons who were still in Yemen. 23. With the help of an immigration attorney, Mr. Doe successfully applied for asylum in the United States. Mr. Doe then petitioned for his two sons who were still living in Yemen to obtain visas to enter the United States on the basis of their status as minor children of
1 Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000, AL JAZEERA (Jan. 16, 2017), http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/death-toll-yemen-conflict-passes-10000170117040849576.html, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 43. 2 Id.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 40
an asylee pursuant to Section 208(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Mr. Doe’s petition was approved in or around October 2016.
24. After months of efforts by their immigration attorney to obtain visa interviews for them, on April 9, 2017, the Doe sons underwent interviews at the U.S. embassy in Djibouti. Their visa applications were approved on that date.
25. The Doe sons’ visas have not yet been printed, and the Doe sons have not yet received these visas. The U.S. embassy in Djibouti has declined to give a date by when the visas will be issued.
26. A visa does not guarantee entry to the United States, but rather allows its holder to travel to a port of entry, airport or land border crossing and request permission of the CBP inspector to enter the United States.3
27. The Doe sons remain in Djibouti while they wait for issuance of their visas and travel documents. If the current nationwide injunctions restraining implementation of relevant portions of the Replacement Executive Order are dissolved or vacated, the boys will be subject to the Order’s prohibition on the admission of Yemeni nationals to the United States.
B. UMAA and the American Shi’a Muslim Community 28. Shi’ism is the second largest denomination of Islam in the world, comprising around ten to fifteen percent of the global and American Muslim populations. Shi’a Muslims believe in a hierarchical structure of religious clergy, with the most learned given the highest religious authority, transnationally. While Shi’a adherents can be found in many nations, they form the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain and make up close to half of all Muslims in the Middle East. Shi’a Islam is distinct from other major religions in that nearly all of its 3 U.S. Dep’t of State, What is a U.S. Visa?, https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-u-svisa.html
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 40
highest-ranking scholars live in the nations of Iran, Iraq and Syria. These three nations are also where some of the holiest sites of Shi'a Islam are located, drawing millions of Shi’a Muslims from across the world annually, including from the United States. In fact, the largest annual peaceful gathering on Earth occurs at Karbala, Iraq, on the solemn Shi’a festival known as Arba’een, which drew a reported 22 million pilgrims on a single day in 2013.
29. UMAA regularly arranges for renowned Shi’a scholars to visit the United States so that they may speak at its events, including its national convention. Because the most renowned Shi’a scholars are centralized in Iran and Iraq, many of the foreign speakers at UMAA’s events are Iranian or Iraqi.
C. President Trump’s Campaign Pledge to Ban Muslims from the United States 30. Prior to taking office, then-candidate Donald J. Trump made discrimination against Muslims a central pillar of his campaign for the presidency. 31. On November 18, 2015, in response to terror attacks in Paris, Mr. Trump stated that “[w]e’re going to have no choice” but to close down some mosques in the United States, where “some bad things are happening.”4 32. On December 7, 2015, in the wake of the attack in San Bernardino, California, then-candidate Mr. Trump released a written statement, entitled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” which called for a “total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” 5 33. The statement continued:
4 Nick Gass, Trump: ‘Absolutely no choice’ but to close mosques, POLITICO (Nov. 18, 2015, 6:45 AM), http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 3. 5 Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 4 .
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 40
According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred
towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.
Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released
data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against
Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the
global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in
America should have the choice of being governed according to
Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against
non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more
unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially
women.6
34. The survey cited in the statement had long since been discredited, 7 but the
message was clear: Mr. Trump believes that many Muslims bear hostile attitudes toward the
6 Id. (emphasis added). 7 The Center for Security Policy’s study used an online “opt-in” poll, rather than a traditional sampling model. Results of these “opt-in” polls do not represent the opinions of larger populations because anyone can respond to them and the pollster has no way of knowing who the respondents are. See The Bridge Initiative Team, Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY (Dec. 7, 2015, 6:48 AM), http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-withflaws/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 61 (discussing unreliability of “opt-in” polling and explaining that the Center for Security Policy’s survey also used “leading” questions and included multiplechoice questions with non-exhaustive answer choices); Lauren Carroll & Louis Jacobson, Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US, POLITIFACT (Dec. 9, 2015, 3:48 PM), http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-citesshaky-survey-call-ban-muslims-entering/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 64 (rating the survey’s conclusion “mostly false” due to unreliable methodology and noting that the Center for Security Policy’s president, Frank Gaffney, has a history of spreading untrue theories about Islam, including arguing that President Barack Obama was a Muslim (citing Frank Gaffney, Gaffney: America’s first Muslim president?, WASHINGTON TIMES (June 9, 2009), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslim-president/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 63.)).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 40
United States and favor violent ideology over American law and—for that reason—immigration
and travel by Muslims to the United States should be suspended.
35. This proposed “Muslim ban” became a core promise of the Trump campaign,
repeated by Mr. Trump and his advisors and surrogates at campaign events across the country.
36. Asked during a televised debate on January 14, 2016, whether he had rethought
his “comments about banning Muslims from entering the country,” Mr. Trump responded, “No.”8
37. On March 9, 2016, Mr. Trump stated in a televised interview, “I think Islam hates us.”9 The full exchange between Mr. Trump and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is instructive:
Cooper: Do you think Islam is at war with the West?
Trump: I think Islam hates us. There is something—there is something there that is a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.
Cooper: In Islam itself?
Trump: You’re going to have to figure that out. OK. You’ll get another Pulitzer, right? But you’ll have to figure that out. But there’s a tremendous hatred. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very careful. And we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States . . . and of people that are not Muslim.
Cooper: I guess the question is, is there a war between the west and radical Islam or between the west and Islam itself?
Trump: Well, it’s radical but it’s very hard to define. It’s very hard to separate because you don’t know who is who.10
8 Gerhard Peters & John T. Wooley, Presidential Candidate Debates: Republican Candidates Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (Jan. 14, 2016), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=111395, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 7. 9 Exclusive Interview with Donald Trump: Aired March 9, 2016 - 20:00 ET, CNN (Mar. 9, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1603/09/acd.01.html, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 8. 10 Id. (emphasis added).
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 40
38. Amid widespread outcry that the proposed Muslim ban would be un-American and unconstitutional, Mr. Trump and his advisors began shifting their rhetoric, while clarifying that their goal continued to be some form of a ban on entry of Muslims into the United States.
39. On June 13, 2016, after the attack on a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Mr. Trump said in a speech: “I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger, but now many are saying I was right to do so.”11
40. Mr. Trump then specified that the ban would be “temporary,” and would apply to certain “areas of the world when [sic] there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”12
41. Next, in a July 17, 2016 televised interview, Mr. Trump was confronted with his then-running mate Mike Pence’s statement that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional. Mr. Trump responded that the same purpose of stemming the flow of Muslim immigrants would be pursued by other ends: “So you call it territories, okay? We’re gonna do territories.”13
42. A week later, in a July 24, 2016 interview, Mr. Trump was asked if his shifting rhetoric signified a “rollback” from his proposed “Muslim ban.” He answered: “I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. ‘Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim.’ . . . And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”14
11 Transcript: Donald Trump’s national security speech, POLITICO (Jun. 13, 2016, 3:06 PM), http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech224273, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 10. 12 Id. 13 Lesley Stahl, The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence, CBS NEWS (Jul. 17, 2016), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 64. 14 Meet the Press - July 24, 2016, NBC NEWS (Jul. 24, 2016, 11:47 AM), http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 11.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 40
43. And on October 9, 2016, during a televised presidential debate, Mr. Trump stated,
“The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a[n] extreme vetting from
certain areas of the world.”15
44. As of the date of this complaint, the Trump campaign’s December 7, 2015 press
release entitled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” remains on the
Donald J. Trump campaign website16 and on President Trump’s Twitter page,17 which President
Trump has continued to use regularly even after taking office.
D. The First Executive Order
45. On January 27, 2017, President Trump fulfilled his campaign promise by signing
Executive Order 13,769 entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States” (“First Executive Order”).18 At the signing ceremony, after reading the title of the
First Executive Order aloud, President Trump remarked “We all know what that means.”19
46. On January 30, 2017, President Trump confirmed what he meant, referring to
Executive Order 13,769 as “the ban.” 20
15 Gerhard Peters & John T. Wooley, Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (Oct. 9, 2016), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 65. 16 See Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 4. 17 See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Dec. 7, 2015); https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/673993417429524480, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 5. 18 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). 19 Matt Shuham, Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out ‘Extreme Vetting,’ TALKING POINTS MEMO (Jan. 27, 2017, 4:56 PM), http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-signs-vettingexecutive-order, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 66. 20 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Jan. 30, 2017), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 67; see also Donald J. Trump (@real DonaldTrump), TWITTER (Feb. 1, 2017), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 68 (“Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!”).
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 40
47. Among other things, the First Executive Order temporarily banned entry of all
nationals from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries, temporarily suspended the entire United
States Refugee Admissions Program, established a policy of prioritizing certain religious
denominations over others upon resuming the program, and indefinitely barred entry of Syrian refugees.21 The First Executive Order also provided that the President could expand the list of seven countries initially designated.22 In addition, the First Executive Order included among its
“purposes” that the United States should not admit individuals who “place violent ideologies
over American law” or who engage in acts of hatred or bigotry “including so called ‘honor killings’ or other forms of violence against women.”23
48. Section 10 of the First Executive Order mandated that the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, collect and make publicly available
information related to “foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after
entry into the United States” and “honor killings in the United States by foreign nationals.”
49. On the day he signed the First Executive Order, when asked whether he saw Christian refugees as a priority, President Trump responded unequivocally: “Yes.”24
50. This religious preference was reflected in Sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the First
Executive Order, which prioritized refugee claims based on religious-based persecution for
21 See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 §§ 3(c), 5(b)-(c). 22 Id. § 3(e)-(f). 23 Id. § 1; see generally Declaration of Professor Lila Abu-Lughod. 24 David Brody, Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority Status As Refugees, CHRISTIAN BROADCAST NETWORK (Jan. 27, 2017), http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trumpsays-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 18. (“If you were a Muslim [in Syria] you could come in [to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible . . . . And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them [Christian refugees]”); see also Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Jan. 29, 2017, 7:03 AM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858; Weiner Declaration at Ex. 69 (“Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”).
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 40
individuals whose religion is a “minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” As a practical matter, the vast majority of the 38,000 Muslim refugees admitted to the United States in 2016 were nationals of Muslim-majority countries, thus rendering the majority of Muslim refugees ineligible for the religious-based persecution preference.25
51. The following day, January 28, 2017, President Trump’s advisor and surrogate Rudy Giuliani admitted that the policy implemented in the First Executive Order resulted from an instruction by the President to find “the right way” to “legally” implement the “Muslim ban.”26
E. The First Executive Order Was Enjoined by the Courts. 52. The First Executive Order was immediately met with a series of legal challenges across the country, including in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, the Western District of Washington, and the Eastern District of Virginia. 53. The day after the First Executive Order was issued, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, enjoining executive-branch officials from removing individuals with approved applications under the United States Refugee Admissions Program, holders of immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals legally authorized to enter the United States from the seven countries designated in the First Executive Order. Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480, ECF 8 at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017). The district court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs
25 See Phillip Connor, U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Oct. 5, 2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-recordnumber-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 70. 26 See Rebecca Savransky, Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban ‘legally,’ THE HILL (Jan. 29, 2017, 8:48 AM), http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giulianitrump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 12.
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 40
could establish that such removals would violate their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the United States Constitution. Id. at 1.
54. Days later, on February 3, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of several sections of the First Executive Order on a “nationwide basis.” Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17cv-00141-JLR, ECF 52 at 5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The Washington lawsuit was brought by the States of Washington and Minnesota and, like in the Eastern District of New York lawsuit, the district court in Washington found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the states’ claims, which included challenges to the First Executive Order on the bases of, inter alia, the Free Exercise, Establishment, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. See id. at 4; see also Complaint, Washington v. Trump, No 2:17-cv00141-JLR, ECF 1 at 10-13 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2017) (asserting constitutional and other causes of action).
55. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the district court in Washington and declined to stay the district court’s order. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit determined that Washington and Minnesota showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural-due-process claim but reserved an analysis of the states’ other claims for future proceedings and more extensive briefing. See id. at 1168.
56. While the Washington case proceeded, yet another lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, resulted in a preliminary injunction of Section 3(c) of the First Executive Order. The district court examined the litany of statements by President Trump and members of his Administration indicating their intent to ban Muslims from the United States and found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their
15

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 40
Establishment Clause claims. See Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB, ECF 111 at 79, 20 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017).
57. In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the President signaled his apparent intent to continue litigation over the First Executive Order, tweeting: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”27 Yet just one week after the decision, DOJ informed the Ninth Circuit that the President intended to rescind the First Executive Order and replace it with a “new substantially revised Executive Order to eliminate what the panel erroneously thought were constitutional concerns.” Defendants-Appellants’ Supplemental Brief on En Banc Consideration, Washington v. Trump, No. 17:35105, ECF 154 at 4 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017) (emphasis added).
F. The Administration Contradicted Its Representations to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
58. Despite DOJ’s representation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the President would “rescind” the First Executive Order and issue an updated order, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at a February 21 press conference that President Trump would not rescind the First Executive Order.28 Instead, Spicer continued, the First Executive Order would be “updated.”29
59. The next day, Stephen Miller, a White House Senior Policy Advisor, said in an interview with Fox News that the planned revised executive order would include “mostly minor
27 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (Feb. 9, 2017, 3:35 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/829836231802515457, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 22 (capitalization included in original). 28 Matthew Nussbaum, Josh Gerstein, & Christiano Lima, White House creates confusion about future of Trump’s travel ban, POLITICO, (Feb. 21, 2017), http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-confusion-235241, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 71. 29 Id.
16

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 40
technical differences” but that “[f]undamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country.”30
60. Like the February 21 statement by Mr. Spicer, Mr. Miller’s statement contradicted DOJ’s representations to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated that the new executive order would be “substantially revised.”
61. The contradictory statements from the Administration and its attorneys regarding whether the President would rescind the First Executive Order and whether the Replacement Executive Order would be “substantially revised” was noted by the court in the lawsuit proceeding in the Western District of Washington. Ali v. Trump, No. C17-0135JLR, ECF 49 at 3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 3, 2017).
62. The Administration’s doublespeak confirms its intention to satisfy the courts by claiming to “revoke” and “revise” the First Executive Order, while simultaneously championing its “same basic policy” of banning Muslims from the United States.
G. Lack of Justification for the Executive Orders 63. On February 24, the Associated Press obtained a DHS report prepared at the request of the Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis.31 The report, entitled “Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States,” analyzed the terrorist threats posed by the seven countries targeted by the First Executive Order.32
30 Matt Zapotosky, A new travel ban with ‘mostly minor technical differences’? That probably won’t cut it, analysts say, WASH. POST (Feb. 22, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-new-travel-ban-with-mostly-minortechnical-differences-that-probably-wont-cut-it-analysts-say/2017/02/22/8ae9d7e6-f918-11e6bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.4b2c8de99d5f, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 2. (emphasis added). 31 Rick Jervis, DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump’s travel ban, USA TODAY (Feb. 24, 2017, 7:09 PM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memo-contradicttravel-ban-trump/98374184/, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 72. 32 See id.
17

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 40
64. Even though the First Executive Order purported to “Protect[] the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry,” one of the DHS report’s key findings is that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”33 As support for this finding, the report explains that “Citizens of Countries Affected by [the First Executive Order are] Rarely Implicated in US-Based Terrorism,” and that “Few of the Impacted Countries Have Terrorist Groups that Threaten the West.”34 The report stated that since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, 82 primarily U.S.-based individuals either died in the pursuit of or were convicted of terrorism-related federal offenses inspired by a foreign terrorist organization.35 Of these 82 individuals, slightly more than half were native-born United States citizens, with the rest coming from 26 different countries, including some—but not all—of the countries designated by the First Executive Order, and many other countries besides.36 The report also explains that nationals of the seven designated countries already have relatively limited access to the United States.37
65. Additionally, even though the First Executive Order required the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and report whether foreign states were providing sufficient information for the United States government to adjudicate visa decisions,38 the First Executive Order—and now the revised Executive Order, as well—banned entry of nationals of the designated Muslim-majority countries before that review had even been conducted.
33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017) § 3(a), (b).
18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 40
H. The Replacement Executive Order 66. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a new executive order under the same name as the First Executive Order. The new executive order replaces the First Executive Order (hereinafter “Replacement Executive Order”) and includes some differences. Namely, it removes Iraq from the list of countries whose nationals are banned, but subjects Iraqis to specific enhanced vetting requirements in order to travel to the United States. It further announces intent that other potential entrants be subject to increased, “rigorous” vetting before being admitted to the United States.39 The Replacement Executive Order also creates exceptions to the travel restriction for legal permanent residents and people who held visas as of March 16, 2017. And finally, the Replacement Executive Order eliminates the priority for refugees of minority religions, but it maintains the First Executive Order’s restriction on the total number of refugees permitted into the United States. Just as Mr. Miller predicted, aside from these and other minor differences, the Replacement Executive Order has the “same basic policy outcome” envisioned by the first and continues to implement President Trump’s promise—a “Muslim ban.” Like its predecessor, the Replacement Executive Order references “acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘honor killings.’”40 67. On March 15, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of the Replacement Executive Order. Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 1:17-00050-DKW-KSC, ECF 219 at 2, 42-43 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017). The next day, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Replacement Executive Order (the provision restricting travel to the United States by nationals 39 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (March 6, 2017) § 5. 40 See generally Declaration of Professor Lila Abu-Lughod.
19

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 20 of 40
of Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia). IRAP v. Trump, No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, ECF149, at 2, 40-43 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017).
73. Speaking at a rally in Nashville, Tennessee, on the same day that the Hawai‘i Court issued its ruling, President Trump called the ruling “terrible.”41 He continued, stating that the Replacement Executive Order was a “watered-down version of the first one” and that he thinks “we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way.”42
I. State Department’s Implementation of the Replacement Executive Order 74. On March 6, 2017, simultaneous with the release of the Replacement Executive Order, President Trump signed a memorandum to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Presidential Memorandum”). 75. Section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum states: “The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, as permitted by law, implement protocols and procedures as soon as practicable that in their judgment will enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and all other immigration benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.” 76. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a cable on March 17, 2017 to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts worldwide, which purports to “provide[] guidance for implementing section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum.” This cable was also intended “to supplement the initiatives set out in the E.O. [Replacement Executive Order] (other than section 2).”
41 Matt Zapatosky, et al., Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban, WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 16, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/socialissues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wednesdaymorning/2017/03/14/b2d24636-090c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html, Weiner Declaration at Ex. 75. 42 Id.
20

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 21 of 40
77. Secretary Tillerson’s March 17 cable stated: “The E.O. [Replacement Executive Order] and Presidential Memorandum highlight the critical importance of maintaining extra vigilance in the conduct of our work and continuing to increase scrutiny of visa applicants for potential security and non-security related ineligibilities.” This cable advised consular officials that they “should not hesitate” to refuse visa applications “presenting security concerns” while they “explore all available local leads,” or to “take other precautionary actions.”
78. Secretary Tillerson’s March 17 cable directed consular chiefs to convene working groups to develop a list of criteria identifying visa applicant populations warranting increased scrutiny.
79. Secretary Tillerson’s March 17 cable noted that “the Presidential Memorandum and Sections 1(g) and Section 4 of the E.O. [Replacement Executive Order] contemplate additional screening for Iraqi nationals in addition to the robust vetting already in place.” To that end, Secretary Tillerson’s cable directed consular officials, to “submit a Donkey Security Advisory Opinion” for Iraqi nationals applying with an Iraqi passport if the applicant “was ever present in a territory at the time it was controlled by ISIS [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria].” A Security Advisory Opinion request initiates an interagency review of information about the applicant to determine whether he or she should be issued a visa.
80. Upon information and belief, these instructions from the State Department have caused and will continue to cause unusual, highly burdensome, and lengthy delays in the adjudication of visa applications by people from Muslim-majority countries.
D. Effects of the Executive Orders on Plaintiffs i. UMAA
75. After the First Executive Order was issued, UMAA was forced to cancel an event that it had planned and to issue refunds for tickets that it had sold for the event. Specifically,
21

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 22 of 40
UMAA had arranged for a renowned Shi’a eulogy reciter, Basem Nameliti, an Iranian national, to visit the United States for an event in Dearborn, Michigan, on February 4, 2017, commemorating the birthday of the granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad. Mr. Nameliti uses the professional name Basim Karbalaei (hereinafter “Mr. Karbalaei”). UMAA had invited Mr. Karbalaei to speak at the February 4th event on April 20, 2016. In the months and weeks leading up to February 4, UMAA heavily publicized the event among its members and sold approximately 2,200 tickets at $30 each.
76. After the issuance of the First Executive Order, Mr. Karbalaei had received his United States travel visa. Because of the First Executive Order, however, his visa was revoked and he was prohibited from traveling to the United States. UMAA was thus forced to cancel the event and provide refunds to people who had purchased tickets. Providing these refunds cost UMAA over $15,000. Instead of the originally planned event, UMAA organized a “No Ban, No Wall” rally at the same venue in Dearborn, Michigan, in order to bring members of the community together in opposition to the First Executive Order.
77. The Replacement Executive Order harms UMAA and its members because it effectively prevents or severely restricts UMAA from bringing Shi’a clergy to the United States to speak at its 2017 national convention and other events. As a consequence, the Replacement Executive Order restricts American Shi’a Muslims’ access to many of the learned figures of their faith, and it harms UMAA’s ability to attract paying attendees to its events. Moreover, the Replacement Executive Order’s purported limitations fail to mitigate this harm.
78. The Replacement Executive Order places UMAA in a position where it is effectively unable to invite speakers to its upcoming national convention, from June 30 to July 3, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland, and other future events.
22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 23 of 40
79. For example, UMAA is unable to bring Mr. Karbalaei to the United States to speak at future events because his travel visa has expired. After the Ninth Circuit left in place the district court’s preliminary injunction of the First Executive Order, UMAA invited Mr. Karbalaei to its 2017 national convention, for which he requires a new travel visa. Although Mr. Karbalaei wants to attend and speak at the convention, he is unable to secure a visa because of the Replacement Executive Order, and thus UMAA will again be unable to bring him to the United States to speak to its members.
80. Inability to secure speakers has also harmed UMAA’s ability to advertise and draw attendees to its events. For example, in previous years, UMAA has advertised its national convention by providing prospective attendees with an advance schedule of speakers that includes the foreign speakers it has invited. This year, UMAA has been unable to advertise its event to include Iranian and Iraqi speakers because of the Executive Orders. And since these foreign speakers are one of the primary attractions for the national convention, the Replacement Executive Order significantly harms UMAA’s ability to attract attendees.
81. The Replacement Executive Order also harms UMAA’s members because they cannot receive the teachings of their religion’s most important scholars.
82. Even though the Replacement Executive Order purports to allow case-by-case waivers for certain individuals, because it applies to all Iranian nationals and because there is no guarantee that any particular applicant will be granted a waiver, UMAA cannot determine which speakers to invite to its convention and other events because it does not know which speakers would be granted waivers.
83. Because the scholars whom UMAA would invite to its convention are popular figures with multiple engagements, it is not practicable for UMAA to wait 90 days from the Replacement Executive Order’s effective date of March 16 before inviting Iranian speakers.
23

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 24 of 40
Ninety days from the effective date would be on or about June 12, 2017—less than three weeks from the start of UMAA’s national convention—an insufficient amount of time to negotiate with and secure speakers and apply for and obtain their visas.
84. The extreme vetting to which Iraqis are subjected under the Replacement Executive Order also raises a substantial risk that Iraqi invitees would be unable to obtain visas in time to attend the convention. For these reasons, UMAA also cannot advertise particular speakers ahead of time and thus is prevented from attracting paying attendees to its events.
85. Accordingly, because the Replacement Executive Order effectively prevents UMAA from securing speakers from Iraq and Iran for its national convention and effectively prevents UMAA’s members from receiving the teachings of their religion’s most important clergy, UMAA seeks immediate relief from this Court.
86. In addition to preventing UMAA’s members from receiving the teachings of foreign Shi’a scholars, the Replacement Executive Order prevents UMAA’s members living in the United States on single-entry visas from visiting Shi’a Islam’s holy sites in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and from making the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, a sacred rite for all Muslims.
87. Moreover, UMAA’s members with family living in countries targeted by the Replacement Executive Order are harmed because it prevents them from bringing their relatives to the United States as visitors or immigrants. Many of UMAA’s members are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States with pending or approved petitions for their relatives, who are nationals of the seven targeted countries, to obtain immigrant visas to come to the United States. Due to the Replacement Executive Order, these relatives will either be barred from obtaining visas and entering the United States, or they will face highly burdensome hurdles to obtaining visas and entering the United States.
24

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 25 of 40
88. The Replacement Executive Order also harms UMAA’s members because it includes language and categorical discrimination that stereotypes and condemns their religion. For UMAA members from one of the seven impacted counties, the Replacement Executive Order also harms them because of its categorical discrimination that stereotypes and condemns them because of their national origin.
89. The Replacement Executive Order does provide for discretionary “case-by-case waivers” for individuals seeking admission to the United States who can demonstrate to consular officials that their admission would be “in the national interest.”43 Regardless of whether UMAA’s individual members or their relatives abroad may be entitled to case-by-case waivers under the Replacement Executive Order, it still impermissibly subjects them to disparate treatment and additional procedural hurdles on the basis of their national origin or religion. Even if some waivers are ultimately granted, the waiver provision imposes significant barriers to entry and subjects applicants to the requirement that they demonstrate to the satisfaction of consular officials that their entry is in the national interest.
90. UMAA seeks relief on behalf of its members because these harms are germane to UMAA’s purpose of facilitating the religious, social, and political lives of American Shi’a Muslims. Because the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by UMAA in this case would also afford relief to its members, participation of any individual members would not be necessary for UMAA to obtain the relief it seeks. Although sections 2 and 6 of the Replacement Executive Order are currently enjoined by the courts, sections 4 and 5 are not enjoined. In addition, no permanent injunction has been issued even against sections 2 and 6. The existing injunctions are only preliminary, and, importantly, are currently pending on appeal. Should the courts of appeal
43 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (March 6, 2017) § 3(c)
25

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 26 of 40
in other circuits vacate these injunctions, UMAA and its members would then face immediate threats to their rights under section 2, in addition to the harms they now suffer under sections 4 and 5. The chaos and uncertainty caused by both Executive Orders create a separate difficulty for the organization’s attempts to secure speakers for its convention, because the organization and potential speakers do not know whether the Replacement Executive Order’s travel restrictions will be reinstated. UMAA’s members have also faced extraordinary delays in processing for visa applications for family members due to confusion among consular officials.
ii. The Does 91. As with the First Executive Order, the Replacement Executive Order includes Yemen as one of the countries whose nationals are subject to the travel ban.44 The Does’ sons are nationals and citizens of Yemen. 92. Both the First Executive Order and the Replacement Executive Order, as well as efforts to implement those Orders, have caused significant delays in the adjudication of the Doe sons’ visa applications. 93. In or about mid-December 2016, before the First Executive Order was issued, the Does’ lawyer was notified that the Does’ sons, who were then living in Yemen, had been scheduled for an interview in Djibouti approximately nine days later as part of the adjudication of their visa applications. Because it is very difficult and time consuming to travel from Yemen to Djibouti, the Doe sons missed their appointments in Djibouti. 94. Over the past three to four months, the Does’ lawyer made numerous unsuccessful attempts to reschedule the boys’ interviews. Her emails to the State Department and to the U.S. embassy in Djibouti were repeatedly ignored.
44 See 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (March 6, 2017) § 1(e)(vi).
26

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 27 of 40
95. When President Trump issued the First Executive Order, the boys were living outside Yemen, in proximity to Djibouti, while their lawyer attempted to reschedule the interview. After the boys had been living outside of Yemen for about a month, the family could no longer afford to subsidize the boys’ stay, and they returned to Yemen.
96. After the boys returned to Yemen in early February 2017, the First Executive Order was enjoined by the district court in Washington.
97. The boys stayed in Yemen until mid-March 2017. They moved from place to place in Yemen in order to escape bombings and other violence. They were not able to attend school.
98. In mid-March 2017, the boys traveled to Djibouti to escape the violence in Yemen and waited for their consular interviews to be scheduled. In order to facilitate the scheduling of a consular interview, the boys attended a medical exam in Djibouti on or about March 15, 2017.
99. On or about April 5, 2017, after numerous unanswered attempts by the Does’ lawyer to seek information regarding the next steps in the adjudication process, the consular section chief of the U.S. embassy in Djibouti notified the boys’ lawyer that for all visa applicants age 16 and under, a guardian must be present at the interview. The section chief stated that the guardian must have a U.S. travel document and must have a notarized letter from the sponsoring parent. The consular chief stated that the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the sponsoring parent does not “abdicat[e] their responsibility to come to Djibouti to retrieve their own children as is their own parental responsibility.”
100. The requirement articulated by the consular section chief on April 5 is not disclosed on any public government websites. The section chief stated to the Does’ lawyer: “we make no mention of [this requirement] on our public facing sites.”
27

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 28 of 40
101. Upon information and belief, the delay in adjudicating the Doe sons’ visa applications and the imposition of new, unpublished and highly burdensome requirements for those applications are the result of the two executive orders, and the additional scrutiny ordered by Secretary of State Tillerson, applying the mandates of the Replacement Executive Order.
102. On or about April 5, 2017, the U.S. embassy in Djibouti finally scheduled the boys’ interviews. These interviews took place on April 9, 2017, and the Doe sons’ visa applications were approved on that date. However, the Doe sons’ visas have not yet been printed or issued.
103. The Doe sons have not yet received their visas to enter the United States, and the section chief of the U.S. embassy in Djibouti has declined to provide a timeframe within which the visas will be issued. Unless Section 2 of the Replacement Executive Order remains enjoined, the boys will be barred from receiving the visas, and they will be barred from entering the United States.
111. Until they receive their visas and are able to enter to the United States, the Does’ sons are also subject to the increased scrutiny or “extreme vetting” imposed by Section 5 of the Replacement Executive Order.
112. The Does have not seen their two sons in over 800 days. They remain in fear for their children’s lives and wish to bring them to the United States where they can be safe and so that their family can be together.
113. The Replacement Executive Order harms the Does because its enforcement renders them unable to bring their two children to the United States from Yemen and because it conveys a message to the Does that they and their religion are disfavored in the United States.
114. The Replacement Executive Order does provide for discretionary “case-by-case waivers” for individuals seeking admission to the United States who can demonstrate to consular
28

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 29 of 40
or CBP officials that, inter alia, their admission would be “in the national interest.” However, this waiver provision harms the Does because it imposes an additional hurdle for securing entry for their two children and reuniting their family. This additional hurdle forces the Does and their immigration attorney to provide additional information and representations to consular and CBP officials in excess of what other people seeking to enter the United States must provide.
115. The Does are also harmed by the Replacement Executive Order’s implicit condemnation of Islam by its terms and in its effects. The Does’ religion is important to them, and they are pained by President Trump’s denouncements of the Islamic faith and of Muslims generally. The Does fear that they will face increased prejudice and hate as a result of the Replacement Executive Order.
116. Because the Does’ sons are in danger of being killed in Yemen, and because the Does are already being harmed by the lengthy separation from their sons, the Does cannot wait for the 90-day suspension of entry by Yemeni nationals provided in the Replacement Executive Order to expire.45 While the boys are now in Djibouti, they cannot afford to stay there indefinitely, and will need to return to Yemen if they do not soon receive visas allowing them to travel to the United States.
117. Although Sections 2 and 6 of the Replacement Executive Order are currently enjoined by the courts, Section 5 remains in effect. In addition, no permanent injunction has been issued even against Sections 2 and 6. The existing injunctions are only preliminary and, importantly, are currently pending on appeal. Should the existing injunctions be vacated or limited on appeal, the Does would face additional and immediate threats to their rights and, indeed, their children’s safety.
45 See id. § 2(c).
29

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 30 of 40
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
(Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
126. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
127. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from enacting policies that “differentiate[] among religions.” Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 695 (1989) (citing Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982)).
128. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing or disapproving of a religion or certain religious beliefs. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000).
129. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from taking actions that lack a preeminently secular purpose, that have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or that result in excessive entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971).
130. The Replacement Executive Order and President Trump’s own statements reveal that Sections 2, 4, 5 and 10 of the order seek to discriminate against Muslims. The President stated repeatedly that he would ban Muslims from immigrating to or entering the United States.
131. The Replacement Executive Order differentiates among religions because it singles out for unfavorable treatment countries that are almost entirely Muslim.
132. The Replacement Executive Order violates the Lemon test because its text, development and implementation show that the measure lacks a predominantly secular purpose and has the effect of disfavoring and penalizing Islam and Muslims. Notably, the President’s and his surrogates’ repeated statements show that the Executive Order’s primary purpose is to
30

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 31 of 40
exclude Muslims, and that its effect is to disapprove of Islam, Muslims, and their religious exercise.
133. The Replacement Executive Order and the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
134. The Replacement Executive Order and the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it have harmed Plaintiffs.
135. The Doe plaintiffs are harmed because they are unable to bring their two sons from Yemen to the United States and because their attempts to do so have been unduly and unjustly burdened and prolonged. UMAA is harmed because it is unable to arrange to bring speakers from Iran and Iraq to the United States to its national convention and other events. UMAA’s members are harmed because they are unable to receive the teachings of their religion’s scholars and clergy. UMAA’s members are also harmed because many are separated from their family members. All Plaintiffs (including UMAA’s members) are also injured because of the government’s endorsement of hostility toward Islam that is reflected in the Replacement Executive Order. All Plaintiffs are also harmed by the waiver provision under Section 3(c) of the Replacement Executive Order because the provision creates an additional hurdle that was imposed with a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory effect to disfavor Muslims.
136. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
137. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
31

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 32 of 40
COUNT II (Violation of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment:
Discrimination on the Basis of Religion) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 138. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 139. Plaintiffs are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 140. In enacting and implementing the Replacement Executive Order, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their religion in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 141. The Replacement Executive Order was substantially motivated by animus toward Muslims. 142. The Replacement Executive Order has a disparate impact on Muslims. 143. Defendants’ numerous public calls for a ban on Muslim immigration demonstrate that the Replacement Executive Order is designed to have a virtually exclusive impact on Muslims. 144. Defendants’ overt statements singling out Muslims for exclusion further reveal invidious discriminatory intent. 145. Statements by advisers to Defendant Trump demonstrate that Defendants intend the Replacement Executive Order to yield the same results as the First Executive Order, that is, to exclude categories of foreign nationals that are almost entirely composed of Muslims. 146. The Replacement Executive Order communicates anti-Muslim animus and singles out Muslims by its terms. 147. The Replacement Executive Order’s targeting of certain countries on the basis of religion is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
32

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 33 of 40
148. The Replacement Executive Order is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
149. The Replacement Executive Order was issued in bad faith and is not supported by bona fide and facially legitimate reasoning.
150. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
151. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III
(Violation of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment: Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
152. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth here.
153. Plaintiffs are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment. 154. Defendants’ enactment, implementation, and threatened enforcement of the Replacement Executive Order discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of their national origin, in violation of the right to equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 155. The Replacement Executive Order singles out nationals of specific countries for exclusion from the United States, regardless of their individual circumstances. 156. The Replacement Executive Order’s discrimination on the basis of national origin is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. 157. The Replacement Executive Order’s discrimination on the basis of national origin is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. 158. The Replacement Executive Order was issued in bad faith and is not supported by bona fide and facially legitimate reasoning.
33

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 34 of 40
159. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and from the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
160. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. COUNT IV
(Violation of the First Amendment: Right to Receive Information and Ideas) (Plaintiff UMAA Against All Defendants)
161. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
162. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects not only the right to engage in speech, but also the “right to receive information and ideas.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969).
163. The Replacement Executive Order and Defendants’ implementation of it violate the right of Plaintiff UMAA and its members to receive information and ideas under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
164. The Replacement Executive Order is not narrowly tailored to achieve a substantial governmental interest.
165. The Replacement Executive Order was issued in bad faith and is not supported by bona fide and facially legitimate reasoning.
166. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiff UMAA will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and from the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
167. Plaintiff UMAA has no adequate remedy at law.
34

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 35 of 40
COUNT V (Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Administrative Procedure Act)
(Plaintiff UMAA Against All Defendants) 168. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 169. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 170. In implementing the Replacement Executive Order, Defendants have acted contrary to § 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) by discriminating on the basis of national origin in the issuance of immigrant visas. 171. Defendants’ violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act have harmed Plaintiff UMAA and its members. Many of UMAA’s members have pending or approved petitions for their family members to obtain immigrant visas to travel to the United States. The Replacement Executive Order prevents these individuals from being able to bring their family members to live in the United States. 172. The Replacement Executive Order has divided the families of UMAA’s members, undermining UMAA’s mission, which includes promoting the welfare of the Shi’a community in the United States and dispelling misgivings about Muslims and Islam. 173. The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
35

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 36 of 40
174. Plaintiff has no adequate or available administrative remedy; in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
175. This Court accordingly should declare that Defendants’ Replacement Executive Order and the implementation of the order violates the APA and INA.
176. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiff UMAA will continue to suffer harm from the Replacement Executive Order and from the Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of it.
177. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs seek an order and judgment to: 178. Declare that Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order, on their face or as applied, violate the Constitution and laws of the United States; 179. Enter a nationwide injunction enjoining Defendants from:
a. Enforcing Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order, including at any United States embassy, consulate, border, or point of entry;
b. Applying Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order to deny, revoke, restrict, cancel, or delay issuance of any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa;
c. Applying Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order to deny or suspend entry or admission to any person;
d. Applying Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order to prohibit any person from applying for or receiving any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act;
e. Denying any person subject to the Replacement Executive Order access to legal counsel of his or her choice;
36

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 37 of 40
f. Applying Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order to instruct any airline or other common carrier to deny passage to any person;
g. Imposing or threatening to impose any financial penalty on any airline or other common carrier for allowing passage to any person covered by Sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Replacement Executive Order; 180. Order Defendants promptly to provide written guidance to employees, contractors, and agents of DHS, the State Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and all other United States government officials and entities necessary to ensure full and timely compliance with all terms of the order to be entered by the Court; 181. Require Defendants promptly to rescind any guidance, directive, memorandum, or statement interpreting or applying the Replacement Executive Order that conflicts with any term of the order to be entered by the Court; 182. Require Defendants promptly to post a copy of the written guidance required under paragraph 180 on government websites, including state.gov; 183. Require Defendants promptly to update all relevant public guidance, documentation, and FAQs to reflect the terms of the order to be entered by the Court; 184. Require Defendants to instruct the consular officials handling the visa applications of the Doe children to print and issue the Doe sons’ visas and travel documents within 10 days of the Court’s Order; 185. Require Defendants to instruct the relevant officials from the State Department and Department of Homeland Security not to deny visas or entry to the Doe children into the United States for any reason directed by or arising from the Replacement Executive Order or guidance implementing it.
37

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 38 of 40 186. Require Defendants to process without undue delay visa applications submitted by nationals of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq. 187. Require Defendants to file with the Court, on the tenth day of each month following the entry of the Court’s order, a signed and verified declaration stating:
a. The number of United States visas granted during the previous month to nationals of each of the following countries: Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq;
b. The number of United States visa applications denied during the previous month to nationals of each of the following countries: Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq;
c. For each denied visa application under the above subparagraph (b), the identifying information or numbers for the application for the Court’s reference;
d. For each denied visa application under the above subparagraph (b), a detailed explanation of the reason or reasons why the application was denied. The explanation under this subsection must state the facts, authorities, and reasoning relevant to the Defendants’ decision to deny the application. 188. Require Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; 189. Any other relief that the Court deems necessary or just to cure the violations specified in this Complaint or that justice may otherwise require.
38

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 39 of 40

DATED: April 10, 2017.
Johnathan Smith (application for admission pending) Aziz Huq (pro hac vice application pending) MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-1484 Johnathan@muslimadvocates.org Aziz.huq@gmail.com
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar # 1033743) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-3234 Facsimile: (202) 466-3353 Katskee@au.org Girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers (pro hac vice application pending) Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice application pending) Naomi R Tsu (pro hac vice application pending) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org

/s/ David J. Weiner
David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda J. Sherwood (D.C. Bar # 1021108) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner@apks.com Charles.blanchard@apks.com Amanda.johnson@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (pro hac vice application pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 Facsimile: (312) 583-2360 Emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman (pro hac vice application pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 Andrew.bergman@apks.com
Kimberly Gelfand (pro hac vice application pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 Kimberly.gelfand@apks.com

39

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 40 of 40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 10, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certified that I have mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 10, 2017.
/s/ David J. Weiner David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 David.weiner@apks.com
40

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No.:

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States;

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF DAVID J. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I, David J. Weiner, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify. 2. I am an attorney at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 14
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 15, 2017 titled "2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump's Latest Travel Ban." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trumptravel-ban.html.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated February 22, 2017 titled "A new travel ban with 'mostly minor technical differences'? That probably won't cut it, analysts say." Link: http://wapo.st/2mmmECm.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a news article from Politico dated November 18, 2015, titled "Trump: 'Absolutely no choice' but to close mosques." Link: http://www,politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a press release published by the presidential campaign website of Donald J. Trump dated December 7, 2015, titled "Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration." Link: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslimimmigration.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 2:32 PM on December 7, 2015. Link: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/673993417429524480.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an article from Politifact dated January 28, 2016, titled "Christie says neighbors of San Bernardino shooters knew more than they did." Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2016/jan/28/chris-christie/christie-says-neighbors-san-bemardino-shooters-lcn/.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 14
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of the January 14, 2016 Republican Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina. Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb. edu/ws/index.php?pid=111395.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of an interview by Anderson Cooper with Donald J. Trump that aired on March 9, 2016 on Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees and published by CNN. Link: http://www.cnn. com/TRANS CRIP T S/1603/09/acd.01 .html.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Reuters dated June 14, 2016, titled "After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims." Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCNOYZ1GE.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Politico dated June 13, 2016, titled "Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech," containing the transcript of then-candidate Mr. Trump's June 13 speech on national security and terrorism in the wake of the Orlando massacre. Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech224273.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of an interview by Chuck Todd with Donald J. Trump that aired on July 24, 2016 on Meet the Press and was published by NBC News. Link: http://nbcnews.to/29TqPnp.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Slate dated January 29, 2017, titled "Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Asked How to Implement a Muslim Ban Legally." Link: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726giuliani-trumn-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 14
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from ABC News dated November 18, 2016, titled "Donald Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn Has Called Islam 'a Cancer.' Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donaldtrump-national-security-adviser-mike-flynn-called/story?id=43 57565 8.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN Politics dated November 22, 2016 titled "Michael Flynn in August: Islamism a 'vicious cancer' in body of all Muslims that 'has to be excised.' Link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-august-speech/.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated January 31, 2017, titled "Steve Bannon's own words show sharp break on security issues." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/31/bannon-oddsislam-china-decades-us-foreign-policy-doctrine/97292068/.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Guardian dated February 3, 2017, titled "Steve Bannon's Islamophobic film script just one example of anti-Muslim views." Link: https://www.theguardian.com/usnew s/2017/feb/03/steve-bannon-islamophobia- film-script-muslims-i sl am.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated February 9, 2017, titled "Bannon, Flynn and Sessions: How Trump's top advisers view Muslims, in their own word." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/storv/news/2017/02/09/how-some-trump-advisors-see-islam-theirown-words/97662862/.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CBS News dated January 27,2017 titled "Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority as Refugees." Link: http://bit.ly/2kCqG8M.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 14
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated January 31, 2017, titled "More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Originally Said." Link: https://www.nvtimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-ban-immigrants-refugees.html.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a one page Department of State letter from the Deputy Assistant Visa Secretary for Visa Services dated January 27, 2017. Link: http s : //www. documentcloud. org/documents/3440712-D S -letter.html.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a press release dated January 29, 2017 titled "Statement by Senators McCain & Graham on Executive Order on Immigration." Link: http://bitly/2nkx3SW.
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 3:35 PM on February 9, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/829836231802515457.
25. Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN dated January 30, 2017 titled "Inside the Confusion of the Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban." Link: http://cnn.it/2kGdcZy.
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Department of Homeland Security Intelligence document published by the Associated Press on February 24, 2017. Link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730-DHSintelligence-document-on-President-Donald.html.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a'news article from the New York Times dated January 31, 2017, titled "State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump's Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures." Link: https://nvti.ms/2jS5A6o.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 14
28. Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a State Department Dissent cable titled "Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders." Link: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438487/DissentMemo.pdf.
29. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa 0. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, ECF 28-2. Link: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/genera1/2017/02/06/1735105%20opposition%20exhibit.pdf.
30. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a letter dated January 30,2017 from former national security officials to Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and then-Acting Secretary of State Thomas Shannon. Link: https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalrefugeeletter01302017.pdf.
31. Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated January 28, 2017, titled "Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/asweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html.
32. Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report dated January 26, 2017 titled "Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism." Link: http s ://sites . duke. edu/tcths/files/2017/01/FINAL Kurzman MuslimAmerican Involvement in Violent Extremism 2016.pdf.
33. Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an opinion piece from CNN dated January 30, 2017 titled "Trump's travel ban wouldn't have
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 14
stopped these deadly terrorists." Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinions/travel-banwouldnt-have-stopped-these-deadly-terrorists-bergen-sterman/.
34. Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a publication from New America titled "Terrorism in America After 9/11, Part II: Who are the Terrorists?" Link: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-areterrorists/.
35. Attached hereto as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 11, 2017 titled "Trump's Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced by 134 Foreign Policy Experts." Link: https://www.nytimes. com/2017/03/11/us/politic s/trump-travel-b an- denounced-foreign-policyexperts.html.
36. Attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is a true and correct copy of a printout of chapter 5 in a research report from the U.S. Department of State dated March 13, 2017 titled "Country Reports on Terrorism 2015." Link: https://tinyurl.com/jap2fpf.
37. Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a letter from Senators Sessions and Cruz to President Obama dated June 14, 2016. Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20161109030307/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/ cache/file s/f9d1d9f4-6ee8-42ff-a5f2-29a2518fe2f7/06.14.16-sens.-sessions-cruz-to-president-obama-onterrorism-immigration.pdf.
38. Attached hereto as Exhibit 36 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a publication from the Cato Institute dated January 25, 2017 titled "Little National Security Benefit to Trump's Executive Order on Immigration." Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/little-nationalsecurity-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 14
39. Attached hereto as Exhibit 37 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Oregonian dated March 7, 2017 titled "Trump Used Failed Portland Car Bomb Plot as Justification for New Travel Ban." Link: http://bit.ly/2nt4aRV.
40. Attached hereto as Exhibit 38 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated October 7, 2009 titled "Mapping the Global Muslim Population." Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslimpopulationfilfootnotes.
41. Attached hereto as Exhibit 39 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an archived entry from the BBC dated August 19, 2008 titled "Sunni and Shi' a." Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/surmishia 1.shtml.
42. Attached hereto as Exhibit 40 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an analysis by the Washington Post dated November 21, 2016 titled "Shiites are participating in the world's largest pilgrimage today. Here's how they view the world." Link: http://wapo.st/2g8oR4W.
43. Attached hereto as Exhibit 41 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article by the Independent dated January 17, 2017 titled "Yemen civil war: 10,000 civilians killed and 40,000 injured in conflict, UN reveals." Link: http ://www . independent. co.uk/new s/world/middle-east/yemen- civil-w ar-civilian-death-toll10000-killed-40000-injured-conflcit-un-reveals- a7530836.html
44. Attached hereto as Exhibit 42 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from The Guardian dated January 16, 2017 titled "Yemen death toll has reached 10,000, UN says." Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/16/yemen-war-death-toll-hasreached-10000-un-says.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 14
45. Attached hereto as Exhibit 43 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the country profiles of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from a CIA publication titled the "CIA World Factbook." Link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.
46. Attached hereto as Exhibit 44 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Newsweek dated January 31, 2017 titled "Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations Named in Trump Ban." Link: http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-terrorists-come-notseven-countries-named-5 505 81.
47. Attached hereto as Exhibit 45 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated January 30, 2017 titled "Key Facts About Refugees to the U.S." Link: http ://www.pewre se arch. org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key- facts-about-refugeesto-the-u-s/.
48. Attached hereto as Exhibit 46 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 6, 2017 titled "Don't Be Fooled, Trump's New Muslim Ban Is Still Illegal." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/dont-befooled-trumps-new-muslim-ban-is-still-illegal.html? r=0.
49. Attached hereto as Exhibit 47 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article dated March 10, 2017 titled "The Travel Ban Executive Order as Separation-of-Powers Test Case." Link: https://www.justsecurity.org/38675/travel-ban-executive-order-separation-ofpowers-test-case/.
50. Attached hereto as Exhibit 48 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article from LawNewz dated March 6, 2017 titled "President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order." Link: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/brealcing-president-trump-signs-newexecutive-order-on-immigration-ends-indefinite-ban-on-syrian-refugees/.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 14
51. Attached hereto as Exhibit 49 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated February 24, 2017 titled "DHS Report Casts Doubt on Need for Trump Travel Ban." Link: http://wapo.st/210kpKW.
52. Attached hereto as Exhibit 50 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dated February 4, 2017 titled "Trump lashes Out at Federal Judge Over Ruling on Travel Ban." Link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govtand-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-travel/article 40 fcf6c f-8dd3 -5 ffl a561-d0897195aecO.html.
53. Attached hereto as Exhibit 51 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from NBC News dated March 6, 2017 titled "Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline." Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trumpexpected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186.
54. Attached hereto as Exhibit 52 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN dated March 1, 2017 titled "Trump Delays New Travel Ban After WellReviewed Speech." Link: http : //www. cnn. com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-b an-visaholders/.
55. Attached hereto as Exhibit 53 is a true and correct copy of a printout of Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States dated March 6, 2017. Link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-orderprotecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states.
56. Attached hereto as Exhibit 54 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article from the Cato Institute dated January 26, 2017 titled "Guide to Trump's Executive Order to Limit Migration for 'National Security' Reasons." Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/guidetrumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 14
57. Attached hereto as Exhibit 55 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from Politifact dated January 29, 2017 titled "No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel bans?" Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-omet er/st at ement s/2017/j an/29/j errold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/.
58. Attached hereto as Exhibit 56 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from ABC News dated January 29, 2017 titled "Trump Spars With Sens. McCain and Graham After They Criticize Travel Ban." Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/handful-gopsenators-representatives-criticize-trump-travel-b an/story? id=45121595.
59. Attached hereto as Exhibit 57 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated January 29, 2017 titled "Trump's Travel Ban Is a Gift to Iran's Rulers." Link: http://wapo. st/21Ww1NR.
60. Attached hereto as Exhibit 58 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Al Jazeera dated January 16, 2017 titled "Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000." Link: http://www. alj azeera. com/news/2017/01/death-toll-yemen-conflict-p as ses-10000170117040849576.html.
61. Attached hereto as Exhibit 59 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from BBC News dated December 8, 2015 titled "Trump's 'Muslim Lockdown': What Is the Center for Security Policy?" Link: http://bbc.in/lUOyVr4.
62. Attached hereto as Exhibit 60 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Bridge Initiative dated December 7, 2015 titled "Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll." Link: http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-americanmuslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 14
63. Attached hereto as Exhibit 61 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an article from Politifact dated December 9, 2015 titled "Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US." Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-ban-muslimsentering/.
64. Attached hereto as Exhibit 62 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from The Washington Times dated June 9, 2009 titled "Gaffney: America's first Muslim president?" Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslimpresident/.
65. Attached hereto as Exhibit 63 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CBS News dated July 17, 2016 titled "The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence." Link: http://www.cbsnew s. c om/news/60-minutes -trump-p enc e-republ ic an-ticket/.
66. Attached hereto as Exhibit 64 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of the October 9, 2016 Republican Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.
67. Attached hereto as Exhibit 65 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Talking Points Memo dated January 27, 2017 titled "Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out 'Extreme Vetting.' Link: http://talkingpointsrnemo.com/livewire/trump-signsvetting-executive-order.
68. Attached hereto as Exhibit 66 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 5:31 AM on January 30, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 14
69. Attached hereto as Exhibit 67 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 4:50 AM on February 1, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368.
70. Attached hereto as Exhibit 68 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 7:03 AM on January 29, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858.
71. Attached hereto as Exhibit 69 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated October 6, 2016 titled "U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016." Link: http : //www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admitsrecord-numb er-o f-muslim-refuge es-in-2016/.
72. Attached hereto as Exhibit 70 is a true and correct copy of a news article from Politico dated February 21, 2017 titled "Trump: 'White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban." Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/tiump-travel-ban-confusion235241.
73. Attached hereto as Exhibit 71 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated February 24, 2017 titled "DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump's travel ban." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memocontradict-travel-ban-trump/98374184/.
74. Attached hereto as Exhibit 72 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated March 16, 2017 titled "Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump's new entry ban." Link: http://wapo.st/2n1GRMY.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 2 d day of March, 2017. David J. Weiner (D. .0 # 499806) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner apks.com
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 7

2  Federal  Judges  Rule  Against  Trump’s  Latest  Travel  Ban

nytimes.com /2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-­travel-­ban.html
By  ALEXANDER  BURNS
00:00 00:57

3/15/2017

Trump:  ‘The  Danger  Is  Clear.  The  Law  Is  Clear’
Hours  after  a  federal  judge  blocked  his  revised  travel  ban,  President  Trump  slammed  the  ruling  at  a  rally in  Nashville.
By  THE  NEW  YORK  TIMES  on  March  15,  2017.  Photo  by  Stephen  Crowley/The  New  York  Times.  Watch in  Times  Video  »
embed
A  federal  judge  in  Hawaii  issued  a  nationwide  order  Wednesday  evening  blocking  President  Trump’s  ban  on  travel from  parts  of  the  Muslim  world,  dealing  a  stinging  blow  to  the  White  House  and  signaling  that  Mr.  Trump  will  have  to account  in  court  for  his  heated  rhetoric  about  Islam.
A  second  federal  judge  in  Maryland  ruled  against  Mr.  Trump  overnight,  with  a  separate  order  forbidding  the  core provision  of  the  travel  ban  from  going  into  effect.
The  rulings  were  a  second  major  setback  for  Mr.  Trump  in  his  pursuit  of  a  policy  that  he  has  trumpeted  as  critical  for national  security.  His  first  attempt  to  sharply  limit  travel  from  a  handful  of  predominantly  Muslim  countries  ended  in  a courtroom  fiasco  last  month,  when  a  federal  court  in  Seattle  halted  it.
Mr.  Trump  issued  a  new  and  narrower  travel  ban,  affecting  six  countries,  on  March  6,  trying  to  satisfy  the  courts  by removing  some  of  the  most  contentious  elements  of  the  original  version.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 7

MINCE 101,Wr t

VA

KNIANtANNOU

FEDERAL IlUILDI
AN[

UN 1-1- ED ST Ai

CO ‘_.1 IVT HOUI

1

Attorney  General  Doug  Chin  of  Hawaii,  who  filed  the  lawsuit,  in  Honolulu  on  Wednesday.  Hugh Gentry/Reuters
But  in  a  pointed  decision  that  repeatedly  invoked  Mr.  Trump’s  public  comments,  Judge  Derrick  K.  Watson,  of  Federal District  Court  in  Honolulu,  wrote  that  a  “reasonable,  objective  observer”  would  view  even  the  new  order  as  “issued with  a  purpose  to  disfavor  a  particular  religion,  in  spite  of  its  stated,  religiously  neutral  purpose.”
In  Maryland,  Judge  Theodore  D.  Chuang  echoed  that  conclusion  hours  later,  ruling  in  a  case  brought  by  nonprofit groups  that  work  with  refugees  and  immigrants,  that  the  likely  purpose  of  the  executive  order  was  “the  effectuation  of the  proposed  Muslim  ban”  that  Mr.  Trump  pledged  to  enact  as  a  presidential  candidate.
Mr.  Trump  lashed  out  at  Judge  Watson  during  a  campaign-­style  rally  in  Nashville  late  on  Wednesday.  Raising  his voice  to  a  hoarse  shout,  Mr.  Trump  accused  the  judge  of  ruling  “for  political  reasons”  and  criticized  the  United  States Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Ninth  Circuit,  which  upheld  the  earlier  decision  against  his  administration  and  will  hear  any appeal  to  the  Hawaii  ruling.
“This  ruling  makes  us  look  weak,  which  by  the  way  we  no  longer  are,  believe  me,”  Mr.  Trump  said,  to  mounting cheers  from  a  loyal  crowd.
Mr.  Trump  even  said  he  might  reissue  the  initial  version  of  the  order,  rather  than  the  one  blocked  on  Wednesday, which  he  described  as  “a  watered-­down  version  of  the  first  one.”

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 7
Hakim  Ouansafi,  the  chairman  of  the  Muslim  Association  of  Hawaii,  in  Honolulu  on  Wednesday.  Kent Nishimura  for  The  New  York  Times After  he  signed  the  revised  ban,  Democratic  attorneys  general  and  nonprofit  groups  that  work  with  immigrants  and refugees  raced  back  into  court,  claiming  that  Mr.  Trump’s  updated  decree  was  still  a  thinly  veiled  version  of  the  ban on  Muslim  migration  that  he  proposed  last  year. Judge  Watson,  who  was  appointed  by  President  Barack  Obama,  ruled  that  the  State  of  Hawaii  and  an  individual plaintiff,  Ismail  Elshikh,  the  imam  of  the  Muslim  Association  of  Hawaii,  had  reasonable  grounds  to  challenge  the  order as  religious  discrimination.  And  he  concluded  that  allowing  the  travel  restrictions  to  go  into  effect  at  midnight,  as scheduled,  could  have  caused  them  irreparable  harm. Judge  Watson  flatly  rejected  the  government’s  argument  that  a  court  would  have  to  investigate  Mr.  Trump’s  “veiled psyche”  to  deduce  religious  animus.  He  quoted  extensively  from  the  remarks  by  Mr.  Trump  that  were  cited  in  the lawsuit  brought  by  Hawaii’s  attorney  general,  Doug  Chin. “For  instance,  there  is  nothing  ‘veiled’  about  this  press  release,”  Judge  Watson  wrote,  quoting  a  Trump  campaign document  titled  “Donald  J.  Trump  is  calling  for  a  total  and  complete  shutdown  of  Muslims  entering  the  United  States.” Judge  Watson  singled  out  Mr.  Elshikh,  an  American  citizen  whose  Syrian  mother-­in-­law  had  been  pursuing  a  visa  to enter  the  United  States,  as  having  an  especially  strong  claim  that  the  travel  regulations  would  harm  him  on  the  basis of  his  religion.
Who  Would  Be  Barred  by  Trump’s  Latest  Immigration  Ban
The  president’s  second  attempt  at  a  ban  was  blocked  by  federal  courts  on  Wednesday. “This  is  a  great  day  for  democracy,  religious  and  human  rights,”  Mr.  Elshikh,  who  was  out  of  the  country,  said  in  a message  relayed  through  Hakim  Ouansafi,  the  chairman  of  the  Muslim  Association  of  Hawaii.  “I  am  very  pleased  that

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 7

the  processing  of  my  mother-­in-­law’s  paperwork  will  not stop  now  but  more  importantly  that  this  Muslim  ban  will not  separate  families  and  loved  ones  just  because  they happen  to  be  from  the  six  countries.”
Mr.  Elshikh,  who  is  Egyptian  and  previously  worked  in Michigan,  was  recruited  to  the  Hawaii  mosque  more  than a  decade  ago,  Mr.  Ouansafi  said.  And  when  the association  began  recruiting  someone  to  serve  as  a plaintiff,  the  imam,  who  became  a  citizen  last  year, agreed  to  do  so  without  reservation,  Mr.  Ouansafi  said.

BARRED New immigrants EXEMPTED Green card holders
ALLOWED Diplomats BARRED All refugees
ALLOWED Dual nationals ALLOWED Iraqi nationals

After  he  became  the  face  of  the  lawsuit,  he  received several  threats  from  the  mainland,  Mr.  Ouansafi  said.  “If we  lived  in  any  other  state,  I  would  not  have  asked  him  to  come  forward,”  he  said.

In  the  Maryland  case,  Judge  Chuang,  who  was  also  appointed  by  Mr.  Obama,  declined  to  block  the  entire  executive order  from  going  into  effect,  but  ruled  that  the  most  important  section  —  banning  travel  from  half  a  dozen  countries —  could  not  be  enforced.  His  decision  cited  Mr.  Trump’s  public  comments  to  conclude  that  there  were  “strong indications  that  the  national  security  purpose  is  not  the  primary  purpose  for  the  travel  ban,”  and  that  Mr.  Trump  may have  intended  to  violate  the  constitutional  prohibition  on  religious  preferences.

In  addition  to  the  Hawaii  and  Maryland  suits,  a  federal  judge  in  Washington  State  heard  arguments  Wednesday  in cases  challenging  the  constitutionality  of  Mr.  Trump’s  order,  including  one  brought  by  a  coalition  of  Democratic attorneys  general,  and  another  by  nonprofit  groups.

Document:  Ruling  on  Trump’s  Second  Travel  Ban

Administration  lawyers  have  argued  that  the  president  was  merely  exercising his  national  security  powers.  In  the  scramble  to  defend  the  executive  order,  a single  lawyer  in  the  United  States  solicitor  general’s  office,  Jeffrey  Wall,  argued first  to  a  Maryland  court  and  then,  by  phone,  to  Judge  Watson  in  Honolulu  that no  element  of  the  order,  as  written,  could  be  construed  as  a  religious  test  for travelers.
Mr.  Wall  said  the  order  was  based  on  concerns  raised  by  the  Obama administration  in  its  move  toward  stricter  screening  of  travelers  from  the  six countries  affected.

INTIM I. IVI=.1.4 Ii1=1 IN DI}TRIC7{44.41.1

INATm. 1.651. VI 1154 n rol
LIN-1.1.M.1 TY IN d .
hMrt

r?

rw.

=KW IISESE.M. 1111411.4ederallhi

7 3:01.,

diL

~~ • 4 NM.

.141 Md."

141.14..R Mnr

dm L

MI..

i+11 lamLi.

e• F. •

d-1

1.1.10. %Am .Tra•

-1Aprom4.•,.

P.. Flo Or,liv.daw-Opm

“What  the  order  does  is  a  step  beyond  what  the  previous  administration  did, but  it’s  on  the  same  basis,”  Mr.  Wall  said  in  the  Maryland  hearing.

After  Mr.  Trump’s  speech  in  Nashville,  the  Justice  Department  released  a  more  muted  statement  disputing  the  Hawaii decision,  calling  it  “flawed  both  in  reasoning  and  scope.”  Sarah  Isgur  Flores,  a  spokeswoman  for  the  department, said  it  would  continue  to  defend  the  legality  of  the  presidential  order.

Refugee  organizations  and  civil  rights  groups  greeted  the  Hawaii  ruling  with  expressions  of  triumph  and  relief. Marielena  Hincapié,  executive  director  of  the  National  Immigration  Law  Center,  one  of  the  groups  that  sued  Mr. Trump  in  Maryland,  hailed  Judge  Watson’s  ruling  as  “a  strong  and  unequivocal  rejection  of  the  politics  of  hate.”

At  the  same  time,  advocates  for  refugees  and  immigrants  acknowledged  that  significant  uncertainty  would  hang  over some  of  their  more  practical  decisions,  as  a  longer  legal  process  plays  out  around  Mr.  Trump’s  order.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 7

“It’s  a  preliminary  decision,  but  it  recognizes  that  there  continue  to  be  problems  with  the  constitutionality  of  this revised  order,  particularly  with  discriminatory  intent  toward  Muslims,”  said  Betsy  Fisher,  policy  director  at  the International  Refugee  Assistance  Project  at  the  Urban  Justice  Center.
The  original  ban,  released  on  Jan.  27,  unleashed  scenes  of  chaos  at  American  airports  and  spurred  mass  protests. Issued  abruptly  on  a  Friday  afternoon,  it  temporarily  barred  travel  from  seven  majority-­Muslim  nations,  making  no explicit  distinction  between  citizens  of  those  countries  who  already  had  green  cards  or  visas  and  those  who  did  not.  It also  suggested  that  Christian  refugees  from  those  countries  would  be  given  preference  in  the  future.
After  the  federal  court  in  Seattle  issued  a  broad  injunction  against  the  policy,  Mr.  Trump  removed  major  provisions and  reissued  the  order.  The  new  version  exempted  key  groups,  like  green  card  and  visa  holders,  and  dropped  the section  that  would  have  given  Christians  special  treatment.
Mr.  Trump  also  removed  Iraq  from  the  list  of  countries  covered  by  the  ban  after  the  Pentagon  expressed  worry  that  it would  damage  the  United  States’  relationship  with  the  Iraqi  government  in  the  fight  against  the  Islamic  State.
Graphic

Getting  a  Visa  to  Visit  the  U.S.  Is  a  Long  and  Extensive  Process  for  Most

A  look  at  the  process  for  getting  a  visa  to  visit  the  United  States.

OPEN  Graphic

Yet  those  concessions  did  not  placate  critics  of  the  ban, who  said  it  would  still  function  as  an  unconstitutional religious  test,  albeit  one  affecting  fewer  people  —  an argument  Judge  Watson  concurred  with  in  his  ruling.

The  lawsuits  have  also  claimed  that  the  order  disrupts  the operations  of  companies,  charities,  public  universities  and hospitals  that  have  deep  relationships  overseas.  In  the Hawaii  case,  nearly  five  dozen  technology  companies, including  Airbnb,  Dropbox,  Lyft  and  TripAdvisor,  joined  in a  brief  objecting  to  the  travel  ban.

Visas denied

20% 40% 60%

The  second,  now-­halted  executive  order  preserved  major  components  of  the  original.  It  would  have  ended,  with  few exceptions,  the  granting  of  new  visas  and  green  cards  to  people  from  six  majority-­Muslim  countries  —  Iran,  Libya, Somalia,  Sudan,  Syria  and  Yemen  —  for  at  least  90  days.  It  would  have  also  stopped  all  refugees  from  entering  for 120  days  and  limited  refugee  admissions  to  50,000  people  in  the  current  fiscal  year.

Mr.  Obama  had  set  in  motion  plans  to  admit  more  than  twice  that  number.

Mr.  Trump  has  said  the  pause  is  needed  to  re-­evaluate  screening  procedures  for  immigrants  from  the  six  countries. “Each  of  these  countries  is  a  state  sponsor  of  terrorism,  has  been  significantly  compromised  by  terrorist organizations,  or  contains  active  conflict  zones,”  he  wrote  in  the  order.

The  two  court  orders  were  not  a  final  ruling  on  the  constitutionality  of  Mr.  Trump’s  ban,  and  the  administration  has expressed  confidence  that  courts  will  ultimately  affirm  Mr.  Trump’s  power  to  issue  the  restrictions.

Trump’s  New  Government  By  BRENT  McDONALD,  TAIGE  JENSEN  and  EMMA  COTT  00:55 A  Family  Reunites  After  Travel  Ban

A  Family  Reunites  After  Travel  Ban

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 7
This  moment  seemed  impossible  to  Mohammed  Alqalos  just  six  weeks  ago.
By  BRENT  McDONALD,  TAIGE  JENSEN  and  EMMA  COTT  on  March  16,  2017.  .  Watch  in  Times  Video  »
S embed
But  the  legal  debate  is  likely  to  be  a  protracted  and  unusually  personal  fight  for  the  administration,  touching  Mr. Trump  and  a  number  of  his  key  aides  directly  and  raising  the  prospect  that  their  public  comments  and  private communications  will  be  scrutinized.
The  lawsuits  against  the  ban  have  extensively  cited  Mr.  Trump’s  comments  during  the  presidential  campaign. Attorney  General  Bob  Ferguson  of  Washington,  who  successfully  challenged  Mr.  Trump’s  first  order,  has  indicated that  in  an  extended  legal  fight,  he  could  seek  depositions  from  administration  officials  and  request  documents  that would  expose  the  full  process  by  which  Trump  aides  crafted  the  ban.
As  a  candidate,  Mr.  Trump  first  proposed  to  bar  all  Muslims  from  entering  the  United  States,  and  then  offered  an alternative  plan  to  ban  travel  from  a  number  of  Muslim  countries,  which  he  described  as  a  politically  acceptable  way of  achieving  the  same  goal.
The  lawsuits  also  cited  Rudolph  W.  Giuliani,  the  former  New  York  City  mayor  who  advises  Mr.  Trump.  Mr.  Giuliani  said he  had  been  asked  to  help  craft  a  Muslim  ban  that  would  pass  legal  muster.
And  they  highlighted  comments  by  Stephen  Miller,  an  adviser  to  the  president,  who  cast  the  changes  to  Mr.  Trump’s first  travel  ban  as  mere  technical  adjustments  aimed  at  ushering  the  same  policy  past  the  review  of  a  court.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 2

abe 111(1,61)1C'aTsOe :11:1in7-pcov-t00537-TSC Document 33-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4
National Security
A new travel ban with `mostly minor technical differences'? That probably won't cut it, analysts say.
By Matt Zapotosky February 22
Senior  policy  adviser  Stephen  Miller  said  President  Trump’s  revised  travel  ban  will  have  “mostly  minor  technical differences”  from  the  iteration  frozen  by  the  courts,  and  Americans  would  see  “the  same  basic  policy  outcome  for  the country.”
That  is  not  what  the  Justice  Department  has  promised.  And  legal  analysts  say  it  might  not  go  far  enough  to  allay  the judiciary’s  concerns.
A  senior  White  House  official  said  Wednesday  that  Trump  will  issue  a  revised  executive  order  on  immigration  next  week, as  the  administration  is  working  to  make  sure  the  implementation  goes  smoothly.  Trump  had  said  previously  that  the order  would  come  this  week.  Neither  the  president  nor  his  top  advisers  have  detailed  exactly  what  the  new  order  will entail.  Miller’s  comments  on  Fox  News,  while  vague,  seem  to  suggest  the  changes  might  not  be  substantive.  And  that  could hurt  the  administration’s  bid  to  lift  the  court-­imposed  suspension  on  the  ban,  analysts  said.
“If  you’re  trying  to  moot  out  litigation,  which  is  to  say,  ‘Look,  this  litigation  is  no  longer  necessary,’  it  is  very  bad  to  say  our intent  here  is  to  engage  in  the  prohibited  outcome,”  said  Leon  Fresco,  who  worked  in  the  office  of  immigration  litigation  in President  Barack  Obama’s  Justice  Department.
Trump’s  original  travel  ban  temporarily  barred  from  entering  the  United  States  refugees  and  citizens  of  seven  Muslim-­ majority  countries:  Iraq,  Iran,  Sudan,  Somalia,  Syria,  Yemen  and  Libya.  When  it  was  first  implemented,  State  Department officials  unilaterally  revoked  tens  of  thousands  of  visas,  and  the  order  seemed  to  affect  even  legal  permanent  residents, though  the  White  House  counsel  soon  clarified  that  it  should  not.
A  federal  district  judge  in  Washington  state  suspended  the  ban  Feb.  3,  and  a  three-­judge  panel  with  the  U.S.  Court  of Appeals  for  the  9th  Circuit  later  upheld  that  freeze.  While  the  Justice  Department  could  have  appealed  to  the  full  appeals

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
court  —  or  even  to  the  Supreme  Court  —  it  asked  the  9th  Circuit  judges  last  week  to  hold  off  because  a  new  executive  order was  in  the  works.
“Rather  than  continuing  this  litigation,  the  President  intends  in  the  near  future  to  rescind  the  Order  and  replace  it  with  a new,  substantially  revised  Executive  Order  to  eliminate  what  the  panel  erroneously  thought  were  constitutional  concerns,” Justice  Department  lawyers  wrote.
Officials  still  plan  a  new  order,  but  White  House  press  secretary  Sean  Spicer  said  Tuesday  that  they  would  not  rescind  the old  one.  And  speaking  to  Fox  News’s  Martha  MacCallum,  Miller  seemed  to  play  down  how  substantial  even  the  revisions would  be  —  which  would  seem  to  put  him  at  odds  with  the  Justice  Department.
“Well,  one  of  the  big  differences  that  you’re  going  to  see  in  the  executive  order  is  that  it’s  going  to  be  responsive  to  the judicial  ruling,  which  didn’t  exist  previously.  And  so  these  are  mostly  minor  technical  differences,”  he  said. “Fundamentally,  you’re  still  going  to  have  the  same  basic  policy  outcome  for  the  country,  but  you’re  going  to  be  responsive to  a  lot  of  very  technical  issues  that  were  brought  up  by  the  court  and  those  will  be  addressed.  But  in  terms  of  protecting the  country,  those  basic  policies  are  still  going  to  be  in  effect.”
Legal  analysts  have  said  previously  that  there  are  obvious  ways  in  which  the  order  could  be  cleaned  up  to  help  it  pass  legal muster  —  though  anything  that  maintains  outright  bans  might  face  a  tough  court  battle.
Trump  could  craft  an  order  that  clearly  exempts  green-­card  holders  —  who  have  the  best  case  to  sue  over  the  order  —  and he  could  also  potentially  exempt  any  current  visa  holders.  But  the  9th  Circuit  panel  said  that  would  not  address  claims  “by citizens  who  have  an  interest  in  specific  noncitizens’  ability  to  travel  to  the  United  States.”
And  no  matter  what  it  does,  the  Trump  administration  must  contend  with  the  president’s  own  call  on  the  campaign  trail for  a  “total  and  complete  shutdown  of  Muslims  entering  the  United  States”  and  campaign  surrogate  Rudolph  W.  Giuliani’s claim  that  Trump  said  “Muslim  ban”  and  asked  him  to  form  a  commission  to  determine  “the  right  way  to  do  it  legally.”
A  federal  judge  in  Virginia  referenced  those  comments  in  ordering  the  ban  frozen  with  respect  to  Virginia  residents  and institutions,  calling  it  “unrebutted  evidence”  that  Trump’s  directive  might  violate  the  First  Amendment.  That  is  important because  if  judges  found  even  the  new  order  was  designed  to  discriminate  against  Muslims  —  and  not  to  protect  national security  —  they  might  similarly  strike  it  down.The  president  does  possess  broad  power  to  set  immigration  policy,  and  even his  original  executive  order  might  ultimately  pass  legal  muster,  analysts  have  said.  So  far,  courts  have  just  weighed temporary  injunctions  on  the  ban,  not  directly  and  finally  deciding  whether  Trump  exceeded  his  authority.
“To  the  extent  that  the  new  executive  order  just  makes  technical  changes,  then  we  don’t  see  it  solving  any  of  the  legal problems,”  said  Lee  Gelernt,  deputy  director  of  the  American  Civil  Liberties  Union’s  national  Immigrants’  Rights  Project, who  is  involved  in  a  legal  challenge  to  the  ban  in  New  York.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4
At  the  White  House  press  briefing  Wednesday,  Spicer  said  he  was  confident  the  administration  would  ultimately  prevail  in court,  but  in  the  revised  order  officials  had  been  “very  clear  about  understanding  what  the  court  said,  and  trying  to  tailor that  specifically.”
He  also  said  he  was  not  concerned  that  Trump’s  prior  remarks  about  targeting  Muslims  would  hinder  the  administration’s case.
“The  president  was  very  clear  in  his  executive  order  that  these  were  countries  that  we  didn’t  have  the  proper  vetting  for when  it  came  to  ensuring  the  safety  of  Americans,”  Spicer  said.  “That’s  what  the  executive  order  said.  …  It  was  crafted  in  a way  that  was  very  clear  about  the  countries  and  was  not  focused  on  anything  else  but  the  vetting  requirements.”
Revisions,  analysts  said,  could  ultimately  help  Trump  prevail  —  particularly  if  he  applied  a  ban  only  to  the  issuance  of  new visas,  and  if  he  issued  robust  procedures  for  those  whose  visas  were  revoked  to  challenge  that  action.  His  and  Giuliani’s comments  would  be  an  obstacle,  but  they  would  not  necessarily  block  him  forever  from  using  his  powers  on  immigration.
“Are  you  permanently  prohibited  from  ever  doing  something  like  this  because  you  at  one  time  said  something  that  was inappropriate?”  Fresco  said.  “The  courts  will  have  to  decide  what  they  believe  here.”
Philip  Rucker  and  John  Wagner  contributed  to  this  report.
Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team.  Follow @mattzap
Share news tips with us confidentially

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 3

Trump:  'Absolutely  no  choCicea'  bsuet  to1  c:lo1s7e  -mcovsq-u0e0s  -5­  P3O7LI-TTICSOC Document 33-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4


Trump remarked that things are "happening a lot faster than anybody understands."
Trump: Absolutely no choice' but to close mosques
By NICK GASS 111/18/15 06:45 AM EST
The  United  States  will  have  "absolutely  no  choice"  but  to  close  down  some  mosques  where "some  bad  things  are  happening,"  Donald  Trump  said  in  a  recent  interview,  explaining  his rationale  for  doing  so.
"Nobody  wants  to  say  this  and  nobody  wants  to  shut  down  religious  institutions  or anything,  but  you  know,  you  understand  it.  A  lot  of  people  understand  it.  We’re  going  to have  no  choice,"  the  Republican  presidential  said  in  an  interview  from  Trump  Tower  on  Fox News'  "Hannity"  on  Tuesday  night.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-­close-­mosques-­216008

1/3

Trump:  'Absolutely  no  choCicea'  bsuet  to1  c:lo1s7e  -mcovsq-u0e0s  -5­  P3O7LI-TTICSOC Document 33-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
Those  remarks  go  further  than  Trump  did  on  Monday,  when  he  said  he  would  "strongly consider"  closing  mosques  as  part  of  a  response  to  last  Friday's  terrorist  attacks  in  Paris  that killed  more  than  130  and  injured  hundreds  more.
Asked  to  explain  his  shifting  position  by  Sean  Hannity,  Trump  remarked  that  things  are "happening  a  lot  faster  than  anybody  understands."
"There’s  absolutely  no  choice.  Some  really  bad  things  are  happening  and  they're  happening fast,"  he  said,  taking  a  dig  at  President  Barack  Obama's  response  to  the  attacks.  "Certainly  a lot  faster  than  our  president  understands  because  he  doesn't  understand  anything.  He doesn't  get  it.  Refuses  to  even  call  it  by  its  correct  name,"  which  Trump  termed  "radical Islam."
In  terms  of  the  refugee  situation,  Trump  said  he  had  "a  feeling  that  a  lot  of  bad  things  will happen  out  of  this."
2016
Bobby Jindal drops out of White House race
By ALEX ISENSTADT
"But  yet  we  take  everybody.  We  don't  know  where  they  come  from,  we  don't  know  what their  crime  record  is.  It  could  be  wonderful.  It  could  be  a  disaster,"  he  speculated,  again pledging  that  if  he  wins  the  presidency,  "they're  going  out."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-­close-­mosques-­216008

2/3

Trump:  'Absolutely  no  choCicea'  bsuet  to1  c:lo1s7e  -mcovsq-u0e0s  -5­  P3O7LI-TTICSOC Document 33-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4
"We  can't  take  a  chance.  You  know,  if  you  take  thousands  of  people,  and  again  I  hear  it's going  to  be  many  more  than  what  you're  talking  about  right  now.  But  if  you  take  thousands of  people,  Sean,  all  you  need  is  a  couple.  You  know,  you  don't  need  25,  you  don't  need  100," he  said.  "Look  at  the  damage  done  in  Paris  with  just  a  few  people."
Trump  repeatedly  reiterated  his  desire  to  "blast  the  hell  out  of"  ISIL  targets  and  "bomb  the hell  out  of"  the  terrorist  group's  oil  resources.
"Now  they're  just  starting  to  do  that,  but  they're  two  years  late,"  Trump  said.  "Interestingly after  Paris,  all  of  a  sudden  they  start  bombing  sites  that  they  knew  about  for  a  year  and  a half.  But  they  started  bombing  them  after  the  tragic  events  of  Paris.  So,  so  many  things  are wrong.  We  need  leadership  in  the  world  now.  You  know,  it's  really  a  worldwide  leadership, but  boy,  do  we  need  leadership  in  our  country."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-­close-­mosques-­216008

3/3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-4 Filed 04/11/I1N7STAGPRaAMge 2 oFAfC2EBOOK TWITTER

TRUMP
PENCE
MAKI AiiIBICA OREM' A4AINI
43

NEWS

GET INVOLVED

ABOUT US

RALLIES

SHOP

CONTRIBUTE

-­    D E C E M B E R    0 7 ,    2 0 1 5    -­
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can gure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justi ed as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
Next Release: Donald J. Trump Announces State Directors in Massachusetts and Mississippi Previous Release: Donald J. Trump Announces Statewide Leadership Team in Oklahoma

C AT E G O R I E S
VIEW ALL STATEMENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS ENDORSEMENTS ADS
*** A R C H I V E NOVEMBER 2016 OCTOBER 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016 AUGUST 2016 JULY 2016 JUNE 2016 MAY 2016 APRIL 2016 MARCH 2016 FEBRUARY 2016 JANUARY 2016 DECEMBER 2015 NOVEMBER 2015 OCTOBER 2015 SEPTEMBER 2015 AUGUST 2015 JULY 2015 JUNE 2015 MAY 2015

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

III Donald J. Trump 0
I @realnonaldTrump

4• Follow

Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration: doraldjtrump.comipress-releases

- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

44..993322

.7 634

2:32 PM - 7 Dec 2015 In 2.7X t 4,9i4

V 7.bk

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
 
    

pF    
  


 
 

 

 
 

 
  
 
    !  "
#$
$
 %
&'& ( )!  * 
+ 
&, 
'-  %
&'&./)""
 
010 "'"-2"$
$
  *  3!!$! ,  ( )!) 
 !  "
%   4  
,
! 

 
! ) ( )!  , & *   

 &$!"& 
)  5)!   !   "65 
 + 7 !!
  ' 
 -2"$
$
   !   
 
8 
 )

)
2 (9 6
  %
 +!"% :
 
 

 )!"
$
 
   

  )!"
% 
 !
 )
&     ! &$
 
"%:
)!&:
!    "
7 !!   &% :     "
%     !) )! &$
 
"
; !  )
  

 !)!
"; 8" ; 
  )
  8 !!
 & 
    )  )!!  


 

%
 5 ) 
 22  
 *!$!!  
)!.
< 68
 ( !#
  ! , 

   2 ) 
#=  ) 
 
 &   !!!    "
  


)
   )&>!
  5)! &
 

 8 )! "
%    ! 


"<!! 
 !!<$ 
! 
!!  )  
  !
"
  
 

))
$
 8


 "
6
& !   
68
 
 &  
6+! 
 !2 
" %  !2 ( !
& "; 
!!
 
 
  
  !    &  
 
 !"
 &  
 ) 

  
 )! "


Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
  
& ;!! '! )  
 
 
  )! 
= &  !
) )!  8 

)"  $
 
 
  
 
    ! " % 
 
 ) 
    
 8
 
   
 

)
2"%   
   
 
 
 !2 
 


)
&! 

   
 )! " $
 !   !
  
";  

  6!
 "  % 6
 $
$
  ' 
 -2   
  
 
    ! " ( )!  , ?%
&'&
POLITIFACT


Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 28
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 28
The  American  Presidency  Project
John  T.  Woolley  &  Gerhard  Peters  •  Santa  Barbara,  California
•  Presidential  Candidates  Debates
Republican  Candidates  Debate  in  North  Charleston,  South  Carolina January  14,  2016
PARTICIPANTS: Former  Governor  Jeb  Bush  (FL);; Ben  Carson;; Governor  Chris  Christie  (NJ);; Senator  Ted  Cruz  (TX);; Governor  John  Kasich  (OH);; Senator  Marco  Rubio  (FL);; Donald  Trump;;
MODERATORS: Maria  Bartiromo  (Fox  Business  Network);;  and Neil  Cavuto  (Fox  Business  Network)
CAVUTO:  It  is  9:00  p.m.  here  at  the  North  Charleston  Coliseum  and  Performing  Arts  Center  in  South  Carolina.  Welcome  to  the  sixth Republican  presidential  of  the  2016  campaign,  here  on  the  Fox  Business  Network.  I'm  Neil  Cavuto,  alongside  my  friend  and  co-­ moderator  Maria  Bartiromo.
BARTIROMO:  Tonight  we  are  working  with  Facebook  to  ask  the  candidates  the  questions  voters  want  answered.  And  according  to Facebook,  the  U.S.  election  has  dominated  the  global  conversation,  with  131  million  people  talking  about  the  2016  race.  That  makes it  the  number  one  issue  talked  about  on  Facebook  last  year  worldwide.
CAVUTO:  Now,  the  seven  candidates  on  the  stage  tonight  were  selected  based  on  their  standing  in  six  national  polls,  as  well  as  polls in  the  early-­voting  states  of  Iowa  and  New  Hampshire,  those  standings  determining  the  position  on  the  stage  of  the  candidates tonight.  And  here  they  are.
Businessman  Donald  Trump.  [applause]
Texas  senator  Ted  Cruz.  [applause]
Florida  senator  Marco  Rubio.  [applause]
Neurosurgeon  Ben  Carson.  [applause]
New  Jersey  governor  Chris  Christie.  [applause]
Former  Florida  governor  Jeb  Bush.
And  Ohio  governor  John  Kasich.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Tonight's  rules  are  simple:  up  to  90  seconds  for  each  answer,  one  minute  for  each  follow-­up  response.  And  if  a candidate  goes  over  the  allotted  time,  you'll  hear  this.  [bell  rings]  So  let's  get  started.  Candidates,  jobs  and  growth  —  two  of  the biggest  issues  facing  the  country  right  now.  In  his  State  of  the  Union  address  earlier  this  week,  the  president  said,  quote,  "we  have  the strongest,  most  durable  economy  in  the  world."
And  according  to  our  Facebook  research,  jobs  is  one  of  the  biggest  issues  resonating  across  the  country,  including  here  in  South Carolina.  The  president  is  touting  14  million  new  jobs  and  an  unemployment  rate  cut  in  half.
The  president  said  that  anyone  who  claims  America's  economy  is  in  decline  is  peddling  fiction.  Senator  Cruz,  what  do  you  see  that  he doesn't?
CRUZ:  Well,  Maria,  thank  you  for  that  question,  and  let  me  say  thank  you  to  the  state  of  South  Carolina  for  welcoming  us.
Let  me  start  —  I  want  to  get  to  the  substance  of  the  question  on  jobs,  but  I  want  to  start  with  something.  Today,  many  of  us  picked  up our  newspapers,  and  we  were  horrified  to  see  the  sight  of  10  American  sailors  on  their  knees,  with  their  hands  on  their  heads.
In  that  State  of  the  Union,  President  Obama  didn't  so  much  as  mention  the  10  sailors  that  had  been  captured  by  Iran.  President Obama's  preparing  to  send  $100  billion  or  more  to  the  Ayatollah  Khamenei.  And  I'll  tell  you,  it  was  heartbreaking.
But  the  good  news  is  the  next  commander-­in-­chief  is  standing  on  this  stage.  [applause]  And  I  give  you  my  word,  if  I  am  elected president,  no  service  man  or  service  woman  will  be  forced  to  be  on  their  knees,  and  any  nation  that  captures  our  fighting  men  will  feel the  full  force  and  fury  of  the  United  States  of  America.  [applause]
Now,  on  to  your  substantive  question.  The  president  tried  to  paint  a  rosy  picture  of  jobs.  And  you  know,  he's  right.  If  you're  a Washington  lobbyist,  if  you  make  your  money  in  and  around  Washington,  things  are  doing  great.  The  millionaires  and  billionaires  are

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 28
doing  great  under  Obama.  But  we  have  the  lowest  percentage  of  Americans  working  today  of  any  year  since  1977.  Median  wages have  stagnated.  And  the  Obama-­Clinton  economy  has  left  behind  the  working  men  and  women  of  this  country.
The  reason  all  of  us  are  here  is  we  believe  we  should  be  fighting  for  the  working  men  and  women  of  this  country,  and  not  Washington, D.C.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Governor  Kasich,  we  are  not  even  two  weeks  into  this  stock  trading  year,  but  [inaudible]  investors  already  lost  $1.6  trillion in  market  value.  That  makes  it  the  worst  start  to  a  new  year  ever.  Many  worry  that  things  will  get  even  worse,  and  that  banks  and financial  stocks  are  particularly  vulnerable.
Now,  if  this  escalates,  like  it  did  back  when  Barack  Obama  first  assumed  the  presidency,  what  actions  would  you  take  if  this  same thing  happens  all  over  again  just  as,  in  this  example,  you  are  taking  over  the  presidency?
KASICH:  Look,  it  takes  three  things  basically  to  grow  jobs.  And  I've  done  it  when  I  was  in  Washington  when  we  had  a  balanced budget;;  had  four  years  of  balanced  budgets;;  paid  down  a  half-­trillion  of  debt.  And  our  economy  was  growing  like  crazy.  It's  the  same thing  that  I  did  in  Ohio.  It's  a  simple  formula:  common  sense  regulations,  which  is  why  I  think  we  should  freeze  all  federal  regulations for  one  year,  except  for  health  and  safety.  It  requires  tax  cuts,  because  that  sends  a  message  to  the  job  creators  that  things  are headed  the  right  way.  And  if  you  tax  cuts  —  if  you  cut  taxes  for  corporations,  and  you  cut  taxes  for  individuals,  you're  going  to  make things  move,  particularly  the  corporate  tax,  which  is  the  highest,  of  course,  in  the  —  in  the  world.
But  in  addition  to  that,  we  have  to  have  fiscal  discipline.  We  have  to  show  that  we  can  march  to  a  balanced  budget.  And  when  you  do that,  when  you're  in  a  position  of  managing  regulations;;  when  you  reduce  taxes;;  and  when  you  have  fiscal  discipline,  you  see  the  job creators  begin  to  get  very  comfortable  with  the  fact  that  they  can  invest.
Right  now,  you  don't  have  the  —  you  have  taxes  that  are  too  high.  You  have  regulations  —  I  mean,  come  on,  they're  affecting everybody  here,  particularly  our  small  businesses.  They  are  —  they're  in  a  position  where  they're  smothering  people.  And  I  mean,  are you  kidding  me?  We're  nowhere  close  to  a  balanced  budget  or  fiscal  discipline.
Those  three  things  put  together  are  going  to  give  confidence  to  job  creators  and  you  will  begin  to  see  wages  rise.  You  will  begin  to see  jobs  created  in  a  robust  economy.  And  how  do  I  know  it?  Because  I've  done  it.  I  did  it  as  the  chairman  of  the  Budget  Committee, working  with  Senator  Domenici.  And  I've  done  it  in  the  state  of  Ohio  as  the  chief  executive.
Our  wages  are  growing  faster  than  the  national  average.  We're  running  surpluses.  And  we  can  take  that  message  and  that  formula  to Washington  to  lift  every  single  American  to  a  better  life.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  We  know  that  recent  global  events  have  many  people  worried  —  Iran  detaining  American  sailors,  forcing  them  to apologize;;  North  Korea  and  its  nuclear  ambitions;;  an  aggressive  China;;  and  a  Middle  East  that  continues  to  deteriorate,  not  to mention  ISIS  is  getting  stronger.
Governor  Christie,  sometimes  it  seems  the  world  is  on  fire.  Where  and  when  should  a  president  use  military  action  to  restore  order?
CHRISTIE:  Well,  Maria,  I'm  glad  to  have  heard  from  you  in  the  summary  of  that  question  about  what's  going  on  in  the  world.  Because Tuesday  night,  I  watched  story  time  with  Barack  Obama.  And  I've  got  to  tell  you,  it  sounded  like  everything  in  the  world  was  going amazing,  you  know?  [applause]
The  fact  is,  there's  a  number  of  things  that  the  next  president  is  going  to  have  to  do  to  clean  up  this  mess.  The  first  thing  is  we  have  to strengthen  our  alliances  around  the  world.  And  the  best  way  to  do  that  is  to  start  talking  to  our  allies  again  and  having  them  be  able  to count  on  our  word.
Lots  of  people  will  say  lots  of  different  things  about  me  in  this  campaign  and  others,  but  the  one  thing  they've  never  said  about  me  is that  I'm  misunderstood.  And  so  when  we  talk  to  our  allies  and  we  give  them  our  word,  in  a  Christie  administration,  they  know  we're going  to  keep  it.
Next,  we  have  to  talk  to  our  adversaries,  and  we  have  to  make  sure  they  understand  the  limits  of  our  patience.  And  this  president, given  what  Ted  said  right  at  the  beginning,  he's  absolutely  right.  It's  a  —  it's  absolutely  disgraceful  that  Secretary  Kerry  and  others  said in  their  response  to  what's  going  on  in  Iran  that  this  was  a  good  thing;;  it  showed  how  the  relationship  was  getting  better.
The  president  doesn't  understand  —  and  by  the  way,  neither  does  Secretary  Clinton  —  and  here's  my  warning  to  everybody  out  in  the audience  tonight.  If  you're  worried  about  the  world  being  on  fire,  you're  worried  about  how  we're  going  to  use  our  military,  you're worried  about  strengthening  our  military  and  you're  worried  most  of  all  about  keeping  your  homes  and  your  families  safe  and  secure, you  cannot  give  Hillary  Clinton  a  third  term  of  Barack  Obama's  leadership.
I  will  not  do  that.  If  I'm  the  nominee,  she  won't  get  within  10  miles  of  the  White  House.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Just  to  be  clear  Governor,  where  and  when  would  you  use  military  action?
CHRISTIE:  MIlitary  action,  Maria,  would  be  used  when  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  protect  American  lives  and  protect  American interests  around  the  world.  We  are  not  the  world's  policeman,  but  we  need  to  stand  up  and  be  ready.
And  the  problem,  Maria,  is  that  the  military  is  not  ready,  either.  We  need  to  rebuild  our  military,  and  this  president  has  let  it  diminish  to a  point  where  tinpot  dictators  like  the  mullahs  in  Iran  are  taking  our  Navy  ships.  It  is  disgraceful,  and  in  a  Christie  administration,  they would  know  much,  much  better  than  to  do  that.  [applause]

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 28
CAVUTO:  Governor  Bush,  the  president  just  told  the  nation  two  nights  ago  that  America  is  back  and  that  the  idea  that  our  enemies  are getting  stronger  or  that  this  country  is  getting  weaker,  well,  it's  just  rhetoric  and  hot  air.  Now  other  Democrats  go  even  further,  sir, saying  Republicans  even  suggesting  such  comments  actually  embolden  our  enemies.  I  guess  they  would  include  you.  What  do  you say?
BUSH:  Well  first  of  all,  the  idea  that  somehow  we're  better  off  today  than  the  day  that  Barack  Obama  was  inaugurated  president  of  the United  States  is  totally  an  alternative  universe.  The  simple  fact  is  that  the  world  has  been  torn  asunder.
Think  about  it.  With  grandiose  language,  the  president  talks  about  red  lines  and  nothing  to  follow  it  up;;  talks  about  ISIS  being  the  JV team,  they  form  a  caliphate  the  size  of  Indiana  with  35  (thousand)  to  40,000  battle-­tested  terrorists.  He's  missing  the  whole  point,  that America's  leadership  in  the  world  is  required  for  peace  and  stability.
In  the  crowd  today  is  Major  General  James  Livingston,  who's  the  co-­chairman  of  my  campaign  here  in  South  Carolina,  a  Medal  of Honor  recipient.  [applause]
I've  learned  from  him  that  what  we  need  to  achieve  is  peace  through  strength,  which  means  we  need  to  rebuild  the  military.  In  this administration,  every  weapon  system  has  been  gutted,  in  this  administration,  the  force  levels  are  going  down  to  a  level  where  we can't  even  project  force.  Our  friends  no  longer  think  we  have  their  back  and  our  enemies  no  longer  fear  us,  and  we're  in  a  much difficult  —  we're  in  a  much  different  position  than  we  should  be.
And  for  the  life  of  me,  I  have  no  understanding  why  the  president  thinks  that  everything  is  going  well.  Terrorism  is  on  the  run,  China, Russia  is  advancing  their  agenda  at  warp  speed,  and  we  pull  back.
As  president  of  the  United  States,  I  will  be  a  commander  in  chief  that  will  have  the  back  of  the  military.  We  will  rebuild  the  military  to make  sure  that  it  is  a  solid  force,  not  to  be  the  world's  policeman,  but  to  make  sure  that  in  a  peaceful  world,  people  know  that  the United  States  is  there  to  take  care  of  our  own  national  interests  and  take  care  of  our  allies.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  So  I  take  it  from  that  you  do  not  agree  with  the  president.
BUSH:  No.  And  worse  —  worse  yet,  to  be  honest  with  you,  Hillary  Clinton  would  be  a  national  security  disaster.
Think  about  it.  She  wants  to  continue  down  the  path  of  Iran,  Benghazi,  the  Russian  reset,  Dodd-­Frank,  all  the  things  that  have  —  that have  gone  wrong  in  this  country,  she  would  be  a  national  security  mess.  And  that  is  wrong.
And  you  know  what?  Here's  the  problem.  If  she  gets  elected,  she's  under  investigation  with  the  FBI  right  now.  If  she  gets  elected,  her first  100  days,  instead  of  setting  an  agenda,  she  might  be  going  back  and  forth  between  the  White  House  and  the  courthouse.  We need  to  stop  that.  [laughter  and  applause]
CAVUTO:  Senator  Rubio,  the  president  says  that  ISIS  doesn't  threaten  our  national  existence  like  a  Germany  or  a  Japan  back  in World  War  II,  that  the  terror  group  is  nothing  more  than  twisted  souls  plotting  attacks  in  their  garages.
But  House  Homeland  Security  Committee  recently  said  that  over  1,000  ongoing  investigations  of  homegrown  extremism  in  50  states. So  how  do  you  define  the  threat?  Germany  then  or  dangerous  nut  cases  now?
RUBIO:  Yeah,  I  would  go,  first  of  all,  one  step  further  in  this  description  of  Hillary  Clinton.  She  wouldn't  just  be  a  disaster,  Hillary Clinton  is  disqualified  from  being  commander  in  chief  of  the  United  States.  [applause]
Someone  who  cannot  handle  intelligence  information  appropriately  cannot  be  commander  in  chief  and  someone  who  lies  to  the families  of  those  four  victims  in  Benghazi  can  never  be  president  of  the  United  States.  Ever.  [applause]
On  the  issue  of  Barack  Obama,  Barack  Obama  does  not  believe  that  America  is  a  great  global  power.  Barack  Obama  believes  that America  is  a  arrogant  global  power  that  needs  to  be  cut  down  to  size.  And  that's  how  you  get  a  foreign  policy  where  we  cut  deals  with our  enemies  like  Iran  and  we  betray  our  allies  like  Israel  and  we  gut  our  military  and  we  go  around  the  world  like  he  has  done  on  10 separate  occasions  and  apologized  for  America.
He  doesn't  understand  the  threat  in  ISIS.  He  consistently  underestimates  it  but  I  do  not.  There  is  a  war  against  ISIS,  not  just  against ISIS  but  against  radical  jihadists  terrorists,  and  it  is  a  war  that  they  win  or  we  win.
When  I'm  president  of  the  United  States,  we  are  going  to  win  this  war  on  ISIS.  The  most  powerful  intelligence  agency  in  the  world  is going  to  tell  us  where  we  are,  the  most  powerful  military  in  the  world  is  going  to  destroy  them.  And  if  we  capture  any  of  them  alive, they  are  getting  a  one-­way  ticket  to  Guantanamo  Bay,  Cuba,  and  we  are  going  to  find  out  everything  they  know.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Thank  you,  Senator.
BARTIROMO:  Dr.  Carson,  the  president  says  he  does  not  want  to  treat  ISIS  as  a  foreign  army,  but  ISIS  is  neither  a  country  nor  a government.  How  do  you  attack  a  network  that  does  not  respect  national  borders?
CARSON:  Well,  I'm  very  happy  to  get  a  question  this  early  on.  I  was  going  to  ask  you  to  wake  me  up  when  that  time  came.  [laughter]
You  know,  I  find  it  really  quite  fascinating  some  of  the  president's  proclamations.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  he  doesn't  realize  that  we now  live  in  the  21st  century,  and  that  war  is  very  different  than  it  used  to  be  before.  Not  armies  massively  marching  on  each  other  and air  forces,  but  now  we  have  dirty  bombs  and  we  have  cyber  attacks  and  we  have  people  who  will  be  attacking  our  electrical  grid.  And, you  know,  we  have  a  whole  variety  of  things  that  they  can  do  and  they  can  do  these  things  simultaneously.  And  we  have  enemies who  are  obtaining  nuclear  weapons  that  they  can  explode  in  our  exoatmosphere  and  destroy  our  electric  grid.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 28
I  mean,  just  think  about  a  scenario  like  that.  They  explode  the  bomb,  we  have  an  electromagnetic  pulse.  They  hit  us  with  a  cyberattack simultaneously  and  dirty  bombs.  Can  you  imagine  the  chaos  that  would  ensue  at  that  point?  He  needs  to  recognize  that  those  kinds of  things  are  in  fact  an  existential  threat  to  us.
But  here's  the  real  key.  We  have  the  world's  best  military,  even  though  he's  done  everything  he  can  to  diminish  it.  And  the  fact  of  the matter  is  if  we  give  them  a  mission  and  we  don't  tie  their  hands  behind  their  back,  they  can  get  it  accomplished.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Mr.  Trump,  at  the  State  of  the  Union,  the  president  pointed  to  a  guest  who  was  a  Syrian  refugee  you  might  recall  whose  wife and  daughter  and  other  family  members  were  killed  in  an  air  attack.  Now  he  fled  that  country  seeking  asylum  here,  ultimately  ended up  in  Detroit  where  he's  now  trying  to  start  a  new  life.
The  president  says  that  that  doctor  is  the  real  face  of  these  refugees  and  not  the  one  that  you  and  some  of  your  colleagues  on  this stage  are  painting;;  that  you  prefer  the  face  of  fear  and  terror  and  that  you  would  refuse  to  let  in  anyone  into  this  country  seeking legitimate  asylum.  How  do  you  answer  that?
TRUMP:  It's  not  fear  and  terror,  it's  reality.  You  just  have  to  look  today  at  Indonesia,  bombings  all  over.  [applause]
You  look  at  California,  you  look,  frankly,  at  Paris  where  there's  a  —  the  strictest  no-­gun  policy  of  any  city  anywhere  in  the  world,  and you  see  what  happens:  130  people  dead  with  many  to  follow.  They're  very,  very  badly  wounded.  They  will  —  some  will  follow.  And you  look  around,  and  you  see  what's  happening,  and  this  is  not  the  case  when  he  introduced  the  doctor  —  very  nice,  everything perfect  but  that  is  not  representative  of  what  you  have  in  that  line  of  migration.
That  could  be  the  great  Trojan  Horse.  It  could  be  people  that  are  going  to  do  great,  great  destruction.  When  I  look  at  the  migration,  I looked  at  the  line,  I  said  it  actually  on  your  show  recently,  where  are  the  women?  It  looked  like  very  few  women.  Very  few  children. Strong,  powerful  men,  young  and  people  are  looking  at  that  and  they're  saying  what's  going  on?
You  look  at  the  kind  of  damage  that  two  people  that  two  people  that  got  married,  they  were  radicalized  —  they  got  married,  they  killed 15  people  in  actually  15  —  going  to  be  probably  16  but  you  look  at  that  and  you  take  a  look  —  a  good  strong  look  and  that's  what  we have.  We  are  nineteen  trillion  dollars  —  our  country's  a  mess  and  we  can't  let  all  these  people  come  into  our  country  and  break  our borders.  We  can't  do  it.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Senator  Cruz,  the  New  York  Times  is  reporting  that  you  failed  to  properly  disclose  a  million  dollars  in  loans  from Goldman  Sachs  and  CitiBank.  During  your  senate  race,  your  campaign  said,  "it  was  inadvertent."  A  million  dollars  is  inadvertent?
CRUZ:  Well  Maria,  thank  you  for  passing  on  that  hit  piece  in  the  front  page  of  the  New  York  Times.  You  know  the  nice  thing  about  the mainstream  media,  they  don't  hide  their  views.  The  New  York  Times  a  few  weeks  back  had  a  columnist  who  wrote  a  column  saying, "Anybody  But  Cruz."  Had  that  actually  —  that  same  columnist  wrote  a  column  comparing  me  to  an  evil  demonic  spirit  from  the  move, "It  Follows"  that  jumps  apparently  from  body  to  body  possessing  people.
So  you  know  the  New  York  Times  and  I  don't  have  exactly  have  the  warmest  of  relationships.  Now  in  terms  of  their  really  stunning  hit piece,  what  they  mentioned  is  when  I  was  running  for  senate  —  unlike  Hillary  Clinton,  I  don't  have  masses  of  money  in  the  bank, hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  When  I  was  running  for  senate  just  about  every  lobbyist,  just  about  all  of  the  establishment  opposed me  in  the  senate  race  in  Texas  and  my  opponent  in  that  race  was  worth  over  200  million  dollars.  He  put  a  25  million  dollar  check  up from  his  own  pocket  to  fund  that  campaign  and  my  wife  Heidi  and  I,  we  ended  up  investing  everything  we  owned.
We  took  a  loan  against  our  assets  to  invest  it  in  that  campaign  to  defend  ourselves  against  those  attacks.  And  the  entire  New  York times  attack  —  is  that  I  disclosed  that  loan  on  one  filing  with  the  United  States  Senate,  that  was  a  public  filing.  But  it  was  not  on  a second  filing  with  FDIC  and  yes,  I  made  a  paperwork  error  disclosing  it  on  one  piece  of  paper  instead  of  the  other.  But  if  that's  the  best the  New  York  Times  has  got,  they  better  go  back  to  the  well.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you.
[commercial  break]
CAVUTO:  All  right.  Welcome  back  to  the  Republican  presidential  ,  right  here  in  North  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  Let's  get  right  back to  the  questions.  And  I'll  start  with  you,  Senator  Cruz.
Now  you  are,  of  course,  a  strict  constitutionalist  —  no  one  would  doubt  that.  And  as  you  know,  the  U.S.  Constitution  says  only  natural-­ born  citizens  are  eligible  for  the  office  of  president  of  the  United  States.  Stop  me  if  you've  heard  this  before.  Now,  you  were  born... [laughter]...  you  were  born  in  Canada  to  an  American  mother.  So  you  were  and  are  considered  an  American  citizen.  But  that  fellow next  to  you,  Donald  Trump  —  and  others  —  have  said  that  being  born  in  Canada  means  you  are  not  natural-­born,  and  that  has  raised questions  about  your  eligibility.
Do  you  want  to  try  to  close  this  topic  once  and  for  all  tonight?
CRUZ:  Well,  Neil,  I'm  glad  we're  focusing  on  the  important  topics  of  the  evening.  [laughter  and  applause]
You  know,  back  in  September,  my  friend  Donald  said  that  he  had  had  his  lawyers  look  at  this  from  every  which  way,  and  there  was  no issue  there.  There  was  nothing  to  this  birther  issue.  [laughter]
Now,  since  September,  the  Constitution  hasn't  changed.  [laughter]
But  the  poll  numbers  have.  [applause]

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 28
And  I  recognize  —  I  recognize  that  Donald  is  dismayed  that  his  poll  numbers  are  falling  in  Iowa.  But  the  facts  and  the  law  here  are really  quite  clear.  Under  longstanding  U.S.  law,  the  child  of  a  U.S.  citizen  born  abroad  is  a  natural-­born  citizen.
If  a  soldier  has  a  child  abroad,  that  child  is  a  natural-­born  citizen.  That's  why  John  McCain,  even  though  he  was  born  in  Panama,  was eligible  to  run  for  president.
If  an  American  missionary  has  a  child  abroad,  that  child  is  a  natural-­born  citizen.  That's  why  George  Romney,  Mitt's  dad,  was  eligible to  run  for  president,  even  though  he  was  born  in  Mexico.
At  the  end  of  the  day,  the  legal  issue  is  quite  straightforward,  but  I  would  note  that  the  birther  theories  that  Donald  has  been  relying  on —  some  of  the  more  extreme  ones  insist  that  you  must  not  only  be  born  on  U.S.  soil,  but  have  two  parents  born  on  U.S.  soil.
Under  that  theory,  not  only  would  I  be  disqualified,  Marco  Rubio  would  be  disqualified,  Bobby  Jindal  would  be  disqualified  and, interestingly  enough,  Donald  J.  Trump  would  be  disqualified.  [applause]
UNKNOWN:  Not  me.
CRUZ:  Because  —  because  Donald's  mother  was  born  in  Scotland.  She  was  naturalized.  Now,  Donald...
TRUMP:  But  I  was  born  here.
CRUZ:  ...  on  the  issue  —  on  the  issue  of  citizenship,  Donald...
TRUMP:  [inaudible].  Big  difference.
CRUZ:  ...  on  the  issue  of  citizenship,  Donald,  I'm  not  going  to  use  your  mother's  birth  against  you.
TRUMP:  OK,  good.  Because  it  wouldn't  work.
CRUZ:  You're  an  American,  as  is  everybody  else  on  this  stage,  and  I  would  suggest  we  focus  on  who's  best  prepared  to  be commander-­  in-­chief,  because  that's  the  most  important  question  facing  the  country.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Mr.  Trump...[crosstalk]...that  you  raised  it  because  of  his  rising  poll  numbers.
TRUMP:  ...  first  of  all,  let  me  just  tell  you  something  —  and  you  know,  because  you  just  saw  the  numbers  yourself  —  NBC  Wall  Street Journal  just  came  out  with  a  poll  —  headline:  Trump  way  up,  Cruz  going  down.  I  mean,  so  don't  —  so  you  can't  —  you  can't... [booing]...they  don't  like  the  Wall  Street  Journal.  They  don't  like  NBC,  but  I  like  the  poll.  [laughter]
And  frankly,  it  just  came  out,  and  in  Iowa  now,  as  you  know,  Ted,  in  the  last  three  polls,  I'm  beating  you.  So  —  you  know,  you  shouldn't misrepresent  how  well  you're  doing  with  the  polls.  [applause]
You  don't  have  to  say  that.  In  fact,  I  was  all  for  you  until  you  started  doing  that,  because  that's  a  misrepresentation,  number  one.
Number  two,  this  isn't  me  saying  it.  I  don't  care.  I  think  I'm  going  to  win  fair  and  square  [inaudible]  to  win  this  way.  Thank  you.
Lawrence  Tribe  and  [inaudible]  from  Harvard  —  of  Harvard,  said  that  there  is  a  serious  question  as  to  whether  or  not  Ted  can  do  this. OK?  There  are  other  attorneys  that  feel,  and  very,  very  fine  constitutional  attorneys,  that  feel  that  because  he  was  not  born  on  the land,  he  cannot  run  for  office.
Here's  the  problem.  We're  running.  We're  running.  He  does  great.  I  win.  I  choose  him  as  my  vice  presidential  candidate,  and  the Democrats  sue  because  we  can't  take  him  along  for  the  ride.  I  don't  like  that.  OK?  [laughter]
The  fact  is  —  and  if  for  some  reason  he  beats  the  rest  of  the  field,  he  beats  the  rest  of  the  field  [inaudible].  See,  they  don't  like  that. They  don't  like  that.  [audience  booing]
No,  they  don't  like  he  beats  the  rest  of  the  field,  because  they  want  me.  [laughter]
But  —  if  for  some  reason,  Neil,  he  beats  the  rest  of  the  field,  I  already  know  the  Democrats  are  going  to  be  bringing  a  suit.  You  have  a big  lawsuit  over  your  head  while  you're  running.  And  if  you  become  the  nominee,  who  the  hell  knows  if  you  can  even  serve  in  office? So  you  should  go  out,  get  a  declaratory  judgment,  let  the  courts  decide.  And  you  shouldn't  have  mentioned  the  polls  because  I  would have  been  much...[crosstalk]
CAVUTO:  Why  are  you  saying  this  now  —  right  now?  Why  are  you  raising  this  issue  now?
TRUMP:  Because  now  he's  going  a  little  bit  better.  No,  I  didn't  care  [inaudible].  It's  true.  No,  it's  true.  Hey  look,  he  never  had  a  chance. Now,  he's  doing  better.  He's  got  probably  a  four  or  five  percent  chance.  [laughter]
[crosstalk]
CRUZ:  Neil...  [crosstalk]
TRUMP:  The  fact  is,  there  is  a  big  overhang.  There's  a  big  question  mark  on  your  head.  And  you  can't  do  that  to  the  party.  You  really can't.  You  can't  do  that  to  the  party.  You  have  to  have  certainty.  Even  if  it  was  a  one  percent  chance,  and  it's  far  greater  than  one percent  because  [inaudible].

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 28
I  mean,  you  have  great  constitutional  lawyers  that  say  you  can't  run.  If  there  was  a  —  and  you  know  I'm  not  bringing  a  suit.  I  promise. But  the  Democrats  are  going  to  bring  a  lawsuit,  and  you  have  to  have  certainty.  You  can't  have  a  question.  I  can  agree  with  you  or  not, but  you  can't  have  a  question  over  your  head.
CAVUTO:  Senator,  do  you  want  to  respond?
CRUZ:  Well,  listen,  I've  spent  my  entire  life  defending  the  Constitution  before  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court.  And  I'll  tell  you,  I'm  not  going  to be  taking  legal  advice  from  Donald  Trump.
TRUMP:  You  don't  have  to.  Take  it  from  Lawrence  Tribe.  [applause]  [crosstalk]
Take  it  from  your  professors...[crosstalk]
CRUZ:  The  chances  of  any  litigation  proceeding  and  succeeding  on  this  are  zero.  And  Mr.  Trump  is  very  focused...
TRUMP:  He's  wrong.  He's  wrong.
CRUZ:  ...  on  Larry  Tribe.  Let  me  tell  you  who  Larry  Tribe  is.  He's  a  left-­wing  judicial  activist,  Harvard  Law  professor  who  was  Al  Gore's lawyer  in  Bush  versus  Gore.  He's  a  major  Hillary  Clinton  supporter.  And  there's  a  reason  why  Hillary's  supporters  are  echoing Donald's  attacks  on  me,  because  Hillary...
TRUMP:  He  is  not  the  only  one.
CRUZ:  ...  wants  to  face  Donald  Trump  in  the  general  election.
TRUMP:  There  are  many  lawyers.
CRUZ:  And  I'll  tell  you  what,  Donald,  you  —  you  very  kindly  just  a  moment  ago  offered  me  the  V.P.  slot.  [laughter]
I'll  tell  you  what.  If  this  all  works  out,  I'm  happy  to  consider  naming  you  as  V.P.  So  if  you  happen  to  be  right,  you  could  get  the  top  job  at the  end  of  the  day.
TRUMP:  No  —  no...[laughter]...  I  think  if  it  doesn't...  [applause]  I  like  that.  I  like  it.  I'd  consider  it.  But  I  think  I'll  go  back  to  building buildings  if  it  doesn't  work  out.
CRUZ:  Actually,  I'd  love  to  get  you  to  build  a  wall.
[crosstalk]
TRUMP:  I  have  a  feeling  it's  going  to  work  out,  actually.
[crosstalk]
RUBIO:  Let  me  [inaudible].  I  was  invoked  in  that  question,  so  let  me  just  say  —  in  that  answer  —  let  me  say,  the  real  question  here,  I hate  to  interrupt  this  episode  of  Court  TV.  [laughter]
But  the  real  —  but  I  think  we  have  to  get  back  to  what  this  election  has  to  be  about.  OK?  Listen,  we  —  this  is  the  greatest  country  in  the history  of  mankind.  But  in  2008,  we  elected  a  president  that  didn't  want  to  fix  America.  He  wants  to  change  America.  We  elected  a president  that  doesn't  believe  in  the  Constitution.  He  undermines  it.  We  elected  a  president  that  is  weakening  America  on  the  global stage.  We  elected  a  president  that  doesn't  believe  in  the  free  enterprise  system.
This  election  has  to  be  about  reversing  all  of  that  damage.  That's  why  I'm  running  for  office  because  when  I  become  president  of  the United  States,  on  my  first  day  in  office  we  are  going  to  repeal  every  single  one  of  his  unconstitutional  executive  orders.  When  I'm president  of  the  United  States  we  are  getting  rid  of  Obamacare  and  we  are  rebuilding  our  military.  And  when  I'm  president,  we're  not just  going  to  have  a  president  that  gives  a  State  of  the  Union  and  says  America  is  the  greatest  country  in  the  world.  When  I'm president,  we're  going  to  have  a  president  that  acts  like  it.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  senator.
Mr.  Trump,  South  Carolina  Governor  Nikki  Haley  in  her  response  to  the  State  of  the  Union  address...[applause]...appeared  to  choose sides  within  the  party,  saying  Republicans  should  resist,  quote,  "the  siren  call  of  the  angriest  voices".  She  confirmed,  she  was referring  to  you  among  others.  Was  she  out  of  line?  And,  how  would  a  President  Trump  unite  the  party?
TRUMP:  Okay.  First  of  all,  Nikki  this  afternoon  said  I'm  a  friend  of  hers.  Actually  a  close  friend.  And  wherever  you  are  sitting  Nikki,  I'm  a friend.  We're  friends.  That's  good.  [laughter]  But  she  did  say  there  was  anger.  And  I  could  say,  oh,  I'm  not  angry.  I'm  very  angry because  our  country  is  being  run  horribly  and  I  will  gladly  accept  the  mantle  of  anger.  Our  military  is  a  disaster.  [applause]
Our  healthcare  is  a  horror  show.  Obamacare,  we're  going  to  repeal  it  and  replace  it.  We  have  no  borders.  Our  vets  are  being  treated horribly.  Illegal  immigration  is  beyond  belief.  Our  country  is  being  run  by  incompetent  people.  And  yes,  I  am  angry.  [applause]  And  I won't  be  angry  when  we  fix  it,  but  until  we  fix  it,  I'm  very,  very  angry.  And  I  say  that  to  Nikki.  So  when  Nikki  said  that,  I  wasn't  offended. She  said  the  truth.
One  of  your  colleagues  interviewed  me.  And  said,  well,  she  said  you  were  angry  and  I  said  to  myself,  huh,  she's  right.  I'm  not  fighting that.  I  didn't  find  it  offensive  at  all.  I'm  angry  because  our  country  is  a  mess.  [applause]

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 28
BARTIROMO:  But  what  are  you  going  to  do  about  it?
CAVUTO:  Marco  Rubio.  I'm  sorry,  it's  the  time  constraints.  You  and  Governor  Christie  have  been  exchanging  some  fairly  nasty  words of  late,  and  I  will  allow  the  governor  to  respond  as  well.
The  governor  went  so  far  to  say,  you  won't  be  able  to  slime  your  way  to  the  White  House.  He's  referring  to  a  series  of  ads  done  by  a PAC,  speaking  on  your  behalf,  that  say  quote,"One  high  tax,  Common  Core,  liberal,  energy-­loving,  Obamacare,  Medicaid-­expanding president  is  enough.  You  think  you  went  too  far  on  that  and  do  you  want  to  apologize  to  the  governor?
RUBIO:  You  know,  as  I  said  already  twice  in  this  ,  we  have  a  very  serious  problem  in  this  country.  [applause]  We  have  a  president  of the  United  States  that  is  undermining  this  country's  security  and  expanding  the  role  of...
CAVUTO:  That  is  not  my  question.
RUBIO:  Well,  I  am  going  to  answer  your  question,  Neil.  He  is  —  this  president  is  undermining  the  constitutional  basis  of  this government.  This  president  is  undermining  our  military.  He  is  undermining  our  standing  in  the  world.  I  like  Chris  Christie,  but  we  can not  afford  to  have  a  president  of  the  United  States  that  supports  Common  Core.  [applause]
We  can  not  afford  to  have  a  president  of  the  United  States  that  supports  gun  control.  This  president,  this  president  is  more  interested in  funding  —  less  interested  in  funding  the  military,  than  he  is  in  funding  planned  —  he's  more  interested  in  funding  Planned Parenthood  than  he  is  in  funding  the  military.
Chris  Christie  wrote  a  check  to  Planned  Parenthood.  All  I'm  saying  is  our  next  president  has  to  be  someone  that  undoes  the  damage Barack  Obama  has  done  to  this  country.  It  can  not  be  someone  that  agrees  with  his  agenda.
Because  the  damage  he  has  done  to  America  is  extraordinary.  Let  me  tell  you,  if  we  don't  get  this  election  right,  there  may  be  no turning  back  for  America.  We're  on  the  verge  of  being  the  first  generation  of  Americans  that  leave  our  children  worse  off  than ourselves.
So  I  just  truly,  with  all  my  heart  belief,  I  like  everybody  on  the  stage.  No  one  is  a  socialist.  No  one  here  is  under  FBI  investigation.  So we  have  a  good  group  of  people.
CAVUTO:  Is  he  a  liberal?
RUBIO:  Our  next  president...
CAVUTO:  Is  he  a  liberal?
RUBIO:  Unfortunately,  Governor  Christie  has  endorsed  many  of  the  ideas  that  Barack  Obama  supports,  whether  it  is  Common  Core or  gun  control  or  the  appointment  of  Sonia  Sotomayor  or  the  donation  he  made  to  Planned  Parenthood.  Our  next  president,  and  our Republican  nominee  can  not  be  someone  who  supports  those  positions.
CAVUTO:  Governor?  [applause]
CHRISTIE:  I  stood  on  the  stage  and  watched  Marco  in  rather  indignantly,  look  at  Governor  Bush  and  say,  someone  told  you  that because  we're  running  for  the  same  office,  that  criticizing  me  will  get  you  to  that  office.
It  appears  that  the  same  someone  who  has  been  whispering  in  old  Marco's  ear  too.  [laughter]
So  the  indignation  that  you  carry  on,  some  of  the  stuff,  you  have  to  also  own  then.  So  let's  set  the  facts  straight.  First  of  all,  I  didn't support  Sonia  Sotomayor.  Secondly,  I  never  wrote  a  check  to  Planned  Parenthood.
Third,  if  you  look  at  my  record  as  governor  of  New  Jersey,  I  have  vetoed  a  50-­caliber  rifle  ban.  I  have  vetoed  a  reduction  this  clip  size. I  vetoed  a  statewide  I.D.  system  for  gun  owners  and  I  pardoned,  six  out-­of-­state  folks  who  came  through  our  state  and  were  arrested for  owning  a  gun  legally  in  another  state  so  they  never  have  to  face  charges.
And  on  Common  Core,  Common  Core  has  been  eliminated  in  New  Jersey.  So  listen,  this  is  the  difference  between  being  a  governor and  a  senator.  See  when  you're  a  senator,  what  you  get  to  do  is  just  talk  and  talk  and  talk.  And  you  talk  so  much  that  nobody  can  ever keep  up  with  what  you're  saying  is  accurate  or  not.
When  you're  a  governor,  you're  held  accountable  for  everything  you  do.  And  the  people  of  New  Jersey,  I've  seen  it.  [applause]
CHRISTIE:  And  the  last  piece  is  this.  I  like  Marco  too,  and  two  years  ago,  he  called  me  a  conservative  reformer  that  New  Jersey needed.  That  was  before  he  was  running  against  me.  Now  that  he  is,  he's  changed  his  tune.
I'm  never  going  to  change  my  tune.  I  like  Marco  Rubio.  He's  a  good  guy,  a  smart  guy,  and  he  would  be  a  heck  of  a  lot  better  president than  Hillary  Rodham  Clinton  would  ever  be.  [applause]
BUSH:  Neil,  my  name  was  mentioned  here.  Neil,  my  name  was  mentioned  as  well.
Here's  the  deal,  Chris  is  totally  right.  He's  been  a  good  governor,  and  he's  a  heck  of  a  lot  better  than  his  predecessor  that  would  have bankrupted  New  Jersey.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 28
Everybody  on  this  stage  is  better  than  Hillary  Clinton.  And  I  think  the  focus  ought  to  be  on  making  sure  that  we  leave  this  nomination process,  as  wild  and  woolly  as  it's  going  to  be  —  this  is  not  being  bad.
These  attack  ads  are  going  to  be  part  of  life.  Everybody  just  needs  to  get  used  to  it.  Everybody's  record's  going  to  be  scrutinized,  and at  the  end  of  the  day  we  need  to  unite  behind  the  winner  so  we  can  defeat  Hillary  Clinton,  because  she  is  a  disaster.  [applause]
Our  country  rise  up  again,  but  we  need  to  have  a  compelling  conservative  agenda  that  we  present  to  the  American  people  in  a  way that  doesn't  disparage  people,  that  unites  us  around  our  common  purpose.
And  so  everybody  needs  to  discount  some  of  the  things  you're  going  to  hear  in  these  ads,  and  discount  the  —  the  back-­and-­forth here,  because  every  person  here  is  better  than  Hillary  Clinton.
CARSON:  Neil,  I  was  mentioned  too.
CAVUTO:  You  were?
CARSON:  Yeah,  he  said  everybody.  [laughter]
And  —  and  I  just  want  to  take  this  opportunity  to  say,  you  know,  in  the  2012  election,  you  know,  we  —  and  when  I  say  we,  Republicans —  tore  themselves  apart.
You  know,  we  have  to  stop  this  because,  you  know,  if  we  manage  to  damage  ourselves,  and  we  lose  the  next  election,  and  a progressive  gets  in  there  and  they  get  two  or  three  Supreme  Court  picks,  this  nation  is  over  as  we  know  it.  And  we  got  to  look  at  the big  picture  here.
BARTIROMO:  Governor  Kasich...[applause]...  Governor  Kasich,  Hillary  Clinton  is  getting  some  serious  competition  from  Senator Bernie  Sanders.  He's  now  at  41  percent  in  the  latest  CBS/New  York  Times  poll.  Vice  President  Biden  sang  his  praises,  saying  Bernie is  speaking  to  a  yearning  that  is  deep  and  real,  and  he  has  credibility  on  it.
So  what  does  it  say  about  our  country  that  a  candidate  who  is  a  self-­avowed  socialist  and  who  doesn't  think  a  90  percent  tax  rate  is too  high  could  be  the  Democratic  nominee?
KASICH:  Well,  if  that's  the  case,  we're  going  to  win  every  state,  if  Bernie  Sanders  is  the  nominee.  That's  not  even  an  issue.  But  look... [applause]...and  I  know  Bernie,  and  I  can  promise  you  he's  not  going  to  be  president  of  the  United  States.  So  here's  this  —  the situation,  I  think,  Maria.
And  this  is  what  we  have  to  —  I  —  I've  got  to  tell  you,  when  wages  don't  rise  —  and  they  haven't  for  a  lot  of  families  for  a  number  of years  —  it's  very,  very  difficult  for  them.
Part  of  the  reason  why  it  hasn't  risen  because  sometimes  we're  not  giving  people  the  skills  they  need.  Sometimes  it's  because  the Federal  Reserve  kept  interest  rates  so  low  that  the  wealthy  were  able  to  invest  in  —  in  strong  assets  like  the  stock  market  when everybody  else  was  left  behind.
People  are  upset  about  it.  I'll  tell  you  what  else  they're  upset  about:  you're  50  or  51  years  old,  and  some  kid  walks  in  and  tells  you you're  out  of  work,  and  you  don't  know  where  to  go  and  where  to  turn.  Do  we  have  answer  for  that?  We  do.  There  are  ways  to  retrain the  50  and  51-­year-­olds,  because  they've  got  great  value.
I'll  tell  you  what  else  people  are  concerned  about.  Their  kids  come  out  of  college,  they  have  high  debt  and  they  can't  get  a  good  job. We  got  to  do  a  lot  about  the  high  cost  of  high  —  higher  education,  but  we've  got  to  make  sure  we're  training  people  for  jobs  that  exist, that  are  good  jobs  that  can  pay.  [applause]
Let  me  tell  you  that,  in  this  country  —  in  this  country,  people  are  concerned  about  their  economic  future.  They're  very  concerned  about it.  And  they  wonder  whether  somebody  is  getting  something  to  —  keeping  them  from  getting  it.
That's  not  the  America  that  I've  ever  known.  My  father  used  to  say,  "Johnny,  we  never  —  we  don't  hate  the  rich.  We  just  want  to  be  the rich."  And  we  just  got  to  make  sure  that  every  American  has  the  tools,  in  K-­through-­12  and  in  vocational  education,  in  higher education.
And  we  got  to  fight  like  crazy  so  people  can  think  the  American  dream  still  exists,  because  it  does,  with  rising  wages,  with  full employment  and  with  everybody  in  America  —  and  I  mean  everybody  in  America  —  having  an  opportunity  to  realize  the  American dream  of  having  a  better  life  than  their  mother  and  their  father.
I'm  president  —  look,  I've  done  it  once.  I've  done  it  once  in  Washington,  with  great  jobs  and  lower  taxes.  The  economy  was  really booming.
And  now  in  Ohio,  with  the  same  formula,  wages  higher  than  the  —  than  the  national  average.  A  growth  of  385,000  jobs.
[bell  rings]
It's  not  that  hard.  Just  know  where  you  want  to  go,  stick  to  your  guts.  Get  it  done,  because  our  —  our  children  and  grandchildren  are counting  on  us  to  get  it  done.  And,  folks,  we  will.  You  count  on  it.
BARTIROMO:  Dr.  Carson,  one  of  the  other  candidates  on  this  stage  has  brought  Bill  Clinton's  past  indiscretions.  Is  that  a  legitimate topic  in  this  election?  And  what  do  you  think  of  the  notion  that  Hillary  Clinton  is  an  enabler  of  sexual  misconduct?

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 28
CARSON:  Well,  there's  not  question  that  we  should  be  able  to  look  at  past  president  whether  they're  married  to  somebody  who's running  for  president  or  not  in  terms  of  their  past  behavior  and  what  it  means.  But  you  know,  here's  the  real  issue,  is  this  America anymore?  Do  we  still  have  standards?  Do  we  still  have  values  and  principles?
You  know,  you  look  at  what's  going  on,  you  see  all  the  divisiveness  and  the  hatred  that  goes  on  in  our  society.  You  know,  we  have  a war  on  virtual  everything  —  race  wars,  gender  wars,  income  wars,  religious  wars,  age  wars.  Every  war  you  can  imaging,  we  have people  at  each  other's  throat  and  our  strength  is  actually  in  our  unity.
You  know,  you  go  to  the  internet,  you  start  reading  an  article  and  you  go  to  the  comments  section  —  you  cannot  go  five  comments down  before  people  are  calling  each  all  manner  of  names.  Where  did  that  spirit  come  from  in  America?  It  did  not  come  from  our Judeo-­Christian  roots,  I  can  tell  you  that.  And  wherever  it  came  from  we  need  to  start  once  again  recognizing  that  there  is  such  a  thing as  right  and  wrong.  And  let's  not  let  the  secular  progressives  drive  that  out  of  us.
The  majority  of  people  in  American  actually  have  values  and  principles  and  they  believe  in  the  very  things  that  made  America  great. They've  been  beaten  into  submission.  It's  time  for  us  to  stand  up  for  what  we  believe  in.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Well,  we  are  not  done.  Coming  up,  one  of  the  top  things  people  are  talking  about  on  Facebook,  guns.  And  you  can  join  us live  us  on  this  stage  in  the  conversation  during  this  commercial  break  right  from  home.  You  can  go  to  Facebook.com/[inaudible].  We will  be  streaming  live  and  talking  about  how  we  think  the  is  going  so  far.
We're  back  in  a  moment  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina.
[commercial  break]
BARTIROMO:  Welcome  back  to  the  Republican  presidential  debates,  right  here  in  North  Charleston.  Let's  get  right  back  to  the questions.
Governor  Bush,  gun  rights,  one  of  the  top  issues  seen  on  Facebook  with  close  to  3  million  people  talking  about  it  in  the  past  month. Right  here  in  Charleston,  Dylann  Roof,  who  has  been  accused  of  killing  nine  people  in  a  nearby  church,  reportedly  had  not  passed his  background  check  when  he  got  his  gun.  What  is  the  harm  in  tightening  standards  for  not  only  who  buys  guns,  but  those  who  sell them?
BUSH:  First  of  all,  I'd  like  to  recognize  Governor  Haley  for  her  incredible  leadership  in  the  aftermath  of  the  —  [applause]  —  the Emanuel  AME  church  killings.  And  I  also  want  to  recognize  the  people  in  that  church  that  showed  the  grace  of  God  and  the  grace  of forgiveness  and  the  mercy  that  they  showed.  [applause]  I  don't  know  if  any  of  us  could  have  done  what  they  did,  one  after  another, within  48  hours  of  that  tragedy  taking  place.  Look,  here's  the  deal,  in  this  particular  case,  the  FBI  made  a  mistake.  The  law  itself requires  a  background  check,  but  that  didn't  fulfill  their  part  of  the  bargain  within  the  time  that  they  were  supposed  to  do.
We  don't  need  to  add  new  rules,  we  need  to  make  sure  the  FBI  does  its  job.  Because  that  person  should  not  have  gotten  a  gun, should  not  —  would  not  have  passed  a  background  check.  The  first  impulse  of  Barack  Obama  and  Hillary  Clinton  is  to  take  rights away  from  law-­  abiding  citizens.
That's  what  they  do,  whether  it's  the  San  Bernardino  attack  or  if  it's  these  tragedies  that  take  place,  I  think  we  need  to  focus  on  what the  bigger  issue  is.  It  isn't  law-­abiding  gun  owners.
Look,  I  have  an  A  plus  rating  in  the  NRA  and  we  also  have  a  reduction  in  gun  violence  because  in  Florida,  if  you  commit  a  crime  with a  gun,  you're  going  away.  You're  going  away  for  a  long,  long  while.
And  that's  what  we  should  focus  on  is  the  violence  in  our  communities.  Target  the  efforts  for  people  that  are  committing  crimes  with guns,  and  if  you  do  that,  and  get  it  right,  you're  going  to  be  much  better  off  than  creating  a  political  argument  where  there's  a  big divide.
The  other  issue  is  mental  health.  That's  a  serious  issue  that  we  could  work  on.  Republicans  and  Democrats  alike  believe  this. [applause]  The  president's  first  impulse  is  do  this  by  executive  order,  power  he  doesn't  have.  Why  not  go  to  Congress  and  in  a bipartisan  way,  begin  to  deal  with  the  process  of  mental  health  issues  so  that  people  that  are  spiraling  out  of  control  because  of mental  health  challenges  don't  have  access  to  guns.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.
Mr.  Trump,  are  there  any  circumstances  that  you  think  we  should  be  limiting  gun  sales  of  any  kind  in  America?
TRUMP:  No.  I  am  a  2nd  amendment  person.  If  we  had  guns  in  California  on  the  other  side  where  the  bullets  went  in  the  different direction,  you  wouldn't  have  14  or  15  people  dead  right  now.
If  even  in  Paris,  if  they  had  guns  on  the  other  side,  going  in  the  opposite  direction,  you  wouldn't  have  130  people  plus  dead.  So  the answer  is  no  and  what  Jeb  said  is  absolutely  correct.
We  have  a  huge  mental  health  problem  in  this  country.  We're  closing  hospitals,  we're  closing  wards,  we're  closing  so  many  because the  states  want  to  save  money.  We  have  to  get  back  into  looking  at  what's  causing  it.  The  guns  don't  pull  the  trigger.  It's  the  people  that pull  the  trigger  and  we  have  to  find  out  what  is  going  on.  [applause]
We  have  to  protect  our  2nd  amendment  and  you  cannot  do  this  and  certainly  what  Barack  Obama  was  doing  with  the  executive  order. He  doesn't  want  to  get  people  together,  the  old-­fashioned  way,  where  you  get  Congress.  You  get  the  Congress,  you  get  the  Senate, you  get  together,  you  do  legislation.  He  just  writes  out  an  executive  order.  Not  supposed  to  happen  that  way.  [applause]

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 28
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you  sir.
TRUMP:  You  get  the  Congress.  You  get  the  Senate.  You  get  together.  You  do  legislation.  He  just  writes  out  an  order,  executive  order. It's  not  supposed  to  happen  that  way.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Senator  Rubio,  you  said  that  President  Obama  wants  to  take  people's  guns  away.  Yet  under  his  presidency,  gun  sales  have more  than  doubled.  That  doesn't  sound  like  a  White  House  unfriendly  to  gun  owners.
RUBIO:  That  sounds  like  people  are  afraid  the  president's  going  to  take  their  guns  away.  [applause]
Look,  the  Second  Amendment  is  not  an  option.  It  is  not  a  suggestion.  It  is  a  constitutional  right  of  every  American  to  be  able  to  protect themselves  and  their  families.  I  am  convinced  that  if  this  president  could  confiscate  every  gun  in  America,  he  would.  I  am  convinced that  this  president,  if  he  could  get  rid  of  the  Second  Amendment,  he  would.  I  am  convinced  because  I  see  how  he  works  with  his attorney  general,  not  to  defend  the  Second  Amendment,  but  to  figure  out  ways  to  undermine  it.
I  have  seen  him  appoint  people  to  our  courts  not  to  defend  the  Second  Amendment,  but  to  figure  out  ways  to  undermine  it.
Here's  my  second  problem.  None  of  these  instances  that  the  president  points  to  as  the  reason  why  he's  doing  these  things  would have  been  preventive.  You  know  why?  Because  criminals  don't  buy  their  guns  from  a  gun  show.  They  don't  buy  their  guns  from  a collector.  And  they  don't  buy  their  guns  from  a  gun  store.  They  get  —  they  steal  them.  They  get  them  on  the  black  market.
And  let  me  tell  you,  ISIS  and  terrorists  do  not  get  their  guns  from  a  gun  show.  These...[laughter  and  applause]...  his  answer  —  you name  it.  If  there's  an  act  of  violence  in  America,  his  immediate  answer  before  he  even  knows  the  facts  is  gun  control.  Here's  a  fact.  We are  in  a  war  against  ISIS.  They  are  trying  to  attack  us  here  in  America.  They  attacked  us  in  Philadelphia  last  week.  They  attacked  us  in San  Bernardino  two  weeks  ago.  And  the  last  line  standing  between  them  and  our  families  might  be  us  and  a  gun.
When  I'm  president  of  the  United  States,  we  are  defending  the  Second  Amendment,  not  undermining  it  the  way  Barack  Obama  does. [applause]
CAVUTO:  But  what  fact  can  you  point  to,  Senator  —  what  fact  can  you  point  to  that  the  president  would  take  away  everyone's  gun? You  don't  think  that's  [inaudible]?
RUBIO:  About  every  two  weeks,  he  holds  a  press  conference  talking  about  how  he  can't  wait  to  restrict  people's  access  to  guns.  He has  never  defended...[crosstalk]...I'll  give  you  a  fact.  Well,  let  me  tell  you  this.  Do  you  remember  when  he  ran  for  president  of  the United  States,  and  he  was  a  candidate,  and  he  went  and  said,  "These  Americans  with  traditional  values,  they  are  bitter  people,  and they  cling  to  their  guns  and  to  their  religion."  That  tells  you  right  away  where  he  was  headed  on  all  of  this.
This  president  every  chance  he  has  ever  gotten  has  tried  to  undermine  the  Second  Amendment.  [applause]
He  doesn't  meet  —  here's  the  difference.  When  he  meets  with  the  attorney  general  in  the  White  House,  it's  not  "how  can  we  protect the  Second  Amendment  rights  of  Americans."  It's  "give  me  options  on  how  I  can  make  it  harder  for  law-­abiding  people  to  buy  guns." That  will  never  happen  when  I  am  president  of  the  United  States.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Governor  Christie,  you,  too,  have  criticized  the  president's  recent  executive  action  on  gun  control,  saying  it's unconstitutional,  another  step  to  bypass  Congress.  But  hasn't  your  own  position  on  guns  evolved,  sir?  The  New  Jersey  Star-­Ledger reports  that  you  signed  several  laws  to  regulate  the  possession  of  firearms,  and  that  you  argued  back  in  August  2013,  and  I  quote, "These  common  sense  measures  will  strengthen  New  Jersey's  already  tough  gun  laws."
So  isn't  that  kind  of  what  the  president  wants  to  do  now?
CHRISTIE:  No,  absolutely  not.  The  president  wants  to  do  things  without  working  with  his  Congress,  without  working  with  the legislature,  and  without  getting  the  consent  of  the  American  people.  And  the  fact  is  that  that's  not  a  democracy.  That's  a  dictatorship. And  we  need  to  very,  very  concerned  about  that.
See,  here's  the  thing.  I  don't  think  the  founders  put  the  Second  Amendment  as  number  two  by  accident.  I  don't  think  they  dropped  all the  amendments  into  a  hat  and  picked  them  out  of  a  hat.  I  think  they  made  the  Second  Amendment  the  second  amendment  because they  thought  it  was  just  that  important.
The  fact  is  in  New  Jersey,  what  we  have  done  is  to  make  it  easier  now  to  get  a  conceal  and  carry  permit.  We  have  made  it  easier  to  do that,  not  harder.  And  the  way  we've  done  it  properly  through  regulatory  action,  not  by  signing  unconstitutional  executive  orders.  This guy  is  a  petulant  child.  That's  what  he  is.  I  mean,  you  know...[applause]...  the  fact  is,  Neil,  let's  think  about  —  let's  think  about  —  and  I want  to  maybe  —  I  hope  the  president  is  watching  tonight,  because  here's  what  I'd  like  to  tell  him.
Mr.  President,  we're  not  against  you.  We're  against  your  policies.  When  you  became  president,  you  had  a  Democratic  Congress  and a  filibuster-­proof  Democratic  Senate.  You  had  only  21  Republican  governors  in  this  country.  And  now  after  seven  years  of  your policies,  we  have  the  biggest  majority  we've  had  since  the  1920s  in  the  House;;  a  Republican  majority  in  the  Senate;;  and  31  out  of  50 Republican  governors.
The  American  people  have  rejected  your  agenda  and  now  you're  trying  to  go  around  it.  That's  not  right.  It's  not  constitutional.  And  we are  going  to  kick  your  rear  end  out  of  the  White  House  come  this  fall.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  So  what  is  the  answer,  Senator  Cruz,  to  stop  mass  shootings  and  violent  crime,  up  in  30  cities  across  the  country?

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 28
CRUZ:  The  answer  is  simple.  Your  prosecute  criminals.  You  target  the  bad  guys.  You  know,  a  minute  ago,  Neil  asked:  What  has President  Obama  do  —  done  to  illustrate  that  he  wants  to  go  after  guns?
Well,  he  appointed  Eric  Holder  as  attorney  general.  Eric  Holder  said  he  viewed  his  mission  as  brainwashing  the  American  people against  guns.  He  appointed  Sonia  Sotomayor  to  the  Supreme  Court,  someone  who  has  been  a  radical  against  the  Second Amendment  right  to  keep  and  bear  arms.
He  launched  Fast  and  Furious,  illegally  selling  guns  to  Mexican  drug  lords  that  were  then  used  to  shoot  law  enforcement  officials. And  I'll  tell  you  what  Hillary  Clinton  has  said:  Hillary  Clinton  says  she  agrees  with  the  dissenters  —  the  Supreme  Court  dissenters  in the  Heller  case.
There  were  four  dissenters,  and  they  said  that  they  believe  the  Second  Amendment  protects  no  individual  right  to  keep  and  bear  arms whatsoever,  which  means,  if  their  view  prevailed  and  the  next  president's  going  to  get  one,  two,  three,  maybe  four  Supreme  Court justices,  the  court  will  rule  that  not  a  single  person  in  this  room  has  any  right  under  the  Second  Amendment  and  the  government could  confiscate  your  guns.
And  I'll  note  that  California  senator  —  Democratic  Senator  Dianne  Feinstein  said,  if  she  could  say  to  Mr.  America  and  Mrs.  America, "give  me  your  guns,  I'm  rounding  them  up,"  she  would.
And  let  me  make  a  final  point  on  this.  Listen,  in  any  Republican  primary,  everyone  is  going  to  say  they  support  the  Second Amendment.  Unless  you  are  clinically  insane...[laughter]...that's  what  you  say  in  a  primary.  But  the  voters  are  savvier  than  that.  They recognize  that  people's  actions  don't  always  match  their  words.  I've  got  a  proven  record  fighting  to  defend  the  Second  Amendment.
There's  a  reason  Gun  Owners  of  America  has  endorsed  me  in  this  race.  There's  a  reason  the  NRA  gave  me  their  Carter  Knight Freedom  Fund  award...[bell  rings]...and  there's  a  reason,  when  Barack  Obama  and  Chuck  Schumer  came  after  our  right  to  keep  and bear  arms,  that  I  led  the  opposition,  along  with  millions  of  Americans  —  we  defeated  that  gun  control  legislation.
And  I  would  note  the  other  individuals  on  this  stage  were  nowhere  to  be  found  in  that  fight.
BARTIROMO:  Senator...[applause]...  let  me  follow  up  and  switch  gears.  Senator  Cruz,  you  suggested  Mr.  Trump,  quote,  "embodies New  York  values."  Could  you  explain  what  you  mean  by  that?
CRUZ:  You  know,  I  think  most  people  know  exactly  what  New  York  values  are.  [laughter]
BARTIROMO:  I  am  from  New  York.  I  don't.
CRUZ:  What  —  what  —  you're  from  New  York?  So  you  might  not.  [laughter]
But  I  promise  you,  in  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  they  do.  [applause]
And  listen,  there  are  many,  many  wonderful,  wonderful  working  men  and  women  in  the  state  of  New  York.  But  everyone  understands that  the  values  in  New  York  City  are  socially  liberal  or  pro-­abortion  or  pro-­  gay-­marriage,  focus  around  money  and  the  media.
And  —  and  I  would  note  indeed,  the  reason  I  said  that  is  I  was  asked  —  my  friend  Donald  has  taken  to  it  as  advance  playing  Bruce Springsteen's  "Born  in  the  USA",  and  I  was  asked  what  I  thought  of  that.
And  I  said,  "well,  if  he  wanted  to  play  a  song,  maybe  he  could  play,  'New  York,  New  York'?"  And  —  and  —  you  know,  the  concept  of New  York  values  is  not  that  complicated  to  figure  out.
Not  too  many  years  ago,  Donald  did  a  long  interview  with  Tim  Russert.  And  in  that  interview,  he  explained  his  views  on  a  whole  host of  issues  that  were  very,  very  different  from  the  views  he's  describing  now.
And  his  explanation  —  he  said,  "look,  I'm  from  New  York,  that's  what  we  believe  in  New  York.  Those  aren't  Iowa  values,  but  this  is what  we  believe  in  New  York."  And  so  that  was  his  explanation.
And  —  and  I  guess  I  can  —  can  frame  it  another  way.  Not  a  lot  of  conservatives  come  out  of  Manhattan.  I'm  just  saying.  [laughter]
BARTIROMO:  Are  you  sure  about  that?
CAVUTO:  Maria...
TRUMP:  So  conservatives  actually  do  come  out  of  Manhattan,  including  William  F.  Buckley  and  others,  just  so  you  understand. [applause]
And  just  so  —  if  I  could,  because  he  insulted  a  lot  of  people.  I've  had  more  calls  on  that  statement  that  Ted  made  —  New  York  is  a great  place.  It's  got  great  people,  it's  got  loving  people,  wonderful  people.
When  the  World  Trade  Center  came  down,  I  saw  something  that  no  place  on  Earth  could  have  handled  more  beautifully,  more humanely  than  New  York.  You  had  two  one  hundred...[applause]  ...you  had  two  110-­story  buildings  come  crashing  down.  I  saw  them come  down.  Thousands  of  people  killed,  and  the  cleanup  started  the  next  day,  and  it  was  the  most  horrific  cleanup,  probably  in  the history  of  doing  this,  and  in  construction.  I  was  down  there,  and  I've  never  seen  anything  like  it.
And  the  people  in  New  York  fought  and  fought  and  fought,  and  we  saw  more  death,  and  even  the  smell  of  death  —  nobody understood  it.  And  it  was  with  us  for  months,  the  smell,  the  air.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 28
And  we  rebuilt  downtown  Manhattan,  and  everybody  in  the  world  watched  and  everybody  in  the  world  loved  New  York  and  loved New  Yorkers.  And  I  have  to  tell  you,  that  was  a  very  insulting  statement  that  Ted  made.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Governor  bush,  for  the  third  time  in  as  many  months,  the  Iranians  have  provoked  us,  detaining  us,  as  we've  been discussing,  with  these  10  Navy  sailors  Tehran  had  said  strayed  into  their  waters.  The  sailors  were  released,  but  only  after  shown  on video  apologizing  for  the  incident.  This  occurring  only  weeks  after  Iran  fired  multiple  rockets  within  1,500  yards  of  a  U.S.  aircraft carrier  and  then  continued  to  test  medium  range  missiles.
Now  you've  claimed  that  such  actions  indicate  Tehran  has  little  to  fear  from  a  President  Obama.  I  wonder,  sir,  what  would  change  if they  continued  doing  this  sort  of  thing  under  a  President  Jeb  Bush?
BUSH:  Well,  first  of  all,  under  President  Jeb  Bush,  we  would  restore  the  strength  of  the  military.  Last  week,  Secretary  Carter announced  that  the  Navy's  going  to  be  cut  again.  It's  now  half  the  size  of  what  it  was  prior  to  Operation  Desert  Storm.
The  deployments  are  too  high  for  the  military  personnel.  We  don't  have  procurement  being  done  for  refreshing  the  equipment.  The  B-­ 52  is  still  operational  as  the  long  range  bomber;;  it  was  inaugurated  in  the  age  of  Harry  Truman.  The  planes  are  older  than  the  pilots. We're  gutting  our  military,  and  so  the  Iranians  and  the  Chinese  and  the  Russians  and  many  other  countries  look  at  the  United  States not  as  serious  as  we  once  were.
We  have  to  eliminate  the  sequester,  rebuild  our  military  in  a  way  that  makes  it  clear  that  we're  back  in  the  game.
Secondly,  as  it  relates  to  Iran,  we  need  to  confront  their  ambitions  across  the  board.  We  should  reimpose  sanctions,  they've  already violated  sanctions  after  this  agreement  was  signed  by  testing  medium-­range  missiles.
Thirdly,  we  need  to  move  our  embassy  from  Tel  Aviv  to  Jerusalem  to  send  a  serious  signal  that  we're  back  in  the  game  with  Israel... [applause]...and  sign  an  agreement  that  makes  sure  that  the  world  knows  that  they  will  have  technological  superiority.
We  need  to  get  back  in  the  game  as  it  relates  to  our  Arab  nations.  The  rest  of  the  world  is  moving  away  from  us  towards  other alliances  because  we  are  weak.  This  president  and  John  Kerry  and  Hillary  Clinton  all  have  made  it  harder  for  the  next  president  to act,  but  he  must  act  to  confront  the  ambitions  of  Iran.  We  can  get  back  in  the  game  to  restore  order  and  security  for  our  own  country. [applause]
CAVUTO:  Thank  you,  Governor.  Governor  Kasich,  while  everyone  has  been  focusing  on  Iran's  provocations,  I'm  wondering  what  you make  of  what  Saudi  Arabia  has  been  doing  and  its  recent  moves  in  the  region,  including  its  execution  of  a  well-­known  Shi'ite  cleric and  its  move  to  dramatically  increase  oil  production,  some  say  in  an  effort  to  drive  down  oil  prices  and  force  a  lot  of  U.S.  oil  producers out  of  business.
Sure  enough,  oil  prices  have  tumbled.  One  brokerage  house  is  predicting  a  third  or  more  of  American  oil  producers  and  those  heavily invested  in  fracking  will  go  bankrupt,  and  soon  Saudi  Arabia  and  OPEC  will  be  back  in  the  driver's  seat.  U.S.  energy  player  Harold Hamrie  similarly  told  me  with  friends  like  these,  who  needs  enemies?  Do  you  agree?
KASICH:  Well,  let  me  —  let  me  first  of  all  talk  a  little  bit  about  my  experience.  I  served  on  the  Defense  Committee  for  18  years,  and  by the  way,  one  of  the  members  of  that  committee  was  Senator  Strom  Thurmond  from  South  Carolina.  Let  em  also  tell  you... [applause]...that  after  the  9/11  attacks,  Secretary  Rumsfeld  invited  me  to  the  Pentagon  with  a  meeting  of  the  former  secretaries  of Defense.  And  in  that  meeting,  I  suggested  we  had  a  problem  with  technology,  and  that  I  wanted  to  take  people  from  Silicon  Valley  into the  Pentagon  to  solve  our  most  significant  problems.  So  I  not  only  had  the  opportunity  to  go  through  the  Cold  War  struggles  in  Central America,  and  even  after  9/11  to  be  involved.
With  Saudi  Arabia  and  oil  production,  first  of  all,  it's  so  critical  for  us  to  be  energy  independent,  and  we're  getting  there  because  of fracking  and  we  ought  to  explore  because,  see,  energy  independence  gives  us  leverage  and  flexibility,  and  secondly,  if  you  want  to bring  jobs  back  to  the  United  States  of  America  in  industry,  low  prices  make  the  difference.
We're  seeing  it  in  my  state  and  we'll  see  it  in  this  country.  And  that's  why  we  must  make  sure  we  continue  to  frack.
In  terms  of  Saudi  Arabia,  look,  my  biggest  problem  with  them  is  they're  funding  radical  clerics  through  their  madrasses.  That  is  a  bad deal  and  an  evil  situation,  and  presidents  have  looked  the  other  way.  And  I  was  going  to  tell  you,  whether  I'm  president  or  not,  we better  make  it  clear  to  the  Saudis  that  we're  going  to  support  you,  we're  in  relation  with  you  just  like  we  were  in  the  first  Gulf  War,  but you've  got  to  knock  off  the  funding  and  teaching  of  radical  clerics  who  are  the  very  people  who  try  to  destroy  us  and  will  turn  around and  destroy  them.  [applause]
So  look,  in  foreign  policy  —  in  foreign  policy,  it's  strength,  but  you've  got  to  be  cool.  You've  got  to  have  a  clear  vision  of  where  you want  to  go.  And  I'm  going  to  tell  you,  that  it  —  I'm  going  to  suggest  to  you  here  tonight,  that  you  can't  do  on  the  job  training.
I've  seen  so  much  of  it  –  a  Soviet  Union,  the  coming  down  of  a  wall,  the  issues  that  we  saw  around  the  world  in  Central  America,  the potential  spread  of  communism,  and  9/11  and  Gulf  War.  You  see  what  the  Saudi's  —  deliver  them  a  strong  message  but  at  the  end  of the  day  we  have  to  keep  our  cool  because  most  of  the  time  they're  going  right  with  us.  And  they  must  be  part  of  our  coalition  to  destroy ISIS  and  I  believe  we  can  get  that  done.
Thank  you.
CAVUTO:  Thank  you  John.
BARTIROMO:  There's  much  more  ahead  including  the  fight  against  ISIS.  More  from  Charleston,  South  Carolina  when  we  come  right back.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 28
[commercial  break]
BARTIROMO:  We  welcome  back  to  the  Republican  Presidential  ,  right  back  to  the  questions.
Candidates,  the  man  who  made  fighting  ISIS  the  cornerstone  of  his  campaign,  South  Carolina  Senator,  Lindsey  Graham  is  out  the race  but  he  joins  us  tonight  in  the  audience.  [applause]
He  says,  "the  air-­strike  now  in  their  16th  month  have  been  ineffective."  Dr.  Carson  ...
CARSON:  Wait  a  minute,  who  in  their  16th  month?
BARTIROMO:  The  air-­strikes.
CARSON:  OK.
BARTIROMO:  Now  in  their  16th  month  are  ineffective.  Dr.  Carson,  do  you  think  Senator  Graham  is  right  in  wanting  to  send  20,000 troops  —  ground  troops  to  Iraq  and  Syria  to  take  out  ISIS?
CARSON:  Well,  there's  no  question  that  ISIS  is  a  very  serious  problem,  and  I  don't  believe  that  this  administration  recognizes  how serious  it  is.
I  think  we  need  to  do  a  lot  more  than  we're  doing.  Recognize  that  the  caliphate  is  what  gives  them  the  legitimacy  to  go  out  on  a jihadist  mission,  so  we  need  to  take  that  away  from  them.
The  way  to  take  that  away  from  them  is  to  talk  to  our  military  officials  and  ask  them,  "what  do  you  need  in  order  to  accomplish  this goal?"
Our  decision  is,  then,  do  we  give  them  what  we  need.  I  say,  yes,  not  only  do  we  give  them  what  they  need,  but  we  don't  tie  their  hands behind  their  backs  so  that  they  can  go  ahead  and  get  the  job  done.
In  addition  to  that...[applause]...in  addition  to  that,  we  go  ahead  and  we  take  the  oil  from  them,  their  source  of  revenue.  You  know, some  of  these  —  these  engagement  rules  that  the  administration  has  —  "we're  not  going  to  bomb  a  tanker  that's  coming  out  of  there because  there  might  be  a  person  in  it"  —  give  me  a  break.
Just  tell  them  that,  you  put  people  in  there,  we're  going  to  bomb  them.  So  don't  put  people  in  there  if  you  don't  want  them  bombed.  You know,  that's  so  simple.  [applause]
And  then  we  need  to  shut  down  —  we  need  to  shut  down  their  mechanisms  of  funding  and  attack  their  command-­and-­control  centers. Why  should  we  let  their  people  be  sitting  there  smoking  their  cigars,  sitting  in  their  comfortable  chairs  in  Raqqa?
We  know  to  go  ahead  and  shut  off  the  supply  routes,  and  send  in  our  special  ops  at  2:00  a.m.  and  attack  them  everywhere  they  go. They  should  be  running  all  the  time,  then  they  won't  have  time  to  plan  attacks  against  us.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.  Senator  Graham  has  also  said  that  the  U.S.  will  find  Arab  support  for  its  coalition  if  it  removes  Syrian President  Bashar  al-­Assad.  And  I  quote,  "The  now  king  of  Saudi  Arabia  told  us,  'you  can  have  our  army,  you  just  got  to  deal  with Assad.'
"The  emir  of  Qatar  said,  'I'll  pay  for  the  operation,  but  they  are  not  going  to  fight  ISIS  and  let  Damascus  fall  into  the  hands  of  the Iranians.  Assad  has  to  go.'"
Governor  Christie,  how  important  is  it  to  remove  Assad  from  power  and  how  would  you  do  it?
CHRISTIE:  Maria,  you  look  at  what  this  president  and  his  secretary  of  state,  Secretary  of  State  Clinton,  has  done  to  get  us  in  this  spot. You  think  about  it  —  this  is  the  president  who  said,  along  with  his  secretary  of  state  —  drew  a  red  line  in  Syria,  said,  if  Assad  uses chemical  weapons  against  his  people,  that  we're  going  to  attack.
He  used  chemical  weapons,  he's  killed,  now,  over  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  his  own  people,  and  this  president  has  done  nothing.  In fact,  he's  done  worse  than  nothing.
This  president  —  and,  by  the  way,  Secretary  Clinton,  who  called  Assad  a  reformer  —  she  called  Assad  a  reformer.  Now,  the  fact  is, what  this  president  has  done  is  invited  Russia  to  play  an  even  bigger  role,  bring  in  Vladimir  Putin  to  negotiate  getting  those  chemical weapons  back  from  Assad,  yet  what  do  we  have  today?
We  have  the  Russians  and  the  Iranians  working  together,  not  to  fight  ISIS,  but  to  prop  up  Assad.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  we're  not going  to  have  peace  —  we  are  not  going  to  have  peace  in  Syria.  We're  not  going  to  be  able  to  rebuild  it  unless  we  put  a  no-­fly  zone there,  make  it  safe  for  those  folks  so  we  don't  have  to  be  talking  about  Syrian  refugees  anymore.
The  Syrians  should  stay  in  Syria.  They  shouldn't  be  going  to  Europe.  And  here's  the  last  piece...[applause]...you're  not  going  to  have peace  in  Syria  with  Assad  in  charge.  You're  simply  not.  And  so  Senator  Graham  is  right  about  this.
And  if  we  want  to  try  to  rebuild  the  coalition,  as  Governor  Kasich  was  saying  before,  then  what  we  better  do  is  to  get  to  the  Arab countries  that  believe  that  ISIS  is  a  threat,  not  only  to  them,  but  to  us  and  to  world  peace,  and  bring  them  together.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 28
And  believe  me,  Assad  is  not  worth  it.  And  if  you're  going  to  leave  this  to  Hillary  Clinton,  the  person  who  gave  us  this  foreign  policy, the  architect  of  it,  and  you're  going  to  give  her  another  four  years,  that's  why  I'm  speaking  out  as  strongly  as  I  am  about  that.
Hillary  Clinton  cannot  be  president.  It  will  lead  to  even  greater  war  in  this  world.  And  remember  this,  after  Hillary  Clinton  and  Barack Obama  have  had  nearly  8  years,  we  have  fewer  democracies  in  the  world  than  we  had  when  they  started.
That  makes  the  world  less  peaceful,  less  safe.  In  my  administration,  we  will  help  to  make  sure  we  bring  people  together  in  the  Middle East,  and  we  will  fight  ISIS  and  defeat  them.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.  [applause]
Mr.  Trump  —  Mr.  Trump,  your  comments  about  banning  Muslims  from  entering  the  country  created  a  firestorm.  According  to  Facebook, it  was  the  most-­talked-­about  moment  online  of  your  entire  campaign,  with  more  than  10  million  people  talking  about  the  issue.
Is  there  anything  you've  heard  that  makes  you  want  to  rethink  this  position?
TRUMP:  No.  [laughter]  No.  [applause]
Look,  we  have  to  stop  with  political  correctness.  We  have  to  get  down  to  creating  a  country  that's  not  going  to  have  the  kind  of problems  that  we've  had  with  people  flying  planes  into  the  World  Trade  Centers,  with  the  —  with  the  shootings  in  California,  with  all the  problems  all  over  the  world.
I  just  left  Indonesia  —  bomb,  bomb,  bomb,  bomb.
We  have  to  find  out  what's  going  on.  I  said  temporarily.  I  didn't  say  permanently.  I  said  temporarily.  And  I  have  many  great  Muslim friends.  And  some  of  them,  I  will  say,  not  all,  have  called  me  and  said,  "Donald,  thank  you  very  much;;  you're  exposing  an unbelievable  problem  and  we  have  to  get  to  the  bottom  of  it."
And  unlike  President  Obama,  where  he  refuses  even  to  use  the  term  of  what's  going  on,  he  can't  use  the  term  for  whatever  reason. And  if  you  can't  use  the  term,  you're  never  going  to  solve  the  problem.  My  Muslim  friends,  some,  said,  "thank  you  very  much;;  we'll  get to  the  bottom  of  it."
But  we  have  a  serious  problem.  And  we  can't  be  the  stupid  country  any  more.  We're  laughed  at  all  over  the  world.  [applause]
BUSH:  Donald,  Donald  —  can  I  —  I  hope  you  reconsider  this,  because  this  policy  is  a  policy  that  makes  it  impossible  to  build  the coalition  necessary  to  take  out  ISIS.  The  Kurds  are  our  strongest  allies.  They're  Muslim.  You're  not  going  to  even  allow  them  to  come to  our  country?
The  other  Arab  countries  have  a  role  to  play  in  this.  We  cannot  be  the  world's  policeman.  We  can't  do  this  unilaterally.  We  have  to  do this  in  unison  with  the  Arab  world.  And  sending  that  signal  makes  it  impossible  for  us  to  be  serious  about  taking  out  ISIS  and  restoring democracy  in  Syria.  [applause]
So  I  hope  you'll  reconsider.  I  hope  you'll  reconsider.  The  better  way  of  dealing  with  this  —  the  better  way  of  dealing  with  this  is recognizing  that  there  are  people  in,  you  know,  the  —  Islamic  terrorists  inside,  embedded  in  refugee  populations.
What  we  ought  to  do  is  tighten  up  our  efforts  to  deal  with  the  entry  visa  program  so  that  a  citizen  from  Europe,  it's  harder  if  they've been  traveling  to  Syria  or  traveling  to  these  other  places  where  there  is  Islamic  terrorism,  make  it  harder  —  make  the  screening  take place.
We  don't  have  to  have  refugees  come  to  our  country,  but  all  Muslims,  seriously?  What  kind  of  signal  does  that  send  to  the  rest  of  the world  that  the  United  States  is  a  serious  player  in  creating  peace  and  security?
CAVUTO:  But  you  said  —  you  said  that  he  made  those  comments  and  they  represented  him  being  unhinged  after  he  made  them.
BUSH:  Yeah,  they  are  unhinged.
CAVUTO:  Well  —  well,  after  he  made  them...[applause]...his  poll  numbers  went  up  eight  points  in  South  Carolina.  Now  —  now,  wait...
TRUMP:  Eleven  points,  to  be  exact.
CAVUTO:  Are  you  —  are  you  saying  —  are  you  saying  that  all  those  people  who  agree  with  Mr.  Trump  are  unhinged?
BUSH:  No,  not  at  all,  absolutely  not.  I  can  see  why  people  are  angry  and  scared,  because  this  president  has  created  a  condition where  our  national  security  has  weakened  dramatically.  I  totally  get  that.  But  we're  running  for  the  presidency  of  the  United  States here.  This  isn't  —  this  isn't,  you  know,  a  different  kind  of  job.  You  have  to  lead.  You  cannot  make  rash  statements  and  expect  the  rest  of the  world  to  respond  as  though,  well,  it's  just  politics.
Every  time  we  send  signals  like  this,  we  send  a  signal  of  weakness,  not  strength.  And  so  it  was  [inaudible]  his  statement,  which  is  why I'm  asking  him  to  consider  changing  his  views.  [applause]
TRUMP:  I  want  security  for  this  country.  OK?  [applause]
I  want  security.  I'm  tired  of  seeing  what's  going  on,  between  the  border  where  the  people  flow  over;;  people  come  in;;  they  live;;  they shoot.  I  want  security  for  this  country.  We  have  a  serious  problem  with,  as  you  know,  with  radical  Islam.  We  have  a  tremendous

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 28
problem.  It's  not  only  a  problem  here.  It's  a  problem  all  over  the  world.
I  want  to  find  out  why  those  two  young  people  —  those  two  horrible  young  people  in  California  when  they  shot  the  14  people,  killed them  —  people  they  knew,  people  that  held  the  wedding  reception  for  them.  I  want  to  find  out  —  many  people  saw  pipe  bombs  and  all sorts  of  things  all  over  their  apartment.  Why  weren't  they  vigilant?  Why  didn't  they  call?  Why  didn't  they  call  the  police?
And  by  the  way,  the  police  are  the  most  mistreated  people  in  this  country.  I  will  tell  you  that.  [applause]
The  most  mistreated  people.  In  fact,  we  need  to  —  wait  a  minute  —  we  need  vigilance.  We  have  to  find  out  —  many  people  knew about  what  was  going  on.  Why  didn't  they  turn  those  two  people  in  so  that  you  wouldn't  have  had  all  the  death?
There's  something  going  on  and  it's  bad.  And  I'm  saying  we  have  to  get  to  the  bottom  of  it.  That's  all  I'm  saying.  We  need  security.
BARTIROMO:  We  —  we  want  to  hear  from  all  of  you  on  this.  According  to  Pew  Research,  the  U.S.  admits  more  than  100,000  Muslim immigrants  every  single  year  on  a  permanent  lifetime  basis.  I  want  to  ask  the  rest  of  you  to  comment  on  this.  Do  you  agree  that  we should  pause  Muslim  immigration  until  we  get  a  better  handle  on  our  homeland  security  situation,  as  Mr.  Trump  has  said?
Beginning  with  you,  Governor  Kasich.
KASICH:  I  —  I've  been  for  pausing  on  admitting  the  Syrian  refugees.  And  the  reasons  why  I've  done  is  I  don't  believe  we  have  a  good process  of  being  able  to  vet  them.  But  you  know,  we  don't  want  to  put  everybody  in  the  same  category.
And  I'll  go  back  to  something  that  had  been  mentioned  just  a  few  minutes  ago.  If  we're  going  to  have  a  coalition,  we're  going  to  have to  have  a  coalition  not  just  of  people  in  the  western  part  of  the  world,  our  European  allies,  but  we  need  the  Saudis,  we  need  the Egyptians,  we  need  the  Jordanians,  we  need  the  Gulf  states.  We  need  Jordan.
We  need  all  of  them  to  be  part  of  exactly  what  the  first  George  Bush  put  together  in  the  first  Gulf  War.
[bell  rings]
It  was  a  coalition  made  up  of  Arabs  and  Americans  and  westerners  and  we're  going  to  need  it  again.  And  if  we  try  to  put  everybody  in the  same  —  call  everybody  the  same  thing,  we  can't  do  it.  And  that's  just  not  acceptable.
But  I  think  a  pause  on  Syrian  refugees  has  been  exactly  right  for  all  the  governors  that  have  called  for  it,  and  also,  of  course,  for  me  as the  governor  of  Ohio.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir,  we  want  to  hear  from  the  rest  of  you,
Governor  Christie,  your  take.
CHRISTIE:  Now  Maria,  listen.  I  said  right  from  the  beginning  that  we  should  take  no  Syrian  refugees  of  any  kind.  And  the  reason  I  said that  is  because  the  FBI  director  told  the  American  people,  told  Congress,  that  he  could  not  guarantee  he  could  vet  them  and  it  would be  safe.  That's  the  end  of  the  conversation.
I  can  tell  you,  after  spending  seven  years  as  a  former  federal  prosecutor,  right  after  9/11,  dealing  with  this  issue.  Here's  the  way  you need  to  deal  with  it.  You  can't  just  ban  all  Muslims.  You  have  to  ban  radical  Islamic  jihadists.  You  have  to  ban  the  people  who  are trying  to  hurt  us.
The  only  way  to  figure  that  out  is  to  go  back  to  getting  the  intelligence  community  the  funding  and  the  tools  that  it  needs  to  be  able  to keep  America  safe.
[bell  rings]
And  this  summer,  we  didn't  do  that.  We  took  it  away  from  the  NSA,  it  was  a  bad  decision  by  the  president.  Bad  by  those  in  the  Senate who  voted  for  it  and  if  I'm  president,  we'll  make  our  intelligence  community  strong,  and  won't  have  to  keep  everybody  out,  we're  just going  to  keep  the  bad  folk  out  and  make  sure  they  don't  harm  us.
BARTIROMO:  Senator  Rubio,  where  do  you  stand?
RUBIO:  Well,  first  of  all,  let's  understand  why  we  are  even  having  this  and  why  Donald  tapped  in  to  some  of  that  anger  that's  out  there about  this  whole  issue.  Because  this  president  has  consistently  underestimated  the  threat  of  ISIS.
If  you  listen  to  the  State  of  the  Union  the  other  night,  he  described  them  as  a  bunch  of  guys  with  long  beards  on  the  back  of  a  pickup truck.  They  are  much  more  than  that.  This  is  a  group  of  people  that  enslaves  women  and  sells  them,  sells  them  as  brides.
This  is  a  group  of  people  that  burns  people  in  cages,  that  is  conducting  genocide  against  Christians  and  Yazidis  and  others  in  the region.  This  is  not  some  small  scale  group.
They  are  radicalizing  people  in  the  United  States,  they  are  conducting  attacks  around  the  world.  So  you  know  what  needs  to  happen, it's  a  very  simple  equation,  and  it's  going  to  happen  when  I'm  president.  If  we  do  not  know  who  you  are,  and  we  do  not  know  why  you are  coming  when  I  am  president,  you  are  not  getting  into  the  United  States  of  America.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Senator  Cruz,  where  do  you  stand?  Senator  Cruz?

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 28
CRUZ:  You  know  I  understand  why  Donald  made  the  comments  he  did  and  I  understand  why  Americans  are  feeling  frustrated  and scared  and  angry  when  we  have  a  president  who  refuses  to  acknowledge  the  threat  we  face  and  even  worse,  who  acts  as  an apologist  for  radical  Islamic  terrorism.
I  think  what  we  need  is  a  commander  in  chief  who  is  focused  like  a  laser  on  keeping  this  country  safe  and  on  defeating  radical  Islamic terrorism.  What  should  we  do?  First,  we  should  pass  the  Expatriate  Terrorist  Act,  legislation  I've  introduced  that  says  if  an  American goes  and  joins  ISIS  and  wages  jihad  against  America,  that  you  forfeit  your  citizenship  and  you  can  not  come  in  on  a  passport. [applause]
And  secondly,  we  should  pass  the  legislation  that  I've  introduced...[bell  rings]...that  suspends  all  refugees  from  nations  that  ISIS  or  Al Qaida  controls  significant  territory.  Just  last  week,  we  see  saw  two  Iraqi  refugees  vetted  using  the  same  process  the  president  says will  work,  that  were  arrested  for  being  alleged  ISIS  terrorists.
If  I'm  elected  president,  we  will  not  let  in  refugees  from  countries  controlled  by  ISIS  or  Al  Qaida.  When  it  comes  to  ISIS,  we  will  not weaken  them,  we  will  not  degrade  them,  we  will  utterly  and  completely  destroy  ISIS  [applause].
BARTIROMO:  Dr.  Carson,  where  do  you  stand?  Do  you  agree  with  Mr.  Trump?
CARSON:  Well,  first  of  all,  recognize  it  is  a  substantial  problem.  But  like  all  of  our  problems,  there  isn't  a  single  one  that  can't  be solved  with  common  sense  if  you  remove  the  ego  and  the  politics.  And  clearly,  what  we  need  to  do  is  get  a  group  of  experts  together, including  people  from  other  countries,  some  of  our  friends  from  Israel,  who  have  had  experience  screening  these  people  and  come up  with  new  guidelines  for  immigration,  and  for  visas,  for  people  who  are  coming  into  this  country.
That  is  the  thing  that  obviously  makes  sense,  we  can  do  that.  And  as  far  as  the  Syrians  are  concerned,  Al-­Hasakah  province,  perfect place.  They  have  infrastructure.  All  we  need  to  do  is  protect  them,  they  will  be  in  their  own  country.
And  that  is  what  they  told  me  when  I  was  in  Jordan  in  November.  Let's  listen  to  them  and  let's  not  listen  to  our  politicians.
BARTIROMO:  So,  to  be  clear,  the  both  of  you  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Trump?
BUSH:  So,  are  we  going  to  ban  Muslims  from  India,  from  Indonesia,  from  countries  that  are  strong  allies  —  that  we  need  to  build better  relationships  with?  Of  course  not.  What  we  need  to  do  is  destroy  ISIS.
I  laid  out  a  plan  at  the  Citadel  to  do  just  that  and  it  starts  with  creating  a  "No  Fly  Zone"  and  "Safe  Zones"  to  make  sure  refugees  are there.  We  need  to  lead  a  force,  a  Sunni  led  force  inside  of  Syria.  We  need  to  embed  with  —  with  the  Iraqi  military.  We  need  to  arm  the Kurds  the  directly.  We  need  to  re-­establish  the  relationships  with  the  Sunnis.
We  need  the  lawyers  off  the  back  of  the  war  fighters.  That's  how  you  solve  the  problem.  You  don't  solve  it  by  big  talk  where  you're banning  all  Muslims  and  making  it  harder  for  us  to  build  the  kind  of  coalition  for  us  to  be  successful.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you  governor.
CAVUTO:  Mr.  Trump,  sometimes  maybe  in  the  heat  of  the  campaign,  you  say  things  and  you  have  to  dial  them  back.  Last  week,  the New  York  Times  editorial  board  quoted  as  saying  that  you  would  oppose,  "up  to  45  percent  tariff  on  Chinese  goods."
TRUMP:  That's  wrong.  They  were  wrong.  It's  the  New  York  Times,  they  are  always  wrong.
CAVUTO:  Well...
TRUMP:  They  were  wrong.
CAVUTO:  You  never  said  because  they  provided  that...
TRUMP:  No,  I  said,  "  I  would  use  —  "  they  were  asking  me  what  to  do  about  North  Korea.  China,  they  don't  like  to  tell  us  but  they  have total  control  —  just  about,  of  North  Korea.  They  can  solve  the  problem  of  North  Korea  if  they  wanted  to  but  they  taunt  us.
They  say,  "  well,  we  don't  really  have  control."  Without  China,  North  Korea  doesn't  even  eat.  China  is  ripping  us  on  trade.  They're devaluing  their  currency  and  they're  killing  our  companies.  Thousands  of  thousands  —  you  look  at  the  number  of  companies  and  the number  in  terms  of  manufacturing  of  plans  that  we've  lost  —  50,000  because  of  China.
[crosstalk]
CAVUTO:  So  they've  never  said  to  put  a  tariff  on  their...
TRUMP:  We've  lost  anywhere  between  four  and  seven  million  jobs  because  of  China.  What  I  said  then  was,  "we  have  very  unfair trade  with  China.  We're  going  to  have  a  trade  deficit  of  505  billion  dollars  this  year  with  China."  A  lot  of  that  is  because  they  devalue their  currency.
What  I  said  to  the  New  York  Times,  is  that,  "we  have  great  power,  economic  power  over  China  and  if  we  wanted  to  use  that  and  the amount  —  where  the  45  percent  comes  in,  that  would  be  the  amount  they  saw  their  devaluations  that  we  should  get."  That  we  should get.
What  I'm  saying  is  this,  I'm  saying  that  we  do  it  but  if  they  don't  start  treating  us  fairly  and  stop  devaluing  and  let  their  currency  rise  so that  our  companies  can  compete  and  we  don't  lose  all  of  these  millions  of  jobs  that  we're  losing,  I  would  certainly  start  taxing  goods

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 28
that  come  in  from  China.  Who  the  hell  has  to  lose  505  billion  dollars  a  year?
CAVUTO:  I'm  sorry,  you  lost  me.
TRUMP:  It's  not  that  complicated  actually.
CAVUTO:  Then  I  apologize.  Then  I  want  to  understand,  if  you  don't  want  a  45  percent  tariff,  say  that  wasn't  the  figure,  would  you  be open  —  are  you  open  to  slapping  a  higher  tariff  on  Chinese  goods  of  any  sort  to  go  back  at  them?
TRUMP:  OK,  just  so  you  understand  —  I  know  so  much  about  trading  about  with  China.  Carl  Icahn  today  as  you  know  endorsed. Many  businessmen  want  to  endorse  me.
CAVUTO:  I  know...
TRUMP:  Carl  said,  "no,  no  —  "  but  he's  somebody  —  these  are  the  kind  of  people  that  we  should  use  to  negotiate  and  not  the  China people  that  we  have  who  are  political  hacks  who  don't  know  what  they're  doing  and  we  have  problems  like  this.  If  these  are  the  kinds of  people  —  we  should  use  our  best  and  our  finest.
Now,  on  that  tariff  —  here's  what  I'm  saying,  China  —  they  send  their  goods  and  we  don't  tax  it  —  they  do  whatever  they  want  to  do. They  do  whatever  what  they  do,  OK.  When  we  do  business  with  China,  they  tax  us.  You  don't  know  it,  they  tax  us.
I  have  many  friends  that  deal  with  China.  They  can't  —  when  they  order  the  product  and  when  they  finally  get  the  product  it  is  taxed.  If you  looking  at  what  happened  with  Boeing  and  if  you  look  at  what  happened  with  so  many  companies  that  deal  —  so  we  don't  have an  equal  playing  field.  I'm  saying,  absolutely,  we  don't  have  to  continue  to  lose  505  billion  dollars  as  a  trade  deficit  for  the  privilege  of dealing  with  China.
I'm  a  free  trader.  I  believe  in  it  but  we  have  to  be  smart  and  we  have  to  use  smart  people  to  negotiate.  I  have  the  largest  bank  in  the world  as  a  tenant  of  mine.  I  sell  tens'  of  millions  of  [inaudible].
I  love  China.  I  love  the  Chinese  people  but  they  laugh  themselves,  they  can't  believe  how  stupid  the  American  leadership  is.
CAVUTO:  So  you're  open  to  a  tariff?
TRUMP:  I'm  totally  open  to  a  tariff.  If  they  don't  treat  us  fairly,  hey,  their  whole  trade  is  tariffed.  You  can't  deal  in  China  without  tariffs. They  do  it  to  us,  we  don't  it.  It's  not  fair  trade.
KASICH:  Neil,  Neil  —  can  I  say  one  thing  about  this.  I'm  a  free  trader.  I  support  NAFTA.  I  believe  in  the  PTT  because  it's  important those  countries  in  Asia  are  interfacing  against  China.  And  we  do  need  China  —  Donald's  right  about  North  Korea.
I  mean  the  fact  is,  is  that  they  need  to  put  the  pressure  on  and  frankly  we  need  to  intercepts  ships  coming  out  of  North  Korea  so  they don't  proliferate  all  these  dangerous  materials.  But  what  he's  touching  —  talking  about,  I  think  has  got  merit.  And  I'll  allow  putting  that tariff  or  whatever  he's  saying  here...
TRUMP:  I'm  happy  to  have  him  tonight...[laughter]
KASICH:  For  too  long  —  no,  for  too  long,  what  happens  is  somebody  dumps  their  product  in  our  country  and  take  our  people's  jobs, and  then  we  go  to  an  international  court  and  it  takes  them  like  a  year  or  two  to  figure  out  whether  they  were  cheating  us.  And  guess what?  The  worker's  out  of  a  job.
So  when  they  —  be  found  against  that  country  that's  selling  products  in  here  lower  than  the  cost  of  what  it  takes  to  produce  them,  then what  do  we  tell  the  worker?  Oh,  well,  you  know,  it  just  didn't  work  out  for  you.
I  think  we  should  be  for  free  trade  but  I  think  fair  trade.  And  when  countries  violate  trade  agreements  or  dump  product  in  this  country, we  need  —  we  need  to  stand  up  against  those  countries  that  do  that  without  making  them  into  an  enemy.
And  I  want  to  just  suggest  to  you.  How  do  I  know  this?  Because  so  many  people  in  my  family  worked  in  steel  mills,  and  they  didn't work  with  a  white  collar,  they  worked  in  a  blue  collar.  And  the  fact  is  those  jobs  are  critical,  they're  hard  working  members  of  the middle  class  and  they  need  to  be  paid  attention  to  because  they're  Americans  and  they  carry  the  load.  So  let's  demand  open  trade  but fair  trade  in  this  country.  That's  what  I  think  we  need  to  do.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  All  right.
RUBIO:  But  on  this  point,  if  I  may  add  something  on  this  point.  We  are  all  frustrated  with  what  China  is  doing.  I  think  we  need  to  be very  careful  with  tariffs,  and  here's  why.
China  doesn't  pay  the  tariff,  the  buyer  pays  the  tariff.  If  you  send  a  tie  or  a  shirt  made  in  China  into  the  United  States  and  an  American goes  to  buy  it  at  the  store  and  there's  a  tariff  on  it,  it  gets  passed  on  in  the  price  to  price  to  the  consumer.
So  I  think  the  better  approach,  the  best  thing  we  can  do  to  protect  ourselves  against  China  economically  is  to  make  our  economy stronger,  which  means  reversing  course  from  all  the  damage  Barack  Obama  is  doing  to  this  economy.
It  begins  with  tax  reform.  Let's  not  have  the  most  expensive  business  tax  rate  in  the  world.  Let's  allow  companies  to  immediately expense.  [applause]

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 28
It  continues  with  regulatory  reform.  Regulations  in  this  country  are  out  of  control,  especially  the  Employment  Prevention  Agency,  the EPA,  and  all  of  the  rules  they  continue  to  impose  on  our  economy  and  hurting  us.
How  about  Obamacare,  a  certified  job  killer?  It  needs  to  be  repealed  and  replaced.  And  we  need  to  bring  our  debt  under  control, make  our  economy  stronger.  That  is  the  way  to  deal  with  China  at  the  end  of  the  day.
TRUMP:  Neil,  the  problem...
BARTIROMO:  We're  getting...
TRUMP:  ...  with  what  Marco  is  saying  is  that  it  takes  too  long,  they're  sucking  us  dry  and  it  takes  too  long.  It  would  just  —  you absolutely  have  to  get  involved  with  China,  they  are  taking  so  much  of  what  we  have  in  terms  of  jobs  in  terms  of  money.  We  just  can't do  it  any  longer.
CAVUTO:  He  is  right.  If  you  put  a  tariff  on  a  good,  it's  Americans  who  pay.
BUSH:  Absolutely.
TRUMP:  You  looking  at  me?
BUSH:  Yeah.
BARTIROMO:  Prices  go  higher  for...
TRUMP:  Can  I  tell  you  what?  It  will  never  happen  because  they'll  let  their  currency  go  up.  They're  never  going  to  let  it  happen.
Japan,  the  same  thing.  They  are  devaluing  —  it's  so  impossible  for  —  you  look  at  Caterpillar  Tractor  and  what's  happening  with Caterpillar  and  Kamatsu.  Kamatsu  is  a  tractor  company  in  Japan.  Friends  of  mine  are  ordering  Kamatsu  tractors  now  because  they've de-­valued  the  yen  to  such  an  extent  that  you  can't  buy  a  Caterpillar  tractor.  And  we're  letting  them  get  away  with  it  and  we  can't  let them  get  away  with  it.
And  that's  why  we  have  to  use  Carl  and  we  have  to  use  our  great  businesspeople  and  not  political  hacks  to  negotiate  with  these  guys. [applause]
BUSH:  Here's  —  apart  from  the  —  apart  from  the  higher  prices  on  consumers  and  people  are  living  paycheck  to  paycheck,  apart  from that,  there  will  be  retaliation.
BARTIROMO:  Yeah.
BUSH:  So  they  soybean  sales  from  Iowa,  entire  soybean  production  goes  —  the  equivalent  of  it  goes  to  China.  Or  how  about  Boeing right  here  within  a  mile?  Do  you  think  that  the  Chinese,  if  they  had  a  45  percent  tariff  imposed  on  all  their  imports  wouldn't  retaliate and  start  buying  Airbus?  Of  course,  they  would.  This  would  be  devastating  for  the  economy.  We  need  someone  with  a  steady  hand being  president  of  the  United  States.
BARTIROMO:  Real  quick,  Senator  —  go  ahead,  Senator  Cruz.  [applause]
And  then  we  have  to  get  to  tax  reform.
TRUMP:  And  we  don't  need  a  weak  person  being  president  of  the  United  State,  OK?  Because  that's  what  we'd  get  if  it  were  Jeb  —  I tell  you  what,  we  don't  need  that.
AUDIENCE:  Boo.
TRUMP:  We  don't  need  that.  That's  essentially  what  we  have  now,  and  we  don't  need  that.  And  that's  why  we're  in  the  trouble  that we're  in  now.  And  by  the  way,  Jeb  you  mentioned  Boeing,  take  a  look.  They  order  planes,  they  make  Boeing  build  their  plant  in  China. They  don't  want  them  made  here.  They  want  those  planes  made  in  China.
BUSH:  They're  a  mile  away  from  here.
TRUMP:  That's  not  the  way  the  game  is  supposed  to  be  played.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Governor  Bush.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Trump.  Very  briefly.
BUSH:  My  name  was  mentioned.  My  name  was  mentioned  here.  The  simple  fact  is  that  the  plane  that's  being  build  here  is  being  sold to  China.  You  can  —  if  you  —  you  flew  in  with  your  767,  didn't  you?  Right  there,  right  next  to  the  plant.
TRUMP:  No,  the  new  planes.  I'm  not  talking  about  now,  I'm  talking  about  in  the  future  they're  building  massive  plants  in  China because  China  does  not  want  Boeing  building  their  planes  here,  they  want  them  built  in  China,  because  China  happens  to  be  smart the  way  they  do  it,  not  the  way  we  do  it.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Trump.
BUSH:  When  you  head  back  to  airport  tonight,  go  check  and  see  what  the...
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Trmup.  Thank  you,  Governor.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 20 of 28
TRUMP:  I'll  check  for  you.
BUSH:  Check  it  out.  [laughter]
BARTIROMO:  Senator  briefly.
CRUZ:  Thanks  for  coming  back  to  me,  Maria.  Both  Donald  and  Jeb  have  good  points,  and  there  is  a  middle  ground.  Donald  is  right that  China  is  running  over  President  Obama  like  he  is  a  child,  President  Obama  is  not  protecting  American  workers  and  we  are getting  hammered.
You  know,  I  sat  down  with  the  senior  leadership  of  John  Deere.  They  discussed  how  —  how  hard  it  is  to  sell  tractors  in  China, because  all  the  regulatory  barriers.  They're  protectionist.
But  Jeb  is  also  right  that,  if  we  just  impose  a  tariff,  they'll  put  reciprocal  tariffs,  which  will  hurt  Iowa  farmers  and  South  Carolina producers  and  20  percent  of  the  American  jobs  that  depend  on  exports.
So  the  way  you  do  it  is  you  pass  a  tax  plan  like  the  tax  plan  I've  introduced:  a  simple  flat  tax,  10  percent  for  individuals,  and  a  16 percent  business  flat  tax,  you  abolish  the  IRS...[applause]...and  here's  the  critical  point,  Maria  —  the  business  flat  tax  enables  us  to abolish  the  corporate  income  tax,  the  death  tax,  the  Obamacare  taxes,  the  payroll  taxes,  and  they're  border-­adjustable,  so  every export  pays  no  taxes  whatsoever.
It's  tax-­free  —  a  huge  advantage  for  our  farmers  and  ranchers  and  manufacturers  —  and  every  import  pays  the  16  percent  business flat  tax.  It's  like  a  tariff,  but  here's  the  difference:  if  we  impose  a  tariff,  China  responds.
The  business  flat  tax,  they  already  impose  their  taxes  on  us,  so  there's  no  reciprocal...[bell  rings]...tariffs  that  come  against  us.  It  puts us  on  a  level,  even  playing  field,  which  brings  jobs  here  at  home...
UNKNOWN:  Maria...
CRUZ:  ...  and  as  president,  I'm  going  to  fight  for  the  working  men  and  women.
[crosstalk]
BARTIROMO:  We've  got  to  get  to  tax  reform,  gentlemen.  We've  got  to  get  to  tax  reform,  and  we've  got  to  get  to  the...
UNKNOWN:  Yeah,  but  I  want  to  talk  about  taxes.
BARTIROMO:  ...  we've  got  to  get  to  the  national  debt  as  well.  Coming  up  next,  the  growing  national  debt,  the  war  on  crime,  tax  reform. More  from  North  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  when  we  come  right  back.
[commercial  break]
BARTIROMO:  Welcome  back  to  the  Republican  presidential  here  in  North  Charleston.  Right  back  to  the  questions.  [applause]
Governor  Christie,  we  have  spoken  much  about  cutting  spending,  given  the  $19  trillion  debt.  But  according  to  one  report,  America needs  $3.6  trillion  in  infrastructure  spending  by  2020.
Here  in  South  Carolina,  11  percent  of  bridges  are  considered  structurally  deficient,  costing  drivers  a  billion  dollars  a  year  in  auto repairs.  What  is  your  plan  to  fix  the  ailing  roads  and  bridges  without  breaking  the  bank?
CHRISTIE:  Well,  I'm  glad  you  asked  that,  Maria.  Here's  —  here's  our  plan.  We've  all  been  talking  about  tax  reforms  tonight,  and paying  for  infrastructure  is  caught  right  up  in  tax  reform.
If  you  reform  the  corporate  tax  system  in  this  country,  which,  as  was  mentioned  before,  is  the  highest  rate  in  the  world  —  and  we double  tax,  as  you  know.
And  what  that's  led  to  over  $2  trillion  of  American  companies'  monies  that  are  being  kept  offshore,  because  they  don't  want  to  pay  the second  tax.  And  who  can  blame  them?  They  pay  tax  once  overseas.  They  don't  want  to  pay  35  percent  tax  on  the  way  back.
So  beside  reforming  that  tax  code,  bringing  it  down  to  25  percent  and  eliminating  those  special-­interest  loopholes  that  the  lobbyists and  the  lawyers  and  the  accountants  have  given  —  bring  that  rate  down  to  25  percent,  but  also,  a  one-­time  repatriation  of  that  money.
Bring  the  money  —  the  $2  trillion  —  back  to  the  United  States.  We'll  tax  it,  that  one  time,  at  8.75  percent,  because  35  percent  of  zero  is zero,  but  8.75  percent  of  $2  trillion  is  a  lot  of  money.  And  I  would  then  dedicate  that  money  to  rebuilding  infrastructure  here  in  this country.
It  would  not  necessitate  us  raising  any  taxes.  It  would  bring  the  money  back  into  the  United  States  to  help  build  jobs  by  American companies  and  get  our  economy  moving  again,  and  growing  as  a  higher  rate,  and  it  would  rebuild  those  roads  and  bridges  and tunnels  that  you  were  talking  about.  And  —  and  —  and  the  last  piece  of  this,  Maria,  is  this.  You  know,  the  fact  is  that  this  president  has penalized  corporations  in  America.  He's  penalized  —  and  doesn't  understand.  In  fact,  what  that  hurts  is  hurt  hardworking  taxpayers.
You've  seen  middle-­class  wages  go  backwards  $3,700  during  the  Obama  administration.  That's  wrong  for  hardworking  taxpayers  in this  country.  We'd  rebuild  infrastructure  that  would  also  create  jobs  in  this  country,  and  we'd  work  with  the  states  to  do  it  the  right  way, to  do  it  more  efficiently  and  more  effectively.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 21 of 28
And  remember  this  —  I'm  credible  on  this  for  this  reason:  Americans  for  Tax  Reform  says  that  I've  vetoed  more  tax  increases  than  any governor  in  American  history.  We  don't  need  to  raise  taxes  to  get  this  done.
We  need  to  make  the  government  run  smarter  and  better,  and  reform  this  corporate  tax  system,  bring  that  money  back  to  the  United States  to  build  jobs  and  rebuild  our  infrastructure,  and  we  need  to  use  it  also  to  protect  our  grid  from  terrorists.
All  of  those  things  are  important,  and  all  those  things  would  happen  in  a  Christie  administration.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.  Dr.  Carson...[applause]...it  is  true  U.S.  companies  have  $2  trillion  in  cash  sitting  overseas  right  now. That  could  be  used  for  investment  and  jobs  in  America.
Also,  several  companies  right  now  are  pursuing  mergers  to  move  their  corporate  headquarters  abroad,  and  take  advantage  of  much lower  taxes.  What  will  you  do  to  stop  the  flow  of  companies  building  cash  away  from  America,  and  those  leaving  America  altogether?
CARSON:  Well,  I  would  suggest  a  fair  tax  system,  and  that's  what  we  have  proposed.  A  flat  tax  for  everybody  —  no  exemptions,  no deductions,  no  shelters,  because  some  people  have  a  better  capability  of  taking  advantage  of  those  than  others.
You  know,  and  then  the  other  thing  we  have  to  do  is  stop  spending  so  much  money.  You  know,  I  —  my  —  my  mother  taught  me  this. You  know,  she  only  had  a  third-­grade  education,  but  —  you  know,  she  knew  how  to  stretch  a  dollar.
I  mean,  she  would  drive  a  car  until  it  wouldn't  make  a  sound,  and  then  gather  up  all  her  coins  and  buy  a  new  car.  In  fact,  if  my  mother were  secretary  of  treasury,  we  would  not  be  in  a  deficit  situation.  But...[laughter]...  you  know,  the  —  the  —  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  — you  know,  if  we  fix  the  taxation  system,  make  it  absolutely  fair,  and  get  rid  of  the  incredible  regulations  —  because  every  regulation  is a  tax,  it's  a  —  on  goods  and  services.  And  it's  the  most  regressive  tax  there  is.
You  know,  when  you  go  into  the  store  and  buy  a  box  of  laundry  detergent,  and  the  price  has  up  —  you  know,  50  cents  because  of regulations,  a  poor  person  notices  that.  A  rich  person  does  not.  Middle  class  may  notice  it  when  they  get  to  the  cash  register.
And  everything  is  costing  more  money,  and  we  are  killing  our  —  our  —  our  people  like  this.  And  Bernie  Sanders  and  Hillary  Clinton will  say  it's  those  evil  rich  people.
It's  not  the  evil  rich  people.  It's  the  evil  government  that  is  —  that  is  putting  all  these  regulations  on  us  so  that  we  can't  survive. [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  sir.
Senator  Rubio...
TRUMP:  Maria  —  Maria,  what  you  were  talking  about  just  now  is  called  corporate  inversion.  It's  one  of  the  biggest  problems  our country  has.  Right  now,  corporations,  by  the  thousands,  are  thinking  of  leaving  our  country  with  the  jobs  —  leave  them  behind.
They're  leaving  because  of  taxes,  but  they  are  also  leaving  because  they  can't  get  their  money  back  and  everybody  agrees, Democrats  and  Republicans,  that  is  should  come  back  in.  But  they  can't  get  along.  They  can't  even  make  a  deal.
Here  is  the  case,  they  both  agree,  they  can't  make  a  deal.  We  have  to  do  something.  Corporate  inversion  is  one  of  the  biggest problems  we  have.  So  many  companies  are  going  to  leave  our  country.
BARTIROMO:  Which  is  why  we  raised  it.
Senator  Rubio?
Thank  you,  Mr.  Trump.
TRUMP:  Thank  you.
BARTIROMO:  One  of  the  biggest  fiscal  challenges  is  our  entitlement  programs,  particularly  Social  Security  and  Medicare.  What policies  will  you  put  forward  to  make  sure  these  programs  are  more  financially  secure?
RUBIO:  Well,  first  let  me  address  the  tax  issue  because  it's  related  to  the  entitlement  issue  and  I  want  to  thank  you  for  holding  a substantive  debates  where  we  can  have  debates  about  these  key  issues  on  taxes.  [applause]
Here  is  the  one  thing  I'm  not  going  to  do.  I'm  not  going  to  have  something  that  Ted  described  in  his  tax  plan.  It's  called  the  value  added tax.  And  it's  a  tax  you  find  in  many  companies  in  Europe.
Where  basically,  businesses  now  will  have  to  pay  a  tax,  both  on  the  money  they  make,  but  they  also  have  to  pay  taxes  on  the  money that  they  pay  their  employees.
And  that's  why  they  have  it  in  Europe,  because  it  is  a  way  to  blindfolded  the  people,  that's  what  Ronald  Reagan  said.  Ronald  Regan opposed  the  value  tax  because  he  said  it  was  a  way  to  blindfold  the  people,  so  the  true  cost  of  government  was  not  there  there  for them.
Now,  you  can  support  one  now  that's  very  low.  But  what  is  to  prevent  a  future  liberal  president  or  a  liberal  Congress  from  coming  back and  not  just  raising  the  income  tax,  but  also  raising  that  VAT  tax,  and  that  vat  tax  is  really  bad  for  seniors.  Because  seniors,  if  they  are retired,  are  no  longer  earning  an  income  from  a  job.  And  therefore,  they  don't  get  the  income  tax  break,  but  their  prices  are  going  to  be

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 22 of 28
higher,  because  the  vat  tax  is  embedded  in  both  the  prices  that  business  that  are  charging  and  in  the  wages  they  pay  their employees.
When  I  am  president  of  the  United  States,  I'm  going  to  side  with  Ronald  Regan  on  this  and  not  Nancy  Pelosi  and  we  are  not  having  a vat  tax.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you  senator.
CRUZ:  Maria,  I  assume  that  I  can  respond  to  that.
BARTIROMO:  Senator  Cruz,  yes.  You  were  meant  to.  Yes,  of  course.
CRUZ:  Well,  Marco  has  been  floating  this  attack  for  a  few  weeks  now,  but  the  problem  is,  the  business  flat  tax  in  my  proposal  is  not  a vat.  A  vat  is  imposed  as  a  sales  tax  when  you  buy  a  good.
This  is  a  business  flat  tax.  It  is  imposed  on  business  and  a  critical  piece  that  Marco  seems  to  be  missing  is  that  this  16  percent business  flat  tax  enables  us  to  eliminate  the  corporate  income  tax.  It  goes  away.  It  enables  us  to  eliminate  the  death  tax.
If  you're  a  farmer,  if  you're  a  rancher,  if  you  are  small  business  owner,  the  death  tax  is  gone.  We  eliminate  the  payroll  tax,  we  eliminate the  Obamacare  taxes.  And  listen,  there  is  a  real  difference  between  Marco's  tax  plan  and  mine.
Mine  gives  every  American  a  simple,  flat  tax  of  10  percent.  Marco's  top  tax  rate  is  35  percent.  My  tax  plan  enables  you  to  fill  out  your taxes  on  a  postcard  so  we  can  abolish  the  IRS.  Marco  leaves  the  IRS  code  in  with  all  of  the  complexity.  We  need  to  break  the Washington  cartel,  and  the  only  way  to  do  it  is  to  end  all  the  subsidies  and  all...[bell  rings]...the  mandates  and  have  a  simple  flat  tax. The  final  observation,  invoked  Ronald  Reagan.  I  would  note  that  Art  Laffer,  Ronald  Reagan's  chief  economic  adviser,  has  written publicly,  that  my  simple  flat  tax  is  the  best  tax  plan  of  any  of  the  individuals  on  this  stage  cause  it  produces  economic  growth,  it  raises wages  and  it  helps  everyone  from  the  very  poorest  to  the  very  richest.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you  senator.  [applause]
RUBIO:  But  that's  not  an  accurate  description  of  the  plan.  Because,  first  of  all,  you  may  rename  the  IRS  but  you  are  not  going  to abolishes  the  IRS,  because  there  has  to  be  some  agency  that's  going  to  collect  your  vat  tax.  Someone's  going  to  be  collecting  this  tax.
In  fact,  Ronald  Reagan's  treasury,  when  Ronald  Reagan's  treasury  looked  at  the  vat  tax,  you  know  what  they  found?  That  they  were going  to  have  to  hire  20,000  new  IRS  agencies  to  collect  it.
The  second  point,  it  does  not  eliminate  the  corporate  tax  or  the  payroll  tax.  Businesses  will  now  have  to  pay  16  percent  on  the  money they  make.  They  will  also  have  to  pay  16  percent  on  the  money  they  pay  their  employees.
So  there  are  people  watching  tonight  in  business.  If  you  are  now  hit  on  a  60  percent  tax  on  both  your  income  and  on  the  wages  you pay  your  employees,  where  are  you  going  to  get  that  money  from?  You're  going  to  get  it  by  paying  your  employees  less  and  charging your  customers  more,  that  is  a  tax,  the  difference  is,  you  don't  see  it  on  the  bill.
And  that's  why  Ronald  Reagan  said  that  it  was  a  blindfold.  You  blindfold  the  American  people  so  that  they  cannot  see  the  true  cost  of government.  Now  16  percent  is  what  the  rate  Ted  wants  it  at.  But  what  happens  if,  God  forbid,  the  next  Barack  Obama  takes  over,  and the  next  Nancy  Pelosi,  and  the  next  Harry  Reid...[bell  rings]...and  they  decide,  we're  going  to  raise  it  to  30  percent,  plus  we're  going  to raise  the  income  tax  to  30  percent.  Now,  you've  got  Europe.
[crosstalk]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you  senator.  I  have  to  get  to  a  question  for  Mr.  Trump.
CRUZ:  Maria...
BARTIROMO:  Yes.
CRUZ:  Maria,  I'd  just  like  to  say...[crosstalk]
CHRISTIE:  Maria,  I'd  like  to  interrupt  this  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  to  actually  answer  the  question  you  asked,  which  was  on entitlements.  Do  you  remember  that,  everybody?  This  was  a  question  on  entitlements.
And  the  reason  —  and  the  reason...[crosstalk]...no,  you  already  had  your  chance,  Marco,  and  you  blew  it.  Here's  the  thing.  [crosstalk] The  fact  is,  the  reason  why...
RUBIO:  If  you'll  answer  the  [inaudible]  core  question.
CHRISTIE:  ...  the  fact  is  —  the  fact  is  the  reason  why  that  no  one  wants  to  answer  entitlements  up  here  is  because  it's  hard.  It's  a  hard problem.  And  I'm  the  only  one  up  on  this  stage  who  back  in  April  put  forward  a  detailed  entitlement  reform  plan  that  will  save  over  $1 trillion,  save  Social  Security,  save  Medicare,  and  avoid  this  —  avoid  what  Hillary  Rodham  Clinton  will  do  to  you.
Because  what  she  will  do  is  come  in  and  she  will  raise  Social  Security  taxes.  Bernie  Sanders  has  already  said  it.  And  she  is  just  one or  two  more  poll  drops  down  from  even  moving  further  left  than  she's  moved  already  to  get  to  the  left  of  Bernie  on  this.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 23 of 28
We  have  seniors  out  there  who  are  scared  to  death  because  this  Congress  —  this  one  that  we  have  right  now,  just  stole  $150  billion from  the  Social  Security  retirement  fund  to  give  it  to  the  Social  Security  disability  fund.  A  Republican  Congress  did  that.
And  the  fact  is  it  was  wrong.  And  they  consorted  with  Barack  Obama  to  steal  from  Social  Security.  We  need  to  reform  Social  Security. Mine  is  the  only  plan  that  saves  over  $1  trillion  and  that's  why  I'm  answering  your  question.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Governor.  Thank  you,  Governor.  [applause]
CARSON:  Can  I  just  add  one  very  quick  thing?  And  I  just  want  to  say,  you  know,  last  week  we  released  our  tax  plan.  And  multiple reputable  journals,  including  The  Wall  Street  Journal,  said  ours  is  the  best.  Just  want  to  get  that  out  there,  just  saying.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Dr.  Carson.
Coming  up,  how  would  the  candidates  protect  America,  and  another  terror  attack,  if  we  were  to  see  it.  But  first,  you  can  join  us  live  on stage  during  the  commercial  break  right  from  home.  Go  to  facebook.com/foxbusiness.  We'll  be  streaming  live  and  answering  your questions  during  this  break  next.
More  from  South  Carolina  coming  up.  Stay  with  us.
[commercial  break]
BARTIROMO:  Mr.  Trump,  your  net  worth  is  in  the  multi-­billions  of  dollars  and  have  an  ongoing  thriving  hotel  and  real  estate  business. Are  you  planning  on  putting  your  assets  in  a  blind  trust  should  you  become  president?  With  such  vast  wealth,  how  difficult  will  it  be  for you  to  disentangle  yourself  from  your  business  and  your  money  and  prioritize  America's  interest  first?
TRUMP:  Well,  it's  an  interesting  question  because  I'm  very  proud  of  my  company.  As  you  too  know,  I  know  I  built  a  very  great company.  But  if  I  become  president,  I  couldn't  care  less  about  my  company.  It's  peanuts.
I  want  to  use  that  same  up  here,  whatever  it  may  be  to  make  America  rich  again  and  to  make  America  great  again.  I  have  Ivanka,  and Eric  and  Don  sitting  there.  Run  the  company  kids,  have  a  good  time.  I'm  going  to  do  it  for  America.
So  I  would  —  I  would  be  willing  to  do  that.
BARTIROMO:  So  you'll  put  your  assets  in  a  blind  trust?
TRUMP:  I  would  put  it  in  a  blind  trust.  Well,  I  don't  know  if  it's  a  blind  trust  if  Ivanka,  Don  and  Eric  run  it.  If  that's  a  blind  trust,  I  don't know.  But  I  would  probably  have  my  children  run  it  with  my  executives  and  I  wouldn't  ever  be  involved  because  I  wouldn't  care  about anything  but  our  country,  anything.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you  sir.
TRUMP:  Thank  you.
CAVUTO:  Governor  Christie,  going  back  to  your  U.S.  Attorney  days,  you  had  been  praised  by  both  parties  as  certainly  a  tough  law and  order  guy.  So  I  wonder  what  you  make  of  recent  statistics  that  showed  violent  crimes  that  have  been  spiking  sometimes  by double  digit  ratings  in  30  cities  across  the  country.  Milwaukee  Police  Chief  Ed  Flynn  said,  "most  local  law  enforcement  officials  feel abandoned  by  Washington."  Former  NYC  Police  Chief  Ray  Kelly,  says  that,  "police  are  being  less  proactive  because  they're  being overly  scrutinized  and  second  guessed  and  they're  afraid  of  being  sued  or  thrown  in  jail."
What  would  you  do  as  president  to  address  this?
CHRISTIE:  Well,  first  off,  let's  face  it,  the  FBI  director  James  Comey  was  a  friend  of  mine  who  I  worked  with  as  U.S.  Attorney  of  New Jersey.  He  was  the  U.S.  Attorney  in  Manhattan.  He  said,  "there's  a  chill  wind  blowing  through  law  enforcement  in  this  country."  Here's why,  the  president  of  the  United  States  and  both  his  attorney's  general,  they  give  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  the  criminal,  not  to  the police  officers.
That's  the  truth  of  the  matter  and  you  see  it  every  time  with  this  president.  Every  time  he's  got  a  chance,  going  all  the  way  back  to  — remember  that  Great  Beer  Summit  he  had  after  he  messed  up  that  time.  This  is  a  guy  who  just  believes  that  law  enforcement  are  the bad  guys.
Now,  I  for  seven  years  was  the  U.S.  Attorney  of  New  Jersey.  I  worked  hard  with  not  only  federal  agents  but  with  police  officers  and here's  the  problem,  sanctuary  cities  is  part  of  the  problem  in  this  country.  That's  where  crime  is  happening  in  these  cities  where  they don't  enforce  the  immigration  laws.  And  this  president  turns  his  back  —  this  president  doesn't  enforce  the  marijuana  laws  in  this country  because  he  doesn't  agree  with  them.
And  he  allows  states  to  go  ahead  and  do  whatever  they  want  on  a  substance  that's  illegal.  This  president  allows  lawlessness throughout  this  country.  Here's  what  I  would  do  Neil,  I  would  appoint  an  Attorney  General  and  I  would  have  one  very  brief conversation  with  that  Attorney  General.  I'd  say,  "General,  enforce  the  law  against  everyone  justly,  fairly,  and  aggressively.  Make  our streets  safe  again.  Make  our  police  officers  proud  of  what  they  do  but  more  important  than  that,  let  them  know  how  proud  we  are  of them."
We  do  that,  this  country  would  be  safe  and  secure  again  not  only  from  criminals  but  from  the  terrorist  who  threaten  us  as  well.  I'm  the only  person  on  this  stage  who's  done  that  and  we  will  get  it  done  as  President  of  the  United  States.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 24 of 28
CAVUTO:  Thank  you  governor.
Governor  Kasich,  as  someone  has  to  deal  with  controversial  police  shootings  in  your  own  state,  what  do  you  make  of  Chicago's  move recently  to  sort  of  retrain  police?  Maybe  make  them  not  so  quick  to  use  their  guns?
KASICH:  Well,  I  created  a  task  force  well  over  a  year  ago  and  the  purpose  was  to  bring  law  enforcement,  community  people,  clergy and  the  person  that  I  named  as  one  of  the  co-­chair  was  a  lady  by  the  name  of  Nina  Turner,  a  former  State  Senator,  a  liberal  Democrat. She  actually  ran  against  one  of  my  friends  and  our  head  of  public  safety.
And  they  say  down  as  a  group  trying  to  make  sure  that  we  can  begin  to  heal  some  of  these  problems  that  we  see  between  community and  police.
And  they  came  back  with  23  recommendations.  One  of  them  is  a  statewide  use  of  deadly  force.  And  it  is  now  being  put  into  place everyplace  across  the  state  of  Ohio.  Secondly,  a  policy  on  recruiting  and  hiring,  and  then  more  resources  for  —  for  training.
But  let  me  also  tell  you,  one  of  the  issues  has  got  to  be  the  integration  of  both  community  and  police.  Community  has  to  understand that  that  police  officer  wants  to  get  home  at  night,  and  not  —  not  to  lose  their  life.  Their  family  is  waiting  for  them.
At  the  same  time,  law  enforcement  understands  there  are  people  in  the  community  who  not  only  think  that  the  system  doesn't  work  for them,  but  works  against  them.
See,  in  Ohio,  we've  had  some  controversial  decisions.  But  the  leaders  have  come  forward  to  realize  that  protest  is  fine,  but  violence  is wrong.  And  it  has  been  a  remarkable  situation  in  our  state.  And  as  president  of  the  United  States,  it's  all  about  communication,  folks. It's  all  about  getting  people  to  listen  to  one  another's  problems.
And  when  you  do  that,  you  will  be  amazed  at  how  much  progress  you  can  make,  and  how  much  healing  we  can  have.  Because,  folks, at  the  end  of  the  day,  the  country  needs  healed.  I've  heard  a  lot  of  hot  rhetoric  here  tonight,  but  I've  got  to  tell  you,  as  somebody  that actually  passed  a  budget;;  that  paid  down  a  half-­a-­trillion  dollars  of  our  national  debt,  you  can't  do  it  alone.  You've  got  to  bring  people together.  You've  got  to  give  people  hope.
And  together,  we  can  solve  these  problems  that  hurt  us  and  heal  America.  And  that  is  what's  so  critical  for  our  neighborhoods,  our families,  our  children,  and  our  grandchildren.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Thank  you,  Governor.
BARTIROMO:  Senator  Rubio?  [applause]
Under  current  law,  the  U.S.  is  on  track  to  issue  more  new  permanent  immigrants  on  green  cards  over  the  next  five  years  than  the entire  population  of  South  Carolina.  The  CBO  says  your  2013  immigration  bill  would  have  increased  green  cardholders  by  another 10  million  over  10  years.
Why  are  you  so  interested  in  opening  up  borders  to  foreigners  when  American  workers  have  a  hard  enough  time  finding  work?
RUBIO:  Well,  first  of  all,  this  is  an  issue  that's  been  debated  now  for  30  years.  And  for  30  years,  the  issue  of  immigration  has  been about  someone  who's  in  this  country,  maybe  they're  here  illegally,  but  they're  looking  for  a  job.  This  issue  is  not  about  that  anymore.
First  and  foremost,  this  issue  has  to  be  now  more  than  anything  else  about  keeping  America  safe.  And  here's  why.  There  is  a  radical jihadist  group  that  is  manipulating  our  immigration  system.  And  not  just  green  cards.  They're  looking  —  they're  recruiting  people  that enter  this  country  as  doctors  and  engineers  and  even  fiances.  They  understand  the  vulnerabilities  we  have  on  the  southern  border.
They're  looking  —  they're  looking  to  manipulate  our  —  the  visa  waiver  countries  to  get  people  into  the  United  States.  So  our  number one  priority  must  now  become  ensuring  that  ISIS  cannot  get  killers  into  the  United  States.  So  whether  it's  green  cards  or  any  other form  of  entry  into  America,  when  I'm  president  if  we  do  not  know  who  you  are  or  why  you  are  coming,  you  are  not  going  to  get  into  the United  States  of  America.
BARTIROMO:  So  your  thinking  has  changed?
RUBIO:  The  issue  is  a  dramatically  different  issue  than  it  was  24  months  ago.  Twenty-­four  months  ago,  36  months  ago,  you  did  not have  a  group  of  radical  crazies  named  ISIS  who  were  burning  people  in  cages  and  recruiting  people  to  enter  our  country  legally. They  have  a  sophisticated  understanding  of  our  legal  immigration  system  and  we  now  have  an  obligation  to  ensure  that  they  are  not able  to  use  that  system  against  us.
The  entire  system  of  legal  immigration  must  now  be  reexamined  for  security  first  and  foremost,  with  an  eye  on  ISIS.  Because  they're recruiting  people  to  enter  this  country  as  engineers,  posing  as  doctors,  posing  as  refugees.  We  know  this  for  a  fact.  They've  contacted the  trafficking  networks  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  to  get  people  in  through  the  southern  border.  And  they  got  a  killer  in  San Bernardino  in  posing  as  a  fiance.
This  issue  now  has  to  be  about  stopping  ISIS  entering  the  United  States,  and  when  I'm  president  we  will.
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Senator.  [applause]
CRUZ:  But  Maria,  radical  Islamic  terrorism  was  not  invented  24  months  ago;;  24  months  ago,  we  had  Al  Qaida.  We  had  Boko  Haram. We  had  Hamas.  We  had  Hezbollah.  We  had  Iran  putting  operatives  in  South  America  and  Central  America.  It's  the  reason  why  I  stood

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 25 of 28
with  Jeff  Sessions  and  Steve  King  and  led  the  fight  to  stop  the  Gang  of  Eight  amnesty  bill,  because  it  was  clear  then,  like  it's  clear now,  that  border  security  is  national  security.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Thank  you,  Senator.
CRUZ:  It  is  also  the  case  that  that  Rubio-­Schumer  amnesty  bill,  one  of  the  things  it  did  is  it  expanded  Barack  Obama's  power  to  let  in Syrian  refugees.  It  enabled  him  —  the  president  to  certify  them  en  masse  without  mandating  meaningful  background  checks.
I  think  that's  a  mistake.  That's  why  I've  been  leading  the  fight  to  stop  it.  And  I  would  note  the  Senate  just  a  few  weeks  ago  voted  to suspend  refugees  from  Middle  Eastern  countries.  I  voted  yes  to  suspend  that.  Marco  voted  on  the  other  side.  So  you  don't  get  to  say we  need  to  secure  the  borders,  and  at  the  same  time  try  to  give  Barack  Obama  more  authority  to  allow  Middle  Eastern  refugees coming  in,  when  the  head  of  the  FBI  tells  us  they  cannot  vet  them  to  determine  if  they  are  ISIS  terrorists.
RUBIO:  Maria,  let  me  clear  something  up  here.  This  is  an  interesting  point  when  you  talk  about  immigration.  Ted  Cruz,  you  used  to say  you  supported  doubling  the  number  of  green  cards,  now  you  say  that  you're  against  it.  You  used  to  support  a  500  percent increase  in  the  number  of  guest  workers,  now  you  say  that  you're  against  it.  You  used  to  support  legalizing  people  that  were  here illegally,  now  you  say  you're  against  it.  You  used  to  say  that  you  were  in  favor  of  birthright  citizenship,  now  you  say  that  you  are against  it.
And  by  the  way,  it's  not  just  on  immigration,  you  used  to  support  TPA,  now  you  say  you're  against  it.  I  saw  you  on  the  Senate  floor  flip your  vote  on  crop  insurance  because  they  told  you  it  would  help  you  in  Iowa,  and  last  week,  we  all  saw  you  flip  your  vote  on  ethanol in  Iowa  for  the  same  reason.  [applause]
That  is  not  consistent  conservatism,  that  is  political  calculation.  When  I  am  president,  I  will  work  consistently  every  single  day  to  keep this  country  safe,  not  call  Edward  Snowden,  as  you  did,  a  great  public  servant.  Edward  Snowden  is  a  traitor.  And  if  I  am  president  and we  get  our  hands  on  him,  he  is  standing  trial  for  treason.  [applause]
And  one  more  point,  one  more  point.  Every  single  time  that  there  has  been  a  Defense  bill  in  the  Senate,  three  people  team  up  to  vote against  it.  Bernie  Sanders,  Rand  Paul  and  Ted  Cruz.  In  fact,  the  only  budget  you  have  ever  voted  for,  Ted,  in  your  entire  time  in  the Senate  is  a  budget  from  Rand  Paul  that  brags  about  how  it  cuts  defense.
Here's  the  bottom  line,  and  I'll  close  with  this.  If  I'm  president  of  the  United  States  and  Congress  tries  to  cut  the  military,  I  will  veto  that in  a  millisecond.  [applause]
BUSH:  There's  —  look,  there's  —
CAVUTO:  Gentlemen,  gentlemen  —
CRUZ:  I'm  going  to  get  a  response  to  that,  Neil.  There's  no  way  he  launches  11  attack  —
CAVUTO:  Very  quick,  very  quick.
CRUZ:  I'm  going  to  —  he  had  no  fewer  than  11  attacks  there.  I  appreciate  your  dumping  your  [inaudible]  research  folder  on  the  stage.
RUBIO:  No,  it's  your  record.
CRUZ:  But  I  will  say  —
CAVUTO:  Do  you  think  they  like  each  other?
CRUZ:  —  at  least  half  of  the  things  Marco  said  are  flat-­out  false.  They're  absolutely  false.
AUDIENCE:  Boo.
CRUZ:  So  let's  start  —  let's  start  with  immigration.  Let's  start  with  immigration  and  have  a  little  bit  of  clarity.  Marco  stood  with  Chuck Schumer  and  Barack  Obama  on  amnesty.  I  stood  with  Jeff  Sessions  and  Steve  King.  Marco  stood  today,  standing  on  this  stage  Marco supports  legalization  and  citizenship  for  12  million  illegals.  I  opposed  and  oppose  legalization  and  citizenship.
And  by  the  way,  the  attack  he  keeps  throwing  out  on  the  military  budget,  Marco  knows  full  well  I  voted  for  his  amendment  to  increase military  spending  to  $697  billion.  What  he  said,  and  he  said  it  in  the  last,  it's  simply  not  true.  And  as  president,  I  will  rebuild  the  military and  keep  this  country  safe.
CAVUTO:  All  right,  gentlemen,  we've  got  to  stop.  I  know  you  are  very  passionate  about  that.  [applause]
Governor  Bush,  fears  have  gripped  this  country  obviously,  and  you  touched  on  it  earlier  since  the  San  Bernardino  attacks.  Since  our last  ,  the  national  conversation  has  changed,  according  to  Facebook  data  as  well.
Now  this  first  graphic  shows  the  issues  that  were  most  talked  about  right  before  those  attacks  and  now  after:  the  issues  of  Islam, homeland  security  and  ISIS  now  loom  very  large.  The  FBI  says  Islamic  radicals  are  using  social  media  to  communicate  and  that  it needs  better  access  to  communication.  Now  the  CEO  of  Apple,  Governor,  Tim  Cook  said  unless  served  with  a  warrant  private communication  is  private,  period.  Do  you  agree,  or  would  you  try  to  convince  him  otherwise?
BUSH:  I  would  try  to  convince  him  otherwise,  but  this  last  back  and  forth  between  two  senators  —  back  bench  senators,  you  know, explains  why  we  have  the  mess  in  Washington,  D.C.  We  need  a  president  that  will  fix  our  immigration  laws  and  stick  with  it,  not  bend

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 26 of 28
with  the  wind.
The  simple  fact  is  one  of  the  ways,  Maria,  to  solve  the  problem  you  described  is  narrow  the  number  of  people  coming  by  family petitioning  to  what  every  other  country  has  so  that  we  have  the  best  and  the  brightest  that  come  to  our  country.  We  need  to  control  the border,  we  need  to  do  all  of  this  in  a  comprehensive  way,  not  just  going  back  and  forth  and  talking  about  stuff  —
CAVUTO:  Would  you  answer  this  question?
BUSH:  Oh,  I'll  talk  about  that,  too.  But  you  haven't  asked  me  a  question  in  a  while,  Neil,  so  I  thought  I'd  get  that  off  my  chest  if  you  don't mind.  [laughter]
CAVUTO:  Fair  enough.  So  Tim  Cook  —  so  Tim  Cook  says  he's  going  to  keep  it  private.
BUSH:  I  got  that.  And  the  problem  today  is  there's  no  confidence  in  Washington,  D.C.  There  needs  to  be  more  than  one  meeting, there  needs  to  complete  dialogue  with  the  large  technology  companies.  They  understand  that  there's  a  national  security  risk.  We ought  to  give  them  a  little  bit  of  a  liability  release  so  that  they  share  data  amongst  themselves  and  share  data  with  the  federal government,  they're  not  fearful  of  a  lawsuit.
We  need  to  make  sure  that  we  keep  the  country  safe.  This  is  the  first  priority.  The  cybersecurity  challenges  that  we  face,  this administration  failed  us  completely,  completely.  Not  just  the  hacking  of  OPM,  but  that  is  —  that  is  just  shameful.  23  million  files  in  the hands  of  the  Chinese?  So  it's  not  just  the  government  —  the  private  sector  companies,  it's  also  our  own  government  that  needs  to raise  the  level  of  our  game.
We  should  put  the  NSA  in  charge  of  the  civilian  side  of  this  as  well.  That  expertise  needs  to  spread  all  across  the  government  and there  needs  to  be  much  more  cooperation  with  our  private  sector.
CAVUTO:  But  if  Tim  cook  is  telling  you  no,  Mr.  President.
BUSH:  You've  got  to  keep  asking.  You've  got  to  keep  asking  because  this  is  a  hugely  important  issue.  If  you  can  encrypt  messages, ISIS  can,  over  these  platforms,  and  we  have  no  ability  to  have  a  cooperative  relationship  —
CAVUTO:  Do  you  ask  or  do  you  order?
BUSH:  Well,  if  the  law  would  change,  yeah.  But  I  think  there  has  to  be  recognition  that  if  we  —  if  we  are  too  punitive,  then  you'll  go  to other  —  other  technology  companies  outside  the  United  States.  And  what  we  want  to  do  is  to  control  this.
We  also  want  to  dominate  this  from  a  commercial  side.  So  there's  a  lot  of  balanced  interests.  But  the  president  leads  in  this  regard. That's  what  we  need.  We  need  leadership,  someone  who  has  a  backbone  and  sticks  with  things,  rather  than  just  talks  about  them  as though  anything  matters  when  you're  talking  about  amendments  that  don't  even  actually  are  part  of  a  bill  that  ever  passed.
CAVUTO:  Governor,  thank  you.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  When  we  come  right  back,  closing  statements.  Stay  with  us.
[commercial  break]
BARTIROMO:  Welcome  back.
Candidates,  it  is  time  for  your  closing  statements.  You  get  60  seconds  each.
Governor  John  Kasich,  we  begin  with  you.
KASICH:  You  know,  in  our  country,  there  are  a  lot  of  people  who  feel  as  though  they  just  don't  have  the  power.  You  know,  they  feel like  if  they  don't  have  a  lobbyist,  if  they're  not  wealthy,  that  somehow  they  don't  get  to  play.
But  all  of  my  career,  you  know,  having  been  raised  in  —  by  a  mailman  father  whose  father  was  a  coal  miner,  who  died  of  black  lung and  was  losing  his  eyesight;;  or  a  mother  whose  mother  could  barely  speak  English.  You  see,  all  of  my  career,  I've  fought  about  giving voice  to  the  people  that  I  grew  up  with  and  voice  to  the  people  that  elected  me.
Whether  it's  welfare  reform  and  getting  something  back  for  the  hard-­earned  taxpayers;;  whether  it's  engaging  in  Pentagon  reform  and taking  on  the  big  contractors  that  were  charging  thousands  of  dollars  for  hammers  and  screw  drivers  and  ripping  us  off;;  or  whether  it's taking  on  the  special  interests  in  the  nursing  home  industry  in  Ohio,  so  that  mom  and  dad  can  have  the  ability  to  stay  in  their  own home,  rather  than  being  forced  into  a  nursing  home.
Look,  that's  who  I  stand  up  for.  That's  who's  in  my  mind...[bell  rings]...And  if  you  really  want  to  believe  that  you  can  get  your  voice  back, I  will  tell  you,  as  I  have  all  my  career,  I  will  continue  to  fight  for  you,  because  you're  the  ones  that  built  this  country,  and  will  carry  it  into the  future.  Thank  you.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Governor  Bush?
BUSH:  Who  can  you  count  on  to  keep  us  safer,  stronger  and  freer?  Results  count,  and  as  governor,  I  pushed  Florida  up  to  the  top  in terms  of  jobs,  income  and  small  business  growth.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 27 of 28
Detailed  plans  count,  and  I  believe  that  the  plan  I've  laid  out  to  destroy  ISIS  before  the  tragedies  of  San  Bernardino  and  Paris  are  the right  ones.
Credibility  counts.  There'll  be  people  here  that  will  talk  about  what  they're  going  to  do.  I've  done  it.  I  ask  for  your  support  to  build, together,  a  safer  and  stronger  America.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Governor  Chris  Christie?
CHRISTIE:  Maria,  Neil,  thank  you  for  a  great  tonight.
When  I  think  about  the  folks  who  are  out  there  at  home  tonight  watching,  and  I  think  about  what  they  had  to  watch  this  week  —  the spectacle  they  had  to  watch  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  with  the  president  of  the  United  States,  who  talked  a  fantasy land  about  the  way  they're  feeling.
They  know  that  this  country  is  not  respected  around  the  world  anymore.  They  know  that  this  country  is  pushing  the  middle  class,  the hardworking  taxpayers,  backwards,  and  they  saw  a  president  who  doesn't  understand  their  pain,  and  doesn't  have  any  plan  for getting  away  from  it.
I  love  this  country.  It's  the  most  exceptional  country  the  world  has  ever  known.  We  need  someone  to  fight  for  the  people.  We  need  a fighter  for  this  country  again.
I've  lived  my  whole  life  fighting  —  fighting  for  things  that  I  believe  in,  fighting  for  justice  and  to  protect  people  from  crime  and  terrorism, fighting  to  stand  up  for  folks  who  have  not  had  enough  and  need  an  opportunity  to  get  more,  and  to  stand  up  and  fight  against  the special  interests.
But  here's  the  best  way  that  we're  going  to  make  America  much  more  exceptional:  it  is  to  make  sure  we  put  someone  on  that  stage  in September  who  will  fight  Hillary  Clinton  and  make  sure  she  never,  ever  gets  in  the  White  House  again.
I  am  the  man  who  can  bring  us  together  to  do  that,  and  I  ask  for  your  vote.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Dr.  Ben  Carson?
CARSON:  You  know,  in  recent  travels  around  this  country,  I've  encountered  so  many  Americans  who  are  discouraged  and  angry  as they  watch  our  freedom,  our  security  and  the  American  dream  slipping  away  under  an  unresponsive  government  that  is  populated  by bureaucrats  and  special  interest  groups.
We're  not  going  to  solve  this  problem  with  traditional  politics.  The  only  way  we're  going  to  solve  this  problem  is  with  we,  the  people. And  I  ask  you  to  join  me  in  truth  and  honesty  and  integrity.  Bencarson.com  —  we  will  heal,  inspire  and  revive  America  for  our  children. [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Senator  Marco  Rubio?
RUBIO:  You  know,  200  years  ago,  America  was  founded  on  this  powerful  principle  that  our  rights  don't  come  from  government.  Our rights  come  from  God.
That's  why  we  embraced  free  enterprise,  and  it  made  us  the  most  prosperous  people  in  the  history  of  the  world.  That's  why  we embraced  individual  liberty,  and  we  became  the  freest  people  ever,  and  the  result  was  the  American  miracle.
But  now  as  I  travel  the  country,  people  say  what  I  feel.  This  country  is  changing.  It  feels  different.  We  feel  like  we're  being  left  behind and  left  out.
And  the  reason  is  simple:  because  in  2008,  we  elected  as  president  someone  who  wasn't  interested  in  fixing  America.  We  elected someone  as  president  who  wants  to  change  America,  who  wants  to  make  it  more  like  the  rest  of  the  world.
And  so  he  undermines  the  Constitution,  and  he  undermines  free  enterprise  by  expanding  government,  and  he  betrays  our  allies  and cuts  deals  with  our  enemies  and  guts  our  military.  And  that's  why  2016  is  a  turning  point  in  our  history.  If  we  elect  Hillary  Clinton,  the next  four  years  will  be  worse  than  the  last  eight,  and  our  children  will  be  the  first  Americans  ever  to  inherit  a  diminished  country.
But  if  we  elect  the  right  person  —  if  you  elect  me  —  we  will  turn  this  country  around,  we  will  reclaim  the  American  dream  and  this nation  will  be  stronger  and  greater  than  it  has  ever  been.  [applause]
CAVUTO:  Senator  Ted  Cruz?
CRUZ:  "13  Hours"  —  tomorrow  morning,  a  new  movie  will  debut  about  the  incredible  bravery  of  the  men  fighting  for  their  lives  in Benghazi  and  the  politicians  that  abandoned  them.  I  want  to  speak  to  all  our  fighting  men  and  women.
I  want  to  speak  to  all  the  moms  and  dads  whose  sons  and  daughters  are  fighting  for  this  country,  and  the  incredible  sense  of  betrayal when  you  have  a  commander-­in-­chief  who  will  not  even  speak  the  name  of  our  enemy,  radical  Islamic  terrorism,  when  you  have  a commander-­in-­  chief  who  sends  $150  billion  to  the  Ayatollah  Khamenei,  who's  responsible  for  murdering  hundreds  of  our servicemen  and  women.
I  want  to  speak  to  all  of  those  maddened  by  political  correctness,  where  Hillary  Clinton  apologizes  for  saying  all  lives  matter.  This  will end.  It  will  end  on  January  2017.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 28 of 28
And  if  I  am  elected  president,  to  every  soldier  and  sailor  and  airman  and  marine,  and  to  every  police  officer  and  firefighter  and  first responder  who  risk  their  lives  to  keep  us  safe,  I  will  have  your  back.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Mr.  Donald  Trump?
TRUMP:  I  stood  yesterday  with  75  construction  workers.  They're  tough,  they're  strong,  they're  great  people.  Half  of  them  had  tears pouring  down  their  face.  They  were  watching  the  humiliation  of  our  young  ten  sailors,  sitting  on  the  floor  with  their  knees  in  a  begging position,  their  hands  up.
And  Iranian  wise  guys  having  guns  to  their  heads.  It  was  a  terrible  sight.  A  terrible  sight.  And  the  only  reason  we  got  them  back  is because  we  owed  them  with  a  stupid  deal,  $150  billion.  If  I'm  president,  there  won't  be  stupid  deals  anymore.
We  will  make  America  great  again.  We  will  win  on  everything  we  do.  Thank  you.  [applause]
BARTIROMO:  Candidates,  thank  you.
CAVUTO:  Gentlemen,  thank  you  all.  All  of  you.  That  wraps  up  our  debate.  We  went  a  little  bit  over  here.  But  we  wanted  to  make  sure everyone  was  able  to  say  their  due.  He's  upset.  All  right.  Thank  you  for  joining  us.  Much  more  to  come  in  the  Spin  Room  ahead.
Citation:  Presidential  Candidates  Debates:  "Republican  Candidates  Debate  in  North  Charleston,  South  Carolina",  January  14,  2016.  Online  by  Gerhard
Peters  and  John  T.  Woolley,  The  American  Presidency  Project.  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=111395.
  
©  1999-­2011  -­  Gerhard  Peters  -­  The  American  Presidency  Project

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 19
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 19
 


CM  



  !"### "!"$"" "%&&''!()" *+,
),-" ./. .# 0*0#1"232#*!*01"/ !"!

4#**"31"56

"1/"+.#+#/2#-78' &8*9'::7 ' '

;,--,<=!"### "+.#- & 8*)! 9' >'?8 @/&!: 1 .?  7 ?+8+ 88'*+'' %9'@%''* &7?  '':?:,  ': :  7?'&8@ '&

2 +:'  :7 '@::?/&?8 *'?'!8)?  +. %8' :.'&+  &? 9 ': ?&' 8*?: 

41"$A!"# "6

!#3!/* 46+ "!"3!!"-'' '8+&?  &':' ?@ ? 8 :"&?))&

*/0+ #3" #"4&)&6-88 87+!  + &?   ??:

/* -:'&   @ 9 :' 8??:?  :+#5

*/0-::: ' &+ :8 :8&'&  ':

/* -'&7:?'?+8?'7+'@ ?:'+B :77+!*/0- '+  

7

/* -0@&7



(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 19
*/0-1:&7 8:@':8 8
'8 87 7')+C@ 
""!/D46+ "!"3!!"-@&?7?@&?' @&? 
*/0-%  '&???  :' 888?2
/D-?@: '?>88''&: ? & &'7+': +  : 
*/0-18*:+: '& & 2
"*#/1#46+ "!"3!!"-0:&7 ?:&  9'+''?%?:'>  ' 2?9  '2&:
*/0-?E5 #8 : 8  8&? 8#%?
$#AE#.5.46+ "!"3!!"-'&?  +:?++!+C+&  88' @:7 @&?
4"!A!"# "6
## "-*?>8/&?8*'8' @: :
9'%8$# :F
*/0-9++:C'')'! 1!?+'7+8+ :7:' 88: '?' C  
78*:8E5+7: ' && :8'18 *
B ?8:+
## "-0*?+7&?
:8 7!:?
  '+')  &'.'C.   ' %'7@'72?8 &'?@'7''&&  ?8  ? ??'97 ?*))3 : 1
,
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 19
41"$A!"# "6

## "-.   !?&??'  ': ?F

;,-B-,=/* -9+8 +*+'8'7&8 +8&? :* : : 88 &? 8':: 

## "-!?7@ * '88&F'  '0&&? 

/* -7?' 7?'?7?'78&7? #:1'??@:>:??7'+* : 07?8&:?@ :@   78@  @  C  8?7'@ + '))&?++'@> ?8?8?& ? & >::@   

## "-''?G+:' ? 0 '?27,)
 :&# 5'% &8?'2#+&F

/* -778''+7@& 58* '   +:'?.'? ''* +''?))

## "-.'? #8@'#))/* -'? #1+ * .'

+?7'+@ :  '* +'?88*   '  8*  @  7'   &?'#7'#&?'&?+?8

## "-07?@'F

/* -9+& #@807.8#$ ?  87@'#+?7)+'>&:? 78'? ?78@77+ ?8+

## "-85)8?'#+5?'2: @ >?C+8?@ 8 ':?&))

/* -9+78'#8'2+?+?@  :?8 

## "-07?@  F

/* -7+??7@&  ::?    07'+78 @'?8 0778?77 + 

## "-0' 877F

/* -' 877


(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 19
## "-8? &+ +?@& +?78: ??  F
/* -9+?&8 1+?7'+?83@?? 8' :?&
,+@?+:?B1@'?8 +?':+:@?:'8&?' ''9': '' + '
+7+:''7'&:+&:07'+? 
## "-&
/* - '::&&1&))
## "-078 ?'?&? +?F
/* -+? .? ?7'+@787? 7:& ??@7"& 7
## "-8 &+?@&))?+8?+ @@ :?F:F
/* -78? &:88:?+8?  &? :?8 +7? ':@ &8 '+' 8:+@7'+:7'
## "-0@&8?' ?>8'7
/* -&:? 7
## "-'&&+?7F
/* -9+7@?'7?'*&?  .  .  '&?+&?: +?7'+'&+8? '+@:?8?8+4/!13"6+:&?:?@ '?  ?  3?$1"&?8 &?8@ ''@:&' ?''&??' F
## "-'?7':@F
/* -7:!7+87?.':!7@!7 7:?+@ 8:8+ ?.'&? ?
;,-
-B=## "-! ?7F
/* -+@:? ?7+?&1'?+ 8+8'+'@&8'' ' ::' '8+?7?7'%#7+'?7
## "-!?7  8?+?7'+'>7+'+'+788  F
/* -7.'@?>7 +' +?7'++?
<
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 19
## "-'7?7 F

/* -@7''+7&?::? 1?:8@'@8788 C +@&& ? 7'8: +?7'+8 ? ':87

## "-'7?:C1>: +&? & ' ?'8$# F+?':?+?'::8 : ?.'?'8$# F

/* -#59+7: ?8+&' '))@&:&8 HH C8:8)+:8'@ @ &@8 '8 +8?'@&

## "-:!F

/* -:!@ ::?:'  ??&8  &  8+@:8@  >7@:8C':?:*8   *8? &1?'?+&0 *8+@: ?+*+'@    7 *+B?+?+@&&&:8+:@:& 

## "-?'$# F

/* -++@?'@&&@7:07'?? ))E:1?&&+#5.&&?+'88 7F+'F&&?&&&'1&'::?@ &&+:'

## "-0?1'?

4"!A!"# "6

## "-.'?@? $# :&? 8

+7:&?'?'*?@+888  8'?:?'' !:88:? 

4#**"31"56

;,-
-B=## "-''/&!:'?'   '@::+88

*'?&'8)8: ?+!'+ ''?':8 :?'+  &:'1

41"$A!"# "6

## "-0?1'?+?:))

B
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 19
/* -"% :88:'+'?  : ' 88:: ::+: %&: 8?07'+8?7:7+&: ?898 1C?8&''87
B+
I? '?  + :887E'? 88
## "-1??):+3?5''+?7'+&:? %?+@8?.??@  : 8  ++@?%'@88
/* -+&3??'@  8+8   ' 88:8+?+&+ #5?  ?8:?&?& ' ?:@?&+ E &?'18 >:9'   +?7'@+ @?'%'
## "-07:<B%))
/* -@&7:88%&)@?'     +'8'@7 
## "-1'8 /* ->&?? ?
&?''77 ??:'@ '7&7:8'  ?+#57:?:8 +8+8   E+E+:?'?+'??  &?B %B?<B8:??  +8+'?&? ?  
## "-?  F
/* -:??7''  F9?'?  +' ?:':'&9?'?
+?  ? '?  7 >:% ?7  '
## "-0'?8+:&?+::+ 07': ?:?7'?@71H9EH'>? ? >?8&+%+? ? $# @ ')&  &8?.'? ::  $# :7 F
;,-,-=/* -37+88+8'& '>+?' 8? + ? +
? *8?'&? 7 '''' +?7'+*+@& 8,<?@&&? 7
## "-@8 &?? @:  '))
/* -1? 07''?@ 8F?! ??&&:8@7?8&

(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 19
&:8+@ 8? :
?&+?&&&:8+ ?@7 ::?@
(?&&:8?  &8 >'7 '7 
## "-'3?$ :'?C':7 :': .'? ' 8C
/* -0+#5373%'&?.'&???'? '?:?& :3?$&  73?$'C+C3?$' '''<'E?' ? '88 .'8.8 +#5+ .8 88@7: ::?#5+'?
&7 7 :!!! ?8'' 9':7 : '&: 8?07''?'&: 8?F1+8 ?7 .'7?+#5F'8'F'770 
## "-'$# 88! 1+))F
/* -':'&?'&:: '&? /'&+8@8:' 8+@&?: :9&88?+?&& ? 89@&9& ? 
9  @&8?  &: ':78 : : 782'
,&8 :?   @ :8 '&+ 
07'+&?:8+&: :7'8*    '&:'''8+ ? '?'  8?8'' 8/9&:''?&78?
'7?:CC?8%:?9 '8  ?7 &98%:??F
4"!A!"# "6
## "-9+? %+?:C+ &8 +  *8&'>
''8 @!: '8.? 18 88'78'%'* >?82@ ?
4#**"31"56
;,-,I-BB=## "-9@8'?8!:
I
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 19
*/& :  ?&0' 8 
'+ +:':: /&?8*@2@? ? ! ''&88' : *  * .'.'9''?+'7: &C': ' ?+   88 ?2
41"$A!"# "6
## "-'7?:C07:+?7'+?7: 8: 8%:
/* -.@?8%:
## "-C?8%:?9 '8  ?7&9 8%:??F#'?'7F
/* -@ 
## "-?'7'!F
/* -.?+'H8H#5
## "-.'7  79 F
/* -A?9& 7:?? 9&))?77 &'+:?'?++?@&7''9&& ??& 8'1% %&?:? 3?5'+:?'?+&?%
% :?@ ?:7?&?07'++?& ?8?1:J8+: 7 8C& ' & ?&?
"&?! ':7"&?: '))? ' :79'@F'+?/?&  88??@707''?F@ ?' ',''&## "-! !
:F
/* -9+@'?'+
## "-1&&'?7+@ 
/* -'C7888'C8:
;,--=2' F2'? F
' :7  ? +H.?+'' :7'7FH
(
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 19
'+?@  &?   :7'7@.8: 9 ?F.'?8':9
## "-9?'7'!F9?8F
/* -#5988+@'&+::' ?:7?&K,B+::?KB1 &?K,B ': ? ?@: 
))&  ?>%?& :? @: ?:7&:
#51? 9& 7:9&'79&:9@: '?:
## "- ?7'!  F
/* -#8?#8?0@:8%:37+8:?' ?':':0& :#5
## "-77+?7'+:&&7+?7  #:??88 C? :?"&  ?& 7.??@))?@ ?7 :>7 : ?':
/* -@>'37+>'+@>'' ?'@:?@&? 8%: ?'&))@&707: 7'8C:? '@&? 9 ':80'@7?))> ?7'+7:@#5+''  ?'77
## "-!?
/* -':':'
## "-!?& : ))?  8  F8
/* -8 8  ??@  '77+8' + '@ +     ::8& @' 
## "-@7?? 7F
/* -0+:@  7:
## "- 
/* -@  7:
## "-#8 ?))?:?@&:  .&?7 :))8'8 8 '&9?7F
/* -28+::&? 88"&?88@

(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 19
' L@?
@' +?7'+'??'.'@ '?07'+:8&87L@88.@
 ??+88?1&
## "-@ &'
/* -.  ?1.'7+H9+@7'H@'8'& 71@8 @?@7:?  LF ' :8''?'&?@'7' 37
## "-9'?8 'F
/* -3>?$ L+?+'8'7?8 ?'8'&?8?&? @  ?*":8 L+#5F':+   "&? +?7'+@
'8.'+''::88F:?07'+?+' '@  ?+:. .7.'878
'?':F0 L@.&837+'@$8+ :+.?9@.+'':88:8
## "-!?7?
/* -:L77''E??L
## "-!?7'''F
/* -7 ))  @9& :8@:&:8
## "-8F
/* -0@  &8 #50@  C+ F1?@&8  1@'&:&?& 9&:&?8'@ ' ?'&8/
## "- L
/* -8*
;,-B-
=## "- L+':'':'' 8F
/* -9+@:@&?8@&?:?@7'''
37+'?  +?C97''F
## "-17F
/* -:?7
<? &::?'+?'88 ?'7?7@:&:
07 +
(7*?+?  *?'+:?


(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 19
'+:?'?'7:+:+:@7  @ :&:?+?& :8
## "-07:  8880'&?
/* -@&? 
## "-0'' 888F
/* -++@&? 
4"!A!"#3 6
## "-!?:''? .'8@ ?'  '7:': 9'7:?+' )) '7:'' +@&? 
3@ 7'?% /&!!:' 8'>'?9@  : ?&+ -"
7
4#**"31"56
## "-37 '* 9@,8'.? 1':8 88!:@:  /&!:?&
'?+&':8!888: '??? &?'''@&+' '@? &:
;,-<-
=7+ GA8:?*?@77: 0@1+8@7&'''888:8:7 9':  888F
41"$A!"#3 6
0'' 888F
/* -++@&? 8&??'&'9&:?'' &:'
## "-! 8': '
/* -@?79& 88?7''&
## "-9F5 F
/* -0&?&'   @?'??  0 7'+?8$  77$  
 +' #50@77@ ?'7' : @8&? &?'8
37+'@  &: 9? '88888 '  "&? +<+B+



(



Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 19

## "-9??'&? +?' ? '?? ? 

/* -9&?  &'

## "-9 F

/* -9&%'

## "-! 88F

/* -+@:'&%'7

## "-9%'F

/* -+% '? &?@?& '&&?? : :

## "-$&&'@'?))@:

/* -7'+:+?7''+@8?@&? '@'$& &"&?:?:&$&&? ??+@7 ::#59? 9&?' 89&'9@' ': 

78))7':''@ @+?7'+' ?>88,8 ?>'<? '   :': 

## "-9??'': +'8?F

/* -@'7' @'7' ## "-7$*.?

/* -2?@:'7'?+?7'+'@'?@:8   '8??#5

## "-.2)$22.8+? 8 ? 8  

/* -#+?7''++8 :'@&:8  8?? @&7))&:&'L7?@:'& 8 :@ 

## "-1?7:'8  '@ ?F

/* -9@8   ? 9& :: ?# 88 #?8 #?8 #: 8 '

07'+8:  F'@ +8 *"9&8 &?'8?'&77'@'  L1:''?#: '

8?:+'' ))?''? 7!


,
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 19
?7F
## "-0+?
/* -#5
## "-'???8': F
/* -@8':   :'':&%': 87@''':8?'88 '@'':''@: & '? '
## "-#))?
/* -+ '   &? ?? & ?:& +& ?88& ?'+?7 ?  &'?7 :''78'? 88 @F#5?@:&?:&
## "-7:
/* -8+>+'&: 8'@  :+'&:  '9?&$.?? +H#+@:'?7 +H@ '?'@ 
## "- 7?'8? & &?#:&?   8?E8 7?'+@7+ F
/* -#+?:?@  7'
## "-:?@:
/* -++'%
## "-2'  '8 :72*?:
/* -+>7
;,-<B-=97 ?:&?:''
## "-1?@ ?
/* -#+?88?
## "-: 
/* -+@ @888@ 9&+' 7:
## "-17'@: ?8F
/* -+9:?87888@':8@8+@' :??7'07
## "-7?


(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 19
/* -'7+ ?+: 707'+@ :

## "- C+?'+@ C*?'7 F

/* -@&? C"&?:+@ C88 ? :

## "-8' ?? +H#+7+?''  + :7 *?+?7'+'7&:' '?@H/* -'?&:'0:?88 ''?+?

## "-0:?8??'F

/* -0

## "-0@ :?

/* - C+ C:'8 ?@&

## "-1@ C?'7 :

/* -? C':+78?':   

8: +8:   +?@7+:87?+?@7 ??' C

## "-2?+:' +?%+:88F

3' ?:8?F

/* -@ L7@  :88?++'  

:?'?+@7''?8:+:&? ':+&?)) ! +* C07'+?988  +:+'@@I

'+''++  : & '?@  :  & 

*?+H#+:?+'@':? H'  : & +? '7'?'?'

7  :88'+?:' +:'8'?8)7)) @ +: ?  @: ?  8':8

' ?778 77+8@7+&?8

## "-!?7?@  ?F

/* -&?8+@?:.?@:?


<
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 19
@: * +?: '0707'+''?7:07'+  8:+??
18?#+@&+8? ?&+?2+@&
1@:  28+@'2
## "-9?:C8@F
/* -0+@8
## "-0':'C
/* -@7@ :7@))87?+'?7+7@&??7 ?:7+? :+:7+@7
@: :'::?+?+@1 ???':
## "-+:+' ?@% 88+:?@:?8? F
/* -:8+:@:?+?7'+7*  :88* :+?7'+?'07'+L+'*&:F7  @  78
1*:+?7'+?+:?'': '5  +:@  '* .@  '++ ?7'?'
## "-.&@'1++ '&?'
/* -+'* .@&#5
+?7'++'88@'* ))@7 :#+@7 :* 
8@'* +'.#5.@&
+@: '?+'@&:?  '8 
:  &?: +8?'7'## "-*+7?
/* -.& 
## "-
4"!A!"#3 6
7:&'E+'@&'!
7+'@7:'7 8!+1+.?: 7: :
?'+'@: :7
4#**"31"56
;,-B-
<=## "-9+/&!!:': >8'8

B
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 19
'?' >78@8%9@7 8':!:&/&?8*' @&?:?'78  8?&'$# 8)+'88!' '!&?   8'
E  ''H HE5 8 ?$1 0 7'+@ .??'@7 :.@'8  '
E#.5$+.#+H!" #3H-07'&' :?"?'? &?+ :707L:3?5'% '7 +!'&?8.'&>73? 5'.'7.'&::&
.?:: :8 8'' 7:+7: .@&? : &? +? 87?+'+
## "-.@887  :7'*?:8:' 7'7))?@7?: 89
121:
5$-?F''
## "-@:8'88:: :?+?7'+ :878$3#1#$"+."2 #3330-07'+ ?%:88)+7+ '? '?? :+?+& +#5+?1'?7 L+8!' 7+7+7
;,-BB-=5$-. 8'? C@ ?7+@ ?7+ 
## "-': *C+2'7/&7?>  :9?7  'F+9: ? '8'+ >
3*""!"D+2/##" #!"-0++7?@ 7  :+:&?8?3+'/&7' 
+88+3&?@'@88 :+ +8+??
'?&?3&?8?' 9?7:+@?+?7'+? ?+?+@ @? ?"!?+?7!
## "-++@&:'?'!&? 3 & 
@'?8?8$# !@?'?? 7:!


(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 19
*""!"D-7?':7!@?8&  %8'$# 8
?+& ?&>?83&? ?8@7  :0? 7@8&8: ?&
L+8@?+8C+ 8  F
1#$"-+?7'+ +?@.?  #:  %& 1L8
*""!"D-01#$"-:8  '&:+@&?:  3?'@''
5$-78L+'?7 F?&+: ? :83?+&?+:@'+ :@88A
+'8'8#%'7+: +& @/&:
+'7771:+?7'+?@  ' :?+': +'7'?
9+2 3?+8:8:  
?&8?+?&+?&
+  ?* +#:88'? 2
## "-.?))+8'*  &+?7'+8'8'?888'?F
*""!"D-'+7 &+':
( 8?& @::?&8&'& '
+&7?&8+'' ? 8
+7?&:?8 ?87''* +? "!?
1#$"-@&+ + F7+?7'+:?''2 ??+&::+?7'+?'?+88 
+?7'+8'''
## "->8 +?&8 ? +1++C '* +8+?'

I
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 19
8'+ + 5$-?+   +?&'   . ?@#50+'79@' * +@: 1+' :8? ?8'  L' +:+87#++8+8 & ' 2%3 ' +' )  '  )  %?:  8' 8 +' :7+8'78  +?:&7:87 +: 7 8?+@'@8:?+ ## "- +' &    F+''8 ?  1#$"-0 ## "-8:&821+?  : 8 )  ? F 1#$"-7? @?+:7+?81 ' @ ':788.'&? &8:7@ ## "-0+'+'7E5 $1 +*C+@ &?7 ?8>  9'88:@:
'?' ;,
--='8&'@:& 8'.

(
(

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
 
 
 

  
 

 
!"#$%&''(#)$* %+ ,$ -+"+
+
 .-


/0
1 /.. " 
-
&2//
2/ -
... 
34  /'3 $/+
 -+%+ +
-2/ 5

-


/
/+/
 2 " 
---
&++
//

 
+--.-
./22/ /
3+/
.
-'3 )/

 
+/&$ -+
2
-3/ /  )
-&3/.67++ 24/ *  -&4
.8&2//
2/   +)
-' 
--


/+/
.&/2/ 


-5
4,-/ '9&2/ 
/-
4
)
-&  
3-83#-" 
-
' 3).22+/1 ...#-
2-/&
/&:2
/

 ++/2/ /  )
-22&3$ -+/2 2-+
/' 2- 
5
+
&
/2 23/ 
./ 

.. 
.-/ "
3/
2/ 1 
 -
 
' $/2  3

-/-&+/8.'''//&3/
'3/ /& /2'$/54 //-/22. ))
/2 2. )
-
&25422/5
/++'3 $ -+
/&.&/2  
/;  /./+
-+


 --+#-
.-4
&. /
-++-
-+ / .." 
-

/ +
 ' 3(/)<-&)2
 
+--.-
./22//
+/
.

/
& + 
 2.  
/2/
/
&3/
' //+
./0 -&*-"&=7&2 #./
'>
+. 

 /
/+'&=&4
&$ -+
/
2+
 ++2/
>4
&  # -'
=

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
$/-- &/
2 
 32+
++
/
++-   '$/5+ &2<422/2<'3 $ -+5
/++

--//+. /

 ++ -
-
 
' //
/-.--/ -/


&/
+ ++
-.2/-//
/
' $ -+/
?/
-&/

/
.-
 
 /-/
++
' 5#$)(*"#&#$)#5 )/
+
/0-

&&2
-8" 
-#-
. 
..
-)
-++.-/&-
4

/ / +  2/
/' 3$/*
- & / 
/+
/
--

&2- 
4 &3
/

+/' /
+.8/''
 # &@ 2.2
8
.  -
1 

/
/?/

' /
++

 2
&+ 

+/ ++
-2/

.-
.-
'/+ /2//0  .)
2
2."
+

  /&/2

 + /
 ' 3)<
-+/2
+/

.-/
/ /4
&/
 
+ 2/-


 2+
4/
 
*&3.& 
&2
.-/2' $ -+/;+2/
/.2. 
/
'
 /
+
2  +#-2-&

 
&:2
/

'$ -+5

 ++- 2-

. //.' 3%)
-
2-&#-&3
$ -+'  
/./
 # ' 3 # -./ 
/
- 
.-/0 22-
 

4
&3/
0 4+
'3- 
 -.-
 / 
A3 B#+  
#(
(
/C :/*
""4D
==

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 11

Donald J. Trump speaks at the Saint Andelm College New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, N.H. on June 13.
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech
06/13/16 03:06 PM EDT
As  posted  on  his  website,  this  is  the  transcript  of  Donald  Trump's  June  13  speech  on  national  security  and terrorism  in  the  wake  of  the  Orlando  massacre.  Underlined  segments  are  the  author's. Thank  you  for  joining  me  today. This  was  going  to  be  a  speech  on  Hillary  Clinton  and  how  bad  a  President,  especially  in  these  times  of Radical  Islamic  Terrorism,  she  would  be. Even  her  former  Secret  Service  Agent,  who  has  seen  her  under  pressure  and  in  times  of  stress,  has  stated that  she  lacks  the  temperament  and  integrity  to  be  president. There  will  be  plenty  of  opportunity  to  discuss  these  important  issues  at  a  later  time,  and  I  will  deliver that  speech  soon. But  today  there  is  only  one  thing  to  discuss:  the  growing  threat  of  terrorism  inside  of  our  borders.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 11 But  today  there  is  only  one  thing  to  discuss:  the  growing  threat  of  terrorism  inside  of  our  borders.
The  attack  on  the  Pulse  Nightclub  in  Orlando,  Florida,  was  the  worst  terrorist  strike  on  our  soil  since September  11th,  and  the  worst  mass  shooting  in  our  country’s  history.
So  many  people  dead,  so  many  people  gravely  injured,  so  much  carnage,  such  a  disgrace.
The  horror  is  beyond  description.
The  families  of  these  wonderful  people  are  totally  devastated.  Likewise,  our  whole  nation,  and  indeed the  whole  world,  is  devastated.
We  express  our  deepest  sympathies  to  the  victims,  the  wounded,  and  their  families.
We  mourn,  as  one  people,  for  our  nation’s  loss  –  and  pledge  our  support  to  any  and  all  who  need  it.
I  would  like  to  ask  now  that  we  all  observe  a  moment  of  silence  for  the  victims  of  the  attack.
[SILENCE]
Our  nation  stands  together  in  solidarity  with  the  members  of  Orlando's  LGBT  Community.
This  is  a  very  dark  moment  in  America’s  history.
A  radical  Islamic  terrorist  targeted  the  nightclub  not  only  because  he  wanted  to  kill  Americans,  but  in order  to  execute  gay  and  lesbian  citizens  because  of  their  sexual  orientation.
It  is  a  strike  at  the  heart  and  soul  of  who  we  are  as  a  nation.
It  is  an  assault  on  the  ability  of  free  people  to  live  their  lives,  love  who  they  want  and  express  their identity.
Trump: Clinton, Obama protecting terrorists to be 'politically correct'
By LOUIS NELSON
It  is  an  attack  on  the  right  of  every  single  American  to  live  in  peace  and  safety  in  their  own  country.
We  need  to  respond  to  this  attack  on  America  as  one  united  people  –  with  force,  purpose  and determination.
But  the  current  politically  correct  response  cripples  our  ability  to  talk  and  think  and  act  clearly.
If  we  don't  get  tough,  and  we  don't  get  smart  –  and  fast  –  we're  not  going  to  have  a  country  anymore  -there  will  be  nothing  left.
The  killer,  whose  name  I  will  not  use,  or  ever  say,  was  born  to  Afghan  parents  who  immigrated  to  the United  States.  His  father  published  support  for  the  Afghan  Taliban,  a  regime  which  murders  those  who don’t  share  its  radical  views.  The  father  even  said  he  was  running  for  President  of  that  country.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 11 don’t  share  its  radical  views.  The  father  even  said  he  was  running  for  President  of  that  country.
The  bottom  line  is  that  the  only  reason  the  killer  was  in  America  in  the  first  place  was  because  we allowed  his  family  to  come  here.
That  is  a  fact,  and  it's  a  fact  we  need  to  talk  about.
We  have  a  dysfunctional  immigration  system  which  does  not  permit  us  to  know  who  we  let  into  our country,  and  it  does  not  permit  us  to  protect  our  citizens.
We  have  an  incompetent  administration,  and  if  I  am  not  elected  President,  that  will  not  change  over  the next  four  years  --  but  it  must  change,  and  it  must  change  now.
With  fifty  people  dead,  and  dozens  more  wounded,  we  cannot  afford  to  talk  around  the  issue  anymore  -we  have  to  address  it  head  on.
I  called  for  a  ban  after  San  Bernardino,  and  was  met  with  great  scorn  and  anger  but  now,  many  are  saying I  was  right  to  do  so  --  and  although  the  pause  is  temporary,  we  must  find  out  what  is  going  on.  The  ban will  be  lifted  when  we  as  a  nation  are  in  a  position  to  properly  and  perfectly  screen  those  people  coming into  our  country.
The  immigration  laws  of  the  United  States  give  the  President  the  power  to  suspend  entry  into  the country  of  any  class  of  persons  that  the  President  deems  detrimental  to  the  interests  or  security  of  the United  States,  as  he  deems  appropriate.
I  will  use  this  power  to  protect  the  American  people.  When  I  am  elected,  I  will  suspend  immigration from  areas  of  the  world  when  there  is  a  proven  history  of  terrorism  against  the  United  States,  Europe  or our  allies,  until  we  understand  how  to  end  these  threats.
After  a  full,  impartial  and  long  overdue  security  assessment,  we  will  develop  a  responsible  immigration policy  that  serves  the  interests  and  values  of  America.
We  cannot  continue  to  allow  thousands  upon  thousands  of  people  to  pour  into  our  country,  many  of whom  have  the  same  thought  process  as  this  savage  killer.
Many  of  the  principles  of  Radical  Islam  are  incompatible  with  Western  values  and  institutions.
Radical  Islam  is  anti-woman,  anti-gay  and  anti-American.
I  refuse  to  allow  America  to  become  a  place  where  gay  people,  Christian  people,  and  Jewish  people,  are the  targets  of  persecution  and  intimidation  by  Radical  Islamic  preachers  of  hate  and  violence.
Trump attacks Obama: 'He's got something else in mind'
By NICK GASS
It’s  not  just  a  national  security  issue.  It  is  a  quality  of  life  issue. If  we  want  to  protect  the  quality  of  life  for  all  Americans  –  women  and  children,  gay  and  straight,  Jews

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 11 If  we  want  to  protect  the  quality  of  life  for  all  Americans  –  women  and  children,  gay  and  straight,  Jews and  Christians  and  all  people  –  then  we  need  to  tell  the  truth  about  Radical  Islam.
We  need  to  tell  the  truth,  also,  about  how  Radical  Islam  is  coming  to  our  shores.
We  are  importing  Radical  Islamic  Terrorism  into  the  West  through  a  failed  immigration  system  --  and through  an  intelligence  community  held  back  by  our  president.
Even  our  own  FBI  Director  has  admitted  that  we  cannot  effectively  check  the  backgrounds  of  the  people we  are  letting  into  America.
All  of  the  September  11th  hijackers  were  issued  visas.
Large  numbers  of  Somali  refugees  in  Minnesota  have  tried  to  join  ISIS.
The  Boston  Bombers  came  here  through  political  asylum.
The  male  shooter  in  San  Bernardino  –  again,  whose  name  I  won't  mention  --  was  the  child  of  immigrants from  Pakistan,  and  he  brought  his  wife  –  the  other  terrorist  -  from  Saudi  Arabia,  through  another  one  of our  easily  exploited  visa  programs.
Immigration  from  Afghanistan  into  the  United  States  has  increased  nearly  five-fold  in  just  one  year. According  to  Pew  Research,  99%  of  people  in  Afghanistan  support  oppressive  Sharia  Law.
We  admit  many  more  from  other  countries  in  the  region  who  share  these  same  oppressive  views.
If  we  want  to  remain  a  free  and  open  society,  then  we  have  to  control  our  borders.
Yet,  Hillary  Clinton  –  for  months  and  despite  so  many  attacks  –  repeatedly  refused  to  even  say  the  words “radical  Islam,”  until  I  challenged  her  yesterday  to  say  the  words  or  leave  the  race.
However,  Hillary  Clinton  –  who  has  been  forced  to  say  the  words  today  after  policies  she  supports  have caused  us  so  much  damage  –  still  has  no  clue  what  Radical  Islam  is,  and  won’t  speak  honestly  about what  it  is.
She  is  in  total  denial,  and  her  continuing  reluctance  to  ever  name  the  enemy  broadcasts  weakness  across the  world.
In  fact,  just  a  few  weeks  before  the  San  Bernardino  slaughter,  Hillary  Clinton  explained  her  refusal  to  say the  words  Radical  Islam.  Here  is  what  she  said:  “Muslims  are  peaceful  and  tolerant  people,  and  have nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  terrorism.”
Hillary  Clinton  says  the  solution  is  to  ban  guns.  They  tried  that  in  France,  which  has  among  the  toughest gun  laws  in  the  world,  and  130  were  brutally  murdered  by  Islamic  terrorists  in  cold  blood.  Her  plan  is  to disarm  law-abiding  Americans,  abolishing  the  2nd  amendment,  and  leaving  only  the  bad  guys  and
terrorists  with  guns.  She  wants  to  take  away  Americans’  guns,  then  admit  the  very  people  who  want  to

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 11 terrorists  with  guns.  She  wants  to  take  away  Americans’  guns,  then  admit  the  very  people  who  want  to slaughter  us.
I  will  be  meeting  with  the  NRA,  which  has  given  me  their  earliest  endorsement  in  a  Presidential  race,  to discuss  how  to  ensure  Americans  have  the  means  to  protect  themselves  in  this  age  of  terror.
The  bottom  line  is  that  Hillary  supports  the  policies  that  bring  the  threat  of  Radical  Islam  into  America, and  allow  it  to  grow  overseas.
In  fact,  Hillary  Clinton’s  catastrophic  immigration  plan  will  bring  vastly  more  Radical  Islamic immigration  into  this  country,  threatening  not  only  our  security  but  our  way  of  life.
When  it  comes  to  Radical  Islamic  terrorism,  ignorance  is  not  bliss  –  it's  deadly.
The  Obama  Administration,  with  the  support  of  Hillary  Clinton  and  others,  has  also  damaged  our security  by  restraining  our  intelligence-gathering  and  failing  to  support  law  enforcement.  They  have  put political  correctness  above  common  sense,  above  your  safety,  and  above  all  else.
I  refuse  to  be  politically  correct.
I  will  do  the  right  thing--I  want  to  straighten  things  out  and  to  Make  America  Great  Again.
The  days  of  deadly  ignorance  will  end,  and  they  will  end  soon.
As  President  I  will  give  our  intelligence  community,  law  enforcement  and  military  the  tools  they  need  to prevent  terrorist  attacks.
We  need  an  intelligence-gathering  system  second  to  none.  That  includes  better  cooperation  between state,  local  and  federal  officials  –  and  with  our  allies.
I  will  have  an  Attorney  General,  a  Director  of  National  Intelligence,  and  a  Secretary  of  Defense  who  will know  how  to  fight  the  war  on  Radical  Islamic  Terrorism  –  and  who  will  have  the  support  they  require  to get  the  job  done.
We  also  must  ensure  the  American  people  are  provided  the  information  they  need  to  understand  the threat.
The  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Immigration  has  already  identified  hundreds  of  immigrants  charged  with terrorist  activities  inside  the  United  States  since  September  11th.
Nearly  a  year  ago,  the  Senate  Subcommittee  asked  President  Obama's  Departments  of  Justice,  State  and Homeland  Security  to  provide  the  immigration  history  of  all  terrorists  inside  the  United  States.
These  Departments  refused  to  comply.
President  Obama  must  release  the  full  and  complete  immigration  histories  of  all  individuals  implicated

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 11 President  Obama  must  release  the  full  and  complete  immigration  histories  of  all  individuals  implicated in  terrorist  activity  of  any  kind  since  9/11.
The  public  has  a  right  to  know  how  these  people  got  here.
We  have  to  screen  applicants  to  know  whether  they  are  affiliated  with,  or  support,  radical  groups  and beliefs.
Trump takes credit for 'being right on radical Islamic terrorism'
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL and KRISTEN EAST
We  have  to  control  the  amount  of  future  immigration  into  this  country  to  prevent  large  pockets  of radicalization  from  forming  inside  America.
Even  a  single  individual  can  be  devastating,  just  look  at  what  happened  in  Orlando.  Can  you  imagine large  groups?
Truly,  our  President  doesn't  know  what  he  is  doing.  He  has  failed  us,  and  failed  us  badly,  and  under  his leadership,  this  situation  will  not  get  any  better  --  it  will  only  get  worse.
Each  year,  the  United  States  permanently  admits  more  than  100,000  immigrants  from  the  Middle  East, and  many  more  from  Muslim  countries  outside  the  Middle  East.  Our  government  has  been  admitting ever-growing  numbers,  year  after  year,  without  any  effective  plan  for  our  security.
In  fact,  Clinton's  State  Department  was  in  charge  of  the  admissions  process  for  people  applying  to  enter from  overseas.
Having  learned  nothing  from  these  attacks,  she  now  plans  to  massively  increase  admissions  without  a screening  plan,  including  a  500%  increase  in  Syrian  refugees.
This  could  be  a  better,  bigger  version  of  the  legendary  Trojan  Horse.
We  can't  let  this  happen.
Altogether,  under  the  Clinton  plan,  you'd  be  admitting  hundreds  of  thousands  of  refugees  from  the Middle  East  with  no  system  to  vet  them,  or  to  prevent  the  radicalization  of  their  children.
The  burden  is  on  Hillary  Clinton  to  tell  us  why  she  believes  immigration  from  these  dangerous  countries should  be  increased  without  any  effective  system  to  screen  who  we  are  bringing  in.
The  burden  is  on  Hillary  Clinton  to  tell  us  why  we  should  admit  anyone  into  our  country  who  supports violence  of  any  kind  against  gay  and  lesbian  Americans.
The  burden  is  also  on  Hillary  Clinton  to  tell  us  how  she  will  pay  for  it.  Her  plan  will  cost  Americans hundreds  of  billions  of  dollars  long-term.
Wouldn't  this  money  be  better  spent  on  rebuilding  America  for  our  current  population,  including  the

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 11 Wouldn't  this  money  be  better  spent  on  rebuilding  America  for  our  current  population,  including  the many  poor  people  already  living  here?
We  have  to  stop  the  tremendous  flow  of  Syrian  refugees  into  the  United  States  –  we  don't  know  who  they are,  they  have  no  documentation,  and  we  don't  know  what  they're  planning.
What  I  want  is  common  sense.  I  want  a  mainstream  immigration  policy  that  promotes  American  values.
That  is  the  choice  I  put  before  the  American  people:  a  mainstream  immigration  policy  designed  to benefit  America,  or  Hillary  Clinton's  radical  immigration  policy  designed  to  benefit  politically-correct special  interests.
We've  got  to  get  smart,  and  tough,  and  vigilant,  and  we've  got  to  do  it  now,  because  later  is  too  late.
The  media  talks  about  “homegrown,”  terrorism,  but  Islamic  radicalism,  and  the  networks  that  nurture  it, are  imports  from  overseas.
Yes,  there  are  many  radicalized  people  already  inside  our  country  as  a  result  of  the  poor  policies  of  the past.  But  the  whole  point  is  that  it  will  be  much,  much  easier  to  deal  with  our  current  problem  if  we don’t  keep  on  bringing  in  people  who  add  to  the  problem.
For  instance,  the  controversial  Mosque  attended  by  the  Boston  Bombers  had  as  its  founder  an  immigrant from  overseas  charged  in  an  assassination  plot.
This  shooter  in  Orlando  was  the  child  of  an  immigrant  father  who  supported  one  of  the  most  repressive regimes  on  Earth.  Why  would  we  admit  people  who  support  violent  hatred?
Hillary  Clinton  can  never  claim  to  be  a  friend  of  the  gay  community  as  long  as  she  continues  to  support immigration  policies  that  bring  Islamic  extremists  to  our  country  who  suppress  women,  gays  and anyone  who  doesn’t  share  their  views.
She  can’t  have  it  both  ways.  She  can’t  claim  to  be  supportive  of  these  communities  while  trying  to increase  the  number  of  people  coming  in  who  want  to  oppress  them.
How  does  this  kind  of  immigration  make  our  life  better?  How  does  this  kind  of  immigration  make  our country  better?
Why  does  Hillary  Clinton  want  to  bring  people  here—in  vast  numbers—who  reject  our  values?
Ask  yourself,  who  is  really  the  friend  of  women  and  the  LGBT  community,  Donald  Trump  with  his actions,  or  Hillary  Clinton  with  her  words?  Clinton  wants  to  allow  Radical  Islamic  terrorists  to  pour  into our  country—they  enslave  women,  and  murder  gays.
I  don’t  want  them  in  our  country.
Immigration  is  a  privilege,  and  we  should  not  let  anyone  into  this  country  who  doesn’t  support  our

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 11 Immigration  is  a  privilege,  and  we  should  not  let  anyone  into  this  country  who  doesn’t  support  our communities  –  all  of  our  communities.
America  has  already  admitted  four  times  more  immigrants  than  any  country  on  earth,  and  we  continue to  admit  millions  more  with  no  real  checks  or  scrutiny.
Not  surprisingly,  wages  for  our  workers  haven’t  budged  in  many  years.
So  whether  it’s  matter  of  national  security,  or  financial  security,  we  can’t  afford  to  keep  on  going  like  this. We  owe  $19  trillion  in  debt,  and  no  longer  have  options.
All  our  communities,  from  all  backgrounds,  are  ready  for  some  relief.  This  is  not  an  act  of  offense against  anyone;  it  is  an  act  of  defense.
White House smacks down 'small' Trump for Obama attacks
By NICK GASS
I  want  us  all  to  work  together,  including  in  partnership  with  our  Muslim  communities.  But  Muslim communities  must  cooperate  with  law  enforcement  and  turn  in  the  people  who  they  know  are  bad  –  and they  do  know  where  they  are.
I  want  to  fix  our  schools,  roads,  bridges  and  job  market.  I  want  every  American  to  succeed.  Hillary Clinton  wants  to  empty  out  the  Treasury  to  bring  people  into  the  country  that  include  individuals  who preach  hate  against  our  own  citizens.
I  want  to  protect  our  citizens  –  all  of  our  citizens.
The  terrorist  attack  on  the  Pulse  Night  Club  demands  a  full  and  complete  investigation  into  every  aspect of  the  assault.
In  San  Bernardino,  as  an  example,  people  knew  what  was  going  on,  but  they  used  the  excuse  of  racial profiling  for  not  reporting  it.
We  need  to  know  what  the  killer  discussed  with  his  relatives,  parents,  friends  and  associates.
We  need  to  know  if  he  was  affiliated  with  any  radical  Mosques  or  radical  activists  and  what,  if  any,  is their  immigration  status.
We  need  to  know  if  he  travelled  anywhere,  and  who  he  travelled  with.
We  need  to  make  sure  every  single  last  person  involved  in  this  plan  –  including  anyone  who  knew something  but  didn't  tell  us  –  is  brought  to  justice.
If  it  can  be  proven  that  somebody  had  information  about  any  attack,  and  did  not  give  this  information  to authorities,  they  must  serve  prison  time  .
America  must  do  more  –  much  more  –  to  protect  its  citizens,  especially  people  who  are  potential  victims

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 11 America  must  do  more  –  much  more  –  to  protect  its  citizens,  especially  people  who  are  potential  victims of  crimes  based  on  their  backgrounds  or  sexual  orientations.
It  also  means  we  must  change  our  foreign  policy.
The  decision  to  overthrow  the  regime  in  Libya,  then  pushing  for  the  overthrow  of  the  regime  in  Syria, among  other  things,  without  plans  for  the  day  after,  have  created  space  for  ISIS  to  expand  and  grow.
These  actions,  along  with  our  disastrous  Iran  deal,  have  also  reduced  our  ability  to  work  in  partnership with  our  Muslim  allies  in  the  region.
That  is  why  our  new  goal  must  be  to  defeat  Islamic  terrorism,  not  nation-building.
For  instance,  the  last  major  NATO  mission  was  Hillary  Clinton's  war  in  Libya.  That  mission  helped unleash  ISIS  on  a  new  continent.
Christie talks 'radical Islam,' doesn't address Trump's remarks
By MATT FRIEDMAN
I've  said  NATO  needs  to  change  its  focus  to  stopping  terrorism.  Since  I've  raised  that  criticism,  NATO  has since  announced  a  new  initiative  focused  on  just  that.
America  must  unite  the  whole  civilized  world  in  the  fight  against  Islamic  terrorism,  just  like  we  did against  communism  in  the  Cold  War.
We've  tried  it  President  Obama's  way.  He  gave  the  world  his  apology  tour,  we  got  ISIS,  and  many  other problems,  in  return.
I'd  like  to  conclude  my  remarks  today  by  again  expressing  our  solidarity  with  the  people  of  Orlando  who have  come  under  attack.
When  I  am  President,  I  pledge  to  protect  and  defend  all  Americans  who  live  inside  of  our  borders. Wherever  they  come  from,  wherever  they  were  born,  all  Americans  living  here  and  following  our  laws will  be  protected.
America  will  be  a  tolerant  and  open  society.
America  will  also  be  a  safe  society.
We  will  protect  our  borders  at  home.
We  will  defeat  ISIS  overseas.
We  will  ensure  every  parent  can  raise  their  children  in  peace  and  safety.
We  will  make  America  rich  again. We  will  make  America  safe  again.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 11 We  will  make  America  safe  again.
We  will  make  American  Great  Again.
Thank  you.  

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 42
EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 42 MEET  THE  PRESS  JUL  24  2016,  11:47  AM  ET
Meet  the  Press  -­  July  24,  2016
Meet  the  Press  -­  July  24,  2016 CHUCK  TODD: This  Sunday,  the  Democratic  National  Convention  gets  underway  here  in  Philadelphia,  after  a  raucous and  unpredictable  Republican  convention.  That  ended  with  the  nomination  of  Donald  Trump. DONALD  TRUMP: I  am  with  you,  I  will  fight  for  you,  and  I  will  win  for  you. CHUCK  TODD: This  morning,  my  sit-­down  with  Donald  Trump  on  his  convention  speech. DONALD  TRUMP: The  only  negative  reviews  were  a  little  dark. CHUCK  TODD: On  whether  he's  backing  off  on  his  Muslim  band. DONALD  TRUMP: I  actually  don't  think  it's  a  pull-­back.  In  fact,  you  could  say  it's  an  expansion. CHUCK  TODD: And  on  Hillary  Clinton's  choice  of  Tim  Kaine. DONALD  TRUMP: Tim  Kaine  was  a  slap  in  the  face  to  Bernie  Sanders. CHUCK  TODD: Plus  Hillary  Clinton  and  Tim  Kaine  hit  the  road  in  Florida. HILLARY  CLINTON: Tim  Kaine  is  everything  Donald  Trump  and  Mike  Pence  are  not.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
But  some  Bernie  Sanders  supporters  are  criticizing  the  Kaine  pick  as  a  sellout  to  moderates.  I'll  talk  to Sanders  and  get  his  reaction  to  that  and  to  the  DNC  Wikileaks  e-­mail  release.  Joining  me  for  insight  and analysis  are  MSNBC's  Rachel  Maddow,  former  chairman  of  the  RNC,  Michael  Steele,  NBC  News  Chief Foreign  Affairs  Correspondent,  Andrea  Mitchell,  and  host  of  Hardball  and  Philadelphia  hometown  boy, Chris  Matthews.  Trump,  Sanders  and  reactions  to  the  new  Democratic  ticket.  Welcome  to  Sunday,  in  a special  edition  of  Meet  the  Press  at  the  Democratic  National  Convention.
CHUCK  TODD:
Good  Sunday  morning.  We  are  at  the  Wells  Fargo  Center  here  in  South  Philadelphia,  home  of  the  NBA 76ers  and  the  NHL  Broad  Street  Bullies,  the  Fliers.  Democrats  have  begun  to  arrive,  along  with  a  pretty bad  heat  wave.  And  beginning  tomorrow,  they  will  gather  to  officially  nominate  Hillary  Clinton  as  their presidential  candidate.
Yesterday  in  Miami,  Clinton  was  joined  by  her  new  running  mate,  Senator  Tim  Kaine  of  Virginia,  in  an upbeat  event  that  was  notable  simply  by  the  contrast  to  the  disorganized  rollout  of  Donald  Trump's running  mate  a  week  earlier,  Mike  Pence.
(BEGIN  TAPE)
SEN.  TIM  KAINE:
Hillary  Clinton,  she  doesn't  insult  people,  she  listens  to  them.  What  a  novel  concept,  right?  She  doesn't trash  our  allies,  she  respects  them.  And  she'll  always  have  our  backs,  that  is  something  I  am  rock  solid sure  of.
(END  TAPE)
CHUCK  TODD:
We  will  get  to  reaction  to  the  new  Democratic  ticket  later  in  the  show,  including  my  interview  with Senator  Bernie  Sanders  of  Vermont  in  a  moment.  But  first,  we're  going  to  talk  also  about  Sanders,  about those  Wikileaks  emails  and  what  they  may  say  about  DNC  favoritism  towards  Hillary  Clinton.  But  we begin  with  the  man  who  has  now  taken  control  of  the  Republican  Party.  It's  nominee  Donald  Trump.
I  traveled  to  Trump  National  Golf  Club  in  Bedminster,  New  Jersey,  sort  of  his  weekend  getaway,  last night  for  a  face-­to-­face  interview  since  dropping  the  word  "presumptive,"  it's  his  first  one,  from  the nominee  title.  We  touched  on  so  much:  Tim  Kaine,  Trump's  tax  returns,  his  proposed  restrictions  on Muslim  immigration  and  why  he  says  he  alone  can  fix  the  country's  problems.  But  I  began  by  asking  him how  it  feels  to  be  the  Republican  nominee  for  president  of  the  United  States.
(BEGIN  TAPE)

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 42 DONALD  TRUMP:
Well,  it  really  feels  great.  And  we  really  have  a  very  unified  party,  other  than  a  very  small  group  of  people that,  frankly,  lost.  And  we  have  a  very  unified  party.  You  saw  that  the  other  night  with  the  love  in  the room,  and  the  enthusiasm  in  the  room.  The  enthusiasm,  there  are  people  that  say  they  have  never  seen anything  like  what  was  going  on  in  that  room,  especially  Thursday  night.
CHUCK  TODD:
Let  me  tell  you,  you  bring  up  Thursday  night,  I've  got  to  ask  you  about  your  entrance.  Before  we  get serious  here.  That  Monday  night  entrance  was  something  else.  I  know  you've  gotten  a  lot  of  feedback  on it.  How'd  you  come  up  with  it?
DONALD  TRUMP:
I  think  I'm  a  little  bit  lucky,  and  a  couple  of  people  had  that  idea  and  I  went  along  with  the  idea.  And everything  just  worked  right.  And  it  was  so  good  that  they  wanted  to  do  it  on  Thursday  night.  I  said, "Never  in  a  million  years,  because  you'll  never  get  it  that  way  again."
CHUCK  TODD:
I  don't  think  I've  seen  that  even  on  WWE.
DONALD  TRUMP:
Yeah,  I  know.  Well,  Vince  is  a  good  friend  of  mine.  He  called  me,  he  said,  "That  was  a  very,  very  good entrance."  But  I  didn't  want  to  do  it  a  second  time,  because,  you  know,  it  never  works  out  the  second time.
CHUCK  TODD:
All  right,  let's  go  into  the  speech.  I  want  to  put  some  meat  on  the  bones.  But  first,  let's  talk  about,  you've seen  some  of  the  positive  reviews,  some  of  the  negative  reviews.  Some  of  the  negative  has  been  that  it was  a  little  dark-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
That's  the  only  thing  that-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
-­-­that  there  wasn't  enough  optimism  in  it.  What  would  you  say?  It's  not  Morning  in  America.
DONALD  TRUMP:

Yeah.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 42

CHUCK  TODD:

What  would  you  say  to  that?

DONALD  TRUMP:

Well,  I  think  the  only  negativity,  and,  you  know,  the  hate,  I  call  them  the  haters,  and  that's  fine.  But  the only  negative  reviews  were,  "A  little  dark."  And  the  following  day,  they  had  another  attack,  and  then today  you  see  what  happened  in  Afghanistan  with  many,  many  people  killed.

They  have  no  idea  how  many,  so  many  killed.  Yesterday  it  was  Munich.  And  you  know,  I  know  they're saying,  "Maybe  it  wasn't  terrorism.  Maybe  it  was  just  a  crazy  guy."  But  in  the  meantime  he's  screaming, "Allahu  Akbar,"  as  he's  shooting  people,  so,  you  know,  we'll  see  how  that  turns  out.  And  all  of  a  sudden people  are  saying,  "Maybe  it  wasn't  dark  at  all."  But  the  only  thing  that  some  people  said,  "It  was  a  little dark.  It  was  a  little  bit  tough."

CHUCK  TODD:

Do  you  think  it  was  a  little  dark?

DONALD  TRUMP:

No,  oh,  I  thought  it  was  very  optimistic.  To  me,  it  was  an  optimistic  speech,  because-­-­

CHUCK  TODD:

What  makes  it  optimistic  in  your  view?

DONALD  TRUMP:

Because  we're  going  to  stop  the  problems.  We're  going  to  stop  the  problems.  In  other  words,  sure,  I  talk about  the  problems,  but  we're  going  to  solve  the  problems.

CHUCK  TODD:

One  of  the  phrases  you  used,  "I  alone  can  fix  it."  And  to  some  people,  that  sounded  almost  too  strong-­ mannish  for  them.  Do  you  understand  that  criticism  and  what  do  you  make  of  it?

DONALD  TRUMP:

I'll  tell  you,  part  of  it  was  I'm  comparing  myself  to  Hillary.  And  we  know  Hillary,  and  we  look  at  her  record. Her  record  has  been  a  disaster.  And  I  am  running  against  Hillary.  It's  not  like  I'm  running  against  the  rest of  the  world.  I  know  people  that  are  very,  very  capable  that  could  do  a  very  good  job,  but  they  could

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 42 never  get  elected. I  can  tell  you  right  now.  I  can  give  you  ten  names  of  people  that  would  do  an  extraordinary  job,  but there's  no  way  they  could  ever  get  elected.  They  wouldn't  know  where  to  begin.  It  wouldn't  be  for  them. But  for  governing,  they  would  be  good.  I'm  running  and,  you  know,  against  one  person. CHUCK  TODD: You  said  there  would  be  consequences  for  any  company  that  tried  to  move  a  factory  out.  What-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: Absolutely,  so  simple-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: -­-­what  is  the  consequence?  Let's  start  with,  you  bring  up  Carrier  a  lot. DONALD  TRUMP: It's  so  simple-­-­ (OVERTALK) CHUCK  TODD: Right,  I  understand  that.  But  explain  the  consequences-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: Okay,  here's  the  consequence-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: What  would  it  be? DONALD  TRUMP: So  Carrier  comes  in,  they  announce  they're  moving  to  Mexico,  they  fire  all  their  people  in  Indiana,  and they  say,  "Hi,  well,  here  we  are  in  Mexico,  you  know,  enjoy  your  plant,  enjoy  the  rest  of  your  life,"  and you  hire  people  from  Mexico,  okay?  Now  they  make  their  product  and  they  put  it  into  the  United  States. Well,  we  will  have  a  very  strong  border,  by  the  way,  but  they  put  it  into  the  United  States  and  we  don't charge  them  tax.  There  will  be  a  tax  to  be  paid.  If  they're  going  to  fire  all  their  people,  move  their  plant  to Mexico,  build  air  conditioners,  and  think  they're  going  to  sell  those  air  conditioners  to  the  United  States, there's  going  to  be  a  tax.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 42 CHUCK  TODD: What  kind  of  tax  are  you  thinking? DONALD  TRUMP: It  could  be  25  percent.  It  could  be  35  percent.  It  could  be  15  percent.  I  haven't  determined.  And  it  could be  different  for  different  companies.  We  have  been  working  on  trying  to  stop  this  government,  because we  don't  know  what  we're  doing.  And  not  only  Obama,  they've  been  trying  to  stop  this  from  before Obama.  But  they  don't  know.  You  know,  they've  done,  they've  tried  lower  interest  loans,  they've  tried zero  interest  loans,  these  guys-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Well,  some  of  these  things  aren't  going  to  get  through  the  World  Trade  Organization.  There's-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: It  doesn't  matter.  Then  we're  going  to  renegotiate  or  we're  going  to  pull  out.  These  trade  deals  are  a disaster,  Chuck.  World  Trade  Organization  is  a  disaster. CHUCK  TODD: You  know  the  concern  on  some  of  this-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: NAFTA  is  a  disaster-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: -­-­  is  that  it  would  rattle  the  world  economy.  Look  what  Brexit  did  to  the  world  economy.  Investors  got rattled. DONALD  TRUMP: What  did  it  do?  What  did  it  do? CHUCK  TODD: Now  you-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 42 The  stock  market's  higher  now  than  it  was  when  it  happened.  And  by  the  way,  I'm  the  only  one  of  all  of these  people  at  the  higher  level  of  the  wonderful  world  of  politics,  I'm  the  only  one  that  said,  "Brexit's going  to  happen."  Remember,  I  was  asked  the  question.  I  said,  "Yeah,  I  think  they're  going  to  approve  it. I  think  they  want  independence.  I  don't  think  they  want  people  pouring  into  their  country."  And  I  was-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
You're  not  worried  about,  you  think  a  fractured  Europe  is  good  for  America?
DONALD  TRUMP:
No,  no.  But  we're  spending  a  lot  of  money  on  Europe.  Don't  forget,  Europe  got  together,  why,  primarily did  they  get  together?  So  that  they  could  beat  the  United  States  when  it  comes  to  making  money,  in other  words,  foreign  trade-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Economic-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
Okay?  And  now  we  talk  about  Europe  like  it's  so  wonderful.  Hey,  I  love  Europe,  I  have  property  in Europe.  I'm  just  saying,  the  reason  that  it  got  together  was  like  a  consortium  so  that  it  could  compete with  the  United  States-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
So  what  you're  saying  is  all  this  stuff  is  good  for  America,  even  if  it's  not  good  for  Europe?
DONALD  TRUMP:
Look,  you  take  a  look  at  Airbus.  They  make  more  planes  now  than  Boeing,  okay?  They  got  together,  all of  these  countries  got  together  so  that  they  could  beat  the  United  States.  Okay,  so  we're  in  competition. So  you  know,  we're  in  competition  in  one  way,  we're  helping  them  in  another  way.  It  is  so  messed  up.
CHUCK  TODD:
The  Muslim  ban.  I  think  you've  pulled  back  from  it,  but  you  tell  me.
(BEGIN  TAPE)
DONALD  TRUMP:
We  must  immediately  suspend  immigration  from  any  nation  that  has  been  compromised  by  terrorism until  such  time  as  proven  vetting  mechanisms  have  been  put  in  place.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 42 (END  TAPE) CHUCK  TODD: This  feels  like  a  slight  rollback-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: I  don't  think  that's-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Should  it  be  interpreted-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: I  don't  think  so.  I  actually  don't  think  it's  a  rollback.  In  fact,  you  could  say  it's  an  expansion.  I'm  looking now  at  territories.  People  were  so  upset  when  I  used  the  word  Muslim.  Oh,  you  can't  use  the  word Muslim.  Remember  this.  And  I'm  okay  with  that,  because  I'm  talking  territory  instead  of  Muslim. But  just  remember  this:  Our  Constitution  is  great.  But  it  doesn't  necessarily  give  us  the  right  to  commit suicide,  okay?  Now,  we  have  a  religious,  you  know,  everybody  wants  to  be  protected.  And  that's  great. And  that's  the  wonderful  part  of  our  Constitution.  I  view  it  differently. Why  are  we  committing  suicide?  Why  are  we  doing  that?  But  you  know  what?  I  live  with  our Constitution.  I  love  our  Constitution.  I  cherish  our  Constitution.  We're  making  it  territorial.  We  have nations  and  we'll  come  out,  I'm  going  to  be  coming  out  over  the  next  few  weeks  with  a  number  of  the places.  And  it's  very  complex-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Well  I  was  just  going  to  say-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: -­-­we  have  problems  in  Germany  and  we  have  problems  with  France-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: I  was  just  going  to  ask  that.  Will  this  limitt-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: You  know,  so  it's  not  just  the  countries  with-­-­ CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 42 -­-­would  this  limit  immigration  from  France?
DONALD  TRUMP:
What  we're  going  to  have  is  a  thing  called-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
They've  been  compromised  by  terrorism.
DONALD  TRUMP:
They  have  totally  been.  And  you  know  why?  It's  their  own  fault.  Because  they  allowed  people  to  come into  their  territory-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
So  you  would  toughen  up.  You're  basically  saying,  "Hey,  if  the  French  want  to  come  over  here,  you've got  to  go  through  an  extra  check."
DONALD  TRUMP:
It's  their  own  fault,  because  they've  allowed  people  over  years  to  come  into  their  territory.  And  that's  why Brexit  happened,  okay?  Because  the  U.K.  is  saying,  "We're  tired  of  this  stuff,  what's  going  on,  we're  tired of."  But  listen  to  this-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
You  could  get  to  the  point  where  you're  not  allowing  a  lot  of  people  to  come  into  this  country  from  a  lot  of places.
DONALD  TRUMP:
Maybe  we  get  to  that  point.  Chuck,  look  what's  happening.  Look  at  what  just  took  place  in  Afghanistan, where  they  blow  up  a  whole  shopping  center  with  people,  they  have  no  idea  how  many  people  were even  killed.  Happened  today.  So  we  have  to  be  smart  and  we  have  to  be  vigilant  and  we  have  to  be strong.  We  can't  be  the  stupid  people-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
So  France,  Germany,  Spain-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
Here's  my  plan-­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 42 CHUCK  TODD: -­-­places  that  have  been  compromised? DONALD  TRUMP: -­-­here  is  what  I  want:  Extreme  vetting.  Tough  word.  Extreme  vetting. CHUCK  TODD: What  does  that  look  like? DONALD  TRUMP: Tough.  We're  going  to  have  tough  standards.  And  if  a  person  can't  prove-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Give  me  one. DONALD  TRUMP: -­-­that  they're  from  an  area,  and  if  a  person  can't  prove  what  they  have  to  be  able  to  prove,  they're  not coming  into  this  country.  And  I  would  stop  the  Syrian  migration  and  the  Syrian  from  coming  into  this country  in  two  seconds.  Hillary  Clinton  wants  to  take  550  percent  more  people  coming  in  from  that  area than  Barack  Obama.  I  think  she's  crazy.  I  think  she's  crazy.  We  have  no  idea  who  these  people  are  for the  most  part,  and  you  know,  because  I've  seen  them  on  different  shows-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: All  right. DONALD  TRUMP: -­-­but  more  importantly,  I've  read  about  it.  I  study  it.  There  is  no  way  that  you  can  vet  some  of  these people.  There  is  no  way.  Law  enforcement  officials,  I've  had  them  in  my  office.  I've  talked  to  them. CHUCK  TODD: You  realize  some  of  these  folks  have  nowhere  to  go?  They're  truly  victims  of  this  civil  war,  what  do  you do  with  them? DONALD  TRUMP: We  will  help  them  and  we  will  build  safe  havens  over  in  Syria,  and  we  will  get  Gulf  States-­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
We,  the  United  States  are  going  to  build  these  safe  havens?
DONALD  TRUMP:
We,  the  United  States,  we'll  get  Gulf  States  to  pay  for  it,  because  we  right  now,  we're  going  to  have  $21 trillion  very  soon,  trillion,  in  debt.  We  will  do  safe  havens  and  safe  zones  in  Syria  and  we  will  get  nations that  are  so  wealthy  that  are  not  doing  anything.  They're  not  doing  much.  They  have  nothing  but  money. And  you  know  who  I'm  talking  about,  the  Gulf  States.  And  we  will  get  them  to  pay  for  it.  We  would  lead  it. I  don't  want  to  pay  because  our  country  is  going  down  the  tubes.  We  owe  too  much  money.
CHUCK  TODD:
All  right.  Let  me  move  to  something  with  NATO.  Mitch  McConnell  said  this  about  your  NATO  remarks  in the  New  York  Times.  He  said  it  was  a  rookie  mistake,  and  that  once  you,  let  me  finish  the  comment  here. "It's  a  rookie  mistake,  and  it  proves  that  Trump  needs  people  like  us  around  to  help  steer  him  in  the  right direction  on  some  basic  things."
DONALD  TRUMP:
He's  100  percent  wrong.  Okay?  He's  100  percent  wrong  if  he  said  that.  I  didn't  hear  he  said  that-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
He  did  say  it.
DONALD  TRUMP:
Okay,  fine,  fine-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
New  York  Times-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
If  he  said  that,  he's  100  percent  wrong.  And  frankly  it's  sad.  We  have  NATO,  and  we  have  many countries  that  aren't  paying  for  what  they're  supposed  to  be  paying,  which  is  already  too  little,  but  they're not  paying  anyway.  And  we're  giving  them  a  free  ride  or  giving  them  a  ride  where  they  owe  us tremendous  amounts  of  money.  And  they  have  the  money.  But  they're  not  paying  it.  You  know  why? Because  they  think  we're  stupid-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 42 So  Estonia  is  paying,  and  if  they  get  invaded  by  Russia,  you're  there?
DONALD  TRUMP:
I  feel  differently.  I  feel  very  differently-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
But  if  a  country's  not  doing  -­-­  Britain  hasn't  done  the  two  percent.
DONALD  TRUMP:
We  have  countries  that  aren't  paying.  Now,  this  goes  beyond  NATO,  because  we  take  care  of-­-­  we  take care  of  Japan,  we  take  care  of  Germany,  we  take  care  of  South  Korea,  we  take  care  of  Saudi  Arabia, and  we  lose  on  everything.  We  lose  on  everything.  If  Mitch  McConnell  says  that,  then  he's  wrong.
So  all  I'm  saying  is  they  have  to  pay.  Now,  a  country  gets  invaded,  they  haven't  paid,  everyone  says, "Oh,  but  we  have  a  treaty."  Well,  they  have  a  treaty  too.  They're  supposed  to  be  paying.  We  have countries  within  NATO  that  are  taking  advantage  of  us.  With  me,  I  believe  they're  going  to  pay.  And  when they  pay,  I'm  a  big  believer  in  NATO.
But  if  they  don't  pay,  we  don't  have,  you  know,  Chuck,  this  isn't  40  years  ago.  This  isn't  50  years  ago.  It's not  30  years  ago.  We're  a  different  country  today.  We're  much  weaker,  our  military  is  depleted,  we  owe tremendous  amounts  of  money.  We  have  to  be  reimbursed.  We  can  no  longer  be  the  stupid  country.
(END  TAPE)
CHUCK  TODD:
When  we  come  back,  what  Donald  Trump  says  about  David  Duke,  Bernie  Sanders,  and  whether  he really  plans  to  spend  millions  for  the  sole  purpose  of  defeating  Ted  Cruz  and  John  Kasich.  Sanders about  Trump  and  about  his  reaction  to  Tim  Kaine  becoming  Hillary  Clinton's  running  mate.  We're  in Philadelphia,  site  of  the  Democratic  National  Convention.  Stay  with  us.
***COMMERCIAL  BREAK***
CHUCK  TODD:
Such  a  beautiful  city  here.  Welcome  back.  More  now  of  my  interview  with  Donald  Trump  at  The  Trump National  Golf  Club  in  Bedminster,  New  Jersey.  And  since  we  had  a  limited  amount  of  time,  I  ended  up speeding  things  up  by  asking  Trump  for  some  quick  reaction  to  simply  some  very  prominent  names  in the  news.
(BEGIN  TAPE)

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 42 CHUCK  TODD: I'm  just  going  to  literally  throw  out  a  name  and  you'll  know  the  question  I'm  asking.  Bernie  Sanders. DONALD  TRUMP: Great  respect  for  what  he's  done.  He  is  being  taken  advantage  of,  and  frankly,  the  system  was  rigged, and  I'm  the  first  one  to  say  it  was  rigged  against  him.  And  by  the  way-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: You  took  after  him.  You  took  after  him.  You  said  for  supporting  Hillary  Clinton,  you  think  he  needs  to-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: Well,  I'm  not  a  fan  of  Bernie  Sanders.  But  I  am  a  fan  of  one  thing  that  he  talks  about:  Trade.  He  is  the only  one  on  that  side  that  understands  trade.  Now,  he  can't  do  anything  about  it  because  that's  not  his thing.  But  he  has  been  gamed.  He  has  been,  it's  a  rigged  system  against  him.  And  what  happened  with the  choice  of  Tim  Kaine  was  a  slap  in  the  face  to  Bernie  Sanders  and  everybody.  I  was  shocked.  I  love  it from  my  standpoint,  I  love-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Why  do  you  love  the  Kaine  pick? DONALD  TRUMP: Well,  first  of  all,  he  took  over  $160,000  of  gifts.  And  they  said,  "Well,  they  weren't  really  gifts,  they  were suits  and  trips  and  lots  of  different  things,"  all  for  160-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Legal,  legal  in  the  state  of  Virginia. DONALD  TRUMP: Bob  McDonnell-­-­  I  believe  it  was  Bob  McDonnell,  in  the  meantime,  he  had  to  go  to  the  United  States Supreme  Court  to  get  out  of  going  to  jail-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Well,  they  proved  to  quid  pro  quo-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: -­-­for  taking  a  fraction  of  what-­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
They  proved  quid  pro  quo  on  that  one.
DONALD  TRUMP:
Excuse  me,  Bob  McDonnell  took  a  fraction  of  what  Kaine  took.  And  I  think,  to  me,  it's  a  big  problem. Now,  how  do  you  take  all  these  gifts?  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars.  The  other  thing  about  him,  he's bought  and  owned  by  the  banks.  And  the  third  thing,  he's  in  favor  of  TPP  and  every  other  trade  deal  that he's  ever  looked  at.  And  that  means  he  wants  people  not  to  work.
Now,  he's  going  to  change  his  tune.  And  I  understand  he's  now  going  to  say,  "I'm  against  TPP."  Hillary Clinton  was  totally  in  favor  of  TPP,  which  is  the  job  killer,  right?  So  was  he.  When  she  watched  me  on your  show  and  other  shows,  all  of  a  sudden  she  changed,  because  she  knows  she  can't  win  that  in  a debate.
CHUCK  TODD:
All  right.  Ted  Cruz,  I'm  going  to  amend  it,  are  you  really  going  to  fund  a  super  PAC  to  help  defeat  him-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
Well,  it's  not  the  number  one  thing  on  my  mind.  Look,  what's  on  my  mind  is  beating  Hillary  Clinton. What's  on  my  mind  is  winning  for  the  Republican  Party.  With  that  being  said,  yeah,  I'll  probably  do  a super  PAC,  you  know,  when  they  run  against  Kasich,  for  $10  million  to  $20  million,  against  Ted  Cruz. And  maybe  one  other  person  that  I'm  thinking  about-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Who's  that  other  one  person?
DONALD  TRUMP:
-­-­but  I  won't  tell  you  that.  I  mean,  he's  actually  such  a  small  person,  I  hate  to  give  him  the  publicity.  But yes,  I  will  probably  do  that  at  the  appropriate  at  time.  But  I'm  not  going  to  do  that  until-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Oh,  give  me  the  small  person  here.
DONALD  TRUMP:
No,  no,  don't  worry  about  it.  We'll  give  it  to  you  another  time.
CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 42 All  right,  let  me  ask  you  about  this  one.  David  Duke  announced  his  Senate  candidacy  claiming  your agenda  for  his  own,  or  essentially  saying,  "Glad  that  you  spoke  out." DONALD  TRUMP: Are  you  ready,  before  you  ask  the  question? CHUCK  TODD: Newt  Gingrich  said,  "Every  Republican  should  repudiate  this  guy  no  matter  what  it  takes"-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: I  did.  And  I  do.  Are  you  ready?  I  want-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Would  you  support  a  Democrat  over  David  Duke  if  that  was  what  was  necessary  to  defeat  him? DONALD  TRUMP: I  guess,  depending  on  who  the  Democrat,  but  the  answer  would  be  yes.  Look,  the  answer  is,  as  quick  as you  can  say  it.  In  fact,  I  went  to  answer  you  before  you-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: Because  last  time  with  another  person  in  your  position,  I  did  it  very  quickly.  And  they  said,  "He  didn't  do it  fast  enough."  Rebuked.  Is  that  okay?  Rebuked,  done-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Rebuked,  done.  Okay.  Tax  returns.  A  lot  of  conspiracy  theories  are  being  out  there  about  why-­-­  what's  in your  tax  returns.  You  would  get  rid  of  all  these  conspiracy  theories  tomorrow-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP: Let  me  tell  you-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Probably  make  people  look  silly-­-­ DONALD  TRUMP:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 42 Let  me  tell  you.  Let  me  give  you  a  little  lesson  on  tax  returns.  First  of  all,  you  don't  learn  very  much  from a  tax  return.  I  put  in  to  the  federal  elections  group  100  and  some-­odd  pages  of  my  financials.  It  showed, as  you  know,  that  I'm  much  wealthier  than  anybody  even  understood,  okay?  Tremendous  cash, tremendous  assets,  tremendous  all  that  stuff.  Okay,  that's  it.  I'm  going  through  a  routine  audit.  Just  a routine  audit,  and  I've  had  it  for  I  think  14  years,  13  years-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Why?
DONALD  TRUMP:
Every  year  they  audit  me.  It's  routine  government.  I  would  never  give  my  tax  returns  until  the  audit's finished.  But  remember  this:  Mitt  Romney,  four  years  ago,  was  under  tremendous  pressure  to  give  his tax  returns.  And  he  held  it  and  held  it  and  held  it,  and  he  fought  it,  and  he,  you  know,  he  didn't  do  too well,  okay?  But  he  didn't  do  anything  wrong  on  his  taxes.  When  he  gave  his  tax  returns,  people  forget, not  now.  He  gave  them  in  September,  before  the  election-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
So  you  still  might  release  them-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
No,  wait  a  minute,  wait  a  minute.  When  he  did,  and  his  tax  returns  are  a  tiny  peanut  compared  to  mine, they  went  through  his  tax  returns.  And  they  found  one  little  sentence,  another  little-­-­  there  was  nothing wrong.  And  they  made  him  look  bad.  In  fact  I  think  he  lost  his  election  because  of  that.
CHUCK  TODD:
Because  of  the  tax  returns?
DONALD  TRUMP:
I  think  he  lost.  And  I'll  tell  you  why:  He  didn't  do  anything  wrong.  Mitt  Romney  did  nothing  wrong.  But they  would  take  out  of,  his  weren't  too  big.  Have  you  ever  seen  mine  with  the  picture,  they're  like  this high?
CHUCK  TODD:
I  have  seen  that  picture,  yes.
DONALD  TRUMP:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 42 Okay,  so  they  took  his  tax  return  and  they  found  a  couple  of  little  things.  Nothing  wrong,  just  standard. And  they  made  him  look  very  bad,  very  unfair.  But  with  all  that  said,  I'd  love  to  give  them,  but  I'm  under audit.  When  the  audit's  finished  I'll  give  them.
CHUCK  TODD:
Finally,  Roger  Ailes.  Is  he  helping  you?  Is  he  advising  you?
DONALD  TRUMP:
Well,  I  don't  want  to  comment.  But  he's  been  a  friend  of  mine  for  a  long  time,  and  I  can  tell  you  that some  of  the  women  that  are  complaining,  I  know  how  much  he's  helped  them.  And  even  recently,  and when  they  write  books  that  are  fairly  recently  released,  and  they  say  wonderful  things  about  him.
And  now  all  of  a  sudden  they're  saying  these  horrible  things  about  him.  It's  very  sad.  Because  he's  a very  good  person.  I've  always  found  him  to  be  just  a  very,  very  good  person.  And  by  the  way,  a  very, very  talented  person.  Look  what  he's  done.  So  I  feel  very  badly.  But  a  lot  of  people  are  thinking  he's going  to  run  my  campaign.
CHUCK  TODD:
Yeah,  well-­-­
DONALD  TRUMP:
My  campaign's  doing  pretty  well.
CHUCK  TODD:
Mr.  Trump,  until  we  meet  again.
DONALD  TRUMP:
Thank  you  very  much-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Thank  you  for  your  time,  sir,  appreciate  it.
(END  TAPE)
CHUCK  TODD:
Up  next,  the  man  who  had  hoped  to  be  the  candidate  being  nominated  by  Democrats  right  here  in Philadelphia  this  week,  Senator  Bernie  Sanders  of  Vermont.  What  does  he  think  of  those  leaked  DNC  e-­ mails?  We'll  get  his  first  comments  since  it  happened.  We're  going  to  be  right  back  in  just  a  minute.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 42 ***COMMERCIAL  BREAK***
(BEGIN  TAPE)
CHUCK  TODD:
Tremendous  shots  there  of  a  beautiful  city.  Welcome  back.  It's  not  the  kind  of  thing  you  want  happening days  before  your  convention.  This  weekend,  Wikileaks  released  nearly  20,000  emails  sent  and  received by  members  of  the  Democratic  National  Committee,  some  of  which  seem  to  confirm  what  a  lot  of  people had  suspected,  that  the  DNC  was  playing  favorites  with  Hillary  Clinton  over  Bernie  Sanders.
It  appears  Wikileaks  either  stole  these  emails  or  got  them  from  a  source.  Remember,  the  DNC  was hacked  a  few  months  ago.  Among  the  emails  was  one  from  the  DNC's  Chief  Financial  Officer  Brad Marshall  that  was  looking  ahead  to  the  contests  in  Kentucky  and  West  Virginia  in  early  May.  While  not mentioning  Sanders  specifically  by  name,  the  email  appeared  to  question  Sanders'  faith.
He  wrote  this,  quote:  "Does  he  believe  in  a  god?  I  think  I  read  he  is  an  atheist.  This  could  make  several points  difference  with  my  peeps.  My  Southern  Baptist  peeps  would  draw  a  big  difference  between  a  Jew and  an  atheist."  Well,  Sanders  has  long  believed  that  DNC  Chair  Debbie  Wasserman  Schultz  was  in Clinton's  corner  the  whole  campaign.  Well,  he  joins  me  now.  Senator  Sanders,  welcome  back  to  Meet the  Press.
And  I  should  note  that  you  talked  about  your  belief  in  God  last  fall  in  an  interview,  I  think,  with  your hometown  paper  there,  so  want  to  get  that  out  of  the  way.  So  let  me  start  with  this  question  questioning your  faith.  Brad  Marshall  apologized  on  Facebook.  Has  anyone  apologized  to  you  personally?  And  what is  your  response  to  this  entire  discussion?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well,  no,  nobody  has  apologized  to  me.  And  as  you  just  mentioned,  this  really  does  not  come  as  a  shock to  me  or  my  supporters.  There  is  no  question  but  the  DNC  was  on  Secretary  Clinton's  side  from  day  one. We  all  know  that.  And  I  think,  as  I  have  said  a  long  time  ago,  that  the  time  is  now  for  Debbie  Wasserman Schultz  to  step  aside,  not  only  for  these  issues.
We  need  a  Democratic  Party  that  is  open,  that's  going  to  bring  young  people  and  working  people  into  it, that  is  going  to  stand  up  and  take  on  the  big  money  interests  and  fight  for  working  families.  I  don't  think Debbie  has  been  that  type  of  leader.  So  I  would  hope,  and  I  said  this  many  months  ago,  that  she  would-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Right.
BERNIE  SANDERS:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 20 of 42 -­-­step  aside,  we  would  have  new  leadership.
CHUCK  TODD:
And  do  you  think  it  needs  to  happen  now,  today,  before  the  start  of  the  convention?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Would  that  help  calm  some  of  your  supporters  down?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well,  I  think  what  is  already  happening  is  that  it's  clear  she  is  not  going  to  be  speaking  to  the  convention. That  is  the  right  thing.  I  think  right  now  what  we  have  got  to  focus  on  as  Democrats  is  defeating  perhaps the  worst  Republican  candidate  that  I  have  seen  in  my  lifetime.  Donald  Trump  would  be  a  disaster  for this  country.  He  must  be  defeated.
We've  got  to  elect  Secretary  Clinton  on  every  single  issue:  fighting  for  the  middle  class  on  health  care, on  climate  change,  is  a  far,  far  superior  candidate  to  Trump.  That's  where  I  think  the  focus  has  got  to  be.
CHUCK  TODD:
Do  you  believe  that  the  DNC's  apparent  favoritism  cost  you  this  race?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well,  I  think  you-­-­  there  are  a  lot  of  reasons  why  one  loses.  We  started  off  50  points  behind  Secretary Clinton.  We  had  the  opposition  of  virtually  the  entire  Democratic  leadership  in  every  state  in  this  country. And  by  the  way,  in  terms  of  media,  we  did  not  get  the  kind  of  media  attention  that  somebody  like  a Donald  Trump  got,  because  media  is  not  necessarily  interested  in  the  issues  facing  the  middle  class, more  interested  in  attacks  in  personality.  So  I  think  there  were  a  lot  of  reasons.
But  I  will  tell  you  this,  Chuck,  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  I  am  extraordinarily  proud  of  the  campaign that  we  ran.  The  issues  that  we  raised,  the  fact  that  we  got  13  million  Americans  to  vote  for  a  political revolution.  People  who  know  the  economy  is  rigged  in  favor  of  big  money,  people  who  know  that  our middle  class  continues  to  decline  and  we  have  to  go  outside  of  establishment  politics  and  economics, people  who  know  that  we  need  to  reform  a  broken  criminal  justice  system  and  we  need  comprehensive immigration  reform.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 21 of 42 The  people-­-­  what  we  did  in  our  campaign  is  bring  people  together  to  say,  "You  know  what?  This country,  our  government,  belongs  to  all  of  us  and  not  just  a  few."  So  I  am  very  proud  of  the  campaign  we ran  and  the  supporters  that  came  on  board.
CHUCK  TODD:
So  just  to  sum  up  here,  these  leaks,  these  emails,  it  hasn't  given  you  any  pause  about  your  support  for Hillary  Clinton?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
No,  no,  no.  We  are  going  to  do  everything  that  we  can  to  protect  working  families  in  this  country.  And again,  Chuck,  I  know  media  is  not  necessarily  focused  on  these  things.  But  what  a  campaign  is  about  is not  Hillary  Clinton,  it's  not  Donald  Trump.  It  is  the  people  of  this  country,  people  who  are  working  longer hours  for  lower  wages,  people  who  do  not  have  health  care  or  are  underinsured.
Hillary  Clinton  and  I  have  worked  together  on  a  higher  education  proposal  which  will  guarantee  free tuition  in  public  colleges  and  universities  for  every  family  in  this  country  making  $125,000  a  year  or  less. We're  going  to  fight  for  paid  family  and  medical  leave.  Those  are  the  issues  that  the  American  people want  to  hear  discussed,  and  I'm  going  to  go  around  the  country  discussing  them  and  making  sure  that Hillary  Clinton  is  elected  president.
CHUCK  TODD:
You  know,  The  Green  Party  presumptive  nominee,  Jill  Stein,  put  out  a  release  yesterday  about  the emails.  And  she  said  this:  "Democratic  Party  elites  have  been  caught  red-­handed,  sabotaging  a grassroots  campaign  that  tried  to  bring  huge  numbers  of  young  people,  independents  and  non-­voters into  their  party.  Instead,  they  have  shown  exactly  why  America  needs  a  new  major  party,  a  truly democratic  party  for  the  people."  Are  you  going  to  urge  your  supporters  not  to  support  Jill  Stein  and  try to  thwart  her  efforts  to  recruit  your  supporters?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well,  you  know,  let  me  just  say  this.  As  the  longest  serving  Independent  in  the  history  of  the  United States  Congress,  as  somebody  who  came  into  office  by  defeating  an  incumbent  Democratic  mayor  in Burlington,  Vermont,  I  know  something  about  third  party  politics.  And  I  respect  Jill.
But  right  now,  the  focus,  to  my  mind,  is  to  make  sure  that  Donald  Trump  does  not  become  president  of the  United  States.  I  think  by  temperament  he  is  unqualified  to  be  president.  I  think  his  views-­-­  you  have  a guy  who's  running  for  president  who  rejects  science,  doesn't  even  believe  climate  change  is  real,  let alone  wants  to  do  something  about  it,  wants  to  give  hundreds  of  billions  of  dollars  in  tax  breaks  to  the top  two-­tenths  of  one  percent.
CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 22 of 42 Let  me  ask  you-­-­
BERNIE  SANDERS:
So  my  job  right  now  is  to  see  that  Donald  Trump  is  defeated,  Hillary  Clinton  is  elected.
CHUCK  TODD:
You  know,  he  makes  a  big  deal  out  of  the  fact  that  you  and  he  agree  on  one  big  issue,  and  that  is  trade deals,  that  these  trade  deals  have  been  bad  for  the  country.  And  he  basically  says  that  Clinton  and Kaine,  as  a  ticket,  aren't-­-­  that  their  opposition,  for  instance,  the  TPP  as  sort  of  Johnny-­come-­lately,  that it  can't  be  trusted,  and  that  Sanders  supporters  should  support  Trump  if  they  care  about  trade.  What  do you  say  to  that?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well,  I  think  in  terms  of  who  can  be  trusted,  I  think  the  evidence  is  clear  that  there  has  been  no candidate  that  I  have  ever  seen  who  lies  more  often  than  does  Donald  Trump.  I  mean  and  that's  just  not me  saying  it,  that's  what  any  independent  media  analysis  has  shown.  So  in  terms  of  trust,  you  really can't  trust  a  word,  I  think,  that  Mr.  Trump  has  to  say.
In  terms  of  the  TPP,  it  is  no  secret.  I  think  our  trade  policies,  for  many,  many  years,  have  been  a  disaster. They  have  benefited  corporate  America  at  the  expense  of  working  people.  Secretary  Clinton  has  come out  in  opposition  to  the  TPP,  does  not  want  to  see  it-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Right.
BERNIE  SANDERS:
-­-­appear  in  the  lame  duck  Congress.  That's  my  view,  as  well.
CHUCK  TODD:
You  know,  some  of  your  supporters  are  disappointed  in  the  pick  of  Tim  Kaine,  that  he's  not  progressive enough.  I  know  Tim  Kaine  called  you  after  he  was  picked.  Do  you  consider  Tim  Kaine  a  progressive? And  are  you  happy  with  this  pick?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Look,  you  know,  the  pick  is  Secretary  Clinton's.  I've  known  Tim  Kaine  for  a  number  of  years.  We've served  in  the  Senate  together,  obviously.  Tim  is  a  very,  very  smart  guy.  He's  a  very  nice  guy.  His  political views  are  not  my  political  views.  He  is  more  conservative  than  I  am.  Would  I  have  preferred  to  see somebody  like  an  Elizabeth  Warren  selected  by  Secretary  Clinton?  Yes,  I  would  have.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 23 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
And  then  finally,  do  you  feel  as  if,  that  you,  when  you  got  Glass-­Steagall,  I  wanted  to  ask  about  this, because  it  looks  like  the  one  thing  that  both  parties  may  agree  on  in  their  platforms  is  putting-­-­  is  being in  favor  of  reinstating  Glass-­Steagall.  Does  this  mean  we  will  see  that  happen  in  the  next  Congress?
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Well,  I'm  going  to  do  everything  that  I  can  to  make  it  happen.  You  know,  when  we  talk  about  our campaign,  one  of  the  things  that  we  have  been  able  to  do,  Chuck,  is  create  the  most  progressive Democratic  platform  in  the  history  of  the  Democratic  Party,  and  that  includes  breaking  up  the  large  Wall Street  banks  and  reestablishing  Glass-­Steagall.
I  think  the  American  people  understand  that  we  cannot  continue  to  have  a  handful  of  reckless, irresponsible  banks  often  acting  illegally,  that  something  has  to  happen.  They  have  to  be  broken  up.
CHUCK  TODD:
All  right,  Senator  Bernie  Sanders.  The  big  speech  is  tomorrow  night.  We'll  be  waiting  for  you  here  in  a very,  very  hot  Philadelphia,  over  100  degrees.
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Okay.
CHUCK  TODD:
Senator  Sanders,  thanks  for  coming  on.  Good  to  see  you,  sir.
BERNIE  SANDERS:
Thank  you  very  much.
CHUCK  TODD:
When  we  come  back,  reaction  to  Hillary  Clinton's  choice  of  Tim  Kaine  as  a  running  mate,  who  showed why  he  might  have  appeal,  unique  appeal,  to  a  very  important  voting  bloc.
(BEGIN  TAPE)
SEN.  TIM  KAINE:
Aprendilo  valores  de  mi  pueblo-­-­faith,  familia,  y  trabajo.
(END  TAPE)

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 24 of 42 CHUCK  TODD
And  we'll  be  back  in  a  moment  from  Philadelphia  with  this  great  panel.  Rachel  Maddow,  Michael  Steele, Andrea  Mitchell,  and  Chris  Matthews.  Stay  tuned.
(END  TAPE)
CHUCK  TODD:
And  we'll  be  back  in  a  moment  from  Philadelphia  with  this  great  panel,  Rachel  Maddow,  Michael  Steele, Andrea  Mitchell,  and  Chris  Matthews.  Stay  tuned.
***COMMERCIAL  TAPE***
CHUCK  TODD:
We  are  back.  So  much  to  talk  about  already.  Our  panel  is  here,  Rachel  Maddow,  host  of  The  Rachel Maddow  Show  on  MSNBC,  former  chairman  of  the  Republican  National  Committee,  Michael  Steele,  he's sort  of  the  fish  out  of  water  here  in  Philadelphia.  Andrea  Mitchell,  NBC  News,  Chief  Foreign  Affairs Correspondent,  host,  of  course,  of  Andrea  Mitchell  Reports  on  MSNBC.  And  a  Philadelphia  native himself,  Mr.  Brotherly  Love  Chris  Matthews,  host  of  Hardball-­-­
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Mr.  Brotherly  Love?
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
And  sisterly  affection.
CHUCK  TODD:
-­-­Sisterly  affection  here  for  the  Penn  grad.
CHUCK  TODD:
And-­-­  this  morning  by  the  way  we  have  new  pictures  of  Tim  Kaine  walking  into  church  this  morning  in Richmond,  Virginia.  He  now  realizes,  and  now  his  parish  is  realizing,  what  it's  like  to  have  Secret  Service following  around  a  member  of  the  parish  there.  All  right.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Know  what  his  Secret  Service  name  is  going  to  be  yet?
CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 25 of 42 What  do  we  think  the  code  name  should  be? ANDREA  MITCHELL: But  we're  not  sure-­-­ RACHEL  MADDOW: Well,  the  big  joke  was  that  if  you're  boring  enough,  your  Secret  Service  name  is  Tim  Kaine. CHUCK  TODD: Ooh. RACHEL  MADDOW: Right?  That-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Those  are  old  Johnny  Carson  and  Jay  Leno,  Al  Gore  jokes-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: All  right,  you  guys  are  having  already  too  much  fun. RACHEL  MADDOW: Sorry,  sorry. CHUCK  TODD: Let  me  just  throw  it  out  here.  We  heard  what  Bernie  Sanders  said  about  Tim  Kaine.  It  was,  that  was tougher  than  I  expected. RACHEL  MADDOW: "His  politics  are  not  my  politics." ANDREA  MITCHELL: That's  really  -­-­ RACHEL  MADDOW:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 26 of 42 "He  does  not  share  my  political  views."  That's  an  aggressive  take  from  Bernie.  I'm  not  surprised. Bernie's  an  aggressive  politician.  And  I  think  when  Senator  Sanders  speaks  at  the  DNC,  I  think everybody's  going  to  be  on  the  edge  of  their  seat.  I  think  that  he  is  not  going  to  pull  a  Ted  Cruz  because he's  already  made  an  endorsement.
CHUCK  TODD:
Well,  he  said,  "I'm  for  Hillary,"  and  he  was  tough  on  Trump.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Yeah.  And  but  he  doesn't  relish  going  after  Trump.  He  likes  going  after  the  Democratic  Party  to  try  to move  the  Democratic  Party.  That's  his  target,  always  has  been.
MICHAEL  STEELE:
It's  still  obvious,  he's  not  'Feeling  the  Bern'  for  Hillary.  And  that  was  very  obvious.  And  when  you  asked about  the  trust  question,  he  didn't  say  he  trusted  Hillary  Clinton.  He  said  he  didn't  trust  Donald  Trump. So  the  reality  of  it  is  there's  still  some  tension  there  that  Bernie  is  reflecting  among  his  supporters.  And  it was  evident  there.  I  mean-­-­
RACHEL  MADDOW:
He's  got  a  mission  that's  bigger  than  one  election.  He  always  has.
MICHAEL  STEELE:
That's  true.
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
And  in  fact,  he  could  quiet  the  march  that  is  planned  to  go  from  the  center  of  Center  City,  and Rittenhouse  Square  all  the  way  down  at  Independence  Hall.  This  march  is  going  to  disrupt  the  city  today, no  matter  how  peaceful,  because  this  is  a  city,  in  100-­degree  heat,  that  is  planning  for  a  convention.  And it's  going  to  be  a  very  large  outpouring.  He  also  said-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
And  by  the  way,  the  hotter  it  is,  the  crankier  people  will  be.
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Yeah.  And  he  also  says  that  Tim  Kaine  doesn't  share  his  politics,  not  only  that,  but  that  he  would  have preferred  Elizabeth  Warren.  He  made  it  very  clear;;  Tim  Kaine  is  a  nice  guy,  but  he's  not  endorsing  or embracing  someone  who  Hillary  Clinton  -­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 27 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
There's  a  painful  look  in  your  face,  Chris.
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
-­-­called  Tim  Kaine  a  progressive.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
He  didn't  get  to  pick.  Hillary  Clinton  did.  And  I've  watched  Hillary  Clinton.  I've  watched  a  lot  of  politicians over  the  years.  You  can  tell  when  they're  actually  happy,  not  when  they  fake  the  laugh  or  anything  else. She  looked  delighted  during  his  speech  yesterday.  And  I  haven't  seen  her  that  delighted  in  a  long  time. She  had  found  her  guy  to  be  her  running  mate.  I  think  she  loved  it.
And  I  think  one  thing  we're  getting  all  excited  about,  I  understand  why  the  progressives  are  upset.  But one  thing  historically  we  all  know  is  the  selection  of  a  vice  president  is  a  poor  predictor  of  the  direction  of that  administration.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
FDR  picked  John  Nance  Garner-­-­
RACHEL  MADDOW:
It's  not  a  policy  pick.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
Kennedy  picked  another  conservative  from  the  south,  Lyndon  Johnson,  relatively  conservative.  And  then we  got  the  New  Deal  out  of  that  and  we  got  the  Great  Society  we  got  the  New  Frontier.  It's  a  poor predictor.  Now,  if  this  is  about  spoils,  they've  got  an  argument.  They  wanted  a  piece  of  the  action.  But there's  differences  between  spoils  and  direction.
CHUCK  TODD:
I  want  to  throw  out  the  one  thing  that  Trump's  trying  to  hit  Kaine  on,  well,  two  things.  But  the  one  big  one is  the  gifts  in  Virginia.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Yeah.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 28 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
I  only  throw  it  out  there  is  that  I  heard  Ed  Rendell  ask  to  defend  it.  And  he  struggled,  Andrea.  He  said, "Well,  it's  illegal  in  Pennsylvania."
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Virginia-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Okay.  And  it's  legal  in  Virginia.  That  wasn't  exactly  a  resounding  defense.
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Yeah.  Virginia  has  a  very  strange,  let's  face  it,  strange  gift  law.  The  difference  with  Bob  McDonnell,  who was  convicted,  and  then  the  Supreme  Court  overturned  it,  is  there  was  no  quid  pro  quo.  He  declared  it. That  was  the  main  thing.  He  declared  everything,  put  it  down,  in  fact,  computed  higher  numbers  to staying  in  friends'  houses.  He  put  everything  down.  He  was  meticulous  about  it.
So  they  don't  think  there's  a  big  ethics  thing.  Just  on  his  progressivity  or  lack  of  it,  he  has  this  civil  rights background.  I  mean  I  was  in  the  room.  And  what  you  saw  on  T.V.  yesterday  in  Miami,  in  that  largely Hispanic  campus,  that  wonderful  campus  in  Miami,  it  was  extraordinary.  The  enthusiasm  for  him  and  the affection.  And  having  watched  her  all  of  these  years,  you're  absolutely  right,  Chris-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
You  know-­-­
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
-­-­she  found  her  guy.  She  was  a  happy  camper.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
He's  not  a  progressive,  but  they  will  tell  a  very  progressive  story  about  his  history.  The  party  has  moved to  the  left  while  he  sort  of  always  been  a  solid  liberal.
CHUCK  TODD:
Both  of  them  are  trying  to-­-­
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Yeah.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 29 of 42 CHUCK  TODD: I  feel  like  both  Clinton  and  Kaine  are  trying  to  catch  up  to  the  party's  movement. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: That's  so  true. ANDREA  MITCHELL: Well,  on  guns  he  was  always  there.  He  was  heroic  in  Virginia  on  gun  laws. CHUCK  TODD: That  they're  moving-­-­  and  Michael,  let  me  ask  you  this.  The  Trump  camping  says,  "We  love  the  Kaine pick."  And  here's  their  reasoning.  They  love  the  Kaine  pick  because  it  reinforces  that  they're  the  political professionals,  that  here's  Tim  Kaine,  and  all  he's  done  in  life,  is  been  in  office  for  the  last  25  years. MICHAEL  STEELE: Right. CHUCK  TODD: And  the  whole  point  of  Trump  is  Trump's  Mr.  "I'm  the  total  outsider."  If  they  want  to  double  down  on  that, fine,  go  ahead.  What  do  you  say? RACHEL  MADDOW: Except  Mike  Pence MICHAEL  STEELE: Right,  right,  right. CHUCK  TODD: They  pay  no  attention  to  that.  I  brought  that  brought  to  them.  I  said,  "What  about  Pence?"  And  they're like,  "Well,  it's  the  top  of  the  ticket." MICHAEL  STEELE: "Ignore  that  man  behind  the  curtain." CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 30 of 42 What  do  you  say  to  that?  Did  they  have  a  point  or  not? MICHAEL  STEELE: Well,  they'll  have  a-­-­  I  think  the  broader  point,  is  an  interesting  one.  Because  what  he's  comparing himself-­-­  he's  comparing  himself,  Trump,  to  Kaine-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Right. MICHAEL  STEELE: -­-­and  Clinton.  So  it's  me  and  against  them. CHUCK  TODD: Yeah. MICHAEL  STEELE: Pence  is  not  a  part  of  that  equation,  necessarily. RACHEL  MADDOW: Yeah. MICHAEL  STEELE: So  when  he's  talking  about  the  maverick,  the  outsider,  he's-­-­  he's  assuming  his  ticket  is  total  that. ANDREA  MITCHELL: Well,  Pence  wasn't  even  a  part  of  his  own  rollout. MICHAEL  STEELE: Right. ANDREA  MITCHELL: If  you  remember.  And  that  was-­-­ RACHEL  MADDOW: He  couldn't  get  a  word  in  edgewise.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 31 of 42 ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Hillary  Clinton  spoke  about  Tim  Kaine-­-­
MICHAEL  STEELE:
I  think  their  strength,  Chuck,  is  gonna  be  on  the  argument-­-­  this  notion  that  Tim  Kaine  is  progressive  is just  not  believable.  And  for  a  whole  host  of  reasons.  I  think  that's  an  opening  for  a  lot  of  folks  on  Trump's side.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
You  can,  there  are  element  of  his  record  that  are  not  progressive,  but  on  balance,  I  would  argue  that  he is.
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
I  would  argue  that  too.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
But  one  thing,  the  guy's  two  doors  from  you,  if  you're  president.  Look  at  the  structure  of  the  West  Wing now.  It's  not  some  guy  that  goes  back  to  Maine  like  Lincoln's  first  vice  president.  He  or  she  is  right  with you.
MICHAEL  STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
You  want  a  good  person  two  doors  for  you,  somebody  who  has  values.  And  it's  not  just  smart  politics.  I think  what  Hillary  Clinton's  going  to  love  having  is  a  guy  who's  a  true  blue  good  guy.  And  I  think  he  is  a progressive  on  all  the  moral  issues-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Let's  sneak  in  a  break  here.  When  we  come  back,  I  want  to  get  into  the  DNC  e-­mail  situation.  And  I  also want  to  get  your  guys'  reaction  to  some  interesting  comments  from  Donald  Trump.  Yeah,  you  know  that guy  that  was  at  the  start  of  the  show.  We'll  be  right  back.
***COMMERCIAL  BREAK***
CHUCK  TODD:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 32 of 42 Welcome  back,  panelists  here.  Before  we  jump  to  Trump,  the  DNC  email  leaks,  Cleveland,  we  expected rowdiness,  Never  Trumpsters,  and  all  that  stuff.  We  expect  order  here.  But  I  wonder,  Rachel,  if-­-­  look, I'm  hearing  from  the  Bernie  bros.  I'm  in  one  of  the  emails  just-­-­  I'm  the  complaint  department  here sometimes  at  NBC.  Somebody  was  complaining  about  coverage.  And  I  said,  "Okay,  let's  talk  on  the phone,"  or  whatever.  But  we  didn't  do  anything  about  it,  because  I  get  complaints  about  coverage  every hour,  every  day.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK  TODD:
But  I  think  Bernie  supporters  may  like  this  place,  at  least  outside.  They  may  be  upset,  and  they  may  do something  about  it.
RACHEL  MADDOW:
Yeah.  I  mean  and,  you  know,  there  will  be  that  big  protest  that  Andrea  was  talking  about  today,  to  start things  off.  And  there  will  be  a  lot,  there  will  be  hundreds  of  Bernie  delegates  insides  the  room.  Now honestly,  from  the  top,  down,  he  said,  "We've  got  to  elect  Hillary  Clinton."  He's  been  unequivocal  about that,  that's  the  most  important  thing.
It'll  be  interesting  to  see  whether  the  rules  fights  and  the  platform  fights  end  up,  in  the  end,  when  there's need  to  get  nailed  down  with  those  votes,  there  is  some  dissent  and  chaos  there.  There  might  be.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
One  thing  is-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Do  you  think  Debbie  Wasserman  Schultz  needs  to  get  out  now?
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
Well,  look-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
Not  even  gavel  it  in?
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
This  is  not  a  mystery  story.  This  isn't  Colombo.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 33 of 42 CHUCK  TODD: Yeah. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: We  knew  from  the  beginning,  watching  the  debate  schedule,  put  together  by  the  DNC-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: Sure. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: -­-­that  they  were  tilting  the  scales  to  Hillary  Clinton.  Middle  of  the  night  debates,  Sunday  morning  -­-­  it  was an  absurd  debate  schedule.  And  it  just  said,  "We're  for  Hillary,  we  don't  want  the  new  guy  to  get  all  the attention." ANDREA  MITCHELL: And  what  Bernie  said  to  you  is  that  she's  not  going  to  be  giving  a  speech.  When  does  the  party  chair  not give  a  speech  at  the  convention?  And  apparently  that  is  the  case. CHUCK  TODD: And  then  right  now,  though,  they  will  gavel  in. RACHEL  MADDOW: Thank  god  we  haven't-­-­  her  quitting  right  now  before  -­-­  I  mean,  the  DNC's  gonna  be  running  a  big  part  of the  ground  game  for  the  whole-­-­ CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Yeah. RACHEL  MADDOW: You  know,  you  don't-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: But  I  tell  you,  this-­-­ RACHEL  MADDOW:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 34 of 42 It  would  be  suicide  for  the  chair  to  jump  out  now-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: This  doesn't  help  her  own  fight  for  reelection,  which  I  still  think  she's  going  to  be  okay. RACHEL  MADDOW: No,  but-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: It's  a  district  that  she  knows  very  well.  But-­-­ ANDREA  MITCHELL: But  Bernie  endorsed  her  opponent. RACHEL  MADDOW: But  her  reelection  fight  is  in  her  district. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Right. RACHEL  MADDOW: It's  not  to  be  the  chair  of  the  DNC,  that's  next  year. CHUCK  TODD: All  right.  Michael  Steele,  what'd  you  hear  from  Donald  Trump?  Did  it  make  you  feel  better  or  worse  about his  chances? MICHAEL  STEELE: Well,  I  think  Donald  Trump  did  a  couple  of  things  he  needed  to  do.  One  was,  and  you  could  see  it  in  the room  that  night,  people  began  to  say,  "Okay,  I  can  get  there."  The  speech  that  he  gave,  when  you  read it,  seemed  a  lot  darker  and  harsher  than  when  he  delivered  it.  He  delivered  it  in  a  way-­-­ RACHEL  MADDOW: I  thought  the  opposite. MICHAEL  STEELE:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 35 of 42 Yeah,  yeah. RACHEL  MADDOW: When  reading  it,  I  wasn't  freaked  out. MICHAEL  STEELE: Yeah. RACHEL  MADDOW: And  then,  when  I  saw  him  give  it,  I  pulled  the  covers  up. MICHAEL  STEELE: No,  for  me,  it  was  the  reverse.  Because  the  reaction.  I'm  sitting  in  the  room  and  I'm  getting  the  reaction from  the  crowd. RACHEL  MADDOW: Mmm. MICHAEL  STEELE: And  the  reaction  from  the  crowd  was,  "This  guy  is  going  to  be  a  fighter."  And  I  think  that's  a  strong message  for  him  coming  out  of  this  convention. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Rachel,  you  have  never  pulled  the  covers  up. RACHEL  MADDOW:Oh  no,  I  meant  proverbially CHUCK  TODD:There's  a  lot  of  personal  information  here.  Woah,  it's  Sunday  morning,  guys. MICHAEL  STEELE: I  thought  he  did  what  he  needed  to  do,  Chuck.  I  do. RACHEL  MADDOW: Standing  under  those  15-­foot-­tall  letters  with  Trump,  and  then  his  head  comes  up  there.  And  then  he spent  76  minutes  screaming,  red  faced,  about  terrorism  and  death  and  destruction  and  "I'm  the  only  one who  can  fix  it"-­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 36 of 42 CHRIS  MATTHEWS: I  think  that  was  technical.  I  don't  think  he  knew  how  to  read  a  script  like  that.  I  don't  think  he  had  the ability  to-­-­  his  daughter  knew  how  to  do  it.  It's  tough  to  read  a  script  in  a  conversational  manner.  So  you end  up  doing  this  sort  of  scream  thing. RACHEL  MADDOW: But  it  takes  an  ego  to  turn  a  30  minute  script  into  a  78  minute  rant. ANDREA  MITCHELL: But  he  said  that  he  was  the  person  who  would  fix  everything.  And  they're  focusing  on  that.  But,  you know,  Kaine  was  focusing  on  that.  You  know,  it  is  the  "we"  not  the  I.  They're  comparing  him  to  a  dictator. MICHAEL  STEELE: But  the-­-­ ANDREA  MITCHELL: It  is  the  language  and  the  delivery,  Michael-­-­ MICHAEL  STEELE: Don't  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  a  lot  of  Americans  out  there  are  saying  it  is  the  "we"  who  screwed  us  up to  this  point. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Yeah. MICHAEL  STEELE: It  is  the  we  who've  gotten  us  into  this  mess. ANDREA  MITCHELL: It's  a  different  way  of  defining  democracy,  Michael. MICHAEL  STEELE: So  they're  looking  for  the  I,  someone  who's  going  to  step  forward  as  a  leader,  to  get  us  through  this mess.  This  is  the  bifurcation  of  the  of  the  population,  the  voting  population  right  now.  And  it's  going  to  be interesting  to  see  which  one  of  these  arguments  win-­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 37 of 42 RACHEL  MADDOW: Is  this  about  the  hunger  for  a  strong  man,  is  that  what  you're  talking  about? MICHAEL  STEELE:Yeah  no,  there  really  is  Rachel. RACHEL  MADDOW:We've  seen  this  around  the  world,  it's  not  supposed  to  be  us. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: I've  heard  Bernie  make  your  point. MICHAEL  STEELE: Yes! CHRIS  MATTHEWS: It's  that  we  have  to  reach  outside  the  establishment  to  get  the  solution  to  these  really  bad  economic problems  affecting  the  working  people  of  this  country. MICHAEL  STEELE: Right. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Same  message.  Different  sides. MICHAEL  STEELE:Same  message. RACHEL  MADDOW: Same  message.  The  question  is  whether  or  not  one  man  is  supposed  to  deliver  salvation  for  the  country. We're  not  supposed  to  be  that  kind  of  country. CHUCK  TODD: I  want  to  throw  one  more.  He  seemed,  at  least  in  the  interview  with  me,  he  goes  after  Mitch  McConnell, goes  after  Ted  Cruz,  goes  after  John  Kasich. ANDREA  MITCHELL: He  is  fearless  in  that  regard. CHUCK  TODD:He  really  is.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 38 of 42 ANDREA  MITCHELL: He  is  not  going  to  moderate  himself. RACHEL  MADDOW: You  didn't  even  ask  about  Kasich.  And  he's  bringing  it  up CHUCK  TODD: No,  exactly.  He  brought  Kasich  up  himself. ANDREA  MITCHELL: And  another  player  to  be  named  player,  who,  you  know,  remain  -­-­  could  be  one  of  the  senators  like  Jeff Flake.  Look,  the  fact  is  that  he  is  not  playing  by  anybody's  ground  rules  except  Donald  Trump's.  What  he said  about  N.A.T.O.  was  extraordinary  because  he  doubled  down  on  that.  And  the  whole  system  of collect  your  security  in  Europe,  if  you're  in  Poland  today,  you  are  not  reassured-­-­ CHUCK  TODD: What's  amazing  is  the  Trump  campaign  tried  to  walk  it  back  all  last  week  on  the  N.A.T.O.  stuff.  And  he's basically  saying,  "Don't  walk  it  back." RACHEL  MADDOW: Even  beyond  N.A.T.O.  to  talk  about  Europe  as  a  threat  to  America  is  what's  good  for  Europe  is  bad  for America  and  we  have  an  interest  in  Europe  being  weak  and  divided,  they  only  got  together  to  screw  us? Like,  hold  on  a  second. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Yeah,  it'll  play  in  Scranton.  It'll  play  up  there  in  the  Eerie,  Pennsylvania  it'll  play. RACHEL  MADDOW: The  European  Union-­-­  came  out  of  the  way  to  try  to  not  have  World  War  III. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Because  people  think  we're  being  shoved  around  and  exploited  and  he's  saying,  "I'm  going  to  shove back." ANDREA  MITCHELL: They  are  our  markets-­-­  markets,  allies-­-­

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 39 of 42 CHUCK  TODD:
You  guys  great.  I'm  going  to  try  to  get  another  half  hour.  But  let  me  sneak  in  this.  We'll  be  back  in  a moment  with  our-­-­  we'll  call  it  halftime  segment.  No,  it's  Endgame  Segment.  And  we'll  look  at  Hillary Clinton's  popularity  compared  to  other  Democratic  nominees  on  the  eve  of  their  conventions.
***COMMERCIAL  BREAK***
CHUCK  TODD:
The  panel  never  stops  interacting  here.  Seriously  we  just  went  to  a  commercial  break-­-­
RACHEL  MADDOW:
-­-­wants  more  with  France!
CHUCK  TODD:
It's  endgame  time.  Look,  I  want  to  show  you  here  very  quickly  some  numbers,  because  it  will  help  us judge  whether  this  is  a  successful  convention  for  Hillary  Clinton.  These  are  favorable  ratings,  personal favorable  ratings,  whether  you're  right  side  up  or  upside  down,  from  our  NBC  Wall  Street  Journal  poll,  for every  Democrat  going  back  to  '92.  And  as  you  can  see,  Hillary  Clinton  in  the  worst  shape  of  any presumptive  nominee  going  into  their  convention.
Now,  let  me  show  you  what  everybody  else  came  through  after  their  convention.  So  successful convention  for  Bill  Clinton,  successful  one  for  Al  Gore.  Flat  for  John  Kerry,  successful,  Barack  Obama. Obviously,  we'll  find  out,  for  Hillary  Clinton,  what  does  she  need  to-­-­
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Well,  what  they  are  going  to  do  is  they're  going  to  have  gauzy  films,  the  same  kind  of  films  you  saw  in 1992,  the  same  producers-­-­
CHUCK  TODD:
And  JFK?
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
They're  going  to  have  all  of  these  films,  biography,  résumé.  They  know  that  her  résumé  is  not  resonating with  millennials.  People  know  what  she  did,  they  don't  know-­-­  they  know  the  list  of  what  she  was.  They don't  know  what  she  actually  did,  what  she  accomplished.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:

Yeah.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 40 of 42

ANDREA  MITCHELL:

They're  going  to  do  all  of  that.  The  balance  is  going  to  be  very  different.

RACHEL  MADDOW:

-­-­because  T.V.  networks  don't  always  take  the  movies  anymore-­-­

ANDREA  MITCHELL:

Well,  they're  going  to  have  to  validators.

RACHEL  MADDOW:

Yeah.

ANDREA  MITCHELL:

They're  going  to  have  people  on  that  podium  behind  it  who  are  going  to  talk  about  things  she  has  done for  them.  And  it's  going  to  be  very  much  all  about  her  and  much  less  about  taking  down  Trump

CHRIS  MATTHEWS:

I  think  the  magic  moment  in  this  convention's  going  to  be  Thursday  night.  And  a  lot  of  women,  and  a  lot of  men,  too,  are  going  to  see  Hillary  Clinton  as  the  first  party  nominee,  who's  probably  going  to  be  like the  president.  She  has  the  advantage  right  now.  And  there  are  going  to  be  misty  eyes  all  across  the country.

And  any  men  at  that  moment  who  make  a  wisecrack  are  going  to  be  guaranteeing  another  vote  for Hillary  Clinton.  I  think  it's  a  very  emotional  moment  for  people.  They've  haven't  quite  got  to  it  because  of all  is  mishegas  that's  gone  on  this  year.  I  think  it's  going  to  be  magical.  And  if  Hillary  Clinton  just  stands there  with  a  little  emotion,  this  is  an  amazing  historic  moment.

CHUCK  TODD:

Michael  was  the  Republican  convention  too  anti-­Clinton  and  not  enough  pro-­Trump?

MICHAEL  STEELE:

No.  The  Republican  convention  had  to  go  anti-­Clinton-­-­

CHUCK  TODD:

Had  to  do  that?

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 41 of 42 MICHAEL  STEELE: -­-­because  of  the  Trump  issues. CHUCK  TODD: What  about  this  one? MICHAEL  STEELE: This  one?  I  was  thinking,  as  you  guys  were  talking  about  Barack  Obama  and  talking  about  Hillary Clinton  being  likable  enough,  this  is  going  to  be  a  convention  in  which  they're  going  to  showcase  her  so you  can  like  her.  Because  people,  those  numbers  show,  don't  like  her.  So  it's  going  to  be  everything  you just  said,  Chris,  plus  more.  The  problem  is  what  happens  afterwards.  And  that's  where  Hillary  Clinton's going  to  have  to  contine  . CHUCK  TODD: Here's  an  out  question  for  all  of  you.  Besides  Hillary  Clinton's  speech,  what  will  be  the  other  buzziest speech  or  speaker  when  we  walk  away  from  this  convention? RACHEL  MADDOW: We're  going  to  have  a  huge  one  on  night  one.  Bernie  is  a  big  deal. MICHAEL  STEELE: Bernie. RACHEL  MADDOW: The  Democratic  Party  is  going  through  a  transformation.  Liberals  are  having  their  moment.  And  this convention  has  to  reflect  it. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: Every  Democratic  convention  I  can  remember,  going  back  to,  God,  '64,  the  best  speech  was  never  given by  the  nominee,  whether  it's  Bobby  Kennedy  or  it's  Jesse  Jackson,  or  it's  Mario  Cuomo. MICHAEL  STEELE: Right. CHRIS  MATTHEWS: The  candidates  never  have  been  able  to  deliver  the  best  speech.  So  I  would  bet  on  Bernie.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 42 of 42 RACHEL  MADDOW:
It  was  Trump  Jr.  last  week.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
Bernie  or  President  Obama.
ANDREA  MITCHELL:
Michelle  Obama  and  Barack  Obama  on  day  two.
CHUCK  TODD:
I  think  it's  Barack  Obama  on  Wednesday  night.  I  think  it's  going  to  be  to  Hillary  Clinton  what  Bill  Clinton was  to  Barack  Obama  four  years  ago.  All  right.  That's  all  for  this  Sunday  morning.
CHRIS  MATTHEWS:
We  agree.
CHUCK  TODD:
I'll  be  hosting  a  special  edition  of  Meet  the  Press  Daily  tonight  at  5:00  Eastern  on  MSNBC.  I  know  that's what  everybody  on  this  table  will  be  watching.  And  then,  throughout  the  week,  I'll  be  joined  by  my colleagues  Lester  Holt  and  Savannah  Guthrie  right  here  at  The  Wells  Fargo  Center  for  convention coverage  on  the  network  beginning  at  10:00  Eastern,  7:00  Pacific.  If  you  missed  it  last  week,  you  should be  regretting  it.  Watch  us  this  week.  And  of  course  we'll  be  back  next  Sunday.  Because  if  it  is  Sunday, Meet  the  Press.
*  *  *END  OF  TRANSCRIPT*  *  *  ik

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

THE HILL

Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban 'legally'
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 01/29/17 08:48 AM EST

SHARES

SHARE (21K)

TWEET

PLUS ONE

0
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said in an interview on Saturday that President Trump had previously asked him about legally implementing a "Muslim ban." But Giuliani then disputed the notion that the president's sweeping executive order barring refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim nations amounts to a ban on Muslims. "I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he irst announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News. "He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’" Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers. "And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said. "The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible." Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion." "It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country," he said. The president on Friday signed an order that bars Syrian refugees inde initely and halts the country's refugee resettlement program for four

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
months. It also denies entry for 90 days to people from seven majorityMuslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya.
The president on Saturday denied that the executive order was a Muslim ban. He also insisted his new administration was "totally prepared" to carry out the refugee and travel ban.
A federal judge in New York on Saturday night granted an emergency stay temporarily halting the removal of immigrants and refugees detained following Trump's order.

SHARE (21K)

TWEET

PLUS ONE

THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE ©2017 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4
 

    
* !  
 

 

 

 

  

   
 

 
   !
"!


 #
 
$%
&
' ()&*
&#+

 
 



 %
 % 
%
&+

 % ,

 #

%-
 ." (/0! 
,"!
  
%#
%.
 $&
1
 


%
(%"
  



%2 
#




 "
  
 % (345&
  )

*
#+

     "
%%
%
 (

  " 
 
 &*
+



6

 
%

  


  

&

5
.(  
-&.&.
&
1

7
"#$
+

"%    
%" 
 8 


  
%  
 
%
(%

9:;<&
  !
  
  "

 5=&

%
/
>  
 


  
 

.41%?@&!
++

" +65
(9:;A" ,
 "

 "  &
+

 !+ +%71B4
B
*B(%
'  (
  (
%
 %%
  " 
%-
 .  
 
 
%  %&
+

"
 %


"
  
 %7'  &
1 
"  

"
  
B"
  ("0 "
 "




&!
(
 %
%%%
%

  

%
 
%
 0
&
;C

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
3>* % ' )&*
&#+

 
 '
5
 4


"/;D"9:;E"F
)
(

4
 "8&G +

"

 4H8+

 
*" (4(" .
)4

 %%
#%
(& %
0


%

"


"%

 %
0
 
%"

%"
 0
%0


 
 (

 

" 
%& (4(  

 (345
 #&+

, 
"
 


,

# %"  
%

" 1"
4

 (
 '
" (345+


& 
+"+

 #

7 +#'( 85()7 7

&&& "
% 

#  & '   %

 
8 %
0&%
 
" % 


 

%
  6  

%
&
9C

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4
+

  

 (345
+

 
& 3 



%

"!   
 
  
5
.( 

 

,
6 
"
 /& &!

"%
 $
.
%
(4(

"+


  !
"! 
% #

%5" 
% 

%!%
  
"!+

 

B


& #  

%
 +

&  

%


%

7  
%
 
 #&?)&@*
+


"
 

  

  
 # " '4 "
-
 . 

  
#/( 4

  
 
.& 
%

% 
% %(
#" 
I

"


" 
  % " +


& 103"%
 .5("# -
 .
% & 8

%
(%


#"3 +


&B
%"%
% &
CC

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
 

 
co  
   




•     
      !
"!#$"  
 
! 


"% !#
• 
 !

 !& 

!
   '




!#
&! ( 
"
  
!   
 !)
#*#+ !       !
"!#$"  


"% !! ,
#
'!'  

!

! 

,
  - 
  .

+

#/ !   "0"!'  '! "-11(2 #
3  
 ( (4
 '!15 ! !   !  !#     
      !
"!#$"  
 
! 

"% !#

 !

 !& 

!
   '



 !# !!!"  
" 6' 
!
 "
 !!

    5
 7 
 
' % !


"  8
 '"
  " 
 4!     '  ' 
' 
!' 
% 
 9#.# #& 

! 

"   
' !
 
!+  


#
)
 !(
, ' ,  
( !#!(
'  
(    +

 
(  
 

#! 
!  
 ! ( 

(  
( #(
1 


 !
 !#

 !
:
 



#:
  



#
 & 

;" !
4 
 
 !


#, & 
& 

!
  

!

#1' 
'"
"
 ;"    #(
 
  (, ' , ( 
#(
! !(
 !

 8
 
 
 #-11(2   
!
' !' ! 
 
!' 
  
!
 
' 

 #<+!-11(2   
! !' ''!"
 "

: 

 . " #


Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
 (  
  
!  "!
 
  ! 
  
  ! 
 !!8
   7  !
 <"'+ # <
 

8
  !#<"! 
  

    

!  + G  ' '( 
"#3#3#0 
"#,
!!
 !(
!

 !" 
( 
'

!  !'
(' 

! 

'
 #
(

 # 3" "  !

9 
!.


 

  !'
' 
!!!!# H ! 
#!
 #
' #'
!G !
  

 

 ' !#+"'(  
!# 
  
   
"!#H

 #( 
 
'
( #( (''#   !  
#  !  
#(    !  !' !! 5! 
 ' 
9 
!.

,     
  ''"#H#
 #H  - '" "#( 

  
 !( 
 
 
"'!!



 !'' '
 '
   !
(  " 
( 
 
!"! ! 
 
#
!
+ ' !
"'# 3




Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 15

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5
Steve  Bannon’s  own  words  show  sharp  break  on  security issues

Steve  Reilly  and  Brad  Heath  ,  USA  TODAY Published  5:26  p.m.  ET  Jan.  31,  2017  |  Updated  2:26  a.m.  ET  Feb.  1,  2017

Steve  Bannon,  who  has  ascended  in  just  months  from  relative  obscurity  to  become  one  of  President  Trump’s most  influential  advisors,  has  said  that  Islam  is  “the  most  radical  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­ news-­daily-­benjamin-­harnwell-­may-­25-­2016#t=7:50)”  religion  in  the  world  and  the  U.S.  is  engaged  in  a civilizational  struggle  potentially  leading  to  “a  major  shooting  war  in  the  Middle  East  again (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­brandon-­darby-­bob-­price-­november-­27-­ 2015#t=5:28).”

(Photo:  Evan  Vucci,  AP)
policy.

Trump  installed  Bannon  this  week  as  a  member  of  his  National  Security  Council,  taking  the  unusual  step  of installing  a  political  adviser  on  the  powerful  White  House  body  responsible  for  shaping  security  and  foreign

Far  more  significant  may  be  the  views  he  brings  to  that  table,  which  represent  a  sharp  break  from  how  previous  administrations  approached  security issues,  particularly  around  Islamic  terrorism.

In  dozens  of  hours  of  audio  recordings  reviewed  by  USA  TODAY  of  his  Breitbart  News  Daily  radio  show  in  2015  and  2016,  Bannon  told  his  listeners that  the  United  States  and  the  Western  world  are  engaged  in  a  “global  existential  war  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­frank-­ gaffney-­june-­29-­2016#t=4:19),”  and  he  entertained  claims  that  a  “fifth  column  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­john-­guandolo-­ july-­15-­2016#t=6:32)”  of  Islamist  sympathizers  had  infiltrated  the  U.S.  government  and  news  media.  Those  recordings,  preserved  online,  offer  an often  unfiltered  window  into  the  thinking  of  Trump’s  interview-­averse  senior  adviser.

The  views  mark  a  stark  shift  from  foreign  policy  doctrine  under  the  previous  two  administrations.

In  the  days  after  the  Sept.  11  attacks,  President  George  W.  Bush  was  cautious  in  his  public  statements  and  gave  a  speech  (https://georgewbush-­ whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-­11.html)  in  which  he  said,  “Islam  is  peace.”  In  a  radio  show  last  May (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­thomas-­d-­williams-­may-­11-­2016?in=breitbart/sets/breitbart-­news-­daily-­may-­11#t=0:47), Bannon  said  those  were  “the  dumbest”  comments  made  by  Bush  during  his  presidency.  On  his  radio  show,  Bannon  repeatedly  made  sarcastic references  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­kim-­jensen-­june-­14-­2016#t=3:30)  to  Islam  as  a  “religion  of  peace (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­stephen-­k-­bannon-­show-­opening-­may-­27-­2016#t=8:36).”

University  of  Texas  law  professor  Stephen  Vladeck  said  it’s  “unprecedented  to  have  someone  who  doesn’t  just  harbor  those  views  but  seems  to  have no  compunction  basing  decisions  on  those  views”  as  a  member  of  the  National  Security  Council.

“It  seems  like  we’re  headed  for  more  of  the  jaw-­dropping  steps  like  the  immigration  order,”  he  said.

Bannon  left  a  position  as  the  executive  chairman  of  the  right-­wing  news  organization  Breitbart  in  August  2016  to  become  chief  executive  of  Trump’s presidential  campaign,  and  after  the  election,  he  was  named  the  president’s  chief  strategist  and  senior  counsel  —  a  position  equal  in  rank  to  the  chief of  staff.

His  role  in  shaping  Trump’s  domestic  and  foreign  policy  has  grown  increasingly  apparent  in  the  early  days  of  the  administration.  Bannon  played  a  role in  shaping  a  flurry  of  executive  orders,  including  one  that  temporarily  blocks  immigration  from  seven  majority-­Muslim  nations.

“He's  got  a  tremendous  understanding  of  the  world  and  the  geopolitical  landscape  that  we  have  now,”  White  House  spokesman  Sean  Spicer  said  on ABC’s  This  Week  (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-­transcript-­29-­17-­sean-­spicer-­sen-­mitch/story?id=45112815)  on  Sunday,  defending  Bannon's place  on  the  security  post.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5
Diverging from longtime foreign policy
While  hosting  his  radio  program,  Bannon  made  statements  that  diverged  from  decades  of  U.S.  foreign  policy. “We’re  going  to  war  in  the  South  China  Sea  in  five  to  10  years,  aren’t  we?”  he  said  in  March  2016  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­ daily-­lee-­edwards-­march-­10-­2016#t=5:20).  “There’s  no  doubt  about  that.  They’re  taking  their  sandbars  and  making  basically  stationary  aircraft carriers  and  putting  missiles  on  those.  They  come  here  to  the  United  States  in  front  of  our  face  —  and  you  understand  how  important  face  is  —  and say  it’s  an  ancient  territorial  sea.” The  United  States  and  China  have  a  tenuous  relationship  in  part  because  China  is  entangled  in  a  dispute  with  Japan  and  other  Asian  nations  in  the region  over  an  important  trade  channel  in  the  South  China  Sea  and  the  country’s  attempts  to  assert  its  dominion  by  building  islands  topped  with military  installations.
Bannon  is  a  Washington  outsider.  (Photo:  Win  McNamee,  Getty  Images)
During  an  interview  in  February  2016,  Bannon  expressed  alarm  about  China  and  Islam  as  he  talked  about  a  Breitbart  story  proclaiming  a  mosque  at the  North  Pole  (http://www.breitbart.com/national-­security/2016/02/25/muslims-­inaugurate-­second-­mosque-­at-­north-­pole/),  although  it  was  actually  in a  northern  Canadian  village  hundreds  of  miles  away. “You  have  an  expansionist  Islam  and  you  have  an  expansionist  China  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­thomas-­d-­williams-­ february-­25-­2016?in=breitbart/sets/breitbart-­news-­daily-­69#t=5:50).  Right?  They  are  motivated.  They’re  arrogant.  They’re  on  the  march.  And  they think  the  Judeo-­Christian  West  is  on  the  retreat,”  he  said.  “Talk  to  us  about  this  mosque  on  the  North  Pole.” In  January  2016  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­thomas-­williams-­january-­6-­2016?in=breitbart/sets/breitbart-­news-­daily-­ january-­6#t=8:10),  Bannon  discussed  various  threats  facing  Europe  in  the  late  1930s  and  evaluated  Islam  alongside  fascism  and  Nazism.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5
“This  is  when  Europe’s  looking  down  the  barrel  of  fascism  —  the  rise  of  Mussolini  in  Italy,  Stalin  and  the  Russians  and  the  communist  Bolsheviks  in  the Soviet  Union.  And  obviously  Hitler  and  the  Nazis,”  he  said.  “I  mean  you’re  looking  at  fascism,  you’re  looking  at  communism.  And  to  say  that  —  what  so blows  me  away  is  the  timing  of  it.  You  could  look  in  1938  and  say,  ‘Look,  it’s  pretty  dark  here  in  Europe  right  now,  but  there’s  something  actually  much darker.  And  that  is  Islam.’  ” Emma  Ashford,  a  research  fellow  at  the  Cato  Institute,  said  public  statements  by  other  members  of  Trump’s  National  Security  Council  indicate  their views  are  not  in  alignment  with  Bannon’s,  setting  the  stage  for  debate  on  the  council. “I  think  it’s  very  good  that  there  is  internal  dissent  on  these  issues  —  particularly  when  you  look  at  how  unorthodox,  and  frankly  repulsive,  some  of these  ideas  that  Bannon  expresses  are,”  she  said.  “I  think  the  fact  that  there’s  opposition  can  only  be  a  good  thing.” The  White  House  did  not  answer  questions  from  USA  TODAY  about  Bannon's  radio  statements. A  native  of  Richmond,  Va.,  Bannon  served  as  an  officer  in  the  U.S.  Navy  after  attending  Virginia  Tech. Bannon’s  military  personnel  file  (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3438272-­Bannon-­OMPF.html),  obtained  by  USA  TODAY,  shows  he  was regularly  promoted  during  his  seven  years  of  service.  Senior  officers  wrote  that  Bannon  had  earned  their  “complete  trust”  and  praised  him  for  his “outstanding  performance.”  Bannon  earned  a  master's  degree  in  government  from  Georgetown  University  and  an  MBA  from  Harvard  and  worked  as an  investment  banker  for  Goldman  Sachs. Despite  that  background,  the  radio  shows  featured  frequent  tirades  against  the  “globalist  elites”  who  he  said  encouraged  policies  that  benefited  the wealthy  and  powerful  to  the  detriment  of  the  working  class. “I’m  the  patron  saint  of  commoners  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­jordan-­schachtel-­january-­11-­2016#t=0:05),”  he  said  in  one segment.
Immigration concerns
Bannon  often  spoke  on  his  radio  show  about  his  concerns  over  immigration  from  Muslim-­majority  countries  to  Europe  and  the  USA.  Many  of  his concerns  are  rooted  in  his  perception  of  cultural  differences  and  sharia,  or  Islamic  religious  law. “These  are  not  Jeffersonian  democrats,”  he  said  of  immigrants  to  Europe  from  Muslim  majority  countries  in  April  of  last  year (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­thomas-­d-­williams-­april-­7-­2016#t=2:14).  “These  are  not  people  with  thousands  of  years  of democracy  in  their  DNA  coming  up  here.” “I  think  that  most  people  in  the  Middle  East,  at  least  50%,  believe  in  being  sharia-­compliant,”  Bannon  said  in  December  2015 (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­rosemary-­jenks-­december-­8-­2015#t=5:35).  “If  you're  sharia-­compliant  or  want  to  impose  sharia law,  the  United  States  is  the  wrong  place  for  you."
Jared  Kushner,  son  in-­law  of  President  Trump,  left,  walks  with  Stephen  Bannon  at  Indianapolis  International  Airport  on  Dec.  1,  2016.  (Photo:  Evan  Vucci,  AP)

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5
Susan  Hennessey,  a  former  lawyer  for  the  National  Security  Agency,  said  Bannon  appears  to  misunderstand  the  basic  features  of  sharia  and  seems  to use  the  term  “sharia-­compliant”  as  shorthand  for  observant  Muslim.
“Listening  to  his  words  carefully,  he  is  saying  observant  Muslims  don’t  belong  in  the  U.S.  and  isn’t  modifying  that  statement  to  be  about  immigrants,” she  said.  “Plenty  of  natural-­born  American  citizens  are  observant  Muslims.  Those  people  are  every  bit  as  American  as  Steve  Bannon  is,  and  they  have real  reason  to  fear  his  role  in  the  White  House.”
On  his  radio  shows,  Bannon  often  provided  figures  about  immigration  from  Muslim-­majority  nations  that  are  either  exaggerations  of  disputed numbers  or  lack  basis  in  fact.
“And  some  of  the  statistics  are,  what,  like  up  to  5-­10%  believe  in  radical  —  in  radical  jihad.  I’m  mean  you’re  talking  literally  —  they  said  thousands, hundreds  (of)  thousands  are  coming  in.  Say  the  number  is  3  million,”  he  said  in  April  2016   (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­ thomas-­d-­williams-­april-­7-­2016#t=3:15).  “You  start  to  get  some  pretty  big  numbers.  Particularly  if  half  of  these  believe  in  sharia  law  or  over  60%. Right?  I  mean  the  numbers  are  staggering.”
During  a  show  in  December  2015  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­rosemary-­jenks-­december-­8-­2015#t=6:30),  Bannon  told  a guest  he  heard  an  additional  1  million  Muslim  immigrants  would  enter  the  USA  in  each  of  the  next  two  years.
“If  we  didn’t  hit  the  pause  button  today,  is  it  already  locked  up  that  we’re  going  to  be  importing  at  least  a  couple  of  million  Muslims  whatever happens?”  The  guest  agreed,  “Absolutely.”
In  truth,  the  Pew  Research  Center  estimates  the  U.S.  Muslim  population  is  3.3  million  (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2016/01/06/a-­new-­ estimate-­of-­the-­u-­s-­muslim-­population/)  and  forecasts  that  it  will  double  —  over  the  next  36  years,  not  the  next  few  years.  About  100,000  Muslims arrived  in  the  USA  each  of  the  past  few  years,  Pew  said.
‘We’re at war’
On  Breitbart  News  Daily,  Bannon’s  words  often  centered  on  the  idea  of  a  global  clash  of  civilizations.
“To  be  brutally  frank,  I  mean  Christianity  is  dying  in  Europe,  and  Islam  is  on  the  rise,”  he  said  in  an  interview  in  January  2016  with  a  Breitbart  reporter (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­thomas-­d-­williams-­january-­19-­2016?in=breitbart/sets/breitbart-­news-­daily-­43#t=0:11).
In  November  2015,  Bannon  told  his  listeners  it  was  time  to  have  an  “adult  conversation”  about  national  security.
“Some  of  these  situations  may  get  a  little  unpleasant,”  Bannon  said.  “But  you  know  what,  we’re  in  a  war.  We’re  clearly  going  into,  I  think,  a  major shooting  war  in  the  Middle  East  again  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­brandon-­darby-­bob-­price-­november-­27-­2015#t=5:12).”
Bannon  often  criticized  elected  officials  and  the  media  for  failing  to  condemn  Islam  after  terrorist  attacks.  After  the  Pulse  nightclub  attack  in  June  2016, he  lashed  out  at  the  media  and  politicians  for  not  casting  blame  on  the  religion  and  suggested  they  may  be  subservient  to  sharia,  or  Islamic  religious law.
“The  way  the  media  is  presenting  this,  it’s  almost  like  they’re  conforming  to  blasphemy  law  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­ raheem-­kassam-­june-­13-­2016#t=4:50),”  he  said.  “They  will  not  criticize  Islam,  the  president  of  the  United  States  will  not  criticize  Islam.  Mrs.  Clinton  will not  criticize  Islam.  Do  you  get  a  sense  that  the  media  in  the  West  —  and  I  mean  in  London  and  in  the  United  States  —  is  almost  working  under  the precepts  of  sharia  law  right  now?”
Concern  about  brewing  conflict,  he  said,  was  a  fundamental  concept  behind  Bannon's  media  enterprise.  “Our  big  belief,  one  of  our  central  organizing principles  at  the  site,  is  that  we’re  at  war  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­aaron-­klein-­november-­17-­2015#t=5:44),”  he  said.
"It's  war.  It's  war  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­breitbart-­news-­daily-­katie-­gorka-­december-­4-­2015#t=3:47).  Every  day,  we  put  up: America's  at  war,  America's  at  war.  We're  at  war,”  he  said  in  December  2015.  “Note  to  self,  beloved  commander  in  chief:  We're  at  war."
Contributing:  John  Kelly  
Read  or  Share  this  story:  http://usat.ly/2jSvXJf

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 16

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6
Steve  Bannon's  Islamophobic  film  script  just  one  example  of anti-­Muslim  views

etheguardian.com /us-­news/2017/feb/03/steve-­bannon-­islamophobia-­film-­script-­muslims-­islam

Tom  McCarthy
The  emergence  this  week  of  a  script  for  an  Islamophobic  film  written  a  decade  ago  by  Steve

2/3/2017

Bannon,  Donald  Trump’s  chief  strategist,  has  drawn  new  attention  to  Bannon’s  past  statements  about  Islam,  and  to  his

view  that  “the  Judeo-­Christian  west”  is  engaged  in  a  “global  war”  against  “jihadist  Islamic  fascism”.

Steve  Bannon's  role  in  inner  circle  of  Trump  team  raises  fears  of  security  crisis
e

Read  more
The  script  for  the  film,  Destroying  the  Great  Satan,  which  was  never  produced,  opens  with  a  fantasy  scene  of  the  US Capitol  adorned  with  a  star-­and-­crescent  flag  and  broadcasting  the  Muslim  call  to  prayer,  according  to  a  script obtained  by  the  Washington  Post.  The  film  imagines  a  “fundamental  clash  of  civilizations”  between  the  west  and “supremacist”  Islam,  the  Post  reported.
Here  is  a  selection  from  the  script  published  by  the  Post,  and  previous  statements  Bannon  has  made  about  Islam.
‘Loss  of  the  will  to  win’

66
The  road  to  the  establishment  of  an  Islamic  Republic  in  the  United  States  starts  slowly  and  subtly  with the  loss  of  the  will  to  win.  The  road  to  this  unique  hell  on  earth  is  paved  with  the  best  intentions  from  our major  institutions.  This  political/accommodation/appeasement  approach  is  not  simply  a  function  of  any one  individual’s  actions  but  lies  at  the  heart  of  our  most  important  cultural  and  political  institutions.

–  from  Destroying  the  Great  Satan,  a  2007  film  script  by  Stephen  Bannon.
‘Very  brutal  and  bloody  conflict’ Steven Bannon. Module 3–Should Christians impose...

66

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6

We’re  at  the  very  beginning  stages  of  a  very  brutal  and  bloody  conflict,  of  which  if  the  people  in  this room,  and  people  in  the  church,  do  not  bind  together  and  really  form  what  I  feel  is  an  aspect  of  the church  militant,  to  really  be  able  to  not  just  stand  with  our  beliefs  against  but  to  fight  for  our  beliefs  this this  new  barbarity  that’s  starting,  uh  that  we  will  literally  eradicate  everything  we’ve  been  bequeathed over  the  last  2,000  and  2,500  years.

–  from  a  summer  2014  talk  via  Skype  to  a  Vatican  meeting  of  the  conservative  Catholic  group  Institute  for  Human Dignity.
‘Something  that  we’re  going  to  have  to  face’
Steven Bannon. Module 3–Should Christians impose...

66
It’s  a  very  unpleasant  topic.  But  we  are  in  an  outright  war  against  jihadist  Islamic  fascism.  And  this  war is,  is,  I  think  metastasizing,  almost  far  quicker  than  governments  can  handle  it  …  We  have  Boko  Haram and  other  groups  that  will  eventually  partner  with  Isis  in  this  global  war.  And  it  is  unfortunately  something that  we’re  going  to  have  to  face,  and  we’re  going  to  have  to  face  very  quickly.
–  from  a  summer  2014  talk  via  Skype  to  a  Vatican  meeting  of  the  conservative  Catholic  group  Institute  for  Human Dignity.
‘The  very  beginning  stages  of  a  global  conflict’  

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6
Steven Bannon. Module 3–Should Christians impose...
66
I  think  the  discussion  of,  you  know,  can  we  put  a  cap  on  wealth  creation  and  distribution  –  it’s  something that  should  be  at  the  heart  of  every  Christian  that  is  a  capitalist.  Is,  what  is  the  purpose  I’m  doing  with this  wealth.  What  is  the  purpose  I’m  doing  with  the  ability  that  god  has  given  us  and  that  divine providence  has  given  us  to  actually  be  a  creator  of  jobs  and  a  creator  of  wealth.  I  think  it  behooves  all  us to  really  take  a  hard  look  and  make  sure  that  we  are  reinvesting  that  back  into  positive  things,  but  also to  make  sure  that  we  understand  that  we’re  at  the  very  beginning  stages  of  a  global  conflict,  and  that  if we  do  not  bind  together  with  other  countries  that  this  conflict  is  only  going  to  metastasize. They  have  a  Twitter  account  today,  Isis  does,  about  turning  the  United  States  into  a  river  of  blood  if  it comes  in  and  tries  to  defend  the  city  of  Baghdad.  And  trust  me,  that  is  going  to  come  to  Europe.  That  is going  to  come  to  central  Europe,  it  is  going  to  come  to  western  Europe,  and  it’s  going  to  come  to  the United  Kingdom.  And  so,  I  think  that  we  are  in  a  crisis,  like  I  said  a  crisis  of  capitalism,  really  the underpinnings  of  capitalism.  And  on  top  of  that  we’re  now,  I  believe,  at  the  beginning  stages  of  a  global war  against  Islamic  fascism.
Steve  Bannon:  'We're  going  to  war  in  the  South  China  Sea  ...  no  doubt'
–  from  a  summer  2014  talk  via  Skype  to  a  Vatican  meeting  of  the  conservative  Catholic  group  Institute  for  Human Dignity.
‘The  Judeo-­Christian  west  is  in  crisis’

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6
Steven Bannon. Module 3–Should Christians impose...

66
I  believe  the  world,  and  particularly  the  Judeo-­Christian  west,  is  in  a  crisis,  and  it’s  really  the  organizing principle  of  how  we  built  Breitbart  News  to  really  be  a  platform  to  bring  news  and  information  to  people throughout  the  world,  principally  in  the  west  but  we’re  expanding  internationally,  to  let  people  understand the  depths  of  this  crisis.  And  it  is  a  crisis  both  of  capitalism  but  really  of  the  underpinnings  of  the  Judeo-­ Christian  west  and  our  beliefs.
It’s  ironic  I  think  that  we’re  talking  today,  at  exactly,  uh,  tomorrow,  100  years  ago,  at  the  exact  moment we’re  talking,  uh,  the  assassination  took  place  in  Sarajevo,  um,  of  uh  Archduke  Franz,  uh,  Ferdinand, um,  that  uh  led  to  really  the  end  of  the  Victorian  era  and  the  beginning  of  the  bloodiest  century  in mankind’s  history.

–  from  a  summer  2014  talk  via  Skype  to  a  Vatican  meeting  of  the  conservative  Catholic  group  Institute  for  Human Dignity.
‘Islam  is  not  a  religion  of  peace’

Cookie policy

0 KevinFileman December  2010

IN& SOUNDCLOUD
Share

FILE

1111.11111* 1111110611111111111110111111006111W1111111111410411611

  5.6K

In  a  2010  interview,  Bannon  spoke  of  former  president  George  W  Bush  and  his  statement  after  the  9/11  attacks  that “Islam  is  a  religion  of  peace”:

66
Islam  is  not  a  religion  of  peace.  Islam  is  a  religion  of  submission.  Islam  means  submit.  I  mean,  the  whole thing,  it’s  just  categorically,  he’s  –  Avi,  he  is  the  epitome,  he’s  the  Republican  version  –  not  a

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6
conservative  –  he’s  a  Republican  establishment,  country  club  version  of  the  Clintons.  That’s  all  they  are.
It’s  a  it’s  it’s  a  it’s  a  –  it’s  the  baby  boomer,  narcissistic,  he  wants  to  feel  loved.

–  A  2010  interview  with  “Western  Word  Radio  with  Avi  Davis”,  flagged  by  CNN.
‘There’s  clearly  a  fifth  column  ...  that  has  to  be  dealt  with?’

Breitbart

Mho SOUNDCLOUD

'111111.BREITBART:6 Breitbart  News  Daily  -­  John  Guandolo  -­  July  15,  2016

Share

Cookie policy
Bannon  asking  a  radio  guest  a  question:
66
You  believe  that  not  only  we’re  at  war,  but  we  have  to  prosecute  this  as  a  war,  and  we  have  to  take  care of  this  fifth  column  –  there’s  clearly  a  fifth  column  here  in  the  United  States  –  that  needs  to  be  dealt  with immediately?    
–  2016  Breitbart  interview,  flagged  by  USA  Today.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 17

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

Bannon,  Flynn  and  Sessions:  How  Trump's  top  advisers view  Muslims,  in  their  own  words

Steve  Reilly  ,  USA  TODAY Published  10:24  a.m.  ET  Feb.  9,  2017  |  Updated  3:41  p.m.  ET  Feb.  9,  2017

Corrections  &  Clarifications:  An  earlier  version  of  this  story  misstated  the  status  of  Ben  Carson’s  nomination.

Months  before  they  became  two  of  President  Trump’s  top  advisers,  Steve  Bannon  and  Sebastian Gorka  engaged  in  a  winding  conversation  about  Islam  on  Bannon’s  talk-­radio  show.

(Photo:  J.  Scott  Applewhite,  AP)

“The  dirty  little  secret,  Steve,  that  nobody  wants  to  tell  you,  (is)  what  the  bad  guys  do  —  what  al-­Qaeda  does or  what  ISIS  is  doing  right  now  —  is  not  fundamentally  un-­Islamic,”  said  Gorka (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­sunday-­dr-­sebastian-­gorka-­april-­10-­2016#t=10:12),  who  at the  time  of  the  April  2016  show  was  a  Breitbart  writer  but  today  is  a  deputy  assistant  to  the  president.

The  recordings  of  Bannon’s  Breitbart  News  Daily  radio  show  shed  light  on  how  a  cadre  of  top  Trump  administration  officials  view  immigration  and, more  specifically,  Muslims.

Reporting  by  USA  TODAY  (/story/news/2017/01/31/bannon-­odds-­islam-­china-­decades-­us-­foreign-­policy-­doctrine/97292068/)  and  other  news  media about  the  recordings  of  Bannon's  statements  in  2015  and  2016  prompted  White  House  press  secretary  Sean  Spicer  to  address  Trump’s  views  on Islam  (/story/news/2017/02/01/spicer-­addresses-­bannons-­views-­islam/97361388/)  last  week,  suggesting  “there’s  a  difference”  between  Bannon’s  and Trump’s  views  on  the  religion.  Yet  in  the  recordings  from  Bannon’s  shows,  other  people  who've  ascended  to  top  jobs  in  the  West  Wing  and  the  Cabinet openly  aired  controversial  views  about  Muslims,  immigrants  in  general,  and  their  threat  to  America.

“We  must  acknowledge  that  we  are  at  war,”  Michael  Flynn,  now  Trump's  national  security  adviser,  told  Bannon  during  a  discussion  of  Islamic  terrorism
in  July  2016  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­lt-­gen-­ret-­michael-­flynn-­july-­20-­2016#t=6:40). Steve  Bannon’s  own  words  show  sharp  break  on  security  issues
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/31/bannon-­odds-­islam-­china-­ decades-­us-­foreign-­policy-­doctrine/97292068/)

During  an  appearance  on  Bannon’s  show  in  December  2015,  after  then-­candidate  Trump  proposed  a  “total  and  complete  shutdown  of  Muslims entering  the  United  States,”  newly  confirmed  Attorney  General  Jeff  Sessions  said  the  United  States'  “classical”  principles  about  religious  freedoms don't  apply  to  immigrants  seeking  to  come  into  the  country.

Conway  and  White  House  chief  strategist  Steve  Bannon  wait  for  Trump's  arrival  at  a  meeting  on  cybersecurity  in  the  Roosevelt  Room  of  the  White  House  on  Jan.  31, 2017.  (Photo:  Chip  Somodevilla,  Getty  Images)

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
While  Americans  are  “deeply  committed  to  freedom  of  religion,”  Sessions  told  Bannon  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­senator-­ jeff-­sessions-­december-­10-­2015#3:10),  “we  are  in  an  age  that’s  very  dangerous.  And  we  are  seeing  more  and  more  persons  enter,  and  a  lot  of  them have  done  terrorist  acts.” “It’s  time  for  us  to  think  this  through,”  said  Sessions,  a  former  U.S.  senator  who  now  will  lead  the  Justice  Department  as  it  defends  the  White  House’s immigration,  refugee  and  travel  ban  in  federal  court.  “And  the  classical  internal  American  religious  principles  I  don’t  think  apply  —  providing constitutional  protections  to  persons  (who  are)  not  citizens  who  want  to  come  here.” According  to  a  recent  Cato  Institute  report  (https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-­analysis/terrorism-­immigration-­risk-­analysis),  out  of  more  than  3 million  refugees  admitted  to  the  U.S.  from  1975  to  2015,  three  committed  terrorist  acts  that  killed  Americans.  They  were  Cuban  refugees  in  the  1970s. Recordings  show  many  of  the  newly-­installed  Trump  figures  who  made  regular  appearances  on  Bannon’s  show  share  the  host’s  ominous  views  on Islam  and  a  hard-­line  stance  on  legal  and  illegal  immigration  that  is  at  odds  with  decades  of  U.S.  domestic  and  foreign  policy.
Then-­presidential  candidate  Ben  Carson,  who  is  now  Trump’s  nominee  for  housing  secretary,  said  in  February (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­dr-­ben-­carson-­february-­16-­2016#t=6:30)  that  he  thought  Mohammed  was  "somebody  who  lives a  life  who  is  in  no  way  comparable  to  Jesus  Christ." Former  Breitbart  reporter  Julia  Hahn,  who  has  been  hired  to  work  in  the  White  House,  told  Bannon  in  August (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­julia-­hahn-­august-­10-­2016#t=4:27)  that  Trump  opponent  Hillary  Clinton  could  not  claim  to  care about  women’s  issues  “if  she  wants  to  bring  large  flows  of  unassimilated  Muslim  migrants  who,  you  know,  don’t  have  the  same  values  toward  women that  western  culture  does.” Corey  Saylor,  spokesman  for  the  Council  on  American-­Islamic  Relations,  said  the  statements  indicate  White  House  officials  “have  bought  into  false notions  that  Islam  itself  somehow  endorses  the  actions  of  devil-­inspired  groups  like  ISIS.” “It’s  sort  of  like  holding  all  Christian  groups  accountable  for  Jim  Jones  or  for  the  actions  of  Joseph  Kony’s  militia,”  Saylor  said.  “And  that  would  normally reasonably  be  considered  fringe  thinking.  But  now  we  have  those  fringe  thinkers  directly  in  the  White  House.” Those  views  are  particularly  apparent  among  Trump’s  top  national  security  advisers.  Flynn  told  Bannon  —  in  a  discussion  of  Islamic  terrorism  in  July 2016  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­daily-­lt-­gen-­ret-­michael-­flynn-­july-­20-­2016#t=6:40)  —  that  it  was  time  for  the  U.S.  to  declare war. “Our  enemies  have  declared  war  on  us  and  we  have  to  take  this  on  with  all  the  resources  that  the  United  States  of  America  can  bring  to  bear,"  Flynn said.  "There  is  no  doubt.”

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4
President  Trump  and  Steve  Bannon.  (Photo:  Evan  Vucci,  AP)
“You  think  Congress  should  declare  war  on,  on  —  you  want  to  declare  war  on  them?”  Bannon  probed. “That’s  right,”  Flynn  replied.  “I  think  we  need  a  declaration  of  war.” In  the  April  interview,  Gorka  and  Bannon  describe  the  basis  of  their  beliefs  about  Islam  and  other  world  religious.  Gorka  laughs  when  Bannon mockingly  notes  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­sunday-­dr-­sebastian-­gorka-­april-­10-­2016#t=13:50)  that  former  president  George  W. Bush  said  Islam  “means  peace.” “Let  me  tell  you  how  it  means  peace,”  Gorka  says.  “The  word  Islam  actually  means  submission.  It  means  surrender.  Surrender  to  what?  The  will  of Allah.  The  only  way  it  means  peace  is  a  derivational  way.” The  discussion  between  Bannon  and  Gorka  revolves  around  their  belief  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­sunday-­dr-­sebastian-­gorka-­ april-­10-­2016#t=11:30)  that  Islam  is  fundamentally  different  than  Christianity  and  other  faiths,  saying  the  Koran  is  meant  to  be  taken  literally  while other  religious  texts  are  meant  to  be  interpreted. At  the  end  of  the  discussion,  Bannon  appears  to  play  a  voice  of  moderation  to  the  rhetoric  of  both  Gorka  and  Trump. “One  of  the  things  about  Donald  Trump  —  and  I’m  not  arguing  for  Donald  Trump  here  —  but  one  of  the  reactions  when  you  see  in  this  firestorm  in  the media  against  him  is  that  he  has  brought  up  some  elements  of  fighting  ISIS  and  some  of  it  has  been  incredibly  immature  and  a  lot  of  it  has  been heavy-­handed  and,  quite  frankly,  stupid,”  Bannon  said  (https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-­news-­sunday-­dr-­sebastian-­gorka-­april-­10-­ 2016#t=39:00).  “However,  he  has  brought  into  the  conversation  (the  idea  of)  winning.” “How  bloody,  how  nasty,  how  divisive  …  how  awful  is  it  going  to  be?”  Bannon  asked  his  guest. “You  have  to  go  to  war,”  Gorka  replied.  “You  cannot  win  if  you  do  not  go  to  war,  and  we  have  not  gone  to  war.  That’s  the  reality.” Read  or  Share  this  story:  http://usat.ly/2kSJ6px

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
Brody  File  Exclusive:  President  Trump  Says  Persecuted
Christians  Will  Be  Given  Priority  As  Refugees

.cbn.com /thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-­file-­exclusive-­president-­trump-­says-­persecuted-­christians-­will-­be-­ given-­priority-­as-­refugees

blogs thebrodyfile

1/27/2017

01-­27-­2017

David  Brody

In  an  exclusive  interview  with  The  Brody  File,  President  Donald  Trump  says  persecuted  Christians  will  be  given  priority when  it  comes  to  applying  for  refugee  status  in  the  United  States.  “We  are  going  to  help  them,”  President  Trump  tells CBN  News.  “They’ve  been  horribly  treated.  Do  you  know  if  you  were  a  Christian  in  Syria  it  was  impossible,  at  least  very tough  to  get  into  the  United  States?  If  you  were  a  Muslim  you  could  come  in,  but  if  you  were  a  Christian,  it  was  almost impossible  and  the  reason  that  was  so  unfair,  everybody  was  persecuted  in  all  fairness,  but  they  were  chopping  off  the heads  of  everybody  but  more  so  the  Christians.  And  I  thought  it  was  very,  very  unfair.”
The  Brody  File  conducted  the  interview  Friday  morning  in  the  Blue  Room  at  The  White  House.  More  newsworthy  clips are  coming  soon.  The  entire  interview  can  be  seen  this  Sunday  at  11pm  on  Freeform  (cable  TV,  formerly  ABC  Family Channel)  during  our  special  CBN  News  show.  This  is  just  the  third  interview  President  Trump  has  done  from  The  White House  and  it  will  be  the  only  interview  that  will  air  in  its’  entirety  this  weekend.
MANDATORY  VIDEO  AND  COURTESY:  CBN  NEWS/THE  BRODY  FILE
DAVID  BRODY:  “Persecuted  Christians,  we’ve  talked  about  this,  the  refugees  overseas.  The  refugee  program,  or  the refugee  changes  you’re  looking  to  make.  As  it  relates  to  persecuted  Christians,  do  you  see  them  as  kind  of  a  priority here?”
PRESIDENT  TRUMP:  “Yes.”

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
DAVID  BRODY:  “You  do?”
PRESIDENT  TRUMP:  “They’ve  been  horribly  treated.  Do  you  know  if  you  were  a  Christian  in  Syria  it  was  impossible,  at least  very  tough  to  get  into  the  United  States?  If  you  were  a  Muslim  you  could  come  in,  but  if  you  were  a  Christian,  it was  almost  impossible  and  the  reason  that  was  so  unfair,  everybody  was  persecuted  in  all  fairness,  but  they  were chopping  off  the  heads  of  everybody  but  more  so  the  Christians.  And  I  thought  it  was  very,  very  unfair.  So  we  are  going to  help  them.”
While  you  are  here...
We'd  like  to  ask  for  your  help.  At  CBN  News,  we  strive  to  bring  you  the  most  current,  pertinent  and  reliable  news possible.  We  are  able  to  bring  you  this  important  news  from  a  Christian  perspective  because  of  the  help  of  friends  like you  who  know  how  vital  it  is  to  have  an  alternative  to  the  news  you  hear  from  major  media  outlets.  Would  you  help ensure  that  we  can  continue  to  provide  this  important  service  to  you  and  our  country  by  considering  a  special  gift today?  Or  would  you  become  a  monthly  partner  so  we  know  we  can  count  on  the  resources  we  need  to  bring  you  the best  news  possible?
Thanks  for  being  a  part  of  the  dynamic  future  of  CBN  News,  as  well  as  helping  The  Christian  Broadcasting  Network share  the  love  of  Jesus  with  hurting  people  everywhere.
Share
Tweet
Email
The  Brody  File  newsletter
Stay  up-­to-­date  with  CBN  News  Chief  Political  Correspondent,  David  Brody.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 19

More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Initially Said - The New York Times

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

6 New

tines https://nyti.ms/2jSL4Vx

POLITICS
More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Initially Said
By RON NIXON JAN. 31, 2017 WASHINGTON — A far larger number of people were affected by President Trump’s executive order on refugees than he initially said, Department of Homeland Security officials acknowledged on Tuesday.
Mr. Trump posted on Twitter that only 109 people were detained or denied entry into the United States after his order, but during a news briefing at the Customs and Border Protection agency’s headquarters on Tuesday, officials said that 721 people had been denied boarding for the United States after it began enforcing the travel ban. The agency said it processed waivers for 1,060 green card holders, and an additional 75 waivers granted to immigrant visa and nonimmigrant visa holders.
Homeland security officials said the White House was referring to the number of people who were either detained or denied boarding during the initial hours after the travel ban was signed, a total based on preliminary calculations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-ban-immigrants-refugees.html?_r=0

More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Initially Said - The New York Times

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

The officials also disclosed that 872 refugees were granted waivers to enter the country, despite Mr. Trump’s executive order freezing resettlement. Customs officials said the waivers were granted because the refugees were “ready to travel.” They had already been vetted by the government, they said.
John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, said that Mr. Trump’s order did not amount to a “travel ban,” adding, “This is a temporary pause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa vetting system.”
But Mr. Kelly also confirmed that, while he saw versions of the executive order, he did not see the final order before it was signed by the president.
He said that executives at homeland security were involved in writing the order, but added that the knowledge of it and its distribution was limited. Mr. Kelly said that he had known that the order was coming for some time, but that he was not involved personally in the process to the degree to which he “corrected grammar or say we needed to change things.”
The New York Times reported on Monday that Mr. Kelly was on a conference call about the order when it was signed on Friday and was given his first full briefing about its contents later that day.
Mr. Trump’s order initially created chaos and confusion at airports around the world. Passengers, many of them with green cards that allow them to live and work in the United States, were barred from flights into the country. A number of people with visas were suddenly unsure if they would be allowed into the United States, and many were stopped when they arrived.
Neither homeland security nor related agencies posted any information on their websites or social media accounts informing the public about Mr. Trump’s travel ban until Sunday.
Immigration proponents and lawyers representing people stuck at airports because of the ban say they were unable to speak to anyone at Customs and Border Protection or at the headquarters of homeland security.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-ban-immigrants-refugees.html?_r=0

More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Initially Said - The New York Times

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

The first briefing on the order by homeland security officials for the news media was at 9 p.m. on Saturday, long after news reports raised questions about the effects of the order and after thousands of people had lined the sidewalks and terminals of international airports to protest the ban.
During the Tuesday briefing, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin K. McAleenan, rejected criticism of the agency’s efforts to enforce the order.
“We worked quickly to implement, and I think the process has really smoothed out,” he said.
Mr. Kelly also insisted that there was no chaos. “Our officers who are at the counters, so to speak, the only chaos they saw was what was taking place in other parts of the airport,” he said.
Despite the ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries, Mr. Kelly insisted the country remained open to visitors despite their religious beliefs.
“The vast majority of the 1.7 billion Muslims that live on this planet, the vast majority of them have, all other things being equal, have access to the United States,” Mr. Kelly said.
Correction: January 31, 2017 An earlier version of this article misstated what the number 109 referred to in a Twitter post by President Trump. It was the number of people affected by the travel ban, not the number of people denied boarding on planes to the United States. Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on February 1, 2017, on Page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: More People Affected by Ban Than Initially Stated.

© 2017 The New York Times Company

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-ban-immigrants-refugees.html?_r=0

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-20 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 20

CCaassee 11::1177--ccvv--0100513574--TNSMCG DDooccuummeennt t3233-2-10 FFiilleedd 0014//3111//1177 PPaaggee 12 ooff 12 United Stattes Deppaartment of State
DDeeppuuttyy AAsssisstantt Seeccrreetcauryy ffoorrVVisisaaSSeerrvviicceess WWashhiinggttoonn,, DD.C. 20520
January 27, 2017
Upon request off the U.S. Department off Homeland Security and pursuant to sections 2122((±f) and 221(i) offthe Immigration and Nationality Act and 22 CFR 41.122 and 42.82, and in implementation of'section 3(c) of the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, I hereby provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigraanntt vviissaass of nnaattiioonnaallss of
' Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subjject to the exceptions
discussed below. The revocation does not apply to visas in the following nonimmigrant classifications: A-1, A-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO, C-2, or certain diplomatic vviisas. The revocation also does not apply to any visa exempted on the basis of a determination made by the Secretaries off State and Homeland Secumrity ppuursuant to section 3(g) offthe Executive Orderr on a case-by-case basis, and wwhen in the national interest. This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other personn.
Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of CConsular Affairs Department off State

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 21

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
PRESS RELEASES
Home (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home) / Press (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press) / Press Releases (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases)
Jan 29 2017
Statement  By  Senators  Graham  &  McCain  On  Executive  Order  On Immigration
Washington, D.C. ¬– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released the following statement today on the President’s executive order on immigration: “Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation. “It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into e ect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. “Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have su ered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children. “Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-byside with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.” ###
Share This: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/statement-by-senators-graham-mccain-on-executive-orderon-immigration (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/statement-by-senators-graham-mccain-on-executiveorder-on-immigration)
RELATED
Press Releases (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases) Op-Eds/Columns (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds-columns) Videos (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos) Photo Gallery (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/photo-gallery) Blog (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog)

Washington D.C. O ice 290 Russell Senate O ice Building Washington, DC 20510 O ice: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-3808
Upstate O ice Midlands O ice Pee Dee O ice Lowcountry O ice Piedmont O ice Golden Corner O ice
Send Email (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-senator-graham)

Follow (https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog)

Like (https://www.facebook.com/USSenatorLindseyGraham)

(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClLGZMA5Ei2Z8fR1PLEx6yQ) (https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/?a=rss.feed)

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-22 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-22 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

Donald J. Trump 41,
@realnonaldTrurrp

2.- !Follow

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

RE1VIEETS LIKES
67,560 014

L lig 11

3:35 PM - 9 Feb 2017
4-6. 148K to 68K

qp ?40K

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 23

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4
 
 

c 

 

  


 

   !
"#
 
# 
$%#&##


 #$# "# 
'


&&

 #(

 "#

(

)# &
 *
 +&, +
"# &$
     "
&
 
' -  %&#


 & %&.
 "

 &%
  &
 
 
(

 
/

&&0
1 1. +"
 + 2
" 3 + 

+"
 %& 4   ""&

)&&&
# " 

*+#

  

% 
 "   "*+
(
  %#
#
&
  *+
% & 
(
.
$ "$ 

 
-"  
&  &


   ""&&

 #
& 

1#(
 !
""
 
  &5 
4
"
&6 "
  & 

&" 
"&&# # &
 
 &%&
 
#


 ##
&
"+"
 4# 

17#3$%#1.

 &  &"#
8! 9"1
 '
%#
# 



1
  
%+"
&
 "&
#
 &
 "

*+#  & 
 %:%&, +
"&&

 
##

#  

 $ 
"
'$
 
"
; ;&&
+"& %

 #< "<
<1(#$
 "
 "%< <3

3
 1(#$
 " 
 "#( 
 "%"
%#( 
 
 %#
# 
=

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4


"&""<

(

 
$#

 
"
, 
 & 
%   "


 
 "#  #8
  
" 

 
  
%
 &&

 # $G77+"

, +
"+"89 "&, +
" 
#&
 
   "&#&
 
)% &&

 


!
"
 %,+
   




 "
 
 1%1.%2
"%+ 
%+"
%+3
 " #
 #& 
%
 "&  

>
  ?< &&

)&5 
4
"


< ?<
CC
 <

?</
6=

  

$#  $   

D64 <F

LIBYA

SYRIA IRAQ

IRAN

 &&

)&5 
4
"
/D


,  

 %
 &&

 &
 
#
 &

•

SUDAN

- Pi

lifit ird . ishighiligriL ... ,


(

 % "+5
 +

-


 %"
%,+  #  *+

#    #

 & 
 1 #
"&, +
"" & "*+# 
 "
&
 "
 

- 

 
!
"
 %
"G77%
  "%< #& 
 
 "
 *+'<

>
  ?<1"
#
 *+

)<  ?<
CC
 < ?</
HDH=E 

&    D64 <F

1"
#
 *+

)/D

'&+"&%G-
 

 

 


!
"%  
 
 
& "*+    *+"" 
"
=

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

 %
 
 
&&

 
-&

%
,
$    
&;&&
&2  G %8
&&

 #&
%
  &
 
#


,&&

 
+"
 %"
 ;2G
 && "
##&
'

&

& # "
#("
 " "7
 +
"G
 
>
  ?</ #$
 "
 "<  ?<
CC
 < ?</
 $
 =  D64 <F
/ #$
 "
 "/
+ "%&
 
#

&&

  
 &&
 
#& "
& 
&

 !
"&&

 # &&  "&
&

.
# # *+  
I 
   &&
#"#
%&
 
 #


&&&

 $#
 
%&&
  
  
 
'


&&

  &+""
 #
& &
 #
& +,+##
 
 # $

# $
&

J
/I
-5
 #
 

 

 

 
  %
  I 
 
,
-&!
"&%


&&

 
,$  &

  &
#
 '
9 "G#"


 # 
  & "

 
'


&&

  &
##

% 
&

 # " !
"
 %&

  

 



 



 
 
 


 


 !
G77(I5'8


==

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-24 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 24

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-24 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4
Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States
Scope Note: This paper was prepared at the request of the DHS Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. It assesses the international terrorist threat to the United States and worldwide by citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. Syria. and Yemen. Citizens of these seven countries were impacted by Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13769 "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The assessment relies on unclassified information from Department of Justice press releases on terrorismrelated convictions and terrorist attack perpetrators killed in the act, Department of State visa statistics, the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, and the Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2015. This paper does not assess the threat of domestic terrorism.
Key Findings
• DHS 1&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, the foreign-born primarily US-based individuals who were inspired by a foreign terrorist organization to participate in terrorism-related activity were citizens of 26 different countries, with no one country representing more than 13.5 percent of the foreign-born total.
• Relatively few citizens of the seven countries impacted by E.O. 13769, compared to neighboring countries, maintain access to the United States.
• Terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen pose a threat of attacks in the United States while groups in Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan remain regionally focused.
Citizens of Countries Affected by E.O. 13769 Rarely Implicated in US-Based Terrorism
DHS l&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, at least 82 primarily US-based individuals, who died in the pursuit of or were convicted of any terrorism-related federal offense inspired by a foreign terrorist organization, according to a DHS study of Department of Justice press releases on convictions and terrorist attack perpetrators killed in the act).Of the 82 individuals we identified, slightly more than half were native-born United States citizens. Of the foreign-born individuals, they came from 26 different countries, with no one country representing more than 13.5 percent of the foreign-born total.
• The top seven origin countries of the foreign-born individuals are: Pakistan (5), Somalia (3), and Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Uzbekistan (2).
•For the purposes of this paper, we limited our data to individuals prosecuted under 18 U S.C. Chapter 133E in support of or inspired by a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTC)). We excluded traveling or attempting to travel overseas to join a FTO and activities unrelated to FTOs, to include purely domestic terrorism.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-24 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

Of the seven countries impacted by E.O. 13769 that are not listed above, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen had 1 each, and there were no individuals from Syria.
Limated Access to the United States by Citizens of Impacted Countries
Relatively few citizens of the seven countries impacted by E.O. 13769, compared to neighboring countries, maintain access to the United Slates. None of the seven countries account for more than 7 percent of the US visas granted in their region--the Middle East and North Africa or SubSaharan Africa—in Fiscal Year 2015, according to publicly available Fiscal Year 2015 visa issuance data from the Department of State.23t
FY15 US Visas Granted as Percentage of Regional Total

6% 5% 4%

2.20%

rn

1,50%

0.50% Libya

0.30%
sum
Selman,'

Ski fir,

Yvritt n

Few of the Impacted Countries Have Terrorist Groups that Threaten the West
Terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen pose a threat of attacks in the United States, while groups in Iran, Libya. Somalia, and Sudan are regionally focused, according to the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community and the Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.
Iran - Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, according to the Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.4 Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability
Fiscal Year 2015 is the most recent year we have visa issuance data for both immigrant and non-immigrant visas. A-1, A-2, A-3, C-2, NATO, G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-3 non-immigrant visas were excluded from these calculations to
be consistent with section 3(c) in E.O. 13769.
2

bAe-1c,oAnCs-i2ast,esAnet-3w1, iCt:h1-2s7,ecN-tciAovTn-O30(,0c0)5-i1n3, E70-.-O2T,.0S1-33C7,6a9n.dD0o-3cnuomn-iemnmtig3ra3n-t2vi4sas wFeirleeedxe0l 4/11/1m7thesPe acaglceula4tioonsf t4o
2
in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad. Iraq and Syria -- The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has become the preeminent terrorist threat because of its self-described caliphate in Syria and Iraq, its branches and emerging branches in other countries, and its increasing ability to direct and inspire attacks against a wide range of targets around the world, according to the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment.5 ISIL's narrative supports jihadist recruiting, attracts others to travel to Iraq and Syria, draws individuals and groups to declare allegiance to ISIL, and justifies attacks across the globe. Libya - Libya has been locked in civil war between two rival governments and affiliated armed groups, according to the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment.6 The 17 December 2015 signing of a UN-brokered agreement to form a Government of National Accord resulted from a yearlong political dialogue that sought to end the ongoing civil war and reconcile Libya's rival governments. Extremists and terrorists have exploited the security vacuum to plan and launch attacks in Libya and throughout the region. Somalia - In 2015, al-Shabaab continued to commit deadly attacks in Somalia, seeking to reverse progress made by the Federal Government of Somalia and weaken the political will of the African Union Mission in Somalia troop contributing countries, according to the Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.7 Sudan - Sudan was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1993 due to concerns about support to international terrorist groups, according to the Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.s In 2014, members of Hamas were allowed to raise funds, travel, and live in Sudan. However, in 2015 the use of Sudan by Palestinian designated terrorist groups appeared to have declined. The last known shipment was interdicted by Israel in 2014.
Yemen - Al-Qa4 icla in the Arabian Peninsula remained a significant threat to Yemen, the region, and to the United States in 2015, as efforts to counter the group were hampered by the ongoing conflict in that country, according to the Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.9 The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Yemen also exploited the political and security vacuum to strengthen its foothold inside the country.
OHS 1&A; OHS I&A Terrorism-Related Activities Study; 16 FEB 17; DOI 01 MAR 11 - 31 JAN 17; OHS I&A TerrorismRelated Activities Study https://travelstlite,govicontent/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnuaiReportsPY2016AnnualReport/FYI6ArmuaiReportTableXIV.pdf 3 https://travel.state.govicontentidamivisas/Statistics/Non-ImmigrantStatistics/NIVOetailTables/FY15%2ONIV9420Detail%20Table.xls nttps://wwwstate.govNctirls/crt/2015/257520.htrn

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 25

State  Dept.  Dissent  CableC  oan  Tsreum1p’:s1  B7an- c Dvra-w0s0  15,03007  S-iTgnSatuCres  -­D  Thoec  Nuewm  Yeornk t Ti3m3es-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5
Che ;New ijork gimes https://nyti.ms/2jRZm93
AMERICAS
State  Dept.  Dissent  Cable  on  Trump’s  Ban Draws  1,000  Signatures
By  JEFFREY  GETTLEMAN JAN.  31,  2017 NAIROBI,  Kenya  —  It  started  out  in  Washington.
Then  it  went  to  Jakarta.  Then  across  Africa. One  version  even  showed  up  on  Facebook. Within  hours,  a  State  Department  dissent  cable,  asserting  that  President Trump’s  executive  order  to  temporarily  bar  citizens  from  seven  Muslim-­majority countries  would  not  make  the  nation  safer,  traveled  like  a  chain  letter  —  or  a  viral video. The  cable  wended  its  way  through  dozens  of  American  embassies  around  the world,  quickly  emerging  as  one  of  the  broadest  protests  by  American  officials  against their  president’s  policies.  And  it  is  not  over  yet. By  4  p.m.  on  Tuesday,  the  letter  had  attracted  around  1,000  signatures,  State Department  officials  said,  far  more  than  any  dissent  cable  in  recent  years.  It  was being  delivered  to  management,  and  department  officials  said  more  diplomats wanted  to  add  their  names  to  it. The  State  Department  has  7,600  Foreign  Service  officers  and  11,000  civil  servants. The  letter  had  been  evolving  since  this  weekend,  when  the  first  draft  emerged.  It was  edited  as  it  moved  along,  with  some  diplomats  adding  words  and  others  striking
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-­dept-­dissent-­cable-­trump-­immigration-­order.html?smid=pl-­share

State  Dept.  Dissent  CableC  oan  Tsreum1p’:s1  B7an- c Dvra-w0s0  15,03007  S-iTgnSatuCres  -­D  Thoec  Nuewm  Yeornk t Ti3m3es-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5
out  passages.
For  example,  one  diplomat  suggested  this  sentence  should  simply  end  on “lasting  shame”:  “The  decision  to  restrict  the  freedom  of  Japanese-­Americans  in  the United  States  and  foreign  nationals  who  wanted  to  travel  to  or  settle  in  the  United States  during  the  1940s  has  been  a  source  of  lasting  shame  for  many  in  our  country.”
Some  officials  who  were  trying  to  sign  the  document  on  Tuesday  said  it  was  not clear  who  was  in  charge  or  who  was  collecting  signatures.  The  letter  was  passed through  official  State  Department  email  accounts  and  on  government  time  —  several diplomats  said  union  rules  allowed  them  to  work  on  dissent  memos  on  the  clock.
“Policy  dissent  is  in  our  culture,”  said  one  diplomat  in  Africa,  who  did  not  want to  speak  publicly  before  the  letter  was  released.  “We  even  have  awards  for  it.”
The  letter,  which  harshly  took  apart  the  executive  order,  said  the  visa  ban  would “alienate  allies”  and  “hurt  America  economically.”  Foreign  travelers  inject  nearly $250  billion  into  the  American  economy,  the  letter  said,  supporting  more  than  one million  jobs.
Some  diplomats  said  they  joined  the  dissent  by  sending  an  email  saying  “I’m  in” or  “Please  add  my  name  as  a  signer”  along  with  their  full  name,  title,  position  and post.
The  letter  was  apparently  circulated  through  informal  networks  of  diplomats and  not  through  any  State  Department-­wide  email  list.  One  diplomat  on  vacation  in the  United  States  said  he  received  the  letter  from  a  colleague  in  another  part  of  the world  who  was  not  connected  to  the  drafters  and  was  simply  passing  it  along.
The  diplomat  predicted  that  hundreds  of  other  diplomats  would  be  eager  to  sign it  if  they  could,  but  because  of  the  complications  of  figuring  out  where  the  dissent memo  originally  came  from,  he  was  not  sure  how  many  would  actually  sign  it.
Most  people  in  the  State  Department  have  never  seen  anything  like  this,  the diplomat  said.  He  said  dissent  memos  were  reserved  for  major  policy  issues,  not  for little  grumbles  like  bad  food  in  the  embassy  cafeteria.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-­dept-­dissent-­cable-­trump-­immigration-­order.html?smid=pl-­share

State  Dept.  Dissent  CableC  oan  Tsreum1p’:s1  B7an- c Dvra-w0s0  15,03007  S-iTgnSatuCres  -­D  Thoec  Nuewm  Yeornk t Ti3m3es-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5
That  diplomat  also  requested  anonymity,  saying  that  Foreign  Service  officers were  not  supposed  to  criticize  American  policy  publicly  and  that  he  did  not  want  to open  himself  up  to  accusations  that  he  had  violated  the  rules.  That  could  threaten his  job,  he  said,  especially  in  such  a  polarized  environment.
This  is  exactly  what  the  dissent  channel,  as  it  is  called,  was  intended  for.
Starting  in  1971  during  the  Vietnam  War,  the  channel  encourages  department officials  to  voice  their  criticisms  internally  through  a  process  of  sending  a  memo  or  a cable  to  the  secretary  of  state  expressing  their  concerns  and  suggesting  solutions. The  final  part  of  the  visa  ban  memo  lays  out  detailed  alternatives,  including increased  vetting  for  specific  nationalities.
State  Department  rules  are  supposed  to  protect  dissenters  from  being  retaliated against,  and  last  year  several  dozen  diplomats  signed  a  dissent  memo  criticizing American  policy  on  Syria.
But  however  officially  tolerated,  several  veteran  diplomats  said  dissent  was  still risky.  When  it  comes  to  ambassadorships,  the  selection  process  is  highly  competitive —  and  highly  subjective  —  and  the  diplomats  said  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove why  someone  had  been  blocked  from  a  coveted  post.  Previous  dissent  could  easily  be used  against  the  person.
Some  State  Department  officials  said  on  Tuesday  that  they  would  not  sign  the letter  because  of  those  risks.  While  one  said  he  disagreed  with  the  visa  ban,  he considered  it  his  job  to  enforce  American  government  policies  whether  or  not  he agreed  with  them.
Other  diplomats  said  the  letter  did  not  mean  that  dissenters  would  disobey  the visa  ban.  The  intent  was  to  try  to  change  the  policy  so  the  ban  would  be  lifted,  they said.
The  diplomat  who  said  he  would  not  use  a  dissent  memo  to  complain  about cafeteria  food  said  that  he  had  been  torn  when  the  United  States  invaded  Iraq because  he  was  strongly  against  the  war,  but  that  he  did  not  know  how  to  express  his concern.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-­dept-­dissent-­cable-­trump-­immigration-­order.html?smid=pl-­share

State  Dept.  Dissent  CableC  ona  Tsruem1p’:s1  B7an-  cDvra-w0s0  1,500307  S-igTnaStuCres  -­ D Thoe  cNuewm  Yeornk  Tt i3m3es-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5
He  said  he  was  just  starting  out  at  the  time. The  visa  ban,  he  said,  “was  such  obviously  bad  policy”  that  he  was  trying  to  find a  way  to  sign  the  dissent  letter. He  also  said  that  many  diplomats  were  using  the  letter  as  a  vehicle  to  express broader  concerns  about  the  way  the  Trump  administration  has  appeared  to  sideline the  State  Department. The  diplomat  spoke  in  defense  of  refugees,  saying  that  the  tiny  percentage  from, say,  Somalia  who  had  been  approved  for  resettlement  in  the  United  States  had  been scrutinized  by  several  agencies  and  were  among  the  most  vulnerable  of  very vulnerable  people.  Now,  many  are  stuck  in  limbo  in  transit  centers. The  diplomat  also  criticized  Mr.  Trump’s  press  secretary,  Sean  Spicer,  who  said on  Monday  that  State  Department  officials  who  did  not  agree  with  Mr.  Trump’s agenda  “should  either  get  with  the  program  or  they  can  go.” He  called  that  “bullying  at  the  highest  levels.” Follow  Jeffrey  Gettleman  on  Twitter  @gettleman.
A  version  of  this  article  appears  in  print  on  February  1,  2017,  on  Page  A1  of  the  New  York  edition  with  the headline:  Dissent  on  Travel  Ban  Spreads  From  One  Embassy  to  Another.
glie Nett, Vork .intes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/americas/state-­dept-­dissent-­cable-­trump-­immigration-­order.html?smid=pl-­share

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 26

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6
DISSENT CHANNEL
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders
(U) The following is a Dissen Channel message frorr
(SBU) Summary: We are wri ing to register our dissent to the State Department's implementation of President rump's Friday, January 27, 2017 Executive Order on "Protecting The Nation Fr m Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," which, among other things, bl cks the Department of State from issuing immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to cit zens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for a minimum 90 da period with an unclear timeline for when issuance would resume. As consular p ofessionals, Foreign Service Officers, and members of the Civil Service, we see e ery day the value that "Secure Borders and Open Doors" brings to our nation. policy which closes our doors to over 200 million legitimate travelers in the hop s of preventing a small number of travelers who intend to harm Americans fro using the visa system to enter the United States will not achieve its aim of m ng our country safer. Moreover, such a policy runs counter to core American val s of nondiscrimination, fair play, and extending a warm welcome to foreign visi ors and immigrants. Alternative solutions are available to address the risk o terror attacks which are both more effective and in line with Department of State d American values.
This Ban Does N It Achieve is Aims--And Will Likely Be Counterproductive
(SBU) This ban, which can o y be lifted under conditions which will be difficult or impossible for countries to eet, will not achieve its stated aim of to protect the American people from terrori attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States. Despite the Executive der's focus on them, a vanishingly small number of terror attacks on U.S. soil h ye been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the United St tes on an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa. Rather, the overwhelming majority of ttacks have been committed by native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens--indi iduals who have been living in the United States for decades, if not since birth. In t e isolated incidents of foreign nationals entering the

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6
U.S. on a visa to commit acts o terror, the nationals have come from a range of countries, including many (sue as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) which are not covered by the Executive Orde
(SBU) Given the near-absence f terror attacks committed in recent years by Syrian, Iraqi, Irani, Libyan, So alia, Sudanese, and Yemeni citizens who are in the U.S. in after entering on a visa this ban will have little practical effect in improving public safety.
(SBU) If this ban will not prey nt terror attacks from occurring, what will it do?
(SBU) It will immediately s ur relations with these six countries, as well as much of the Muslim world, hich sees the ban as religiously-motivated. These governments of these count es are important allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, regionally and globally. By alienating them, we lose access the intelligence and resourc s need to fight the root causes of terror abroad, before an attack occurs with n our borders.
(SBU) It will increase anti- erican sentiment. When the 220 million citizens of these countries lose the o portunity to travel to the U.S. overnight, hostility towards the United States w 11 grow. Instead of building bridges to these societies through formal out each and exchanges and through informal peopleto-people contact, we send t e message that we consider all nationals of these countries to be an unaccep le security risk. Almost one-third of these countries' combined popula ions are children under the age of 15; there is no question that their perceptio of the United States will be heavily colored by this ban. We are directly im act the attitudes of current and future leaders in these societies--including th se for whom this may be a tipping point towards radicalization.
(SBU) It will have an imme late and clear humanitarian impact. Every day foreign nationals come to th United States to seek medical treatment for a child with a rare heart condition, t attend a parent's funeral, or to help a relative in distress. For citizens of the countries, a blanket ban on travel will not just ruin vacation plans but pote tially cut off access to life-saving medical treatment or impose terrible umanitarian burdens. While the Executive Order allows for the Secretary of :ate or the Secretary of Homeland security to admit travelers from these countri s on a case-by-case basis, it is unrealistic to think that this will be feasible to i plements for the thousands of aliens with urgent and compelling needs to tra el.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6
(SBU) It will have a negativ impact on the U.S. economy. According to the Department of Commerce, ~reign travelers collectively injected almost $250 billion into the U.S. econom in 2015 alone, supporting over one million American jobs. Foreign stu ents along contribute more than $30 billion to the U.S. economy. Preventing avelers from these six countries from spending their money in the U.S. will mmediately decrease that amount; more perniciously, this ban can b expected to cause an overall drop in traveler dollars as the U.S. quickly s eds its welcoming "Secure Borders, Open Doors" reputation.
(SBU) The end result of this b. will not be a drop in terror attacks in the United States; rather, it will be a drop i international good will towards Americans and a threat towards our economy.
We Are Better Than This Ba
(SBU) Looking beyond its effe tiveness, this ban stands in opposition to the core American and constitutional va ues that we, as federal employees, took an oath to uphold.
(SBU) The United States is a n tion of immigrants, starting from its very origins.
The concept that immigrants . • foreigners are welcome is an essential element of
our society, our government, d our foreign policy. So, too, is the concept that we are all equal under the law and that we as a nation abhor discrimination, whether it is based on race, reliion, sex, or national origin. Combined together, that means we have a special o N ligation to maintain an immigration system that is as free as possible from discri nation, that does not have implied or actual religious tests, and that views i dividuals as individuals, not as part of stereotyped groups.
(SBU) The Executive Order fr es the ban as a 90-day suspension of entry for these nationals until their coun ies can set up arrangements to provide adequate information to determine that individual seeking a benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a securit or public-safety threat. This is a high, vague, and nebulous bar. In some cases, e governments of these countries may be wholly incapable of providing this info ation; in others, the government may be unwilling. In either case, indiv dual citizens will pay the price—a situation which runs counter to U.S. values of it play and offering equal opportunities to all.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6
(SBU) Banning travelers from ese seven countries calls back to some of the worst times in our history. La enacted in the 1920s and which lasted through the 1960s severely restricted immi ration based on national origin and, in some cases, race. The decision to restrict freedom of Japanese-Americans in the U.S. and foreign citizens who wanted to ravel to or settle in the U.S. during the 1940s has been a source ❑f lasting shame or many in our country. Decades from now, we will look back and realize we ade the same mistakes our predecessors: shutting borders in a knee-jerk reaction nstead of setting up systems of checks that protect our interests and our values.
Alternative Ways Forward
(SBU) Just as equality and mul iculturalism are core American values, so too is pragmatism. And there are pra matic ways to achieve our common goals to protect the American people fr m terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States and to secure better and more prosperous future.
(SBU) Rather than a blanket b on the travel of over 200 million citizens, we need to strengthen our targeted d interagency approach to deterring, detecting, and subverting attacks. We sh ld not focus our screening and vetting on specific nationalities at the expense of ssing the forest for the trees but should turn those tools to cover the full range of ources of terror, including those who may hold "friendly" or even U.S. passpo s.
(SBU) There is no question tha the visa process can be improved and refined to better detect individuals who in end to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes. We need ❑expand existing interagency cooperation between the different elements of the go ernment responsible for border security and protection of the homeland. s includes cooperation with state, local, campus, and tribal law enforcement, wh in many cases are best situated to detect threats. The Visa Security Program whi h embeds Department of Homeland Security staff into consular sections around t e world has proven the effectiveness of incorporating a law enforceme t perspective into the visa process; this approach should be expanded.
(SBU) Continuous vetting prog am for visa holders--which looks at all visa holders, not just those of speci c nationalities--allows our law enforcement and intelligence bodies to act on ne information and to focus on individuals that may become radicalized. This vettin should be expanded and made more comprehensive. Likewise, the isa Viper Program, which allows posts overseas to

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 33-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6
report on potential threats, should be strengthened to become a more reliable source of intelligence.
(SBU) The Department of State and the U.S. government already has numerous tools already at its disposal to secure its visa process: access to law enforcement databases, biometric screening, Security Advisory Opinions, continuous vetting. If we haven't accomplished our goals so far, then let's strengthen and improve these tools. And let's develop new tools: cutting-edge data analytics, social media tracking, data mining, aggressive outreach.
(SBU) We do not need to place a blanket ban that keeps 220 million people--men, women, and children--from entering the United States to protect our homeland. We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe. And we do not need to sacrifice our reputation as a nation which is open and welcoming to protect our families. It is well within our reach to create a visa process which is more secure, which reflects our American values, and which would make the Department proud.

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No.:

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States;

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF DAVID J. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I, David J. Weiner, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify. 2. I am an attorney at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 14
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 15, 2017 titled "2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump's Latest Travel Ban." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trumptravel-ban.html.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated February 22, 2017 titled "A new travel ban with 'mostly minor technical differences'? That probably won't cut it, analysts say." Link: http://wapo.st/2mmmECm.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a news article from Politico dated November 18, 2015, titled "Trump: 'Absolutely no choice' but to close mosques." Link: http://www,politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a press release published by the presidential campaign website of Donald J. Trump dated December 7, 2015, titled "Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration." Link: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslimimmigration.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 2:32 PM on December 7, 2015. Link: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/673993417429524480.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an article from Politifact dated January 28, 2016, titled "Christie says neighbors of San Bernardino shooters knew more than they did." Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2016/jan/28/chris-christie/christie-says-neighbors-san-bemardino-shooters-lcn/.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 14
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of the January 14, 2016 Republican Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina. Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb. edu/ws/index.php?pid=111395.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of an interview by Anderson Cooper with Donald J. Trump that aired on March 9, 2016 on Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees and published by CNN. Link: http://www.cnn. com/TRANS CRIP T S/1603/09/acd.01 .html.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Reuters dated June 14, 2016, titled "After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims." Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCNOYZ1GE.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Politico dated June 13, 2016, titled "Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech," containing the transcript of then-candidate Mr. Trump's June 13 speech on national security and terrorism in the wake of the Orlando massacre. Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech224273.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of an interview by Chuck Todd with Donald J. Trump that aired on July 24, 2016 on Meet the Press and was published by NBC News. Link: http://nbcnews.to/29TqPnp.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Slate dated January 29, 2017, titled "Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Asked How to Implement a Muslim Ban Legally." Link: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726giuliani-trumn-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 14
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from ABC News dated November 18, 2016, titled "Donald Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn Has Called Islam 'a Cancer.' Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donaldtrump-national-security-adviser-mike-flynn-called/story?id=43 57565 8.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN Politics dated November 22, 2016 titled "Michael Flynn in August: Islamism a 'vicious cancer' in body of all Muslims that 'has to be excised.' Link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-august-speech/.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated January 31, 2017, titled "Steve Bannon's own words show sharp break on security issues." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/31/bannon-oddsislam-china-decades-us-foreign-policy-doctrine/97292068/.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Guardian dated February 3, 2017, titled "Steve Bannon's Islamophobic film script just one example of anti-Muslim views." Link: https://www.theguardian.com/usnew s/2017/feb/03/steve-bannon-islamophobia- film-script-muslims-i sl am.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated February 9, 2017, titled "Bannon, Flynn and Sessions: How Trump's top advisers view Muslims, in their own word." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/storv/news/2017/02/09/how-some-trump-advisors-see-islam-theirown-words/97662862/.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CBS News dated January 27,2017 titled "Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority as Refugees." Link: http://bit.ly/2kCqG8M.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 14
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated January 31, 2017, titled "More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Originally Said." Link: https://www.nvtimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-ban-immigrants-refugees.html.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a one page Department of State letter from the Deputy Assistant Visa Secretary for Visa Services dated January 27, 2017. Link: http s : //www. documentcloud. org/documents/3440712-D S -letter.html.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a press release dated January 29, 2017 titled "Statement by Senators McCain & Graham on Executive Order on Immigration." Link: http://bitly/2nkx3SW.
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 3:35 PM on February 9, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/829836231802515457.
25. Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN dated January 30, 2017 titled "Inside the Confusion of the Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban." Link: http://cnn.it/2kGdcZy.
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Department of Homeland Security Intelligence document published by the Associated Press on February 24, 2017. Link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730-DHSintelligence-document-on-President-Donald.html.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a'news article from the New York Times dated January 31, 2017, titled "State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump's Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures." Link: https://nvti.ms/2jS5A6o.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 14
28. Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a State Department Dissent cable titled "Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders." Link: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438487/DissentMemo.pdf.
29. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa 0. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, ECF 28-2. Link: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/genera1/2017/02/06/1735105%20opposition%20exhibit.pdf.
30. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a letter dated January 30,2017 from former national security officials to Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and then-Acting Secretary of State Thomas Shannon. Link: https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalrefugeeletter01302017.pdf.
31. Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated January 28, 2017, titled "Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/asweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html.
32. Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report dated January 26, 2017 titled "Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism." Link: http s ://sites . duke. edu/tcths/files/2017/01/FINAL Kurzman MuslimAmerican Involvement in Violent Extremism 2016.pdf.
33. Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an opinion piece from CNN dated January 30, 2017 titled "Trump's travel ban wouldn't have
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 14
stopped these deadly terrorists." Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinions/travel-banwouldnt-have-stopped-these-deadly-terrorists-bergen-sterman/.
34. Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a publication from New America titled "Terrorism in America After 9/11, Part II: Who are the Terrorists?" Link: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-areterrorists/.
35. Attached hereto as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 11, 2017 titled "Trump's Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced by 134 Foreign Policy Experts." Link: https://www.nytimes. com/2017/03/11/us/politic s/trump-travel-b an- denounced-foreign-policyexperts.html.
36. Attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is a true and correct copy of a printout of chapter 5 in a research report from the U.S. Department of State dated March 13, 2017 titled "Country Reports on Terrorism 2015." Link: https://tinyurl.com/jap2fpf.
37. Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a letter from Senators Sessions and Cruz to President Obama dated June 14, 2016. Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20161109030307/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/ cache/file s/f9d1d9f4-6ee8-42ff-a5f2-29a2518fe2f7/06.14.16-sens.-sessions-cruz-to-president-obama-onterrorism-immigration.pdf.
38. Attached hereto as Exhibit 36 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a publication from the Cato Institute dated January 25, 2017 titled "Little National Security Benefit to Trump's Executive Order on Immigration." Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/little-nationalsecurity-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 14
39. Attached hereto as Exhibit 37 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Oregonian dated March 7, 2017 titled "Trump Used Failed Portland Car Bomb Plot as Justification for New Travel Ban." Link: http://bit.ly/2nt4aRV.
40. Attached hereto as Exhibit 38 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated October 7, 2009 titled "Mapping the Global Muslim Population." Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslimpopulationfilfootnotes.
41. Attached hereto as Exhibit 39 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an archived entry from the BBC dated August 19, 2008 titled "Sunni and Shi' a." Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/surmishia 1.shtml.
42. Attached hereto as Exhibit 40 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an analysis by the Washington Post dated November 21, 2016 titled "Shiites are participating in the world's largest pilgrimage today. Here's how they view the world." Link: http://wapo.st/2g8oR4W.
43. Attached hereto as Exhibit 41 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article by the Independent dated January 17, 2017 titled "Yemen civil war: 10,000 civilians killed and 40,000 injured in conflict, UN reveals." Link: http ://www . independent. co.uk/new s/world/middle-east/yemen- civil-w ar-civilian-death-toll10000-killed-40000-injured-conflcit-un-reveals- a7530836.html
44. Attached hereto as Exhibit 42 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from The Guardian dated January 16, 2017 titled "Yemen death toll has reached 10,000, UN says." Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/16/yemen-war-death-toll-hasreached-10000-un-says.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 14
45. Attached hereto as Exhibit 43 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the country profiles of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from a CIA publication titled the "CIA World Factbook." Link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.
46. Attached hereto as Exhibit 44 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Newsweek dated January 31, 2017 titled "Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations Named in Trump Ban." Link: http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-terrorists-come-notseven-countries-named-5 505 81.
47. Attached hereto as Exhibit 45 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated January 30, 2017 titled "Key Facts About Refugees to the U.S." Link: http ://www.pewre se arch. org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key- facts-about-refugeesto-the-u-s/.
48. Attached hereto as Exhibit 46 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 6, 2017 titled "Don't Be Fooled, Trump's New Muslim Ban Is Still Illegal." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/dont-befooled-trumps-new-muslim-ban-is-still-illegal.html? r=0.
49. Attached hereto as Exhibit 47 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article dated March 10, 2017 titled "The Travel Ban Executive Order as Separation-of-Powers Test Case." Link: https://www.justsecurity.org/38675/travel-ban-executive-order-separation-ofpowers-test-case/.
50. Attached hereto as Exhibit 48 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article from LawNewz dated March 6, 2017 titled "President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order." Link: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/brealcing-president-trump-signs-newexecutive-order-on-immigration-ends-indefinite-ban-on-syrian-refugees/.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 14
51. Attached hereto as Exhibit 49 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated February 24, 2017 titled "DHS Report Casts Doubt on Need for Trump Travel Ban." Link: http://wapo.st/210kpKW.
52. Attached hereto as Exhibit 50 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dated February 4, 2017 titled "Trump lashes Out at Federal Judge Over Ruling on Travel Ban." Link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govtand-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-travel/article 40 fcf6c f-8dd3 -5 ffl a561-d0897195aecO.html.
53. Attached hereto as Exhibit 51 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from NBC News dated March 6, 2017 titled "Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline." Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trumpexpected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186.
54. Attached hereto as Exhibit 52 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN dated March 1, 2017 titled "Trump Delays New Travel Ban After WellReviewed Speech." Link: http : //www. cnn. com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-b an-visaholders/.
55. Attached hereto as Exhibit 53 is a true and correct copy of a printout of Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States dated March 6, 2017. Link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-orderprotecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states.
56. Attached hereto as Exhibit 54 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article from the Cato Institute dated January 26, 2017 titled "Guide to Trump's Executive Order to Limit Migration for 'National Security' Reasons." Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/guidetrumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 14
57. Attached hereto as Exhibit 55 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from Politifact dated January 29, 2017 titled "No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel bans?" Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-omet er/st at ement s/2017/j an/29/j errold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/.
58. Attached hereto as Exhibit 56 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from ABC News dated January 29, 2017 titled "Trump Spars With Sens. McCain and Graham After They Criticize Travel Ban." Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/handful-gopsenators-representatives-criticize-trump-travel-b an/story? id=45121595.
59. Attached hereto as Exhibit 57 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated January 29, 2017 titled "Trump's Travel Ban Is a Gift to Iran's Rulers." Link: http://wapo. st/21Ww1NR.
60. Attached hereto as Exhibit 58 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Al Jazeera dated January 16, 2017 titled "Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000." Link: http://www. alj azeera. com/news/2017/01/death-toll-yemen-conflict-p as ses-10000170117040849576.html.
61. Attached hereto as Exhibit 59 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from BBC News dated December 8, 2015 titled "Trump's 'Muslim Lockdown': What Is the Center for Security Policy?" Link: http://bbc.in/lUOyVr4.
62. Attached hereto as Exhibit 60 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Bridge Initiative dated December 7, 2015 titled "Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll." Link: http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-americanmuslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 14
63. Attached hereto as Exhibit 61 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an article from Politifact dated December 9, 2015 titled "Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US." Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-ban-muslimsentering/.
64. Attached hereto as Exhibit 62 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from The Washington Times dated June 9, 2009 titled "Gaffney: America's first Muslim president?" Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslimpresident/.
65. Attached hereto as Exhibit 63 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CBS News dated July 17, 2016 titled "The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence." Link: http://www.cbsnew s. c om/news/60-minutes -trump-p enc e-republ ic an-ticket/.
66. Attached hereto as Exhibit 64 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of the October 9, 2016 Republican Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.
67. Attached hereto as Exhibit 65 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Talking Points Memo dated January 27, 2017 titled "Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out 'Extreme Vetting.' Link: http://talkingpointsrnemo.com/livewire/trump-signsvetting-executive-order.
68. Attached hereto as Exhibit 66 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 5:31 AM on January 30, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 14
69. Attached hereto as Exhibit 67 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 4:50 AM on February 1, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368.
70. Attached hereto as Exhibit 68 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 7:03 AM on January 29, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858.
71. Attached hereto as Exhibit 69 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated October 6, 2016 titled "U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016." Link: http : //www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admitsrecord-numb er-o f-muslim-refuge es-in-2016/.
72. Attached hereto as Exhibit 70 is a true and correct copy of a news article from Politico dated February 21, 2017 titled "Trump: 'White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban." Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/tiump-travel-ban-confusion235241.
73. Attached hereto as Exhibit 71 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated February 24, 2017 titled "DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump's travel ban." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memocontradict-travel-ban-trump/98374184/.
74. Attached hereto as Exhibit 72 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated March 16, 2017 titled "Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump's new entry ban." Link: http://wapo.st/2n1GRMY.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 2 d day of March, 2017. David J. Weiner (D. .0 # 499806) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner apks.com
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-15 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-16 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 20 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 21 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 22 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 23 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 24 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 25 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 26 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 27 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 28 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 29 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 30 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 31 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 32 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 33 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 34 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 35 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 36 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 37 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 38 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 39 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 40 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 41 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 42 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 43 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 44 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 45 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 46 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 47 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 48 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 49 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 50 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 51 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 52 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 53 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 54 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 55 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 56 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 57 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 58 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 59 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 60 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 61 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 62 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 63 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 64 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 65 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 66 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 67 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 68 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 69 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 70 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 71 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 72 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-17 Filed 04/11/17 Page 73 of 73

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-18 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-20 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-20 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-20 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-20 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-21 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-22 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 48

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-22 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order
UN lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-president-trump-signs-new-executive-order-on-immigration-ends-indefiniteln-on-syrian-refugees/
By Ronn Blitzer

After losing numerous court decisions over his travel ban, President Donald Trump vowed to keep the legal battle going. However, in addition to this, the administration had indicated that Trump would also sign a new order to supplement the old one so that it would have a better chance of passing legal muster. Finally, after weeks of rumored drafts and delays, Trump signed a new order on Monday.

The original order put a temporary stop to all refugees coming into the country, with an indefinite block on refugees from Syria. It also halted all incoming travel from seven countries with Muslim majorities. The new order clarifies that the ban only applies to people who do not currently have valid visas and did not have visas when the original order was signed on January 27. It specifies that it does not apply to legal permanent residents of the United States, or people who were admitted after the order was signed, or those who were already granted refugee or asylum status before the order.

Furthermore, Iraq is no longer on the list of countries specified in a general travel ban. The Pentagon and State Department had pushed to remove Iraq from that list, since the country has been a valuable ally in the fight against ISIS.

The new order also does not call for an indefinite hold on Syrian refugees, who will face the same treatment as refugees from other countries. When the temporary ban on refugees is lifted, the number of those ultimately admitted into the U.S. will have a maximum of 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year.

While the order is in effect, the administration will work to put in place new standards for screening individuals entering the U.S.

The new order is meant to work alongside the original one instead of repeal it, as repealing the initial order would end

the legal battles surrounding it. The administration still believes they can win those fights instead of having decisions

against them remain on the books. RNC member and Trump campaign surrogate Randy Evans said in February

that the administration is expected to try to

until a new Supreme Court justice, preferably Neil

Gorsuch, is confirmed.

Trump had insisted that his original order was indeed legal, but even if he ultimately could have won the battle in federal court, he would have had to wait for the case to be resolved for it to take effect again. By ditching that order and drafting a new one that is geared to be more favorable in the eyes of the judiciary, it allows the President to immediately move forward with his security measures.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 49

titlit tlictsbinCgatsien1t:1p7o-ctv-00537-TSC Document 34-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
National Security
DHS report casts doubt on need for Trump travel ban
By Matt Zapotosky February 24
A  Department  of  Homeland  Security  report  assessing  the  terrorist  threat  posed  by  people  from  the  seven  countries  covered  by President  Trump’s  travel  ban  casts  doubt  on  the  necessity  of  the  executive  order,  concluding  that  citizenship  is  an  “unreliable” threat  indicator  and  that  people  from  the  seven  countries  have  rarely  been  implicated  in  U.S.-­based  terrorism.
The  document  —  first  reported  by  the  Associated  Press  and  later  confirmed  to  the  Washington  Post  —  relies  on  public materials,  and  a  Department  of  Homeland  Security  spokeswoman  said  it  was  “clear  on  its  face  that  it  is  an  incomplete  product.” Still,  it  could  prove  another  hurdle  in  the  administration’s  effort  to  restore  the  travel  ban,  undermining  the  White  House’s argument  that  the  measure  is  necessary  for  national  security  reasons.
The  report  was  prepared  at  the  request  of  the  acting  secretary  for  the  Office  of  Intelligence  and  Analysis  and  does  not represent  the  official  position  of  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security.
Gillian  M.  Christensen,  a  Homeland  Security  spokeswoman,  said  in  a  statement  that  it  had  “not  been  subject  to  the  extensive interagency  review  process  required  of  finished  intelligence  products”  and  did  not  “include  data  from  other  intelligence community  sources.”  She  confirmed  there  was  debate  over  the  matter,  as  CNN  reported,  but  disputed  that  debate  was  because of  political  concerns.
“Allegations  by  opponents  of  the  president’s  policies  that  senior  DHS  intelligence  officials  would  politicize  intelligence  is unfortunate  and  untrue,”  she  said.  “The  dispute  with  this  product  was  over  sources  and  quality,  not  politics.”
The  report  is  three  pages  long  and  does  not  address  head-­on  whether  the  temporary  ban  on  people  entering  the  United  States from  Iraq,  Iran,  Somalia,  Sudan,  Syria,  Yemen  and  Libya  is  an  effective  measure.  But  it  asserts  that  citizens  from  those countries  are  “rarely  implicated  in  U.S.-­based  terrorism,”  and  citizenship  itself  is  an  “unreliable  indicator  of  terrorist  threat  to the  United  States.”
Based  on  an  analysis  of  Justice  Department  press  releases,  it  says  of  82  people  “who  died  in  the  pursuit  of  or  were  convicted  of any  terrorism-­related  federal  offense,”  more  than  half  were  U.S.-­born  citizens.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-23 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
The  report  referenced  eight  people  from  Somalia,  Iraq,  Iran,  Sudan  and  Yemen  who  it  said  were  convicted  of  or  died  in  pursuit of  terrorism.  It  said  none  had  done  so  from  Syria  and  did  not  specifically  mention  Libya.  It  also  excluded  those  merely traveling  or  attempting  to  travel  to  join  a  foreign  terrorist  organization.
The  report  also  concludes  that  while  terror  groups  in  Iraq,  Syria  and  Yemen  pose  a  threat  of  attacks  in  the  United  States,  the other  four  countries  are  “regionally  focused.”  That  conclusion  is  based  on  another,  non-­classified  report.
Trump  has  said  he  plans  to  re-­write  his  executive  order  —  which  courts  have  ordered  frozen  —  and  a  White  House  official  has said  the  new  version  is  expected  next  week.  Those  suing  over  the  matter  said  the  original  order  represents  an  unconstitutional targeting  of  Muslims,  disguised  as  a  national  security  measure.  In  one  court  case,  10  former  high-­ranking  diplomatic  and national  security  officials  attached  their  names  to  an  affidavit  declaring  there  was  “no  national  security  purpose”  for  a complete  barring  of  people  from  the  seven  affected  countries,  which  are  all  Muslim-­majority.
The  new  report  could  prove  a  boon  to  those  challenging  Trump’s  ban,  as  they  seek  to  demonstrate  it  was  motivated  not  by national  security  concerns,  but  by  religious  animosity.  They  also  will  likely  be  able  to  use  as  evidence  comments  by  Trump himself  and  ally  Rudy  Giuliani  suggesting  the  administration  wanted  to  ban  Muslims  from  entering  the  United  States.
Though  not  addressing  that  directly,  Christensen  offered  a  defense  of  the  ban’s  national  security  purpose.
“The  seven  countries  were  identified  by  the  previous  administration  as  being  countries  of  concern  for  foreign  terrorist  travel to  the  Unites  States.  Consequently,  these  countries  were  the  focus  of  this  administration’s  initial  efforts  to  enhance  vetting  for foreign  travel  to  the  United  States,”  she  said.  “It  is  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  protect  its  citizens  from  foreign  nationals who  intend  to  commit  terrorist  attacks  in  the  United  States;;  and  to  prevent  the  admission  of  foreign  nationals  who  intend  to exploit  United  States  immigration  laws  for  malevolent  purposes.”
Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team.  Follow @mattzap

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-24 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 50

Trump lashes out at federal judge over ruling on travel ban | National politics | stltoday.com

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-24 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

National politics
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-ontravel/article_40fcf6cf-8dd3-5ff1-a561-d0897195aec0.html
Trump lashes out at federal judge over ruling on travel ban
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE Associated Press Feb 4, 2017
PALM BEACH, Fla. • President Donald Trump lashed out Saturday at "this so-called judge" who put a nationwide hold on his executive order denying entry to the U.S. to refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The ruling set in motion another weekend of confusion and chaos around the country.
The White House pledged to swiftly appeal the federal judge's ruling late Friday, but that didn't appear to be enough for Trump, who vented his frustrations on Twitter.
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Trump said.
Trump has said the travel ban, which he enacted by executive order on Jan. 27, will keep Americans safe by keeping potential terrorists from entering the country.
He also said Saturday on Twitter that "when a country is no longer able to say who can and who cannot come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security — big trouble!"
U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled late Friday against government lawyers' claims that Washington state and Minnesota, which sued over the ban, lacked the legal grounds to challenge Trump's order. Robart said the states showed that their case was likely to succeed.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said late Friday that the Justice Department would appeal the "outrageous" order "at the earliest possible time. Spicer quickly issued an amended statement that deleted "outrageous."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-tr...

Trump lashes out at federal judge over ruling on travel ban | National politics | stltoday.com

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-24 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

"The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people," Spicer said, calling the order both lawful and appropriate.
Trump billed the action as necessary to stop "radical Islamic terrorists" from coming to the U.S.
The order included a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen, a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program, and an indefinite bar against admitting Syrian refugees.
The decision sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. More protests were planned for this weekend, including at Trump's estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where he is spending the weekend.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York issued an emergency order after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition on behalf of people from the seven countries who were detained at airports nationwide as the ban took effect.
Donnelly's order addressed only a portion of Trump's order, and barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from the seven countries. Robart's decision was more sweeping in scope.
Saturday was not the first instance of Trump criticizing a federal judge, a member of an independent branch of the government.
During the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly criticized the federal judge who was presiding over a lawsuit brought by former students of Trump University. Trump claimed that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was born in Indiana, had an "absolute conflict" in handling the case because he is "of Mexican heritage." Trump launched his presidential campaign with a harsh description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers.
Trump recently agreed to pay $25 million to settle the lawsuits against Trump University.
___
Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-tr...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 51

Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline - NBC News

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

SPECIAL REPORT: BRITISH POLICE RESPOND TO 'FIREARMS INCIDENT' OUTSIDE U.K. PARLIAMENT GET ALERTS Ó

' NBC NEWS

SECTIONS ~

NIGHTLY NEWS MEET THE PRESS DATELINE



NEWS ö U.S. NEWS

WORLD INVESTIGATIONS CRIME & COURTS LATINO NBCBLK

NEWSMAR 6 2017, 7:37 AM ET
Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline
by PHIL MCCAUSLAND and HALLIE JACKSON

] L SHARE 

9

Two senior White House officials told NBC News that President Donald Trump plans to sign a revised version of his executive order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority nations on Monday.

Since a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order on it in early February, different White House officials and the president have stated numerous times that the new executive order would be signed soon. But more than a month after it was barred, the revised version has not been realized.

The delay would seem to undercut the White House's original argument for its swift execution, which created confusing travel situations and immigration statuses for hundreds of people the weekend it was implemented. When its necessity and legality was challenged, the president and senior administration officials emphasized the need for travel restrictions because they believed the nation would be at risk without them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-expected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186

Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline - NBC News

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

These are the developments since the executive order was first signed.
Jan. 27: The executive order restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority nations is signed by President Trump.
Jan. 30: On "Fox and Friends," senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said the executive order was an urgent priority because "if we waited five days, 10 days, six months to begin establishing the first series of controls," then the administration would be leaving "the homeland unnecessarily vulnerable."
Feb. 3: A federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide temporary restraining order, effectively blocking the executive order.
Feb. 4: President Trump tweeted that the judge's action means "many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country."
Related: Trump Travel Ban Makes America Less Safe: Ex-Top Security, State Officials
Feb 10: At a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, President Trump hinted at new executive order "sometime next week," stating that "we'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. You'll be seeing that sometime next week."
Feb. 16: President Trump, at a news conference in the East Room, told reporters: "We're issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country."
Feb. 20: A senior White House official told NBC News that a new order is expected later in the week.
Feb. 23: Press Secretary Sean Spicer says: "It's not a question of delaying, it's a question of getting it right. We've taken the Court's opinions and concerns into consideration, but the order is finalized. It's now awaiting implementation."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-expected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186

Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline - NBC News

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-25 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Feb. 28: Prior to the joint address to Congress, a senior administration official told NBC News President Trump is expected to sign the executive order on March 1 at the Department of Justice.
Feb. 28: After the joint address to Congress, a senior official said the signing would be delayed in order let the president's joint address breathe.
March 1: Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that when the president is ready to make a decision on the timing of the revised immigration executive order, they'll let reporters know "and we're not there yet."
March 4: Two senior administration officials said the president plans to sign the revised executive order on Monday.

PHIL MCCAUSLAND  

HALLIE JACKSON  TOPICS U.S. NEWS, DONALD TRUMP, WHITE HOUSE
FIRST PUBLISHED MAR 5 2017, 6:54 PM ET j

by Taboola

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-expected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 52

Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech - CNNPolitics.com

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech
By Laura Jarrett, Ariane de Vogue and Jeremy Diamond, CNN @ Updated 6:01 AM ET, Wed March 1, 2017

Immigration violations: The one thing to know 01:15

Story highlights
The new travel ban will exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders
Two sources also expect that the President will formally revoke the previous executive order
said.

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump has delayed plans to sign a reworked travel ban in the wake of positive reaction to his first address to Congress, a senior administration official told CNN.
The decision came late Tuesday night as positive reviews flooded in for Trump's speech, which struck a largely optimistic and unifying tone.
Signing the executive order Wednesday, as originally indicated by the White House, would have undercut the favorable coverage. The official didn't deny the positive reception was part of the administration's calculus in pushing back the travel ban announcement.
"We want the (executive order) to have its own 'moment,'" the official

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/

Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech - CNNPolitics.com

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-26 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

The sudden change of plans came as Trump and his top advisers returned to the White House after his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.
Trump's original executive order, signed a week after he took office, banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US and temporarily suspended the entry of all refugees. A federal court issued a temporary stay that halted implementation of the travel ban earlier this month, a decision that was later upheld by a federal appeals court.
The new travel ban will exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders from the ban entirely, sources familiar with the plans told CNN earlier Tuesday.
While sources caution that the document has not yet been finalized and is still subject to change, there will be major changes:
· The new executive order will make clear that legal permanent residents (otherwise known as green card holders) are excluded from any travel ban.
· Those with validly issued visas will also be exempt from the ban.
· The new order is expected to revise or exclude language prioritizing the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.
Speaking in Munich, Germany, earlier this month, Department of Homeland Secretary John Kelly promised a "phased-in" approach to minimize disruption this time around.
But what remains to be seen are the other key aspects of the new executive order, especially in terms of refugees, including:
· What happens to the suspension of the refugee program for 120 days?
· Will Syrian nationals still be barred indefinitely?
· Will the cap on the number of refugees change? The first version of the executive order caps it at 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.
Two sources also expect that the President will formally revoke the earlier executive order, despite repeated statements from White House press secretary Sean Spicer that the two orders would co-exist on a "dual track."
The administration could potentially argue that the existing challenges to the original executive order are moot, but the challengers tell CNN the legal battles will likely continue even after the new order is signed.
"Exempting lawful permanent residents and current visa holders will not cure the core legal problem -- that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination, as evidenced by the President's repeated statements calling for a Muslim ban," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt explained. "That discriminatory taint cannot be removed simply by eliminating a few words or clever tinkering by lawyers."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT 53

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 1 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 14
the WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Í

From the Press Office
Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases Nominations & Appointments Presidential Actions
I Executive Orders
Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Related OMB Material Legislation Disclosures

The White House Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

March 06, 2017

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States

EXECUTIVE ORDER
-------
PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 2 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 14
of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals. The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States. It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP.
(b) On January 27, 2017, to implement this policy, I issued Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).
(i) Among other actions, Executive Order 13769 suspended for 90 days the entry of certain aliens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are countries that had already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States. Specifically, the suspension applied to countries referred to in, or designated under, section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), in which Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program for nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Iraq or Syria, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. In 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern for travel purposes, based on consideration of three statutory factors related to terrorism and national security: "(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; (II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and (III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists." 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). Additionally, Members of Congress have expressed concerns about screening and vetting procedures following recent terrorist attacks in this country and in Europe.
(ii) In ordering the temporary suspension of entry described in subsection (b)(i) of this section, I exercised my authority under Article II of the Constitution and under section 212(f) of the INA, which provides in relevant part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Under these authorities, I determined that, for a brief period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified countries -- each afflicted by terrorism in a manner that compromised the ability of the United States to rely on normal decision-making procedures about travel to the United States -- would be detrimental to the
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 3 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 14
interests of the United States. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.
(iii) Executive Order 13769 also suspended the USRAP for 120 days. Terrorist groups have sought to infiltrate several nations through refugee programs. Accordingly, I temporarily suspended the USRAP pending a review of our procedures for screening and vetting refugees. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.
(iv) Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.
(c) The implementation of Executive Order 13769 has been delayed by litigation. Most significantly, enforcement of critical provisions of that order has been temporarily halted by court orders that apply nationwide and extend even to foreign nationals with no prior or substantial connection to the United States. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay or narrow one such order pending the outcome of further judicial proceedings, while noting that the "political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions" about who should be covered by a suspension of entry or of refugee admissions.
(d) Nationals from the countries previously identified under section 217(a)(12) of the INA warrant additional scrutiny in connection with our immigration policies because the conditions in these countries present heightened threats. Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones. Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States. Moreover, the significant presence in each of these countries of terrorist organizations, their members, and others exposed to those organizations increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives or sympathizers to travel to the United States. Finally, once foreign nationals from these countries are admitted to the United States, it is often difficult to remove them, because many of these countries typically delay issuing, or refuse to issue, travel documents.
(e) The following are brief descriptions, taken in part from the Department of State's Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016), of some of the conditions in six of the previously designated countries that demonstrate why their nationals continue to present heightened risks to the security of the United States:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 4 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 14
(i) Iran. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and continues to support various terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Iraq. Iran has also been linked to support for al-Qa'ida and has permitted al-Qa'ida to transport funds and fighters through Iran to Syria and South Asia. Iran does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts.
(ii) Libya. Libya is an active combat zone, with hostilities between the internationally recognized government and its rivals. In many parts of the country, security and law enforcement functions are provided by armed militias rather than state institutions. Violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country. The Libyan government provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, but it is unable to secure thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit flow of weapons, migrants, and foreign terrorist fighters. The United States Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014.
(iii) Somalia. Portions of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'idaaffiliated terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some counterterrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists.
(iv) Sudan. Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993 because of its support for international terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Hamas. Historically, Sudan provided safe havens for al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups to meet and train. Although Sudan's support to al-Qa'ida has ceased and it provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, elements of core al-Qa'ida and ISIS-linked terrorist groups remain active in the country.
(v) Syria. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing military conflict against ISIS and others for control of portions of the country. At the same time, Syria continues to support other terrorist groups. It has allowed or encouraged extremists to pass through its territory to enter Iraq. ISIS continues to attract foreign fighters to Syria and to use its base in Syria to plot or encourage attacks around the globe, including in the United States. The United States Embassy in Syria suspended its operations in 2012. Syria does not cooperate with the United States' counterterrorism efforts.
(vi) Yemen. Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the incumbent government and the Houthi-led opposition. Both ISIS and a second group, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and to carry out hundreds of attacks. Weapons and other materials smuggled across Yemen's porous borders are used to finance AQAP and other terrorist activities. In 2015, the United States Embassy in Yemen suspended its operations, and embassy staff were relocated out of
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 5 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 14
the country. Yemen has been supportive of, but has not been able to cooperate fully with, the United States in counterterrorism efforts.
(f) In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by section 2 of this order is completed, the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high. Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order.
(g) Iraq presents a special case. Portions of Iraq remain active combat zones. Since 2014, ISIS has had dominant influence over significant territory in northern and central Iraq. Although that influence has been significantly reduced due to the efforts and sacrifices of the Iraqi government and armed forces, working along with a United States-led coalition, the ongoing conflict has impacted the Iraqi government's capacity to secure its borders and to identify fraudulent travel documents. Nevertheless, the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment for Iraq. In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have fought to regain more than half of the territory previously dominated by ISIS have shown steadfast determination and earned enduring respect as they battle an armed group that is the common enemy of Iraq and the United States. In addition, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal. Decisions about issuance of visas or granting admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if applicants have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise pose a risk to either national security or public safety.
(h) Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. For example, in January 2013, two Iraqi nationals admitted to the United States as refugees in 2009 were sentenced to 40 years and to life in prison, respectively, for multiple terrorism-related offenses. And in October 2014, a native of Somalia who had been brought to the United States as a child refugee and later became a naturalized United States citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction as part of a plot to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(i) Given the foregoing, the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism remains a matter of grave concern. In light of the Ninth Circuit's
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 6 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 14
observation that the political branches are better suited to determine the appropriate scope of any suspensions than are the courts, and in order to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation, I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.
Sec. 2. Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat. The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the worldwide review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed from each country for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 20 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening and vetting of foreign nationals, to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists, and in light of the national security concerns referenced in section 1 of this order, I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212 (f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order.
(d) Upon submission of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed from each country for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request that all foreign governments that do not supply such information regarding their nationals begin providing it within 50 days of notification.
(e) After the period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 7 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 14
Security may also submit to the President the names of additional countries for which any of them recommends other lawful restrictions or limitations deemed necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) At any point after the submission of the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment, as well as the names of any countries that they recommend should be removed from the scope of a proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section.
(g) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 90 days of the effective date of this order, a third report within 120 days of the effective date of this order, and a fourth report within 150 days of the effective date of this order.
Sec. 3. Scope and Implementation of Suspension.
(a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:
(i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order;
(ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and
(iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.
(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to:
(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
(ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the effective date of this order;
(iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document;
(iv) any dual national of a country designated under section 2 of this order when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country;
(v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or
(vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 8 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 14
(c) Waivers. Notwithstanding the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order, a consular officer, or, as appropriate, the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner's delegee, may, in the consular officer's or the CBP official's discretion, decide on a case-by-case basis to authorize the issuance of a visa to, or to permit the entry of, a foreign national for whom entry is otherwise suspended if the foreign national has demonstrated to the officer's satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, any waiver issued by a consular officer as part of the visa issuance process will be effective both for the issuance of a visa and any subsequent entry on that visa, but will leave all other requirements for admission or entry unchanged. Case-by-case waivers could be appropriate in circumstances such as the following:
(i) the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the United States on the effective date of this order, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry during the suspension period would impair that activity;
(ii) the foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of this order for work, study, or other lawful activity;
(iii) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations;
(iv) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship;
(v)the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;
(vi) the foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee) and the employee can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;
(vii) the foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq., traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization not designated under the IOIA;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 9 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 14
(viii) the foreign national is a landed Canadian immigrant who applies for a visa at a location within Canada; or
(ix) the foreign national is traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor.
Sec. 4. Additional Inquiries Related to Nationals of Iraq. An application by any Iraqi national for a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit should be subjected to thorough review, including, as appropriate, consultation with a designee of the Secretary of Defense and use of the additional information that has been obtained in the context of the close U.S.-Iraqi security partnership, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, concerning individuals suspected of ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations and individuals coming from territories controlled or formerly controlled by ISIS. Such review shall include consideration of whether the applicant has connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations or with territory that is or has been under the dominant influence of ISIS, as well as any other information bearing on whether the applicant may be a threat to commit acts of terrorism or otherwise threaten the national security or public safety of the United States.
Sec. 5. Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the program described in subsection (a) of this section within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the effective date of this order.
Sec. 6. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status, for 120 days after the effective date of this order, subject to waivers pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 10 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 14
Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication processes to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. The suspension described in this subsection shall not apply to refugee applicants who, before the effective date of this order, have been formally scheduled for transit by the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall resume travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP 120 days after the effective date of this order, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that the additional procedures implemented pursuant to this subsection are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.
(c) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States, including in circumstances such as the following: the individual's entry would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement or arrangement, or the denial of entry would cause undue hardship.
(d) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of State shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 7. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority permitted by section 212(d)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B), relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing directives or guidance.
Sec. 8. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry exit tracking system for in-scope travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 11 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 14
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive set forth in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the effective date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit further reports every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 9. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1202, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions. This suspension shall not apply to any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the IOIA; or traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that nonimmigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 10. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements and arrangements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a truly reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by that foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 12 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 14
related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called "honor killings," in the United States by foreign nationals; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall release the initial report under subsection (a) of this section within 180 days of the effective date of this order and shall include information for the period from September 11, 2001, until the date of the initial report. Subsequent reports shall be issued every 180 days thereafter and reflect the period since the previous report.
Sec. 12. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of the actions directed in this order.
(b) In implementing this order, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including, as appropriate, those providing an opportunity for individuals to claim a fear of persecution or torture, such as the credible fear determination for aliens covered by section 235(b)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A).
(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of this order shall be revoked pursuant to this order.
(d) Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry. Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility.
(e) This order shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, consistent with the laws of the United States.
Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.
Sec. 14. Effective Date. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 13 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-27 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 14
Sec. 15. Severability. (a) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (b) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements. Sec. 16. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 6, 2017.
¬ŧ­ 
HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN USA.gov Privacy Policy Copyright Policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 54

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 8

CATO AT LIBERTY
JANUARY 26, 2017 12:03PM
Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons
By ALEX NOWRASTEH
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order shortly to temporarily ban all visas for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia among other actions. An advanced copy of this order was available earlier this week. The first sentence of his order states that it is to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” However, the countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks. I compiled a list of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015. Below is a table with the distribution of their countries of origin (Figure 1). The first seven countries are those to be initially and, hopefully, temporarily denied visas. During the time period analyzed here, 17 foreign-born folks from those nations were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and they killed zero people. Zero Libyans or Syrians intended to carry out an attack on U.S. soil during this time. Figure 1 Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975-2015
https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 2 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 8

Country Iran Iraq Libya Somalia Sudan Syria Yemen Afghanistan Algeria Armenia Australia Bangladesh Bosnia Croatia Cuba Dominican Republic Egypt Ethiopia France Ghana Guyana Haiti India Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan

Terrorists Murders Terrorists (percent) Murders (percent)

6

0

3.9%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

6

0

3.9%

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

4

0

2.6%

0.0%

6

1

3.9%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

9

1

5.8%

0.0%

11

3

7.1%

0.1%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

11

162

7.1%

5.4%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

4

0

2.6%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

2

6

1.3%

0.2%

2

3

1.3%

0.1%

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 3 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 8

Lebanon Macedonia Mexico Morocco Nigeria Pakistan* Palestine Saudi Arabia* Serbia South Korea Taiwan Trinidad and Tobago Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uzbekistan Vietnam Total

4

158.5

3

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

14

3

5

2

19

2,369

2

0

1

0

1

1

2

0.5

1

0

2

314

3

0

3

0

1

0

154

3,024

2.6% 1.9% 0.6% 1.9% 0.6% 9.1% 3.2% 12.3% 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 1.3% 0.6% 1.3% 1.9% 1.9% 0.6% 100.0%

5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 78.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Sources: John Mueller, ed., Terrorism Since 9/11: The American Cases; RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents; National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Global Terrorism Database; Center on National Security; Charles Kurzman, “Spreadsheet of Muslim-American Terrorism Cases from 9/11 through the End of 2015,” University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; New America Foundation; Mother Jones; Senator Jeff Sessions; Various news sources; Court documents.
*San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan but mostly resided in Saudi Arabia from the time she was an infant. She physically met her U.S. born husband in Saudi Arabia. I counted her as Saudi but one could reasonably count her as Pakistani because she was born in Pakistan and she held a Pakistani passport. Doing so would transfer 14 terrorist murders from the Saudi Arabia’s row to Pakistan’s row.

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 4 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 8

Attempting or committing a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is not the only terrorist offense. Materially supporting foreign terrorist organizations, seeking to join a foreign terrorist group overseas, plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks in other countries, and others are also terrorism offenses. I excluded foreign-born people convicted of those offenses because Trump is concerned with “making America safe again,” not with making other countries safe or with a global war on terrorism. A terrorist attack in another country doesn’t kill Americans inside of the United States and these threats are not what concern American voters nearly as much as terrorism on U.S. soil. You can call this an America First weighting of terrorism offenses.
Trump’s executive order cites the “[h]undreds of foreign-born individuals [who] have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes” as another reason for a visa ban for these countries. He likely got the “hundreds of foreign-born individuals” from a news release and list put out by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that purportedly shows all 580 “terrorism-related” convictions since 9/11 with at least 380 of them as immigrants.
It is disturbing that Sessions’ flawed list of terrorism convictions is the basis for much of this executive order. There are at least two major problems with the list. First, you might get the impression that all of those convictions were for terrorist attacks planned on U.S.-soil but only 40, or 6.8 percent, were. Second, 241 of the 580 convictions, or 42 percent, were not even for terrorism offenses. Many of the investigations started based on a terrorism tip like, for instance, the suspect wanting to buy a rocketpropelled grenade launcher. However, the tip turned out to be groundless and the legal saga ended with only a mundane conviction of receiving stolen cereal. According to Sessions’ list, that cereal thief is a terrorist.
In the little over 13 years covered in the Sessions’ list, there were about three convictions per year for planning or committing an attack on U.S. soil. For every one of them, there were six non-terrorism convictions counted as terrorism and 4.5 convictions for supporting, joining, or planning a terrorist attack overseas. In short, the list provided by Senator Jeff Sessions does not show a daunting terrorist threat to American lives in the homeland.
Trump’s executive order goes on to argue that “[d]eteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter our country.” Presumably, the goal is to reduce American deaths from terrorism on U.S. soil so the deadliness of terrorist at-

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 5 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 8

tacks matters more than the number of terrorists. For instance, 114 of the 154 foreignborn terrorists from 1975 to the end of 2015 didn’t kill anybody. The three countries where the deadliest terrorists came to the United States from were Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. Together they all accounted for 94.1 percent of all American deaths in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil committed by the foreign-born. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are not beset by any of the supposedly-terrorism increasing problems that are described in this order. Egyptians account for 5.4 percent of all terrorist victims but their attacks occurred between 1993 and 2002 when Egypt was a more stable country than it is today. The only exception to this might be Lebanon which accounts for 5.2 percent of all terrorist victims but nearly all of those were committed by Ziad Jarrah on 9/11 – a single data point. Meanwhile, foreignborn people from Syria, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and Yemen have not successfully killed anybody in a U.S. terrorist attack.
Trump’s executive order then continues to say that the United States “cannot, and should not, admit into our country those who do not support the U.S. Constitution.” Virtually nobody in the world, including most Americans, supports the U.S. Constitution and it seems peculiar to block tourists who want to visit Disneyland from entering because they “do not support the U.S. Constitution.” My guesses are that whoever wrote this executive order is either confused about the difference between immigrants and non-immigrants, it is just sloppily drafted, or this is an earlier draft. Temporary visitors should not have to swear allegiance or express support for the Constitution any more than an American should have to swear allegiance to or express my support for monarchy when visiting the United Kingdom. In terms of support for the Constitution, all that matters is that immigrants who naturalize take an oath to do so – as they are currently required to under U.S. law.
The order also directs the government to find a way to identify immigrants “with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission.” Blocking immigrants who intend to commit crimes or terrorist attacks is a wonderful idea – so wonderful that the government already does it. However, the line that seeks to identify those who “are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission” is hopelessly vague. There is a risk greater than zero that virtually anybody is a risk subsequent to their admission so this type of broad, ill-defined dictate could theoretically screen out everybody. More likely, it will just be used to capriciously target individuals for political or personal reasons.

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 6 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 8

A later line in the executive order provides some context for the “risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission” line. It orders DHS to regularly publish “information regarding the number of foreign-born individuals in the Untied States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States.” Presumably, DHS will use that information to build a detailed risk profile of immigrants to exclude those who could become radicalized. One worrying term is “terrorism-related organizations.” I couldn’t find any mentions or definition of a “terrorism-related organization” in U.S. law. There are no mentions of “terrorism-related convictions” either. If “terrorism-related organizations” is defined as broadly as “terrorism-related convictions” has been in Jeff Sessions’ terrorist list then many non-terrorist organizations will be included for flimsy reasons. This is like the no-fly list but with far graver consequences.
The order also says there should be a “process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positive contributing member of society, and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest.” The immigration law already does the former by excluding criminals, national security threats, and numerous other categories of excludable people while the broad immigrant and non-immigrant work visas supposedly identify which foreigners are most valuable. At best this line in the executive order is redundant and at worst it signals the government’s intent to be even more involved in planning the labor market by selecting winners and losers through the immigration system.
The seven countries temporarily banned under this executive order represent a small percent of all green cards and entries into the United States (the latter estimated by I-94s per country). In 2015, the government issued 52,365 green cards to immigrants born in those seven countries which amount to just 4.98 percent of all green cards issued that year and 29.4 percent of all green cards issued to nationals from Muslim countries (Table 2). In the same year, there were 86,236 non-immigrant entries from those countries which accounted for 0.11 percent of all entries although they comprised 4.5 percent of all entries for Islamic countries (Table 2).
The economic cost of a temporary ban, or even a permanent one, is small because so few green cards and nonimmigrant visas are issued to folks from those seven countries. However, the danger of terrorism on U.S. soil committed by citizens of those countries has also been very low historically with only 17 convictions from 1975

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 7 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-28 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 8

through 2015 and zero Americans killed in domestic attacks. Future terrorists could come from different countries than terrorists did in the past but, based on current evidence, this ban is still a net loss because it will likely stop few terrorists, prevent zero deaths, and slightly reduce immigration and tourism. All minor economic pain, no gain.

Table 2

Number of Green Cards and Entries per Country, 2015

Green Cards Entries (I-94)

Iran

13,114

35,266

Iraq

21,107

21,381

Libya

734

2,879

Somalia

6,796

359

Sudan

3,580

4,792

Syria

3,840

16,010

Yemen

3,194

5,549

All Countries

1,051,031

76,638,236

Islamic Countries (OIC) 178,015

1,896,383

Source: Department of Homeland Security
If President Trump was committed to banning immigrants from certain countries in order to reduce the already small risk of terrorism on U.S. soil committed by the foreign-born then he would not just ban nationals from these seven countries. For this reason, I expect his administration to expand the list of countries banned in the near future. Section 3, subsections c, d, e, and f clarify that the president can extend these bans to other countries or make them permanent. This is a warning about additional bans on migrants and immigrants to come as well as the process by which those bans will be enacted.

Topics: International Economics, Development & Immigration Tags: terrorism, Trump, Executive Action, migration, bans, Muslim country

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT 55

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 1 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 9

EDITIONS 

TRUTH-O-METERTM 

PEOPLE 

   Stay Connected:
 Search
PROMISES  PANTS ON FIRE ABOUT US 

"The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's executive order."
— Jerrold Nadler on Saturday, January 28th, 2017 in a CNN interview

vkpLF TRUE
POLI4SACI

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban?
By Miriam Valverde on Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 5:42 p.m.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 2 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 9

On Jan. 28, an Iraqi immigrant was freed after being detained at one of New York's airports, just after President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration was put into action.
President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending the admission into the United States of people from seven Muslim-majority countries and indefinitely banning refugees from war-torn Syria stirred an uproar across the nation, with protesters gathering at the nation’s largest airports.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a CNN interview from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport that it was important to protect the United States from people who want to harm the country. But he argued that refugees are heavily vetted by the U.S. government and that recent attacks have not been from nationals of the countries singled out by Trump.
"The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's executive order," Nadler said in a CNN interview Jan. 28. "If you really want to protect this country, why are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey left out of the order? Most of the 9/11 conspirators came from Saudi Arabia."

Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 27, called "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Individuals from those seven countries who are U.S. lawful permanent residents are also stopped from re-entering the country (though exemptions may apply), the New York Times reported, attributing the information to the Department of Homeland Security.

We wondered if Nadler was correct by saying that since 9/11, terrorist acts in the United States have not been carried out by people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 3 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 9

Experts told us no fatal attack has been attributed to nationals from those countries, but that there have been a few non-deadly acts by individuals from two of those countries.

Increased homegrown terrorism

According to New America, a think tank compiling information on terrorist activities in the United States since 9/11, 94 people have been killed by jihadists in the past 15 years.

But in its overview of who are the individuals committing the attacks, New America says the majority of attackers come from within.

"Far from being foreign infiltrators, the large majority of jihadist terrorists in the United States have been American citizens or legal residents. Moreover, while a range of citizenship statuses are represented, every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident," the New America study says. "In addition about a quarter of the extremists are converts, further confirming that the challenge cannot be reduced to one of immigration."

"It's certainly the case that none of the major, deadly attacks carried out in the United States were carried out by people from these countries," said Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.

Other experts agreed.

"Since 9/11, no one has been killed in this country in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from any of the seven countries," added William C. Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 4 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 9

In June 2016, Omar Mateen, born in the United States to Afghan parents, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an Orlando nightclub shooting. In December 2015, a Pakistani woman, Tashfeen Malik, and her husband killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. The husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in the United States to Pakistani parents.

However, there have been at least three non-deadly attacks in which the perpetrators were from Iran or Somalia, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

One of those examples includes the November 2016 attack at Ohio State University by a Somali refugee who had lived in Pakistan before coming to the United States. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, was shot dead by a police officer after he slammed his car into pedestrians and injured others with a butcher knife. The FBI said it would investigate the attack as a "potential act of terrorism."

In September 2016, Dahir Adan was shot dead after stabbing nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall. Adan was identified by his father as Somali but born in Kenya, moving to the United States when he was a child.

Another incident was in 2006, when Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar ran a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd of people at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina. Thinking he would be killed during the attack, Taheri-Azar left a letter in his apartment saying he wanted revenge for the deaths of Muslims across the world caused by the United States, the AP reported. A naturalized citizen born in Iran, Taheri-Azar in 2008 plead guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced for up to 33 years in prison.

On ABC’s This Week, Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, said the president’s order covered countries that the Obama administration had identified as needing further travel restrictions.

"What the president did was take the first step through this executive order of insuring that we're looking at the entire system of who's coming in, refugees that

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 5 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 9

are coming in, people who are coming in from places that have a history or that our intelligence suggests that we need to have further extreme vetting for," Spicer said Jan. 29.

Starting in early 2016, individuals from countries that participate in the visa waiver program (that is, people allowed to travel to the United States without a visa) and who had also been in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Libya or Somalia recently (with exceptions for diplomatic or military purposes) were no longer permitted to come to the United States without a visa. They were not banned from traveling, but they did need to apply for a visa and be vetted.

People who were nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria were also no longer able to come to the United States without a visa.

Our ruling

Nadler said, "The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's executive order."

Experts on terrorism tell us that since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries for which Trump’s executive order temporarily suspends admission. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

But there have been at least three non-deadly cases in which the perpetrator was connected to Iran or Somalia.

Nadler’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 6 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 9

Share The Facts
Jerrold Nadler
Democratic representative from New York

"The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts

in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's

executive order."

in a CNN interview — Saturday, January 28, 2017

SHARE

READ MORE

POLITIFACT
q

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 7 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 9

About this statement:
Published: Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 5:42 p.m. Researched by: Miriam Valverde Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan Subjects: Homeland Security, Immigration
Sources:
The New York Times, Full Executive Order Text: Trump’s Action Limiting Refugees Into the U.S., Jan. 27, 2017 CNN, CNN Newsroom transcript, Jan. 28, 2017 The New York Times, President Trump’s Immigration Order, Annotated, Jan. 28, 2017 New America, Terrorism in America After 9/11, accessed Jan. 29, 2017
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 8 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-29 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 9

Email interview, Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, Jan. 29, 2017
Email interview, William C. Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law, Jan. 29, 2017
Email interview, John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, Jan. 29, 2017
WRAL.com, UNC 'Pit' attacker gets up to 33 years; victims share their stories, updated Dec. 17, 2015
Carolina Alumni Review, Driver in Pit Incident Sentenced to Prison, Aug. 27, 2008
The Denver Post, AP, Man sentenced in SUV attack, Aug. 26, 2008
Cato Institute, Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for "National Security" Reasons, Jan. 26, 2017
TERRORISM SINCE 9/11 The American Cases, Edited by John Mueller, Jan. 10, 2017
PolitiFact, Democratic senator: Fixes to immigration system might already be on the books, Jan. 18, 2017
The New York Times, Suspect Is Killed in Attack at Ohio State University That Injured 11, Nov. 28, 2016
The New York Times, Ohio State Attacker May Have Been ‘Inspired’ by Al Qaeda, F.B.I. Says, Nov. 30, 2016
ABC News, 'This Week' Transcript 1-29-17: Sean Spicer, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Robert Gates, Jan. 29, 2017

How to contact us
Email comments and suggestions for fact-checks to truthometer@politifact.com or find us on Facebook,and Twitter. (If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.)
Videos

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-30 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 56

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-30 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4
 
  
*  !  







  !

"
 
# $

%
 &'

(
!
)


 
% !


#

* 

 (*
+,
 


 
 
-'
 * 

(*.


 
  
  /
%
/
0
%(.
  '
  
(*
 *.

 

1

 
 

'

 
(*

 


 
**
*

1 
(*
% 
 %(2!1


)2!3(
+.
 

 )
 ' 
 
 
 4
!1(+ 

 

1 


  

  

  
 

 


(4
!1  

 %
5$
!(
00
%!! 

$(  
 !
'


  


1  . 0
(
*. 


 

 

6(%(

71   
1 

 
)
  * !




(
%
$

  
(
 5



   8

)
%
9%
%

,
:,

"
;<
(,
1
 =><
?%


(
* 


1







 
1*


$($
"

,
 (2 
 *,
:


 '
 
 ( ,

-1)

 
 
(*1
1   (*
) 
 $
 1
 
 ' 
  

:  
(
=@

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-30 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
%(2%
3
1

 %
)%!

%

 *2%
 3
*   
 



 (
*  
 
 

* 
(*) 
   

 
 
(*
%
 

 


 
:  
 
 # 
(
* 






# 
  
* 
(*  1 
# 
 
,

( 
&

( ) & 

A,

  8
 
 6(%(
 
# 
  1 
)

 
 
 )
 (2 

 

 
1
(

 

# 
 :(*
)
%(5
1
 
 


(
*
 


 


-

  








*5
1
 

%

(*8 


: 
 




 ,
 


,

 (*
) 0$
! 
/

 %
&
5
1& (
* 

 
    
 

 
* /


)2!3(*)
,
 
 


 


)
 



(*
0
* 


, )
 
 
   



(*
/

 
  
1

%
! 

  



  
 
,

)

 (
$()
   



 

 6(%(  8

 %



 '(
*"1(

&'

(&'
 
 
* 
*,&





(,  
 


 1 !(*
,
 
)
 * &


 6 %
B
 C

((((
  6%

  
)5( (*
0

*. 8





&


 
&


$"
(*
$( 1!
!

2
5
1


:   

&(
5
1
52,




 
* 
1* !


>@

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-30 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4




* (* %(%
!$ 



 *
*


 *

(* *5'
  
,
: 1)
,
:


 

 

 

 


  

1 
,
:* 
( %(0
 $6
 
 *
 

# 
1 


 

(*  



@@

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-31 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 57

Trump’s travel ban is a gift to Iran’s rulers - The Washington Post

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-31 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

bitatington jkot
Opinions
Trump’s travel ban is a gift to Iran’s rulers

By Hadi Ghaemi January 29
Hadi Ghaemi is the founder and executive director of the Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
President Trump’s travel ban on Iranians is a gift to the Islamic republic and its hard-line rulers. It will not deter terrorism on U.S. soil. Not a single terrorist involved in the 9/11 attacks or other fatal terrorist attacks in the United States since then has been of Iranian origin.
Instead, Trump’s policy is a collective punishment of a diverse and changing nationality, and will ironically serve the purposes of Iran’s hard-line rulers.
Who are the Iranians who will be harmed by this policy?
I have been helping Iranian refugees reach safety for more than a decade. A recent case is that of Reza, his wife and their 3-yearold daughter. Reza, whose full name I cannot use for security reasons, is a victim of torture at the hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards at Tehran’s notorious Kahrizak prison.
Reza fled to Turkey in 2013, and after years waiting, he and his family were recently approved for resettlement in the United States. He hoped to arrive sometime this year, once security vetting by U.S. agencies was complete.
His hopes are shattered. He and his family are suddenly rendered effectively stateless and homeless, with nowhere to turn. Instead of welcoming a regime opponent to the United States, we are effectively throwing Reza and his family back into the treacherous hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The Iranian refugees who have settled in the United States over the past decade are chiefly victims of the regime’s harsh crackdowns, including students, journalists, women’s rights activists and lawyers. These are the Iranians who have vocally and ferociously opposed the Islamic republic.
Another Iranian who was on her way to the United States — but now will likely never reach here — is a young women’s rights activist. For years she has led a movement to change Iran’s discriminatory practices toward women, anonymously through social media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-travel-ban-is-a-gift-to-irans-rulers/2017/01/29/a85b7d7c-e...

Trump’s travel ban is a gift to Iran’s rulers - The Washington Post

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-31 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Her dream is to strengthen her activism and knowledge base by attending a U.S. human rights program, and she has just been accepted to an Ivy League university. Without the travel ban, she would be on her way to fulfilling her dream and upon return to Iran would bring back valuable experience and knowledge for her fight against gender discrimination.
But now the door has been slammed in her face. She and her generation of women’s rights activists in Iran will continue their work, make no mistake, but they will have to struggle harder to break out of their isolation and confront their oppressive rulers.
Indeed, the people who are most likely to travel between Iran and the United States — the people most affected by any ban — are Iranians who hold Western values of moderation and tolerance and believe in open political and economic systems. It’s in the interest of the United States to strengthen these values in Iran however it can.
Isolating Iran from engagement with the West is not the way to fortify the forces of moderation in Iran — and it is exactly the opposite of strategy adopted by previous presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, who conscientiously encouraged nongovernmental and cultural interaction between citizens of the Soviet Union and its satellite countries and the United States, even at the height of the Cold War.
The Iranian government thrives on isolating its population and choking off criticism. But Iran’s young population has been striving to break free of this isolation. In Iran, public opinion of the United States is much more favorable than in any other country in the Middle East and North Africa.
By excluding all Iranians, Trump is only making it harder for the most promising elements of Iranian society to stand up to their repressive system and change their country for the better.
This policy will extend the Islamic republic’s longevity, disrupt the lives of 1.5 million Iranian Americans and fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the region. None of these developments will help secure our country from terrorism.
Read more:
The Post’s View: President Trump’s refugee ban is an affront to American values

Matt Zeller: Trump shuts the door on men and women who have sacrificed for America Daoud Kuttab: When America was great Ruth Marcus: Trump’s erratic first week was among the most alarming in history Adam Jentleson: Senate Democrats have the power to stop Trump. All they have to do is use it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-travel-ban-is-a-gift-to-irans-rulers/2017/01/29/a85b7d7c-e...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 58

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 1 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5

1
Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000
UN humanitarian aid office says 40,000 people also injured in the conflict while 10 million need 'urgent assistance'.
The UN ranks the conflict in Yemen as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises [Reuters]

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 2 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5

Live The United Nations' humanitarian aid official in Yemen has said that the civilian death toll in the nearly two-year conflict has reached 10,000, WNeitwnear,lsiaemsMreidpdolert Egausntfire arDouoncdumUeKntaries Shows Investigations Opinion BREAKINGM: ore, The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs' Jamie McGoldrick said that the figure is based on lists of victims gathered by health facilities and the actual number might be higher.
McGoldrick also said that up to 10 million people need "urgent assistance to protect their safety, dignity and basic rights", according to a separate social media post early on Tuesday.

READ MORE: Yemen's orphans face 'catastrophe' as fighting rages
The announcement marks the first time a UN official has confirmed such a high death toll in Yemen, the Arab world's poorest nation.
"This once more underscores the need to resolve the situation in Yemen without any further delay," UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said in New York.
"There's been a huge humanitarian cost."
The Yemen conflict pits Houthi rebels and allied forces against an Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia.
The coalition began an air campaign in March 2015 to restore the internationally recognised government that fled the country after Houthis seized the capital Sanaa.
On Monday, reports said 34 people were killed and 16 others wounded during clashes between Houthis and pro-government forces in the southern Shabwa province.

McGoldrick was in the Yemeni capital Sanaa to get updates on the ongoing conflict [AP]

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 3 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5

New peace plan
Witness,M..c.Goldrick's remarks come as UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Ismail "I Ould Cheikh Ahmed, held talks with Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, president of Yemen, in the southern city of Aden.
Ould Cheikh Ahmed is hoping to revive peace prospects in Yemen after Hadi rejected his proposed plan. He is due to report to the UN Security Council later this month.

NO Live

The plan provides for a new unity government in Yemen and a rebel withdrawal from the capital and other cities.

"A peace agreement, including a well-articulated security plan and the formation of an inclusive government, is the only way to end the war that has fuelled the development of terrorism in Yemen and the region," Ould Cheikh Ahmed said in a statement.

WATCH: Children bear the brunt of Yemen's ongoing war (2:14)

"I asked the president to act swiftly and engage constructively with the UN's proposal for the sake of the country's future."

"The current political stalemate is causing death and destruction every day. The only way to stop this is through the renewal of the cessation of hostilities followed by consultations to develop a comprehensive agreement."

Under the proposal, Hadi's powers would be dramatically diminished in favour of a new vice president who would oversee the formation of the interim government that will lead a transition to elections.

The envoy has been holding talks in the Gulf region in recent weeks, including in Riyadh, where he met Yemen's central bank governor to ease a cash crisis in rebel-held areas.

One of the poorest countries in the Arab world, Yemen slid deeper into chaos when the Saudi-led coalition intervened in 2015 to push back the rebels who had seized Sanaa and other parts of the country.

The United Nations ranks the conflict in Yemen as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 4 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-32 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5

Live
Yemen: Who controls what
Witnesses report gunfire around UK parliament in London ...tigations Opinion
BREAKING: ore

Seiyun Sanaa Marib

Hodeidah Taiz -

Ibb Zinjibar

Aden

Source'. At Jazeera, Agencios, Critcni Threats LW.. Nrmainixr wis

Mukalla
• 57ZsgtoiLdi
Houthi control or influence Al•Paecla control Or influence •Imndileitipaesndent loca I • Contested cities Sparsely populated areas

• 41.11.1

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies
Middle East Yemen
Tell us what you think

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 59

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 1 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6

of I I I I I I I B B

News Sport Weather Shop Earth Travel

I

I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Home Video World US & Canada UK Business Tech Science Magazine
US & Canada

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy?

By Joel Gunter BBC News
8 December 2015 US & Canada

.4 Share

Raising the bar once again for US political controversy, Donald Trump called on Monday for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

Republican road to the White House

The Republican presidential frontrunner claimed that research by the respected Pew organisation showed a "great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population" - but he did not refer to any specific study to support that claim, and we can't find one that does.
Mr Trump did cite a specific a study by the Center for Security Policy - "very highly respected people, who I know, actually" - which he said showed that 25% of Muslims in the US believed violence against America was justified "as part of the global jihad".

How do you debate Donald Trump?
Clinton v Trump v Merkel v Putin
50 Trump fans explain why they love him
How Donald Trump captures the White House

Mr Trump's press release:

MMIIIk • • M = MIMI

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 2 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6

Ircunnr

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim immigration
New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from tilt Center for Security Policy •eleased data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, ''agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharjah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women,
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred Is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine, Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
But what exactly is the Center for Security Policy, and just how highly respected is it?
It's a conservative think-tank
The CSP was founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney Jr, a former staffer in the Ronald Reagan administration who has been accused of Islamophobia. On its website, the centre calls itself a "Special Forces in the War of Ideas" which offers "maximum bang for the buck" to its donors.
The CSP does not publish information about who those donors are, but according to a 2013 report by Salon they include some of the US's biggest aviation and defence companies - Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Electric.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 3 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6

Promoted on the organisation's website are reports and books with titles such as Star Spangled Sharia, Civilisation Jihad, and Muslim Colonisation of America. Responding to the controversy over Mr Trump's remarks, the CSP said it was "necessary to respond to the threat posed by jihadist terror in a way that ... calls it what it is".
It's not very highly respected
The CSP has been criticised across the political spectrum - by high-profile Republicans as well as Democrats - and by organisations which monitor extremist groups. Terri Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community and J Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called it "an extremist think-tank" led by an "anti-Muslim conspiracist".
The group was heavily criticised in 2012 after it repeatedly accused Huma Abedin, an aide to Hillary Clinton, of being a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Leading Republicans including John McCain and John Boehner denounced the accusations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 4 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6

REUTERS Huma Abedin (centre) has been accused by Frank Gaffney of secret ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

The CSP has been criticised by a wide range of extremism monitoring organisations, including the Anti-Defamation League, and Center for Democratic Values at City University of New York.
Does its research stand up?
Arguably, no. According to the Bridge Initiative, a Georgetown University Islamophobia research project, the CSP survey was an online, self-selecting poll of 600 people, meaning respondents opted in to taking part.
Self-selecting internet surveys are less reliable that more traditional, random polling methods, because the opt-in element can lead to bias. Then there are the existing views of the organisation commissioning the poll - the CSP - which may have influenced the outcome.

Donald Trump calls for "shutdown of Muslims"
The Washington Post called the poll "shoddy". According to the Post, the question had an agree/disagree answer format with agree in each case linked to the more controversial option - favouring Sharia law or supporting violence. Researchers say this format is affected by "acquiescence response bias" - we are generally more likely to favour agree options. The CSP said in a statement on Sunday that its research methods were "consistent with international industry standards".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 5 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-33 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6

Who is Frank Gaffney Jr?
Mr Gaffney Jr served in the Reagan administration during the 1980s but left in 1988 to form the CSP, after his nomination as assistant secretary of defence was rejected by the Senate.

Frank Gaffney Jr has been widely accused of Islamophobia

GETTY IMAGES

"Once a respectable Washington insider," according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which monitors US hate groups and extremists, Mr Gaffney Jr became "one of America's most notorious Islamophobes", the SPLC said.
Mr Gaffney Jr has repeatedly accused parts of America's Muslim population of what he calls "civilisational jihad". He has also called for Muslims to be investigated by a "new and improved" House Un-American Activities Committee - a highly controversial Cold War-era body which questioned and blacklisted US citizens accused of being communists.

Related Topics
Donald Trump

Share this story About sharing

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 60

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll
Page 1 of 8 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6
Tr um p Cal ls for Ban on M u slim s, Cites EORGETOW N.EDeepl/y) Fl awed Pol l
Post ed on Decem ber 7, 20 15 at 6:48 am . Written by Bridge Initiative Team (http://bridge.georgetown.edu/author/admin/)
http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 2 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6

UPDATE (DECEM BER 7, 2015) In a press release today, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump (http://bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobiaand-the-2016-elections/#DonaldTrump) called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims (https:// www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-214105912.html) entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

His statement also cites a deeply flawed poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a group with a history of fear mongering about Islam and Muslims.

In June, when the poll was released and circulated widely on networks like Fox News, we debunked its findings, writing:

This survey (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslimsshows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/) should not be taken seriously. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and was administered using an unreliable methodology. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide.
Donald Trump is only the latest proponent of CSP’s dubious claims. In an interview with MSNBC, Saba Ahmed recounted how GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson told her that Frank Gaffney, CSP’s director, advised him on issues related to Islam. Numerous other GOP candidates, like Ted Cruz (http:// bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-and-the-2016-elections/#TedCruz) and George Pataki (http:// bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-and-the-2016-elections/#GeorgePataki), have attended (http:// bridge.georgetown.edu/presidential-candidates-set-to-appear-at-event-hosted-by-anti-muslimconspiracy-theorist/) and spoken at CSP’s national summits.
Trump’s comment about banning Muslims is only the latest in a series of troubling remarks about Muslims made by Trump and other GOP presidential candidates. These comments are documented in our “Islamophobia and the 2016 Elections (http://bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-and-the-2016elections/)” resource.

Original article (Published June 26, 2015)
On June 24, 2015, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington, D.C. think tank run by former Reagan official Frank Gaffney released a survey (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousandssupport-shariah-jihad/) of 600 Muslims living in the United States. Its takeaway, captured in a headline on the CSP website, is this: “Poll of US Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.”

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 3 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6

The poll gained quick traction online and in the media. On the evening of its release, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnhi03bWIA) also lent credence to its findings and cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country.

Among the poll’s findings are:
• “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
• “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
• “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”
But this survey (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslimsshows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/) should not be taken seriously. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and was administered using an unreliable methodology. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide.

Here are the details.
CSP’S H I STORY OF BASELESS FEARM ONGERI N G In recent years, many groups have raised questions about the objectivity and intentions of Frank Gaffney. His tendency to posit conspiracies about Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood is well documented, and has earned him sharp critique across the political spectrum. The Center for American Progress labels (https://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia_chapter2.pdf) him a “misinformation expert,” while the Conservative Political Action Committee banned (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/cpacbanned-frank-gaffney-over-baseless-anti-muslim-charges) him from their 2011conference for peddling false accusations about GOP connections to Muslim extremists. It was his organization, CSP, that was behind the unfounded rumor (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/23/bachmann-gaffneyand-the-gop-s-anti-muslim-culture-of-conspiracy.html) that Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Huma Abedin, was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and once floated the false idea (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/28/161792/frank-gaffney-david-petraeus-sharia/) that General David Petraeus had “submitted” to shariah.

Since the early 2000s, CSP has generated dozens of occasional papers, blogs, and reports that fixate on shariah or other allegedly nefarious topics related to Islam. Often, they are loosely sourced (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/egyptians-who-jeered-clinton-cite-americanconservatives-to-argue-u-s-secretly-supports-islamists/?_r=0) or entirely unsubstantiated (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/02/25/83953/missile-defense-logo-conspiracy/), relying

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 4 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6

instead on a furtive web of connections or, in one case, a 24-year-old document written by a lone (http:// www.alternet.org/story/150444/welcome_to_the_shari%27ah_conspiracy_theory_industry) Muslim activist that has since been roundly discredited.
FALSE STATI STI CS AN D FALSE CLAI M S Both Gaffney and O’Reilly claim that the poll’s findings are representative of nationwide Muslim public opinion. But this assertion is untrue.

CSP’s survey was a non-probability based, opt-in online survey, administered by the conservative group, the Polling Company/Woman Trend, a small Washington-based agency that has collaborated with CSP on other occasions to produce surveys about Islam and Muslims. (We learned this after reaching out to the Polling Company to get more details about their methodology, which wasn’t released to the public when Gaffney began promoting the survey’s findings.)

According to the body that sets ethical standards for polling, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Communications/PressReleases/Understanding-a-credibility-interval%E2%80%9D-and-how-it-d.aspx) (AAPOR), opt-in surveys cannot be considered representative of the intended population, in this case Muslims. The AAPOR says that in these cases (http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Education-Resources/ForResearchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Why-Sampling-Works.aspx), “the pollster has no idea who is responding to the question” and that these kind (http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Communications/PressReleases/Understanding-a-credibility-interval%E2%80%9D-and-how-it-d.aspx) of “polls do not have such a ‘grounded statistical tie’ to the population.”

So when O’Reilly and guest Zuhdi Jasser pointed to this survey and made claims about what “25%of three million, which is hundreds of thousands of Muslims” believe, it’s not only a misleading statement—it’s outright false.

This survey does not represent the views of American Muslims. It only represents the views of the 600 Muslims that it polled.
LOADED QUESTI ON S AN D AN SW ERS Another problem with this poll is the way that questions and answers are phrased. Often, they are not neutral but are imbued with assumptions, and replicate, in an interrogative form, statements that Gaffney and CSP have declared as fact for years. In one question, respondents are asked: “Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood in America accurately represents your views?” Packed into this question is the assertion that the Brotherhood indeed exists in the United States —something that Gaffney has long propagated. Those who answer “yes” confirm his suspicions, while those who answer “no” acknowledge nonetheless that the group is present here. They’re put into a lose-lose situation.

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 5 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-34 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6

In several questions that are asked about shariah, the content of what shariah actually is remains unexamined. Even when Gaffney’s survey appears to be more nuanced by asking Muslims how they would “characterize shariah,” it only offers options about how broadly sharia—whatever it is—should be applied. Answers ranging from “guide to the personal practice of Islam” to Gaffney’s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqV8syZPPT4) preferred option (“the Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via jihad”) still don’t allow Muslims to express about what they believe about shariah.

Respondents’ likely answered questions on shariah based on their understanding of the concept, but those views were not measured in the survey, nor communicated to the Fox News audience. Instead viewers are left to believe that Muslim Americans support shariah as Gaffney and O’Reilly have portrayed it for years: a “brutally repressive” law hostile to non-Muslims (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNsqjN4vpgk). At the end of the day, Gaffney and O’Reilly make it look like Muslims support things they actually don’t.
SELECTI VE READI NG AND EXAGGERATI ONS Sixty-percent of respondents agreed that “shariah as interpreted by Islamic authorities is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and other rights,” and 51%chose this definition of jihad: “Muslims’ peaceful, personal struggle to be more religious.” These rare but helpful nuances are not even alluded to in the promotion and coverage of the survey’s findings in conservative outlets like Fox News.

O’Reilly also makes exaggerations that the already-flawed data doesn’t support. “Fifty-one percent [of Muslims] say sharia law should be the reigning law,” he said. But that language is nowhere in the survey data he’s likely referencing, which says that “a majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Despite its unreliability, the survey and its findings have spread quickly, with generalizations (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/poll_shows_high_levels_of_support_for_shariah_law_and_violence_amo about American Muslims ricocheting (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/1-in-5-usmuslims-support-violence-to-enforce-islamic-law/) across the Internet and social media (https://twitter.com/ProgsToday/status/613782066354765824), and bleeding into more mainstream outlets. Unfortunately, the general public is not equipped with the tools or knowledge to dissect such claims and is left to accept them at face value. This is especially so when they’re touted by a trusted personality, like Bill O’Reilly, and confirm pre-existing beliefs about Muslims.

Though the public may not see it, the problems with this poll are numerous: CSP has a history of fabricating fear about Islam and Muslims; the survey’s questions and answers are loaded with bias; and its creators and proponents falsely claim that its findings represent the views of all American Muslims.

The American public shouldn’t trust this poll.

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 61

Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US | PolitiFact

Page 1 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6

EDITIONS 

TRUTH-O-METERTM 

PEOPLE 

   Stay Connected:
 Search
PROMISES  PANTS ON FIRE ABOUT US 

 

Says 25 percent of U.S. Muslims "agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad."
— Donald Trump on Monday, December 7th, 2015 in a campaign statement

Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US
By Lauren Carroll, Louis Jacobson on Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 3:48 p.m.

MAI E ANIF I( A GREAT / GAIN! gii•

*

n ,AlTrurn

(4.

*

Do nalcIff, m pxo m

* Donald]
Dona Ed IT , Lm10.0.1111

oni rerRumpi D onaiu, Nirom

TF

PsnaldiTrunp.mt • anti bonAlTrump

Pearl Harbor Day - US$ Yorktown

R

Mount Pleasant, 13C

np.crim

111.E AlhERICAOREAT .411011

_NM

.11b,

* D

TIMM* * Don

ii Don edlTrump.com p.com *

'MP

TIP'

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-...

Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US | PolitiFact

Page 2 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., Dec. 7, 2015. (AP Photo/Mic Smith)
Donald Trump turned to polling data to justify his proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the United States.
"According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population," the Republican presidential candidate said in a Dec. 7 statement. "Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing 25 percent of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad, and 51 percent of those polled agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah."
There’s a lot packed into that quote, but we decided to focus on Trump’s claim that 25 percent of Muslims polled by the Center for Security Policy agree that global jihad justifies violence against Americans.
While the study Trump cited does exist, it’s not at all clear that it supports his argument that "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population." There are several important problems with the survey that call into question whether the results are representative of the entire U.S. Muslim population.
Trump’s poll
The Center for Security Policy, a hawkish think tank, surveyed 600 Muslims and released findings in June under the headline, "Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-...

Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US | PolitiFact

Page 3 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6

Among the findings is 25 percent of respondents agreed either slightly or strongly with the statement "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad." About 64 percent disagreed.

The first problem with the Center for Security policy poll has to do with methodology. It was an online, opt-in survey, which tend to produce less reliable samples because respondents choose to participate. In traditional polling methods, everyone in a population has a chance of being selected for the survey, meaning the results generally reflect the country’s demographics.

Numerous respected polling groups, like Survey Monkey, use opt-in surveys, said Christopher C. Hull, a former adjunct professor at Georgetown University who now works with the Center for Security Policy and answered an inquiry from PolitiFact on the group’s behalf. He added that the method is useful for reaching small populations, such as U.S. Muslims, who only make up about 1 percent of the population.

Hull did caution, however, that "one cannot extrapolate directly from an online, opt-in survey to the broader U.S. population."

One notable finding buried in the full survey data: It found that 23 percent of the U.S. Muslims surveyed said they are "not at all familiar with" the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, and 18 percent said they are not familiar with alQaida. Experts said it seems illogical that such a large percentage of American Muslims would not have knowledge of the two groups.

"The al-Qaida number seems entirely implausible and likely a canary in a coal mine as to the unrepresentativeness of this survey," said David Dutwin, executive vice president and chief methodologist at SSRS, a research firm.

There may be further problems with the poll, including the reality that many American Muslims are immigrants and not fluent in English, and that the survey asked leading questions with limited response choices, according to a critique by the Washington Post’s Philip Bump.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-...

Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US | PolitiFact

Page 4 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6

It’s also worth noting that the head of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, has articulated a variety of theories about Muslim extremists that verge on conspiracy, such as the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the United States government and the false narrative that President Barack Obama is Muslim.

Robert Oldendick, executive director of the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina, reviewed the survey methodology made available by the Center for Security Policy but said he still didn’t have enough information to assess whether it’s a good or bad poll. The group has not disclosed how the surveyors targeted participants and what the response rate was.

"I would view these results very cautiously," Oldendick said. "It may be right, but it may not be. But the information to identify the quality of the sample is just not there."

Compared with Pew

Trump also mentioned research by the Pew Research Center as support for his proposal.

On a key point, the results of the Center for Security Policy study diverge from the results of a 2011 Pew Research study, a traditional telephone survey of 1,033 U.S. Muslims. The methodology of the Pew poll, and the organization’s reputation, is considered solid by public-opinion experts.

The Pew survey asked whether "suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies." Just 1 percent said it is "often" justified, while 12 percent said it is "sometimes" or "rarely" justified. Eighty-one percent said it is "never" justified.

According to Pew in 2011, about 13 percent of American Muslims said they believe that violence in the name of Islam is justifiable. That’s half the rate of the Center for Security Policy finding of 25 percent.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-...

Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US | PolitiFact

Page 5 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6

The 2011 Pew study also found that a "significant minority" -- 21 percent -- of American Muslims feel that there is a great deal or a fair amount of support for extremism in the American Muslim community.

The Center for Security Policy survey results do not directly back up Trump’s proposal to stop Muslims from entering the United States, said Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company, which conducted the survey on the center’s behalf.

"We did not -- nor would we -- ask whether the U.S. should ban all Muslims," she said.

The Center for Security Policy poll has touched a nerve because it "asked questions that other polling firms are refusing to ask," Hull said, defending the results.

"When people do not like the results of a poll, they attack the poll’s methodology and sponsor," he said. "This situation is no different."

Our ruling

Trump said that 25 percent of U.S. Muslims "agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad."

Trump is referring to a poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy. However, polling experts raise numerous questions about the validity of the poll’s results, including its "opt-in" methodology and the dubiously large percentages of respondents who said they were unaware of ISIS or alQaida. Moreover, an official with the Center for Security Policy cautioned against generalizing the poll results to the entire Muslim-American community.

Another survey, which experts consider credible, found levels about half as high as what the Center for Security Policy poll found.

We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 62

GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president? - Washington Times

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

GAFFNEY: America’s first Muslim president?
By - The Washington Times - Tuesday, June 9, 2009
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
COMMENTARY:
During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton — someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male” — was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president.
This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.
With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators:
• Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.” Non-Muslims — even pandering ones — generally don’t use that Islamic formulation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslim-president/

GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president? - Washington Times

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

• Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Again, “revealed” is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad.
• Then the president made a statement no believing Christian — certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam — would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,” Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “… when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.”
Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were - dead prophets. Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.
In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim. In the Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah — notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood — to a degree that makes Mr. Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison.
For example, Mr. Obama has — from literally his inaugural address onward — inflated the numbers and, in that way and others, exaggerated the contemporary and historical importance of MuslimAmericans in the United States. In the Speech, he used the Brotherhood’s estimates of “nearly 7 million Muslims” in this country, at least twice the estimates from other, more reputable sources. (Who knows? By the time Mr. Obama’s friends in the radical Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) perpetrate their trademark books-cooking as deputy 2010 census takers, the official count may well claim considerably morethan 7 million Muslims are living here.)
Even more troubling were the commitments the president made in Cairo to promote Islam in America. For instance, he declared: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” He vowed to ensure that women can cover their heads, including, presumably, when having their photographs taken for passports, driver’s licenses or other identification purposes. He also pledged to enable Muslims to engage in
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslim-president/

GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president? - Washington Times

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

zakat, their faith’s requirement for tithing, even though four of the eight types of charity called for by Shariah can be associated with terrorism. Not surprisingly, a number of Islamic “charities” in this country have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.
Particularly worrying is the realignment Mr. Obama has announced in U.S. policy toward Israel. While he pays lip service to the “unbreakable” bond between America and the Jewish state, the president has unmistakably signaled that he intends to compel the Israelis to make territorial and other strategic concessions to Palestinians to achieve the hallowed two-state solution. In doing so, he ignores the inconvenient fact that both the Brotherhood’s Hamas and Abu Mazen’s Fatah remain determined to achieve a one-state solution, whereby the Jews will be driven “into the sea.”
Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant. What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces - and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy.

Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslim-president/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT 63

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 1 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 12

CBS News / CBS Evening News / CBS This Morning / 48 Hours / 60 Minutes / Sunday Morning / Face The Nation / CBSN

Log In Search

Episodes Overtime Topics The Team 60 Minutes All Access

RELATED VIDEO

60 MINUTES POLITICS
The Republican Ticket

To view this video, you must be subscribed to 60 Minutes All Access LEARN MORE
Already a Subscriber? Log In

60 MINUTES OVERTIME
Trump OK with Pence's vote for Iraq war, but not Clinton's
BA 60 MINUTES OVERTIME Mike Pence on waging war against radical Islam

0-00
60 MINUTES OVERTIME
Did Trump consider

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence

SCBSN Watch Now >
•=0 News Alweys Cel.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, speak to Lesley Stahl in their first joint interview

2016

CORRESPONDENT

Jul17 LesleyStahl

COMMENTS
215

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

STUMBLE

The following is a script from "The Republican Ticket" which aired on July 17, 2016. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Richard Bonin and Ruth Streeter, producers.
The Republican National Convention that begins tomorrow in Cleveland will star Donald Trump and his chosen running mate the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence.
The Republican leadership has praised Pence as a good choice to unite the party. He's known as a reliable conservative with close ties to the religious right and he also has good relations with Republicans in Congress, having served six terms in the House of Representatives.

60 MINUTES OVERTIME
What kind of vice president would Mike Pence be?

But there are significant areas in terms of values and policy where he has differed with Mr. Trump in the past.
We had the chance to ask the two of them about that in their first and only interview together, yesterday afternoon in New York, in Trump's three-story penthouse apartment in the Trump Tower.
Lesley Stahl: First of all, Governor Pence, congratulations.

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 2 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 12

Mike Pence: Thank you.
"It's very, very humbling and I couldn't be more honored to have the opportunity to run with, and serve with, the next president of the United States."
Lesley Stahl: This has probably come as a huge, life-changing moment for you.
Mike Pence: It has. It's very, very humbling and I couldn't be more honored to have the opportunity to run with, and serve with, the next president of the United States.
Lesley Stahl: Before we actually talk about the politics, you know, there've been so many major world events very recently, in the last week. I don't know if you can remember the last time we have seen a world this much in chaos. You even said, "It's spinning apart." Are you ready for this world that we are facing today?

60 MINUTES OVERTIME
Mike Pence on waging war against radical Islam

Donald Trump: We're both ready. I've no doubt. We need toughness. We need strength. Obama's weak, Hillary's weak. And part of it is that, a big part of it. We need law and order. We need strong borders.
Lesley Stahl: But all reactions to what's been going on aren't muscular. For example, look what happened in Turkey. There was a military coup in a democratic country; a NATO ally. How would you respond to that?
Donald Trump: Well, as a president, I'm going to be-- you know, they've been an ally and I stay with our allies. They have been an ally. But that was a quick coup. I was actually surprised to see how well it was handled. And you know who really handled it? The people. So, I mean, we can say what we want, but the people handled it. When they surrounded the army tanks and without the people, you would've never had it. The military would've taken over.
"We're both ready. I've no doubt. We need toughness. We need strength. Obama's weak, Hillary's weak."
Mike Pence: But I truly do believe that the larger issue here is declining American power in the world. I truly do believe that history teaches that weakness arouses evil and whether it be the horrific attack in France, the inspired attacks here in the United States, the instability in Turkey that led to a coup. I think that is all a result of a foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that has led from behind and that has sent an inexact, unclear message about American resolve. One of the reasons why I said yes in a heartbeat to run with this man, is because he embodies American strength, and I know that he will provide that kind of broad-shouldered American strength on the global stage as well.
Lesley Stahl: Let's talk about what happened in Nice, horrendous, carnage, horrible--
Donald Trump: Horrible.
Lesley Stahl: Horrible. You said you would declare war against ISIS. What exactly do you have--
Donald Trump: It is war. By the way, it is war.
Lesley Stahl: No, but does that-- when you say, "Declare war," do you want to send American troops in there? Is that what you mean?
Donald Trump: Look, we have people that hate us. We have people that want to wipe us out. We're gonna declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS. These are people that--
60 MINUTES OVERTIME
Did Trump consider his daughter for vice president?
Lesley Stahl: With troops on the ground?

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 3 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 12

Donald Trump: I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We're going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don't have. We don't have the people over there. We are going to use--
Lesley Stahl: You want to send Americans--
Donald Trump: Excuse me-- and we're going to have surrounding states and, very importantly, get NATO involved because we support NATO far more than we should, frankly, because you have a lot of countries that aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. And we have to wipe out ISIS. And speaking of Turkey, Turkey is an ally. Turkey can do it by themselves. But they have to be incentivized. For whatever reason, they're not. So we have no choice.
Lesley Stahl: But I still don't know if you're going to send troops over--
Donald Trump: Very little. I'm gonna--
Lesley Stahl: But declare war--
Donald Trump: --get neighboring states and I'm going to get-- we are going to get NATO; we're going to wipe 'em out. We're gonna--
Lesley Stahl: But declare war?
Mike Pence: Lesley--
Lesley Stahl: What does that mean--
Mike Pence: This is-- this is the kind-- this is the kind of leadership that America needs and it--
Lesley Stahl: But what--
Mike Pence: -and it begins with deciding to destroy the enemies of our freedom.
Lesley Stahl: How?
Mike Pence: And how we do that? I have every confidence. You-- you remember I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee. And I'm very confident that when Donald Trump becomes president of the United States, he'll give a directive to our military commanders, bring together other nations, and we will use the enormous resources of the United States to destroy that enemy.
60 MINUTES OVERTIME
Trump and Pence's shared values

Donald Trump: Now look, we are going to get rid of ISIS, big league. And we're going to get rid of 'em fast. And we're going to use surrounding states. We're going to use NATO, probably. And we're going to declare war. It is war. When the World Trade Center comes tumbling down, with thousands of people being killed, people are still-- I have friends that are still--
Lesley Stahl: But we did go to war, if you remember. We went to Iraq.
Donald Trump: Yeah, you went to Iraq, but that was handled so badly. And that was a war-by the way, that was a war that we shouldn't have entered because Iraq did not knock down-excuse me
Lesley Stahl: Your running mate--
Donald Trump: Iraq did not--
Lesley Stahl: --voted for it.
Donald Trump: I don't care.
Lesley Stahl: What do you mean you don't care that he voted for?
Donald Trump: It's a long time ago. And he voted that way and they were also misled. A lot of information was given to people.
Lesley Stahl: But you've harped on this.
Donald Trump: But I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning.
Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but you've used that vote of Hillary's that was the same as Governor Pence as the example of her bad judgment.

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 4 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 12

ifiliiii0vtlfWITH PENCE'S VOTE
for Iraq war, but not Clinton's

Donald Trump: Many people have, and frankly, I'm one of the few that was right on Iraq.
Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but what about he--
Donald Trump: He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while.
Lesley Stahl: But she's not? OK, come on--
Donald Trump: But she's not--
Lesley Stahl: She's not?
Donald Trump: No. She's not.
Lesley Stahl: Got it.
Lesley Stahl: I have to move on or we're never gonna find out why he chose you. Why did you pick him? You had other candidates--
Donald Trump: OK, I did. I had a lot of people that wanted it; a lot more people than anybody--
Lesley Stahl: That came to you and begged you for it?
Donald Trump: That called me and came to me and wanted it badly. And you know, the press didn't report that. The press said, "Well, maybe he's having hard time picking--"
Lesley Stahl: Well, what about the governor? Did he want it like that?
Donald Trump: I actually brought it up to him.
Lesley Stahl: OK.
Donald Trump: I got to know him during the-- when I was in Indiana during the primaries, and I did very well in Indiana, like I did just about everywhere else in all fairness. But-- I got to know him very well and I gained great respect for him. And I looked at the numbers, meaning the financials, which we would say in business. But I looked at the numbers. Unemployment? What a great job he did. Jobs? What a great job he did. Triple-A rating on his bonds.
Lesley Stahl: --but you went to him and said--
Donald Trump: I did--
Lesley Stahl: Would you want to be considered--
Donald Trump: I broached it.
Lesley Stahl: He didn't -- And then he said, "I-- I really want it." So why did you pick him?
Donald Trump: I would say that he thought about it a little bit. And about two seconds later, he called me, with his incredible wife, and said--
Lesley Stahl: That I'd like to be-- but what--
Donald Trump: Like many others.
Lesley Stahl: How does he help you? How does he help you win in terms of groups of people? And what is your weakness that he compensates for and so forth--
Donald Trump: Well, I went for the quality individual rather than I'm gonna win a state, because I'm doing very well in Indiana, and I guess I'm a lot up. And I think I'm gonna win Indiana. I have a great relationship and Bobby Knight helped me so much with Indiana. Indiana's a great place; great state.
Lesley Stahl: Why didn't you pick him? No, I'm joking -- moving on.
Donald Trump: He would've been very good. But he's a terrific guy. But-- but I really like him as an individual.
Lesley Stahl: So you must've considered, obviously, by the reaction to your choice, a lot of the conservatives are very happy.
Donald Trump: Very happy.

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 5 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 12

Lesley Stahl: Was that part of the--
Donald Trump: Yes, it was party unity. I'm an outsider. I am a person that used to be establishment when I'd give them hundreds of thousands of dollars. But when I decided to run, I became very anti-establishment because I understand the system--
Lesley Stahl: Is he establishment?
Donald Trump: --than anybody else. He's very establishment, in many ways, and that's not a bad thing. But I will tell you--
Lesley Stahl: That's kind of interesting --
Donald Trump: --I have seen more people that, frankly, did not like me so much, and now they're saying, "What a great pick." You see the kinda reaction. He has helped bring the party together. I understand. Look, I got more votes than anybody, but I also understand there's a faction--
Lesley Stahl: Is it already unified, do you think?
Donald Trump: I think it's very close to unified. And I will say--
Lesley Stahl: Just because of this pick?
Donald Trump: No. I think it's be-- I think it was much more unified than people thought. You saw that with the recent vote where we won in a landslide. You saw that with the big vote, the primary vote. I think it's far more unified than the press lets on. But having Governor Mike Pence has really-- people that I wasn't necessarily liking or getting along are loving this pick, because they have such respect for him.
Lesley Stahl: And that was--
Donald Trump: And the party unity is OK. You know, I think it's OK to say I picked somebody, because I-- as one of the things. But I really believe the main reason I picked him is the incredible job he's done. Just look at the economics of Indiana--
Lesley Stahl: Indiana--
Donald Trump: --and what's going on.
Lesley Stahl: But what about the chemistry between you two? You don't really know each other that well. You're -- at least I've read, a very low-key, very religious, you're a brash New Yorker--
Donald Trump: Religious.
Lesley Stahl: Religious?
Donald Trump: Religious--
Lesley Stahl: Are you?
Donald Trump: Yea, religious.
Lesley Stahl: --you wouldn't--
Donald Trump: Hey, I won the evangelicals. The evangelicals--
Lesley Stahl: That doesn't--
Mike Pence: You know, nobody thought--
Donald Trump: --well, I think it means a lot. I don't think they think I'm perfect, and they would get up and they would say, "You know, he's not perfect," but--
Lesley Stahl: They'd point to the --
Donald Trump: --they like me--
Lesley Stahl: --divorces--
Donald Trump: --but I won-- I won states with evangelicals that nobody thought I'd even come close to--
Lesley Stahl: Well, that's true--
Donald Trump:-and I won--
Lesley Stahl: --so you didn't (UNINTEL)--
Donald Trump: --with landslides--
Lesley Stahl: --need him for the evangelicals?

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 6 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 12

Donald Trump: I think it helps. But I don't think I needed him, no, because--I won with evangelicals. Mike Pence: But I think we have more in common-Lesley Stahl: Yeah, tell me-Mike Pence: --than-Lesley Stahl: --what you think you have in common. Donald Trump: --what might be immediately obvious. Lesley Stahl: Besides issues. Values and things like that. Donald Trump: I think we will have very, very good chemistry. I feel that. And I can feel that pretty early on. I don't think you need to be with somebody for two years to find that out. My feeling isLesley Stahl: Your gut feeling. Donald Trump: I knew him during the primaries, during many trips to Indiana, I'd be with him. I think we have a great chemistry. Lesley Stahl: I want to ask you though about something you've said about negative campaigning. Donald Trump: Yeah. Lesley Stahl: You said negative campaigning is wrong, and a campaign ought to demonstrate the basic decency of the candidate. Mike Pence: Right. Lesley Stahl: With that in mind, what do you think about your running mate's campaign and the tone and the negativity of it? Mike Pence: I think this is a good man who's been talking about the issues the American people care about. Lesley Stahl: But name-calling? Mike Pence: In that-Lesley Stahl: "Lyin' Ted?" Mike Pence: --in the essay that I wrote a long time ago, I said campaigns oughta be about something more important than just one candidate's election. And-- and this campaign and Donald Trump's candidacy has been about the issues the American people care about. Lesley Stahl: --but what about-Donald Trump: Lesley, Lesley-Lesley Stahl: --the negative side? He apologized for being a negative-Donald Trump: We're different people. I understand that. I'll give you an example. Hillary Clinton is a liar. Hillary Clinton-- that was just proven-Lesley Stahl: That's-Donald Trump: --last week. Lesley Stahl: --that's negative-Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton-Lesley Stahl: By the way -Donald Trump: --you better believe it. Hillary Clinton is a crook. Lesley Stahl: That's negative-Donald Trump: I call her "Crooked Hillary." She's crooked Hillary. He won't-- I-- I don't-- I didn't ask him to do it, but I don't think he should do it because it's different for him. Lesley Stahl: But-- he-Donald Trump: He's not that kind of a-Lesley Stahl: He probably-Donald Trump: --person. We're different people-Lesley Stahl: --don't you think he--

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 7 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 12

Donald Trump: --to me she's-Lesley Stahl: --thinks that's-Donald Trump: --Crooked Hillary. Lesley Stahl: --wrong? Donald Trump: I don't think he should use that term. I've never said one way or the other. But to him, I don't think it would sound right, but he will say how dishonest she is by going over the facts. Lesley Stahl: But would you go to him-- let's say you won, you're the vice president, your office is, I assume, down the hall, and you go in and you say, "You know, you shouldn't be saying-- name-calling." Would you do that? Would you go in and say, "You crossed the line, I think you should apologize?" Would you do something like that? Mike Pence: Look, I-Lesley Stahl: He's laughing. Mike Pence: --it's probably-- it's-- it's probably-Lesley Stahl: It's OK. Mike Pence: --obvious to people that our styles are different. But I promise you, our vision is exactly the same. Lesley Stahl: No, but would you-Mike Pence: And let me be-Lesley Stahl: --will-Mike Pence: --clear-Lesley Stahl: --will you answer that? Would you go in -Mike Pence: Well the-- one of the things I found out about this man is he appreciates candor. And-Lesley Stahl: So you would go in-Mike Pence: --I-- I-Donald Trump: I'd like him to if he thinks I was doing something wrong-Lesley Stahl: Would you listen-Donald Trump: --just say-Lesley Stahl: --to him-Mike Pence: Yeah. Lesley Stahl: --if he said you-Donald Trump: Absolutely-Lesley Stahl: --crossed the line. Donald Trump: --absolutely. I might not apologize. You know, you said apologize, but-Lesley Stahl: I did say apologize. Donald Trump: But I might not do that, but I would absolutely want him to come in-- if he thinks I'm doing something wrong, Mike, I would want him to come in and say, really, you're doing, you gotta-- and that's OK. I accept that from my consultants and my people and if Mike came in and told me, you know, "I think you should do this or that-Lesley Stahl: Back off that. Donald Trump: I would listen and very likely listen to him. Lesley Stahl: Do you think John McCain is not a hero because he was captured? Mike Pence: I have a great deal of respect for John McCain, and-Lesley Stahl: Do you think he went too far? Donald Trump: You could say yes. I-- that's OK. Donald Trump: That one, you could say yes, I mean, you're not--it's fine - hey, look, I like John McCain. But we have to take care of our vets.

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 8 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 12

Lesley Stahl: No, but I wanna know if--
Donald Trump: OK, but I'm just--
Lesley Stahl:-Mr. Pence would go in and--
Donald Trump:-I'm just saying, that's--
Lesley Stahl: --say to you--
Donald Trump: --why not that many people are that upset--
Lesley Stahl: What are you -- what did you say? You know, would you do something like that?
Mike Pence: I promise you that when the circumstances arise where I have a difference on policy or on presentation, I have-- I can tell you in my heart, I know-- I would have no hesitation, were I privileged to be vice president, to walk into the president's office, close the door, and share my heart. And I also know this good man would listen, and has the leadership qualities to draw from the people around him.
Lesley Stahl: Let's talk about-- some of the issues. Because there seems to be some daylight between you two, and we can just tick-- go quickly through these. Immigration. Mr. Trump, you have called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. Do you agree with that?
Mike Pence: I do. In fact, in Indiana we suspended the Syrian refugee program in the wake of the terrorist attack. We have no higher priority than the safety and security of the people of this country, and Donald Trump--
Lesley Stahl: Now--
Mike Pence: --is right to--
Lesley Stahl: --in December--
Mike Pence: --articulate that view.
Lesley Stahl: --in December you tweeted, and I quote you, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."
Donald Trump: So you call it territories. OK? We're gonna do territories. We're gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are. Hillary Clinton wants 550 percent more people to come in than Obama--
Lesley Stahl: So you--
Donald Trump: --who doesn't know what he's--
Lesley Stahl: --so you're changing--
Donald Trump: --so we're going to--
Lesley Stahl: --your position.
Donald Trump: --no, I-- call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?
Lesley Stahl: So not Muslims?
Donald Trump: You know-- the Constitution -- there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I'll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we're not gonna allow the people to come into our country. And we're gonna have a thing called "Extreme vetting." And if people wanna come in, there's gonna be extreme vetting. We're gonna have extreme vetting. They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are.
Mike Pence: You just asked me--if I'm comfortable with that--
Mike Pence: --and I am. What-- what Donald--
Lesley Stahl: You're on the same--
Mike Pence: Which--
Lesley Stahl: --page on that?
Mike Pence: --clearly-- clearly this man is not a politician. He doesn't speak like a politician--
Lesley Stahl: He's done pretty well.
Mike Pence: --he-- he speaks from his--
Mike Pence: --heart--

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 9 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 12

Donald Trump: Is that a good thing? I think that's a good thing. Mike Pence: --he speaks from his heart. And-Lesley Stahl: Well, I-Donald Trump: Well, I-- I speak from my heart and my brain. Just so we understand. Mike Pence: Right.
Donald Trump: This is (points to head) maybe more important. Lesley Stahl: Let's go to trade. You have voted for every trade agreement when you were in Congress-Mike Pence: I have. Lesley Stahl: --that came before you. You're supporting the Trans-Pacific partnership that Mr. Trump says would rape this country. Now, are you gonna be able to go out and campaign in support of his protectionist positions? Mike Pence: I support free trade, and so does Donald Trump. Lesley Stahl: Not really-Donald Trump: I do. I'm free trade, but I wanna make good deals. No, no, I'm all for free-Lesley Stahl: You've talked Donald Trump: --trade. You--
Lesley Stahl: --about-Donald Trump: --know I'm not an isolationist. A lot of people think because I wanna make good deals-Lesley Stahl: You wanna undo-Donald Trump: --these are stupid people-Lesley Stahl: --these--
Donald Trump: --wait a minute Lesley, these are stupid people that think that. I wanna make great deals for our country. We have deals like the deal signed by Bill Clinton, NAFTA, one of the worst things that ever happened to this country in terms of trade, in terms of economics. Lesley Stahl: What do you think about NAFTA? Mike Pence: You're absolutely right. I've supported free trade throughout my career. But-Lesley Stahl: OK.
Mike Pence: --the truth of the matter is NAFTA has provisions in that law that call for it to be reviewed, that have never been-- never been-- initiated. What-- what I hear Donald Trump saying is let's-- let's look at these trade agreements and reconsider them and renegotiate them. And-Lesley Stahl: And you're OK with--
Mike Pence: --with regard to-Lesley Stahl: --that? Mike Pence: --and with regard to other trade agreements, we've talked about this. I-- I really do believe when the American people elect one of the best negotiators in the world as president of the United States, we would do well--
Donald Trump: We're gonna bring back jobs-Mike Pence: --to negotiate individually with countries. Donald Trump: We're gonna bring back our jobs, we're gonna bring back our wealth, we're gonna take care of our people. Very simple. Lesley Stahl: OK. More issues. Waterboarding. Mr. Trump wants to bring back waterboarding, and quote, "A hell of a lot more." Are you comfortable with bringing back waterboarding? Mike Pence: I don't think we should ever tell our enemy what our tactics are. Lesley Stahl: But what about that? What-Mike Pence: I don't--

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 10 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 12

Lesley Stahl: --about-- he's publicly--
Donald Trump: I like that answer.
Lesley Stahl: --said that--
Mike Pence: I don't think we should-- I-- I think--
Lesley Stahl: But are you OK with the idea of--
Mike Pence: --I think--
Lesley Stahl: --waterboarding?
Mike Pence: --I think enhanced interrogation saved lives.
Lesley Stahl: And you're OK with--
Mike Pence: I--
Lesley Stahl: --that?
Mike Pence: --what I'm OK with-- what I'm OK with is protecting the American people. What I'm OK with is when people have the intent to come to this country and take American lives, that-- that we are-- that we are prepared to do what's necessary to gain the information to protect the people of this country--
Donald Trump: But Lesley, let's step further. We have an enemy, ISIS and others, who chop off heads, who drown people in steel cages and we can't do waterboarding--
Lesley Stahl: OK, but, but why--
Donald Trump: OK, they're not playing--
Lesley Stahl: --would you use their--
Donald Trump: --under -- because you know--
Lesley Stahl: --techniques?
Donald Trump: --what, those techniques get information. I don't care what anyone says.
Lesley Stahl: Are you agreeing with him?
Mike Pence: I am--
Donald Trump: And get information--
Mike Pence: --what I--
Donald Trump: --using those things.
Mike Pence: --what I can tell you is enhanced information gleaned information that saved American lives and, I was informed, prevented incoming terrorist attacks on this country from being successful. The American people expect the president of the United States to be prepared to support action to protect the people of this nation, and I know Donald Trump will.
Lesley Stahl: Have you answered me?
Mike Pence: I have.
Lesley Stahl: Let's talk about the convention. You're a showman. What are you going to do to keep it from being a snooze-o-rama, as some have happened.
Donald Trump: Well, I think we're gonna have an exciting time. We've got some wonderful speakers. We have some very talented people. My family's gonna speak.
Lesley Stahl: Worried about violence outside? This is an open-carry state. People can carry guns. There'll be demonstrators. They've already said they're going to carry assault rifles. Are you worried? And would you call on people not to carry their guns?
Donald Trump: I have great faith in law enforcement. If they don't want to take their guns, I think that's fantastic. But I have great confidence in law enforcement. The police like Donald Trump. It's law and order. And I have great confidence that they will do a great job.
Lesley Stahl: There's no question in anybody's mind that you want to win this election. I don't think anyone would doubt that. But what about being president? Do you really want to be president of the United States?
Donald Trump: I want to make America great again. Honestly. I want to make Am-- I'm not doing this because-- I'm sacrificing tremendous things. I could be doing other things. It's

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence - CBS News

Page 11 of 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-37 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 12

lovely to sit down with you and be grilled. That's okay. But I could be doing other things right now. And I have some of the greatest properties in the world. I could be out there--
Lesley Stahl: Would you rather be out there?
Donald Trump: I tell you what. I've really enjoyed this process. I've gotten to know the people of this country. I've gotten to know places that I didn't know, that I read about, but I didn't know. I've also gotten to see the problems. And it's a movement.
Donald Trump: Now, when you ask me the question, do I wanna be?
Lesley Stahl: Yeah.
Donald Trump: I wanna be for one reason. I wanna make America safe again, and I wanna make America great again. That's why I'm doing this. And I love it.
Lesley Stahl: And you wanna govern? I mean it--
Donald Trump: I do wanna govern.
Lesley Stahl: It is different--
Donald Trump: I do--
Lesley Stahl: --building a movement--
Donald Trump: I govern my-- I--
Lesley Stahl: -and than-- going in there with the nitty gritty and--
Lesley Stahl: --all that tough decision making.
Donald Trump: Sure. No, no I wanna govern
Lesley Stahl: OK, this is my absolute final question.
Donald Trump: OK.
Lesley Stahl: You're not known to be a humble man. But I wonder--
Donald Trump: I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand.
Lesley Stahl: As you think about-- prospect of running this country in these tough times where the world is spinning apart-- are you awed? Are you intimidated? Are you humbled by the enormity of this?
Donald Trump: You just said it best.
Mike Pence: Mmm.
Donald Trump: In a world that's spinning apart. That's what I'm thinking of. I'm not thinking of, "Oh gee, isn't this wonderful? Isn't this great what I've done?" I've had people that said, "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, what you've done has never been done before. You're gonna go down in the history books." You know what I say to 'em?" I say, "You're wrong." I will consider it, 'cause I funded my own primaries, I'm funding now a lot of this campaign. I'm putting in, you know-- I've spent $55 million in the primaries. I'm spending a fortunate now. I'll tell you, it is spinning. Our world is spinning out of control. Our country's spinning out of control. That's what I think about. And I'll stop that.
Lesley Stahl: Not-- humbled or-- awe.
Mike Pence: I can say to 'ya-- what--
Lesley Stahl: Go ahead.
Mike Pence: Talking with him in private settings, I love the words you used because this man is awed with the American people, and he is not intimidated by the world. And Donald Trump, this good man, I believe, will be a great president of the United States.
Donald Trump: I love what he just said.
© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Lesley Stahl
One of America's most recognized and experienced broadcast journalists, Lesley Stahl has been a 60 Minutes correspondent since 1991.

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 23
EXHIBIT 64

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 1 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 23

0,

The American Presidency Project

Al
IMEMBEEEMEOF

HOME DATA DOCUMENTS ELECTIONS MEDIA UNKS 1—m•Ir
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
1960 and 1976 —2016
Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri October 9, 2016

Like 13K Tweet Gil

PARTICIPANTS: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) and Businessman Donald Trump (R)
MODERATORS: Anderson Cooper (CNN) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News)
RADDATZ: Ladies and gentlemen the Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, and the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. [applause]

COLLECTION:
Campaign 2016
Location:

Document Archive
• Public Papers of the Presidents • State of the Union Addresses & Messages • Inaugural Addresses • Farewell Addresses • Weekly Addresses • Fireside Chats • News Conferences • Executive Orders • Proclamations • Signing Statements • Press Briefings • Statements of Administration Policy • Economic Report of the President • Debates • Convention Speeches • Party Platforms • 2016 Election Documents • 2012 Election Documents • 2008 Election Documents • 2004 Election Documents • 1960 Election Documents • 2017 Transition • 2009 Transition • 2001 Transition
Data Archive
Data Index
Media Archive
Audio/Video Index
Elections
Election Index Florida 2000
Links
Presidential Libraries

View Public Papers by

Month and Year

Month

ఔ Year ఔ

INCLUDE documents from the Office of the Press Secretary

INCLUDE election campaign documents

View PPPUS

Search the Entire Document Archive
Enter keyword:

0 0 0 AND OR NOT

COOPER: Thank you very much for being here. We're going to begin with a question from one of the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. Secretary Clinton, you won the coin toss, so you'll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice Brock. Patrice?
QUESTION: Thank you, and good evening. The last debate could have been rated as MA, mature audiences, per TV parental guidelines. Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential debates as students' homework, do you feel you're modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth?

United States Missouri
Font Size:
Ad AA 2][ Print
Share
The American Presidency Project

CLINTON: Well, thank you. Are you a teacher? Yes, I think that that's a very good question, because I've heard from lots of teachers and parents about some of their concerns about some of the things that are being said and done in this campaign.

And I think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great because we're good. And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity, and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl, as well as every adult, to bring them in to working on behalf of our country.

I have a very positive and optimistic view about what we can do together. That's why the slogan of my campaign is "Stronger Together," because I think if we work together, if we overcome the

Promote Your Page Too

divisiveness that sometimes sets Americans against one another, and instead we make some big goals—and I've set forth

some big goals, getting the economy to work for everyone, not just those at the top, making sure that we have the best

education system from preschool through college and making it affordable, and so much else.

If we set those goals and we go together to try to achieve them, there's nothing in my opinion that America can't do. So that's why I hope that we will come together in this campaign. Obviously, I'm hoping to earn your vote, I'm hoping to be elected in November, and I can promise you, I will work with every American.

I want to be the president for all Americans, regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like, your religion. I want us to heal our country and bring it together because that's, I think, the best way for us to get the future that our children and our grandchildren deserve.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.

TRUMP: Well, I actually agree with that. I agree with everything she said. I began this campaign because I was so tired of seeing such foolish things happen to our country. This is a great country. This is a great land. I've gotten to know the people of the country over the last year-and-a-half that I've been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I'm saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 2 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 23

Limit by Year
From: 1789 ఔ To : 2017 ఔ
Limit results per page
30 ఔ

And my whole concept was to make America great again. When I watch the deals being made, when I watch what's happening with some horrible things like Obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent, when I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us, it's a one-sided transaction where we're giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state, really, the number one terror state, we've made them a strong country from really a very weak country just three years ago.

El INCLUDE documents
from the Office of the Press Secretary
El INCLUDE election
campaign documents
Search
Instructions You can search the Public Papers in two ways:
1. Search by Keyword and Year You can search by keyword and choose the range of years within your search by filling out the boxes under Search the Public Papers.
2. View by Month and/or Year Select the month and/or year you would like information about and press View Public Papers. Then choose a Public Paper and the page will load for you.
Search Engine provided by the Harry S. Truman Library. Our thanks to Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che Kassim at Project Whistlestop for critical assistance in the implementation of the search function, and to Scott Roley at the Truman Library for facilitating this collaboration.

When I look at all of the things that I see and all of the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential, whether it's in business and trade, where we're doing so badly. Last year, we had almost $800 billion trade deficit. In other words, trading with other countries. We had an $800 billion deficit. It's hard to believe. Inconceivable.
You say who's making these deals? We're going the make great deals. We're going to have a strong border. We're going to bring back law and order. Just today, policemen was shot, two killed. And this is happening on a weekly basis. We have to bring back respect to law enforcement. At the same time, we have to take care of people on all sides. We need justice.
But I want to do things that haven't been done, including fixing and making our inner cities better for the AfricanAmerican citizens that are so great, and for the Latinos, Hispanics, and I look forward to doing it. It's called make America great again.
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. The question from Patrice was about are you both modeling positive and appropriate behavior for today's youth? We received a lot of questions online, Mr. Trump, about the tape that was released on Friday, as you can imagine. You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?
TRUMP: No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was—this was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it. But this is locker room talk.
You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have—and, frankly, drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven't seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world.
And they look and they see. Can you imagine the people that are, frankly, doing so well against us with ISIS? And they look at our country and they see what's going on.
Yes, I'm very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But it's locker room talk, and it's one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We're going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.

COOPER: So, Mr. Trump...

TRUMP: And we should get on to much more important things and much bigger things.

COOPER: Just for the record, though, are you saying that what you said on that bus 11 years ago that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women without consent?

TRUMP: I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do.

COOPER: So, for the record, you're saying you never did that?

TRUMP: I've said things that, frankly, you hear these things I said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women.

COOPER: Have you ever done those things?

TRUMP: And women have respect for me. And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I'm going to make our country safe. We're going to have borders in our country, which we don't have now. People are pouring into our country, and they're coming in from the Middle East and other places.

We're going to make America safe again. We're going to make America great again, but we're going to make America safe again. And we're going to make America wealthy again, because if you don't do that, it just—it sounds harsh to say, but we have to build up the wealth of our nation.

COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.

TRUMP: Right now, other nations are taking our jobs and they're taking our wealth.

COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.

TRUMP: And that's what I want to talk about.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 3 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 23

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?
CLINTON: Well, like everyone else, I've spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw. You know, with prior Republican nominees for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles, but I never questioned their fitness to serve.
Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief. And many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn't represent who he is.
But I think it's clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we've seen this throughout the campaign. We have seen him insult women. We've seen him rate women on their appearance, ranking them from one to ten. We've seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week denigrating a former Miss Universe in the harshest, most personal terms.
So, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. But it's not only women, and it's not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president, because he has also targeted immigrants, African- Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others.
So this is who Donald Trump is. And the question for us, the question our country must answer is that this is not who we are. That's why—to go back to your question—I want to send a message—we all should—to every boy and girl and, indeed, to the entire world that America already is great, but we are great because we are good, and we will respect one another, and we will work with one another, and we will celebrate our diversity.
These are very important values to me, because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I'm so fortunate enough to become your president.
RADDATZ: And we want to get to some questions from online...
TRUMP: Am I allowed to respond to that? I assume I am.
RADDATZ: Yes, you can respond to that.
TRUMP: It's just words, folks. It's just words. Those words, I've been hearing them for many years. I heard them when they were running for the Senate in New York, where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she failed.
I've heard them where Hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster educationwise, jobwise, safety-wise, in every way possible. I'm going to help the African-Americans. I'm going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.
She's done a terrible job for the African-Americans. She wants their vote, and she does nothing, and then she comes back four years later. We saw that firsthand when she was United States senator. She campaigned where the primary part of her campaign...
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump—I want to get to audience questions and online questions.
TRUMP: So, she's allowed to do that, but I'm not allowed to respond?
RADDATZ: You're going to have—you're going to get to respond right now.
TRUMP: Sounds fair.
RADDATZ: This tape is generating intense interest. In just 48 hours, it's become the single most talked about story of the entire 2016 election on Facebook, with millions and millions of people discussing it on the social network. As we said a moment ago, we do want to bring in questions from voters around country via social media, and our first stays on this topic. Jeff from Ohio asks on Facebook, "Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?" So, Mr. Trump, let me add to that. When you walked off that bus at age 59, were you a different man or did that behavior continue until just recently? And you have two minutes for this.
TRUMP: It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, I'm not proud of it. But that was something that happened.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 4 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 23

If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he's done to women. There's never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.
Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she's seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight.
So don't tell me about words. I am absolutely—I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones, who's also here tonight.
And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. [applause]
RADDATZ: Can we please hold the applause? Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, first, let me start by saying that so much of what he's just said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses. He gets to decide what he wants to talk about. Instead of answering people's questions, talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country, that's his choice.
When I hear something like that, I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: When they go low, you go high. [applause]
And, look, if this were just about one video, maybe what he's saying tonight would be understandable, but everyone can draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects women. But he never apologizes for anything to anyone.
He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the Gold Star family whose son, Captain Khan, died in the line of duty in Iraq. And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion.
He never apologized to the distinguished federal judge who was born in Indiana, but Donald said he couldn't be trusted to be a judge because his parents were, quote, "Mexican."
He never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television and our children were watching. And he never apologized for the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the United States of America. He owes the president an apology, he owes our country an apology, and he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words.
TRUMP: Well, you owe the president an apology, because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal—he's another real winner that you have—and he's the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager, and they were on television just two weeks ago, she was, saying exactly that. So you really owe him an apology. You're the one that sent the pictures around your campaign, sent the pictures around with President Obama in a certain garb. That was long before I was ever involved, so you actually owe an apology.
Number two, Michelle Obama. I've gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I've gotten to see some of the most vicious commercials I've ever seen of Michelle Obama talking about you, Hillary.
So, you talk about friend? Go back and take a look at those commercials, a race where you lost fair and square, unlike the Bernie Sanders race, where you won, but not fair and square, in my opinion. And all you have to do is take a look at WikiLeaks and just see what they say about Bernie Sanders and see what Deborah Wasserman Schultz had in mind, because Bernie Sanders, between super-delegates and Deborah Wasserman Schultz, he never had a chance. And I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil.
But when you talk about apology, I think the one that you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted, and that you acid washed, and then the two boxes of e-mails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing.
And I'll tell you what. I didn't think I'd say this, but I'm going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we're going to have a special prosecutor.
When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been longterm workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails—and you get a subpoena, you

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 5 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 23

get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them, as you would say, very expensive process.
So we're going to get a special prosecutor, and we're going to look into it, because you know what? People have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done. And it's a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on that.
[crosstalk]
RADDATZ: I'm going to let you talk about e-mails.
CLINTON: ... because everything he just said is absolutely false, but I'm not surprised.
TRUMP: Oh, really?
CLINTON: In the first debate...[laughter]
RADDATZ: And really, the audience needs to calm down here.
CLINTON: ... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we're going to really make lives better for people.
So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump—you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we'll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is—it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
TRUMP: Because you'd be in jail. [applause]
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton...
COOPER: We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You're just wasting time.
RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on e- mails. You've said your handing of your e-mails was a mistake. You disagreed with FBI Director James Comey, calling your handling of classified information, quote, "extremely careless." The FBI said that there were 110 classified e-mails that were exchanged, eight of which were top secret, and that it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those e-mails. You don't call that extremely careless?
CLINTON: Well, Martha, first, let me say—and I've said before, but I'll repeat it, because I want everyone to hear it—that was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal e-mail account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I would not. I'm not making any excuses. It was a mistake. And I am very sorry about that.
But I think it's also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. After a year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all—anyone who says otherwise has no basis—that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands.
I take classified materials very seriously and always have. When I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was privy to a lot of classified material. Obviously, as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we possess, such as going after bin Laden. So I am very committed to taking classified information seriously. And as I said, there is no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands.
RADDATZ: OK, we're going to move on.
TRUMP: And yet she didn't know the word—the letter C on a document. Right? She didn't even know what that word—what that letter meant.
You know, it's amazing. I'm watching Hillary go over facts. And she's going after fact after fact, and she's lying again, because she said she—you know, what she did with the e-mail was fine. You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don't think so.
She said the 33,000 e-mails had to do with her daughter's wedding, number one, and a yoga class. Well, maybe we'll give three or three or four or five or something. 33,000 e-mails deleted, and now she's saying there wasn't anything wrong.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 6 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 23

And more importantly, that was after getting a subpoena. That wasn't before. That was after. She got it from the United States Congress. And I'll be honest, I am so disappointed in congressmen, including Republicans, for allowing this to happen. Our Justice Department, where our husband goes on to the back of a airplane for 39 minutes, talks to the attorney general days before a ruling is going to be made on her case. But for you to say that there was nothing wrong with you deleting 39,000 e-mails, again, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you did—and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress. COOPER: We have to move on. TRUMP: You did that. Wait a minute. One second. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond, and then we got to move on. RADDATZ: We want to give the audience a chance. TRUMP: If you did that in the private sector, you'd be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond. Then we have to move on to an audience question. CLINTON: Look, it's just not true. And so please, go to... TRUMP: Oh, you didn't delete them? COOPER: Allow her to respond, please. CLINTON: It was personal e-mails, not official. TRUMP: Oh, 33,000? Yeah. CLINTON: Not—well, we turned over 35,000, so... TRUMP: Oh, yeah. What about the other 15,000? COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn't talk while you talked. CLINTON: Yes, that's true, I didn't. TRUMP: Because you have nothing to say. CLINTON: I didn't in the first debate, and I'm going to try not to in this debate, because I'd like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk to us about. TRUMP: Get off this question. CLINTON: OK, Donald. I know you're into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it's exploding and the way Republicans are leaving you. But let's at least focus... TRUMP: Let's see what happens...[crosstalk] COOPER: Allow her to respond. CLINTON: ... on some of the issues that people care about tonight. Let's get to their questions. COOPER: We have a question here from Ken Karpowicz. He has a question about health care. Ken? TRUMP: I'd like to know, Anderson, why aren't you bringing up the e-mails? I'd like to know. Why aren't you bringing... COOPER: We brought up the e-mails. TRUMP: No, it hasn't. It hasn't. And it hasn't been finished at all. COOPER: Ken Karpowicz has a question. TRUMP: It's nice to—one on three. QUESTION: Thank you. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, it is not affordable. Premiums have gone up. Deductibles have gone up. Copays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up. And the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the cost down and make coverage better?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 7 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 23

COOPER: That first one goes to Secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience.
CLINTON: If he wants to start, he can start. No, go ahead, Donald.
TRUMP: No, I'm a gentlemen, Hillary. Go ahead. [laughter]
COOPER: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I think Donald was about to say he's going to solve it by repealing it and getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm going to fix it, because I agree with you. Premiums have gotten too high. Copays, deductibles, prescription drug costs, and I've laid out a series of actions that we can take to try to get those costs down.
But here's what I don't want people to forget when we're talking about reining in the costs, which has to be the highest priority of the next president, when the Affordable Care Act passed, it wasn't just that 20 million got insurance who didn't have it before. But that in and of itself was a good thing. I meet these people all the time, and they tell me what a difference having that insurance meant to them and their families.
But everybody else, the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employees got big benefits. Number one, insurance companies can't deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Number two, no lifetime limits, which is a big deal if you have serious health problems.
Number three, women can't be charged more than men for our health insurance, which is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. Number four, if you're under 26, and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26, something that didn't happen before.
So I want very much to save what works and is good about the Affordable Care Act. But we've got to get costs down. We've got to provide additional help to small businesses so that they can afford to provide health insurance. But if we repeal it, as Donald has proposed, and start over again, all of those benefits I just mentioned are lost to everybody, not just people who get their health insurance on the exchange. And then we would have to start all over again.
Right now, we are at 90 percent health insurance coverage. That's the highest we've ever been in our country.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your time is up.
CLINTON: So I want us to get to 100 percent, but get costs down and keep quality up.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.
TRUMP: It is such a great question and it's maybe the question I get almost more than anything else, outside of defense. Obamacare is a disaster. You know it. We all know it. It's going up at numbers that nobody's ever seen worldwide. Nobody's ever seen numbers like this for health care.
It's only getting worse. In '17, it implodes by itself. Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more money, more and more money. We have right now almost $20 trillion in debt.
Obamacare will never work. It's very bad, very bad health insurance. Far too expensive. And not only expensive for the person that has it, unbelievably expensive for our country. It's going to be one of the biggest line items very shortly.
We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive and something that works, where your plan can actually be tailored. We have to get rid of the lines around the state, artificial lines, where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing, because they want—and President Obama and whoever was working on it—they want to leave those lines, because that gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition.
You will have the finest health care plan there is. She wants to go to a single-payer plan, which would be a disaster, somewhat similar to Canada. And if you haven't noticed the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come into the United States in many cases because their system is so slow. It's catastrophic in certain ways.
But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything. Hillary Clinton has been after this for years. Obamacare was the first step. Obamacare is a total disaster. And not only are your rates going up by numbers that nobody's ever believed, but your deductibles are going up, so that unless you get hit by a truck, you're never going to be able to use it.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, your time...
TRUMP: It is a disastrous plan, and it has to be repealed and replaced.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 8 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 23

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, let me follow up with you. Your husband called Obamacare, quote, "the craziest thing in the world," saying that small-business owners are getting killed as premiums double, coverage is cut in half. Was he mistaken or was the mistake simply telling the truth?
CLINTON: No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it's very clear. Look, we are in a situation in our country where if we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That's where the vast majority of people get their health care.
And the Affordable Care Act was meant to try to fill the gap between people who were too poor and couldn't put together any resources to afford health care, namely people on Medicaid. Obviously, Medicare, which is a single-payer system, which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, by the way, and then all of the people who were employed, but people who were working but didn't have the money to afford insurance and didn't have anybody, an employer or anybody else, to help them.
That was the slot that the Obamacare approach was to take. And like I say, 20 million people now have health insurance. So if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald's not telling you is we just turn it back to the insurance companies the way it used to be, and that means the insurance companies...
COOPER: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: ... get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, look, I'm sorry, you've got diabetes, you had cancer, your child has asthma...
COOPER: Your time is up.
CLINTON: ... you may not be able to have insurance because you can't afford it. So let's fix what's broken about it, but let's not throw it away and give it all back to the insurance companies and the drug companies. That's not going to work.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up on this.
TRUMP: Well, I just want—just one thing. First of all, Hillary, everything's broken about it. Everything. Number two, Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton has very bad judgment. This is a perfect example of it, trying to save Obamacare, which is a disaster.
COOPER: You've said you want to end Obamacare...
TRUMP: By the way...
COOPER: You've said you want to end Obamacare. You've also said you want to make coverage accessible for people with pre-existing conditions. How do you force insurance companies to do that if you're no longer mandating that every American get insurance?
TRUMP: We're going to be able to. You're going to have plans...
COOPER: What does that mean?
TRUMP: Well, I'll tell you what it means. You're going to have plans that are so good, because we're going to have so much competition in the insurance industry. Once we break out—once we break out the lines and allow the competition to come...
COOPER: Are you going—are you going to have a mandate that Americans have to have health insurance?
TRUMP: President Obama—Anderson, excuse me. President Obama, by keeping those lines, the boundary lines around each state, it was almost gone until just very toward the end of the passage of Obamacare, which, by the way, was a fraud. You know that, because Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, was said—he said it was a great lie, it was a big lie. President Obama said you keep your doctor, you keep your plan. The whole thing was a fraud, and it doesn't work.
But when we get rid of those lines, you will have competition, and we will be able to keep pre-existing, we'll also be able to help people that can't get—don't have money because we are going to have people protected.
And Republicans feel this way, believe it or not, and strongly this way. We're going to block grant into the states. We're going to block grant into Medicaid into the states...
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: ... so that we will be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves.
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 9 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 23

RADDATZ: We now go to Gorbah Hamed with a question for both candidates.
QUESTION: Hi. There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I'm one of them. You've mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, you're first.
TRUMP: Well, you're right about Islamophobia, and that's a shame. But one thing we have to do is we have to make sure that—because there is a problem. I mean, whether we like it or not, and we could be very politically correct, but whether we like it or not, there is a problem. And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on. When they see hatred going on, they have to report it.
As an example, in San Bernardino, many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and wounded many, many people. Horribly wounded. They'll never be the same. Muslims have to report the problems when they see them.
And, you know, there's always a reason for everything. If they don't do that, it's a very difficult situation for our country, because you look at Orlando and you look at San Bernardino and you look at the World Trade Center. Go outside. Look at Paris. Look at that horrible—these are radical Islamic terrorists.
And she won't even mention the word and nor will President Obama. He won't use the term "radical Islamic terrorism." Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name. She won't say the name and President Obama won't say the name. But the name is there. It's radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you have to say the name.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, thank you for asking your question. And I've heard this question from a lot of Muslim-Americans across our country, because, unfortunately, there's been a lot of very divisive, dark things said about Muslims. And even someone like Captain Khan, the young man who sacrificed himself defending our country in the United States Army, has been subject to attack by Donald.
I want to say just a couple of things. First, we've had Muslims in America since George Washington. And we've had many successful Muslims. We just lost a particular well-known one with Muhammad Ali.
My vision of America is an America where everyone has a place, if you're willing to work hard, you do your part, you contribute to the community. That's what America is. That's what we want America to be for our children and our grandchildren.
It's also very short-sighted and even dangerous to be engaging in the kind of demagogic rhetoric that Donald has about Muslims. We need American Muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lines. I've worked with a lot of different Muslim groups around America. I've met with a lot of them, and I've heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and included and part of our country, part of our homeland security, and that's what I want to see.
It's also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations. Right now, a lot of those nations are hearing what Donald says and wondering, why should we cooperate with the Americans? And this is a gift to ISIS and the terrorists, violent jihadist terrorists.
We are not at war with Islam. And it is a mistake and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to act as though we are. So I want a country where citizens like you and your family are just as welcome as anyone else.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.
Mr. Trump, in December, you said this. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice." Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position. Is that correct? And if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?
TRUMP: First of all, Captain Khan is an American hero, and if I were president at that time, he would be alive today, because unlike her, who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing, I would not have had our people in Iraq. Iraq was disaster. So he would have been alive today.
The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a extreme vetting from certain areas of the world. Hillary Clinton wants to allow hundreds of thousands—excuse me. Excuse me..
RADDATZ: And why did it morph into that? No, did you—no, answer the question. Do you still believe...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 10 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 23

TRUMP: Why don't you interrupt her? You interrupt me all the time.
RADDATZ: I do.
TRUMP: Why don't you interrupt her?
RADDATZ: Would you please explain whether or not the Muslim ban still stands?
TRUMP: It's called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria where they're coming in by the tens of thousands because of Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550 percent increase over Obama. People are coming into our country like we have no idea who they are, where they are from, what their feelings about our country is, and she wants 550 percent more. This is going to be the great Trojan horse of all time.
We have enough problems in this country. I believe in building safe zones. I believe in having other people pay for them, as an example, the Gulf states, who are not carrying their weight, but they have nothing but money, and take care of people. But I don't want to have, with all the problems this country has and all of the problems that you see going on, hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love for our country.
RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about that, because you have asked for an increase from 10,000 to 65,000 Syrian refugees. We know you want tougher vetting. That's not a perfect system. So why take the risk of having those refugees come into the country?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us. But there are a lot of refugees, women and children—think of that picture we all saw of that 4-year-old boy with the blood on his forehead because he'd been bombed by the Russian and Syrian air forces.
There are children suffering in this catastrophic war, largely, I believe, because of Russian aggression. And we need to do our part. We by no means are carrying anywhere near the load that Europe and others are. But we will have vetting that is as tough as it needs to be from our professionals, our intelligence experts and others.
But it is important for us as a policy, you know, not to say, as Donald has said, we're going to ban people based on a religion. How do you do that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what he has advocated without causing great distress within our own county? Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country? And how do we expect to be able to implement those?
So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous. And indeed, you can look at the propaganda on a lot of the terrorists sites, and what Donald Trump says about Muslims is used to recruit fighters, because they want to create a war between us.
And the final thing I would say, this is the 10th or 12th time that he's denied being for the war in Iraq. We have it on tape. The entire press corps has looked at it. It's been debunked, but it never stops him from saying whatever he wants to say.
TRUMP: That's not been debunked.
CLINTON: So, please...
TRUMP: That has not been debunked.
CLINTON: ... go to HillaryClinton.com and you can see it.
TRUMP: I was against—I was against the war in Iraq. Has not been debunked. And you voted for it. And you shouldn't have. Well, I just want to say...
RADDATZ: There's been lots of fact-checking on that. I'd like to move on to an online question...
TRUMP: Excuse me. She just went about 25 seconds over her time.
RADDATZ: She did not.
TRUMP: Could I just respond to this, please?
RADDATZ: Very quickly, please.
TRUMP: Hillary Clinton, in terms of having people come into our country, we have many criminal illegal aliens. When we want to send them back to their country, their country says we don't want them. In some cases, they're murderers, drug lords, drug problems. And they don't want them.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 11 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 23

And Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, said that's OK, we can't force it into their country. Let me tell you, I'm going to force them right back into their country. They're murderers and some very bad people.
And I will tell you very strongly, when Bernie Sanders said she had bad judgment, she has really bad judgment, because we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you've never seen. We're also letting drugs pour through our southern border at a record clip. At a record clip. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
ICE just endorsed me. They've never endorsed a presidential candidate. The Border Patrol agents, 16,500, just recently endorsed me, and they endorsed me because I understand the border. She doesn't. She wants amnesty for everybody. Come right in. Come right over. It's a horrible thing she's doing. She's got bad judgment, and honestly, so bad that she should never be president of the United States. That I can tell you.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Mr. Trump. I want to move on. This next question from the public through the Bipartisan Open Debate Coalition's online forum, where Americans submitted questions that generated millions of votes. This question involves WikiLeaks release of purported excerpts of Secretary Clinton's paid speeches, which she has refused to release, and one line in particular, in which you, Secretary Clinton, purportedly say you need both a public and private position on certain issues. So, Tu, from Virginia asks, is it OK for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues? Secretary Clinton, your two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called "Lincoln." It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.
And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great—I thought a great display of presidential leadership.
But, you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information, we don't even know if it's accurate information, and then they put it out.
We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me, they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now, maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow, I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships that he has...
RADDATZ: We're going to get to that later. Secretary Clinton, you're out of time.
CLINTON: ... with the Russians and other foreign powers.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Well, I think I should respond, because—so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming—she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things—WikiLeaks that just came out. And she lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't... [laughter]
OK, Honest Abe, Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don't know Putin.
But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are—she doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know—I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the Old Post Office,

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 12 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 23

between the White House and Congress, chose me to do the Old Post Office. One of the primary area things, in fact, perhaps the primary thing was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well in order to get that development I had to have.
Now, the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have—first of all, I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money that she can do many more commercials than me gave her—took massive deductions.
I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. But—but as soon as my routine audit is finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to. They're actually quite great.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
COOPER: We want to turn, actually, to the topic of taxes. We have a question from Spencer Maass. Spencer?
QUESTION: Good evening. My question is, what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes?
COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.
TRUMP: Well, one thing I'd do is get rid of carried interest. One of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be honest with you, I give up a lot when I run, because I knock out the tax code. And she could have done this years ago, by the way. She's a United States—she was a United States senator.
She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well, why didn't she change it? Why didn't you change it when you were a senator? The reason you didn't is that all your friends take the same advantage that I do. And I do. You have provisions in the tax code that, frankly, we could change. But you wouldn't change it, because all of these people gave you the money so you can take negative ads on Donald Trump.
But—and I say that about a lot of things. You know, I've heard Hillary complaining about so many different things over the years. "I wish you would have done this." But she's been there for 30 years she's been doing this stuff. She never changed. And she never will change. She never will change.
We're getting rid of carried interest provisions. I'm lowering taxes actually, because I think it's so important for corporations, because we have corporations leaving—massive corporations and little ones, little ones can't form. We're getting rid of regulations which goes hand in hand with the lowering of the taxes.
But we're bringing the tax rate down from 35 percent to 15 percent. We're cutting taxes for the middle class. And I will tell you, we are cutting them big league for the middle class.
And I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks. You can look at me. She's raising your taxes really high. And what that's going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising your taxes and I'm lowering your taxes. That in itself is a big difference. We are going to be thriving again. We have no growth in this country. There's no growth. If China has a GDP of 7 percent, it's like a national catastrophe. We're down at 1 percent. And that's, like, no growth. And we're going lower, in my opinion. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high, just about the highest in the world. And I'm bringing them down to one of the lower in the world. And I think it's so important—one of the most important things we can do. But she is raising everybody's taxes massively.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. The question was, what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes?
CLINTON: Well, everything you've heard just now from Donald is not true. I'm sorry I have to keep saying this, but he lives in an alternative reality. And it is sort of amusing to hear somebody who hasn't paid federal income taxes in maybe 20 years talking about what he's going to do.
But I'll tell you what he's going to do. His plan will give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they've ever had, more than the Bush tax cuts by at least a factor of two. Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald, and this would be a massive gift. And, indeed, the way that he talks about his tax cuts would end up raising taxes on middleclass families, millions of middle-class families.
Now, here's what I want to do. I have said nobody who makes less than $250,000 a year—and that's the vast majority of Americans as you know—will have their taxes raised, because I think we've got to go where the money is. And the money is with people who have taken advantage of every single break in the tax code.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 13 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 23

And, yes, when I was a senator, I did vote to close corporate loopholes. I voted to close, I think, one of the loopholes he took advantage of when he claimed a billion-dollar loss that enabled him to avoid paying taxes.
I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars. It's called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one who's gone out and said somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a surcharge on incomes above $5 million.
We have to make up for lost times, because I want to invest in you. I want to invest in hard-working families. And I think it's been unfortunate, but it's happened, that since the Great Recession, the gains have all gone to the top. And we need to reverse that.
People like Donald, who paid zero in taxes, zero for our vets, zero for our military, zero for health and education, that is wrong.
COOPER: Thank you, Secretary.
CLINTON: And we're going to make sure that nobody, no corporation, and no individual can get away without paying his fair share to support our country.
COOPER: Thank you. I want to give you—Mr. Trump, I want to give you the chance to respond. I just wanted to tell our viewers what she's referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number-one issue on Facebook for the first time in the campaign. The New York Times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns. They show you claimed a $916 million loss, which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You've said you pay state taxes, employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered, though, a simple question. Did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?
TRUMP: Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write-offs.
COOPER: So have you paid personal federal income tax?
TRUMP: A lot of my—excuse me, Anderson—a lot of my write- off was depreciation and other things that Hillary as a senator allowed. And she'll always allow it, because the people that give her all this money, they want it. That's why.
See, I understand the tax code better than anybody that's ever run for president. Hillary Clinton—and it's extremely complex—Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including they want the carried interest provision, which is very important to Wall Street people. But they really want the carried interest provision, which I believe Hillary's leaving. Very interesting why she's leaving carried interest.
But I will tell you that, number one, I pay tremendous numbers of taxes. I absolutely used it. And so did Warren Buffett and so did George Soros and so did many of the other people that Hillary is getting money from. Now, I won't mention their names, because they're rich, but they're not famous. So we won't make them famous.
COOPER: So can you—can you say how many years you have avoided paying personal federal income taxes?
TRUMP: No, but I pay tax, and I pay federal tax, too. But I have a write-off, a lot of it's depreciation, which is a wonderful charge. I love depreciation. You know, she's given it to us.
Hey, if she had a problem—for 30 years she's been doing this, Anderson. I say it all the time. She talks about health care. Why didn't she do something about it? She talks about taxes. Why didn't she do something about it? She doesn't do anything about anything other than talk. With her, it's all talk and no action.
COOPER: In the past...
TRUMP: And, again, Bernie Sanders, it's really bad judgment. She has made bad judgment not only on taxes. She's made bad judgments on Libya, on Syria, on Iraq. I mean, her and Obama, whether you like it or not, the way they got out of Iraq, the vacuum they've left, that's why ISIS formed in the first place. They started from that little area, and now they're in 32 different nations, Hillary. Congratulations. Great job.
COOPER: Secretary—I want you to be able to respond, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, here we go again. I've been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years, starting when I was a senator from New York. But that's not the point here.
TRUMP: Why didn't you do it? Why didn't you do it?
COOPER: Allow her to respond.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 14 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 23

CLINTON: Because I was a senator with a Republican president.
TRUMP: Oh, really?
CLINTON: I will be the president and we will get it done. That's exactly right.
TRUMP: You could have done it, if you were an effective—if you were an effective senator, you could have done it. If you were an effective senator, you could have done it. But you were not an effective senator.
COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn't interrupt you.
CLINTON: You know, under our Constitution, presidents have something called veto power. Look, he has now said repeatedly, "30 years this and 30 years that." So let me talk about my 30 years in public service. I'm very glad to do so.
Eight million kids every year have health insurance, because when I was first lady I worked with Democrats and Republicans to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. Hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care system. After 9/11, I went to work with Republican mayor, governor and president to rebuild New York and to get health care for our first responders who were suffering because they had run toward danger and gotten sickened by it. Hundreds of thousands of National Guard and Reserve members have health care because of work that I did, and children have safer medicines because I was able to pass a law that required the dosing to be more carefully done.
When I was secretary of state, I went around the world advocating for our country, but also advocating for women's rights, to make sure that women had a decent chance to have a better life and negotiated a treaty with Russia to lower nuclear weapons. Four hundred pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or cosponsor when I was a senator for eight years.
I worked very hard and was very proud to be re-elected in New York by an even bigger margin than I had been elected the first time. And as president, I will take that work, that bipartisan work, that finding common ground, because you have to be able to get along with people to get things done in Washington.
COOPER: Thank you, secretary.
CLINTON: I've proven that I can, and for 30 years, I've produced results for people.
COOPER: Thank you, secretary.
RADDATZ: We're going to move on to Syria. Both of you have mentioned that.
TRUMP: She said a lot of things that were false. I mean, I think we should be allowed to maybe...
RADDATZ: No, we can—no, Mr. Trump, we're going to go on. This is about the audience.
TRUMP: Excuse me. Because she has been a disaster as a senator. A disaster.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, we're going to move on. The heart-breaking video of a 5-year-old Syrian boy named Omran sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the rubble after an air strike in Aleppo focused the world's attention on the horrors of the war in Syria, with 136 million views on Facebook alone.
But there are much worse images coming out of Aleppo every day now, where in the past few weeks alone, 400 people have been killed, at least 100 of them children. Just days ago, the State Department called for a war crimes investigation of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its ally, Russia, for their bombardment of Aleppo.
So this next question comes through social media through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asks, if you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? Isn't it a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S. waited too long before we helped? Secretary Clinton, we will begin with your two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime.
Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 15 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 23

But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria. And they've also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it's not me. I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president.
I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that's fine. And I did as secretary of state. That's how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. It's how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot. So I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now. But I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which...
CLINTON: No, I wasn't. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point...
TRUMP: OK. But you were in contact—excuse me. You were...
CLINTON: At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.
TRUMP: You were in total contact with the White House, and perhaps, sadly, Obama probably still listened to you. I don't think he would be listening to you very much anymore.
Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened.
Now, with that being said, she talks tough against Russia. But our nuclear program has fallen way behind, and they've gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn't have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear. We are old. We're tired. We're exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing.
Now, she talks tough, she talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn't even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else, we're arming people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people.
Look at what she did in Libya with Gadhafi. Gadhafi's out. It's a mess. And, by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I'm sure you probably have heard that. It was a disaster. Because the fact is, almost everything she's done in foreign policy has been a mistake and it's been a disaster.
But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia, and look at what they did this week, where I agree, she wasn't there, but possibly she's consulted. We sign a peace treaty. Everyone's all excited. Well, what Russia did with Assad and, by the way, with Iran, who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I've ever seen in the history of deal-making, the Iran deal, with the $150 billion, with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough to fill up this room.
But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us. So she wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There's only one problem. You don't even know who the rebels are. So what's the purpose?
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: And one thing I have to say.
RADDATZ: Your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: I don't like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president...[laughter]...what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.
TRUMP: OK. He and I haven't spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.
RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?
TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it's Iran, who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 16 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 23

I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn't.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?
TRUMP: I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if it falls?
TRUMP: I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It basically has fallen. Let me tell you something. You take a look at Mosul. The biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have Mosul. They think a lot of the ISIS leaders are in Mosul. So we have announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq, we will be attacking Mosul in three weeks or four weeks.
Well, all of these bad leaders from ISIS are leaving Mosul. Why can't they do it quietly? Why can't they do the attack, make it a sneak attack, and after the attack is made, inform the American public that we've knocked out the leaders, we've had a tremendous success? People leave. Why do they have to say we're going to be attacking Mosul within the next four to six weeks, which is what they're saying? How stupid is our country?
RADDATZ: There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological warfare.
TRUMP: I can't think of any. I can't think of any. And I'm pretty good at it.
RADDATZ: It might be to help get civilians out.
TRUMP: And we have General Flynn. And we have—look, I have 200 generals and admirals who endorsed me. I have 21 Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who endorsed me. We talk about it all the time. They understand, why can't they do something secretively, where they go in and they knock out the leadership? How—why would these people stay there? I've been reading now...
RADDATZ: Tell me what your strategy is.
TRUMP: ... for weeks—I've been reading now for weeks about Mosul, that it's the harbor of where—you know, between Raqqa and Mosul, this is where they think the ISIS leaders are. Why would they be saying—they're not staying there anymore. They're gone. Because everybody's talking about how Iraq, which is us with our leadership, goes in to fight Mosul.
Now, with these 200 admirals and generals, they can't believe it. All I say is this. General George Patton, General Douglas MacArthur are spinning in their grave at the stupidity of what we're doing in the Middle East.
RADDATZ: I'm going to go to Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, you want Assad to go. You advocated arming rebels, but it looks like that may be too late for Aleppo. You talk about diplomatic efforts. Those have failed. Cease-fires have failed. Would you introduce the threat of U.S. military force beyond a no-fly zone against the Assad regime to back up diplomacy?
CLINTON: I would not use American ground forces in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don't think American troops should be holding territory, which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. I don't think that is a smart strategy.
I do think the use of special forces, which we're using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening, but let me just...
RADDATZ: But what would you do differently than President Obama is doing?
CLINTON: Well, Martha, I hope that by the time I—if I'm fortunate...
TRUMP: Everything.
CLINTON: I hope by the time I am president that we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. I do think that there is a good chance that we can take Mosul. And, you know, Donald says he knows more about ISIS than the generals. No, he doesn't.
There are a lot of very important planning going on, and some of it is to signal to the Sunnis in the area, as well as Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, that we all need to be in this. And that takes a lot of planning and preparation.
I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi, because I think our targeting of Al Qaida leaders—and I was involved in a lot of those operations, highly classified ones—made a difference. So I think that could help.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 17 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 23

I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there's a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq.
RADDATZ: Thank you very much. We're going to move on...
TRUMP: You know what's funny? She went over a minute over, and you don't stop her. When I go one second over, it's like a big deal.
RADDATZ: You had many answers.
TRUMP: It's really—it's really very interesting.
COOPER: We've got a question over here from James Carter. Mr. Carter?
QUESTION: My question is, do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States?
COOPER: That question begins for Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Absolutely. I mean, she calls our people deplorable, a large group, and irredeemable. I will be a president for all of our people. And I'll be a president that will turn our inner cities around and will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back.
Because NAFTA, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world. Not in this country. It stripped us of manufacturing jobs. We lost our jobs. We lost our money. We lost our plants. It is a disaster. And now she wants to sign TPP, even though she says now she's for it. She called it the gold standard. And by the way, at the last debate, she lied, because it turned out that she did say the gold standard and she said she didn't say it. They actually said that she lied. OK? And she lied. But she's lied about a lot of things.
I would be a president for all of the people, African-Americans, the inner cities. Devastating what's happening to our inner cities. She's been talking about it for years. As usual, she talks about it, nothing happens. She doesn't get it done.
Same with the Latino Americans, the Hispanic Americans. The same exact thing. They talk, they don't get it done. You go into the inner cities and—you see it's 45 percent poverty. African- Americans now 45 percent poverty in the inner cities. The education is a disaster. Jobs are essentially nonexistent.
I mean, it's—you know, and I've been saying at big speeches where I have 20,000 and 30,000 people, what do you have to lose? It can't get any worse. And she's been talking about the inner cities for 25 years. Nothing's going to ever happen.
Let me tell you, if she's president of the United States, nothing's going to happen. It's just going to be talk. And all of her friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She's not doing any me favors. But by doing all the others' favors, she's doing me favors.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, thank you.
TRUMP: But I will tell you, she's all talk. It doesn't get done. All you have to do is take a look at her Senate run. Take a look at upstate New York.
COOPER: Your two minutes is up. Secretary Clinton, two minutes?
TRUMP: It turned out to be a disaster.
COOPER: You have two minutes, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, 67 percent of the people voted to re-elect me when I ran for my second term, and I was very proud and very humbled by that.
Mr. Carter, I have tried my entire life to do what I can to support children and families. You know, right out of law school, I went to work for the Children's Defense Fund. And Donald talks a lot about, you know, the 30 years I've been in public service. I'm proud of that. You know, I started off as a young lawyer working against discrimination against AfricanAmerican children in schools and in the criminal justice system. I worked to make sure that kids with disabilities could get a public education, something that I care very much about. I have worked with Latinos—one of my first jobs in politics was down in south Texas registering Latino citizens to be able to vote. So I have a deep devotion, to use your absolutely correct word, to making sure that an every American feels like he or she has a place in our country.
And I think when you look at the letters that I get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn't have a place in Donald Trump's America. They write me, and one woman wrote me about her son, Felix. She adopted him from Ethiopia

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 18 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 23

when he was a toddler. He's 10 years old now. This is the only one country he's ever known. And he listens to Donald on TV and he said to his mother one day, will he send me back to Ethiopia if he gets elected?
You know, children listen to what is being said. To go back to the very, very first question. And there's a lot of fear—in fact, teachers and parents are calling it the Trump effect. Bullying is up. A lot of people are feeling, you know, uneasy. A lot of kids are expressing their concerns.
So, first and foremost, I will do everything I can to reach out to everybody.
COOPER: Your time, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Democrats, Republicans, independents, people across our country. If you don't vote for me, I still want to be your president.
COOPER: Your two minutes is up.
CLINTON: I want to be the best president I can be for every American.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your two minutes is up. I want to follow up on something that Donald Trump actually said to you, a comment you made last month. You said that half of Donald Trump's supporters are, quote, "deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." You later said you regretted saying half. You didn't express regret for using the term "deplorables." To Mr. Carter's question, how can you unite a country if you've written off tens of millions of Americans?
CLINTON: Well, within hours I said that I was sorry about the way I talked about that, because my argument is not with his supporters. It's with him and with the hateful and divisive campaign that he has run, and the inciting of violence at his rallies, and the very brutal kinds of comments about not just women, but all Americans, all kinds of Americans.
And what he has said about African-Americans and Latinos, about Muslims, about POWs, about immigrants, about people with disabilities, he's never apologized for. And so I do think that a lot of the tone and tenor that he has said—I'm proud of the campaign that Bernie Sanders and I ran. We ran a campaign based on issues, not insults. And he is supporting me 100 percent.
COOPER: Thank you.
CLINTON: Because we talked about what we wanted to do. We might have had some differences, and we had a lot of debates...
COOPER: Thank you, Secretary.
TRUMP: ... but we believed that we could make the country better. And I was proud of that.
COOPER: I want to give you a minute to respond.
TRUMP: We have a divided nation. We have a very divided nation. You look at Charlotte. You look at Baltimore. You look at the violence that's taking place in the inner cities, Chicago, you take a look at Washington, D.C.
We have an increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years. We have a divided nation, because people like her—and believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart. And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said irredeemable, they're irredeemable, you didn't mention that, but when she said they're irredeemable, to me that might have been even worse.
COOPER: She said some of them are irredeemable.
TRUMP: She's got tremendous—she's got tremendous hatred. And this country cannot take another four years of Barack Obama, and that's what you're getting with her.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up with you. In 2008, you wrote in one of your books that the most important characteristic of a good leader is discipline. You said, if a leader doesn't have it, quote, "he or she won't be one for very long." In the days after the first debate, you sent out a series of tweets from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m., including one that told people to check out a sex tape. Is that the discipline of a good leader?
TRUMP: No, there wasn't check out a sex tape. It was just take a look at the person that she built up to be this wonderful Girl Scout who was no Girl Scout.
COOPER: You mentioned sex tape.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 19 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 20 of 23

TRUMP: By the way, just so you understand, when she said 3 o'clock in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said who is going to answer the call at 3 o'clock in the morning? Guess what? She didn't answer it, because when Ambassador Stevens...
COOPER: The question is, is that the discipline of a good leader?
TRUMP: ... 600—wait a minute, Anderson, 600 times. Well, she said she was awake at 3 o'clock in the morning, and she also sent a tweet out at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I won't even mention that. But she said she'll be awake. Who's going—the famous thing, we're going to answer our call at 3 o'clock in the morning. Guess what happened? Ambassador Stevens—Ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help. And the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal, who's her friend and not a good guy, by the way. So, you know, she shouldn't be talking about that.
Now, tweeting happens to be a modern day form of communication. I mean, you can like it or not like it. I have, between Facebook and Twitter, I have almost 25 million people. It's a very effective way of communication. So you can put it down, but it is a very effective form of communication. I'm not un-proud of it, to be honest with you.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader?
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: I'm shocked to hear that. [laughter]
CLINTON: Well, it's not only my opinion. It's the opinion of many others, national security experts, Republicans, former Republican members of Congress. But it's in part because those of us who have had the great privilege of seeing this job up close and know how difficult it is, and it's not just because I watched my husband take a $300 billion deficit and turn it into a $200 billion surplus, and 23 million new jobs were created, and incomes went up for everybody. Everybody. African-American incomes went up 33 percent.
And it's not just because I worked with George W. Bush after 9/11, and I was very proud that when I told him what the city needed, what we needed to recover, he said you've got it, and he never wavered. He stuck with me.
And I have worked and I admire President Obama. He inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That was a terrible time for our country.
COOPER: We have to move along.
CLINTON: Nine million people lost their jobs.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we have to...
CLINTON: Five million homes were lost.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we're moving.
CLINTON: And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out. We are back on the right track. He would send us back into recession with his tax plans that benefit the wealthiest of Americans.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we are moving to an audience question. We're almost out of time. We have another...
TRUMP: We have the slowest growth since 1929.
RADDATZ: We're moving to an audience question.
TRUMP: It is—our country has the slowest growth and jobs are a disaster.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, we want to get to the audience. Thank you very much both of you. [laughter]
We have another audience question. Beth Miller has a question for both candidates.
QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?
RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Thank you. Well, you're right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 20 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 21 of 23

Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn't agree with that.
I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.
Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards.
I want a Supreme Court that doesn't always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you're wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn't mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else.
So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, they've not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty.
I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. You're out of time. Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently. And we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I'm looking for judges—and I've actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody.
But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important. Also, the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton. They'll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for, what it represents. So important to me.
Now, Hillary mentioned something about contributions just so you understand. So I will have in my race more than $100 million put in—of my money, meaning I'm not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like she's doing. What I ask is this.
So I'm putting in more than—by the time it's finished, I'll have more than $100 million invested. Pretty much self-funding money. We're raising money for the Republican Party, and we're doing tremendously on the small donations, $61 average or so.
I ask Hillary, why doesn't—she made $250 million by being in office. She used the power of her office to make a lot of money. Why isn't she funding, not for $100 million, but why don't you put $10 million or $20 million or $25 million or $30 million into your own campaign?
It's $30 million less for special interests that will tell you exactly what to do and it would really, I think, be a nice sign to the American public. Why aren't you putting some money in? You have a lot of it. You've made a lot of it because of the fact that you've been in office. Made a lot of it while you were secretary of state, actually. So why aren't you putting money into your own campaign? I'm just curious.
CLINTON: Well...[crosstalk]
RADDATZ: Thank you very much. We're going to get on to one more question.
CLINTON: The question was about the Supreme Court. And I just want to quickly say, I respect the Second Amendment. But I believe there should be comprehensive background checks, and we should close the gun show loophole, and close the online loophole.
COOPER: Thank you.
RADDATZ: We have—we have one more question, Mrs. Clinton.
CLINTON: We have to save as many lives as we possibly can.
COOPER: We have one more question from Ken Bone about energy policy. Ken?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 21 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 22 of 23

QUESTION: What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?
COOPER: Mr. Trump, two minutes?
TRUMP: Absolutely. I think it's such a great question, because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolutely siege. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in buying our—buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil.
We are killing—absolutely killing our energy business in this country. Now, I'm all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.
And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable—we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.
I will bring our energy companies back. They'll be able to compete. They'll make money. They'll pay off our national debt. They'll pay off our tremendous budget deficits, which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of business. We have to bring back our workers.
You take a look at what's happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and our steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies. We have to make it possible.
The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. And all you have to do is go to a great place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they're doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It's a disgrace.
COOPER: Your time is up. Thank you.
TRUMP: It's an absolute disgrace.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, two minutes.
CLINTON: And actually—well, that was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States and Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings, putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business. That's something that I fought against as a senator and that I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don't get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else.
You know, because it sounds like you're in the business or you're aware of people in the business—you know that we are now for the first time ever energy-independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East. But the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices. So the price of oil has been way down. And that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies, right? We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. And I think that's an important transition.
We've got to remain energy-independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.
So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a serious problem. And I support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses.
But I also want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That's why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country, because those coal miners and their fathers and their grandfathers, they dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and they powered their factories. I don't want to walk away from them. So we've got to do something for them.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: But the price of coal is down worldwide. So we have to look at this comprehensively.
COOPER: Your time is up.
CLINTON: And that's exactly what I have proposed. I hope you will go to HillaryClinton.com and look at my entire policy.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri

Page 22 of 22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-38 Filed 04/11/17 Page 23 of 23

COOPER: Time is up. We have time for one more...
RADDATZ: We have...
COOPER: One more audience question.
RADDATZ: We've sneaked in one more question, and it comes from Karl Becker.
QUESTION: Good evening. My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another? [applause]
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, would you like to go first?
CLINTON: Well, I certainly will, because I think that's a very fair and important question. Look, I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald. I don't agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but I do respect that. And I think that is something that as a mother and a grandmother is very important to me.
So I believe that this election has become in part so—so conflict-oriented, so intense because there's a lot at stake. This is not an ordinary time, and this is not an ordinary election. We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world, from the Supreme Court to energy and so much else, and so there is a lot at stake. It's one of the most consequential elections that we've had.
And that's why I've tried to put forth specific policies and plans, trying to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is I want to do as president. And that's why I hope people will check on that for themselves so that they can see that, yes, I've spent 30 years, actually maybe a little more, working to help kids and families. And I want to take all that experience to the White House and do that every single day.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don't know if it was meant to be a compliment, but it is a great—I'm very proud of my children. And they've done a wonderful job, and they've been wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment.
I will say this about Hillary. She doesn't quit. She doesn't give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She's a fighter. I disagree with much of what she's fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases. But she does fight hard, and she doesn't quit, and she doesn't give up. And I consider that to be a very good trait.
RADDATZ: Thanks to both of you.
COOPER: We want to thank both the candidates. We want to thank the university here. This concludes the town hall meeting. Our thanks to the candidates, the commission, Washington University, and to everybody who watched.
RADDATZ: Please tune in on October 19th for the final presidential debate that will take place at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Good night, everyone.

Citation: Presidential Candidates Debates: "Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri," October 9, 2016. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=119038.

Home

Contact

© 1999-2017 - Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley - The American Presidency Project

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-39 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 65

Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out 'Extreme Vetting'

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-39 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

TPM
Send Comments & News Tips
Í Sections

Published Since 2000

Prime
SIGN IN 

TPM LIVEWIRE
Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out 'Extreme Vetting'

­ SHARE ¬ TWEET Õ PIN-IT

G Bookmark  Comments

r DAYBREAKER NEWSLETTER

ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe

By MATT SHUHAM Published JANUARY 27, 2017, 4:56 PM EDT

Like 232

Evan Vucci
4623 Views

­

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to implement “new

vetting measures" after the ceremonial swearing-in of Defense Secretary Gen. James

¬

Mattis.

Ŭ

"I'm establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the

Õ

United States of America," he said after congratulating Mattis on his appointment. "We

want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers

Ƙ

are fighting overseas. We only want to admit those into our country who will support

â

our country and love deeply our people."

ç

On the campaign trail, Trump promised “extreme vetting” of people traveling to the

United States from “terror-prone” countries, all of them majority-Muslim. But exactly

what "new vetting measures" the order laid out were not immediately clear.

Before actually signing the order, Trump said, “this is the protection of the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States."

“We all know what that means,” he added.

Trump also signed an executive order he said would “begin a great rebuilding of the armed services.”

The order would develop “a plan for new planes, new ships, new resources and new tools for our men and women in uniform,” Trump said.

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK Like 420K

 Comments

­ SHARE ¬ TWEET Õ PIN-IT

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Ads by Revcontent

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-signs-vetting-executive-order

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-40 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 66

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-40 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

ell Donald J. Trump *
pgreaCOnaliffrUrrip

dt* Follow

If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!

36,139 174,228 Ohl At El P1

5:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017 4r1 543K tip 36K

11, 174K

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-41 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 67

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-41 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

Donald J. Trump @realnonalilTrump

Follow

Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

RETIAIE ETS

E•3

61,500 255,660 CI CI 31! 1011115* CI IL

4:50 AM - 1 Feb 2017 41-1 c5OK CI, 62K

V 256K

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-42 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 68

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-42 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

ni Donald J. Trump @realDonalciTrump

±- Follow

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

60,304 227,086
03 AM - 29 Jan 2017 +6 55K t 6fIK

1:1
227K

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-43 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 69

U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016 | Pew Research Center
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-43 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

NUMBERS, FACTS AND TRENDS SHAPING YOUR WORLD

ABOUT | FOLLOW US

PewResearchC enter

MENU

RESEARCH AREAS

OCTOBER 5, 2016
U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016
BY PHILLIP CONNOR (HTTP://WWW.PEWRESEARCH.ORG/STAFF/PHILLIP-CONNOR/)
A total of 38,901 Muslim refugees entered the U.S. in fiscal year 2016, making up almost half (46%) of the nearly 85,000 refugees who entered the country in that period, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center (http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/Interactive-Reporting/EnumType/Report? ItemPath=/rpt_WebArrivalsReports/MX%20-%20Arrivals%20by%20Nationality%20and%20Religion) . That means the U.S. has admitted the highest number of Muslim refugees of any year since data on self-reported religious affiliations first became publicly available in 2002.

(http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_16-1003_muslimrefugees/) Almost the same number of Christian (37,521) as Muslim refugees were admitted in fiscal 2016, which ended Sept. 30. A slightly lower share of 2016’s refugees were Christian (44%) than Muslim, the first time that has happened since fiscal 2006, when a large number of Somali refugees (http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/06/01/5-facts-about-the-global-somalidiaspora/) entered the U.S.
People seeking to enter the U.S. as refugees are processed overseas. As part of the process, they are asked a series of questions, including their religious affiliation. When their applications are approved, refugees travel to the U.S. to be resettled by nonprofit groups associated with the Office of Refugee Resettlement (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr) . Refugees to the U.S. are different from asylum seekers, who claim asylum after already being in the U.S. or crossing into the U.S. via an airport or land border.
Refugees make up a small percentage (about one-in-ten) of the roughly 1 million immigrants granted lawful permanent residency in the U.S. each year. Because the U.S. government does not

U.S. admits Its highest number of Muslim refugees on record in fiscal 2016
Number of refugees entering the U.S. by religious affiliation

00K

80

70

60

Unaffiliated

50

I
Info

40

30 .... Unknown

20 •

••

thiamin

10
on `02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 'OS '00 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '1.5 '16 FISCAL, YEAR

Note: "lather religions" include Hindus. Buddhts. Jews and other religions. Data do not include special immigrant visas and certain humanitarian parole entrants. Fiscal years are Oct. 1 through Sept 30 each year. Source. U.S. State Department's Refugee Processing Center a xerzed Oct. 3. 2016.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/

U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016 | Pew Research Center
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-43 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

keep track of the religion of new legal immigrants, it is not possible to say what share of all recent immigrants are Muslim. A 2013 Center report (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/05/17/the-religious-affiliation-of-us-immigrants/) , however, estimated that as of 2012, roughly six-in-ten new legal immigrants were Christian, compared with one-in-ten who were Muslim.

Just two countries – Syria (12,486) and Somalia (9,012) – were the source of more than half of fiscal 2016’s Muslim refugees. The rest are from Iraq (7,853), Burma (Myanmar) (3,145), Afghanistan (2,664) and other countries (3,741).

Overall, a far larger total number of Christian refugees than Muslim refugees have entered the U.S. since fiscal 2002. During the past 15 years, the U.S. has admitted 399,677 Christian refugees and 279,339 Muslim refugees, meaning that 46% of all refugees who have entered the U.S. during this time have been Christian while 32% have been Muslim.

In the just-ended fiscal year, about 8,120 refugees (10%) were members of faiths other than Islam or Christianity. More than 3,000 belonged to Buddhist traditions while nearly 2,000 more were Hindu. A much lower number of refugees in 2016 were atheists or claimed no religious affiliation (449 refugees overall, or less than 1% of the year’s refugees).

(http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_16-10-03_muslimrefugees_countries/)

The U.S. received 84,995 refugees in fiscal year 2016, effectively meeting the 85,000 ceiling (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/09/29/presidential-determination-presidential-determinationrefugee-admissions) set by the Obama administration at the beginning of the year. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (16,370), Syria (12,587) and Burma (Myanmar) (12,347) were the top origin countries of refugees in 2016. Together, refugees from these three nations represented nearly half (49%) of all refugees admitted to the U.S. over the past year.

Nearly half of U.S. refugees In 2016 were from D.R. Congo, Syria and Burma (Myanmar)

Number of rejiigees entering the U-S. in fiscal 2W6, by Origin country

Dern. Rep. Congo Syria

% OF TOTAL

16,370 19

12,5297

15 49%

The administration set the goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/05/488896247/u-sis-on-target-to-accept-and-resettle-10-000-syrian-refugees) in the U.S. in the fiscal year. This goal was exceeded, and refugee status was given to 12,587 Syrians. Nearly all of them (99%) were Muslim and less than 1% were Christian. As a point of comparison, Pew Research Center estimated (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religiousprojection-table/2050/percent/Middle_East-North_Africa/) Syria’s religious composition to be 93% Muslim and 5% Christian in 2010.

Burma

12,347

Iraq

9,680

Somalia

9,020

Bhutan 5 817

Iran

3,750

Afghanistan MI 2,737

Li kraine 1.12,543

Eritrea .1949

Other countries

7.995

15 — 12 11
7 4
a
3 2 9

Note: This post, originally published Aug. 16, 2016, has been updated to include data for all of fiscal year 2016.

Note: Data do not include special Immigrant visas and certain humanitarian parole entrants. Source: U.S. State Department's Refugee Processing Center accessed Oct 3.2016.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER

Phillip Connor (http://www.pewresearch.org/author/pconnor/) is a research associate focusing on demography and migration studies at Pew Research Center.
POSTS I EMAIL I BIO I @PC_CONNOR

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-44 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 70

White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban - POLITICO
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-44 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that President Donald Trump will not rescind the original order. | Getty
White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban
By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM, JOSH GERSTEIN and CRISTIANO LIMA | 02/21/17 05:06 PM EST | Updated 02/21/17 08:15 PM EST
The White House is sending mixed signals as to whether or not it will rescind President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban even as officials seek to craft a new order that will be less vulnerable to legal challenge. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-confusion-235241

White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban - POLITICO
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-44 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
The Justice Department told the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week that Trump will "rescind...and replace" the original order, which remains largely on hold after an appeals court panel upheld a lower court’s broad injunction. But White House press secretary Sean Spicer said at the conclusion of his daily briefing Tuesday that Trump will not rescind the original order. Instead, the first order is being updated, Spicer insisted. The contradictory statements sowed further confusion about the fate of Trump's original order, which bars immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries and halts the entry of refugees. "The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision," Trump said last week.
White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban
An excerpt of Sean Spicer's remarks on Tuesday.
02/21/17 05:30 PM EST
Spicer said the administration remains confident in the legality of its original order, but is also working with Cabinet agencies to prepare a new one. His statements seemed to leave open the possibility that there could be two orders in effect at once — a situation that could complicate efforts to defend the new order in court.
ADVERTISING
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-confusion-235241

White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban - POLITICO
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-44 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4
inRead invented by Teads
The White House said Tuesday afternoon it intended to issue a clarification about the conflicting statements. But a statement from the administration — released on Tuesday evening — did little to clear up any confusion. "The administration continues to defend the President’s national security Executive Order in court, and though we believe it to be fully lawful, we are simultaneously finalizing a revised policy tailored to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling," White House spokesman Michael Short said in a written statement. During an appearance on Fox News Tuesday, White House aide Stephen Miller similarly left the door open for the initial order to remain in place, adding only that the new policy would be "responsive" to recent court rulings. "These are mostly minor technical differences, fundamentally," he said of the forthcoming revised order. "You are still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country but you are going to have a lot of technical issues brought up by the court." Miller added that the administration would be rolling out the details of the revised order "in the next few days." He also stood by the original executive order's constitutionality, despite the flurry of legal challenges to it. "The president's actions were clearly legal and constitutional and consistent with the long-standing traditions of presidents in the past to exercise the authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend immigration when it poses a threat to our security," he said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-confusion-235241

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-45 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 71

DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump's travel ban
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-45 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Page 1 of 2

DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump's travel

ban

Rick Jervis , USA TODAY Published 7:09 p.m. ET Feb. 24, 2017 | Updated 3:36 p.m. ET Feb. 25, 2017

Refugees seeking asylum in the USA from the seven countries listed under President Trump’s controversial travel ban do not pose a significant terrorism threat to the United States, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo.

The three-page memo, titled “Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States” and obtained by the Associated Press, was drafted in response to a White House request and contradicts assertions by the Trump administration that the travel ban was necessary to keep Americans safe.

(Photo: Andres Kudacki, AP)

Trump cited terrorism concerns for implementing the travel ban from seven mostly Muslim countries — Syria,

Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Yemen. Earlier this month, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of the travel order,

upholding an earlier decision by a federal judge in Seattle.

Trump and his advisers attacked the court order and vowed to continue the fight in court.

“This is a judicial usurpation of power,” White House policy adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News Sunday shortly after the court’s decision. “It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it.”
Trump blasts FBI for 'leaks' during ongoing Russia investigation
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/24/donald-trump-reincepriebus-fbi/98344644/)
White House holds restricted news briefing, objections mount
(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/24/donald-trump-seanspicer/98362348/)

In the Homeland Security memo, analysts show through statistics and reports that relatively few people from the seven countries listed in the travel ban have carried out or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the USA since Syria’s war started in 2011.

It said more than half of the 82 people the government determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to carry out or try to carry out an attack in the United States were U.S. citizens born in the USA. The others were from 26 countries, with Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan leading the pack.
The memo also asserted that relatively few people from the seven banned countries are given access to the U.S. None of the seven countries accounted for more than 7% of the U.S. visas granted in their region in Fiscal Year 2015, it said.
Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told the Associated Press the memo was from a single intelligence source and not the final comprehensive review requested by the White House. “The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources," she said. "It is incomplete.”
The assessment drew from unclassified information from Justice Department press releases on terrorism-related convictions and terrorist attack perpetrators killed in the act, State Department visa statistics, the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.
The travel ban sparked protests by thousands of people across the nation and drew condemnation from leaders in countries like Britain, France, Australia
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memo-contradict-travel-ban-trump/98374184/

DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump's travel ban

and Canada.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-45

Filed 04/11/17 గ

Page 3 of 3

Citizenship Likely en lie re/table Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United Stole•

Scope Noce: This paper was prepared al the request of the OHS Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence mid Ana11 rh. Ii [rise.es the international terrorist threat to the flatted Slates and coaridedde by citizens of Iran. tray. Libya, Somalia. Sadtm, Syriac and 's'emen. Citicens of these seven countries wore impacted by Seri ion 3 of Executive Order f11.0.1 13769 "Protecting thr Nation From Foreign Tem...id Entry into the United States." The assessment relies on uncia.itiMi in roman. from Department Or MM. press releases on terrorismrelated convictions and tenured attack perpetraters killed in the act. Department of Math sem statistics. the 2016 Worldwide l'hreat Assessment of the US intelligence Community. and the Department of Slate Country Reports on Terrorism 2015- This paper dee, not assess the derma
of domestic terrorism.

Key Findings

• 1)1151MA as see that loonies of directable is unlikely to boa reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 201 f, the foreign.born primarily US-bated individuals robe were inspired by a foreign terrorist organization to participate in eerier/sin-related activity were citizens of 26 different countries, with no one country representing truce than 13.5 percent of the foreign-born

Ia W1.
• Relatively few chimes of the seven countries impacted by neighboring countries. maintain access In the United States.

13769, compared to

• Terrorist groups in Iraq. Syria. and. Yemen pose a threat of thachs in the United States

while groups in Iran, Libya, Somalia. and Sudan samain regionally focused.

Cinitens of Countries Affected by E.O. 13769 Rarely Implic•tad in US-Based Terronbm
OHS Idt.A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 2011. at least 82 primarily US-based individuals. who died in the pursuit Of or were convicted of any terrorisro.related federal Offense inspired by a foreign terrorist organization, according to a 0115 study of Department of fustice press relearns on convictions and terrorist attack perpetrators kriled in the act.3.Of the 02 individuals we identified. slightly more than half were native-born United States citizens. Of the foreign-horn individuals. they came from 26 dilfercnt countries, with no one country representing store than 13.5 para., of the foreign-bola total.

• The top seven origin countries of the foreign-boat individuals are: Pakistan (5). Somalia (3), end Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq. and Uzbekistan (2).

' For Sr piet.ses of this paper, ice limited our dam to individuals prosecuted under I S U.S.C. Chapter 1336m suppon of or inspired by a Foreign Terror a Organization (FTO). We excluded traveling on anempting to navel overseas to join a F70 and acrylics unrelated to FT0s. to include purely domastk terrorism.

Page 2 of 2

• Of the sever countries budded lev L.O. 13769 that are not listed •lure. Iran. Sudan. and
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lEGLN1

ఘ

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memo-contradict-travel-ban-trump/98374184/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 72

Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban - The Washington Post

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5

bitatington jkot
Social Issues
Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban

By Matt Zapotosky, Kalani Takase and Maria Sacchetti March 16
A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued a sweeping freeze of President Trump’s new executive order hours before it would have temporarily barred the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of new refugees.
In a blistering 43-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson pointed to Trump’s own comments and those of his close advisers as evidence that his order was meant to discriminate against Muslims and declared there was a “strong likelihood of success” that those suing would prove the directive violated the Constitution.
Watson declared that “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”
He lambasted the government, in particular, for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims.
“The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”
Early Thursday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a second, narrower injunction against the measure — suspending only the portion that stopped the issuance of visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries. In that case, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang also pointed to statements by Trump and his advisers made that, in Chuang’s opinion, indicated the executive order was “the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wedn...

Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban - The Washington Post

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5

“These statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump’s animus toward Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the First Executive Order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump’s promised Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
At a rally in Nashville on Wednesday, Trump called the Hawaii court ruling “terrible” and asked a cheering crowd whether the ruling was “done by a judge for political reasons.” He said the administration would fight the case “as far as it needs to go,” including up to the Supreme Court, and rued that he had been persuaded to sign a “watered-down version” of his first travel ban.
“Let me tell you something, I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.”
Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement: “The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the federal district court’s ruling, which is flawed both in reasoning and in scope. The President’s Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation’s security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts.”
Watson was one of three federal judges to hear arguments Wednesday about the ban, though he was the first to issue an opinion.
A ruling was also expected from a federal judge in Washington.
As the ruling in Hawaii was being handed down, James L. Robart, the federal judge in Washington state who froze Trump’s first travel ban, was hearing arguments about whether he should freeze the second. He said he did not think his first freeze was still in effect, though he did not immediately rule on whether he should issue a new one.
Watson’s decision might not be the last word. He was considering only a request for a temporary restraining order, and while that required him to assess whether challengers of the ban would ultimately succeed, his ruling is not final on that question. The Justice Department could appeal the ruling or wage a longer-term court battle before the judge in Hawaii.
Watson’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Hawaii. Lawyers for the state alleged that the new entry ban, much like the old, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was essentially a Muslim ban, hurt the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damaged the state’s robust tourism industry.
They pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law’s application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, attorneys for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, a Syrian national, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.
“Dr. Elshikh certainly has standing in this case. He, along with all of the Muslim residents in Hawaii, face higher hurdles to see family because of religious faith,” lawyer Colleen Roh Sinzdak said at a hearing Wednesday. “It is not merely a harm to the Muslim residents of the state of Hawaii, but also is a harm to the United States as a whole and is against the First Amendment itself.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wedn...

Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban - The Washington Post

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5

Elshikh is a U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent who has been a resident of Hawaii for over a decade. His wife is of Syrian descent and is also a resident of Hawaii.
Justice Department lawyers argued that Trump was well within his authority to impose the ban, which was necessary for national security, and that those challenging it had raised only speculative harms. “They bear the burden of showing irreparable harm … and there is no harm at all,” said the acting U.S. solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the government in Greenbelt, Md., in the morning and by phone in Hawaii in the afternoon.
Watson agreed with the state on virtually all the points. He ruled that the state had preliminarily demonstrated its universities and tourism industry would be hurt, and that harm could be traced to the executive order. He wrote that Elshikh had alleged “direct, concrete injuries to both himself and his immediate family.”
And Watson declared that the government’s assertion of the national security need for the order was “at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.” He pointed to Trump’s own campaign trail comments and public statements by advisers as evidence.
“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’ ” Watson wrote. “Nor is there anything ‘secret’ about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order. Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: ‘When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’ ”
Watson also pointed to a recent Fox News appearance by Stephen Miller, in which the president’s senior policy adviser said the new ban would have “mostly minor technical differences” from the previous iteration frozen by the courts, and Americans would see “the same basic policy outcome for the country.”
“These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” Watson wrote.
Opponents of the ban across the country — including those who had argued against it in different cases on Wednesday — hailed Watson’s ruling.
Bob Ferguson, the Washington state attorney general who asked Robart to block the measure, called the Hawaii ruling “fantastic news.” Justin Cox, a staff attorney for the National Immigration Law Center who argued for a restraining order in the case in Maryland, said, “This is absolutely a victory and should be celebrated as such, especially because the court held that the plaintiffs, that Hawaii was likely to succeed on its establishment clause claim which essentially is that the primary purpose of the executive order is to discriminate against Muslims.”
Cox said while the judge did not halt the order entirely, he blocked the crucial sections — those halting the issuance of new visas and suspending the refugee program. Left intact, Cox said, were lesser-known provisions, including one that orders Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney general to publicize information about foreign nationals charged with terrorism-related offenses and other crimes. He said the provision seems designed to whip up fear of Muslims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wedn...

Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new entry ban - The Washington Post

Page 4 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 34-46 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5

“It’s a shaming device that it’s really a dehumanizing device,” he said. “It perpetuates this myth, this damaging stereotype of Muslims as terrorists.”
Trump’s new entry ban had suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and halted for 90 days the issuance of new visas to people from six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Syria. It was different from the first entry ban in that it omitted Iraq from the list of affected countries, did not affect current visa or green-card holders and spelled out a robust list of people who might be able to apply for exceptions.
The administration could have defended the first ban in court — though it chose instead to rewrite the president’s executive order in such a way that it might be more defensible. The next step might have been to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc, after a three-judge panel with the court upheld the freeze on Trump’s ban.
Hawaii is a part of the 9th Circuit, so the legal road could pass through the appeals court there again. Perhaps previewing the contentious fight ahead, five of the circuit’s judges on Wednesday signed a dissenting opinion in the case over the original travel ban, declaring Trump’s decision to issue the executive order was “well within the powers of the presidency.” The judges wanted to wipe out a ruling by a three-judge panel declaring otherwise.
“Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated,” Judge Jay S. Bybee wrote for the dissenters. “We are judges, not Platonic Guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress.”
The dissent was signed by Judges Bybee, Sandra S. Ikuta, Consuelo M. Callahan and Carlos T. Bea, who all were appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge Alex Kozinski, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. It seemed to represent a minority view. The circuit has 25 active judges, and the court said a majority had not voted in favor of reconsidering the threejudge panel’s published opinion to keep Trump’s first ban frozen.
That opinion was signed by Judges Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Obama; Richard R. Clifton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge William C. Canby Jr., who was appointed by President Carter.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, also a Carter appointee, formally joined their opinion Wednesday and remarked that only a “small number” of 9th Circuit judges wanted to overturn it.
Takase reported from Honolulu. Lornet Turnbull in Seattle contributed to this report.

Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team. ¬ Follow @mattzap
Maria Sacchetti is the Post immigration reporter. She previously reported for The Boston Globe. ¬ Follow @mariasacchetti

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wedn...

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No.:

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States;

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF DAVID J. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I, David J. Weiner, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify. 2. I am an attorney at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 14
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 15, 2017 titled "2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump's Latest Travel Ban." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trumptravel-ban.html.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated February 22, 2017 titled "A new travel ban with 'mostly minor technical differences'? That probably won't cut it, analysts say." Link: http://wapo.st/2mmmECm.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a news article from Politico dated November 18, 2015, titled "Trump: 'Absolutely no choice' but to close mosques." Link: http://www,politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a press release published by the presidential campaign website of Donald J. Trump dated December 7, 2015, titled "Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration." Link: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslimimmigration.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 2:32 PM on December 7, 2015. Link: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/673993417429524480.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an article from Politifact dated January 28, 2016, titled "Christie says neighbors of San Bernardino shooters knew more than they did." Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2016/jan/28/chris-christie/christie-says-neighbors-san-bemardino-shooters-lcn/.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 14
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of the January 14, 2016 Republican Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina. Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb. edu/ws/index.php?pid=111395.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of an interview by Anderson Cooper with Donald J. Trump that aired on March 9, 2016 on Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees and published by CNN. Link: http://www.cnn. com/TRANS CRIP T S/1603/09/acd.01 .html.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Reuters dated June 14, 2016, titled "After Florida shooting, Trump hardens stance on Muslims." Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCNOYZ1GE.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Politico dated June 13, 2016, titled "Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech," containing the transcript of then-candidate Mr. Trump's June 13 speech on national security and terrorism in the wake of the Orlando massacre. Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech224273.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of an interview by Chuck Todd with Donald J. Trump that aired on July 24, 2016 on Meet the Press and was published by NBC News. Link: http://nbcnews.to/29TqPnp.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Slate dated January 29, 2017, titled "Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Asked How to Implement a Muslim Ban Legally." Link: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726giuliani-trumn-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 14
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from ABC News dated November 18, 2016, titled "Donald Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn Has Called Islam 'a Cancer.' Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donaldtrump-national-security-adviser-mike-flynn-called/story?id=43 57565 8.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN Politics dated November 22, 2016 titled "Michael Flynn in August: Islamism a 'vicious cancer' in body of all Muslims that 'has to be excised.' Link: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-august-speech/.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated January 31, 2017, titled "Steve Bannon's own words show sharp break on security issues." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/31/bannon-oddsislam-china-decades-us-foreign-policy-doctrine/97292068/.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Guardian dated February 3, 2017, titled "Steve Bannon's Islamophobic film script just one example of anti-Muslim views." Link: https://www.theguardian.com/usnew s/2017/feb/03/steve-bannon-islamophobia- film-script-muslims-i sl am.
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated February 9, 2017, titled "Bannon, Flynn and Sessions: How Trump's top advisers view Muslims, in their own word." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/storv/news/2017/02/09/how-some-trump-advisors-see-islam-theirown-words/97662862/.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CBS News dated January 27,2017 titled "Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority as Refugees." Link: http://bit.ly/2kCqG8M.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 14
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated January 31, 2017, titled "More People Were Affected by Travel Ban Than Trump Originally Said." Link: https://www.nvtimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-ban-immigrants-refugees.html.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a one page Department of State letter from the Deputy Assistant Visa Secretary for Visa Services dated January 27, 2017. Link: http s : //www. documentcloud. org/documents/3440712-D S -letter.html.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a press release dated January 29, 2017 titled "Statement by Senators McCain & Graham on Executive Order on Immigration." Link: http://bitly/2nkx3SW.
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 3:35 PM on February 9, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/829836231802515457.
25. Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN dated January 30, 2017 titled "Inside the Confusion of the Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban." Link: http://cnn.it/2kGdcZy.
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Department of Homeland Security Intelligence document published by the Associated Press on February 24, 2017. Link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730-DHSintelligence-document-on-President-Donald.html.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a'news article from the New York Times dated January 31, 2017, titled "State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump's Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures." Link: https://nvti.ms/2jS5A6o.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 14
28. Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a State Department Dissent cable titled "Dissent Channel: Alternatives to Closing Doors in Order to Secure Our Borders." Link: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438487/DissentMemo.pdf.
29. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa 0. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, ECF 28-2. Link: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/genera1/2017/02/06/1735105%20opposition%20exhibit.pdf.
30. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a letter dated January 30,2017 from former national security officials to Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and then-Acting Secretary of State Thomas Shannon. Link: https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finalrefugeeletter01302017.pdf.
31. Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated January 28, 2017, titled "Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/asweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html.
32. Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report dated January 26, 2017 titled "Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism." Link: http s ://sites . duke. edu/tcths/files/2017/01/FINAL Kurzman MuslimAmerican Involvement in Violent Extremism 2016.pdf.
33. Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an opinion piece from CNN dated January 30, 2017 titled "Trump's travel ban wouldn't have
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 14
stopped these deadly terrorists." Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinions/travel-banwouldnt-have-stopped-these-deadly-terrorists-bergen-sterman/.
34. Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a publication from New America titled "Terrorism in America After 9/11, Part II: Who are the Terrorists?" Link: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-areterrorists/.
35. Attached hereto as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 11, 2017 titled "Trump's Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced by 134 Foreign Policy Experts." Link: https://www.nytimes. com/2017/03/11/us/politic s/trump-travel-b an- denounced-foreign-policyexperts.html.
36. Attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is a true and correct copy of a printout of chapter 5 in a research report from the U.S. Department of State dated March 13, 2017 titled "Country Reports on Terrorism 2015." Link: https://tinyurl.com/jap2fpf.
37. Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a letter from Senators Sessions and Cruz to President Obama dated June 14, 2016. Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20161109030307/http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/ cache/file s/f9d1d9f4-6ee8-42ff-a5f2-29a2518fe2f7/06.14.16-sens.-sessions-cruz-to-president-obama-onterrorism-immigration.pdf.
38. Attached hereto as Exhibit 36 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a publication from the Cato Institute dated January 25, 2017 titled "Little National Security Benefit to Trump's Executive Order on Immigration." Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/little-nationalsecurity-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 14
39. Attached hereto as Exhibit 37 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Oregonian dated March 7, 2017 titled "Trump Used Failed Portland Car Bomb Plot as Justification for New Travel Ban." Link: http://bit.ly/2nt4aRV.
40. Attached hereto as Exhibit 38 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated October 7, 2009 titled "Mapping the Global Muslim Population." Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslimpopulationfilfootnotes.
41. Attached hereto as Exhibit 39 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an archived entry from the BBC dated August 19, 2008 titled "Sunni and Shi' a." Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/surmishia 1.shtml.
42. Attached hereto as Exhibit 40 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an analysis by the Washington Post dated November 21, 2016 titled "Shiites are participating in the world's largest pilgrimage today. Here's how they view the world." Link: http://wapo.st/2g8oR4W.
43. Attached hereto as Exhibit 41 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article by the Independent dated January 17, 2017 titled "Yemen civil war: 10,000 civilians killed and 40,000 injured in conflict, UN reveals." Link: http ://www . independent. co.uk/new s/world/middle-east/yemen- civil-w ar-civilian-death-toll10000-killed-40000-injured-conflcit-un-reveals- a7530836.html
44. Attached hereto as Exhibit 42 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from The Guardian dated January 16, 2017 titled "Yemen death toll has reached 10,000, UN says." Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/16/yemen-war-death-toll-hasreached-10000-un-says.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 14
45. Attached hereto as Exhibit 43 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the country profiles of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from a CIA publication titled the "CIA World Factbook." Link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.
46. Attached hereto as Exhibit 44 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Newsweek dated January 31, 2017 titled "Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations Named in Trump Ban." Link: http://www.newsweek.com/where-do-terrorists-come-notseven-countries-named-5 505 81.
47. Attached hereto as Exhibit 45 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated January 30, 2017 titled "Key Facts About Refugees to the U.S." Link: http ://www.pewre se arch. org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key- facts-about-refugeesto-the-u-s/.
48. Attached hereto as Exhibit 46 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the New York Times dated March 6, 2017 titled "Don't Be Fooled, Trump's New Muslim Ban Is Still Illegal." Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/opinion/dont-befooled-trumps-new-muslim-ban-is-still-illegal.html? r=0.
49. Attached hereto as Exhibit 47 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article dated March 10, 2017 titled "The Travel Ban Executive Order as Separation-of-Powers Test Case." Link: https://www.justsecurity.org/38675/travel-ban-executive-order-separation-ofpowers-test-case/.
50. Attached hereto as Exhibit 48 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article from LawNewz dated March 6, 2017 titled "President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order." Link: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/brealcing-president-trump-signs-newexecutive-order-on-immigration-ends-indefinite-ban-on-syrian-refugees/.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 14
51. Attached hereto as Exhibit 49 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated February 24, 2017 titled "DHS Report Casts Doubt on Need for Trump Travel Ban." Link: http://wapo.st/210kpKW.
52. Attached hereto as Exhibit 50 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dated February 4, 2017 titled "Trump lashes Out at Federal Judge Over Ruling on Travel Ban." Link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govtand-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-travel/article 40 fcf6c f-8dd3 -5 ffl a561-d0897195aecO.html.
53. Attached hereto as Exhibit 51 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from NBC News dated March 6, 2017 titled "Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline." Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trumpexpected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186.
54. Attached hereto as Exhibit 52 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CNN dated March 1, 2017 titled "Trump Delays New Travel Ban After WellReviewed Speech." Link: http : //www. cnn. com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-b an-visaholders/.
55. Attached hereto as Exhibit 53 is a true and correct copy of a printout of Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States dated March 6, 2017. Link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-orderprotecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states.
56. Attached hereto as Exhibit 54 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a blog article from the Cato Institute dated January 26, 2017 titled "Guide to Trump's Executive Order to Limit Migration for 'National Security' Reasons." Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/guidetrumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 14
57. Attached hereto as Exhibit 55 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from Politifact dated January 29, 2017 titled "No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel bans?" Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-omet er/st at ement s/2017/j an/29/j errold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/.
58. Attached hereto as Exhibit 56 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from ABC News dated January 29, 2017 titled "Trump Spars With Sens. McCain and Graham After They Criticize Travel Ban." Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/handful-gopsenators-representatives-criticize-trump-travel-b an/story? id=45121595.
59. Attached hereto as Exhibit 57 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated January 29, 2017 titled "Trump's Travel Ban Is a Gift to Iran's Rulers." Link: http://wapo. st/21Ww1NR.
60. Attached hereto as Exhibit 58 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Al Jazeera dated January 16, 2017 titled "Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000." Link: http://www. alj azeera. com/news/2017/01/death-toll-yemen-conflict-p as ses-10000170117040849576.html.
61. Attached hereto as Exhibit 59 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from BBC News dated December 8, 2015 titled "Trump's 'Muslim Lockdown': What Is the Center for Security Policy?" Link: http://bbc.in/lUOyVr4.
62. Attached hereto as Exhibit 60 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Bridge Initiative dated December 7, 2015 titled "Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll." Link: http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-americanmuslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 14
63. Attached hereto as Exhibit 61 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an article from Politifact dated December 9, 2015 titled "Trump cites shaky survey in call to ban Muslims from entering US." Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2015/dec/09/donald-trump/trump-cites-shaky-survey-call-ban-muslimsentering/.
64. Attached hereto as Exhibit 62 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from The Washington Times dated June 9, 2009 titled "Gaffney: America's first Muslim president?" Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/9/americas-first-muslimpresident/.
65. Attached hereto as Exhibit 63 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from CBS News dated July 17, 2016 titled "The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence." Link: http://www.cbsnew s. c om/news/60-minutes -trump-p enc e-republ ic an-ticket/.
66. Attached hereto as Exhibit 64 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the transcript of the October 9, 2016 Republican Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038.
67. Attached hereto as Exhibit 65 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from Talking Points Memo dated January 27, 2017 titled "Trump Signs Executive Order Laying Out 'Extreme Vetting.' Link: http://talkingpointsrnemo.com/livewire/trump-signsvetting-executive-order.
68. Attached hereto as Exhibit 66 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 5:31 AM on January 30, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 14
69. Attached hereto as Exhibit 67 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 4:50 AM on February 1, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245946368.
70. Attached hereto as Exhibit 68 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a Twitter post posted by Donald J. Trump on his personal Twitter account at 7:03 AM on January 29, 2017. Link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858.
71. Attached hereto as Exhibit 69 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a research report from the Pew Research Center dated October 6, 2016 titled "U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016." Link: http : //www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admitsrecord-numb er-o f-muslim-refuge es-in-2016/.
72. Attached hereto as Exhibit 70 is a true and correct copy of a news article from Politico dated February 21, 2017 titled "Trump: 'White House creates confusion about future of Trump's travel ban." Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/tiump-travel-ban-confusion235241.
73. Attached hereto as Exhibit 71 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from USA Today dated February 24, 2017 titled "DHS memo contradicts threats cited by Trump's travel ban." Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/24/dhs-memocontradict-travel-ban-trump/98374184/.
74. Attached hereto as Exhibit 72 is a true and correct copy of a printout of a news article from the Washington Post dated March 16, 2017 titled "Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump's new entry ban." Link: http://wapo.st/2n1GRMY.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 2 d day of March, 2017. David J. Weiner (D. .0 # 499806) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner apks.com
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 48

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2

President Trump Signs New Travel Ban Executive Order
UN lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-president-trump-signs-new-executive-order-on-immigration-ends-indefiniteln-on-syrian-refugees/
By Ronn Blitzer

After losing numerous court decisions over his travel ban, President Donald Trump vowed to keep the legal battle going. However, in addition to this, the administration had indicated that Trump would also sign a new order to supplement the old one so that it would have a better chance of passing legal muster. Finally, after weeks of rumored drafts and delays, Trump signed a new order on Monday.

The original order put a temporary stop to all refugees coming into the country, with an indefinite block on refugees from Syria. It also halted all incoming travel from seven countries with Muslim majorities. The new order clarifies that the ban only applies to people who do not currently have valid visas and did not have visas when the original order was signed on January 27. It specifies that it does not apply to legal permanent residents of the United States, or people who were admitted after the order was signed, or those who were already granted refugee or asylum status before the order.

Furthermore, Iraq is no longer on the list of countries specified in a general travel ban. The Pentagon and State Department had pushed to remove Iraq from that list, since the country has been a valuable ally in the fight against ISIS.

The new order also does not call for an indefinite hold on Syrian refugees, who will face the same treatment as refugees from other countries. When the temporary ban on refugees is lifted, the number of those ultimately admitted into the U.S. will have a maximum of 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year.

While the order is in effect, the administration will work to put in place new standards for screening individuals entering the U.S.

The new order is meant to work alongside the original one instead of repeal it, as repealing the initial order would end

the legal battles surrounding it. The administration still believes they can win those fights instead of having decisions

against them remain on the books. RNC member and Trump campaign surrogate Randy Evans said in February

that the administration is expected to try to

until a new Supreme Court justice, preferably Neil

Gorsuch, is confirmed.

Trump had insisted that his original order was indeed legal, but even if he ultimately could have won the battle in federal court, he would have had to wait for the case to be resolved for it to take effect again. By ditching that order and drafting a new one that is geared to be more favorable in the eyes of the judiciary, it allows the President to immediately move forward with his security measures.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 49

titlit tlictsbinCgatsine t1:p17o-ctv-00537-TSC Document 35-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
National Security
DHS report casts doubt on need for Trump travel ban
By Matt Zapotosky February 24
A  Department  of  Homeland  Security  report  assessing  the  terrorist  threat  posed  by  people  from  the  seven  countries  covered  by President  Trump’s  travel  ban  casts  doubt  on  the  necessity  of  the  executive  order,  concluding  that  citizenship  is  an  “unreliable” threat  indicator  and  that  people  from  the  seven  countries  have  rarely  been  implicated  in  U.S.-­based  terrorism.
The  document  —  first  reported  by  the  Associated  Press  and  later  confirmed  to  the  Washington  Post  —  relies  on  public materials,  and  a  Department  of  Homeland  Security  spokeswoman  said  it  was  “clear  on  its  face  that  it  is  an  incomplete  product.” Still,  it  could  prove  another  hurdle  in  the  administration’s  effort  to  restore  the  travel  ban,  undermining  the  White  House’s argument  that  the  measure  is  necessary  for  national  security  reasons.
The  report  was  prepared  at  the  request  of  the  acting  secretary  for  the  Office  of  Intelligence  and  Analysis  and  does  not represent  the  official  position  of  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security.
Gillian  M.  Christensen,  a  Homeland  Security  spokeswoman,  said  in  a  statement  that  it  had  “not  been  subject  to  the  extensive interagency  review  process  required  of  finished  intelligence  products”  and  did  not  “include  data  from  other  intelligence community  sources.”  She  confirmed  there  was  debate  over  the  matter,  as  CNN  reported,  but  disputed  that  debate  was  because of  political  concerns.
“Allegations  by  opponents  of  the  president’s  policies  that  senior  DHS  intelligence  officials  would  politicize  intelligence  is unfortunate  and  untrue,”  she  said.  “The  dispute  with  this  product  was  over  sources  and  quality,  not  politics.”
The  report  is  three  pages  long  and  does  not  address  head-­on  whether  the  temporary  ban  on  people  entering  the  United  States from  Iraq,  Iran,  Somalia,  Sudan,  Syria,  Yemen  and  Libya  is  an  effective  measure.  But  it  asserts  that  citizens  from  those countries  are  “rarely  implicated  in  U.S.-­based  terrorism,”  and  citizenship  itself  is  an  “unreliable  indicator  of  terrorist  threat  to the  United  States.”
Based  on  an  analysis  of  Justice  Department  press  releases,  it  says  of  82  people  “who  died  in  the  pursuit  of  or  were  convicted  of any  terrorism-­related  federal  offense,”  more  than  half  were  U.S.-­born  citizens.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
The  report  referenced  eight  people  from  Somalia,  Iraq,  Iran,  Sudan  and  Yemen  who  it  said  were  convicted  of  or  died  in  pursuit of  terrorism.  It  said  none  had  done  so  from  Syria  and  did  not  specifically  mention  Libya.  It  also  excluded  those  merely traveling  or  attempting  to  travel  to  join  a  foreign  terrorist  organization.
The  report  also  concludes  that  while  terror  groups  in  Iraq,  Syria  and  Yemen  pose  a  threat  of  attacks  in  the  United  States,  the other  four  countries  are  “regionally  focused.”  That  conclusion  is  based  on  another,  non-­classified  report.
Trump  has  said  he  plans  to  re-­write  his  executive  order  —  which  courts  have  ordered  frozen  —  and  a  White  House  official  has said  the  new  version  is  expected  next  week.  Those  suing  over  the  matter  said  the  original  order  represents  an  unconstitutional targeting  of  Muslims,  disguised  as  a  national  security  measure.  In  one  court  case,  10  former  high-­ranking  diplomatic  and national  security  officials  attached  their  names  to  an  affidavit  declaring  there  was  “no  national  security  purpose”  for  a complete  barring  of  people  from  the  seven  affected  countries,  which  are  all  Muslim-­majority.
The  new  report  could  prove  a  boon  to  those  challenging  Trump’s  ban,  as  they  seek  to  demonstrate  it  was  motivated  not  by national  security  concerns,  but  by  religious  animosity.  They  also  will  likely  be  able  to  use  as  evidence  comments  by  Trump himself  and  ally  Rudy  Giuliani  suggesting  the  administration  wanted  to  ban  Muslims  from  entering  the  United  States.
Though  not  addressing  that  directly,  Christensen  offered  a  defense  of  the  ban’s  national  security  purpose.
“The  seven  countries  were  identified  by  the  previous  administration  as  being  countries  of  concern  for  foreign  terrorist  travel to  the  Unites  States.  Consequently,  these  countries  were  the  focus  of  this  administration’s  initial  efforts  to  enhance  vetting  for foreign  travel  to  the  United  States,”  she  said.  “It  is  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  protect  its  citizens  from  foreign  nationals who  intend  to  commit  terrorist  attacks  in  the  United  States;;  and  to  prevent  the  admission  of  foreign  nationals  who  intend  to exploit  United  States  immigration  laws  for  malevolent  purposes.”
Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team.  Follow @mattzap

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 50

Trump lashes out at federal judge over ruling on travel ban | National politics | stltoday.com

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

National politics
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-ontravel/article_40fcf6cf-8dd3-5ff1-a561-d0897195aec0.html
Trump lashes out at federal judge over ruling on travel ban
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE Associated Press Feb 4, 2017
PALM BEACH, Fla. • President Donald Trump lashed out Saturday at "this so-called judge" who put a nationwide hold on his executive order denying entry to the U.S. to refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The ruling set in motion another weekend of confusion and chaos around the country.
The White House pledged to swiftly appeal the federal judge's ruling late Friday, but that didn't appear to be enough for Trump, who vented his frustrations on Twitter.
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Trump said.
Trump has said the travel ban, which he enacted by executive order on Jan. 27, will keep Americans safe by keeping potential terrorists from entering the country.
He also said Saturday on Twitter that "when a country is no longer able to say who can and who cannot come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security — big trouble!"
U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled late Friday against government lawyers' claims that Washington state and Minnesota, which sued over the ban, lacked the legal grounds to challenge Trump's order. Robart said the states showed that their case was likely to succeed.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said late Friday that the Justice Department would appeal the "outrageous" order "at the earliest possible time. Spicer quickly issued an amended statement that deleted "outrageous."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-tr...

Trump lashes out at federal judge over ruling on travel ban | National politics | stltoday.com

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-4 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

"The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people," Spicer said, calling the order both lawful and appropriate.
Trump billed the action as necessary to stop "radical Islamic terrorists" from coming to the U.S.
The order included a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen, a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program, and an indefinite bar against admitting Syrian refugees.
The decision sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. More protests were planned for this weekend, including at Trump's estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where he is spending the weekend.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York issued an emergency order after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition on behalf of people from the seven countries who were detained at airports nationwide as the ban took effect.
Donnelly's order addressed only a portion of Trump's order, and barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from the seven countries. Robart's decision was more sweeping in scope.
Saturday was not the first instance of Trump criticizing a federal judge, a member of an independent branch of the government.
During the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly criticized the federal judge who was presiding over a lawsuit brought by former students of Trump University. Trump claimed that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was born in Indiana, had an "absolute conflict" in handling the case because he is "of Mexican heritage." Trump launched his presidential campaign with a harsh description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers.
Trump recently agreed to pay $25 million to settle the lawsuits against Trump University.
___
Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-over-ruling-on-tr...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 51

Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline - NBC News

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4

SPECIAL REPORT: BRITISH POLICE RESPOND TO 'FIREARMS INCIDENT' OUTSIDE U.K. PARLIAMENT GET ALERTS Ó

' NBC NEWS

SECTIONS ~

NIGHTLY NEWS MEET THE PRESS DATELINE



NEWS ö U.S. NEWS

WORLD INVESTIGATIONS CRIME & COURTS LATINO NBCBLK

NEWSMAR 6 2017, 7:37 AM ET
Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline
by PHIL MCCAUSLAND and HALLIE JACKSON

] L SHARE 

9

Two senior White House officials told NBC News that President Donald Trump plans to sign a revised version of his executive order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority nations on Monday.

Since a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order on it in early February, different White House officials and the president have stated numerous times that the new executive order would be signed soon. But more than a month after it was barred, the revised version has not been realized.

The delay would seem to undercut the White House's original argument for its swift execution, which created confusing travel situations and immigration statuses for hundreds of people the weekend it was implemented. When its necessity and legality was challenged, the president and senior administration officials emphasized the need for travel restrictions because they believed the nation would be at risk without them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-expected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186

Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline - NBC News

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4

These are the developments since the executive order was first signed.
Jan. 27: The executive order restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority nations is signed by President Trump.
Jan. 30: On "Fox and Friends," senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said the executive order was an urgent priority because "if we waited five days, 10 days, six months to begin establishing the first series of controls," then the administration would be leaving "the homeland unnecessarily vulnerable."
Feb. 3: A federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide temporary restraining order, effectively blocking the executive order.
Feb. 4: President Trump tweeted that the judge's action means "many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country."
Related: Trump Travel Ban Makes America Less Safe: Ex-Top Security, State Officials
Feb 10: At a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, President Trump hinted at new executive order "sometime next week," stating that "we'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. You'll be seeing that sometime next week."
Feb. 16: President Trump, at a news conference in the East Room, told reporters: "We're issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country."
Feb. 20: A senior White House official told NBC News that a new order is expected later in the week.
Feb. 23: Press Secretary Sean Spicer says: "It's not a question of delaying, it's a question of getting it right. We've taken the Court's opinions and concerns into consideration, but the order is finalized. It's now awaiting implementation."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-expected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186

Donald Trump Expected to Sign New Immigration Order: A Timeline - NBC News

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-5 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Feb. 28: Prior to the joint address to Congress, a senior administration official told NBC News President Trump is expected to sign the executive order on March 1 at the Department of Justice.
Feb. 28: After the joint address to Congress, a senior official said the signing would be delayed in order let the president's joint address breathe.
March 1: Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that when the president is ready to make a decision on the timing of the revised immigration executive order, they'll let reporters know "and we're not there yet."
March 4: Two senior administration officials said the president plans to sign the revised executive order on Monday.

PHIL MCCAUSLAND  

HALLIE JACKSON  TOPICS U.S. NEWS, DONALD TRUMP, WHITE HOUSE
FIRST PUBLISHED MAR 5 2017, 6:54 PM ET j

by Taboola

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-expected-sign-new-immigration-order-timeline-n729186

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 52

Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech - CNNPolitics.com

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech
By Laura Jarrett, Ariane de Vogue and Jeremy Diamond, CNN @ Updated 6:01 AM ET, Wed March 1, 2017

Immigration violations: The one thing to know 01:15

Story highlights
The new travel ban will exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders
Two sources also expect that the President will formally revoke the previous executive order
said.

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump has delayed plans to sign a reworked travel ban in the wake of positive reaction to his first address to Congress, a senior administration official told CNN.
The decision came late Tuesday night as positive reviews flooded in for Trump's speech, which struck a largely optimistic and unifying tone.
Signing the executive order Wednesday, as originally indicated by the White House, would have undercut the favorable coverage. The official didn't deny the positive reception was part of the administration's calculus in pushing back the travel ban announcement.
"We want the (executive order) to have its own 'moment,'" the official

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/

Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech - CNNPolitics.com

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-6 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

The sudden change of plans came as Trump and his top advisers returned to the White House after his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.
Trump's original executive order, signed a week after he took office, banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US and temporarily suspended the entry of all refugees. A federal court issued a temporary stay that halted implementation of the travel ban earlier this month, a decision that was later upheld by a federal appeals court.
The new travel ban will exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders from the ban entirely, sources familiar with the plans told CNN earlier Tuesday.
While sources caution that the document has not yet been finalized and is still subject to change, there will be major changes:
· The new executive order will make clear that legal permanent residents (otherwise known as green card holders) are excluded from any travel ban.
· Those with validly issued visas will also be exempt from the ban.
· The new order is expected to revise or exclude language prioritizing the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.
Speaking in Munich, Germany, earlier this month, Department of Homeland Secretary John Kelly promised a "phased-in" approach to minimize disruption this time around.
But what remains to be seen are the other key aspects of the new executive order, especially in terms of refugees, including:
· What happens to the suspension of the refugee program for 120 days?
· Will Syrian nationals still be barred indefinitely?
· Will the cap on the number of refugees change? The first version of the executive order caps it at 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.
Two sources also expect that the President will formally revoke the earlier executive order, despite repeated statements from White House press secretary Sean Spicer that the two orders would co-exist on a "dual track."
The administration could potentially argue that the existing challenges to the original executive order are moot, but the challengers tell CNN the legal battles will likely continue even after the new order is signed.
"Exempting lawful permanent residents and current visa holders will not cure the core legal problem -- that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination, as evidenced by the President's repeated statements calling for a Muslim ban," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt explained. "That discriminatory taint cannot be removed simply by eliminating a few words or clever tinkering by lawyers."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/trump-travel-ban-visa-holders/

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT 53

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 1 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 14
the WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Í

From the Press Office
Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases Nominations & Appointments Presidential Actions
I Executive Orders
Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Related OMB Material Legislation Disclosures

The White House Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

March 06, 2017

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States

EXECUTIVE ORDER
-------
PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 2 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 14
of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals. The screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) play a crucial role in detecting foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism and in preventing those individuals from entering the United States. It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP.
(b) On January 27, 2017, to implement this policy, I issued Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).
(i) Among other actions, Executive Order 13769 suspended for 90 days the entry of certain aliens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These are countries that had already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States. Specifically, the suspension applied to countries referred to in, or designated under, section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), in which Congress restricted use of the Visa Waiver Program for nationals of, and aliens recently present in, (A) Iraq or Syria, (B) any country designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism (currently Iran, Syria, and Sudan), and (C) any other country designated as a country of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. In 2016, the Secretary of Homeland Security designated Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as additional countries of concern for travel purposes, based on consideration of three statutory factors related to terrorism and national security: "(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; (II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and (III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists." 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). Additionally, Members of Congress have expressed concerns about screening and vetting procedures following recent terrorist attacks in this country and in Europe.
(ii) In ordering the temporary suspension of entry described in subsection (b)(i) of this section, I exercised my authority under Article II of the Constitution and under section 212(f) of the INA, which provides in relevant part: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). Under these authorities, I determined that, for a brief period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified countries -- each afflicted by terrorism in a manner that compromised the ability of the United States to rely on normal decision-making procedures about travel to the United States -- would be detrimental to the
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 3 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 14
interests of the United States. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.
(iii) Executive Order 13769 also suspended the USRAP for 120 days. Terrorist groups have sought to infiltrate several nations through refugee programs. Accordingly, I temporarily suspended the USRAP pending a review of our procedures for screening and vetting refugees. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly grant case-by-case waivers when they determined that it was in the national interest to do so.
(iv) Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.
(c) The implementation of Executive Order 13769 has been delayed by litigation. Most significantly, enforcement of critical provisions of that order has been temporarily halted by court orders that apply nationwide and extend even to foreign nationals with no prior or substantial connection to the United States. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay or narrow one such order pending the outcome of further judicial proceedings, while noting that the "political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions" about who should be covered by a suspension of entry or of refugee admissions.
(d) Nationals from the countries previously identified under section 217(a)(12) of the INA warrant additional scrutiny in connection with our immigration policies because the conditions in these countries present heightened threats. Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones. Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States. Moreover, the significant presence in each of these countries of terrorist organizations, their members, and others exposed to those organizations increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives or sympathizers to travel to the United States. Finally, once foreign nationals from these countries are admitted to the United States, it is often difficult to remove them, because many of these countries typically delay issuing, or refuse to issue, travel documents.
(e) The following are brief descriptions, taken in part from the Department of State's Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016), of some of the conditions in six of the previously designated countries that demonstrate why their nationals continue to present heightened risks to the security of the United States:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 4 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 14
(i) Iran. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and continues to support various terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Iraq. Iran has also been linked to support for al-Qa'ida and has permitted al-Qa'ida to transport funds and fighters through Iran to Syria and South Asia. Iran does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts.
(ii) Libya. Libya is an active combat zone, with hostilities between the internationally recognized government and its rivals. In many parts of the country, security and law enforcement functions are provided by armed militias rather than state institutions. Violent extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country. The Libyan government provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, but it is unable to secure thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit flow of weapons, migrants, and foreign terrorist fighters. The United States Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014.
(iii) Somalia. Portions of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'idaaffiliated terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some counterterrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists.
(iv) Sudan. Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993 because of its support for international terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Hamas. Historically, Sudan provided safe havens for al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups to meet and train. Although Sudan's support to al-Qa'ida has ceased and it provides some cooperation with the United States' counterterrorism efforts, elements of core al-Qa'ida and ISIS-linked terrorist groups remain active in the country.
(v) Syria. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing military conflict against ISIS and others for control of portions of the country. At the same time, Syria continues to support other terrorist groups. It has allowed or encouraged extremists to pass through its territory to enter Iraq. ISIS continues to attract foreign fighters to Syria and to use its base in Syria to plot or encourage attacks around the globe, including in the United States. The United States Embassy in Syria suspended its operations in 2012. Syria does not cooperate with the United States' counterterrorism efforts.
(vi) Yemen. Yemen is the site of an ongoing conflict between the incumbent government and the Houthi-led opposition. Both ISIS and a second group, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have exploited this conflict to expand their presence in Yemen and to carry out hundreds of attacks. Weapons and other materials smuggled across Yemen's porous borders are used to finance AQAP and other terrorist activities. In 2015, the United States Embassy in Yemen suspended its operations, and embassy staff were relocated out of
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 5 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 14
the country. Yemen has been supportive of, but has not been able to cooperate fully with, the United States in counterterrorism efforts.
(f) In light of the conditions in these six countries, until the assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by section 2 of this order is completed, the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high. Accordingly, while that assessment is ongoing, I am imposing a temporary pause on the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to categorical exceptions and case-by-case waivers, as described in section 3 of this order.
(g) Iraq presents a special case. Portions of Iraq remain active combat zones. Since 2014, ISIS has had dominant influence over significant territory in northern and central Iraq. Although that influence has been significantly reduced due to the efforts and sacrifices of the Iraqi government and armed forces, working along with a United States-led coalition, the ongoing conflict has impacted the Iraqi government's capacity to secure its borders and to identify fraudulent travel documents. Nevertheless, the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment for Iraq. In particular, those Iraqi government forces that have fought to regain more than half of the territory previously dominated by ISIS have shown steadfast determination and earned enduring respect as they battle an armed group that is the common enemy of Iraq and the United States. In addition, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal. Decisions about issuance of visas or granting admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if applicants have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise pose a risk to either national security or public safety.
(h) Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. For example, in January 2013, two Iraqi nationals admitted to the United States as refugees in 2009 were sentenced to 40 years and to life in prison, respectively, for multiple terrorism-related offenses. And in October 2014, a native of Somalia who had been brought to the United States as a child refugee and later became a naturalized United States citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction as part of a plot to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(i) Given the foregoing, the entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism remains a matter of grave concern. In light of the Ninth Circuit's
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 6 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 14
observation that the political branches are better suited to determine the appropriate scope of any suspensions than are the courts, and in order to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation, I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.
Sec. 2. Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety threat. The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the worldwide review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed from each country for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 20 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening and vetting of foreign nationals, to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists, and in light of the national security concerns referenced in section 1 of this order, I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212 (f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order.
(d) Upon submission of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed from each country for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request that all foreign governments that do not supply such information regarding their nationals begin providing it within 50 days of notification.
(e) After the period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other means. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 7 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 14
Security may also submit to the President the names of additional countries for which any of them recommends other lawful restrictions or limitations deemed necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) At any point after the submission of the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment, as well as the names of any countries that they recommend should be removed from the scope of a proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section.
(g) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 90 days of the effective date of this order, a third report within 120 days of the effective date of this order, and a fourth report within 150 days of the effective date of this order.
Sec. 3. Scope and Implementation of Suspension.
(a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:
(i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order;
(ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and
(iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.
(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to:
(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
(ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the effective date of this order;
(iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document;
(iv) any dual national of a country designated under section 2 of this order when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country;
(v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; or
(vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 8 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 14
(c) Waivers. Notwithstanding the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order, a consular officer, or, as appropriate, the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner's delegee, may, in the consular officer's or the CBP official's discretion, decide on a case-by-case basis to authorize the issuance of a visa to, or to permit the entry of, a foreign national for whom entry is otherwise suspended if the foreign national has demonstrated to the officer's satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, any waiver issued by a consular officer as part of the visa issuance process will be effective both for the issuance of a visa and any subsequent entry on that visa, but will leave all other requirements for admission or entry unchanged. Case-by-case waivers could be appropriate in circumstances such as the following:
(i) the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity, is outside the United States on the effective date of this order, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that activity, and the denial of reentry during the suspension period would impair that activity;
(ii) the foreign national has previously established significant contacts with the United States but is outside the United States on the effective date of this order for work, study, or other lawful activity;
(iii) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant business or professional obligations and the denial of entry during the suspension period would impair those obligations;
(iv) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship;
(v)the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;
(vi) the foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee) and the employee can document that he or she has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;
(vii) the foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq., traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government, or traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization not designated under the IOIA;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.gov Page 9 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 14
(viii) the foreign national is a landed Canadian immigrant who applies for a visa at a location within Canada; or
(ix) the foreign national is traveling as a United States Government-sponsored exchange visitor.
Sec. 4. Additional Inquiries Related to Nationals of Iraq. An application by any Iraqi national for a visa, admission, or other immigration benefit should be subjected to thorough review, including, as appropriate, consultation with a designee of the Secretary of Defense and use of the additional information that has been obtained in the context of the close U.S.-Iraqi security partnership, since Executive Order 13769 was issued, concerning individuals suspected of ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations and individuals coming from territories controlled or formerly controlled by ISIS. Such review shall include consideration of whether the applicant has connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations or with territory that is or has been under the dominant influence of ISIS, as well as any other information bearing on whether the applicant may be a threat to commit acts of terrorism or otherwise threaten the national security or public safety of the United States.
Sec. 5. Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry. This program shall include the development of a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that applicants are who they claim to be; a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States; and any other appropriate means for ensuring the proper collection of all information necessary for a rigorous evaluation of all grounds of inadmissibility or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the program described in subsection (a) of this section within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the effective date of this order.
Sec. 6. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status, for 120 days after the effective date of this order, subject to waivers pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 10 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 14
Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication processes to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. The suspension described in this subsection shall not apply to refugee applicants who, before the effective date of this order, have been formally scheduled for transit by the Department of State. The Secretary of State shall resume travel of refugees into the United States under the USRAP 120 days after the effective date of this order, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that the additional procedures implemented pursuant to this subsection are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.
(c) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States, including in circumstances such as the following: the individual's entry would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement or arrangement, or the denial of entry would cause undue hardship.
(d) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of State shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 7. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority permitted by section 212(d)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B), relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing directives or guidance.
Sec. 8. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry exit tracking system for in-scope travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 11 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 14
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive set forth in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the effective date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the effective date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit further reports every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 9. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1202, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions. This suspension shall not apply to any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa; traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the IOIA; or traveling for purposes of conducting meetings or business with the United States Government.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that nonimmigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 10. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements and arrangements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If another country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a truly reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by that foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 12 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 14
related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called "honor killings," in the United States by foreign nationals; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall release the initial report under subsection (a) of this section within 180 days of the effective date of this order and shall include information for the period from September 11, 2001, until the date of the initial report. Subsequent reports shall be issued every 180 days thereafter and reflect the period since the previous report.
Sec. 12. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners, including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and appropriate implementation of the actions directed in this order.
(b) In implementing this order, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including, as appropriate, those providing an opportunity for individuals to claim a fear of persecution or torture, such as the credible fear determination for aliens covered by section 235(b)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A).
(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of this order shall be revoked pursuant to this order.
(d) Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled as a result of Executive Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry. Any prior cancellation or revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769 shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about entry or admissibility.
(e) This order shall not apply to an individual who has been granted asylum, to a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, consistent with the laws of the United States.
Sec. 13. Revocation. Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.
Sec. 14. Effective Date. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | whitehouse.... Page 13 of 13
Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-7 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 14
Sec. 15. Severability. (a) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (b) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements. Sec. 16. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 6, 2017.
¬ŧ­ 
HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN USA.gov Privacy Policy Copyright Policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-e...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 54

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 8

CATO AT LIBERTY
JANUARY 26, 2017 12:03PM
Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons
By ALEX NOWRASTEH
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order shortly to temporarily ban all visas for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia among other actions. An advanced copy of this order was available earlier this week. The first sentence of his order states that it is to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” However, the countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks. I compiled a list of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015. Below is a table with the distribution of their countries of origin (Figure 1). The first seven countries are those to be initially and, hopefully, temporarily denied visas. During the time period analyzed here, 17 foreign-born folks from those nations were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and they killed zero people. Zero Libyans or Syrians intended to carry out an attack on U.S. soil during this time. Figure 1 Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975-2015
https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 2 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 8

Country Iran Iraq Libya Somalia Sudan Syria Yemen Afghanistan Algeria Armenia Australia Bangladesh Bosnia Croatia Cuba Dominican Republic Egypt Ethiopia France Ghana Guyana Haiti India Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan

Terrorists Murders Terrorists (percent) Murders (percent)

6

0

3.9%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

6

0

3.9%

0.0%

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

4

0

2.6%

0.0%

6

1

3.9%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

9

1

5.8%

0.0%

11

3

7.1%

0.1%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

11

162

7.1%

5.4%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

4

0

2.6%

0.0%

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

2

6

1.3%

0.2%

2

3

1.3%

0.1%

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 3 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 8

Lebanon Macedonia Mexico Morocco Nigeria Pakistan* Palestine Saudi Arabia* Serbia South Korea Taiwan Trinidad and Tobago Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uzbekistan Vietnam Total

4

158.5

3

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

14

3

5

2

19

2,369

2

0

1

0

1

1

2

0.5

1

0

2

314

3

0

3

0

1

0

154

3,024

2.6% 1.9% 0.6% 1.9% 0.6% 9.1% 3.2% 12.3% 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 1.3% 0.6% 1.3% 1.9% 1.9% 0.6% 100.0%

5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 78.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Sources: John Mueller, ed., Terrorism Since 9/11: The American Cases; RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents; National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Global Terrorism Database; Center on National Security; Charles Kurzman, “Spreadsheet of Muslim-American Terrorism Cases from 9/11 through the End of 2015,” University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; New America Foundation; Mother Jones; Senator Jeff Sessions; Various news sources; Court documents.
*San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan but mostly resided in Saudi Arabia from the time she was an infant. She physically met her U.S. born husband in Saudi Arabia. I counted her as Saudi but one could reasonably count her as Pakistani because she was born in Pakistan and she held a Pakistani passport. Doing so would transfer 14 terrorist murders from the Saudi Arabia’s row to Pakistan’s row.

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 4 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 8

Attempting or committing a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is not the only terrorist offense. Materially supporting foreign terrorist organizations, seeking to join a foreign terrorist group overseas, plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks in other countries, and others are also terrorism offenses. I excluded foreign-born people convicted of those offenses because Trump is concerned with “making America safe again,” not with making other countries safe or with a global war on terrorism. A terrorist attack in another country doesn’t kill Americans inside of the United States and these threats are not what concern American voters nearly as much as terrorism on U.S. soil. You can call this an America First weighting of terrorism offenses.
Trump’s executive order cites the “[h]undreds of foreign-born individuals [who] have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes” as another reason for a visa ban for these countries. He likely got the “hundreds of foreign-born individuals” from a news release and list put out by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that purportedly shows all 580 “terrorism-related” convictions since 9/11 with at least 380 of them as immigrants.
It is disturbing that Sessions’ flawed list of terrorism convictions is the basis for much of this executive order. There are at least two major problems with the list. First, you might get the impression that all of those convictions were for terrorist attacks planned on U.S.-soil but only 40, or 6.8 percent, were. Second, 241 of the 580 convictions, or 42 percent, were not even for terrorism offenses. Many of the investigations started based on a terrorism tip like, for instance, the suspect wanting to buy a rocketpropelled grenade launcher. However, the tip turned out to be groundless and the legal saga ended with only a mundane conviction of receiving stolen cereal. According to Sessions’ list, that cereal thief is a terrorist.
In the little over 13 years covered in the Sessions’ list, there were about three convictions per year for planning or committing an attack on U.S. soil. For every one of them, there were six non-terrorism convictions counted as terrorism and 4.5 convictions for supporting, joining, or planning a terrorist attack overseas. In short, the list provided by Senator Jeff Sessions does not show a daunting terrorist threat to American lives in the homeland.
Trump’s executive order goes on to argue that “[d]eteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter our country.” Presumably, the goal is to reduce American deaths from terrorism on U.S. soil so the deadliness of terrorist at-

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 5 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 8

tacks matters more than the number of terrorists. For instance, 114 of the 154 foreignborn terrorists from 1975 to the end of 2015 didn’t kill anybody. The three countries where the deadliest terrorists came to the United States from were Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. Together they all accounted for 94.1 percent of all American deaths in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil committed by the foreign-born. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are not beset by any of the supposedly-terrorism increasing problems that are described in this order. Egyptians account for 5.4 percent of all terrorist victims but their attacks occurred between 1993 and 2002 when Egypt was a more stable country than it is today. The only exception to this might be Lebanon which accounts for 5.2 percent of all terrorist victims but nearly all of those were committed by Ziad Jarrah on 9/11 – a single data point. Meanwhile, foreignborn people from Syria, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and Yemen have not successfully killed anybody in a U.S. terrorist attack.
Trump’s executive order then continues to say that the United States “cannot, and should not, admit into our country those who do not support the U.S. Constitution.” Virtually nobody in the world, including most Americans, supports the U.S. Constitution and it seems peculiar to block tourists who want to visit Disneyland from entering because they “do not support the U.S. Constitution.” My guesses are that whoever wrote this executive order is either confused about the difference between immigrants and non-immigrants, it is just sloppily drafted, or this is an earlier draft. Temporary visitors should not have to swear allegiance or express support for the Constitution any more than an American should have to swear allegiance to or express my support for monarchy when visiting the United Kingdom. In terms of support for the Constitution, all that matters is that immigrants who naturalize take an oath to do so – as they are currently required to under U.S. law.
The order also directs the government to find a way to identify immigrants “with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission.” Blocking immigrants who intend to commit crimes or terrorist attacks is a wonderful idea – so wonderful that the government already does it. However, the line that seeks to identify those who “are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission” is hopelessly vague. There is a risk greater than zero that virtually anybody is a risk subsequent to their admission so this type of broad, ill-defined dictate could theoretically screen out everybody. More likely, it will just be used to capriciously target individuals for political or personal reasons.

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 6 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 8

A later line in the executive order provides some context for the “risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission” line. It orders DHS to regularly publish “information regarding the number of foreign-born individuals in the Untied States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States.” Presumably, DHS will use that information to build a detailed risk profile of immigrants to exclude those who could become radicalized. One worrying term is “terrorism-related organizations.” I couldn’t find any mentions or definition of a “terrorism-related organization” in U.S. law. There are no mentions of “terrorism-related convictions” either. If “terrorism-related organizations” is defined as broadly as “terrorism-related convictions” has been in Jeff Sessions’ terrorist list then many non-terrorist organizations will be included for flimsy reasons. This is like the no-fly list but with far graver consequences.
The order also says there should be a “process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positive contributing member of society, and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest.” The immigration law already does the former by excluding criminals, national security threats, and numerous other categories of excludable people while the broad immigrant and non-immigrant work visas supposedly identify which foreigners are most valuable. At best this line in the executive order is redundant and at worst it signals the government’s intent to be even more involved in planning the labor market by selecting winners and losers through the immigration system.
The seven countries temporarily banned under this executive order represent a small percent of all green cards and entries into the United States (the latter estimated by I-94s per country). In 2015, the government issued 52,365 green cards to immigrants born in those seven countries which amount to just 4.98 percent of all green cards issued that year and 29.4 percent of all green cards issued to nationals from Muslim countries (Table 2). In the same year, there were 86,236 non-immigrant entries from those countries which accounted for 0.11 percent of all entries although they comprised 4.5 percent of all entries for Islamic countries (Table 2).
The economic cost of a temporary ban, or even a permanent one, is small because so few green cards and nonimmigrant visas are issued to folks from those seven countries. However, the danger of terrorism on U.S. soil committed by citizens of those countries has also been very low historically with only 17 convictions from 1975

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons | Cato @ Liberty

Page 7 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-8 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 8

through 2015 and zero Americans killed in domestic attacks. Future terrorists could come from different countries than terrorists did in the past but, based on current evidence, this ban is still a net loss because it will likely stop few terrorists, prevent zero deaths, and slightly reduce immigration and tourism. All minor economic pain, no gain.

Table 2

Number of Green Cards and Entries per Country, 2015

Green Cards Entries (I-94)

Iran

13,114

35,266

Iraq

21,107

21,381

Libya

734

2,879

Somalia

6,796

359

Sudan

3,580

4,792

Syria

3,840

16,010

Yemen

3,194

5,549

All Countries

1,051,031

76,638,236

Islamic Countries (OIC) 178,015

1,896,383

Source: Department of Homeland Security
If President Trump was committed to banning immigrants from certain countries in order to reduce the already small risk of terrorism on U.S. soil committed by the foreign-born then he would not just ban nationals from these seven countries. For this reason, I expect his administration to expand the list of countries banned in the near future. Section 3, subsections c, d, e, and f clarify that the president can extend these bans to other countries or make them permanent. This is a warning about additional bans on migrants and immigrants to come as well as the process by which those bans will be enacted.

Topics: International Economics, Development & Immigration Tags: terrorism, Trump, Executive Action, migration, bans, Muslim country

https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT 55

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 1 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 9

EDITIONS 

TRUTH-O-METERTM 

PEOPLE 

   Stay Connected:
 Search
PROMISES  PANTS ON FIRE ABOUT US 

"The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's executive order."
— Jerrold Nadler on Saturday, January 28th, 2017 in a CNN interview

vkpLF TRUE
POLI4SACI

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban?
By Miriam Valverde on Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 5:42 p.m.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 2 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 9

On Jan. 28, an Iraqi immigrant was freed after being detained at one of New York's airports, just after President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration was put into action.
President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending the admission into the United States of people from seven Muslim-majority countries and indefinitely banning refugees from war-torn Syria stirred an uproar across the nation, with protesters gathering at the nation’s largest airports.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a CNN interview from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport that it was important to protect the United States from people who want to harm the country. But he argued that refugees are heavily vetted by the U.S. government and that recent attacks have not been from nationals of the countries singled out by Trump.
"The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's executive order," Nadler said in a CNN interview Jan. 28. "If you really want to protect this country, why are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey left out of the order? Most of the 9/11 conspirators came from Saudi Arabia."

Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 27, called "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Individuals from those seven countries who are U.S. lawful permanent residents are also stopped from re-entering the country (though exemptions may apply), the New York Times reported, attributing the information to the Department of Homeland Security.

We wondered if Nadler was correct by saying that since 9/11, terrorist acts in the United States have not been carried out by people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 3 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 9

Experts told us no fatal attack has been attributed to nationals from those countries, but that there have been a few non-deadly acts by individuals from two of those countries.

Increased homegrown terrorism

According to New America, a think tank compiling information on terrorist activities in the United States since 9/11, 94 people have been killed by jihadists in the past 15 years.

But in its overview of who are the individuals committing the attacks, New America says the majority of attackers come from within.

"Far from being foreign infiltrators, the large majority of jihadist terrorists in the United States have been American citizens or legal residents. Moreover, while a range of citizenship statuses are represented, every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident," the New America study says. "In addition about a quarter of the extremists are converts, further confirming that the challenge cannot be reduced to one of immigration."

"It's certainly the case that none of the major, deadly attacks carried out in the United States were carried out by people from these countries," said Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.

Other experts agreed.

"Since 9/11, no one has been killed in this country in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from any of the seven countries," added William C. Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 4 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 9

In June 2016, Omar Mateen, born in the United States to Afghan parents, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an Orlando nightclub shooting. In December 2015, a Pakistani woman, Tashfeen Malik, and her husband killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. The husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in the United States to Pakistani parents.

However, there have been at least three non-deadly attacks in which the perpetrators were from Iran or Somalia, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

One of those examples includes the November 2016 attack at Ohio State University by a Somali refugee who had lived in Pakistan before coming to the United States. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, was shot dead by a police officer after he slammed his car into pedestrians and injured others with a butcher knife. The FBI said it would investigate the attack as a "potential act of terrorism."

In September 2016, Dahir Adan was shot dead after stabbing nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall. Adan was identified by his father as Somali but born in Kenya, moving to the United States when he was a child.

Another incident was in 2006, when Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar ran a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd of people at his alma mater, the University of North Carolina. Thinking he would be killed during the attack, Taheri-Azar left a letter in his apartment saying he wanted revenge for the deaths of Muslims across the world caused by the United States, the AP reported. A naturalized citizen born in Iran, Taheri-Azar in 2008 plead guilty to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced for up to 33 years in prison.

On ABC’s This Week, Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, said the president’s order covered countries that the Obama administration had identified as needing further travel restrictions.

"What the president did was take the first step through this executive order of insuring that we're looking at the entire system of who's coming in, refugees that

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 5 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 9

are coming in, people who are coming in from places that have a history or that our intelligence suggests that we need to have further extreme vetting for," Spicer said Jan. 29.

Starting in early 2016, individuals from countries that participate in the visa waiver program (that is, people allowed to travel to the United States without a visa) and who had also been in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Libya or Somalia recently (with exceptions for diplomatic or military purposes) were no longer permitted to come to the United States without a visa. They were not banned from traveling, but they did need to apply for a visa and be vetted.

People who were nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria were also no longer able to come to the United States without a visa.

Our ruling

Nadler said, "The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's executive order."

Experts on terrorism tell us that since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the seven countries for which Trump’s executive order temporarily suspends admission. Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

But there have been at least three non-deadly cases in which the perpetrator was connected to Iran or Somalia.

Nadler’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 6 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 9

Share The Facts
Jerrold Nadler
Democratic representative from New York

"The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts

in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president's

executive order."

in a CNN interview — Saturday, January 28, 2017

SHARE

READ MORE

POLITIFACT
q

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 7 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 9

About this statement:
Published: Sunday, January 29th, 2017 at 5:42 p.m. Researched by: Miriam Valverde Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan Subjects: Homeland Security, Immigration
Sources:
The New York Times, Full Executive Order Text: Trump’s Action Limiting Refugees Into the U.S., Jan. 27, 2017 CNN, CNN Newsroom transcript, Jan. 28, 2017 The New York Times, President Trump’s Immigration Order, Annotated, Jan. 28, 2017 New America, Terrorism in America After 9/11, accessed Jan. 29, 2017
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

No terrorist attacks post 9/11 by people from countries in Trump's travel ban? | PolitiFact

Page 8 of 11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-9 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 9

Email interview, Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, Jan. 29, 2017
Email interview, William C. Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law, Jan. 29, 2017
Email interview, John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, Jan. 29, 2017
WRAL.com, UNC 'Pit' attacker gets up to 33 years; victims share their stories, updated Dec. 17, 2015
Carolina Alumni Review, Driver in Pit Incident Sentenced to Prison, Aug. 27, 2008
The Denver Post, AP, Man sentenced in SUV attack, Aug. 26, 2008
Cato Institute, Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for "National Security" Reasons, Jan. 26, 2017
TERRORISM SINCE 9/11 The American Cases, Edited by John Mueller, Jan. 10, 2017
PolitiFact, Democratic senator: Fixes to immigration system might already be on the books, Jan. 18, 2017
The New York Times, Suspect Is Killed in Attack at Ohio State University That Injured 11, Nov. 28, 2016
The New York Times, Ohio State Attacker May Have Been ‘Inspired’ by Al Qaeda, F.B.I. Says, Nov. 30, 2016
ABC News, 'This Week' Transcript 1-29-17: Sean Spicer, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Robert Gates, Jan. 29, 2017

How to contact us
Email comments and suggestions for fact-checks to truthometer@politifact.com or find us on Facebook,and Twitter. (If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.)
Videos

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attac...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 56

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 4
 
  
*  !  







  !

"
 
# $

%
 &'

(
!
)


 
% !


#

* 

 (*
+,
 


 
 
-'
 * 

(*.


 
  
  /
%
/
0
%(.
  '
  
(*
 *.

 

1

 
 

'

 
(*

 


 
**
*

1 
(*
% 
 %(2!1


)2!3(
+.
 

 )
 ' 
 
 
 4
!1(+ 

 

1 


  

  

  
 

 


(4
!1  

 %
5$
!(
00
%!! 

$(  
 !
'


  


1  . 0
(
*. 


 

 

6(%(

71   
1 

 
)
  * !




(
%
$

  
(
 5



   8

)
%
9%
%

,
:,

"
;<
(,
1
 =><
?%


(
* 


1







 
1*


$($
"

,
 (2 
 *,
:


 '
 
 ( ,

-1)

 
 
(*1
1   (*
) 
 $
 1
 
 ' 
  

:  
(
=@

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 4
%(2%
3
1

 %
)%!

%

 *2%
 3
*   
 



 (
*  
 
 

* 
(*) 
   

 
 
(*
%
 

 


 
:  
 
 # 
(
* 






# 
  
* 
(*  1 
# 
 
,

( 
&

( ) & 

A,

  8
 
 6(%(
 
# 
  1 
)

 
 
 )
 (2 

 

 
1
(

 

# 
 :(*
)
%(5
1
 
 


(
*
 


 


-

  








*5
1
 

%

(*8 


: 
 




 ,
 


,

 (*
) 0$
! 
/

 %
&
5
1& (
* 

 
    
 

 
* /


)2!3(*)
,
 
 


 


)
 



(*
0
* 


, )
 
 
   



(*
/

 
  
1

%
! 

  



  
 
,

)

 (
$()
   



 

 6(%(  8

 %



 '(
*"1(

&'

(&'
 
 
* 
*,&





(,  
 


 1 !(*
,
 
)
 * &


 6 %
B
 C

((((
  6%

  
)5( (*
0

*. 8





&


 
&


$"
(*
$( 1!
!

2
5
1


:   

&(
5
1
52,




 
* 
1* !


>@

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-10 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 4




* (* %(%
!$ 



 *
*


 *

(* *5'
  
,
: 1)
,
:


 

 

 

 


  

1 
,
:* 
( %(0
 $6
 
 *
 

# 
1 


 

(*  



@@

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 57

Trump’s travel ban is a gift to Iran’s rulers - The Washington Post

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3

bitatington jkot
Opinions
Trump’s travel ban is a gift to Iran’s rulers

By Hadi Ghaemi January 29
Hadi Ghaemi is the founder and executive director of the Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
President Trump’s travel ban on Iranians is a gift to the Islamic republic and its hard-line rulers. It will not deter terrorism on U.S. soil. Not a single terrorist involved in the 9/11 attacks or other fatal terrorist attacks in the United States since then has been of Iranian origin.
Instead, Trump’s policy is a collective punishment of a diverse and changing nationality, and will ironically serve the purposes of Iran’s hard-line rulers.
Who are the Iranians who will be harmed by this policy?
I have been helping Iranian refugees reach safety for more than a decade. A recent case is that of Reza, his wife and their 3-yearold daughter. Reza, whose full name I cannot use for security reasons, is a victim of torture at the hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards at Tehran’s notorious Kahrizak prison.
Reza fled to Turkey in 2013, and after years waiting, he and his family were recently approved for resettlement in the United States. He hoped to arrive sometime this year, once security vetting by U.S. agencies was complete.
His hopes are shattered. He and his family are suddenly rendered effectively stateless and homeless, with nowhere to turn. Instead of welcoming a regime opponent to the United States, we are effectively throwing Reza and his family back into the treacherous hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The Iranian refugees who have settled in the United States over the past decade are chiefly victims of the regime’s harsh crackdowns, including students, journalists, women’s rights activists and lawyers. These are the Iranians who have vocally and ferociously opposed the Islamic republic.
Another Iranian who was on her way to the United States — but now will likely never reach here — is a young women’s rights activist. For years she has led a movement to change Iran’s discriminatory practices toward women, anonymously through social media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-travel-ban-is-a-gift-to-irans-rulers/2017/01/29/a85b7d7c-e...

Trump’s travel ban is a gift to Iran’s rulers - The Washington Post

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-11 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3

Her dream is to strengthen her activism and knowledge base by attending a U.S. human rights program, and she has just been accepted to an Ivy League university. Without the travel ban, she would be on her way to fulfilling her dream and upon return to Iran would bring back valuable experience and knowledge for her fight against gender discrimination.
But now the door has been slammed in her face. She and her generation of women’s rights activists in Iran will continue their work, make no mistake, but they will have to struggle harder to break out of their isolation and confront their oppressive rulers.
Indeed, the people who are most likely to travel between Iran and the United States — the people most affected by any ban — are Iranians who hold Western values of moderation and tolerance and believe in open political and economic systems. It’s in the interest of the United States to strengthen these values in Iran however it can.
Isolating Iran from engagement with the West is not the way to fortify the forces of moderation in Iran — and it is exactly the opposite of strategy adopted by previous presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, who conscientiously encouraged nongovernmental and cultural interaction between citizens of the Soviet Union and its satellite countries and the United States, even at the height of the Cold War.
The Iranian government thrives on isolating its population and choking off criticism. But Iran’s young population has been striving to break free of this isolation. In Iran, public opinion of the United States is much more favorable than in any other country in the Middle East and North Africa.
By excluding all Iranians, Trump is only making it harder for the most promising elements of Iranian society to stand up to their repressive system and change their country for the better.
This policy will extend the Islamic republic’s longevity, disrupt the lives of 1.5 million Iranian Americans and fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the region. None of these developments will help secure our country from terrorism.
Read more:
The Post’s View: President Trump’s refugee ban is an affront to American values

Matt Zeller: Trump shuts the door on men and women who have sacrificed for America Daoud Kuttab: When America was great Ruth Marcus: Trump’s erratic first week was among the most alarming in history Adam Jentleson: Senate Democrats have the power to stop Trump. All they have to do is use it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-travel-ban-is-a-gift-to-irans-rulers/2017/01/29/a85b7d7c-e...

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 58

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 1 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 5

1
Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000
UN humanitarian aid office says 40,000 people also injured in the conflict while 10 million need 'urgent assistance'.
The UN ranks the conflict in Yemen as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises [Reuters]

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 2 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 5

Live The United Nations' humanitarian aid official in Yemen has said that the civilian death toll in the nearly two-year conflict has reached 10,000, WNeitwnear,lsiaemsMreidpdolert Egausntfire arDouoncdumUeKntaries Shows Investigations Opinion BREAKINGM: ore, The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs' Jamie McGoldrick said that the figure is based on lists of victims gathered by health facilities and the actual number might be higher.
McGoldrick also said that up to 10 million people need "urgent assistance to protect their safety, dignity and basic rights", according to a separate social media post early on Tuesday.

READ MORE: Yemen's orphans face 'catastrophe' as fighting rages
The announcement marks the first time a UN official has confirmed such a high death toll in Yemen, the Arab world's poorest nation.
"This once more underscores the need to resolve the situation in Yemen without any further delay," UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said in New York.
"There's been a huge humanitarian cost."
The Yemen conflict pits Houthi rebels and allied forces against an Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia.
The coalition began an air campaign in March 2015 to restore the internationally recognised government that fled the country after Houthis seized the capital Sanaa.
On Monday, reports said 34 people were killed and 16 others wounded during clashes between Houthis and pro-government forces in the southern Shabwa province.

McGoldrick was in the Yemeni capital Sanaa to get updates on the ongoing conflict [AP]

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 3 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 5

New peace plan
Witness,M..c.Goldrick's remarks come as UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Ismail "I Ould Cheikh Ahmed, held talks with Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, president of Yemen, in the southern city of Aden.
Ould Cheikh Ahmed is hoping to revive peace prospects in Yemen after Hadi rejected his proposed plan. He is due to report to the UN Security Council later this month.

NO Live

The plan provides for a new unity government in Yemen and a rebel withdrawal from the capital and other cities.

"A peace agreement, including a well-articulated security plan and the formation of an inclusive government, is the only way to end the war that has fuelled the development of terrorism in Yemen and the region," Ould Cheikh Ahmed said in a statement.

WATCH: Children bear the brunt of Yemen's ongoing war (2:14)

"I asked the president to act swiftly and engage constructively with the UN's proposal for the sake of the country's future."

"The current political stalemate is causing death and destruction every day. The only way to stop this is through the renewal of the cessation of hostilities followed by consultations to develop a comprehensive agreement."

Under the proposal, Hadi's powers would be dramatically diminished in favour of a new vice president who would oversee the formation of the interim government that will lead a transition to elections.

The envoy has been holding talks in the Gulf region in recent weeks, including in Riyadh, where he met Yemen's central bank governor to ease a cash crisis in rebel-held areas.

One of the poorest countries in the Arab world, Yemen slid deeper into chaos when the Saudi-led coalition intervened in 2015 to push back the rebels who had seized Sanaa and other parts of the country.

The United Nations ranks the conflict in Yemen as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000 | Yemen News | Al Jazeera

Page 4 of 10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 5

Live
Yemen: Who controls what
Witnesses report gunfire around UK parliament in London ...tigations Opinion
BREAKING: ore

Seiyun Sanaa Marib

Hodeidah Taiz -

Ibb Zinjibar

Aden

Source'. At Jazeera, Agencios, Critcni Threats LW.. Nrmainixr wis

Mukalla
• 57ZsgtoiLdi
Houthi control or influence Al•Paecla control Or influence •Imndileitipaesndent loca I • Contested cities Sparsely populated areas

• 41.11.1

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies
Middle East Yemen
Tell us what you think

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 59

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 1 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6

of I I I I I I I B B

News Sport Weather Shop Earth Travel

I

I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Home Video World US & Canada UK Business Tech Science Magazine
US & Canada

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy?

By Joel Gunter BBC News
8 December 2015 US & Canada

.4 Share

Raising the bar once again for US political controversy, Donald Trump called on Monday for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

Republican road to the White House

The Republican presidential frontrunner claimed that research by the respected Pew organisation showed a "great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population" - but he did not refer to any specific study to support that claim, and we can't find one that does.
Mr Trump did cite a specific a study by the Center for Security Policy - "very highly respected people, who I know, actually" - which he said showed that 25% of Muslims in the US believed violence against America was justified "as part of the global jihad".

How do you debate Donald Trump?
Clinton v Trump v Merkel v Putin
50 Trump fans explain why they love him
How Donald Trump captures the White House

Mr Trump's press release:

MMIIIk • • M = MIMI

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 2 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6

Ircunnr

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim immigration
New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from tilt Center for Security Policy •eleased data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, ''agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharjah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women,
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred Is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine, Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
But what exactly is the Center for Security Policy, and just how highly respected is it?
It's a conservative think-tank
The CSP was founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney Jr, a former staffer in the Ronald Reagan administration who has been accused of Islamophobia. On its website, the centre calls itself a "Special Forces in the War of Ideas" which offers "maximum bang for the buck" to its donors.
The CSP does not publish information about who those donors are, but according to a 2013 report by Salon they include some of the US's biggest aviation and defence companies - Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Electric.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 3 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6

Promoted on the organisation's website are reports and books with titles such as Star Spangled Sharia, Civilisation Jihad, and Muslim Colonisation of America. Responding to the controversy over Mr Trump's remarks, the CSP said it was "necessary to respond to the threat posed by jihadist terror in a way that ... calls it what it is".
It's not very highly respected
The CSP has been criticised across the political spectrum - by high-profile Republicans as well as Democrats - and by organisations which monitor extremist groups. Terri Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community and J Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, called it "an extremist think-tank" led by an "anti-Muslim conspiracist".
The group was heavily criticised in 2012 after it repeatedly accused Huma Abedin, an aide to Hillary Clinton, of being a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Leading Republicans including John McCain and John Boehner denounced the accusations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 4 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6

REUTERS Huma Abedin (centre) has been accused by Frank Gaffney of secret ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

The CSP has been criticised by a wide range of extremism monitoring organisations, including the Anti-Defamation League, and Center for Democratic Values at City University of New York.
Does its research stand up?
Arguably, no. According to the Bridge Initiative, a Georgetown University Islamophobia research project, the CSP survey was an online, self-selecting poll of 600 people, meaning respondents opted in to taking part.
Self-selecting internet surveys are less reliable that more traditional, random polling methods, because the opt-in element can lead to bias. Then there are the existing views of the organisation commissioning the poll - the CSP - which may have influenced the outcome.

Donald Trump calls for "shutdown of Muslims"
The Washington Post called the poll "shoddy". According to the Post, the question had an agree/disagree answer format with agree in each case linked to the more controversial option - favouring Sharia law or supporting violence. Researchers say this format is affected by "acquiescence response bias" - we are generally more likely to favour agree options. The CSP said in a statement on Sunday that its research methods were "consistent with international industry standards".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Page 5 of 12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-13 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6

Who is Frank Gaffney Jr?
Mr Gaffney Jr served in the Reagan administration during the 1980s but left in 1988 to form the CSP, after his nomination as assistant secretary of defence was rejected by the Senate.

Frank Gaffney Jr has been widely accused of Islamophobia

GETTY IMAGES

"Once a respectable Washington insider," according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which monitors US hate groups and extremists, Mr Gaffney Jr became "one of America's most notorious Islamophobes", the SPLC said.
Mr Gaffney Jr has repeatedly accused parts of America's Muslim population of what he calls "civilisational jihad". He has also called for Muslims to be investigated by a "new and improved" House Un-American Activities Committee - a highly controversial Cold War-era body which questioned and blacklisted US citizens accused of being communists.

Related Topics
Donald Trump

Share this story About sharing

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 60

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll
Page 1 of 8 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6
Tr um p Cal ls for Ban on M u slim s, Cites EORGETOW N.EDeepl/y) Fl awed Pol l
Post ed on Decem ber 7, 20 15 at 6:48 am . Written by Bridge Initiative Team (http://bridge.georgetown.edu/author/admin/)
http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 2 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6

UPDATE (DECEM BER 7, 2015) In a press release today, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump (http://bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobiaand-the-2016-elections/#DonaldTrump) called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims (https:// www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-214105912.html) entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

His statement also cites a deeply flawed poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a group with a history of fear mongering about Islam and Muslims.

In June, when the poll was released and circulated widely on networks like Fox News, we debunked its findings, writing:

This survey (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslimsshows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/) should not be taken seriously. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and was administered using an unreliable methodology. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide.
Donald Trump is only the latest proponent of CSP’s dubious claims. In an interview with MSNBC, Saba Ahmed recounted how GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson told her that Frank Gaffney, CSP’s director, advised him on issues related to Islam. Numerous other GOP candidates, like Ted Cruz (http:// bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-and-the-2016-elections/#TedCruz) and George Pataki (http:// bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-and-the-2016-elections/#GeorgePataki), have attended (http:// bridge.georgetown.edu/presidential-candidates-set-to-appear-at-event-hosted-by-anti-muslimconspiracy-theorist/) and spoken at CSP’s national summits.
Trump’s comment about banning Muslims is only the latest in a series of troubling remarks about Muslims made by Trump and other GOP presidential candidates. These comments are documented in our “Islamophobia and the 2016 Elections (http://bridge.georgetown.edu/islamophobia-and-the-2016elections/)” resource.

Original article (Published June 26, 2015)
On June 24, 2015, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington, D.C. think tank run by former Reagan official Frank Gaffney released a survey (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousandssupport-shariah-jihad/) of 600 Muslims living in the United States. Its takeaway, captured in a headline on the CSP website, is this: “Poll of US Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.”

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 3 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6

The poll gained quick traction online and in the media. On the evening of its release, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnhi03bWIA) also lent credence to its findings and cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country.

Among the poll’s findings are:
• “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
• “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
• “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”
But this survey (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslimsshows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/) should not be taken seriously. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and was administered using an unreliable methodology. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide.

Here are the details.
CSP’S H I STORY OF BASELESS FEARM ONGERI N G In recent years, many groups have raised questions about the objectivity and intentions of Frank Gaffney. His tendency to posit conspiracies about Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood is well documented, and has earned him sharp critique across the political spectrum. The Center for American Progress labels (https://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia_chapter2.pdf) him a “misinformation expert,” while the Conservative Political Action Committee banned (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/cpacbanned-frank-gaffney-over-baseless-anti-muslim-charges) him from their 2011conference for peddling false accusations about GOP connections to Muslim extremists. It was his organization, CSP, that was behind the unfounded rumor (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/23/bachmann-gaffneyand-the-gop-s-anti-muslim-culture-of-conspiracy.html) that Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Huma Abedin, was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and once floated the false idea (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/28/161792/frank-gaffney-david-petraeus-sharia/) that General David Petraeus had “submitted” to shariah.

Since the early 2000s, CSP has generated dozens of occasional papers, blogs, and reports that fixate on shariah or other allegedly nefarious topics related to Islam. Often, they are loosely sourced (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/egyptians-who-jeered-clinton-cite-americanconservatives-to-argue-u-s-secretly-supports-islamists/?_r=0) or entirely unsubstantiated (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/02/25/83953/missile-defense-logo-conspiracy/), relying

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 4 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6

instead on a furtive web of connections or, in one case, a 24-year-old document written by a lone (http:// www.alternet.org/story/150444/welcome_to_the_shari%27ah_conspiracy_theory_industry) Muslim activist that has since been roundly discredited.
FALSE STATI STI CS AN D FALSE CLAI M S Both Gaffney and O’Reilly claim that the poll’s findings are representative of nationwide Muslim public opinion. But this assertion is untrue.

CSP’s survey was a non-probability based, opt-in online survey, administered by the conservative group, the Polling Company/Woman Trend, a small Washington-based agency that has collaborated with CSP on other occasions to produce surveys about Islam and Muslims. (We learned this after reaching out to the Polling Company to get more details about their methodology, which wasn’t released to the public when Gaffney began promoting the survey’s findings.)

According to the body that sets ethical standards for polling, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Communications/PressReleases/Understanding-a-credibility-interval%E2%80%9D-and-how-it-d.aspx) (AAPOR), opt-in surveys cannot be considered representative of the intended population, in this case Muslims. The AAPOR says that in these cases (http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Education-Resources/ForResearchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Why-Sampling-Works.aspx), “the pollster has no idea who is responding to the question” and that these kind (http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Communications/PressReleases/Understanding-a-credibility-interval%E2%80%9D-and-how-it-d.aspx) of “polls do not have such a ‘grounded statistical tie’ to the population.”

So when O’Reilly and guest Zuhdi Jasser pointed to this survey and made claims about what “25%of three million, which is hundreds of thousands of Muslims” believe, it’s not only a misleading statement—it’s outright false.

This survey does not represent the views of American Muslims. It only represents the views of the 600 Muslims that it polled.
LOADED QUESTI ON S AN D AN SW ERS Another problem with this poll is the way that questions and answers are phrased. Often, they are not neutral but are imbued with assumptions, and replicate, in an interrogative form, statements that Gaffney and CSP have declared as fact for years. In one question, respondents are asked: “Do you believe the Muslim Brotherhood in America accurately represents your views?” Packed into this question is the assertion that the Brotherhood indeed exists in the United States —something that Gaffney has long propagated. Those who answer “yes” confirm his suspicions, while those who answer “no” acknowledge nonetheless that the group is present here. They’re put into a lose-lose situation.

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

Page 5 of 8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 35-14 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6

In several questions that are asked about shariah, the content of what shariah actually is remains unexamined. Even when Gaffney’s survey appears to be more nuanced by asking Muslims how they would “characterize shariah,” it only offers options about how broadly sharia—whatever it is—should be applied. Answers ranging from “guide to the personal practice of Islam” to Gaffney’s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqV8syZPPT4) preferred option (“the Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via jihad”) still don’t allow Muslims to express about what they believe about shariah.

Respondents’ likely answered questions on shariah based on their understanding of the concept, but those views were not measured in the survey, nor communicated to the Fox News audience. Instead viewers are left to believe that Muslim Americans support shariah as Gaffney and O’Reilly have portrayed it for years: a “brutally repressive” law hostile to non-Muslims (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNsqjN4vpgk). At the end of the day, Gaffney and O’Reilly make it look like Muslims support things they actually don’t.
SELECTI VE READI N G AN D EX AGGERATI ONS Sixty-percent of respondents agreed that “shariah as interpreted by Islamic authorities is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and other rights,” and 51%chose this definition of jihad: “Muslims’ peaceful, personal struggle to be more religious.” These rare but helpful nuances are not even alluded to in the promotion and coverage of the survey’s findings in conservative outlets like Fox News.

O’Reilly also makes exaggerations that the already-flawed data doesn’t support. “Fifty-one percent [of Muslims] say sharia law should be the reigning law,” he said. But that language is nowhere in the survey data he’s likely referencing, which says that “a majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Despite its unreliability, the survey and its findings have spread quickly, with generalizations (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/poll_shows_high_levels_of_support_for_shariah_law_and_violence_amo about American Muslims ricocheting (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/1-in-5-usmuslims-support-violence-to-enforce-islamic-law/) across the Internet and social media (https://twitter.com/ProgsToday/status/613782066354765824), and bleeding into more mainstream outlets. Unfortunately, the general public is not equipped with the tools or knowledge to dissect such claims and is left to accept them at face value. This is especially so when they’re touted by a trusted personality, like Bill O’Reilly, and confirm pre-existing beliefs about Muslims.

Though the public may not see it, the problems with this poll are numerous: CSP has a history of fabricating fear about Islam and Muslims; the survey’s questions and answers are loaded with bias; and its creators and proponents falsely claim that its findings represent the views of all American Muslims.

The American public shouldn’t trust this poll.

http://bridge.georgetown.edu/new-poll-on-american-muslims-is-grounded-in-bias-riddled-with-flaws/

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.,

Defendants.

Declaration of Professor Lila Abu-Lughod

I, Lila Abu-Lughod, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify.

2. I am the Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science in the Department of

Anthropology and the Institute for Research on Women, Gender and Sexuality at Columbia

University. I have been a professor of anthropology since 1983 and taught at a number of higher

education research institutions, including Williams College, Princeton University and New York

University.

3. I received my undergraduate degree in Sociology and Anthropology in 1974 from

Carleton College. I earned my Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from Harvard University in 1984.

4. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.

5. My research focuses, as relevant here, on three broad issues: (1) the relationship between

cultural forms and power; (2) the politics of knowledge and representation; and (3) the dynamics

of gender and the question of women’s rights in the Middle East. I have conducted extensive

ethnographic research in Egypt and elsewhere, focusing on the lived experience of women in a

range of social, economic, and political circumstances.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6
6. I have published extensively on how Muslim women are portrayed in western society. I rely on my research and excerpts from my prior publications, including chapter 4 of Do Muslim Women Need Saving? (Harvard University Press 2013), titled Seductions of the “Honor Crime” (Exhibit 2), and The cross-publics of ethnography: The case of ‘the Muslimwoman’ (Exhibit 3), in making this declaration. This book chapter and article discuss from a scholarly perspective the origins and uses of the term “honor crime.” 7. I have also considered the other documents that are referenced or cited in this report.
Introduction 8. The text of the first provision of President Trump’s January 27, 2017, entitled “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” cites the practice of “honor killings” (or “honor crimes”) as justification for the exclusion of persons originating from certain Muslim-majority countries from the United States. Section 1 states that: “[T]he United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry and hatred (including ‘honor killings,’ other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) ….” 9. The reference to “honor killings” is repeated in section 11(iii) of President Trump’s March 6, 2017, executive order of the same name. Section 11 requires the acquisition and dissemination of “information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called "honor killings," in the United States by foreign nationals.” The executive order specifies that this information is to be gathered for the purported reason of “be[ing] more transparent with the American people.” 10. These references to honor killings in both executive orders seek to justify travel restrictions by linking violence against women to the specific groups targeted by the executive
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 6
orders. My research has demonstrated that the term “honor killing,” or “honor crime,” has become a means of signaling a class of violence purportedly linked to Islam and committed by Muslim men. I have also demonstrated that invocation of “honor crimes” has become a way of stigmatizing and demeaning Islam as a faith and Muslim men as a group as uncivilized and dangerous. In this way, rhetoric about “honor killing” or “honor crime” is a means of implicitly but powerfully conjuring negative and misleading stereotypes about Islam and Muslims. 11. It bears noting here that the use of pejorative stereotypes about Muslims is not limited to the face of the two executive orders. On December 7, 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and asserted by way of justification that Islamic law authorizes “unthinkable acts that pose great harm to . . . women.”1 The term “honor killings” is rooted in and reflects a perjorative and misleading stereotype
about Muslims 12. The terms “honor killing” and “honor crime” have been defined as “the killing of a woman by her relatives for violation of a sexual code in the name of restoring family honor.” Exhibit 2, at 113. These terms demarcate a culturally specific form of violence, distinct from other forms of domestic or intimate partner violence. Exhibit 2, at 119-20. By contrast, violence committed by men against women in the United States, while regrettably pervasive, is rarely or never characterized in terms of the culture or religion of perpetrators. Id. 13. In particular, my study of the use of the term “honor killing” suggests that the news stories, reports, and political positions that invoke that term almost always link such crimes
1 Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration, DONALDJTRUMP.COM (Dec. 7, 2015), https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donaldj.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6
specifically to Islam. Other scholars who have studied the manner in which the term “honor killing” is invoked find the same assumed connection to Islam and Muslim identity.2 14. Neither Islamic law nor its religious authorities, however, uniformly or consistently condone honor crimes. Exhibit 2, at 114. Rather, in my experience as an anthropologist in the Middle East, I have commonly seen Islam and Islamic law explicitly invoked against gender violence. Exhibit 2, at 139. Moreover, there is nothing characteristically “Muslim” or “Islamic” about the observed incidence of violent and abusive behavior against women. Such reprehensible conduct is observed in Christian-majority countries, such as the United States, and in many, if not all, national contexts with equally dismaying frequency. 15. Rather than conveying an accurate implication, the term “honor killing” is a way of misleadingly categorizing violence against women as a quintessentially Muslim problem. It is therefore a way of portraying Muslim communities as deficient, backward and prone to violence. As such, the term “honor crime” is commonly invoked by individuals and groups with an antiMuslim agenda because it reinforces the stigmatization of Muslims as violent and backward.. Exhibit 2, at 125; see also Exhibit 3, at 598. It is a rhetorical strategy “that works through fantasy to attach people to a set of values they are made to associate strictly with modernity and the West.” Exhibit 2, at 121. 16. In my experience as an anthropologist, working in a range of Muslim societies, and listening closely to the stories and travails of Muslim women, the idea that Islam is distinctively to blame for violence against women is false. Exhibit 2, at 120-21.
2 See, e.g., Leti Volpp, Blaming Culture for Bad Behavior, 12 Yale J.L. & Human. 89, 103 (2000) (noting how media reporting characterizes “honor crimes” as related to “Muslim mores”); Juliane Hammer, Center Stage: Gendered Islamophobia and Muslim Women, in Islamophobia in America 107-44 (Carl W. Ernst, ed. 2010).
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6
17. As I have explained in my scholarship, the portrayal of Muslim women as oppressed, socially subordinate individuals within their society serves as a way of condemning the “dangerous Muslim man.” Exhibit 2, at 118-20. The term “honor killing” ignores the realities and complexities of the women themselves, who face many different challenges and many forms of violence (often as a result of state action or inaction, rather than because of culture or family). 18. The term “honor killing” is often a post hoc designation that reflects the biases and assumptions of the observer rather than the facts of specific incidences of tragic violence. In Chapter 4 of Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, I give the example of the February 2005 murder of a young woman, Hatun Sürücü, in Berlin. According to Dr. Katherine Ewing, an anthropologist and director of Columbia University’s Institute for Religion, Culture and Public Life who authored a study called Stolen Honor: Stigmatizing Muslim Men in Berlin (Stanford University Press 2008), based on ethnographic research on Turks in Germany, Sürücü’s tragic death led to a “media frenzy” about a “spate of honor killings” and allowed politicians to “tar the Muslim community.” Yet careful investigation of Sürücü’s life suggests other causes than a concern for “honor.” That investigation revealed the so-called “spate” of killings as a post hoc classification of murders that largely did not fit the description of “honor killings.” It also exposed public blaming of Islam that ignored the fact that the Islamic Council in Berlin roundly condemned Sürücü’s murder. In this case, Professor Ewing explains that invocation of concern about honor killings has “come to stand in for Germans’ fears of an untamed parallel society in their midst.” Exhibit 2, at 132-34. 19. The invocation of the term “honor killing,” I have therefore concluded, is a way of stigmatizing Muslim (and especially Muslim men) as a backward and violent group.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 24
Exhibit 1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

LILA ABU-LUGHOD

Department of Anthropology 452 Schermerhorn Extension Columbia University 1200 Amsterdam Ave. New York, NY 10027

e-mail: la310@columbia.edu Phone: (212) 854-3693

EDUCATION

Ph.D. Harvard University, Social Anthropology, 1984 M.A. Harvard University, Social Anthropology, 1978 B.A. Carleton College, Magna cum laude, Distinction in Sociology-Anthropology, 1974

ACADEMIC POSITIONS

2009-present Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science, Columbia University,

Department of Anthropology and Institute for Research on Women, Gender and

Sexuality

2012--2015 Director, Middle East Institute, Columbia University

2009--2014 Director or co-director, Center for the Critical Analysis of Social Difference,

Columbia

2008--2009 William B. Ransford Professor of Anthropology and Gender Studies, Columbia

University

2004--2007 Director, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Columbia University

2000--2007 Professor of Anthropology and Women’s Studies, Columbia University

1998-2000 Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies, New York University

1991-98

Associate Professor of Anthropology, New York University

1995-99

Co-director, Program to Internationalize Women's Studies, New York University

1990-91

Assistant Professor of Religion and Associated Faculty, Department of

Anthropology, Princeton University

1983-87

Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology and Sociology,Williams College

HONORS and PRIZES

2008 2007 2007
2006 1999 1994
1988

Lenfest Distinguished Faculty Award, Columbia University American Ethnological Society Senior Book Prize (for Dramas of Nationhood) Outstanding Senior Scholar Award, Middle East Section, American Anthropological Association Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota Alumni Award for Distinguished Achievement, Carleton College Victor Turner Prize (for Writing Women's Worlds), Society for Humanistic Anthropology, American Anthropological Association. Silver Medal for Outstanding Contributions to the Development of Anthropological and Ethnological Science through Publication (for Veiled Sentiments), International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

1987 1984
1984
1974

Chicago Folklore Prize, Honorable Mention for Veiled Sentiments. Stirling Award for Contributions to Psychological Anthropology, Society for Psychological Anthropology and the American Anthropological Association. Malcolm Kerr Dissertation Prize in the Social Sciences, Middle East Studies Association of North America. Phi Beta Kappa, Carleton College.

ENDOWED LECTURES

2019 2017 2015 2014 2012 2012 2012 2009 2008 2007 2006 2003 2001 1996 1995 1995 1994

B.N. Ganguli Memorial Lecture, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi (invited) Morgan Lecturer, Clarke Forum for Contemporary Issues, Dickinson College Edward Said Memorial Lecture, American University in Cairo Maryse and Ramzy Mikhail Memorial Lecture, University of Toledo. Hawthorn Lecturer, University of British Columbia, Canada. Ira Wender Visitor in Cultural Understanding, Carleton College. Farhat Ziadeh Distinguished Lecture in Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Washington. Radcliffe-Brown Lecture in Social Anthropology, the British Academy. Ridington Lecture, McDaniel College. Kareema Khoury Annual Distinguished Lecture, Georgetown University. Wendt Visiting Scholar, The Hackley School. Bella Abzug Lecture, Women’s Studies, Hunter College, CUNY. Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures, University of Rochester. Antonius Lecture, St Antony's College, Oxford. Sabbagh Lecture, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. Paul Riesman Memorial Lecture, Carleton College. Inaugural Yale-Maria Lecture in Middle East Studies, University of New Hampshire.

FELLOWSHIPS AND RESEARCH GRANTS

2007-2009 2007-2008 1997 1996-97 1995-96 1995 1993 1991-93
1990-91 1989-90 1989-90
1988-89 1987-88 1987

Carnegie Scholar, Carnegie Foundation American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship for University Teachers New York University Challenge Fund Fellow, Institute for the Humanities, University of Michigan Presidential Fellowship, New York University SSRC Collaborative Grant for Research Planning in Transnational and Comparative Studies (with T. Mitchell): Questions of Modernity: Strategies for Post-Orientalist Scholarship on the Middle East and South Asia University Preceptorship, Princeton University American Research Center in Egypt NEH Fellowship ACLS/SSRC Near and Middle East Committee Grant for Advanced Research (project on Islam and Public Culture in Contemporary Egypt) Mellon Fellow in the Humanities, University of Pennsylvania Member, The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton Fulbright Award, Islamic Civilization Program (field research in Egypt, Bedouin)

2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

1986-87
1985
1981-82 1980-83
1977-80 1974

National Endowment for the Humanities, Fellowship for College Teachers (Ethnography in a Different Voice) Williams College Faculty Research Grant and Travel Grant from the Program on African and Middle Eastern Studies American Association of University Women, Marion Talbot Dissertation Fellowship. Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship and National Resource Fellowships, Harvard University. National Institute of Mental Health, Predoctoral Training Grant (3 years). HEW Fellowship for Intensive Arabic Study in Tunis (NACAS), summer.

INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS

2016-2019

Grant from the Henry Luce Foundation to the Center for the Study of Social Difference for the project co-directed by Lila Abu-Lughod, Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Rema Hammami and Janet Jakobsen on “Religion and the Global Framing of Gender Violence.”

2014-2016

Grant from Carnegie Foundation to the Middle East Institute and the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies for mobility fellowships for Arab social scientists to spend 4-6 months at Columbia. $300,000. Three Carnegie Centennial Fellows selected for fall 2014 and one for fall 2016.

2013-2014

“The Power of Women’s Islamic Education” workshop organized with Amina Tawasil on November 8-9, 2013; workshop on “Debating the ‘Woman Question’ in the New Middle East” at the Columbia Global Centers |Middle East (Amman), May 3-4. Both part of the project Women Creating Change on “Gender, Religion, and Law in Muslim Societies,” Center for the Study of Social Difference. Funding through the Luce Foundation’s grant to IRCPL, the Global Centers, Center for the Study of Social Difference, and the Blinken European Institute.

2012-2013

Project on “Islamic Feminists, Islamist Women, and the Women Between.” International working group funded by the Blinken European Institute, Columbia University. Co-organized with Anupama Rao and Katherine Ewing. Reid Hall, Columbia Global Center | Europe, January 18-19, 2013.

2010-2012

Project on Islam, Gender, and Law (Center for the Study of Social Difference and Center for Democracy, Toleration, and Religion: Columbia University). Co-organized with Anupama Rao an international conference at Columbia University Middle East Research Center, Amman, Jordan on “Religious Law, Local Practices, and the Global Politics of Muslim Women’s Rights: The Politics of Consent,” April 9-10, 2011.

2008-2010

Center for the Critical Analysis of Social Difference and Institute for the Study of Religion, Culture, and Public Life, Columbia University. Collaborative Project on “Liberalism’s Others” with Anupama Rao, Katherine Franke, Elizabeth Povinelli, and Neferti Tadiar. Organized workshops on “Who’s Afraid of Shari’a?” “Is Islamic Reform Secular?” and “Competing Legalities? Violence, Gender, Shari'a, and the State,” as well as an ongoing faculty seminar and occasional public lectures.

3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

2005-2010 Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia U. for faculty workshop on “Gender and the Global Locations of Liberalism.: With Anupama Rao.

1995-99

Ford Foundation grant to integrate area studies and women's studies, through the Women's Studies Program, NYU, co-directed with Marilyn Young and Mary Nolan.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

Offices:

Chair, SSRC/ACLS Joint Committee on the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies (1991-1993); co-organizer, international dissertation workshops 1990, 1991; member (1988-1993).
Board, Society for Cultural Anthropology, 1992-1996; Program Chair, 1994 AAA Meetings.
Board of Directors, Society for Psychological Anthropology, 1987-89; Program Chair 1989 AAA Meetings.
Nominating Committee, Middle East Studies Association, 1994. Faculty Fellow, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia 2006-

Editorial:

Associate Editor, American Ethnologist (1991-1994) Consulting Editor, Feminist Studies (1992-1996; 2001-2003; 2006-) Editorial Collective, Public Culture: Society for Transnational Cultural Studies. Associate Editor, Cultural Studies (1995-1997) Editorial Board, Ethos (1996-2001) Associate Editor, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (1995-) Contributing Editor, Middle East Report (1996-2003) Contributing Editor Cross-Cultural Poetics (1996-) Editorial Board, Ethnography (2000-) Editorial Board, Centennial (2000-) Editorial Board, Life Writing (2003-) Editorial Board, Palestinian Review of Society and History (2004-) Editorial Board, Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies (2004-) Editorial Board, Journal of American Folklore (2005-) Editorial Review Board, Arab Studies Journal (2008-) Editorial Board, American Ethnologist (2012-) Editorial Board, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and Middle East (2012-) Editorial Board, Routledge Handbook of Language and Emotion (2017-) Editorial Board, Dutch Journal of Feminist Studies (2016-)

Advisory:

Advisory Board, Communal/Plural: Journal for Transnational and Cross Cultural Studies (1997-2001).
Advisory Board, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies Advisory Board, Critique: Journal for Critical Studies of the Middle East. Advisory Council, Advanced Study Center, International Institute, University of
Michigan (1997) Associate, Research Center for Religion and Society, University of Amsterdam (1996) Advisory Editor, Handbook of Interviewing, ed. J. Gubrium and J. Holstein Advisory Editor, Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
Advisory Editor, Ethnos (2006-) Advisory Board, The Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication (2007-2016) Advisory Board, Encounters: An International Journal for the Study of Culture and Society (2008-) Advisory Board, Al-Raida (2011-) International Advisory Board, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society (2012-)
Consulting: Qatar National Museum (2015-16); American Forum for Global Education: Middle East Curriculum Development (1994-96); Textbook Revision Project, Gender and the Anthropology Curriculum, American Anthropological Association (1988).
Reviewing:
Manuscript Reviews: Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics; American Anthropologist; American Ethnologist; American University of Cairo Press; Arab Studies Journal; Arab Studies Quarterly; Brill; British Journal of Middle East Studies; Columbia University Press; Cultural Anthropology; Culture; Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry; Cultural Studies; Current Anthropology; Diaspora; Duke University Press; Ethnic and Racial Studies; Ethnography; Ethnos; Ethos; Feminist Studies; Harvard University Press; Identities; International Journal of Middle East Studies; Journal of Contemporary Ethnography; Journal of Social Issues; Law and Social Inquiry; Meridians; National Women's Studies Journal; Northeast Modern Language Association; Northwestern University Press; Palestinian Review of Society and History; Political and Legal Anthropology Review; Routledge; Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society; Soros Fellowships in Reproductive Health; Stanford University Press; Syracuse University Press; University of California Press; University of Minnesota Press; University of Wisconsin Press; Violence against Women; Visual Anthropology; Visual Anthropology Review.
Fellowship Reviews: American Research Center in Egypt, NIMH, NEH, NEH Media, NEH Collaborative Research Grants, NSF, Smithsonian Institution, SSRC, Wenner Gren Foundation, National Humanities Center, Palestinian American Research Center, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study; Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Social Sciences, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; FEMMAGH Conference, Moving Gender: Conflicts, Negotiations and Redefinitions; Council for the Humanities of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.
Memberships: American Anthropological Association; American Ethnological Society; Association for Feminist Anthropology; Society for Cultural Anthropology; Middle East Studies Association; Association of Middle East Women’s Studies.
ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
Awlad `Ali Bedouin in Egypt's Western Desert, October 1978-May 1980, August 1985, December 1986-January 1987, May-September 1987, January 1989, December 2008. Islam, Television and Public Culture, Cairo and Upper Egypt, October 1989-July 1990; January-July 1993; January 1996; October 1996-June 1997; January 1999. Medicine and Consumption in rural Egypt, January-May 2001; Feb.-April 2004; Dec.-Jan. 2006. Discourse of Women's Rights, rural and urban Egypt, January 2007; March-April 2008, March 2009; Jordan April 2009; rural Egypt December 2009, December 2010. Impact of Egyptian Revolution, Upper Egypt and Western Desert, January 2012, 2013, 2014, Oct. 2015, January 2016
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
PUBLICATIONS
Books
Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Harvard University Press, 2013. Japanese translation forthcoming, Shoshi Shinsui.
Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt. Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. (American Ethnological Society Senior Book Prize, 2007) Other English Editions: American University in Cairo Press, 2005. Arabic Translation forthcoming, National Center for Translation, Egypt. Simplified Chinese Translation, The Commercial Press, forthcoming.
Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories. University of California Press, 1993 (Victor Turner Prize, 1994). Fifteenth Anniversary Edition with new preface, 2008.
Turkish Translation: Kadinlarin Dunyasi/Bedevi Oykuleri. Istanbul: Epsilon Yayinevi, 2004.
Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. University of California Press, 1986 (IUAES Silver Medal; Chicago Folklore Prize, honorable mention). Second edition, updated with a new preface, 2000. 30th Anniversary Edition, with a new Afterword, September 2016.
Other English Editions: American University in Cairo Press, 1987. Arabic Translation: Masha'ir Muhajaba. Nour Arab Publishing, Cairo, Egypt, 1995. Turkish Translation: Peceli Duygular. Istanbul: Epsilon Yayinevi, 2004 Italian Translation: Sentimenti Velati. Le Nuove Muse, Turin, 2007 French Translation: Sentiments Voilé. Les Empecheurs de Penser en Rond: Editions du Seuil, Paris, 2008
Edited Books
Nakba: Palestine, 1948 and the Claims of Memory. Co-edited with Ahmad H. Sa`di. Columbia University Press. The Cultures of History Series, 2007. Arabic Translation forthcoming, Institute for Palestine Studies, Beirut Tamil translation forthcoming, Ethir Veliyedu Press, India. Spanish Translation forthcoming, Editorial Canaán, Argentina
Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain. Co-edited with Faye Ginsburg and Brian Larkin. University of California Press, 2002. Chinese translation 2009. Taiwan.
Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East. Edited. Princeton University Press, Series in Culture/Power/History, 1998.
Other English Editions: American University in Cairo Press, 1998.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
Arabic Translation: Al-haraka al-nisa’iyya wa al-tatawwur fi al-sharq al-awsat. Cairo, Egypt: Supreme Council for Culture’s National Translation Project, 1999. Spanish Translation: Feminismo y Modernidad en Oriente Proximo. Feminismos. Madrid: Ediciones Catedra, Universitat de Valencia, Instituto de la Mujer, 2002. Japanese Translation, 2010.
Language and the Politics of Emotion, co-edited with C. Lutz. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Other Edited Works
2015 The Politics of Feminist Politics. Special forum: Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 35:1, December.
2011 Women’s Rights, Muslim Family Law, and the Politics of Consent. Co-edited with Anupama Rao. SOCIALDIFFERENCE-ONLINE, Vol. 1, December. http://www.socialdifference.org/files/SocDifOnline-Vol12012.pdf
2004 Guest Editor, Visual Anthropology Review Feature on “'Dreams of a Nation': A Palestinian Film Festival." American Anthropologist 106 (1):150-60.
1993 Screening Politics in a World of Nations. Guest Editor, Public Culture 5(3): 465-604.
1992 First Find Your Child a Good Mother: The Construction of Self in Two African Communities by Paul Riesman (edited by David Szanton, Lila Abu-Lughod, Sharon Hutchinson, Paul Stoller, and Carol Trosset). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Major Articles (minor articles, interviews, and reviews to follow in next section, p. 14)
n.d. In Every Village a Tahrir: Rural Youth in Moral Revolution, 2011-2012. In Public Space and Revolt: Tahrir Square 2011, ed. Elena Tzelepis and Sherene Seikely. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, in press.
n.d . Muslim Women and the “Right to Choose Freely” (in French). Special issue on “Femmes et Subjectivation en Islam,” edited by Abdelwahed Mekki-Berrada. Anthropologie & Societes, in press.
2016 The Cross-Publics of Ethnography: The Case of the “Muslimwoman.” American Ethnologist 43 (4): 595-608. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/amet.12377/full
2016 The Values of Ethnography: An Afterword. Veiled Sentiments, 30th Anniversary Edition. University of California Press.
2015 Managing Religion in the Name of National Community. Reprint of chapter 4 from Dramas of Nationhood in Islamism and Cultural Expression in the Arab World (Durham Modern Middle East and Islamic World Series), edited by Abir Hamdar and Lindsey Moore. Routledge, 2015,
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

pp. 60-86.

2014 Taking Back the Village: Rural Youth in a Moral Revolution. Middle East Report 272: 12-17.

2014 The Moral Basis of Hierarchy. In Moral Anthropology: A Critical Reader. Eds. Didier Fassin and Samuel Lézé. Routledge, pp. 173-181.

2013 Authorizing Moral Crusades to Save Muslim Women. The Farhat J. Ziadeh Lecture in Arab and Islamic Studies, 2012. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

2012a Living the "Revolution" in an Egyptian Village: Moral Action in a National Space. AE Commentary. American Ethnologist 39 (1):16-20. Reprinted section: The People, Place, and Space Reader, eds. Jen Jack Gieseking, William Mangold, Cindi Katz, Setha Low, and Susan Saegert. Routledge in press.
2012b Pushing at the Door: My Father’s Political Education, and Mine. In Seeking Palestine: New Palestinian Writing on Exile and Home, ed. Penny Johnson and Reja Shehadeh. Delhi, India: Women Unlimited, pp. 43-61.

2012c Forced Entry: My Father’s Education into Politics. In The Engaged Intellectual, eds. Asem Khalil and Roger Heacock. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod Institute for International Studies, Birzeit University Press. In English, Birzeit University Working Paper 2011/27 (ENG) in the Conferences & Public Events Module. http://home.birzeit.edu/ialiis/userfiles/Forced-Entry-MyFather-Education-Into-Politics.pdf Later published in Ibrahim Abu-Lughod and the Engaged Intellectual. Birzeit University, 2011.

2011a A Kind of Kinship. Being There: Learning to Live Cross-Culturally, ed. Sarah Davis and Melvin Konner. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 8-21.

2011b Seductions of the “Honor Crime.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 22 (1): 17-63.

2010 Anthropology in the Territory of Rights, Human, Islamic, and Otherwise. Radcliffe-Brown Lecture in Social Anthropology. Proceedings of the British Academy Vol. 167: 225-62.

2010 Against Universals: Dialects of (Women’s) Human Rights and Human Capabilities” In Rethinking the Human, ed. J. Michelle Molina, Don Swearer, and Susan Lloyd McGarry, pp. 69-93. Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School. Harvard University Press.

2010

The Active Social Life of “Muslim Women’s Rights”: A Plea for Ethnography, not Polemic, with Cases from Egypt and Palestine.” Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 6 (1), Winter: 1-45. Abridged and reprinted in Gender and Culture at the Limit of Rights, ed. Dorothy Hodgson, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

2009 Dialects of Women’s Empowerment: The International Circuitry of the Arab Human Development Report . International Journal of Middle East Studies 41, no. 1 (2009) February 83-103. Abridged Arabic translation: Al-Mustaqbal al-‘Arabi 354, August 2008: 88-102.

8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

2007

Return to Half-Ruins: Memory, Postmemory, and Living History in Palestine. In Nakba: Palestine, 1948 and the Claims of Memory, edited by Ahmad H. Sa’di and Lila Abu-Lughod. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 77-104. Abridged and reprinted as “Return to Half-Ruins: Fathers and Daughters, Memory and History in Palestine,” in Rites of Return, edited by Marianne Hirsch and Nancy Miller, Columbia University Press, 2011, 124-136. Arabic Translation: Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, 30, 2010. Special Issue on Trauma and Memory. Reprinted in Tawthiq sir wa tajarib al-nisaa’ min manzur al-naw’, edited by Hoda El Sadda. Women and Memory Forum, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 68-93, 2015.

2007 Introduction: The Claims of Memory. With Ahmad H. Sa’di. In Nakba: Palestine, 1948 and the Claims of Memory, edited by Ahmad H. Sa’di and Lila Abu-Lughod. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1-24.

2006 The Debate about Gender, Religion, and Rights: Thoughts of a Middle East Anthropologist. Publications of the Modern Language Association, 121 (5): 1621-30.

2006

Det Magtfulde Billede—Den Farlige Medlidenhed (The Power of Images and the Dangers of
Pity). In Lettre Internationale, No. 12, August. In Danish. Excerpt printed in Information. Translated to English as The Power of Images and the Dangers of Pity on www.eurozine.com
Reprinted in French as "La femme musulmane" Le pouvoir des images et le danger de la pitié.” La Revue internationale des livres et des idées, Le n°6 (juillet-août 2008). Reprinted in
Persian on Anthropology and Culture http://anthropology.ir/node/3202, translated by Fateme Sayyarpour. Abridged and Reprinted in Opposing Viewpoints: Human Rights edited by David Haugen and Susan Musser, 3rd. Edition. New York, Gale; Reprinted in Introducing
Women’s and Gender Studies, edited by Catherine Orr and Anne Braithwaite. Routledge, approx Feb 2016.

2006 Local Contexts of Islamism in Popular Media. Amsterdam University Press, Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World Papers.

2005

About Politics, Palestine, and Friendship: A Letter to Edward from Egypt. Critical Inquiry. Winter 31 (2): 381-88. Reprinted in Edward Said: Continuing the Conversation, edited by Homi Bhabha and W. J. T. Mitchell. University of Chicago Press, 2005. Spanish and Japanese translations.

2005 On- and Off-Camera in Egyptian Soap Operas: Women, Television, and the Public Sphere. On
Shifting Ground: Muslim Women in the Global Era, edited by Fereshteh Nouraie-Simone. New York: The Feminist Press, pp. 17-35. 2nd edition 2014.

2005 Women, Gender and Modesty Discourses: Overview. Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, pp. 494-98.

2003 Asserting the Local as National in the Face of the Global: The Ambivalence of Authenticity in Egyptian Soap Opera. In Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World: Recasting the Area Studies Debate, edited by Ali Mirsepassi, Amrita Basu, and Frederick Weaver. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp.101-127.

Reprinted (abridged and translated into German) as “Die Ambivalenz die Authentizitat” in Grundlagentexte zur transkulturellen Kommunikation, edited by Andreas Hepp and Martin
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
Loffelholz. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Konstanz, 2002.
2002 Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?: Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783-790.
Reprinted in Feminist Frontiers VII by V. Taylor, N. Whittier, and L. Rupp. McGraw-Hill, 2006; Abridged and updated as "Saving Muslim Women or Standing with Them?: On Images, Ethics, and War in our Times" in Insaniyaat 1 (1), Spring 2003 (electronic journal), www.aucegypt.edu/academic/insaniyat. Abridged and translated into Swedish in Salam: Om krig, fred och islam, ed. Donald Bostrom, Arena: Stockholm, 2007. Persian Translation: http://www.anthropology.ir/node/3228 Reprinted: Women Worldwide: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Women, ed Janet Lee and Susan Shaw, McGraw-Hill, 2010. Abridged: The Women, Gender and Development Reader, 2nd edition, ed. Nalini Visvanathan, Lynn Duggan, Laurie Nisonoff and Nan Wiegersma. Zed Press, 2011. Reprinted: Conformity and Conflict, ed. James Spradley and D. McCurdy, Pearson 2011. Reprinted: Applying Anthropology: An Introductory Reader, 10th ed. by Aaron Podolefsky, Peter Brown, and Scott Lacy, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, forthcoming. Reprinted: A Cultural Perspective of Dress, edited by Hazel Jackson, Cognella (University Readers), forthcoming. Reprinted: Women’s Lives, edited by Kirk and Rey, McGraw-Hill, 2013. Portugese Translation: As mulheres muçulmanas precisam realmente de salvação? Reflexões antropológicas sobre o relativismo cultural e seus Outros. Estudos Feministas, Florianopolis, 20(2) 2012:451-470. Reprinted: Opposing Viewpoints: Human Rights volume 3. French Translation: Les femmes musulmanes ont-elles réellement besoin d’être sauvées ? Réflexions anthropologiques sur le relativisme culturel et ses différentes manifestations. In La polysémie du voile. Edited by Maria Eleonora Sanna and Malek Bouyahia. Les éditions des archives contemporains, 2014. Abridged and Reprinted in Dorothy Hodgson ed. Gender, Culture and Power Reader. Oxford University Press, 2016; Reprinted in Keri Vacanti Brondo, Cultural Anthropology: Contemporary, Public and Critical Readings, Oxford University Press, 2016; Reprinted in Mary Evans ed. Feminism, Sage Benchmarks in Culture and Society, forthcoming.
2002 "Egyptian Melodrama—Technology of the Modern Subject?" In Media Worlds, edited by Faye Ginsburg, Lila Abu-Lughod, and Brian Larkin. Berkeley: University of California Press. 11533.
Portugese Translation: Cadernos Pagu 2003 (21):75-102.
2001 Orientalism and Middle East Feminist Studies: A Review Essay. Feminist Studies 27 (1): 10113. Turkish translation: Oryantalizm ve Orta Doğu Feminist Çalışmaları, in ORYANTALIZM: Tartisma Metinleri. Ed., Aytac Yildiz. 2007.
2000a Melodramas of Nationhood. In Arab Nation, Arab Nationalism, edited by Derek Hopwood. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 103-128.
2000b Modern Subjects: Egyptian Melodrama and Postcolonial Difference. In Questions of Modernity, edited by Timothy Mitchell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 87114.
2000c Women on Women: Television Feminism and Village Lives. In Women and Power in the
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
Middle East, edited by Susan Slyomovics and Suad Joseph. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1998a Contentious Theoretical Issues: Third World Feminisms and Identity Politics. Women’s Studies Quarterly 26 (3 &4): 25-29.
1998b Introduction: Feminist Longings and Postcolonial Conditions. In Remaking Women, edited by Lila Abu-Lughod. Princeton University Press, 3-31.
1998c The Marriage of Feminism and Islamism in Egypt: Selective Repudiation as a Dynamic of Postcolonial Cultural Politics. In Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East, edited by Lila Abu-Lughod. Princeton University Press, pp. 243-269.
Reprinted in The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader. Edited by Jonathan Xavier Inda and Renato Rosaldo. Blackwell, 2001. Abridged and reprinted in Ackbar Abbas and John Nguyet Erni. Internationalizing Cultural Studies: A Reader. Blackwell 2005.
1998d On Photographs, Fieldnotes, and Participant-Observation. Xcp: Cross-Cultural Poetics 3: 34-41.
1998e Television and the Virtues of Education: Upper Egyptian Encounters with State Culture. In Directions of Change in Rural Egypt, edited by Nicholas Hopkins and Kirsten Westergaard. American University in Cairo Press, pp.147-165.
1997a The Interpretation of Culture(s) After Television. Representations 59: 109-134.
Reprinted in The Fate of "Culture": Geertz and Beyond, edited by Sherry Ortner. University of California Press, 1999, pp. 110-135. Excerpted in An Introduction to Women's Studies: Gender in a Transnational World, Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan, 2nd Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006. Reprinted in Cultural Anthropology, edited by Kim and Mike Fortun, New Delhi: SAGE, 2009. Spanish Translation: Etnografias Contemporaneas 1 (April 2005): 57-92.
1997b Is there a Muslim Sexuality?: Changing Constructions of Sexuality in Egyptian Bedouin Weddings. In Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective. 2nd ed.edited by Caroline Brettell and Carolyn Sargent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 167-176. 3rd edition, pp.198-207. 4th edition 2005, 247-56.
1997c "Wie Zijn Wij, Waar Gaan We Naartoe?: Egyptische Televisienseries Bieden Antwoord," In SOAPS, edited by R. van Briel, P. Koeman, R. van Krieken, et al. Netherlands: Veronica Uitgeverij BV, Hilverum and Museum voor Volkenkunde, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 38-44.
Reprinted in Soera: Midden-Oosten Tijdschrift 5 (3&4), Dec. 1997, pp. 11-16. Also adapted as “Seeing Through the Suds,” Al-Ahram Weekly. Sept. 4-10, 1997, p.15.
1996a Dramatic Reversals: Political Islam and Egyptian Television. In Political Islam, edited by Joel Beinin and Joe Stork. University of California Press, pp. 269-282.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
Reprinted in Arabic translation as "Al-Islam al-Siyasi w al-Tilifizyun al-Misri," Ru'ya Mughayra 1: 14-23, 1997.
1996b Honor and Shame. In Things as they Are: New Directions in Phenomenological Anthropology. Edited by Michael Jackson. Indiana University Press, pp.51-69.
Reprinted in The New Humanities Reader, edited by Richard E. Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer. Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
1995a Du réalisateur au spectateur: la politique des feuilletons égyptiens. Egypte/Monde Arabe 24: 43-58.
1995b Movie Stars and Islamic Moralism in Egypt. Social Text 42:53-67.
Reprinted in The Gender/Sexuality Reader, edited by Roger Lancaster and Micaela di Leonardo. New York: Routledge, 1997, pp. 502-512.
1995c The Objects of Soap Opera: Egyptian Television and the Cultural Politics of Modernity. In Worlds Apart: Modernity Through the Prism of the Local, edited by Daniel Miller, pp.190-210. ASA Decennial Conference Series. London: Routledge.
Reprinted in The Anthropology of Media. Edited by Kelly Askew and Richard Wilk. Blackwell, 2001. Reprinted in Development: A Cultural Studies Reader. Edited by Susanne Scheck and Jane Haggis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
1995d A Tale of Two Pregnancies. In Women Writing Culture, edited by Ruth Behar and Deborah Gordon, pp. 339-349. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reprinted excerpt in Mothers and Children: Feminist Analyses and Personal Narratives, edited by Mary F. Rogers and Susan Chase. Rutgers University Press, 2001. Reprinted in Anthropological Theory, 5th ed., by R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011.
1993a Finding a Place for Islam: Egyptian Television Serials and the National Interest. Public Culture 5(3): 493-513.
Reprinted in Media in Global Context: A Reader, edited by A. Sreberny-Mohammadi, D. Winseck, J. McKenna and O. Boyd-Barrett. London: Arnold Press, 1997, pp. 311-322.
1993b Islam and Public Culture: The Politics of Egyptian Television Serials. Middle East Report #180, 23(1):25-30.
1993c Islam and the Gendered Discourses of Death. International Journal of Middle East Studies 25(2):187-205.
Reprinted in Arab Society: Class, Gender, Power and Development, edited by Nicholas Hopkins and Saad Eddin Ibrahim. American University in Cairo Press, 1997. pp. 527-550.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
1993d Migdim: Egyptian Bedouin Matriarch. In Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East, edited by Edmund Burke III, pp. 271-289. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1991 Writing Against Culture. In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, edited by Richard Fox, pp. 137-162. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Reprinted in German Translation in Wechselnde Blicke: Frauenforschung in internationaler Perspektive. Geschlecht und Gesellschaft 2, edited by Ilse Lenz and Brigitte Hasenjurgen. Leske & Budrich: Opladen, 1996. Reprinted in Feminist Anthropology: A Reader. Ed. Ellen Lewin. Blackwell 2006. Reprinted in Anthropology in Theory: Issues in Epistemology, edited by Henrietta Moore and Todd Sanders. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 466-79. Reprinted in French Translation as “Ecrire contre la culture. Réflexions à partir d'une anthropologie de l'entre-deux”, in Daniel Cefaï dir., L'engagement ethnographique, Paris, Ed. de l'EHESS, 2010, pp. 417-446. Spanish Translation forthcoming.
1990a Anthropology's Orient. In Politics, Theory and the Arab World, edited by Hisham Sharabi, pp. 81-131. New York: Routledge.
1990b Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography? Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory, 5 (1) #9:7-27.
1990c Introduction: Emotion, Discourse, and the Politics of Everyday Life (with Catherine Lutz). In Language and the Politics of Emotion, edited by C. Lutz and L. Abu-Lughod. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reprinted excerpt: Emotions: A Cultural Studies Reader, edited by Jennifer Harding, E. Deidre Pribram. Routledge, 2009.
1990d Shifting Politics in Bedouin Love Poetry. In Language and the Politics of Emotion, edited by C. Lutz and L. Abu-Lughod, pp. 24-45.
Reprinted: Abridged and updated version reprinted in Nomadic Societies in the Middle East and North Africa: Entering the 21st Century, edited by Dawn Chatty. Leiden: Brill, 2006, pp. 1013-33. Reprinted in The Emotions: A Cultural Reader, edited by Helena Wulff. Oxford: Berg, 2007. Reprinted in Poetry and Cultural Studies: A Reader, edited by Maria Damon and Ira Livingston. University of Illinois Press, 2009.
1990e The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformations of Power Through Bedouin Women. American Ethnologist 17:41-55.
Reprinted in Beyond the Second Sex: New Directions in the Anthropology of Gender, edited by Peggy Sanday and Ruth Goodenough. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990, pp.311-337. Reprinted in Art in Small-Scale Societies, edited by Richard Anderson and Karen Field. Prentice-Hall, 1992. Abridged version reprinted in To Speak or Be Silent: The Paradox of Disobedience in Women's Lives, edited by Lena Ross. Chiron Press, 1993. Extract Reprinted in Women's Studies: Essential Readings, edited by Stevi Jackson et al. New York University Press, 1993. Reprinted in Dress and Identity, edited by M.E. Roach-Higgins, J.
Eicher, and K.K.P. Johnson. FB & W, 1995. French Translation: L’illusion romantique de la
résistance : sur les traces des transformations du pouvoir chez les femmes bédouines. Tumultes,
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
revue du Centre de Sociologie des Pratiques et des Représentations Politiques de l'université Paris 7. Special issue: Entre résistance et domination. Figures libres ou mouvements imposés. Numero 27, November 2006. Spanish Translation: La Resistencia idealizada: trazando las transformaciones del poder a través de las mujeres beduinas. In Antropología Política. Temas contemporáneous, edited by Montserrat Cañedo Rodríguez and Aurora Marquina Espinosa. Edicions Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 2011, pp. 179-207. Reprinted in The Gender, Culture and Power Reader, edited by Dorothy Hodgson, Oxford, 2016. Polish Translation in Resistance and Domination: Theory and Practice, edited by Agnieszka Pasieka and Katarzyna Zielinska NOMOS. Forthcoming.
1989a Bedouins, Cassettes, and Technologies of Public Culture. Middle East Report #159, 19(4): 7-11 and 47.
1989b Zones of Theory in the Anthropology of the Arab World. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:267-306. Arabic Translation: In Kayf niqra’ al-‘alam al-arabi al-yawm? Ru’ya badila fil‘ulim al-ijtima’iya (How do we Read the Arab World Today? Alternative Views in the Social Sciences), edited by Iman Hamdy, Hanan Sabaa, Reem Saad, Malek Roushdy. Trans. Sherif Younis. Cairo, Egypt: Dar al-Ayn li al-Nashr. 2013.
1988 Fieldwork of a Dutiful Daughter. In Arab Women in the Field: Studying Your Own Society, edited by Soraya Altorki and Camillia El-Solh, pp. 139-161. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Arabic Translation, 1993, Nour Arab Publishing, Cairo, Egypt.
1987 Modest Women, Subversive Poems. Bulletin of the British Society for Middle East Studies 13 (2): 159-68.
1985a Honor and the Sentiments of Loss in a Bedouin Society. American Ethnologist 12 (2): 245-261. (Recipient of the Stirling Award).
1985b A Community of Secrets: The Separate World of Bedouin Women. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 10 (4): 637-657.
Reprinted in Feminism and Community, edited by Penny Weiss and Marilyn Friedman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994; abridged version reprinted in Applied Ethics:A Multicultural Approach, 2nd edition, edited by Larry May, Shari Collins-Chobanian, and Kai Wong. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Minor Articles, Reviews and Interviews
n.d. In Conversation. Middle East Politics in US Academia: The Case of Anthropology. Lila AbuLughod, Lara Deeb and Jessica Winegar. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, in press.
2016 Ten Questions about Anthropology, Feminism, Middle East Politics, and Publics. Sindre Bangstad interviews Lila Abu-Lughod. American Ethnologist Online, November
http://americanethnologist.org/2016/lila-abu-lughod-interview/
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

2016

“Muslimwomen,” Journalists and Scholars. Review of Excellent Daughters: The Secret Lives of Young Women Who Are Transforming the Arab World by Katherine Zoepf. Women’s Review of Books, November/December. https://www.wcwonline.org/Women-s-Review-of-BooksNov/Dec-2016/muslimwomen-journalists-and-scholars

2016 Should we Act on Israel/Palestine, or Not? Anthropology News Online March 24, 2016.

http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2016/03/24/should-we-act-on-israelpalestine-or-not/
2016 For the Love of Cities and Books: Janet Abu-Lughod (1928-2013). Preface to Arab Cities, edited by Amale Andraos and Nora Akawi. Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University.

2016 Buffeted by How Others See You. In Being Palestinian: Personal Reflections on Palestinian Identity in the Diaspora, edited by Yasir Suleiman. Edinburgh Press, 31-33.

2016 Interview with Maha AbdelAzim, “Midan: Saving Muslim Women.” The Cairo Review of Global Affairs 20, Winter.

2015 Interview with Rasha Hanafy, Al-Ahram Hebdo, November 11-17, 2015. “Lila Abu-Lughod : La reconnaissance des torts faits par Israël est inimaginable.”

http://hebdo.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1100/5/33/13292/Lila-AbuLughod--Lareconnaissance-des-torts-faits-.aspx

2015 Interview with Nourhan Tewfiq, Al-Ahram Weekly December 12, 2015. “Do Muslim Women Need Saving?”

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/14958/23/Do-Muslim-women-need-saving-.aspx

2015 Introduction: The Politics of Feminist Politics. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 35:1.

2015 Review Symposium. Response to Reviews of Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Ethnicities 15 (5): 759-777.

2014 (With Susanna Ferguson), Debating the “Woman Question” in the New Middle East: Women’s Rights, Citizenship, and Social Justice: Conference Report. Social Difference Online http://socialdifferenceonline.org/116/#more-116

2013 Research on Muslim Women: Compelled by the World. In Getting the Question Rights: Interdisciplinary Explorations at Makere University. Edited by Mahmood Mamdani. Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR). Kampala, Uganda, pp. 75-96.
2013 Topless Protests Raise the Question: Who Speaks for Muslim Women? The National. November 30. http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/topless-protestsraise-the-question-who-can-speak-for-muslim-women

15

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

2013 Do Muslim Women Need Saving? TIME, November 1. http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving/print/

2013 Do Muslim Women Need Saving? The Daily Beast. October 22. Excerpt. http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/10/22/do-muslim-women-need-saving.html

2013 Interview by Ehsan Lorafshar for the Iranian Institute of Anthropology and Culture. In Farsi. http://anthropology.ir/node/19157

2012a Beyond the “Woman Question” in the Egyptian Revolution. Lila Abu-Lughod and Rabab El Mahdi. News and Views. Feminist Studies 37, No. 3:683-91. Translated to Turkish: Feminist Approaches in Culture and Politics [Kultur ve Siyasette Feminist Yaklasimlar] 16.

2012b New Texts Out Now, Lila Abu-Lughod and Anupama Rao, “Women’s Rights, Muslim Family Law, and the Politics of Consent.” Interview. Jadaliyya. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4337/new-texts-out-now_lila-abu-lughod-and-anupamarao-

2012c

Tradition and the Anti-Politics Machine: DAM Seduced by the “Honor Crime.” With Maya Mikdashi. Jadaliyya, November 23, 2012. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8578/tradition-and-the-anti-politics-machine_damseduce

2012d Transnational Politics and Feminist Inquiries in the Middle East: An Interview with Professor Lila Abu-Lughod. Basuli Deb. Postcolonial Text 7, No. 1. Special section on “Transnational Inquiries: Representing Postcolonial Violence and Cultures of Struggle.” http://postcolonial.org/index.php/pct/article/view/1287/1293

2011 Review of Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Militarization and Violence Against Women in Conflict Zones in the Middle East. American Ethnologist 38 (1).

2010 Foreword. Displaced at Home: Ethnicity and Gender among Palestinians in Israel, ed. Rhoda Kanaaneh and Isis Nuseir. Albany: SUNY Press, ix-xiii.

2008 Speaking About Anthropological Theory. In A History of Anthropological Theory, Paul Erickson and Liam Murphy. 3rd edition. Toronto: Broadview Press.

2007 Introduction. Pioneering Feminist Anthropology in Egypt: Selected Writings from Cynthia Nelson. Ed. Martina Rieker. Cairo Papers in Social Science 28 (2):1-7.

2006 Review of Julie Peteet, Landscape of Hope and Despair: Palestinian Refugee Camps. Journal of Palestine Studies, 141, Vol. 36, no. 1:84-85

2006 Gender, Human Rights, and the Global Locations of Liberalism. ISERP Newsletter, Fall 2006. (with Anupama Rao)

2004a The Adjacent Art of Documentary: A Palestinian Film Festival. American Anthropologist 106

16

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
(1):150-51.
2004b Politics in the Everyday: Women in Palestinian Women’s Films. American Anthropologist 106 (1): 157-58.
2004c Review of Kamran Asdar Ali, Planning the Family in Egypt. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Association.
2004d Ethnography in/of Nations. General Anthropology 10 (2), Spring 2004:1-4.
2001 My Father’s Return to Palestine. Jerusalem Quarterly File, Summer 2001.
2000a Locating Ethnography. Ethnography 1 (2):261-267.
2000b Review of Fadwa El Guindi, Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance. Middle East Journal 54 (4):672-4.
1999a Comment on “Writing for Culture” by Christoph Brumann. Current Anthropology 40, Special Supplement on "Culture--A Second Chance?" February, pp. S13-15.
1999b Feminism, Nationalism, Modernity. Ayse Parla interviews Lila Abu-Lughod. ISIM Newsletter. 2:28.
1998 Lila Abu-Lughod Ile Soylesi: Yenilenen Kadinlar (Interview about Remaking Women, in Turkish) Cogito 16: 237-253.
1998 Assessing Gender/Women’s Studies: Discussion. In Arab Regional Women’s Studies Workshop, edited by Cynthia Nelson and Soraya Altorki. Cairo Papers in Social Science 20 (3): 63-67.
1998 Review of Walter Armbrust, Mass Culture and Modernism in Egypt. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4 (1):173-74.
1997 Review of Kirsten Hastrup, A Passage to Anthropology. Folk 38:147-50.
1996 The Dynamics of Cultural Encounters. In Spotlight on the Muslim Middle East: Crossroads. NY: American Forum for Global Education.
1995a Thinking about Identity. In Spotlight on the Muslim Middle East: Issues of Identity. NY: American Forum for Global Education.
1995b "Our Blood will Plant its Olive Tree." Foreword to Second Life: A West Bank Memoir by Janet Varner Gunn. University of Minnesota Press.
1995c Review of Margot Badran, Feminists, Islam, and Nation and Beth Baron, The Women's Awakening in Egypt. Women's Review of Books 22 (6): 13-14.
1995d Review of Marnia Lazreg, The Eloquence of Silence: Algerian Women in Question. (In Arabic)
17

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 19 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod
Nour Quarterly 3: 17-18.
1993a Questions of Modernity. With T. Mitchell. ITEMS 47(4):79-83. Reprinted in Items: Insights from the Social Sciences (2016) From our Archives. http://items.ssrc.org/questions-of-modernity/
1993b Sad Songs of the Western Desert. In Everyday Life in the Contemporary Middle East, edited by Donna Lee Bowen and Evelyn Early, pp.281-286. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.
1993c Review of Janice Boddy, Wombs and Alien Spirits: Women, Men, and the Zar Cult in Northern Sudan, American Ethnologist. 20(2):425-426.
1991a Public Culture in Contemporary Egypt. Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt #154: 9-12.
1991b Nine days into the War. With Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Public Culture 3 (2): 121-133.
1990 Review of Richard Antoun, Muslim Preacher in the Modern World, Journal of Ritual Studies 4 (2):395-398.
1988a Paul Riesman: An Appreciation. Anthropology Newsletter 29 (6): 12-13.
1988b A Bedouin Community: Ethnography in a Different Voice. Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt 141 (Spring): 1-4.
1988c Film Review of "El Sebou': Egyptian Birth Ritual," Visual Anthropology 1 (4): 497-99.
1988d Review of Monique Gadant, ed., Women of the Mediterranean. Association of Middle East Women's Studies Newsletter 3(2):4-6.
1988e Review of Malek Alloula, The Colonial Harem, American Ethnologist 14 (2): 393-4.
1987a Bedouin Blues. Natural History 96 (7): 24-33.
1987b Film Review of "A Sense of Honor." American Anthropologist 89 (3): 782-83.
1984 Change and the Egyptian Bedouins. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 8 (1): 6-10.
1983 Review of Unni Wikan, Behind the Veil in Arabia. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 9 (1): 156-158.
INVITED LECTURES AND CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS (does not include regular and numerous presentations on panels at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association and the Middle East Studies Association, or events at my own university)
2017 Department of Anthropology, University of Oslo, Norway May 2
18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 20 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

House of Literature, Oslo, Norway May 2 House of Literature, Bergen, Norway, May 3 Fairfield University, Religious Studies, March 2 Morgan Lecture, Clarke Forum, Dickinson College, February 28 Muslim Studies, Gender Studies and Anthropology, Michigan State University, February 16

2015

Edward Said Memorial Lecture, American University in Cairo, October 31 Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture, Department of Anthropology, Sociology and Psychology, American University in Cairo, October 29 University of Colorado, Boulder, Distinguished Lecture, Feb. 13 Harvard University, Middle East Center, February 26 Tufts University, Anthropology and Arabic Studies, Feb. 25, 26 Fordham University, Anthropology, Lincoln Center

2014

University of Michigan, Women’s and Gender Studies Program Lecture, Sept. 23 CUNY Women’s Studies and Middle East American Center Lecture, October 7 University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, Distinguished Visitor, Nov. 3 University of Melbourne, Australia Distinguished Visitor, Nov. 4-5 LaGuardia Community College, Queens, NY, “Islam: Gender Sacred,” Nov. 19 “Representation and the Arab City,” Presentation Columbia University, Nov. 21

2013 Edward Said Conference, “In the Time of Not Yet.” Centre for the Humanities, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, April 15 – 17

2012

Symposium on “The Muslim Protagonist” Columbia Muslim Student Association, Nov 10 Hawthorn Anthropology Lecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Oct 3 and 4 Annual Lecture, Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and Cultures, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada October 4 Dissections: New Directions in Research on the Middle East and North Africa. Middle East American Center and Humanities Center, CUNY Graduate Center, September 14

2011 Conference on “Activism and the Academy,” panel on “Building and Rebuilding Societies in Africa.” Barnard Center for Research on Women, September 23 Global and Local Discourses on Women and Islam. Sawyer Seminar on “Globalization and the New Politics of Women’s Rights,” University of Wisconsin, Madison, September 9 Workshop on Debates on Gender in the Public Sphere, Makerere Institute for Social Research, Kampala, Uganda, May 16-17 Conference on “The Engaged Intellectual,” Birzeit University, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod Institute, Ramallah, Palestine, April 12 Seminar, Centre d'Etudes féminines et d’Etudes de Genre (Université Paris 8), Paris, France March 9 Seminar, “Genre, politique, sexualité(s). Orient/Occident” Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris, France, March 7 Colloquium on “Human Rights in Islam.” Duke University-UNC Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Keynote. Durham, N.C., February 24 Seminar, Gender Studies Project, Mada Al- Carmel – The Arab Center for Applied Social Research, Haifa, January 21

19

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 21 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

2010

“Challenges of Oral History,” Qatar National Museum Authority, Doha, Qatar, November Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies, American University in Beirut, Lebanon, October NCRW-UNIFEM Annual Conference, “Strategic Imperatives for Ending Violence Against Women,’ New York, June

2009

Seminar on “Gender in Postcolonial Legal Orders,” Harvard Law School, September Conference on “The Practice of Human Rights,” New School University, September Conference on “Culture of Rights/Rights of Culture,” Rutgers University, February Women, Religion and Globalization Faculty Seminar, Yale University, February Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies Annual Distinguished Lecture, UCSB, February “Politics and Ethics of Muslim Women’s Rights,” with Saba Mahmood, University of California at Berkeley and Grace Cathedral, February

2008

Carnegie Conference on “The Faces of Contemporary Islam: Fresh Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Foreign Policy,” Women’s Foreign Policy Group, Washington D.C., November Gender Roundtable, Ethical Culture Fieldston School, November Department of Anthropology, Women in Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, January Conference on “Gender and the Politics of 'Traditional' Muslim Practices,” Pembroke Center, Brown University, March Conference on “Rethinking the Human,” Harvard University, Center for World Religions, May

2007

Feminist Anthropology Workshop, New School University, April Conference on “Engaging Islam: Feminisms, Religiosities.” Keynote Speaker. U. Mass Boston, September Senior Seminar, Department of Social Anthropology, Cambridge University, October Conference on “The Politics of Religion and Sexuality.” CUNY Graduate Center, November Distinguished Address, Middle East Anthropology Section, Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November

2006

Queens Library International Resource Center Laura C. Harris Symposium: “Gendered Borders,” Denison University Keynote Address, Resourceful Women Conference, Aquinas College Colloquium in ME and SA Studies, Women’s Studies, and Anthropology, University of California at Davis

2005 Women and Foreign Affairs, Ford Foundation Workshop, New York Human Rights and the Humanities. MLA Conference, CUNY, New York National Council for Research on Women, Conference on "Power Matters," New York

2004

Transnational Politics and the Globalization of Gender Workshop, Pembroke Center, Brown U. La Trobe University, Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Social Science, Melbourne, Australia Anthropology Seminar, Melbourne University, Australia Anthropology Department and Women's Studies Program, Bard College Distinguished Annual Lecture, Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, Netherlands

2003 Distinguished Lecture, General Anthropology Division, AAA Meetings, Chicago

20

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 22 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

Distinguished Visitor, Institute for the Humanities, University of Texas at Austin Distinguished Lecture, Institute for Research on Women, Rutgers University Anthropology Colloquium, London School of Economics Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Cultural Studies, University of California at Santa Cruz Center for Middle East Studies colloquium series, University of California at Berkeley Discussant, “Dreams of a Nation” Palestinian Film Festival, Columbia University

2002 Symposium, “Responding to War,” Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Columbia Women’s Studies and Globalization Programs, Yale University Robert Schumann Center for Mediterranean Studies, European University, Fiesole, Italy Annenberg Seminar, Departments of History and Middle East Studies, University of Pennsylvania Commentator, Women and Society University Seminar, Columbia University Discussant, New York Academy of Sciences, Anthropology Section Center for Culture, Media, and History, New York University

2000 Turath, Arab Heritage Week, Columbia University Anthropology Colloquium, University of Iowa Middle East Institute Brown Bag Series, Columbia University

1999 Discussant, Film Festival, “Screening Identities: South Asian Documentaries,” New York University Keynote address, Conference on "Global Culture" University of Karlsruhe, Germany Anthropology and Feminist Studies Colloquium, New School for Social Research Conference on “Nation and Cultural Perceptions of Identity.” UCLA Distinguished Lecture Series on "Global and Local Identities," Michigan State University

1998

American University in Cairo, Gender Studies Lecture Series Plenary Session on “Orientalism Twenty Years After,” Middle East Studies Association Annual Meetings, Chicago Discussant, conference “Little Stories of Love and Attraction” NYU Conference on “Crossing Borders: Rethinking Area Studies,” Five Colleges, Amherst Mellon Seminar on Public Culture and Transnationalism, Duke University Critical Dialogues Series “Ethnographic Revisions,” New Museum of Contemporary Art, NYC.

1997

Departments of Anthropology and Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University Scholars Lecture, New York University Conference on "Intellectual and Curricular Challenges in Integrating Gender and International Perspectives into Teaching and Research,” National Council for Research on Women Conference on "Culture, Society and Economy in Rural Egypt at the End of the 20th Century," Aswan, Egypt Netherlands Institute for Archeology and Islamic Studies, Cairo, Egypt American Research Center in Egypt, Cairo Arab Women’s Studies Regional Conference, American University in Cairo.

1996 Keynote Address, Boas-Benedict Conference, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University Distinguished Lecture, Department of Anthropology, Smith College

21

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 23 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

Conference on "Questions of Modernity" New York University (co-organized) Workshop on "Film and Society in Egypt" Columbia University and the American Research Center in Egypt Series on Arab Society, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.

1995

University of Michigan, Distinguished Middle East Lecture Series St. Catherine's College, Distinguished International Studies Lecturer Rutgers University, Department of Anthropology and Women's Studies Conference on "Media (Na)tions: Television and Nationality," Brown University Symposium on "Women, Nationalism and Cultural Politics: Egyptian Moments", New York University (organized) Anthropology Colloquium, University of Minnesota.

1994

"Women and Society Seminar," Columbia University "Cultural Production Under Late Capitalism," Plenary Session, Society for Cultural Anthropology Meetings, Chicago Five-College Middle East Program, Hampshire College Anthropology Colloquium, Harvard University Middle East Center, Columbia University Departments of Women's Studies and Anthropology, University of North Carolina.

1993

Anthropology Society, Hunter College, CUNY Anthropology Society, Queens College, CUNY Society for Psychological Anthropology Meetings, Montreal, Canada Association of Social Anthropologists Decennial, Oxford SSRC Conference on "Questions of Modernity," Cairo, Egypt (co-organized).

1992

Peoples and States Seminar Series, Department of Anthropology and Center for International Studies, MIT Middle East Center, Harvard University Department of Performance Studies, New York University.

1991

Women's Studies Colloquium, University of Michigan Anthropology Colloquium, New York University Dixon Place, NYC Religion Colloquium, Columbia University.

1990 American Research Center in Egypt, Cairo American University in Cairo.

1989

Advanced Seminar, "Representing Anthropology," School of American Research, Santa Fe Conference on "Lament," University of Texas at Austin Middle East Colloquium, University of Texas at Austin Anthropology Colloquium, Cornell University Anthropology Colloquium, University of California at Davis Rama Mehta Colloquium, The Bunting Institute, Radcliffe College.

1988 Anthropology Colloquium, University of Chicago

22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 24 of 24
Lila Abu-Lughod

Department of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University Department of Anthropology, New School for Social Research Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania New York Academy of Sciences Near East Studies Program, University of Massachusetts at Amherst Women's Studies Program and Department of Anthropology, Princeton University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College

1987

Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University Anthropology Colloquium, CUNY Graduate Program in Anthropology Women's Studies Program, Hunter College Women's History Colloquium, New York University Anthropology Colloquium, Stanford University.

1986 Anthropology Colloquium, New York University Faculty Colloquium, Williams College Anthropology Colloquium, Princeton University Anthropology Colloquium, State University of New York at Binghamton

23

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 18
Exhibit 2

oc

orr

E fc,
mO

-*

-"l>

6-a ! x u:. uPq 2!r -,--1

Ev
o

=)-rC- oa

-PaC,

=
?

'2=' i^ '516

,A-a-* t--.= J
' - q)-6r

^r :
*9

^o>A

Ji
-
Z

oO ;o

i.i #!l

O

OF

> 4 ta o /Doo<

C*
a-

C.O.U

-

-.=

=2-"1

-j

:-

==-

j

::

-

::
a:

.r
I,D
,i
-. n
-Jl

I

:-

-m:

---:-*;L-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 18

c8ur^es peeN ueruoa rullsnw oc
ooH 3n-I -n gv

I

ln
fi'r
)r/
J--,.
o.q!

oooZ-

{c
o>--)t
)f+

aa=f-r
l-r
l)J<.
F,-{)

cI- J

r&.r .4.'

-

Etr
C
I
f\-
n
o
U

-
=.

o
h p
(D
o-

Jl

q .D

o
ID
o
X D
o

o

d

(D

.aD-
!)

F.
?

6
(D
FtsJ
I

tos tts" ic

p)
o
d(D
oc
ts

.D 5

+

I !O)
o
E 0c
dq p)
o
d

H
oE
(D
q
FJ
d

o
6
(D

a

ln

=
o p
o

o

E

c)
d

a- 0e

!J H

o-

o-

ts1
q

.D Aa

fo
.tDs
p) ts

o o
!n 0e
(D
E

3p
l

cp) p

Fi
rqD

!i

o
d
o- o

)

CD
(nD

I

E

dFI D

d

p
qq

l p
ID

(D
la
o

ID
a

o

p
d

!) (D o

oB o-

o+p
B

.)
(D

o
ts E
.D
t)
(q!
o
ts
o
D

- ap- !nJ o

oo

p oc

(D

q

d

5 o

05Je

!J

d

(D

a
oc

E p

o .nD

5oop -

pJ
o'

N

CJ I .D

IE:sEil"EEtiiA?aE}irEs'*;Ei$:;€?a: "IaIi Eiig;-Tss.EEfc!L;rABH;fiq*i ?I* p

}:$fni[5siiifirHBtEIEets_tlari3A+iE3il€iEi[ttsi,:r.+ri
gil1?**€ ii[[[ii5F

t o 7
C
!
7

t*+; EH+EitFi*:Ea:ii"i3.iE1p3Tl eEsT"ilBF=iElliEiqi;:rBeBf:n.F9;si**rE:E*+=e9d[ii;l+f1e,'r i6:gEsaa?rr3iaqE!HTfEsl:EE-sH

o =rz Zr
d
:
z o

gda&

'ro Xo

Xo

L.'
Fl

o+)

o

.D

d

Dp

f*tr

q

d

*s

o

*l

p

1"1

o

o

MB\

I

rD

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 18

ii ri 7- E i ? e :1'=E 1t ;- ; =i i t i i i r== ;:i =+i T 1 ;

iiti ifi ii ii iili ii ;i +

+ie

?
;

i

!
?,i=1

i

i.*
="1

i

i

; i

!

!-

;

7

i
a

+;?E

i
2

+;

1

i
Zi

1=t!,:

it:i:lZ t:ii ii ;i li i?il?I !?+ii ii, ?i=i;????"=ii;=I;ii=;=+Lii'7ii1Z=i=iri=Viz;='?a2=ii='ri1i7*?y=1;i.i'3e-?gi1t=Fii;,+-?;!a7+i1?i-uit;iE)==i=*+i++;,;l1t!:;=ii^i;i-?iC=,;;i=!=i?;,=?t?1=?_=?_,1;!??===i={=i;i17,'"?iri2;:ti,,===z?=a,"z2?{22i,1i=;=t?'!i=;i,;1i:Zi?7-zz=ri=-IF+;.,

o c =3
{
o
3r
z
zr
rn
s z o

=

=\ :

d
6 .!

cnft

on o

fa .)

o

dp

5o

qJpo

.D

.D
-

o-

o

op

l ts

FJ
t0
aaN-

.!D
.D

a

o
H

oo a

q (:D .D

o
.D

o

o- ooc

oq oE
!J
oq

o
-
.D

o
a +
!J

n
!, oo

o o!]

.HD
FJ
lo

o
H
o

o !)

o
H l d

pn p

ro

d

o
ts

$

d

|oa

a, a .D 0Hc
3o- o

o- o tr

P

-l Fl
aon-
l
@ +

rD
ts
.D
n
c-

!J
d
ao-
(D
o

o(oo/) p3oo-

FJ

I 0a

; {+ *Y r i i =217+= I=7 t r?.=a - 1-. ='T ; :=t
=

A
-

o-'q=1.'g:'<

=.+'; 1 ;-a:';-C.t=;;-4=':<-l=-n

?
= -7.

nni

-!==i-.'.E!r'D?ED

F = ? /) - !
: v -6L:rj4-

F
=

6

2Q 2 7. 1J

icd-===.4PI
1
1a j_ a
'. -

E
Co,l oz o!

>:.4=.-o-^rL-;7-' .4_;!i-.='a;--^Wi;=l=od==.:<an^.,_.=;-'1-- o\=<9_-==. i./;"_*=;-- _t!J=r.-

6
..
=

6

-

o- 7. r.

=.5='

i:.ii i i, i :: ;[*22:--ln=q'x: /ii.G1;I:.= = s t=

1
=

c

7.-
Z

j > - J'

i-=-:={:=; =:Z;=r;;+: ii1>i gI : j=i *-R eE=; i;Zq=3ii '- -i=-'<i,:==:a?).=*i2^=-.j3::;n.4

L
=

= C

d a

> -r.-..:

r.:
=
= -
=

VX?.-n=: q
; 3=

C. =- a=

-''

r-;7a+1 iIe>",' Zz ':A,t:L;''-_)9=.=i'7t. _

f
1

:'=

=

o

+=

--ai
?
=

= a
r.

\:
=
)r.

:
^

i I
-

f.tr:, -.=-, : J =E =-

+.=i:!\

1
7E
r =
3 =1
t 7-
a - 7:

i E r
:E
zo
o
3r

;iiir+=4 '=e ;hL|=.-.E, -'t:.7- ---i.-)

;!

-

^si:+=i

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 18

i : ItEEE'fiiE+yaIriii []$ieiF IiF $iI
igiiilrl;Ei a-[iti Ii}til$EIlEE r iBi

;iEllIBf;E; iLiligdEr;-i 3[islE; iIl=HpiIl$*aiEx iliIgale?i. ;i+lrE+ o

+Iri,*e3;iE:=fI[+;i+==rrtE*;is:frb=siaAe:+3i,; iE+;tE*+:fir€-3't1fft3Pl}rs$i4ire;i:Eliitl+8igle:-ig-+liaii:l$+H$[3[i[=i;sEa1E

C
Iz
o
3r
z

zrr

U

*glllilti*[ai*g*gllEaglllglrl

z o

i: {=ZF+iiii:i -E15 f 5 lgZa,il€ E

iitiiii??ii?tiizli ti+\Ili ii i :1it=7=i:d-:'";i=il',="ii_
ii: llili?i r! ii: iti ;ti ?i: ii{;! iti; t, :. i) *tV '+:=Z, i7iV,.?=??==?r={Et;t==;2+...==Ii7I;;=1*Lt?at==i:

i7=71;'ii:Z,li=E*q:-;4+!3l.2':i-2i::Z2ii=r?"-E:-=?i,i;_===-:Z;-I?=:Eii

;

i i +i; iZ

7 ?71]=iZ=Z73i.=i Ii 5

=:
ii13;iiF'-
T1

??,=
i i
i===ti1.
;7€
ii -+:

r
(,
a:
o Z
-o
-t
:rE
:E
o z o
o 2z
d

=
rilitlii:?il illi i*iiiirii ii{ ;:

ii=i'i

i:+:fi

ia1ie1+i; ds:LrIi;3Fa1irtiiie+i:in!et;i-r:lii:lT;ai+,E "r: ii;=;:1;Zt$:i,;=r:"i:?i

i;g
;? =

{

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 18

gla

g

lEi [aa? [tea+E i lla lE,iiig ffi+i

i lrlillrlgg1g11161

o
C

} g

I1g1a

=
11111gl o

llilta?ts'EileBEffillf

=E z zr

fi

IF}}E1BIE iIl*i1E?FIIiE tliiEigE

:
Z
o

?a:iTrgE
i:ii i= i; 1=ii:?;+7 r
ei ;*+liitiiiilil+ ;ij=z',ii i?lii: i+iei::ji3

i
='"

ii1?rv=i,r+=i;*-;='?zil:+"a=":iq1*:?;;:"t+;;*;;t";17!li,"7e;^1=i';,iz,e7+iil?;a2i14i'*i:5ii:z=?=1liit7=_iii'=i,ii!o!+'rI-??-i?*tii=i=1;t;iZ=7l:i|.ii:,7?it:::-Z:Vii7;?nizi{!:'7t=-=i.=='7z=EiI-ii{=:1i-|z_?zi"i=l,i=rErZ1;:;

r
o:
o z
o t .l :rE I oz o
o
;
r

i!;t:i, :=1= 1=_=1i =i

;i-t,r-7ii-+7;1::i+-r
zi?:-Ili=?a:irf==ir==E=i iii

ii*iFlIEa'ie!:i=t;i;i++iil=+1l7??irz=;=iri+z??;ia?-;7Ezii,it!T+t:;=l=:Fl=+ia'i=!;

Z
=7
i{

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 18

iitiii i i, i: iI i! lialz ;i i i :=i
: *

=j zi*

i zi=; ;,

1 i L!

=-=LE
?
1i; i
v

r-?6=
i? i
i t ?

iiTE ?=7
?- a! ::
i i i=

*
i-

Fi, :ii

E

;1-ii;=,

!
7

: 7

:
;,
i

E Z

{

i = !17-=?'?1

?i !
i=;7

1>-'-{

?|

i 1

=1 =-,

=

ti7'*1, il=

:i :i ?_t
ii =tiiI-iii!=ii +7
!**iii_ ii?i i,,?; ;

=?

t

?ii ; ? ; ; ! 7 ? I--=
*==!=i =i i=I=+i?i:

T===!zii+':r=i1i+=tt\i,1?iti'-1+i=,';i=a;?t\ii?iF?l7=;"-lri)i;_Ea?

p C
c
q:
3

!I *ir i=7,;i:1i i
!1;i 2i?,7

i!ii,=;-iI,i:;7zzi*!iI,tiii-ii+;iz"?:\-*?i*E3E??:=
i,==ii 777?ii=?

iii+ri ta\ir!*,'+iz==ie_=-6i+tt1i :EL+ig;

iE
: 2

ii\?i :i=i-?={!=;-74?=1,,=!ir:.=,71i

o
r z
zrr
z
o

i 1i r+it ISBi + ll1ii i; i: itr? iE iii iB

r c
o,l

ii , 1? =-i+* ? ? i t= i?i

1?i? i ii? i? izr

oz o

E

ili tlltz i?lt;1i } 1 ti tiL=li?== F g I {. ?.i,

,l
!r[
I o

z

! T;?i+i iTii=i !?iE
i*t ;i'! i-rti!; i, :Til

i

=='=
t ;1

zZii

i i, +;

=*=:ii liiil:E

o o
=r

iv 1g=?i i i z?ti ii!:i?,iEiil*

= =!?;?

{{ +;:,1i i I xti: I i i t *ae {t *E!I,r?l*ii p

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 18

i+E ila n* *x i iF *iif
i1[+EEiEli*F;l?i

IIegs1ft:EiEriEg}[?il}iSiirir

pp

ire +tilitiE EiassiFi riFi[qia$gE *

iFli iii;i?#$i-$lfFiliggil*ilE

o c

;i:$aff*il[F[i?il+lliEii+if$l

raBi:3Ergr{HE AiE;riiilr$=;+irr

+i
$

i i *fHiIatii=iH
i iir;[a$E$iFIe,eg*FiIrIEi r

Eiri;ErgaImsi+F;i;r+l+ra;}i1[i+aIsilLre1i is}

+
;
i

= = o2 r
z z dr
s z o

iiiliiqu?i!:iiriii{ii l1ii?rl=?tit=llrli??iiii*i{i?!1izf!Iii'-i tii:i??ii*:s:i ',=;C=iI=t1ai.r;:1i.1,2{9=1et=a=l\,1GZ,i!=-i+::Za!===i=;a7Zziiie<*i;=-_l?i==.3i;="v;E!lr:''*'=_;;\)6==o=2r2=2iL'='ii-1iLi=r1iitr-=}-i=;{,iL:=g.ai#i_;aa;:>I=;i1;;i=a_'ii;?iiii=====1a-!'?a1i1;1-ta==li,1:,=<Bi:=3ii==S+r&;F++"S=:s:x=dfi:r"1a:.?+e*iri2=!I;ifi-r'7:;11!I;11!=I;-=lli--1;7II-i=lE'=,=+i:i'?:=l+1=:24i7--=7.;ir=;"i;4i,2e=-i.=1!ii=iiiT=?i;s3.a=i;Liia=qi:i?ai-6=1;5:iei"==ii==lf2+-\*=?l?;i==IatL:r*i!;:)E{i=li1:i=-'17?==="1qI='j7__+=-?7E=i::=iiF1:',ii;=i!=":?li,16,=ztf3=t=,=-2=?;31;t==-iz;3)Z:"-1==i_';-'=?+=a3":_3i:zIlI;=!-+::i

r
(, C
o:
o z o .l :r(
:E
o z o F o
:r
p

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 18

p

: ll elegiE lr* I trE [iE rlril+r$Er+r *

trii ii€irl ilsit[igEri$'Hrf*rqiiE3lftfrisii;tI=Iisll,riiT;F*ggl['git++5li[E:eri$[FE;ri[aigiaiaEEF++;;*.EiAL*+$I[ii1E=t€er[$f;;itilgil*HE[ttEEiE1+g$;nI*$i;Ii*ag+g$r?a'Fgti**tf[riAiiI1#area;g[+r re[r[r}sia:r$l1i=a]i1+:[i[sr$ini

o
r
o
=rz zrr
z o

r

i iri5E lrr $iiFfr$ ;:;'t. Ir g r +*I q r tn

C
o
,.1

F$$ii;iE$giElEeF3iar;ialB$el It*l$}giHf

5
a

eiiIl5E1+I6llEil;i=[ i;l ,I

zo
or -Irt
-

E il1nsrs irf E x rs IinigIts$$li f i r r-$;

z o
F o

ie [: : t f trg u [*; rs Fs ri f ;F rla a +r =r

[ $EIfii rFi

#r+e +B €i;s

* xcr
r$ F:

FiiIiE
; 1[* ln s r3e;s

F$E[*1FEFiilFI
; [* [
F$[s a'$iFililE,ig

F
E

N

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 18

p 6

I i iE I IE EEEI iB Ii1E Ii I I [i $E IgB Ei

F

E ilg I + I I liga r i1 I f 1g ig+ 1E llrg Iltgr

o 5

E *+rrI B g iIil1i11[[. E i $[EElEEr1E lg dz zrr

o

[ 1l1[$[glg1lil*aE glgil[ElE?E$= BB

z
o

ii,=E=s ri iiAIts +l; il? i=i; ++r3 ii! i

qr
ct

nt

iil*l*i1 iil ;aiieii;:ii1 ozq

{ttliEli ii

i
il

iigi!+ Ii??l?,itl?i+g iiiiliiisI 1;1 i_=;=i=i,

I i

il iil
=riE :Vzii;:Z-zt;Z+E

-l
Ir
-
oz o

t,ii i iiv Ii;=i*itti:iii+iqrigtZi=;'V.E2t;i7i;:i

i
?
;

i i
;=i riia37;E:*iL=;-?;i{"i{!i{*l tti

3i??i

;;i;=;,
n

I="rt.=!I=i=i1ii3;:

=L=-?

iF
t-i
7 -;

o
=r

=iiZ iii ii? !iJ;:

i,
fi

:?;z?ii=+1??i A7i?{+31?q!i,iT

?.=1

!

i1? + ltq

t =?i
I ?+ 3 a

p !

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 18

p
; Is Itt+liiiLi +;Ei1[[rffi5 irxE1E1

i+gIg
+F

€niililItrii$ilirligla[iilir*ragi+gEiF;iliIi;+*irIil1ijii;$*
r;tiaiiil[i $gi+iF1Ei[[fi'+[

c
-

3

L1 FIFIIlit BffiElIIEFailgEiI

o
r
z
zr

d

t

1+ +afilgilrl* Air+iislHniglFrl

:
z o

iti i rii lif i i; i 7 ?
i, E-?

+

1

z_i

;

i_-_=i,
S I a=,

i 1
r?ir

i
t

;= +i 7!
t ; i_: ?

:

: ; t_i ; ? E = i:ii

r
:oC
o z

i??ri ia E i l{?izti;
i-,i=ii=;'iEi-I??a

iiii:i

iI=li*ii:iiii:i;*:i;t:-?

o
J
r:c
:t

o

iiii;iii ii !?t:
+i!La!

!+7iZ-4i;'l?:;

;t;+i+

;tIg2i!=i";-7i7a;i3iiir!?i?=

z
o o r3-

ii ii i,iritriiiiiiatiiifai;2; stii iii!+ii;r?i:?El;ii;titf:i+?i=!i,:tir;,i;ic7ilti=:i )i:i?il p

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 18

rrIIitEIf{{i i+E F[g* +tE #? fr i is if iEF 3 iH i}r

i
f

iIlEnBliElii+$ilgEsiBa[ii;ffiirl[E+E rl+ii[li[Etilllifif5I l$E1tt

o c

-

llirEEil[fi tltElE l1Ei.EE illilIEt1

{
o izl

i iggIElgiriiasrF' s*q€lirlll{fig* zrr

a n r i * r +t[g i4EiE

t I n 3 $i tf iE ! nit i

z o

fiiiiEa;aFiis aFgtiia rilr; E 1i$fs€ d E

Filf,FEi}[ifg[itr 1
Fir[[il[FiEIti$+r

FT i f sE E

i

$rsrEliiiiiiisi[iriiiEi$iiiiIigg
i r+ gHt E

r r * $ li riiE l i'i igi IFif itg[ggI rti

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 18

liit ii! i i -, 3^ 1 I I i:, 1E tI I r g iiE .-11 il i i 1!i =*{== p
i i i 1 i € i r i s i r i iiig 1 i i; i = : ?

i Zz?i i i
lli tti{i il 1 1 1 1 1 I

:

:zi?'=1 L;it:;1.1i 1t =1ii1z1il!:,2ri

t\+i

g

; i i I I i ;zi i tii?:??|i:

-

l+iilililii )l; ii;?iri?; tizEliti=r=!3iL:=;=tiie==:=z:i?iii:1ii;=i=**itza:

i=Ei
7 +

o
dz zr
d

i z' E i i

zl;v ?li+*i:.!i=t=;Zi E

ii

s z
o

=

--.J
-9vhp

5'-:-a-w E-' ?

ZJU:L-hP>.Di=-@

L!-1P^ q:E

FI.':jl

O
=t)qq ,

Ul--!*--r:--*

3ia!3rp.-@^ ';

lq roY L!.Ec69ts
r<Hni

id

3
oa

D--Ua

-o-c^-Q=.=!.L n =X"'e.Z v +

!P

r;(D!+

E^vPS P
7,na Q +

r! t^--

-

O- {i j

:-=^tav;a.)r)- (t ts -=.

;,4

l=r;Z.a :1 o-tr-\

,

='

a)

-

-+6; Pr

r: ;=;;A1:s*aRH%i+i>l=EHgEr'dETg$tr-]tf<*3I;rifgr fp[EE;H5!FFg+irrBgiE.f5;

i E
I E

igB-E
gE
a-.

r
C
:o
oz o

Ti**E:Ig=Ei}EiE3X=fEI-iriSiiFr3lflEIEt;i:t}+E:+-}t.5Efs€$T3r5i^-sEE*raE+F1r',',:E:iE,g';-iqEsl['iEsH![*+P;rEIrH+;;F.3'*$+Ei[Etl!Xi"

i
,J :E
r
I o
z o
o
:
r

ri ' *aqri EEana df$ririf.s+7lsEE6ies=n:5rI=r5rn=f;Fr;eri$t5gsEi;i;-ia=*giiiI;i[g=il[ias$S

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 18

a i+ $iaq i $E * a ; E i i * =
lilE}iiiEllF *rgEi}
E?EiE$itffllx*r==

iI;F+iiaei}i;1EEr=ili+il;i i1ii[aiEi;t:Esiaa;

*aieaa 6tri*r3=rliltiXiiieIalt?lFg[€BaIlEBt*grlliiIfi

tr$rEtr}iiiieitffi+rirfrfri-:
$[; n+$E:EgIi[1

U
o 3c
=
o rz z

gIt*ErggIEI+lligl iagg+l1EIq [rIE

r
:
z o

iii :ii3iE5iiJhI-;H--i1EEi=-:?-ii?i7lrii?:=="ii;=:==,l?iilii?T7i ;Eitiiil?1iiiit=Zit??=?irii+i7il+ri,ii+1i1€I?:ti:i?,1iE:=i7iiirr;iEi zz?:?==+;

;
:
;
=

i+i ti?ir{ifii ii z1:iiit;{1!a* til i

ieIil;{i1i{:iiiiEii!iiitiiii

i i iiii3iig; i i r i i r i ii
iri i1ii il iry{,zlli!?

,

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 18

;ii ii 1;i ii?ai=;,1i|! :; L i7, i;i;i -i t?'=ii+,;;! l=!: ? i .2 j';{

{-.<==?+1;.P:6'

i =;i1?-i:'=='=Z,i==_EE_=i1167+w*-q=?==e1':a,'-,=a1!i:*22->=iit=Iii=Z7,-*Fa?;=====-_,,=7-aC=V??*1V,A7i1rl=='i'e=2;7i=+-_z-.::i)z*-;.i7?.i<_'"sZ=:-i,3ii;*,.7:i?a==2_=,E:i=5.TZ=?9,?,'=':*7ZiZ=?=''=V';===':E;;1L_=ni:i:1f==::!tai=.=l-

ilVii+;??i;ii=lzi1 1-;1:iti! ii = iaFE7.*1F+?;.7=xZ:=*i

1zii:==+{iii.1I=Ei!;:=

a;==1?=1=.1E*a1==':.r21t2:#-i:i=ii=_=;.o':*!=1ii=;';:=_,_=-i'=-ii:=7:-;6ii=-iav=Z==.:i-;;ili1=7,Zii?'-=;-iZ=1i-2=+i1;Ji2E,?1i?-_ ?%*Ig
a-'= -? =_i-

7-,E1=iili;ri =-i='Fi ==7..?i-=t=e74 .i ;1.';'z7==- a=ri-7==iil==i==11=-'1:l{ ;;,=-===+1_='--7ii2iii7==1ri

}=. d
i= 7=
1=.f=,=:ii,1==4
2;I
=; i
1-*
!- !,-.
-;
:
a7

ltiaiZ i1=1.;:tr! 7= =T ;i_ =7==2:-sE i"= L? =7l=-?i

==-+i

o =
qr
o Ez
zr
d
:
z o

=

€ =- .ry. a s: = s) = = T < ..

-'t. +. ? io
,.D

i 3:ri?, t,5-t'+=i 1t i ._:za=i'1=t3-i
; : Z:= =?e+Ei i =! ==i:i =tE-1

=q1:..iF?i: :=s=1\ .=-A=7i-i=ce.t:7i'-i'=L=.?===3|

E,-;;Ei;?-A.' ;

==-?q''i7

I ?+a--+

-= =

a
+

d cD
!) E () fc B Do

;i:=.7iiZlai=4;::11ai ;7fi1. '=t;li;;:71; :;li:-i. : ?:Ll f E ; El.-:4f*D,ria'='o=:J=J1-:i=_E+i;l..t3O3=7T-:i iz.:1D-o-:=+;=-1.i+1:J3":=*=rFAao2rP;i;i-Jjz:;Z.;i=la-2ii;ia;'='-T?- ;a=.ti-_',^?=l3:.=?-;t>>i;Zd-=-2?6Ll

-
q'
2=-
:

i=A?iis='

o
.D
rc

7,? i=

=.p=gZ Z n

a 1 : = i: '-

(a! }

;;?=

E. d .rDr

,7Eii !1:i i'vi!_I7 =::.: E.1ET.r-
{n=L,.1D

t==:+--Z=-;i"=Ei-a-61==1-i1fi==;:E?i7zr;'€.*i?:t1iT-V=_=;:i=i;==1-'=f:=- -',iA;-i+a=

i =';9 = = ?-',

0oa po

=: =? ? giaN i
_i i 5- -r__

=:sii lJ

r(i
:Co
zo
\o
Ir-l I zo o a =r
\

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 16 of 18

rIielEEii+iEliilLiltarrilr1r}ieffEi[Ei it;cBIlf{lFg[l}aa+Ili=li}iiiat
r*ra+i+*rs i slg+$il[+rrut1+1liliH (, o

I +g1:gililifri1ier1; 1l

ii1tffiiqr 111+1; ;ii*EE
isrrli+rigi$lEirilr1[i

C
= o rz

;n+e[il$i eg ltiilifiiltqil$g Fasai q: z

+nrB [*[lFE Elrfl$aE IE rirs igilflif $i

:
z
o

ii E
z

::i
? .

lZ+i1Eia ?

i
E

!.==:1?,2ti1?'-iT;=i=; 7?:iiie

E ? -,
lr=iL

E*_r= ; i

i-
i i

r
:Co
o z

iii lli :i ii' iii i r 1ii,i= i; ? i?

:E o

V?

rtI

rtiliii? t ? a rl.,i=Lr1; :? +i

i *1=*=

I oz

o

lilii? *=';;iiitt.:;i :! iri =e ii1?ti i
t iI =LL-izri:I=:i=iTi--{iEi!=31:i:=z.i='=ii=+ia??*:lE-z=-i;?iZ-i!7=l-i-4=?-_t,:="ii1*'1=i=:;?47';t

Zi a7? ;= zE-f E!.i/;=!i; Ei;it-??i1==;i=?lii.;-=_!ii",az=ziFi7t;:;i+a=i\i;??i

it? t t
i*i
r.??1!.
i;a; i I ?v==_=
E --=; -t

o
;
r

=

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 17 of 18

iiZi iiit 1 ri?E€=7iV=li=.-gr,1ii7;iiZtu:.i=.2??=+1vZ=1Ii-Ei1'==l?=iL?zT;i;ni,\i=?i1i=ziZl=i4_z.?1L;i-iiiiz..,Ei=:\iii?i2i-+??:i?inz=!!-+-;7.7=:'2i;\{=2i;z\iti=/1I=7i?,"a777ii:=i=;=-?'=l-i'vi-i==;i..1=z==1+_-?7"---ilz=n:')=zLialiVi-ZL';I?l=Ei?!7??+i,i1?i=rtZ-ittii;i'i==o?==itiqI17=1,*;<-'i:u11?7=rz;,.7;-7?==i'n!Z=-i;:--?ii7;,!Iz,l2itiiE:7ii"=:I.?;r=\i;,!=ii+?=i!=-.i?;i7:ii=ziii\?-?!ri!.++;7i=i+;=Z,'-i.r:ii2;ii;i.2i7ir'!r==;==i??='7=?l,'i====+ii-!"{-ii1i?=r=:r_i

o 7
C
=
{
o
3r
Z
z
6 m

ii ?2; Ii ?+=i 1? ? :i

il i :

zE

i?;_!+18_:.+i

z o

71lv: '*i+; i= 7 ?< i

t5:iiiil=i;i ;1i: ii if l{=\;iii=i-i i:r, :1i i==--=n=cis7i;+=i=;i?ii?i=-r=Z*i=+ls=1zE_i.c€r,7,==!-+--n="=tL.r1=!.it.==i=J;.!-!il=7?!..tiii.a/="iiiLf_o=*i i'?r?T6+i_ i!!=i='€j.=E.7JI- ?= i==.7:t' ti=)=/zI'=_;i^-

i

iill * i i=i!!?t'7i'i t e ! +i ? i ii= ti liii.riu=i

C
ot zo o
!
"J
:hE
zo
o o

iiiLi;?li i ii=!!i Ti'E++i?i!

:tii l 1;:ai7=;E':=q{=a:

i vliiii lI??;r?.:

i ?

i ?

i i
7. =

i ?

=

Il??*ir?i?3=ti?i.f13: ?iii:s'_+Pi;'z?2=7*17l*=?r?__e1iiilz+qii+2:ii3=;1{;z*i"i1":?_.i=i;ei!_z=r=i?=l,i ;?=;Ii;+--r*i+l:

r

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-2 Filed 04/11/17 Page 18 of 18

ii;iiii !ii;t;i ;iti?;ii;i,i;l;:2i; ;it i i;;i - =; +z;'7!=,!="i?a?+=_ii7:7=7;!;-==7,7=it171+1iii-77,i=I;ti?Eiri-=??7"7t.{+i!77iX-i1-q-+'-C.ii'7irLi:=-1?1?r)e1ii=ia7i1=1=:;:iE=i:,:i',;=-2/!,=i1=?=j)iZ-?=-?'i====:T;zA'iEV=;i77=i!,i7=1*?*!i+ii=;=it-==Z?'At!=za*ii.i7i€?i2z7i=IA-?='e'7ii3==?;'{€=;?:1t'1t?1=;-)?"=="ri22::,TV.=l?i=:??,L*=7it!1i4z?7:'E'=;=;i,i==,1-!1=3ii4;i=r;2i:=i:i;=ii147_A=+-g1i_?,277+;2i=tI=i

p
U
o
:
{
o =r Z zrr o
:
Z o

{ { scF o.D- od
!D
+<.PD
{ .BD F,' e

- = o

=

o

= a-

.D

(D

o-

oc

D
opc

I

o

.D

crc
F-

oE

.D .D a

o
=
b'<
<N

(D

=

cPEJ to6+ c
c-

a.rt
!,
.D .D
E
o o-

o (rq d a':
!J

g ^d

6

?E : c.^ 0q

n

c o carc

{ .BD

=) ) {- oE
F-

g!

.nD 5 Do-

)a
Co-i

J

oq cc

a
.D

c

arc o!=. - .D

i5tr

c

F.D d :j

(?
c o
!r
af.

3
c
a

.lDj oL-<

Lrt
=-

5' .Da

f

ia)- -t

oo5 c
{
{
p
o

.D.D

cotrc

v(I

ic

<^ i+O

t
PJ

ta

c'a3a--

PJ
opi

9- .!

ad

exr6), a+ ic

.D
o!) E o- F o

..D}

c IJ
l-t ts tsi

$ E

c
C

=N .D

ptn
?< t,
a-

o =(a)-

tron

!oi F
arq

t

.D crQ
C_A
_o a^

- l) cD-

o-H
c5a-
.D

{
.D
c+ o-

a-
.BD
{.D

()
^.

a'
J-

z{
l-
;o -i
O5T9-to6- Lo'r vE;Oa'
6'
iJ
o
{\
h-s.
J
rrl
sry

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 15
Exhibit 3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 15

LILA ABU-LUGHOD Columbia University
The cross-publics of ethnography:
The case of “the Muslimwoman”

ABSTRACT
Engaged anthropology, public anthropology, and public ethnography are names for a long tradition of trying to make a difference beyond the academy. The passionate and polarized responses of both nonacademic publics and engaged scholars in adjacent ﬁelds to my attempt to intervene in public debates about Muslim women’s rights raise questions about the ethics, politics, and potentials of ethnography’s travels across fractured global publics. They illuminate the geopolitical terrain of current debates about feminism and Islamophobia and reveal that ethnography may be most effective in interrupting or unsettling hegemonic representations and political formations when it makes available alternative accounts of lives and communities that can then authorize and give substance to critics’ arguments. Does this instrumentalization of ethnography beneﬁt those whose lives anthropologists share through ﬁeldwork? [engaged anthropology, public ethnography, rights, ethics, feminism, Islamophobia, Muslim women]

A nthropologists have long tried to make a difference beyond the academy. They have used their understandings of human social life derived from ethnographic and comparative work to intervene in political debates of the day. Despite anthropology’s implication in colonial and development projects, inevitable for a discipline forged and still strongest in Europe and its settler colonies in North America, South Africa, and the Paciﬁc, anthropologists have often challenged prevailing views and hegemonic political arrangements. They have taken public stands on everything from utilitarianism to evolutionary thinking, racism to norms of gender and sexuality, development to neoliberal governmentality, militarization and war to humanitarianism, HIV/AIDS to indigenous and human rights. Recent efforts to institutionalize public anthropology (Borofsky 2000) build on this tradition of engaged anthropology.
Today, some of the best anthropologists “make politics matter differently” by “repopulating public imagination with people and their precarious yet creative world-making,” as Joa˜o Biehl and Ramah McKay (2012, 1224) have put it in a review essay praising “ethnography as political critique.” Didier Fassin (2013) follows in arguing that it is “public ethnography” rather than public anthropology that anthropologists might distinctively offer to wider publics and for the public good.
In addition to intervening in public debates, anthropologists should study the afterlives of their publications, Fassin (2015) argues, rather than imagining their task is over after they have been through the “two lives” of ethnography: the ﬁeldwork and the writing. The trajectory of my ethnographic work and the responses to my effort to intervene in contentious debates in the United States and Europe about Muslim women, debates tightly linked to policies toward a region where the United States has been involved controversially, raise three issues that anthropologists who use ethnography to intervene in urgent social and political affairs must think about carefully: First, how prepared are we for the ways nonacademic publics respond to our work, and even for the readings of our work by engaged scholars in adjacent ﬁelds? Are there ways to use these responses productively? Second, can the ethnographic speciﬁcity with which anthropologists work effectively interrupt and unsettle hegemonic representations and politics? In what contexts might these challenges be most effective? And third, is public ethnography a responsible way to repay the debts we incur to those who have given us the privilege of letting us share their lives and worlds to do our ethnographic work?

AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 595–608, ISSN 0094-0496, online ISSN 1548-1425. C 2016 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/amet.12377

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

As an anthropologist with deep commitments to ethnographic ﬁeldwork in local communities in the Arab Middle East, I felt compelled to respond to the ways women like those with whom I had worked were catapulted to the center of popular media attention in the service of disturbing global imperial political interventions in 2001. To help justify the military invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and its allies, politicians and the media put the spotlight on the rights of Afghan women, and by extension all Muslim women. For the next decade, my ethnographic work focused speciﬁcally on the question of women’s rights. I returned several times to a village in Egypt where I already had been doing ﬁeldwork for many years. I also began to study transnational and local feminist activism, to read anthropological work on human rights and humanitarianism, and to examine popular genres of writing about Muslim women, including what Dohra Ahmad (2009) called pulp nonﬁction. In 2013, I published Do Muslim Women Need Saving? (Abu-Lughod 2013), a book rich in ethnographic substance and consciously directed to a wider public. My intent was to challenge the prevailing common sense.
Many of the book’s arguments were addressed to other scholars and students, but I imagined the mainstream liberal American public as an important audience for the book, given that this audience is more familiar with media representations and trade books than with academic works. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? took up key topics of public debate: freedom, veiling, honor cultures, violence, Islam, and women’s rights. I sought to offer alternatives to the multistranded, highly mediated, and institutionalized public production of what miriam cooke (2007) has called “the Muslimwoman”—a homogenized creature oppressed by her religion, her culture, and her men. I examined prevailing representations. I analyzed the forces that produced them and gave them credibility. I created frameworks for thinking differently about the lives of such women, based on intimate looks at particular lives in particular places. This was the anthropological and ethnographic contribution.
This book reached more diverse publics than my previous ethnographies. There was a range of initial responses to it: near silence in my target public sphere, the US liberal mainstream (which plays a crucial role in building a consensus about US policies toward the Middle East and Muslims), outrage in one counterpublic of which I had been barely aware, and touching personal afﬁrmation in another marginalized counterpublic that had not been in my direct sights when I wrote. Academic reviews took longer to come in. Although these have been largely positive and thoughtful, a majority have come from outside anthropology, particularly from scholars interested in women and global feminism. Some feminist activists who work on and in the Muslim world were more ambivalent toward the book. This reaction, as I will discuss, illustrates Marilyn Strathern’s

(1987) observation that the relationship between anthropology and feminism is awkward. The awkwardness has intensiﬁed, I would suggest, as feminisms have taken ﬁrm root in various settings, gone global, and aligned with other transnational political movements and institutions from human rights and humanitarian governance to the “war on terror.”
Ethnography’s travels
Anthropologists are increasingly concerned about the ethics, politics, and potentials of ethnography’s travels across fractured global audiences. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? differed from my previous ethnographies, which had been based on intensive long-term research in particular communities in Egypt and organized in terms of topics of interest to scholars of social life: theories of culture, gender, kinship, and morality; the politics of emotion; the social role of expressive culture; nationalism and mass media; ethnographic writing; and the politics of representation and knowledge production. Although the core of the book grew out of scholarly articles published ﬁrst in academic journals, I rewrote them to make them more accessible because I wanted to inﬂuence debates on women’s rights, human rights, and the politics of Islam and Islamism in the 21st century. I took tentative steps to ﬁnd a trade publisher. When rebuffed, I retreated with relief to the familiar standards and intellectual freedom of an academic press.
Ethnography plays a key role in the book. Anthropologists always think through big issues using the situated and microscopic knowledges that they develop by doing ﬁeldwork in particular places, as Clifford Geertz (1973) noted. Because I could not reconcile what I was encountering in public discourse with what I knew from years of ﬁeldwork in Egypt, I spent a decade doing more ethnographic research so I could tackle the subject of Muslim women and their rights. Unlike other excellent recent works that challenge the common sense about the Muslimwoman by analyzing gendered Orientalism or the politics of imperial feminism (e.g., Grewal 2005; Hesford 2011; Kapur 2002; Kumar 2012), I built my arguments systematically out of the everyday lives and concerns of women who might be seen as falling within this charged ﬁgure of the Muslimwoman— a ﬁgure that runs through media coverage, security concerns, international governance, immigration policies, military intervention, and even feminist advocacy.
Can nonspecialist publics that have not been trained in reading our genre assimilate anthropological modes of argument and evidence? Is ethnography translatable? Can we expect those outside our discipline to appreciate what the particulars of everyday lives, grasped in their complicated social contexts and conveyed through narratives, tell us about the way the world works? That is the essence of anthropological and ethnographic work. It is the heart of

596

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 15
Cross-publics of “the Muslimwoman” American Ethnologist

our method. It is what we teach our students by training them to read ethnographies.
The ways my book was taken up can provide insight into what happens when ethnographic work leaves the comfort zone of its customary disciplinary and academic publics. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? was caught in cross-publics, in both senses of the word—it crossed different publics and made at least one public very cross. It entered multiple lifeworlds at odds with one another and with anthropology. It was opened up to different criteria of authority and judgment, not to mention rules of civility. Other anthropologists have written about what happens when the audiences for their work go beyond fellow anthropologists; some of the most troubling afterlives of ethnographies are those in the communities themselves, when their subjects read or hear rumors about the work (Brettell 1996; Scheper-Hughes 2001). Ethnographies can also get caught in wider political and institutional battles, subjecting anthropologists to hurtful vitriol, as Fassin (2015) describes for his work on HIV/AIDS politics in South Africa and on policing in France. But he steps back to show how much he learned from these responses about the political and institutional dynamics in these countries.
Similarly, by examining how nonacademic audiences received my book, we can learn a great deal about the political terrain, structure, and affective force in the United States and Europe of what some people gloss as Islamophobia (though matters are more complex than this shorthand suggests). I will analyze the early responses before turning to the more awkward responses from fellow academics who are not anthropologists; their reactions can be used to understand more clearly the ways Islamophobia has made navigating women’s-rights advocacy even more treacherous than it was when feminists had to contend with what Leila Ahmed (1982) called colonial feminism.
Although I am media shy and declined to hire any of the publicists who offered me their services, I confess that I was disappointed by the relative silence with which my book was received, at least publicly, by the US liberal public sphere. The latter includes those who write, promote, and devour books like those I criticize in my opening chapters—including the sensational franchise of the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Half the Sky, cowritten with Sheryl WuDunn (Kristof and WuDunn 2009). Endorsed by celebrities, the book advocated saving the world, one woman at a time, by battling gender inequality. It has even led to video games and TV movies.
Perhaps this silence is the fate of almost any book published by an academic press. The New York Times website, it must be said, aired a video interview with me two months after the book came out; the New York Times Magazine published a review four months after it was published.1 The video was two minutes long, and the book review was one line long and appeared in very small print at the bottom

of the page in a section called Marginal Marginalia. For a book that I had worked on for over a decade, that was the fruit of ethnographic research carried out over 30 years, and that was on a subject that Juliane Hammer (2013, 110) has characterized as “center stage” in North American and European public discourse—this seemed too little.
The silence seemed especially ironic when, a few months after my book was published, Kristof (2014) wrote a column in the New York Times Sunday Review called “Professors, We Need You!” He began by noting that “some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors, but most of them just don’t matter in today’s great debates.” He blamed some of this on the “anti-intellectualism in American life,” which is certainly the case compared to Europe. The rest of the article, however, castigated professors for being out of touch and marginalizing themselves by using turgid prose. I had worked hard to use accessible prose, and I was very much in touch with current issues. So I had to surmise that I may not have got a hearing because the liberal public sphere did not welcome my critiques of the media and of the devastating effects of US foreign policy toward the Middle East, the Muslim world, and Palestine.
The book received a different reception in the United Kingdom, providing evidence that hostile views of the Middle East and Islam—with the Muslimwoman as linchpin—have a special hold on the US public. A major UK newspaper and a number of serious UK publications reviewed the book almost immediately. These were signs that despite serious problems of racism and Islamophobia in the United Kingdom, the public debate there on Muslims is more open and inclusive; there are certainly more critical spaces in the UK public sphere compared to that of the United States. The demographics of the UK reviewers hint at this diversity: all but one (a negative review by a conservative writing in the Sunday Times) were writers or scholars of Arab, Turkish, or South Asian background.
Polarized online counterpublics
The blogosphere, however, was not silent. This is a relatively new facet of the mediation and circulation of scholars’ work with which we must contend. The ﬁrst reviews of my book in North America appeared online, representing two opposing counterpublics. These online reviews traded in different currencies than those of the academy or the learned pages of the high-brow UK Literary Review or Los Angeles Review of Books (the only US public forum to review the book). The reviews’ criteria for judgment, their emotionality, and their politics lay outside the disciplinary and academic conventions that were more familiar to me.
These polarized responses illuminate some of the political stakes of my venture into public ethnography on the question of Muslim women. The ﬁrst surprise was the

597

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

measure used by the two blogging counterpublics to evaluate the book: truth versus lies. This is foreign terrain for anthropologists raised on Max Weber, Clifford Geertz, James Clifford, Donna Haraway, Michel Foucault, and Edward Said, to name a few who have shaped our disciplinary common sense about objectivity.
On the positive side, reviews began to appear on feminist websites and blogs shortly after I published the book. These praised the book for confronting stereotypes. Some of the smartest reviews appeared on blogs not speciﬁcally oriented to Middle Eastern or Muslim issues, the most lucid appearing on Feministing under the title “Not Oprah’s Book Club.” Although the writer highlighted my ethnographic experience, she summed up the core argument of the book in terms of myths and realities:
It’s an age-old fairy tale: an artiﬁcial division between the West and its mythical counterpart, what AbuLughod calls “IslamLand.” On one side: innocent moral agents—the beneﬁcent saviors. On the other: nefarious brown men and “caged birds,” the Muslim women utterly disempowered to resist them. In reality, the spread of international capital and centuries of (ongoing!) colonial history make it impossible to separate “their” world from our own. (Villano 2013)
Do Muslim Women Need Saving? also hit a chord with the writers at Muslimah Media Watch (http://www .muslimahmediawatch.org), founded in 2007 by Fatemeh Fakhraei. The blog describes itself as
a forum where we, as Muslim women, can critique how our images appear in the media and popular culture. Although we are of different nationalities, sects, races, etc., we have something important in common: we’re tired of seeing ourselves portrayed by the media in ways that are one-dimensional and misleading.2
The ﬁrst of two reviews on Muslimah Media Watch opens with a quote from the introduction to my book: “I am often bewildered by what I read or hear about ‘the Muslim woman.’” The review goes on, “For those of us who share this sentiment, Abu-Lughod’s book is essential reading . . . (written in an accessible, blissfully jargon-free style) on the issues we at Muslimah Media Watch are concerned with on a daily basis” (tasnim 2013; emphasis mine).
Another public offered the opposite judgment, expressed through accusations that I lied. This tune began to play, softly at ﬁrst and then louder, in a counterpublic about which I have since learned a good deal, especially from the Norwegian anthropologist Sindre Bangstad (2013, 2014). The ﬁrst review, in the Rupert Murdoch–owned British conservative newspaper the Sunday Times, was headlined “Drawing a Veil over the Truth.” The subtitle was “Some of Her Conclusions Defy Belief” (Russell 2013).

This judgment and language were ampliﬁed in the right-wing Islamophobic blogosphere, where the reach and particular animus of this discourse of truth and lies became apparent. The sinister notes ﬁrst sounded in Bruce Bawer’s review of my book in FrontPage Magazine. It was titled “Saving Islam from Its Victims.” Bawer was affronted by the book. He wrote,
She knows, in short, that every day millions of Muslim women endure suffering rooted in the Koran and in Muslim tradition. But instead of using her knowledge to try to help improve those women’s lives, she uses her rhetorical skills to dance around the truth—dodging, deﬂecting, doing whatever it takes to uphold the stunningly callous and patently dishonest proposition that Muslim women don’t need saving. (Bawer 2014)
A US writer based in Norway, Bawer is associated with a network of writers and bloggers whose work was quoted approvingly in the Norwegian mass murderer Andre Behring Breivik’s 1,516-page cut-and-paste tract called 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. As Martha Nussbaum (2012, 55) and others rightly point out, none of those whom Breivik quoted can be held responsible for his gunning down 77 youth leaders of a major Norwegian political party that he considered soft on Muslim immigration. But his text can be used to trace the existence of an Islamophobic network of which some of my reviewers are a part. Bawer’s book titles give away his political stance: While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacriﬁcing Freedom. Bawer was in touch with another writer Breivik quoted: a Norwegian who went by the name “Fjordman” and wrote for a blog called Gates of Vienna.3 In case readers are unaware of the signiﬁcance of the title, the site explains, “At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.”
As a scholar accustomed to academic book reviews, I was especially taken aback by the comments posted to Bawer’s online review. Online comments, I have since discovered, are notoriously abusive. Although sometimes frightening, they are part of what we must confront when our publics become more diverse. Public ethnography makes us lose control over the mediations of our work (Fassin 2015). I quote only two to clarify the connotations of “dishonesty” within this particular public. “Oldtimer” wrote, “i would like to see a picture of her. Is she wearing that face covering burka that the women she talks about Must wear? Or is all she says just, I think it’s called, taquia(?).”4
As Bangstad’s (2013, 2014) research reveals, this comment includes a telltale sign of the Islamophobic worldview that inspired Breivik’s hostility: the term taqiyya. The term also appeared in a comment on Bawer’s review by

598

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 15
Cross-publics of “the Muslimwoman” American Ethnologist

“Geoffrey” (who describes himself as a conservative/libertarian and supporter of the Tea Party): “Lila Abu-Lughod is a practitioner of stealth jihad, a master of taquiyya. The author [of the review] shouldn’t be surprised at her lying. She advances Satan’s cause and he has a special place in his chest (no heart) for her.”
I was surprised to ﬁnd taqiyya, a concept from Shi’ism related to the ethics of concealing one’s faith to avoid death, such an everyday concept for nonspecialists like these. Yet, as Bangstad explains, it emerged as a key term in the foundational writings in the genre known as Eurabia established by the author Bat Ye’or, now known as Gise`le Littman. “In Ye’or’s work,” Bangstad notes, “and in the understandings of her followers, taqiyya is . . . perceived as systematic ‘lies’ or ‘deceptions’ through which Muslims everywhere in the world ‘conceal’ their ‘real’ intentions to establish Islamic dominance over non-Muslim peoples” (2013, 372). Ye’or also popularized the concept of dhimmitude, coined from the word designating protected minorities in the Ottoman Empire but twisted, according to Bangstad, to mean the “obligatory submission [of non-Muslim peoples] by war or surrender to Islamic domination” (Bangstad 2014, 148, quoting Ye’or). For Ye’or and those in this right-wing Islamophobic public, dhimmitude signiﬁes a Muslim threat to the West, one that should be met by an alliance between Jews and Christians in support of Israel. Nussbaum (2012, 20–58) has characterized this as paranoid thinking, which marks much anti-Muslim work, including that of the extremist Americans Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (from whose provocative book title, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, the charge against me of “stealth jihad” was lifted).5
I turn now to a second element of these two marginal counterpublics’ online reviews: their very personal and emotional tone. It is not just a matter of lies and truth. On one side was another enthusiastic review on Muslimah Media Watch titled “How ‘Do Muslim Women Need Saving?’ Saved Me.” It was posted by “shireen,” a regular on the blog, who identiﬁed herself as a Canadian soccer-playing mom who wears the hijab. She wrote,
My contribution to this series of reviews is more of an account of the emotional impact of being able to read and apply her work.
When I received my copy, I read it feverishly and quickly. I felt I had to stop myself at times and just exhale. I was drinking her powerful and measured words in too quickly.
It wasn’t simply an intellectual experience of reading a solid piece of work that criticized and called out the disingenuity of a “global industry” that felt the need to save women. It was also a very psycho-emotional experience. Throughout the book, I found myself nodding vigorously as the author brilliantly poked and prodded at those heavy in their disdain and disregard

for accepting Muslim women as individuals as opposed to being a one big sad and repressed group that needs to be spoken for and about. (shireen 2014)
The assaults that popular culture imposes on North American Muslim feminists, and Muslim women across Europe—assaults that have been widely documented and that include not just “representations” but hate crimes, physical attacks, online abuse, and discrimination in the labor market—are palpable in her emotional response: “I had moments of intensity where I was clutching the book tightly because it resonated so deeply. A friend of mine confessed that she sometimes slept with the book” (shireen 2014).
The mirror opposite of these strong emotional responses appears in Bawer’s FrontPage review. Bawer can hardly contain his rage:
This was a tough book to get through. I had to keep putting it down. The world-class dishonesty, the willingness to deny the real suffering of women and girls in order to prop up the poisonous religion that’s responsible for that suffering—and to impugn the motives of noble people who do care—made me livid. (2014)
It is ironic that Muslim feminist bloggers felt so personally comforted by my book while Bawer was so offended on their behalf. In the world of Eurabia and beyond, as Bangstad and others have shown, this advocacy for Muslim women is strongly linked to anti-immigrant political platforms, and Bawer himself worked with a Norwegian secular feminist who established Human Rights Service (HRS), an NGO. Set up to assist immigrant women, HRS has served, Bangstad argues, as a conduit “for the mainstreaming of counterjihadist literature, including works in the Eurabia genre” (2013, 376).
To return to the question of public ethnography, however, I was most struck by the impossibility of there being a place in Bawer’s world for ethnographic work that might complicate understandings. In my book, I invoke the authority and results of long-term ﬁeldwork—the detail of individual stories that cannot be ﬁtted into standard molds, the complex meanings of religious identity and practice, the multiple efforts of feminist and human rights groups as they are caught in broader geopolitical currents, and the complex political economies that shape the local situations of Egyptian or even Afghan women. Yet for Bawer, these merited no mention.
Pulp nonﬁction and the Muslimwoman
Bawer’s review was published in the magazine of the US-based right-wing David Horowitz Freedom Center, whose self-proclaimed mission is “the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home

599

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 7 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

and abroad.”6 This refers to the Left (exempliﬁed for them by the professoriate) and Islamists. This is the same center that in 2007 published a pamphlet (Spencer and Chesler 2007) in connection with Islamofascism Awareness Week, an initiative to recruit students to attack women’s-studies programs across the United States for being soft on the question of Muslim women. The pamphlet was coauthored by Robert Spencer (“stealth jihad”) and Phyllis Chesler, a retired feminist psychology professor. Titled The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam, the pamphlet offered a mishmash of examples of abuses from all over the world placed side by side with quotes from the Qur’an. The cover image, a stilted black-and-white photomontage, appears to show a veiled woman being buried alive. This pamphlet represents the purest example of the deployment of the “defense” of Muslim women’s rights to bolster denunciations of Islam.
Chesler writes regularly about feminist issues on rightwing blogs and in magazines. She published a memoir just a few months after my book came out with an intriguing title: An American Bride in Kabul (Chesler 2013). In this memoir, Chesler ﬁnally reveals the personal basis for her “authority” to speak on issues of gender in the Muslim world, something that had long puzzled me given that she was a US feminist psychologist, not an expert on the Middle East or the Muslim world. She reveals that she went to Afghanistan in 1961 after marrying at age 19 a fellow student from Bard College. He was a dapper cosmopolitan Afghan elite interested in theater. She went with him, her heart set on exotic adventure. But she was shocked and disappointed, escaping less than six months later and eventually obtaining an annulment.
Fifty years later, she writes this memoir, which opens with the following sensational sentence: “I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan.” The next lines perfectly afﬁrm a stereotype while appearing to negate it:
I came as the young bride of the son of one of the country’s wealthiest men. To my astonishment, I was held captive—but it’s not as if I had been kidnapped by wild savages and ravished. This is not a tale of a white and helpless maiden taken by Barbary pirates and sold into an imperial harem. I was not sold into captivity. I walked into it of my own free will. (Chesler 2013, vii; italics in original)
She even confesses sheepishly that she had uttered the words (the shahada) that converted her to Islam. Why tell us this when she has kept it secret for 50 years? One can only surmise that it is so she can join the ranks of the abused Muslim heroines of popular (as-told-to) memoirs, such as Forced into Marriage and Burned Alive, that one ﬁnds in airport bookstores. Or to stand with the celebrated “ex-Muslims” like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who tell tales of woe to denounce Islam as a barbaric religion. Their works deﬁne and

structure feelings about Muslim women and, as I argue in my book, through this pulp nonﬁction subliminally authorize a moral crusade to save them from Islam (Abu-Lughod 2013, 81–112).
Chesler’s memoir follows the formula of this genre. She reproduces the requisite chapter titles reﬂecting the genre’s narrative convention of going from bondage to freedom: “The Imprisoned Bride,” “Burqas,” “Harem Days,” “Trapped,” “Escape.” To bulk up her barely remembered experience, she interweaves into the narrative a series of 18thand 19th-century European travelers’ accounts, of not only Afghanistan but also Iran, Egypt, and Arabia. For good measure, she sprinkles in some current accounts by wives who have written best-selling accounts of their unfortunate marriages to “Eastern” men. One could hardly ask for a better illustration of what Edward Said (1978) characterized as the citationary nature of Orientalism, in which other texts are more authoritative than the realities.
Here is a typical instance: after saying she is “getting used to spending my days at home,” Chesler writes,
It is impossible for a Westerner to imagine the deadening torpor of a protected life under house arrest. Eventually, one is grateful for the smallest outing outdoors— a lovely picnic in a burqa, being allowed to watch the men and boys ﬂy kites or swim. I am looking at a photograph taken in 1865 that is titled “Sweet Waters of Asia.” (2013, 59)
The connection between 1961 and 1865, and between Kabul and a photograph taken on “the eastern shores of the Bosphorus,” 4,000 kilometers west, is left unexplained.
Chesler spent less than six months in a Kabul that is very different from what exists now. She lived in the wealthy gated household of the head of a major bank with chauffeurs and servants. She was surprised that her sister-inlaw met her at the airport in the latest Western fashions and high heels. She struggles hard to make her story ﬁt the script. Until her ﬁnal days there, her greatest abuse seems to be her self-starvation, caused by her mother-in-law who refused to make special foods cooked in imported Crisco rather than the native ghee. She also blames her motherin-law for her dysentery and hepatitis—the result of a nefarious anti-Semitic plot to leave the vegetables unwashed. She has no memory of marital rape but says she ﬁnds mention of it in her diary. She chafes under restrictions of “house arrest” and bemoans the fate of women she sees wearing burqas, which she describes as “body bags” and “sensory deprivation chambers.”
Her lack of desire to understand the new social world she has entered might be excused in a 19-year-old girl from Brooklyn. It is harder to explain why in the intervening 50 years as a scholar she has not availed herself of the rich scholarship by anthropologists and historians of the region,

600

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 8 of 15
Cross-publics of “the Muslimwoman” American Ethnologist

scholarship that would have provided insight into the complex gendered world she had entered. Instead, she describes this world as one of “gender apartheid” and writes pamphlets like The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam.
One can read this memoir of Afghanistan not as what she claims it is—a reckoning with herself—but as a lure. Chesler wants new audiences for the second half of the book, in which she rehashes hundreds of articles she has posted on right-wing blogs and magazines over the last two decades, many on her pet theme of the honor crime. Here also one ﬁnds the familiar tirades against gender apartheid, “anti-Semitic Palestinian-loving Muslims who are seeking to destroy Israel,” and “Sharia law”—the subject of fear mongering by US politicians in ignorance of the meanings of legal reasoning and argument in Muslim societies, as studied by anthropologists like Brinkley Messick (1996, forthcoming).7
Serious engagement and that awkward relationship
Chesler’s extremist positions bring to the fore a tension that exists in more genuine forms within the larger feminist community. Anthropologists who are careful ethnographers of women and gender must confront real dilemmas, beyond the mendacity of Islamophobes who have seized on “the woman question” to further their cause. Women’s rights and issues like gender-based violence should concern everyone, and the important work that activists and practitioners in Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, or elsewhere in “the Muslim world” are doing is to be respected. This is why I had such feminists in mind as interlocutors and publics. But as an anthropologist, I also included them as subjects of some modest ethnography on what I called “the social life of Muslim women’s rights,” because it is important to understand how problems of women get framed in international discourses and institutions and how activists in particular regions work.
The most serious public to respond in a timely way to Do Muslim Women Need Saving? consisted of committed feminist scholars, writers, and activists, most of whom work in and on the Muslim world. Their responses were different from those of the grateful writers of Muslimah Media Watch. The views that appeared in more academic venues reveal the uneasy relationships between anthropology and transnational feminist scholarship and activism. Yet it is in such adjacent and allied ﬁelds, I believe, that ethnography has the best chance of affecting the terms of political and public debate. It is this audience that is most genuinely concerned about the issues I tackle in the book, and they may be most open to what an anthropologist can offer, since understanding the complex forces that shape the social world matters to projects of social transformation and gender justice. As far as the Muslimwoman is concerned, it is clear that

all of us are hamstrung by this ﬁgure’s entanglement with geopolitical forces and organized Islamophobia.
The most thoughtful challenges to Do Muslim Women Need Saving? came in an academic review symposium on it published in Ethnicities. The three invited reviewers who responded, all Europe-based feminist scholars who work on and in different Muslim communities in Europe and abroad, raised signiﬁcant ethical-political questions about the stance of the book. The most consistent concern was how much support my book offered for what Deniz Kandiyoti (2015) called “internal critiques.” By this she meant critiques by feminists who challenge the patriarchal injustices in their own societies, working to reform law, change canons, and criticize conservative social practices, cultural ideologies, and interpretations of religion. Taking a different approach, the other two reviewers asked how much room I give to “authentic critical voices” (Malik 2015, 765) as opposed to those simply playing to Western audiences and riding the wave of Islamophobia to promote themselves, as do the well-known “native informants” (Dabashi 2006; Mahmood 2008). One of the reviewers, Maleiha Malik, rightly insisted that one must ﬁnd ways to “safeguard space for legitimate critiques” (2015, 766). The other, Schirin Amir-Moazami (2015), alarmed by antiimmigrant discourse in Germany and France, puzzled over what to do about the fact that only certain feminist voices— those that blame Islam for misogyny in Muslim cultures— get authorized in the mainstream public spheres in Europe and the United States.
Given the widespread ignorance about and deliberate prejudice against Muslims, it is important to highlight the diversity of women and the existence of feminists within such communities. To counter the discourse of white women saving brown women from brown men, to adapt Gayatri Spivak’s (1988) famous formulation, I regularly teach about the long local histories of women’s movements and activism (however blurry we know the boundaries to be between local and transnational, inside and outside). There is ﬁne scholarly literature on this subject by now (e.g., Abu-Lughod 1998; Al-Ali 2000, 2007; Booth 2001; Chowdhury 2011; Rinaldo 2013; Salime 2011; Shehabuddin 2011). Most intriguing are the movements that emerged in the ﬁrst decade of the 21st century that could be labeled Islamic feminist. I examined two groups from this movement, Musawah (which means “Equality”) and the Women’s Initiative for Spirituality and Equality (WISE), which deﬁne themselves as global and work for reform and rights from within the religious tradition. There are others. These surely count among the “authentic internal critics,” alongside a range of others like the Marxist and secular liberal feminist activists and even the Islamist women who work from within political parties or movements to push for reforms and women’s leadership (e.g., Deeb 2006; Jad 2005; McLarney 2015; Salime 2011; Yafout 2015).

601

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 9 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

Yet because my touchstones are the rural communities where I have done ethnographic research and because the subjects of my ethnography are ordinary women living in Egypt who have had almost no contact with activists, my perspective on feminists is somewhat at odds with the feminists’ self-images. Like all rights-based feminist projects that refer to the key international instrument of women’s rights, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the arguments of the Islamic feminists align with liberal frameworks and forms of argument whose purchase and social base are not yet clear in the regions where they seek to work. This may be the only effective path open for change, but the circumstances must be noted. My ethnographic work among the Awlad ‘Ali Bedouin over the past couple of decades has shown that there is internal debate about new restrictions on women’s movements, wedding practices, and even mourning (Abu-Lughod 1993, 1997, 2013) because of the inﬂuence of conservative Gulf-inﬂuenced Bedouin families. But the alternative is not “freedom” or gender equality. In Upper Egypt, women counter and resist many aspects of gendered power, “traditional” and new, but usually by invoking their rights under Islam. Ethnographic vignettes show the impossibility of disentangling individual women’s problems from the global economic policies that impoverish them, the national policies that render their families vulnerable, the class politics that deprive them of dignity, and the military interventions that undermine their security. I argued that feminist activists should take these into account.
The engaged ﬁelds of feminist scholarship and activism do not sit easily with anthropology because of the different social locations from which women’s lives are being assessed and gender politics analyzed. The differences between the ways NGOs and development and empowerment projects “give voice” to the women they are helping and the way anthropologists represent subaltern women have been the subject of critical writing (e.g., Sangtin Writers and Nagar 2006). Yet little ethnographic work has been conducted on women’s-rights projects themselves or on the encounters between feminist activists or NGO workers and the less educated and the often nonactivist women for whom they advocate. I examine some of the organizations that feminists in and from the regions have founded, some of the causes they have taken up, and some of the languages of justice they have mobilized (Ferguson 2015; Salime 2015), following paths opened up by other anthropologists, in particular Sally Engle Merry (2006).
As an ethnographer who has worked in rural areas with women who are not urban professionals or well educated and who are mostly poor, I view feminist activists with a double consciousness: they are both respected peers and colleagues working in adjacent ﬁelds and, when seen

through the eyes of the less educated and privileged women I have come to know in Egyptian villages and desert areas, urban elites who do not share the desires and values of many of those on whose behalf they work. One can no more brush aside the internal class politics of feminist activism in these parts of the world as the imperial politics of a US State Department liberal global feminism that needs the ﬁgure of the oppressed Muslimwoman.
Articulating differences among forms of feminist critique is analytically and politically fraught. On the one hand, the tensions I experience bridging these worlds are not unfamiliar to anthropologists who have worked on human rights. Unlike critical political theorists who boldly link human rights and humanitarianism to colonialism or who interrogate the paradoxes of rights, legalism, or universalism that lie at the heart of liberalism, anthropologists proceed ethnographically, studying the workings of rights claims and practices on the ground. On the basis of ethnographic work, anthropologists have criticized the binds into which indigenous people are placed by the demands of liberal multiculturalism and recognition (Povinelli 2002; Simpson 2014) and the ways human rights work promotes social distinction, opens career paths, and depoliticizes suffering in a world of transnational governance and neoliberal governmentality (e.g., Allen 2013; Englund 2006; Jackson 2005). Although anthropologists have worked as legal advocates and rights activists, there is still debate about how appropriate this kind of direct engagement is (e.g., Cowan, Dembour, and Wilson 2001; Goodale 2009).
On the other hand, work on women’s rights is burdened by the special history of colonial feminism, and it is particularly fractious in the parts of the world on which I work because of the twin pressures of religious revival and Islamophobia.8 I used my ethnographic work in one Egyptian village to explore the incommensurability between everyday lives and the social imagination of rights, whether by outsiders, veterans of women’s activism in the region, or the cosmopolitan Islamic feminists who are doing creative new work. Such organizations are conceived and run by educated urban women who, in this age of NGOization (Grewal and Bernal 2014; Sangtin Writers and Nagar 2006; Shehabuddin 2008), spend their time studying, drafting position statements, applying for funds, and generally seeking legal reform and cultural change along tracks that might work. I was interested in how these organizations relate to those on whose behalf they work. Although my “thick” ethnography in the Egyptian village was unmatched by my ethnography of activists, I observed that even though activist projects mobilize genuinely concerned, smart, creative, committed, and often quite learned individuals, such rights work intersects with global institutional politics and class inequalities.
The public responses from some feminist scholaractivist colleagues in or of the Arab and wider Muslim

602

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 10 of 15
Cross-publics of “the Muslimwoman” American Ethnologist

world have made me more conscious of the costs of uneven ethnographic efforts. Given the hostility and suspicion toward feminist projects and the dedication they require— aspects of such projects that I emphasized strongly in my analysis of the work of Palestinian women activists— it would have been useful to have produced more relational ethnographic work on projects of women’s development, empowerment, and rights. Ethnography of feminist activists, experts, and organizations would not necessarily have changed my analysis but would have grounded and nuanced my analysis of their contexts. The value of this approach is clear from some pioneering ethnographic work on feminists (Ali 2015; Hodgson 2002, 2003, 2011; Merry 2006; Sukarieh 2015; Sweis 2012; Walley, n.d.).
The hesitation in my support for authentic internal critics is a result of the combination of my ﬁeldwork experiences with rural women in Egypt and my primary location in the United States, where discourses about Islam and the Middle East and the devastating policies they underwrite appear particularly dangerous. To confront simplistic or tendentious discourses about how Islam is to blame for women’s oppression, I opened Do Muslim Women Need Saving? with a vignette of a woman friend in the Egyptian village where I had worked for 20 years. It was the eve of the revolution of January 25, 2011, though we didn’t know it. I described her shock when I explained that many people in the West blame Islam for women’s oppression. She insisted, to the contrary, that her problems were the fault of the government. She complained about the arbitrary powers of the security forces, a lack of concern for the poor, corruption, and gross inequalities. From my ethnographic work, I also shared stories about women who fought for their inheritances against their brothers, wielding the Qur’an and enjoying the full support of elders and religious authorities. I presented the troubling case of a young woman who was subjected to the violence of a husband, noting that he was condemned by the whole community as a bad Muslim.
When ﬁgures like Bawer or Chesler, who claim to care about women, lay abuses and suffering at the feet of the Qu’ran, a “poisonous” religion, or “honor cultures,” anthropologists like me, who work with more complex theories of culture and culture making and have intimate knowledge of diverse women’s lives, feel they must react. Just after my book was published, I came across new evidence of the insidious deployment of culturalist arguments: a media blitz for a documentary called Honor Diaries. Associated with Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s foundation, it was funded by the Clarion Fund, the same shadowy foundation that produced Obsession, a notorious Islamophobic ﬁlm that was distributed free in hundreds of thousands of newspapers in swing states during a US presidential election to undermine Barack Obama by tarring him as a Muslim (Saylor 2014). Key players in this campaign are Israeli.

The motto of the campaign is “Culture is no excuse for abuse.” Yet it is Honor Diaries that is “blaming culture for bad behavior” (Volpp 2000). The ﬁlm and campaign frame violence against women as happening only in Muslim or brown communities and as only being related to their culture—not to structural violence, global economic depredations, political contestations, or war, to name a few other obvious sources.9 My book traces the way tropes of cultural harm have functioned to stigmatize religious communities, ethnic groups, and social classes, following a path blazed by feminist scholars like Uma Narayan (1997), who, for example, coined the phrase “death by culture” to describe the way dowry deaths in India are (mis)framed. Being forced into this reactive stance by the wider context of Islamophobia may have discouraged me from fully investigating or focusing on the conservative uses of Islam by political groups seeking to undermine women’s rights and lives, something apparent across the Middle East and elsewhere; these are precisely the targets of so much “internal” feminist criticism, and for good reason.
Instrumentalizing ethnography?
In their review of the anthropology of human rights, Iris Jean-Klein and Annelise Riles argue that anthropologists should do ethnography in the world of rights since this is the only form of engagement the profession is “uniquely qualiﬁed to administer” (2005, 174–75). They suggest that our self-disciplined ethnography should be oriented to anthropological knowledge production. In contrast, Fassin makes a case for a critical and public ethnography that moves beyond the discipline, because the ethnographer plays a special role as a “presence both involved and detached, inscribed in the instant and over time, allowing precise descriptions and multiple perspectives, thus providing a distinctive understanding of the world that deserves to be shared” (2013, 642). This is especially relevant, he continues, in “understudied regions of society, but can be signiﬁcant also in spaces saturated by consensual meanings: in the ﬁrst case, it illuminates the unknown; in the second, it interrogates the obvious” (642). My ethnography of some Muslim women is a case of the latter: it interrogates the obvious in a space saturated by the consensual meanings that I have called common sense.10
Yet making ethnography more public and using it strategically to contribute to political debates intensiﬁes the troubling ethical questions that anthropologists have always taken seriously. As someone with long-term relationships with speciﬁc communities in what could be construed as “the Muslim world,” I have worried about exposing particular people’s everyday and intimate lives to broader publics beyond the academy and for purposes beyond “anthropological knowledge production.” To challenge the public discourse about the Muslimwoman—and

603

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 11 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

by implication, the Muslimman, as Shenila Khoja-Moolji (2015) suggests—am I then instrumentalizing ethnography?
In the afterword to the 30th-anniversary edition of my ﬁrst ethnography, Veiled Sentiments (Abu-Lughod 2016), I reﬂect on the responsibilities we have to those who have become part of our lives through ﬁeldwork. I have known people in this small Bedouin community over 35 years. I have watched children grow up and marry, lost beloved friends to illness and death, and become over time more uncertain about anthropology’s higher purpose. In the early 1990s, I had written a second ethnography of this community of Awlad ‘Ali Bedouins, Writing Women’s Worlds (Abu-Lughod 1993), because I felt that Veiled Sentiments had failed to capture the spirited and textured ways women lived, argued, and thought in this community. I used intimate stories of the everyday to undermine generalizations about such classic themes for the region as systems of kinship and the honor code. I placed people and their stories in particular circumstances. This “ethnography of the particular,” as I called it, was meant to disrupt presumptions of the homogeneity of cultures and to confront commonplaces of both anthropology and feminist studies.
I had misgivings about this project at the time.11 I likened my ethnographic storytelling to candid photographs; I knew that my Bedouin friends preferred formal posed portraits. Later, when Veiled Sentiments was translated to Arabic (Abu-Lughod 1995), something I eagerly welcomed, I worried that the theoretical arguments about the complexity of culture and moral systems might be lost on those unfamiliar with the ways anthropologists write. The stories of love, betrayal, and loss that I had bent to this higher purpose of social and cultural analysis and to the task of “humanizing” an Arab community to outsiders (something they would be surprised to learn was needed) might just seem indiscreet. The disclosures were for me at least partially redeemed by the justice I had done to the proud ways my friends lived. I attempted to show the richness, intensity, and complexity of their social and imaginative worlds. I recorded for posterity poetic traditions that were being lost. The fact that so many colleagues continue to teach the ethnographies suggests that they do offer something important. I like to think that these ethnographies make it possible for readers to have at least a few Muslim women populating their imaginations when they run across the manufactured stereotypes of the Muslimwoman.
Questions about the ethics of revealing people’s lives to the public are even more pertinent for the more confrontational and readable Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Anthropologists’ methods produce a unique kind of knowledge and produce knowledge in a unique way. What happens when this knowledge is opened to the scrutiny of the ignorant and the hostile, not just the serious or curious? Anthropologists who work with women and on gender

politics in the Middle East and the Muslim world would like to share Fassin’s measured conﬁdence that “a conversation between the ethnographer and his or her publics generates a circulation of knowledge, reﬂection, and action likely to contribute to a transformation of the way the world is represented and experienced” (2013, 628). Yet we feel exhausted, overwhelmed by the hold of the cultural common sense and daunted by the structures that keep it in place, from well-meaning liberalism to Orientalism, from well-funded Islamophobia and the associated terror-expertise industry to US and Israeli geopolitical interests and media collusion. Those of us who work in these regions sometimes resent the responsibility we feel to always use what we have learned to speak back to negative or ignorant views held by Western publics, including feminists, or even local elites who sometimes share their views about the cultural backwardness or “excessive” religiosity of less privileged compatriots. This limits our foci and constrains what we can say.
Fassin concludes his defense of public ethnography by noting that “we owe in priority those with whom we worked and those primarily concerned by the issues on which we conduct our work” (2013, 640). But how does making public our ethnography repay those with whom we have worked? Anthropologists have always worried about the consequences of disclosing what we have learned as ethnographers about communities we have come to care about. We now live in a world where borders are regularly breached with social media and travel, where we cannot control who will read or see or hear what we have made public, where what we have presented in good faith may be redeployed in the service of different projects, and where those who have trusted us enough to let us into their lives might be made vulnerable or somehow compromised by what we reveal.
In this context, Audra Simpson’s (2014, 95–115) advocacy of “ethnographic refusal” is compelling. Writing about the Mohawk community of which she is a part, Simpson developed this stance in light of the history of anthropology’s complicity in undermining the sovereignty of the native peoples who were, after all, its original objects of study. She advocates “ethnographic refusal” as a protective move against the ongoing dispossessions of settler states that use their knowledge about native communities to discipline or undermine them. Similar dilemmas arise when we become aware of how signiﬁcant the Muslimwoman is to the geopolitics of empire, the war on terror, and, increasingly, the xenophobic nationalist politics around immigrants and refugees in Europe (Ticktin 2011).
How can we decide whether it is “public ethnography” or “ethnographic refusal” that would best repay the debts we incur to those who have shared their lives with us? This must be answered case by case. The conversation in which I seek to intervene with my ethnography of women and gender is not one that the women about whom I am

604

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 12 of 15
Cross-publics of “the Muslimwoman” American Ethnologist

writing are directly concerned. They would be surprised to discover how they are represented. But their lives and possibilities are deeply affected by the events and formations to which representations of the Muslimwoman are connected as product, justiﬁcation, or affective ground for intervention. Given this context, if ethnography can make available alternative accounts of lives and communities that can then authorize and give substance to those forces seeking to challenge the standard views and policies, it is valuable. In the case of the Muslimwoman, ethnographies by feminist anthropologists have indeed populated the public imagination with women who disrupt the common sense manufactured for purposes that contribute to harming these women and their communities. For example, ethnographies such as Saba Mahmood’s (2004) and Sherine Hafez’s (2011) on women in the Islamic revival in Egypt, Lara Deeb’s (2006) on Shi’ia Muslim women associated with Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Nadia Guessous’s (n.d.) on the aversions of secular Moroccan feminists to the veil—to name just a few on the Arab world—encourage skepticism about taken-forgranted values of liberation or secularism.
Given the deadly repetitions of the public discourses on the Muslimwoman and the kinds of cross-publics that I discovered coalescing around my book, the alternatives we can offer are crucial. If our ethnographies can generate debate and lead to serious conversation about life-and-death political issues, this may change attitudes and eventually policy. The article (Abu-Lughod 2002) that led to my book is routinely one of the “most downloaded” articles from American Anthropologist. It rivals Horace Miner’s (1956) satirical classic “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” assigned by teachers to force students to question their smug assumptions about who is a “primitive Other.” Like the multiple reprints and translations in anthropology and women’s studies textbooks and readers, the downloads suggest that my counterhegemonic arguments resonate with colleagues. This work articulates, with ethnographic support, views that thoughtful people already have developed about the dangerous ways that representations of Muslim women are deployed politically.
This kind of work is therefore useful for opening conversations in the classroom and beyond. The effects of such conversations are not easy to measure. Some will be led to explore other ethnographic work on women and gender politics in the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and in immigrant communities in Europe, Australia, and North America. Some will be led to inform themselves better about interconnected global histories, rejecting the binary divisions between East and West. Some will reexamine assumptions and prejudices. At the least, such ethnographic work changes the parameters of public discourse.12 My hope is that this will in turn affect global politics. In that case, public ethnography could be instrumental in repaying some of our debts to those with whom we have worked.

Notes
Acknowledgments. I am grateful for the incisive comments of three anonymous reviewers and AE’s editor, Niko Besnier. They suggested excellent ways to strengthen this essay. I also have beneﬁted from audience questions and suggestions at the universities, including my own, where I presented earlier versions. I am especially grateful for the invitation to deliver the 2014 Maryse and Ramzy Mikhail Memorial Lecture at the University of Toledo, where I ﬁrst began to think about these issues.
1. For the video interview, see John Williams, “The Read Aloud: Video of Lila Abu-Lughod,” New York Times website, December 23, 2013, accessed March 15, 2016, http://artsbeat .blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/the-read-around-video-of-lilaabu-lughod/? r=0Links.
For the book review, see Tyler Cowen, “A One-Sentence Book Review,” New York Times Magazine, February 23, 2014, accessed March 15, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 2014/02/23/magazine/23-one-page-magazine.html? r=1.
2. “About MMW,” Muslimah Media Watch, accessed July 20, 2016, http://www.muslimahmediawatch.org/about-2/.
3. “Fjordman” made his identity public after the shootings (Bangstad 2014, 80).
4. The comments appeared on Bawer’s (2014) review but have been removed as of July 23, 2016.
5. Nussbaum explicitly links it to the type of anti-Semitism represented in an earlier era and associated with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The connections between Islamophobia and antiSemitism have been explored by anthropologists, including Ruth Mandel (2008) and Katherine Ewing (2008), and by others, including those analyzing cartoons (Gottschalk and Greenberg 2008).
6. Website of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, accessed July 23, 2016, http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org.
7. Chesler’s accusations on a right-wing news blog the following year expand on these ideas about anti-Israel feeling. In an article (Chesler 2014) about the 2014 National Women’s Studies Association Conference, where Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions were to be discussed, she charges activists with “hijacking feminism to attack Israel” and laments that this was “only the latest, among many other examples, of the way in which Women’s Studies— an idea which I pioneered so long ago—has been Stalinized and Palestinianized.”
8. Juliane Hammer argues that “a thorough analysis of gendered Islamophobia needs to take into consideration the problem of delineating the boundaries of what is identiﬁed as Islamophobia as opposed to critical feminist discourse, secular critique, and intraMuslim reform” (2013, 110).
9. The sensationalism is patent from the graphic photos that accompany their e-mails to the promotional announcements with headings like “STATUS UPDATE: MURDERED,” “Female Genital Mutilation: In America?,” “What If You Were Forced to Marry?,” and “Don’t Let ‘Intersectionality’ Stop You from Being a Feminist.”
10. It is telling that, according to Deeb and Winegar (2012, 542), about 40 percent of recent work in the anthropology of the Arab world focuses on gender. The statistic is positive in indicating that anthropologists continue to struggle against stereotypes with careful ethnographic work and that there is increasing acceptance of feminist anthropology in the discipline. The negative interpretation is that anthropologists may be inadvertently contributing to the impression of a unique pathology around gender and sexuality in the region. My own earlier review essay had labeled the strong focus on women as “harem theory” (Abu-Lughod 1989); since then, work has expanded the focus to gender and includes ethnographic work on masculinities and sexuality.

605

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 13 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

11. My misgivings are different from those expressed by Webb Keane (2003) about that project (Abu-Lughod 1991). Despite generously placing my arguments about “ethnography of the particular” in a genealogy that includes Franz Boas and Clifford Geertz, he missed the points I later made in the introduction to my book about the feminist critiques of the power (some say masculine) of using abstract theoretical language and about my own orientation toward confronting problems of hostile representations of distant communities, for which “ethnography of the particular” and “writing against culture” were tactical. He misrepresents my focus on particular individuals as reﬂecting ontology and arising from my simple valorization of the individual and agency when again I intended these as tactics to confront powerful forms of generalization about communities in the Middle East.
12. Mayssoun Sukarieh and Stuart Tannock (2013) forcefully question the ethics of researching vulnerable communities. They argue that the “overresearched” Palestinians who live in the conveniently located refugee camp of Shatila feel they get no direct beneﬁt from the researchers keen to give voice to Palestinians. But when a Guardian columnist (Bunting 2016), again, in the United Kingdom, discusses colonial feminism in the context of David Cameron’s announcement of a program to teach English to Muslim women in Britain (as antiradicalization and under threat of deportation) and suggests that Do Muslim Women Need Saving? should be required reading for the then British prime minister, we can see how public ethnography might be useful for those advocating changing attitudes and even policies.
References
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1989. “Zones of Theory in the Anthropology of the Arab World.” Annual Review of Anthropology 18:267–306.
———. 1991. “Writing against Culture.” In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, edited by Richard G. Fox, 137-62. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.
———. 1993. Writing Women’s Worlds: Bedouin Stories. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1995. Masha’ir muhajjaba [Veiled sentiments]. Cairo: Nour Arab.
———. 1997. “Is There a Muslim Sexuality? Changing Constructions of Sexuality in Egyptian Weddings.” In Gender in CrossCultural Perspective, edited by Caroline Brettell and Carolyn Sargent, 167–76. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———, ed. 1998. Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. 2002. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reﬂections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783–90.
———. 2013. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 2016. “The Values of Ethnography.” Afterword to Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. First published 1986.
Ahmad, Dohra. 2009. “Not Yet beyond the Veil: Muslim Women in American Popular Literature.” Social Text 27 (2 99): 105–31.
Ahmed, Leila. 1982. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Al-Ali, Nadje. 2000. Secularism, Gender, and the State in the Middle East: The Egyptian Women’s Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2007. Iraqi Women: Untold Stories from 1948 to the Present. London: Zed Books.
606

Ali, Zahra. 2015. “Women and Gender in Iraq: Between NationBuilding and Fragmentation.” PhD diss., E´ cole des hautes e´tudes en sciences sociales, Paris, and School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
Allen, Lori. 2013. The Rise and Fall of Human Rights: Cynicism and Politics in Occupied Palestine. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Amir-Moazami, Schirin. 2015. Review of Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, by Lila Abu-Lughod. Ethnicities 15 (5): 767–73.
Bangstad, Sindre. 2013. “Eurabia Comes to Norway.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 24 (3): 369–91.
———. 2014. Anders Breivik and the Rise of Islamophobia. London: Zed Books.
Bawer, Bruce. 2014. “Saving Islam from Its Victims.” FrontPage Magazine, January 21. Accessed July 20, 2016. http://www .frontpagemag.com/fpm/216864/saving-islam-its-victimsbruce-bawer.
Biel, Joa˜o, and Ramah McKay. 2012. “Ethnography as Political Critique.” Anthropological Quarterly 85 (4): 1209–28.
Booth, Marilyn. 2001. May Her Likes Be Multiplied: Biography and Gender Politics in Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Borofsky, Robert. 2000. “Commentary: Public Anthropology. Where To? What Next?” Anthropology News 41 (5): 9–10.
Brettell, Caroline B., ed. 1996. When They Read What We Write: The Politics of Ethnography. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Bunting, Madeleine. 2016. “Cameron and Muslim Women: A New Twist on an Old Colonial Story.” Guardian (London), January 22. Accessed July 20, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2016/jan/22/david-cameron-muslim-women.
Chesler, Phyllis. 2013. An American Bride in Kabul. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2014. “Activists Hijacking Feminism to Attack Israel at Women’s Studies Association Meeting.” Breitbart, June 6. Accessed July 23, 2016. http://www.breitbart.com/nationalsecurity/2014/06/06/hijacking-of-feminism/.
Chowdhury, Elora Halim. 2011. Transnationalism Reversed: Women Organizing against Gendered Violence in Bangladesh. Albany: State University of New York Press.
cooke, miriam. 2007. “The Muslimwoman.” Contemporary Islam 1 (2): 139–54.
Cowan, Jane K., Marie-Be´ne´dict Dembour, and Richard A. Wilson, eds. 2001. Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dabashi, Hamid. 2006. “Native Informers and the Making of the American Empire.” Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, June 1–7. Accessed July 19, 2016. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/Archive/ 2006/797/special.htm.
Deeb, Lara. 2006. An Enchanted Modern: Gender and Public Piety in Shi’i Lebanon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Deeb, Lara, and Jessica Winegar. 2012. “Anthropologies of Arab-Majority Societies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 537–58.
Englund, Harri. 2006. Human Rights and the African Poor. Berkeley: University of California.
Ewing, Katherine. 2008. Stolen Honor: Stigmatizing Muslim Men in Berlin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fassin, Didier. 2013. “Why Ethnography Matters: On Anthropology and Its Publics.” Cultural Anthropology 28 (4): 621–46.
———. 2015. “The Public Afterlife of Ethnography.” American Ethnologist 42 (4): 592–609.
Ferguson, Susanna. 2015. “Listening to Rights Talk in Damascus: Women’s Rights, Human Rights, and the State in Syria, 2009–11.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 35 (3): 557–74.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 14 of 15
Cross-publics of “the Muslimwoman” American Ethnologist

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description.” In The Interpretation of Cultures, 3–32. New York: Basic Books.
Goodale, Mark, ed. 2009. Human Rights: An Anthropological Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gottschalk, Peter, and Gabriel Greenberg. 2008. Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleﬁeld.
Grewal, Inderpal. 2005. Transnational America: Feminisms, Diasporas, Neoliberalisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Grewal, Inderpal, and Victoria Bernal, eds. 2014. Theorizing NGOs: States, Feminisms, and Neoliberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Guessous, Nadia. n.d. “The Discourse of the Veil: Secular Feminism and the Politics of Avoidance in Contemporary Morocco.” Unpublished ms. Last updated 2016. Word document.
Hafez, Sherine. 2011. An Islam of Her Own: Reconsidering Religion and Secularism in Women’s Islamic Movements. New York: New York University Press.
Hammer, Juliane. 2013. “Center Stage: Gendered Islamophobia and Muslim Women.” In Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, edited by Carl W. Ernst, 107–44. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hesford, Wendy. 2011. Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hodgson, Dorothy. 2002. “Introduction: Comparative Perspectives on the Indigenous Rights Movement in Africa and the Americas.” American Anthropologist 104 (4): 1037–49.
———. 2003. “Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Women in Law and Development in Africa.” Africa Today 49 (2): 1–26.
———. 2011. “‘These Are Not Our Priorities’: Maasai Women, Human Rights and the Problem of Culture.” In Gender and Culture at the Limits of Rights, edited by Dorothy L. Hodgson, 138–59. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jackson, Michael. 2005. Existential Anthropology. New York: Berghahn.
Jad, Islah. 2005. “Between Religion and Secularism: Islamist Women of Hamas.” In On Shifting Ground: Muslim Women in the Global Era, edited by Fereshteh Nouraie-Simone, 172–200. New York: Feminist Press.
Jean-Klein, Iris, and Annelise Riles. 2005. “Introducing Discipline: Anthropology and Human Rights Administrations.” Political and Legal Anthropology Review 28 (2): 173–202.
Kandiyoti, Deniz. 2015. Review of Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, by Lila Abu-Lughod. Ethnicities 15 (5): 759–62.
Kapur, Ratna. 2002. “The Tragedy of Victimization Rhetoric: Resurrecting the ‘Native’ Subject in International/Post-colonial Feminist Legal Politics.” Harvard Human Rights Law Journal 1: 1–38.
Keane, Webb. 2003. “Self-Interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthropology: Reﬂections on a Genealogy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45 (2): 222–48.
Khoja-Moolji, Shenila. 2015. “Reading Malala: (De)(Re) Territorialization of Muslim Collectivities.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 35 (3): 539–56.
Kristof, Nicholas. 2014. “Professors, We Need You!” New York Times, February 15. Accessed March 15, 2016. http://www.nytimes .com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-weneed-you.html.
Kristof, Nicholas D., and Sheryl WuDunn. 2009. Half the Sky: How to Change the World. New York: Knopf.
Kumar, Deepa. 2012. Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Mahmood, Saba. 2004. Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. 2008 “Feminism, Democracy, and Empire: Islam and the War on Terror.” In Women’s Studies on the Edge, edited by Joan Wallach Scott, 81–111. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Malik, Maleiha. 2015. Review of Do Muslim Women Need Saving? by Lila Abu-Lughod. Ethnicities 15 (5): 762–67.
Mandel, Ruth. 2008. Cosmopolitan Anxieties: Turkish Challenges to Citizenship and Belonging in Germany. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McLarney, Ellen Anne. 2015. Soft Force: Women in Egypt’s Islamic Awakening. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Messick, Brinkley. 1996. The Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. Forthcoming. Shar¯ı’a Scripts: An Historical Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Miner, Horace. 1956. “Body Ritual among the Nacirema.” American Anthropologist 58 (3): 503–7.
Narayan, Uma. 1997. Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions and Third World Feminisms. New York: Routledge.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2012. The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2002. The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rinaldo, Rachel. 2013. Mobilizing Piety: Islam and Feminism in Indonesia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, Jenni. 2013. “Drawing a Veil over the Truth.” Sunday Times (London), November 3, 38–39.
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon. Salime, Zakia. 2011. Between Feminism and Islam: Human
Rights and Sharia Law in Morocco. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 2015. “Arab Revolutions: Legible, Illegible Bodies.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 35 (3): 525–38. Sangtin Writers and Richa Nagar. 2006. Playing with Fire: Feminist Thought and Activism through Seven Lives in India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Saylor, Corey. 2014. “The U.S. Islamophobia Network: Its Funding and Impact.” Islamophobia Studies Journal 2 (1): 99–118. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2001. Saints, Scholars and Schizophrenics: Mental Illness in Rural Ireland. Rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. First published 1977. Shehabuddin, Elora. 2008. Reshaping the Holy: Democracy, Development, and Muslim Women in Bangladesh. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2011. “Gender and the Figure of the ‘Moderate Muslim’: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century.” In The Question of Gender: Joan W. Scott’s Critical Feminism, edited by Judith Butler and Elizabeth Weed, 102–42. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. shireen. 2014. “How ‘Do Muslim Women Need Saving?’ Saved Me.” Muslimah Media Watch, March 4. Accessed July 20, 2016. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2014/03/how-domuslim-women-need-saving-saved-me/. Simpson, Audra. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

607

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 36-3 Filed 04/11/17 Page 15 of 15
American Ethnologist Volume 43 Number 4 November 2016

Spencer, Robert, and Phyllis Chesler. 2007. The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam. Los Angeles: David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1987. “An Awkward Relationship: The Case of Feminism and Anthropology.” Signs 12 (2): 276–92.
Sukarieh, Mayssoun. 2015. “The First Lady Phenomenon: Elites, States, and the Contradictory Politics of Women’s Empowerment in the Neoliberal Arab World.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East (2015) 35 (3): 575–87.
Sukarieh, Mayssoun, and Stuart Tannock. 2013. “On the Problem of Over-researched Communities: The Case of the Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp in Lebanon.” Sociology 47 (3): 494–508.
Sweis, Rania. 2012. “Saving Egypt’s Village Girls: Humanity, Rights, and Gendered Vulnerability in a Global Youth Initiative.” Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 8 (2): 26–50.
tasnim. 2013. “Review: Do Muslim Women Need Saving?” Muslimah Media Watch, November 26. Accessed July 23, 2016. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2013/11/review-domuslim-women-need-saving/.

Ticktin, Miriam. 2011. Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism in France. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Villano, Emily. 2013. “Not Oprah’s Book Club: Do Muslim Women Need Saving?” Feministing, December 4. Accessed July 23, 2016. http://feministing.com/2013/12/04/not-oprahsbook-club-do-muslim-women-need-saving/.
Volpp, Leti. 2000. “Blaming Culture for Bad Behavior.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12:89–116.
Walley, Christine. n.d. “What We Women Want: An Ethnography of Transnational Feminism.” Unpublished ms. Last updated 2010. Word document.
Yafout, Merieme. 2015. “Islamist Women and the Arab Spring.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 35 (3): 588–604.
Lila Abu-Lughod Department of Anthropology Columbia University 452 Schermerhorn Extension New York, NY 10027
la310@columbia.edu

608

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; and JANE

)

DOE,

)

) Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the United States; )

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN

)

KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary )

of the Department of Homeland Security; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official )

capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. )

Customs and Border Protection; REX W. )

TILLERSON, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON

)

BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his

)

official capacity as Attorney General of the )

United States,

)

Defendants.

)

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 2 of 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1 I. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Justiciable. ...................................................................................... 1
A. UMAA Has Standing to Pursue Its Claims............................................................. 1 1. UMAA Has Organizational Standing ......................................................... 1 2. UMAA Has Associational Standing ........................................................... 4
B. The Doe Plaintiffs Have Standing .......................................................................... 9 II. The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability Does Not Apply. ........................................ 10 III. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed On Their Constitutional Claims. .................................. 11
A. The Limited Review of Mandel Does Not Apply to Plaintiffs’ Claims ............... 11 B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed On Their Establishment Clause and Equal
Protection Claims.................................................................................................. 14 IV. The Replacement Executive Order Violates the INA....................................................... 19
A. The Nondiscrimination Requirement Applies to Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) .. 19 B. The Travel Ban Is Not a “Temporary Pause” ....................................................... 20 C. Defendants Are Not Free to Invidiously Discriminate in Issuing Nonimmigrant
Visas...................................................................................................................... 21 V. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On Their Section 4 Challenge. .................................... 21 VI. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Immediate, Irreparable Harm Absent Preliminary Relief. ............. 23 VII. The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Support Preliminary Relief. ............ 23 VIII. The Court Should Enjoin the Challenged Sections in Their Entirety. .............................. 24 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 25
1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 3 of 36
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES:
Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) .......................................................................................................7, 11
ACLU of Ohio Found. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 930 (2011) ............................................................................................16
Am. Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................6
Aziz v. Trump, No. 117CV116LMBTCB, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017).................................................................12, 16, 23
Camel Hair & Cashmere Inst., Inc. v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 799 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1986) ..........................................................................................................4
Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................14
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................9
Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980), aff’d, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) .......................................................................................................21
Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................6
Chan v. INS, 631 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 921 (1981) .............................................................................................21
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................23
Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................6
ii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 4 of 36
Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) .....................................................................................................6
DynaLantic Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 885 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D.D.C. 2012) .........................................................................................23
Fair Emp’t Council of Greater Wash., Inc. v. BMC Mktg. Corp., 28 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................2
Felix v. City of Bloomfield, 841 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................16
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).................................................................................................................12
Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2429 (2016) ..........................................................................................5
Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 291 F. Supp. 2d 269 (D.N.J. 2003), aff’d 390 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2004), aff’d 547 U.S. 47 (2006) ............................................................................................................5
Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................17
Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 100 (2003) ............................................................................................17
Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................23, 24
Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Gracey, 809 F. 2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ..............................................................................................7, 8
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).................................................................................................................12
Hawai’i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017).................................... passim
Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump, No. CV TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017), appeal filed, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017)......................................................... passim
iii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 5 of 36
Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Kelly, Case No. 2:17-cv-01761, slip. op. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2017) ...........................................8, 9, 23
Jackson v. Okaloosa City, 21 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................................6, 7
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) .............................................................................................................14
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)...............................................................................................11, 12, 13, 14
Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982).................................................................................................................15
League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................2
Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (LAVAS), 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996)..........................................................7, 10, 11, 20
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).................................................................................................................24
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)...................................................................................................................9
Maramjaya v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. CIV. A. 06-2158 RCL, 2008 WL 9398947 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2008)................................10
Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943).................................................................................................................13
McCreary County Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 845 U.S. 844 (2005).....................................................................................................15, 16, 17
Mead v. Holder, 766 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C.), aff’d sub nom., Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 63 (2012) ..............................................................................................2
Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................4
iv

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 6 of 36
Miller v. Christopher, 96 F.3d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)...........................................................12
Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2004).....................................................................................................17
NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)...............................................................................................................5, 6
Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957 (1980) ............................................................................................13
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 786 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................................................5
Nat’l Biodiesel Bd. v. EPA, 843 F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................5
National Wrestling Coaches Association v. Department of Education, 366 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................4
New York State NOW v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 947 (1990) ..............................................................................................6
Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Serv. to the United States v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C. 2016) .........................................................................................11
Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) ................................................................................................21
Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................10, 11
Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................14
Red Lion Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).................................................................................................................13
Reyes-Gaona v. N.C. Growers Ass’n, 250 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................20
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................................8, 11
v

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 7 of 36
Sarsour v. Trump, No. 117CV00120AJTIDD, 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017) ................................................................8, 12, 22
Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................4, 5, 6
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976)...................................................................................................................5
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).................................................................................................................13
Summers v. Earth Island Inst. 555 U.S. 488 (2009)...................................................................................................................6
Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended (Sept. 25, 2002)....................................................................................................12
Termorio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 650 (2007) ............................................................................................4
Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied sub. nom., Mount Soledad Mem’l Ass’n v. Trunk, 132 S. Ct. 2535 (2012) .............................................................................................................16
U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950).................................................................................................................12
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995)...................................................................................................................3
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 102 S.Ct. 752 (1982) ..................................................................................................................3
Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).................................................................................................................16
Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), reh’g en banc denied, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 992527 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017)....................................11, 12, 23, 24
vi

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 8 of 36 Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces,
541 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................17 Wong Wing Hang v. INS,
360 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1980).....................................................................................................21 Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678 (2001).................................................................................................................11 STATUTES: Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152 et seq. .................................................... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES: 9 F.A.M. 203.5-2(b)(1), https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM020305.html ..........................9 Executive Order 13,769 § 2(b)-(d)...........................................................................................19, 24 Executive Order 13,780 § 2(b).......................................................................................................19
vii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 9 of 36
INTRODUCTION In attempting to defend President Trump’s discriminatory and unconstitutional Replacement Executive Order, Defendants reassert arguments that have been rejected repeatedly by courts around the country. Defendants seek to persuade this Court that Plaintiffs’ clear and concrete harms are not justiciable; they apply inappropriate review standards to Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims; and they try to distract the Court from a disturbing record of anti-Muslim animus from the Executive Branch, including the President himself. Defendants also offer an astonishing interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, contending that the President has authority to discriminate on the basis of religion and to exceed his delegated powers in regulating immigration. It now falls to this Court to protect not only Plaintiffs, who will suffer immediate and irreparable harm should this Replacement Executive Order not be enjoined, but also our nation’s most basic ideals. By enjoining the Replacement Executive Order, this Court would reaffirm that diversity is valued, not feared, and it would send the message that the Replacement Executive Branch cannot paper over explicit religious discrimination merely by invoking the talisman of national security.
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Justiciable.
A. UMAA Has Standing to Pursue Its Claims 1. UMAA Has Organizational Standing a. UMAA has suffered an injury in fact
Defendants assert that UMAA has not suffered an injury in fact. But UMAA has demonstrated concrete harms to activities that are important to its mission—organizing a national convention and other events to give American Shi’as access to Islamic teachings from prominent

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 10 of 36
Shi’a scholars. UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7-23, 30; UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3-7; see League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“An organization is harmed if the actions taken by [the defendant] have perceptibly impaired the [organization’s] programs.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Fair Emp’t Council of Greater Wash., Inc. v. BMC Mktg. Corp., 28 F.3d 1268, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[I]f discriminatory actions taken by [the defendant] have ‘perceptibly impaired’ the [plaintiff’s] programs, there can be no question that the organization has suffered injury in fact.”) (internal citation omitted). That injury includes concrete financial harms, in the form of having to refund payments already received for conference tickets. See UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 14–19. Similar financial harms will continue to accrue and will be compounded substantially if the order goes into effect. See UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 20–25; UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶ 7.
Defendants first argue that there is no imminent injury, which is simply not accurate. UMAA’s annual conference is scheduled for June 30 through July 3, 2017. UMAA Decl. ¶ 11; UMAA Supp. Decl ¶ 3. UMAA has invited a number of Iranian and Iraqi scholars to participate and is unable to make travel arrangements and other logistical plans, without risking wasted expenditures, for these scholars. UMAA Decl. ¶ 23; UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. UMAA also expects reduced turnout for its convention. Id. ¶ 7. For this same reason, UMAA’s challenge is ripe for adjudication. See Mead v. Holder, 766 F. Supp. 2d 16, 27 (D.D.C.) (“Plaintiffs have also alleged a ripe, actual injury consisting of the impact on their current financial decision-making. That injury is being felt now, and is therefore not subject to contingent future events.”), aff’d sub nom., Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 63 (2012).
Defendants contend that there is no injury because only a “small percentage” of last year’s speakers were from Iraq, and none were from Iran. Defs.’ Mem. of Law in Opp. to Pls’
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 11 of 36
Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Opp.] 11. But there is no de minimis exception for constitutional injuries. At least 10% of UMAA’s speakers at last year’s conference were Iraqi (UMAA Decl. ¶ 13.)1, enough to demonstrate concrete injury.
Pointing to Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Defendants incorrectly contend that stigma cannot be an injury in fact. Opp. 13. In Valley Forge, there was no Establishment Clause standing because plaintiffs had merely read about the offensive conduct in the newspaper—from another state—but had no nexus whatever to the violation. This case is not about the “psychological consequence” of merely knowing about “conduct with which one disagrees.” Id. As described herein, UMAA and its members are suffering personal harms as the result of the Replacement Executive Order. When combined with the disdain for Islam, the religion to which UMAA and its members belong, these personal harms amount to a concrete, cognizable injury under the Establishment Clause. See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 745 (1995).
The obstacles imposed by the Replacement Executive Order injure UMAA. Defendants’ argument that there has always been “uncertainty” regarding the admission of foreign nationals is a red herring. See Opp. 9-10. The potential “uncertainty” that existed before the Replacement Executive Order and the “uncertainty” that exists now are entirely different. The default outcome under the Replacement Executive Order is exclusion, which is different in kind, not just
1 UMAA has also described, in the most specific terms, the bar to entry as a result of the First Executive Order of Iranian national Basim Karbalaei, resulting in the abrupt cancellation of his performance at an UMAA event, and the impediment to engaging him for UMAA’s convention in July. Defendants appear to be arguing that Mr. Karbalaei (and presumably all similarly situated travelers) is grandfathered for all time out of the second Executive Order as a result of having held a valid nonimmigrant visa on January 27, when the first Executive Order went into effect. (Opp. 11). Even if that were true, which Plaintiffs doubt, UMMA has invited other Iranian and Iraqi speakers to its convention. UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶ 4.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 12 of 36
degree (or “probability”) from the visa program that previously applied. And even to qualify for a waiver, the applicant must convince a consular agent that his or her entry is in “the national interest”—which sends a message of suspicion toward the predominantly Muslim applicants, particularly in light of the repeated statements by the President that Muslim immigrants and visitors are threats. In all events, it is certain that visa applicants from six countries will be barred from entering the United States unless they qualify for a narrow and vague exception, and it is equally certain that visa applicants from Iraq will be subject to significant processing delays, as a direct result of a federal policy of animus toward a particular minority group.
As for National Wrestling Coaches Association v. Department of Education, 366 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the cause of the “uncertainty” there was not the government’s actions, but the intervening actions of a regulated private party that affected the plaintiffs. Id. at 938-40. Here, it is the government itself that issues visas and is therefore the cause of any “uncertainty.”
2. UMAA Has Associational Standing UMAA also has associational standing.2 An association may sue on behalf of its membership where: “(i) at least one member would have standing to sue in her own right; (ii) the interests that the association seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (iii) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires that an individual member of the association participate in the lawsuit.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Defendants challenge UMAA on only the first part of the test.3
2 Because UMAA has organizational standing, it is not required to prove associational standing as well. Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948, 954 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also Termorio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928, 932 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 650 (2007). 3 The interests that UMAA seeks to protect are clearly germane to its purpose. (UMAA Decl. ¶ 30). And, because Plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief, member participation is not required. Camel Hair & Cashmere Inst., Inc. v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 799 F.2d 6, 12 (1st Cir. 1986).
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 13 of 36
Defendants’ argument that UMAA has not identified a specific member who suffered harm fails because UMAA’s members are Shi’a Muslims, whose religious leadership is concentrated in Iran, Iraq and Syria, and hence all UMAA members are objects of the Replacement Executive Order. Fla. Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065, 1074 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2429 (2016); Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 899900; see UMAA Decl. ¶ 6. In a case such as this, where the standing of an organization’s members is “self-evident,” the D.C. Circuit has recognized that no specific identification is required. Nat’l Biodiesel Bd. v. EPA, 843 F.3d 1010, 1015-16 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 786 F.3d 34, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing cases).
Moreover, Defendants’ assertion that UMAA must specifically identify injured members ignores the context in which this litigation arises. The Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in one’s association that is especially strong when members’ constitutional liberties are at stake, or when individually named plaintiffs could otherwise suffer harsh consequences, including fear of “economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility,” if their association is revealed as part of a legal action. NAACP v. Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958); see also Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 117 (1976); Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 291 F. Supp. 2d 269, 286 (D.N.J. 2003), aff’d 390 F.3d 219, 228 n.7 (3d Cir. 2004), aff’d 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006). Those fears are widespread here. UMAA Decl. ¶ 31; UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶ 14. Therefore, UMAA’s relationship with its members is precisely the type envisioned in adopting the doctrine of associational standing. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 114-15; Patterson, 357 U.S. at 462-
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 14 of 36
63; New York State NOW v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1355 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 947 (1990).4
UMAA has submitted a supplemental declaration that sufficiently identifies several members who have been harmed by the Replacement Executive Order. (UMAA Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 10-14); see Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 900 (permitting plaintiffs asserting associational standing arguments to submit supplemental affidavit on learning that such relationship was not sufficiently self-evident). This supplemental declaration is more than sufficient to establish UMAA’s standing, especially given the litigation’s current procedural posture.5
Defendants also charge that UMAA lacks associational standing because its members do not individually have standing. Specifically, Defendants argue that UMAA members’ claims are not ripe until their family members are found eligible for visas and are denied waivers. Opp. 15. This is wrong. The claims of UMAA’s members are ripe because the waiver process itself presents an additional hurdle that would delay family reunification. See Jackson v. Okaloosa City, 21 F.3d 1531, 1541 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding plaintiffs’ claim ripe where, “[a]ssuming that [plaintiffs] successfully prove at trial that [the challenged] additional hurdle was interposed with discriminatory purpose and/or with disparate impact, then the additional hurdle itself is illegal whether or not it might have been surmounted”) (footnote omitted). Defendants’ attempt to
4 None of Defendants’ cited cases involves an organization whose members, if identified, would be revealing personal and private information such as their religion. See Summers v. Earth Island Inst. 555 U.S. 488, 490 (2009) (plaintiffs were organizations dedicated to environmental protection); Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (plaintiff was an association of automobile dealers); Am. Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810, 811 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (plaintiffs were associations of hazardous materials manufacturers, shippers and transporters). “Religion is perhaps the quintessentially private matter.” Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981); accord Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004). 5 Defendants also assert, unsupported by any legal citation, that UMAA’s failure to keep a member list is “fatal” to their assertion of associational standing. (Opp. 15). There are no cases that support such an argument.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 15 of 36
distinguish Jackson fails because UMAA’s members do suffer personal injuries as a result of the Order. In addition, Defendants ignore that UMAA’s members’ standing rests not only on their interest in bringing family members to the United States, but also on their interest in hearing Shi’a scholars invited to UMAA’s events and conferences. UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 26-27; UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶ 10.
Defendants further err in asserting that UMAA’s members are “outside the zone of interests for the INA…claims.” Opp. 15. Defendants’ argument fails, as UMAA’s members, who seek to be reunited with their family members and who are affected by changes to UMAA’s national convention—are precisely the types of individuals Congress intended to protect under the INA. Cf. Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) (individual plaintiffs challenging the denial of visas to foreigners whom they had invited to “attend meetings or address audiences” in the United States were arguably within zone of interests regulated by INA); see also Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep't of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (LAVAS), 45 F.3d 469, 472 (D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996) (because one of the INA’s purposes is “preservation of the family unit,” resident sponsors challenging the State Department’s failure to process visa applications of Vietnamese citizens were “within the zone of interests protected by the INA”) vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996); Int'l Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump, No. CV TDC-170361, 2017 WL 1018235, at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017), appeal filed, No. 17-1351 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017). Defendants’ reliance on Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Gracey is even more inapposite for UMAA’s members’ claims than for UMAA’s claims as an organization. In that case, the court held that individual members of the Haitian Refugee Center did not have an “injury in fact,” because they neither knew the interdicted Haitian aliens nor had any First Amendment basis for
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 16 of 36
their claims. 809 F. 2d 794, 800 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The opposite is true here. Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999), involved a single consular decision denying a nonimmigrant visa application based on illegal drug trafficking; the only “organization” involved was a company founded by the applicant. It provides no meaningful guidance for the Court here.
Defendants’ remaining arguments similarly fail. Plaintiffs’ standing hinges not on the waiver provision alone, but on the Replacement Executive Order’s travel ban and extreme vetting procedures, which inflict an injury that the waiver does not cure. And the waiver provision does indeed impose an onerous burden by requiring visa applicants to prove that they suffer “undue hardship” and that their entry would be in the “national interest.” Exec. Order § 3(c).
Finally, contrary to Defendants’ suggestion, UMAA’s members are asserting Establishment Clause and discrimination claims on their own behalf, and they have standing to do so. UMAA’s members are themselves targets of the President’s religious discrimination and his official disapproval of Islam, and they are suffering concrete harms as a result—including prolonged family separation and lack of access to scholars. UMAA Decl. at ¶¶ 26-29; UMAA Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 10-12. See IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *7 (holding that plaintiffs seeking to bring family to the United States had standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim based on psychological harm resulting from the Replacement Executive Order’s condemnation of Islam); see also Sarsour v. Trump, No. 117CV00120AJTIDD, 2017 WL 1113305, at *5 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017); Hawai’i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1167383, at *10-11 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Kelly, Case No. 2:17-cv-01761, slip.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 17 of 36
op. at pp. 2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2017). Because UMAA members have standing, UMAA has associational standing.6
B. The Doe Plaintiffs Have Standing The Does have standing because the Replacement Executive Order bars their sons’ entry into the United States. Exec. Order § 2(c). Although the Doe sons’ visa applications were approved after Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, the visas have not been issued, and the children remain stranded in Djibouti. Defendants continue to challenge the existing nationwide injunctions that block section 2(c); if they succeed, the Replacement Executive Order will block the children’s admission to the United States, harming the Doe parent-plaintiffs. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the exception at section 3(b)(iii) of the Replacement Executive Order does not apply to the Doe children. Cf. Exec. Order § 3(b)(iii) (exempting persons with “a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of this order or issued on any date thereafter, that permits him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document”). First, the children do not yet have any documents authorizing them to travel to the United States and seek entry. Second, the documents for which the children are applying are indeed “visas,” known as “V92.” The State Department’s own Foreign Affairs Manual elaborates that this stands for “Visas 92.” 9 F.A.M. 203.5-2(b)(1), https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM020305.html. And the children received a document from the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti stating that although their “visa[s] [have been] approved,” their “visa[s]” have not yet been “issued.” Further, Defendants’ own FAQ expressly 6 Defendants do not argue that UMAA members fail the causation and redressability requirements necessary to establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 56061 (1992). Nor could they. UMAA members’ “injuries are traceable to the [Replacement] executive order, and if Plaintiffs prevail,” an injunction against the challenged provisions “would redress that injury. Hawai’i, 2017 WL 1011673, at *10 (citing Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1053).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 18 of 36
states that family members of asylees do not qualify for a categorical exemption from the Replacement Executive Order. Opp. Ex. B 15 (emphasis added). The FAQ explains that family members of asylees are exempt from the Order only if they “already have valid visas or travel documents”—i.e., had these documents as of the Replacement Executive Order’s effective date of March 16, 2017. Id.; see also Exec. Order § 3(a)(iii). Accordingly, the Doe children are subject to the Replacement Executive Order and will be barred from entering the United States unless the Replacement Executive Order remains enjoined. II. The Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability Does Not Apply.
Defendants’ invocation of the consular nonreviewability doctrine is misplaced. The doctrine limits review of the denial of a single visa by a consular official pursuant to congressionally enumerated criteria. It is irrelevant here, where Plaintiffs challenge a sweeping, prospective executive policy.7 See LAVAS, 45 F.3d at 474 (asserting jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the State Department’s decision to stop processing the visa applications of Vietnamese nationals, and holding that the Department’s action was discriminatory in violation of the INA), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996); Maramjaya v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. CIV. A. 06-2158 RCL, 2008 WL 9398947, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2008) (doctrine of consular nonreviewability did not apply because plaintiff did not “challenge the visa decision of any consular official” but instead challenged agency actions antecedent to such decisions); see also Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931–32 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]hen the suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision
7 Defendants’ assertion that this doctrine applies is in tension with their argument that the Replacement Executive Order does not govern “the visa issuance process” at all because it deals with “entry” of non-citizens. Opp. 25.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 19 of 36
taken within the consul’s discretion, jurisdiction exists.”) (internal citation omitted).8 Hence, the
federal courts have repeatedly recognized the judiciary’s authority to decide when executive
action transgresses constitutional or statutory bounds, even in the visa-adjudication context.
LAVAS, 45 F.3d at 474; Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1061 (examining whether State Department
misinterpreted INA in denying certain visas); Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of
Their Faithful Serv. to the United States v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268, 296 (D.D.C. 2016)
(holding that plaintiffs stated claim that State Department’s delay in adjudicating their visa
applications violated federal statutes).9
III. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed On Their Constitutional Claims.
A. The Limited Review of Mandel Does Not Apply to Plaintiffs’ Claims
Contrary to Defendants’ argument, Mandel’s limited standard of review does not apply to
Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.10 Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769 (1972). Multiple
8 Even if Plaintiffs were challenging the denial of a single visa by a consular official, the doctrine would not bar review of any of their claims, including their statutory claims. See Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) (holding that APA conferred right to judicial review of statutory claims relating to denial of visas to plaintiffs’ invitees, where plaintiffs also raised constitutional claims that court did not decide); cf. Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1163–64 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (declining jurisdiction and distinguishing Abourezk on ground that the plaintiffs in Saavedra Bruno asserted no constitutional claims). 9 See also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (power to create immigration policy is “subject to important constitutional limitations”) (internal citation omitted); Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1061 (executive’s discretion over alien admission and exclusion “extends only as far as the statutory authority conferred by Congress and may not transgress constitutional limitations,” and “[i]t is the duty of the courts” to “say where those statutory and constitutional boundaries lie”); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th Cir. 2017), reh’g en banc denied, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 992527 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017) (in reviewing the First Executive Order, holding that “[t]here is no precedent to support [President Trump’s] claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy”) (internal citation omitted). 10 Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs’ arguments in asserting that Plaintiffs are defending only the constitutional rights of others. Plaintiffs rather challenge violations of their own
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 20 of 36
courts that have reviewed the Original or Replacement Executive Order have held that Mandel does not control. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1162–63 (9th Cir. 2017), reh’g en banc denied, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 992527 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017); Hawai’i, 2017 WL 1167383, at *6, 12; IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *16; Aziz v. Trump, No. 117CV116LMBTCB, 2017 WL 580855, at *8 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017); Sarsour, 2017 WL 1113305, at *11. And for good reason: Most of the cases cited by Defendants involve challenges to congressional statutes and implicate Congress’s plenary power to make immigration policy. See Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 794, 807 (1977) (upholding sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act because they were supported by “facially legitimate and bona fide” reasoning); Miller v. Christopher, 96 F.3d 1467, 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (same), aff’d sub nom. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended (Sept. 25, 2002) (same); cf. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 596 (1952) (upholding the Alien Registration Act without citing Mandel’s standard).11
The remaining cases, like Mandel itself, involved executive action that was expressly authorized by statute. Washington, 847 F.3d at 1162 (evaluating denial of a single visa “based on the application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts”); IRAP, 2017
constitutional and statutory rights, and Plaintiff UMAA additionally challenges violations of the rights of its members. 11 Application of the Mandel standard to these statutes is consistent with caselaw explaining that the plenary power to make immigration policy belongs primarily or exclusively to Congress. See Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769 (noting that the Attorney General had “exercised the plenary power that Congress delegated to the Executive….”); U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950) (noting that “[n]ormally Congress supplies the conditions of the privilege of entry into the United States,” but that Congress may “authorize the executive to exercise [this] power,” and “[e]xecutive officers may be entrusted with the duty of specifying procedures for carrying out congressional intent (emphasis added)); IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *8 (“The formulation of immigration policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress.” (emphasis added)) (internal citation omitted).
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 21 of 36
WL 1018235, at *16 (Mandel standard “is most typically applied when a court is asked to review an executive officer’s decision to deny a visa”) (internal citation omitted); Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957 (1980) (challenge to regulations that INA authorized). In contrast, the Replacement Executive Order, with the stroke of a pen and through an exercise of executive discretion, enacts a sweeping and unprecedented ban that affects thousands of people in the United States and runs counter to the statutory scheme. See Section IV, infra. Applying greater scrutiny to such a policy than to individual consular decisions made pursuant to statutory criteria is fully consistent with separation-of-powers principles.
At the very least, there can be no real dispute that Mandel is inapplicable to Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim. Defendants cite no cases that apply Mandel in this context.
Likewise, Defendants fail to provide any credible reason why Mandel forecloses Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right-to-receive-information claim. The Court applied limited review in Mandel because it involved a challenge to the denial by a consular official of a single visa pursuant to statutory criteria. 408 U.S. at 769. By contrast, Plaintiffs’ right-to-receiveinformation claim, which finds ample support in case law—see Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (the right to receive information is “well established”); Red Lion Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969) (neither Congress nor an administrative agency may constitutionally abridge “the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences….”); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 146–47 (1943) (the freedom to distribute and receive information is “clearly vital to the preservation of a free society….”)—involves a challenge to a broad policy that contravenes the statutory scheme and makes it much more difficult for the thousands of people associated with UMAA to receive teachings essential to their faith.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 22 of 36
Regardless, the Replacement Executive Order fails under Mandel. Courts may “look behind” the government’s stated purpose where, as here, there is “an affirmative showing of bad faith.” Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2141 (2015) (Kennedy, J. concurring); see Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Din is the controlling opinion.”). Even at this early stage, the record is filled with the President’s own repeated pronouncements maligning Muslims and promising a Muslim ban. These statements belie the President’s stated national-security purpose and show that it is not “bona fide,” or genuine, as required by Mandel. See also Section IV.B.12
B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed On Their Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Claims
Defendants contend that “The Order’s Text and Purpose Are Religion-Neutral” (Opp. 32), a position that ignores the entire history, purpose, and effect of the Replacement Executive Order. “A review of the historical background here makes plain why [Defendants] wish to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record . . . includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.” Hawai’i, 2017 WL 1011673, at *13.13 The historical record and the Executive Order’s sole focus on nationals of predominantly Muslim countries reveal shocking religious animus that violates the Establishment Clause and the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause.
12 The Second Circuit’s decision in Rajah, cited by Defendants, is inapposite because plaintiffs there presented no evidence, other than disparate impact, that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 438 (2d Cir. 2008). 13 Defendants also seek to sidestep the Original Executive Order and the overwhelming religious animus on the face of that document. Am Compl. 47-48. Yet the Trump Administration has repeatedly acknowledged that the “core policy outcome” remained the same between the Original and Replacement Executive Orders. IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *13; Am. Compl. 5859, 62. Hence, the text and history of the Original remain relevant here.
14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 23 of 36
Defendants claim that the absence of explicit reference to Muslims in the Replacement Executive Order’s text suffices to avoid strict scrutiny under Larson. But in Larson itself, the challenged law did not name the disfavored denomination; it instead laid out what the state contended was “a neutral, secular criterion,” which had a “disparate impact among religious organizations.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 261 (1982) (White, J., dissenting). Examining statements made by state senators before the statute’s passage, the Court concluded that “the provision was drafted with the explicit intention of including particular religious denominations and excluding others.” 456 U.S. at 254-55. So too here: Statements by President Trump and his advisors before, during, and after issuance of the Original and Replacement Executive Orders demonstrate that the disparate treatment of Muslims is no coincidence, but rather is the precise result that President Trump intended. Discriminatory policies do not materialize from discriminatory statements by happenstance. And tellingly, Defendants do not seriously dispute that these statements reflect a profoundly anti-Muslim bias.14
Defendants have no real answer to the administration’s record of express animus toward Muslims. This record powerfully supports Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause and equal-protection claims, no matter which legal test is applied. Under the Establishment Clause, a governmental action is evaluated from the perspective of an “objective observer” who is “competent to learn what history has to show.” McCreary County Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 845 U.S. 844, 866 (2005). Likewise, equal-protection analysis involves looking to “historical background,” including “[t]he specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged
14 Defendants assert that “honor killings” are not unique to any one religion and therefore that their mention in the Executive Order is unrelated to anti-Muslim animus. Opp. 33 n.14. Although “honor killings” are not factually unique to Islam, the usage of that term in the Original and Replacement Executive Orders must be recognized as an effort to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Muslims. Decl. Professor Lila Abu-Lughod, ECF No. 36.
15

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 24 of 36
decision….” Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977). And courts regularly consider pertinent history stretching back much further than the President’s campaign pledges. See, e.g., McCreary, 545 U.S. at 851–55 (three successive displays over course of nearly a year); Felix v. City of Bloomfield, 841 F.3d 848, 853, 859 (10th Cir. 2016) (looking back more than four years); ACLU of Ohio Found. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424, 432–33 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 930 (2011) (looking back six years); Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied sub. nom., Mount Soledad Mem’l Ass’n v. Trunk, 132 S. Ct. 2535 (2012) (looking back “more than five decades”). That is because “[l]imiting the temporal scope of the purpose inquiry ‘bucks common sense: reasonable observers have reasonable memories, and [Supreme Court] precedents sensibly forbid an observer ‘to turn a blind eye to the context in which [the] policy arose.’’” Aziz, 2017 WL 580855 at *8 (brackets in original) (quoting McCreary, 845 U.S. at 866).
Defendants’ principal response is that the President’s campaign promise to ban Muslims should be ignored because campaign statements “are made without the benefit of advice from an as-yet unformed Administration, and they cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different course is warranted.” Opp. 37. But both the public record and eventual discovery will show that no advice from national-security professionals was sought and no “different course” was considered, much less adopted. There is a straight line that runs directly from the campaign statements to the Original and Replacement Executive Orders. Indeed, the President reaffirmed his campaign pledges when he said, after reading the title of the first Executive Order (“Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States”), “We all know what that means,” Am. Compl. ¶ 45, and again when he described the replacement Executive Order as a “watered-down version of the first one,” Am. Compl. ¶ 73.
16

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 25 of 36
More generally, Defendants assert that “private persons” cannot reveal governmental purpose. Opp. 37. But this argument rests on court decisions involving people wholly uninvolved in government, see Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140, 147 (4th Cir. 2010); Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017, 1031 (10th Cir. 2008), and governmental actors other than “the decision-maker,” Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 412 (3d Cir. 2004)). The putative “private person” here is President Trump himself. The assertion that the President’s statements cannot reveal the President’s purpose is frivolous.
As for Defendants’ concerns regarding “‘judicial psychoanalysis’ of a candidate’s ‘heart of hearts,’” Opp. 38 (quoting McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862), “[t]he Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.” Hawai’i, 2017 WL 1011673, at *13; accord IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *13. The President said what he meant and meant what he said. Nor are there “intractable questions [about] the level of generality at which a statement must be made.” Opp. 38. The President promised a Muslim ban, and he delivered one. Cf. Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1285, 1297 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 100 (2003) (relying on state chief justice’s campaign statements to affirm an Establishment Clause violation).
Defendants also propose to shield the Executive Order from scrutiny by arguing that Establishment Clause jurisprudence cannot be “applied to foreign-policy, national-security, and immigration judgments of the President.” Opp. 32. Defendants are wrong.
First, Defendants rely for that proposition exclusively on a dissenting opinion (itself citing no authority) from a denial of rehearing en banc on a stay motion in an appeal from the nationwide injunction of the first Executive Order—which, by the time the dissenting opinion
17

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 26 of 36
was written, had already been abandoned by the government. Id. There is no authority to support Defendants’ newly minted national-security exception to the Establishment Clause.
Second, even if there were some national-security exception, the record would not support its use in this case. Defendants do not dispute that political operatives rushed the policy to issuance in the first week of the administration, without any involvement by or input from national-security professionals. Pls.’ Mot. 7. Nor do Defendants dispute that when the nation’s national-security professionals did assess the international terrorist threat from the countries identified in the Executive Orders, they readily determined that a ban based strictly on country of citizenship would not serve national-security objectives. See http://bit.ly/2mh0GVh. Defendants dismiss this report as “based solely on backward-looking evidence” and insist that it should be ignored in favor of President Trump’s “predictive judgments.” Opp. 35. But the report does include predictive judgments specifically assessing the international terrorist threat: “DHS I&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.” (emphasis added). And the report makes those judgments based on evidence. “Predictive judgments” that ignore “backward-looking evidence”—i.e., accumulated facts and experience—are mere profiling. Again, Defendants’ incantation of “national security” cannot obscure the primary, if not sole, factor that motivated the Replacement Executive Order— animus. See IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *15 (“The fact that the White House took the highly irregular step of first introducing the travel ban without receiving the input and judgment of the relevant national security agencies strongly suggests that the religious purpose was primary, and the national security purpose, even if legitimate, is a secondary post hoc rationale.”).15
15 Despite Defendants’ assertions to the contrary, the treatment of Iraqi nationals in Section 4 of the Replacement Executive Order does not demonstrate that the President’s actions were “based
18

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 27 of 36
Finally, Defendants cannot salvage the Replacement Executive Order based on the purported need to find out whether “current screening and vetting procedures are adequate to detect terrorists seeking to infiltrate the Nation.” Opp. 5. The first Executive Order already required that federal agencies (i) report to the President by February 26 which countries do not provide adequate information, and (ii) immediately request that those governments provide the needed information. Executive Order 13,769 § 2(b)-(d). The Replacement Executive Order then set a longer deadline of April 5 to provide the reports and make the requests. Executive Order 13,780 § 2(b). These deadlines have all passed, without any hint to any court or to the public that any assessments have occurred. As of the date of the hearing in this case, the administration will have held office for 90 days—the same period that it says it needs to determine fully whether it has adequate information to adjudicate admissions—yet it has apparently done nothing. IV. The Replacement Executive Order Violates the INA.
Section 1152 of the Immigration and Nationality Act expressly prohibits discrimination based on a “person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence” “in the issuance of an immigrant visa.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), “Nondiscrimination.” Section 2 of the Replacement Executive Order clearly violates this Nondiscrimination Requirement.
A. The Nondiscrimination Requirement Applies to Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) Defendants’ principal response to Plaintiffs’ INA claim is that Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of the INA grant the President nearly unchecked authority to suspend or otherwise limit the entry of “any class of aliens,” purportedly authorizing Section 2 of the Replacement Executive Order. But Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) do not override the Nondiscrimination solely on national security risk.” Rather, that provision only underscores the unconstitutional animus underlying the Order. See Section V.
19

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 28 of 36
Requirement—a fact made clear in the Nondiscrimination Requirement’s first clause, which enumerates the INA provisions to which it does not apply. Neither § 1182(f) nor § 1185(a) is on that list. “Because the enumerated exceptions illustrate that Congress ‘knows how to expand the jurisdictional reach of a statute,” the absence of §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) demonstrates that Congress did not intend for those provisions “to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provision of § 1152(a).” IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *9 (quoting Reyes-Gaona v. N.C. Growers Ass’n, 250 F.3d 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2001)); cf. LAVAS, 45 F.3d at 473 (stating that with § 1152(a), “Congress has unambiguously directed that no nationality-based discrimination shall occur”).
Defendants’ reliance on the more general language of §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) is also misplaced because Congress intentionally limited those clauses’ reach when it enacted the more specific § 1152(a)(1)(A). See IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *9 (concluding that § 1152(a) “[c]ontrols the more general [§] 1182(f)”) (internal citation omitted). Section 1152(a) dictates a particular result: nondiscrimination in the issuance of visas. That provision overrides the more general provisions of §1182(f) and §1185(a).16
B. The Travel Ban Is Not a “Temporary Pause” Defendants also attempt to excuse the travel ban as a “temporary pause” in the issuance of visas permitted by § 1152(a)(1)(B), which provides that “[n]othing in [§ 1152(a)] shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedure[s] for the processing of immigrant visa applications.” But a blanket ban on entry does not simply change procedures. Although § 1152(a)(1)(B) allows the Secretary of State to vary “locations” and “procedures” for visa issuance, “it does not include…any authority to make temporal
16 The 1978 amendment to § 1185(a) was not “substantial[],” Opp. 24, and certainly did not amend the Nondiscrimination Requirement or authorize the President to discriminate on the basis of nationality in regulating the travel of aliens to and from the United States.
20

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 29 of 36
adjustments.” IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *10. And because § 1152(a)(1)(B) “expressly applies to the Secretary of State, it does not provide a basis to uphold an otherwise discriminatory action by the President in an Executive Order.” Id.
C. Defendants Are Not Free to Invidiously Discriminate in Issuing Nonimmigrant Visas
Finally, Defendants are incorrect that their duty not to discriminate applies only to the issuance of immigrant visas. In arguing that § 1152(a) does not apply to nonimmigrant visas, Defendants essentially argue that they can discriminate—without regard to statutory or constitutional obligations—when issuing other types of visas. Courts, including this one, have rejected that very position. Olsen v. Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31, 38-39 (D.D.C. 1997) (policies instructing adjudicators of nonimmigrant visas to base decisions on factors including national origin constituted unlawful discrimination). Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has straightforwardly held, in the context of an alien who overstayed his nonimmigrant visa, that the government is forbidden to act “on an impermissible basis such as an invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Chan v. INS, 631 F.2d 978, 983-84 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 921 (1981) (quoting Wong Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F.2d 715, 719 (2d Cir. 1980)); accord Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408, 429 (9th Cir. 1980), aff’d, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Defendants would stand those principles on their head. V. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed On Their Section 4 Challenge.
UMAA presents a valid and justiciable challenge to Section 4 of the Replacement Executive Order. Defendants’ boilerplate argument that UMAA does not identify concrete harms resulting from Section 4 is incorrect: UMAA alleges that it effectively cannot invite Iraqi speakers to its 2017 convention because it cannot know whether they will satisfy Section 4’s “heightened scrutiny” requirement before invitations would have to be issued and accepted and
21

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 30 of 36
expenses paid, UMAA Decl. ¶¶ 21-22, resulting in monetary losses and diversion of UMAA’s limited resources, id. 23-23. The extreme vetting to which Iraqi invitees are subjected will also delay their visa applications, rendering it unlikely that they could obtain visas in time for UMAA’s convention. Similar uncertainty delays family reunification and stymies efforts to visit family or study abroad by UMAA’s members, who include U.S. residents with family in Iraq and Iraqi nationals living here on single-entry visas. UMAA Decl. ¶ 28.
Beyond that, Defendants pretend that Section 4 is a mere “procedural” adjustment, when in truth it singles out Iraqi immigrants and travelers for “extreme” and onerous vetting requirements in addition to the “rigorous” evaluation already imposed by the Replacement Executive Order. This additional hurdle constitutes a concrete injury for UMAA and its Iraqi members. Cf. Sarsour, 2017 WL 1113305, at *5 (plaintiffs have suffered “cognizable injury caused by personal contact” because the Replacement Executive Order “prevents or impermissibly burdens their ability to . . . renew their visas without being subjected to a heightened standard of review….”). To accept Defendants’ assertion that the additional requirements set forth in Section 4 fall within the exception to the INA’s nondiscrimination provision embodied in § 1152(a)(1)(B) would be to ignore the impermissible discriminatory animus that infects the entire Replacement Executive Order. Cf. IRAP, 2017 WL 1018235, at *10 (refusing to apply section 1152(a)(1)(B)’s language, which governs actions by the Secretary of State, to action undertaken by the President through an executive order).
Finally, Defendants’ attempt to insulate Section 4 from review on “consular nonreviewability” and separation-of-powers grounds is unavailing for the reasons explained in Sections II and III, supra. Those doctrines do not render courts powerless to review immigration-related executive orders. See id.
22

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 31 of 36
VI. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Immediate, Irreparable Harm Absent Preliminary Relief. Defendants do not contest that where Plaintiffs suffer deprivations of constitutional
rights, no other proof of injury is required to establish irreparable harm. See Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Establishment Clause); DynaLantic Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 885 F. Supp. 2d 237, 292 (D.D.C. 2012) (Equal Protection).17 Defendants’ few remaining arguments do not pass muster.
First, irreparable harm is threatened even though Section 2 of the Replacement Executive Order has already been preliminarily enjoined. Opp. 42. Defendants are appealing the injunctions in two Circuits; moreover, Plaintiffs also ask this Court to enjoin Section 4, which is not covered by the injunctions currently in effect.
Second, that only a “small percentage” of speakers invited to UMAA’s national convention might be affected by the Replacement Executive Order, Opp. 42-43, does not in any way undercut Plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable harm. These scholars, whatever their numbers, are important to the practices of the members’ faith and “are not fungible.” Aziz v. Trump, 2017 WL 580855, at *10. On top of that, UMAA’s members and the Does continue to be separated from their families, demonstrating again the irreparable harm that the Replacement Executive Order causes. Washington, 847 F.3d at 1169 (9th Cir. 2017); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Kelly, Case No. 2:17-cv-01761, slip. op. at 2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2017). VII. The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Support Preliminary Relief.
Defendants’ arguments on the balance of equities and the public interest ignore that “enforcement of an unconstitutional executive order is always contrary to the public interest.” 17 Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because they cannot succeed on the merits is addressed in Sections III-V, supra.
23

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 32 of 36
Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added and citations omitted). Although Defendants insist that preliminarily enjoining the Replacement Executive Order will cause irreparable harm, Opp. 43, courts considering the first Executive Order have already rejected that argument, see, e.g., Washington, 847 F.3d at 1168. The long delay between abandoning the first Executive Order and issuing the second belies Defendants’ assertions of urgency in enforcement. Opp. 4. And the government having now had 90 days in office to assess whether it has adequate information for adjudication (Executive Order 13,769 § 2(b)-(d)), its rationale for banning entrants from the identified countries for 90 days has largely evaporated. At this point, banning entrants from these countries for 90 days from whatever starting date a court might allow would just be banning for banning’s sake.
The balance of equities does not tip to the government based on the mere incantation of “national security,” Opp. 43-44, especially where its actions are bereft of all the urgency that characterizes its pronouncements. That is especially so here, because Defendants’ purported foreign-policy justifications are mere pretexts for religious discrimination, Pls.’ Mem. 42, and are contradicted by the Department of Homeland Security, Opp. 42. The Court need not and should not credit these sham justifications. See Hawai’i, 2017 WL 1011673, at *16. VIII. The Court Should Enjoin the Challenged Sections in Their Entirety.
Defendants’ proposal for more limited relief that artificially parses Sections 2 and 4 should be rejected because there is no circumstance under which the Replacement Executive Order, which is predicated on invidious animus, is lawful. Because the entire Executive Order rests on this unlawful animus, limiting the relief to the defects that harm Plaintiffs necessarily entails the full requested preliminary relief. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996). Animus and discrimination against Muslims pervade the entire Replacement Executive Order. See, e.g., Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 30-46, 48-49, 73, 66 (citing Declaration of Lila Abu-Lughod).
24

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 33 of 36
Facial relief is warranted precisely because there is no circumstance under which the Replacement Executive Order would shed the animus that is its Alpha and Omega. Hence, it cannot be lawfully applied.
Defendants’ pattern of invidious practice also justifies ordering Defendants to take affirmative steps. A negative injunction cannot ensure compliance. After the First Executive Order was enjoined, the government represented to the courts that the order would be rescinded. At the same time, though, the President’s press secretary publicly stated that the order would not be rescinded. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57-58. Moreover, after the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai’i temporarily restrained the Replacement Executive Order on March 15, 2017, Defendant Secretary of State Tillerson issued a March 17 State Department Cable mandating increased scrutiny in the visa process even for “non-security related ineligibilities” and directed immigration officials to identify “visa applicant populations warranting increased Scrutiny.” See Amended Complaint at 21, ¶¶ 77-78. A negative injunction alone, therefore, is not enough.
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted.
25

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 34 of 36

DATED: April 17, 2017

/s/ David J. Weiner

26

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 35 of 36

Johnathan Smith (application for admission pending) Aziz Huq (pro hac vice application pending) MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-1484 Johnathan@muslimadvocates.org Aziz.huq@gmail.com
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar # 1033743) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-3234 Facsimile: (202) 466-3353 Katskee@au.org Girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers (pro hac vice application pending) Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice application pending) Naomi R Tsu (pro hac vice application pending) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org

David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda J. Sherwood (D.C. Bar # 1021108) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner@apks.com Charles.blanchard@apks.com Amanda.johnson@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (pro hac vice application pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 Facsimile: (312) 583-2360 Emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman (pro hac vice application pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 Andrew.bergman@apks.com
Kimberly Gelfand (pro hac vice application pending) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 Kimberly.gelfand@apks.com

27

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 38 Filed 04/17/17 Page 36 of 36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 17, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.
/s/ David J. Weiner David J. Weiner Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 David.weiner@apks.com
28

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 41 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; and JANE

)

DOE,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity )

as President of the United States; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE; U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JOHN

)

KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary )

of the Department of Homeland Security; )

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official )

capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. )

Customs and Border Protection; REX W. )

TILLERSON, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary of State; and JEFFERSON

)

BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his

)

official capacity as Attorney General of the )

United States,

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF THE UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I, Azmat Husain, hereby declare and state as

follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen years. I have personal knowledge of the facts set

forth herein or believe them to be true based on my experience or upon personal information

provided to me by others, and am competent to testify thereto.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 41 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 6
2. I am the Program Director of the Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. (“UMAA”). I previously submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, which was filed with this Court on March 24, 2017. This document supplements that initial declaration.
Impact of the President’s Executive Order on UMAA’s 2017 National Convention 3. UMAA’s national convention is scheduled for June 30 - July 3, 2017. 4. UMAA has invited a number of Iranian and Iraqi speakers to participate in its 2017 annual conference, including a 39-year old Iraqi male clergy, a 51-year old Iranian male reciter, and a 40-year old Iraqi male clergy. 5. Each of these speakers has applied for travel documents that would allow them to travel to and enter the United States for purposes of attending UMAA’s national convention. The two Iraqi clergy recently received their travel documents, but the process of receiving those documents took substantially longer than it has taken in the past. The Iranian male reciter still has not received his travel documents. 6. In light of Executive Order 13780, UMAA has had to consider alternate clergy who do not reside in Shi’a Islam’s largest seminaries and less well recognized religious reciters as part of its speaker line up for the 2017 annual convention. UMAA has built its reputation on having the most popular, well-known, and highly respected speakers in the worldwide Shi’a Muslim community speak and/or recite at the UMAA convention, and this year we will be unable to obtain several of these speakers because of the Executive Order. As a result, UMAA has had a more difficult time getting a number of speakers for the upcoming 2017 annual convention.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 41 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 6
7. The majority of UMAA ticket sales occur within the last 60 days leading up to the convention, with more than half of those sales taking place during the last week leading up to the convention. UMAA expects that there will be a reduced turnout this year due to not only the change in speaker lineup, but also the fact that many convention attendees are Muslims who travel to the United States from outside the country just for the convention, and who will be unable to obtain travel documents because of the Executive Order. While UMAA is unable to precisely predict how many attendees will be affected by the Executive Order until shortly before the convention, UMAA is experiencing great difficulty in preparing for the logistics of the 2017 annual convention and in forecasting its budget in relation to the convention.
Impact of the President’s Executive Order On Individual UMAA Members 8. As stated in my previous declaration, UMAA is the largest organization of Shi’a Muslims in the United States, and our membership is comprised of Shi’a Muslims living all across the United States. 9. UMAA has numerous members who have been directly and negatively impacted by Executive Order 13780. Our members have been impacted in a number of ways. 10. I am personally aware of at least one UMAA member—indeed, I am personally aware of many—who seek religious and moral guidance from the foreign scholars that UMAA frequently arranges to attend and speak at events in the United States throughout the year. As a result, these UMAA members and others like them are currently unable to meet with these scholars unless they leave the United States. The inability to meet with and consult with these scholars significantly impairs the religious and moral development for these UMAA members. 11. I am personally aware of at least one UMAA member—indeed, I am personally aware of many—who are United States citizens or nationals but have family living abroad in Iran

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 41 Filed 04/18/17 Page 4 of 6
or Iraq. These UMAA members and others like them either have pending petitions or are planning to petition their family members to obtain visas for travel to the United States. If an appellate court were to lift the injunction currently in place, these individuals would be prevented from being able to bring their family members to visit or live in the United States. For these UMAA members, the separation from their families would either be prolonged or prevented because such family members would be required to prove that they are in the United States’ national interest to obtain such waivers.
12. I am personally aware of at least one UMAA member—indeed, I am personally aware of many—who are nationals of Iran or Iraq but currently live in the United States on single-entry visas. If an appellate court were to lift the injunction currently in place, these UMAA members and others like them will be unable to travel to Iran to visit family members because they will be unable to return to the United States.
13. I am personally aware of at least one UMAA member—indeed, I am personally aware of many—who feel that Executive Order 13780 (and its predecessor, Executive Order 13769) have branded them with unfavorable stigma based on their religious beliefs as Shi’a Muslims. These UMAA members and others like them fear that they will be targets of hate, fear, and even violence in their communities, based on their religious beliefs and national origin. Moreover, I am personally aware of at least one UMAA member of Iranian national origin who feels that the visa waiver provision requiring Iranians to prove that their entry into the United States is in the national interest is particularly stigmatizing, because it tells the Iranian-American community that some Iranians are not in the United States’ national interest and that the United States does not want Iranians in the United States.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 41 Filed 04/18/17 Page 5 of 6
14. Due to fear of harassment or other negative attention, the UMAA members who have suffered these negative impacts because of Executive Order 13780 wish to remain anonymous. The members described above include the following individuals: (i) a 24-year- old male film producer who resides in Dearborn, Michigan; (ii) a 24-year-old male IT support professional who resides in Dearborn, Michigan; and (iii) a 23-year-old female law student who resides in Dearborn, Michigan.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 41 Filed 04/18/17 Page 6 of 6

This statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am aware of the penalties under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for knowingly making false statements in these proceedings.

·Y//G/l-f)(7
(date)

(signature)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL, PUBLIC AFFAIRS ALLIANCE OF IRANIAN AMERICANS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-255 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP et al., Defendants.

No. 17-cv-537 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. The Court Can and Should Enjoin §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order ................ 1
A. Other Courts’ Rulings Do Not Restrict this Court from Enjoining §§ 2 and 6 ...... 1 B. The Court Should Enjoin Invidiously Discriminatory Government Action........... 3 II. The Court Has Broad Power To Grant Relief Restoring the Status Quo Ante................... 6 III. The Court Can and Should Grant the Broader Relief Requested By Plaintiffs .................. 9 A. The Court Should Grant Relief To Fully Restore the Status Quo .......................... 9 B. Defendants Should Publish Guidance Notifying Government Officials and
Affected Individuals that the Pre-January 27 Status Quo Has Been Restored ..... 12 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 12
i

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulator Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993)...................................................................................................7

Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv-116, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) .....................................................1

Bradshaw v. Veneman, 338 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2004) ...........................................................................................9

Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2006)...................................................................................................7

Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................8

*Dellinger v. Mitchell, 442 F.2d 782 (D.C. Cir. 1971)...................................................................................................3

Florida ex rel. Bondi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (N.D. Fla. 2011)......................................................................................2

Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1984)...................................................................................................7

Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 811 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (M.D. Pa. 2011) ......................................................................................2

Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) .....................................................1

Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (1944)...................................................................................................................6

Hulley Enters. Ltd. v. Russian Fed’n, 211 F. Supp. 3d 269, 2016 WL 5675348 (D.D.C. 2016)...........................................................4

Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) ...............................................1

Johnson v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 969 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................2, 4

Kaufman v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................8

ii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 19
*Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936)...................................................................................................................4
*League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................7, 9, 10
Li v. Chertoff, No. C-08-3540 MMC, 2008 WL 4962992 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2008) .....................................5
Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154, 2017 WL 479779 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017) ...................................................1
*Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) .....................................................................................................8
Sarsour v. Trump, No. 17-cv-120, 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017)...................................................1
Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Florida v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................7
Tex. Children’s Hospital v. Burwell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 224 (D.D.C. 2014).......................................................................................9, 12
*United States v. Borden Co., 347 U.S. 514 (1954)...................................................................................................................2
United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015) .........................................................................................2
*United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984)...................................................................................................................2
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001)...................................................................................................................6
United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016)...............................................................................................................5
United States v. W. Elec. Co., 46 F.3d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 1995)...................................................................................................9
Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 728 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Va. 2010) ........................................................................................2
Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-135, 2017 WL 1057645 (D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017)..................................................4
iii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 5 of 19 Washington v. Trump,
No. 17-cv-141, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017)..................................................1 STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 706..................................................................................................................................8 OTHER AUTHORITIES Mem. from Sec’y of State to Diplomatic and Consular Posts, Mar. 17, 2017,
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Live_US_Politics /791255396 ....................................................5
iv

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 6 of 19
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases submit this joint brief in response to the Court’s April 21, 2017 Minute Order and in further support of their motions for preliminary injunction. I. The Court Can and Should Enjoin §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order
In response to the Court’s first question, there is no “restriction on a judge’s ability to issue a nationwide injunction on the provisions of the Order that have already been enjoined,” and numerous factors establish that overlapping injunctions are “in the public interest.”
A. Other Courts’ Rulings Do Not Restrict this Court from Enjoining §§ 2 and 6 Nationwide injunctions by district courts in other circuits against §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order in no way restrict this Court’s ability to issue a nationwide injunction barring their enforcement. Defendants have not cited a single case—and Plaintiffs know of none— holding that one court’s nationwide injunction blocking an unlawful government action disables another court from issuing its own nationwide injunction barring the same unlawful action. On the contrary, multiple courts have issued overlapping injunctions blocking both of President Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration. Compare Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-141, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) (January 27 Order), with Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv116, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) (same), and Hawai‘i v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) (March 6 Order), with Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) (same).1 Similarly, in other contexts, courts have issued overlapping orders affecting other government actions. Multiple district courts issued overlapping declaratory judgments
1 Other courts denied preliminary injunctive relief on the merits even after each Executive Order had been enjoined, further belying any notion that one court’s nationwide injunction bars other courts from deciding whether to issue their own injunctions. See Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154, 2017 WL 479779 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017) (January 27 Order); Sarsour v. Trump, No. 17-cv-120, 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017) (March 6 Order).
1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 7 of 19
invalidating the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. E.g., Florida ex rel. Bondi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1305-06 (N.D. Fla. 2011); GoudyBachman v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 811 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (M.D. Pa. 2011); Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 728 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Va. 2010). The government itself has sought and obtained injunctive relief that duplicated relief that other courts had already awarded to private parties. See, e.g., United States v. Borden Co., 347 U.S. 514 (1954) (district court abused its discretion by denying an injunction to the government solely because it would duplicate an earlier injunction granted to a private litigant); United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015) (granting the government such an overlapping injunction).
Indeed, the Supreme Court has favored parallel litigation involving the Government because it “permit[s] several courts of appeals to explore a difficult question before [the Supreme Court] grants certiorari.” United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 160 (1984). To “allow thorough development of legal doctrine by allowing litigation in multiple forums,” the Court in Mendoza held that the Government is not precluded from relitigating an issue that it previously lost in an earlier case against a different party. Id. at 163. This “avoids the problem of freezing the development of the law.” Id. at 164; see also Johnson v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 969 F.2d 1082, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (recognizing the “value to letting important legal issues ‘percolate’ throughout the judicial system”). It would subvert that objective to hold that one court’s nationwide injunction against the Government precludes other courts from granting overlapping relief. Allowing courts in multiple circuits to consider issues of great public moment in the normal course is particularly important where, as here, political officials have challenged the good faith, if not the independence, of the judiciary.
Defendants are wrong that the nationwide injunctions issued by the District of Hawaii and the District of Maryland preclude a finding of irreparable harm here. If that were so, no
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 8 of 19
court after the first could grant an injunction, but any court would be free to deny one. Only the arguments against an injunction would be developed through further litigation. While Defendants no doubt would prefer such a one-way ratchet in their efforts to defend the Executive Orders, it would improperly skew the development of the law in favor of one side.
In addition, the Government seeks to overturn the injunctions on appeal in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, where Plaintiffs are not parties. Should those injunctions be dissolved or limited jurisdictionally (which could happen for reasons unrelated to the merits), the March 6 Executive Order presumably would take effect immediately, harming Plaintiffs and causing chaos and uncertainty similar to that seen on January 27. Even if Plaintiffs were to seek a TRO from this Court, it is unlikely that relief could be granted quickly enough to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and others. Having established a likelihood of success on the merits and a robust factual record of continuing irreparable harm, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order pending resolution of their own cases.
B. The Court Should Enjoin Invidiously Discriminatory Government Action Because other courts’ injunctions do not restrict this Court’s ability to enjoin §§ 2 and 6, and because Plaintiffs have satisfied all requirements for a preliminary injunction, the only question is whether the Court should nevertheless deny such relief as a matter of discretion. Myriad factors establish that an injunction by this Court against Defendants’ invidious discrimination “is in the public interest.” 4/21/17 Minute Order. Further, although Defendants have not requested a stay, the Court inquired about whether it “would be more appropriate to stay a resolution of these motions” until “the Fourth and Ninth Circuits” rule. 4/21/17 Hr’g Tr. 7-8. No stay is warranted. Where relief is otherwise appropriate, a court should not stay its issuance unless the need for a stay “overrides the injury to the parties being stayed,” especially in cases involving “a not insubstantial claim of present and continuing infringement of
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 9 of 19
constitutional rights.” Dellinger v. Mitchell, 442 F.2d 782, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1971); see Hulley Enters. Ltd. v. Russian Fed’n, 211 F. Supp. 3d 269, 2016 WL 5675348, at *7 (D.D.C. 2016). Although courts may consider whether deferring to parallel litigation may narrow issues or promote efficiency, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).
In addition to the ongoing harms suffered by Plaintiffs, there are at least six reasons why this Court should grant an injunction against §§ 2 and 6 notwithstanding other courts’ injunctions. First, if the Government were to prevail on any ground in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits—even were this Court prepared to promptly consider a TRO request—any lapse in the injunctions against §§ 2 and 6 would further imperil the ability of the individual plaintiffs and the organizational plaintiffs’ constituents and members to travel freely, maintain family relationships, and practice their faith, increasing the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Avoiding these harms alone impels the exercise of discretion in favor of a preliminary injunction now.
Second, reasoned opinions by multiple courts will develop the law on, and aid any Supreme Court review of, the critically important questions here about invidious religious and national-origin discrimination and the scope of executive authority. See Johnson, 969 F.2d at 1093. This factor bears special significance here because these are the only cases that would permit the D.C. Circuit to address whether the Executive Order reflects unconstitutional animus. These cases thus are nothing like Washington v. Trump, where the District of Washington stayed entry of a TRO pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the Government’s appeal of the District of Hawaii’s injunction. No. 17-cv-135, 2017 WL 1057645 (D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017). The stay there will not prevent the Ninth Circuit from deciding the issues in the Hawaii appeal, and the District of Washington, unlike this Court, will be bound by the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 10 of 19

Third, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin not only §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order, but also §§ 3 and 4, which have not yet been enjoined. Section 3 establishes a system of separate but unequal treatment for visa applicants from the affected countries. Section 4 requires heightened scrutiny for Iraqis seeking visas, admission, or any other immigration benefit. The same discriminatory animus behind §§ 3 and 4 equally infects §§ 2 and 6. As a matter of judicial economy, it makes sense to rule on §§ 2 and 6 when addressing the parallel flaws in §§ 3 and 4.2
Fourth, if the Supreme Court hears challenges to the March 6 Executive Order at the preliminary-injunction stage, see, e.g., United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (mem.), the PARS and UMAA cases present important complements to the Hawaii and Maryland suits. The PARS case presents a highly developed factual record, including declarations and live testimony concerning ongoing harms suffered by Plaintiffs and others. Similarly, UMAA is the only litigant to raise a First Amendment “right to listen” claim, and the Hawaii and Maryland rulings do not address Equal Protection or other claims raised in the PARS and UMAA cases.
Fifth, conversely, Defendants have not identified, much less substantiated, any specific need for a stay or hardship imposed by an overlapping injunction against §§ 2 and 6.

2

Section 4 is far more than a policy statement. Cf. Hr’g Tr. 27-28. On March 17, 2017,

pursuant to § 4, the Secretary of State ordered consular officials worldwide to conduct additional

vetting when adjudicating Iraqis’ visa applications, causing significant processing delays (and

presumably resulting in additional denials). See Mem. from Sec’y of State to Diplomatic and

Consular Posts, Mar. 17, 2017, at §§ 11, 12, http://live.reuters.com/Event/Live_US_Politics

/791255396 (explaining that the Order “contemplate[s] additional screening for Iraqi nationals in

addition to the robust vetting already in place,” and directing consular officials to submit a

Donkey Security Advisory Opinion for any Iraqi applicant who was ever present in a territory

controlled by ISIS); Li v. Chertoff, No. C-08-3540 MMC, 2008 WL 4962992, at *2 n.3 (N.D.

Cal. Nov. 19, 2008) (government estimated it would take “three to six months” to issue Security

Advisory Opinion). Section 1(g) underscores the effect of § 4: “Decisions about issuance of

visas or granting admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny.”

5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 11 of 19
Finally, the March 6 Executive Order reflects rank discriminatory animus against a discrete, insular, and politically unpopular minority. This is precisely when courts should act, not stay their hand. Deferring judgment on Defendants’ attempt to ban Muslims from entering the country withholds judicial condemnation of the type of unconstitutional, bigoted conduct that courts should condemn. That other courts have issued injunctions does not eliminate the significance and obligation of this Court to declare what the law is. II. The Court Has Broad Power To Grant Relief Restoring the Status Quo Ante
The Court next asked: “If the court intends to issue injunctive relief specific to the individual plaintiffs, what would be the scope of that injunction and what authority does the court have to issue it.” The individual plaintiffs—many of whom are proceeding anonymously—have not requested relief specific to themselves. Attempting to provide relief specific to the Doe plaintiffs would likely require them to waive their anonymity, potentially exposing them to retaliation by foreign regimes, the U.S. government, or hostile elements of the public. Moreover, measures limited to individual plaintiffs would provide no relief to the organizational plaintiffs, which continue to be harmed by the March 6 Executive Order and Defendants’ ongoing violations of constitutional rights. Plaintiffs accordingly believe that the broader relief they request, as described in Part III below, is appropriate and preferable.
That said, the Court has ample equitable authority to grant relief restoring individual plaintiffs (and others similarly impacted by the Executive Orders) to the positions they held on January 26. “The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001). Federal courts possess the “deep-rooted power of equity to do what is necessary and appropriate to achieve
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 12 of 19
justice in the individual case.” Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1984). That broad discretion encompasses the authority to restore the status quo by returning the parties to the situation preceding the events that spurred these suits.
Key here, the D.C. Circuit has long held that “[t]he usual role of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of litigation”—i.e., the “last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 301, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Dist. 50, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 412 F.2d 165, 168 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). For example, in League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the State of Kansas to take “all actions necessary to restore the status quo ante,” including reversing denial of voter registrations. Id. at 15.
The scope of the relief necessary to restore the parties to the status quo depends on the balance of equities, weighing the harms to the plaintiffs and the public interest absent an injunction against the harms and burdens for the defendants if an injunction issues. Id. at 12-15. In the context of injunctive relief against the government, mere administrative inconvenience is insufficient to tip the scale against enjoining unlawful action, particularly where the government has existing systems and “procedures in place” that enable it to comply with the injunction. Id.
In analogous contexts, courts have generally relieved the government of its duty to restore the status quo ante only where doing so would have been practically impossible—where “[t]he egg has been scrambled and there is no apparent way to restore the status quo ante,” Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Florida v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2002)—or where a rule’s defects did not outweigh widespread chaos and disruption from vacating the rule, see Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulator Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 13 of 19
To restore the status quo as to the individual plaintiffs, the Court could order Defendants to take the following actions:
x Take a “second look” at the post-January 27 summary denials of visa applications of the relatives of PARS plaintiffs Ali Asaei and Jane Doe #13, according to standards and procedures in place on January 26, 2017.
x Review the visa applications of PARS plaintiffs Jane Doe #1’s fiancé, the parents of Jane Doe #4, the husband of Jane Doe #10, the parents of Shiva Hissong, and the wife of John Doe #3, which remain pending eight weeks after interview, to ensure that the applications are being timely processed under the standards and procedures in place on January 26, 2017, and that any delay is unrelated to the Executive Orders.
x Process the refugee applications of PARS plaintiffs Jane Does #8 and #9 and John Does #7 and #8 under the standards and procedures in place on January 26, 2017.
x Instruct relevant officials not to deny the UMAA Doe plaintiffs’ children entry to the United States for any reason related to the March 6 Executive Order.
Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to direct a particular outcome in any individual case. Rather, Plaintiffs request an injunction to “compel the agency to act,” leaving “the manner of [the agency’s] action . . . to the agency’s discretion.” Kaufman v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1334, 1338 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) (doctrine of consular non-reviewability did not preclude ordering the agency to make a final visa determination). Courts commonly exercise their equitable power in this way by, for example, compelling action that an agency has unreasonably withheld. Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706). This is how courts considering challenges to the Executive Orders have generally fashioned relief as to individuals. See, e.g., Doe v. Trump, 3:17-cv-00112 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 10, 2017), ECF Nos. 9, 14 (in response to a request that the government be ordered “to finish processing [his] derivative asylum petition” for his wife and daughter, the court ordered the government to provide an update on “the current status of plaintiff’s request for derivative asylum for his wife and surviving daughter”).
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 14 of 19
III. The Court Can and Should Grant the Broader Relief Requested By Plaintiffs In response to the Court’s final question, the Court has “the authority . . . to issue the
proposed injunctive relief in Section 2 of the Pars Proposed Preliminary Injunction (with particular focus on 2(e)) and Sections 4-9 of the UMAA Proposed Preliminary Injunction.”
The original Proposed Orders submitted by the PARS and UMAA plaintiffs requested overlapping relief. For example, both § 2 of the PARS Proposed Order and §§ 6-8 of the UMAA Proposed Order pertained to the issuance or rescission of guidance regarding the Executive Orders. For clarity and convenience, and to conform the proposed orders to the record, the PARS and UMAA plaintiffs attach a consolidated proposed order as Exhibit A. The Court has authority to issue the relief set forth in this consolidated proposed order for the reasons described above— it can grant preliminary relief to “restore the status quo ante.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 15.3
A. The Court Should Grant Relief To Fully Restore the Status Quo The balance of equities favors the broader relief that Plaintiffs seek to fully restore the status quo ante. Plaintiffs face significant, ongoing harm from the Executive Orders that other courts’ injunctions have not remedied. See PI Mem. 18-23, 40-42 (PARS Doc. 35-1); PI Mem. 15-20, 31-36, 40-41 (UMAA Doc. 11-1). On the other side of the balance, there is “generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Newby, 838 F.3d at 12. Instead, the public interest lies in the government’s compliance with “the federal laws that govern [its]
3 At the April 21 hearing, Defendants’ counsel characterized Plaintiffs’ requested relief as a “mandatory injunction” that triggers a heightened standard. 4/21/17 Hr’g Tr. 53-54. But the D.C. Circuit has stated that “a line between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions . . . is an illusion and cannot be maintained.” United States v. W. Elec. Co., 46 F.3d 1198, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Newby, 838 F.3d at 7. In any event, while courts have refrained from ordering payments of disputed amounts or other preliminary relief beyond restoring the status quo, there are no impediments to ordering restorative relief here. Compare Bradshaw v. Veneman, 338 F. Supp. 2d 139, 144 (D.D.C. 2004), with Newby, 838 F.3d at 14-15 (reversing implementation of voter registration form), and Tex. Children’s Hospital v. Burwell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 224, 247 (D.D.C. 2014) (ordering government to issue formal notification that its guidance was enjoined).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 15 of 19
existence and operations.” Id. As described below, moreover, Plaintiffs’ requested relief is discrete, administrable, and narrowly tailored; it requires no unscrambling of the egg.
Plaintiffs seek relief with respect to five discrete categories of affected individuals: 1. Consular Interviews Cancelled. Paragraph 2(a) of the consolidated order requires Defendants to offer prompt consular interviews to nationals of the affected countries whose appointments were cancelled as a result of the Executive Orders. See 4/18/17 Hr’g Tr. 27-28; IABA Decl. ¶¶ 28, 34 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 2); NIAC Decl. ¶ 42 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 3). Defendants can identify these individuals through the State Department’s electronic records of appointments, 9 FAM 403.3-2, and the Consular Coordinated Database (“CCD”)—a centralized database containing information about all visa applications and determinations. 2. Visa Applications Denied. Paragraph 2(b) of the order requires Defendants to review visa denials since January 26, 2017 to individuals who had previously been granted visas. Since the January 27 Executive Order, Defendants have denied visas to individuals who previously received visas to enter the United States, some of whom were asked about their religion. See Asaei Decl. ¶¶ 10-14 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 5); Jane Doe #13 Decl. ¶¶ 18-20 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 14); NIAC Decl. ¶ 47 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 3); IABA Decl. ¶¶ 39-40 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 2); 4/18/17 Hr’g Tr. 27-28, 47-48. Using the CCD, Defendants can identify visa applicants who previously obtained a visa but were denied one after January 27. The State Department has established procedures for giving a “second look” to visa determinations, both routinely and where questions arise about the denial. See 9 FAM 403.10-3(D). 3. Visa Processing Suspended. Paragraph 2(c) of the order requires the Defendants to review visa applications of individuals from the affected countries that remain pending eight weeks after interview to ensure that they are being timely processed under the standards and procedures in place on January 26, 2017. After issuance of the January 27 Executive Order,
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 16 of 19
Defendants suspended processing of visa applications for individuals from the affected countries. See, e.g., Jane Doe #1 Decl. ¶¶ 11-23 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 7); Jane Doe #4 Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 8); Jane Doe #10 Decl. ¶¶ 11-13 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 11); Hissong Decl. ¶¶ 2122 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 6); John Doe #3 Decl. ¶¶ 5-7 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 16A); PARS Decl. ¶¶ 23-25 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 1); IABA Decl. ¶¶ 28, 34, 37 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 2); 4/18/17 Hr’g Tr. 28, 48. State Department policy generally requires that visa determinations be made quickly; the Department frequently makes such determinations within a day of the interview, although in some cases, there may be a delay while the consular officer seeks a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO). See 9 FAM 403.10-2(A); 9 FAM 504.9-2 (“Once an application has been executed, you must either issue the visa or refuse it.”). Using the CCD, Defendants can identify particular visa applicants who filed or had applications pending after January 26, 2017, and who have waited an inordinate amount of time for a determination—more than seven days where no SAO was sought, or more than six weeks where an SAO was sought.
4. Visas Physically Cancelled. Paragraph 2(d) of the order seeks reissuance of visas that were physically cancelled. Defendants physically cancelled some individuals’ valid visas in the wake of the January 27 Executive Order, and have not reissued them. See PARS Am. Compl. ¶ 3. The State Department can easily identify these visas through the CCD and reissue them.
5. Refugee Applications Delayed. Paragraph 3 of the order requires Defendants to offer field interviews to refugees whose USCIS interviews were cancelled or delayed as a result of the Executive Orders. After January 27, 2017, Defendants suspended processing of refugee applications, and USCIS stopped conducting field interviews for individuals from the affected countries. See John Doe #7 Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 18A), John Doe # 8 Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 19A); Jane Doe #8 Decl. ¶¶ 15-19 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 9); Jane Doe #9 Decl. ¶¶ 14-18 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 10); PARS Decl. ¶¶ 16-21 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 1). The
11

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 17 of 19
U.S. Refugee Admission Program can identify affected refugees through an existing database of all refugee applications—the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (“WRAPS”).
B. Defendants Should Publish Guidance Notifying Government Officials and Affected Individuals that the Pre-January 27 Status Quo Has Been Restored
Defendants have continued their differential treatment of individuals from the affected countries despite the injunctions against §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order, creating uncertainty and confusion. See, e.g., UMAA Am. Compl. ¶¶ 74-80; Jane Doe #11 Decl. ¶¶ 16-22 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 12); Jane Doe #12 Decl. ¶¶ 10-12 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 13); John Doe #1 Decl. ¶¶ 14-18 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 15). Because unlawful implementation of enjoined or rescinded provisions often takes the form of instructions to consular officials to delay and deny entry, the Court should require that Defendants publish guidance regarding current policies and procedures to ensure restoration of the pre-January 27 status quo.4 Courts routinely enter such relief in conjunction with preliminary injunctions. See, e.g., Tex. Children’s Hosp. v. Burwell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 224, 247 (D.D.C. 2014) (ordering government to issue formal notification that its guidance was enjoined). Requiring Defendants to disclose their current policies and procedures would help ensure that Defendants have in fact restored the pre-January 27 status quo. Cf. Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17-cv-480, Dkt. No. 173 at 4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2017) (court order requiring the government to provide to petitioners a list of individuals).
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction in PARS and UMAA should be granted.
4 For example, since January 27, 2017, some visa applicants have been advised by consular personnel that they needed to file new applications to restart the process. See NIAC Decl. ¶ 47 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 3). Defendants’ guidance should make clear to both consular personnel and visa applicants that neither the January 27 Executive Order nor the March 6 Executive Order has had any effect on the status of an individual’s visa application, and that no new visa application must be submitted as a result of either Executive Order.
12

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 18 of 19

Dated: April 27, 2017
/s/ David J. Weiner David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda J. Sherwood (D.C. Bar # 1021108) ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 (202) 942-5999 (fax) david.weiner@apks.com charles.blanchard@apks.com amanda.sherwood@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 583-2300 (312) 583-2360 (fax) emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 576-2400 (713) 576-2499 (fax) andrew.bergman@apks.com
Johnathan Smith Aziz Huq MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 692-1484 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org aziz.huq@gmail.com

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John A. Freedman John A. Freedman (D.C. Bar # 453075) David P. Gersch (D.C. Bar # 367469) R. Stanton Jones (D.C. Bar # 987088) Nancy L. Perkins (D.C. Bar # 421574) Ronald A. Schechter (D.C. Bar # 245019) Robert N. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 298133) Samuel M. Witten (D.C. Bar # 378008) Sally L. Pei (D.C. Bar # 1030194) Sonia Tabriz (D.C. Bar # 1025020) Stephen K. Wirth (D.C. Bar # 1034038) ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 (202) 942-5999 (fax) john.freedman@apks.com
Christopher M. Odell* ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 576-2400 (713) 576-2499 (fax) christopher.odell@apks.com
Susan S. Hu* ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 836-8000 (303) 836-8689 (fax) susan.hu@apks.com

13

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42 Filed 04/27/17 Page 19 of 19

Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar # 1033743) AMERICANS UNITED FOR
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3234 (202) 466-3353 (fax) katskee@au.org girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers Kristi L. Graunke Naomi R Tsu SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW
CENTER 1989 College Ave., NE Atlanta, GA 30317 (404) 521-6700 (404) 221-5857 (fax) gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Case No. 17-cv-537

Adrienne D. Boyd* ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 370 Seventh Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 863-1000 (303) 832-0428 (fax) adrienne.boyd@apks.com
Cyrus Mehri (D.C. Bar # 420970) Joanna K. Wasik (D.C. Bar # 1027916) Amelia Friedman (D.C. Bar # 1033583) MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-5100 (202) 822-4997 (fax) cmehri@findjustice.com
Kristen Clarke (D.C. Bar # 973885) Jon Greenbaum (D.C. Bar # 489887) LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 662-8600 (202) 783-0857 (fax) jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Case No. 17-cv-255

*Pro hac vice motion pending 14

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42-1 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42-1 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL, PUBLIC AFFAIRS ALLIANCE OF IRANIAN AMERICANS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-255 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 17-cv-537 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

DONALD J. TRUMP et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Court, having considered Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction (PARS Doc. 35; UMAA Doc. 11) (“Motions”) and any opposition thereto, and finding that good cause appears, orders as follows:
The Motions are hereby GRANTED. 1. Defendants are hereby preliminarily restrained and enjoined from:

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42-1 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 6
(a) enforcing or taking any steps to effectuate §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“March 6 Executive Order”), including at any United States border or point of entry;
(b) applying §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order to deny, revoke, delay, suspend, restrict, or cancel any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa or refugee status;
(c) applying §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order to delay, suspend, or cease immigrant or nonimmigrant visa application or issuance processing;
(d) applying §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order to delay, suspend, or cease refugee applicant processing;
(e) applying §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order to delay, deny, or suspend entry or admission to the United States to any person;
(f) applying §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order to prohibit any person from applying for or receiving any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 if such application or receipt is otherwise lawful, including an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, lawful permanent resident, asylum, or refugee status, or other adjustment of status;
(g) applying Sections §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order to instruct any airline or other common carrier to deny passage to any person; and
(h) imposing or threatening to impose any financial penalty on any airline or other common carrier for allowing passage to any person covered by §§ 2(c)-(e), 3, 4, 6(a), and 6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order;
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42-1 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 6
2. With regard to visa applicants who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, Defendants are ordered to:
(a) identify any individuals whose consular interviews were cancelled as a result of Executive Order No. 13,769 (the “January 27 Executive Order”) or March 6 Executive Order and have not been subsequently rescheduled, and offer such individuals a prompt consular appointment;
(b) identify any individuals whose visa applications have been denied since January 26, 2017, who had previously been granted a visa and conduct a “second look” review of such visa applications under the processes and procedures in place on January 26, 2017;
(c) identify any individuals whose visa applications have been pending for at least eight weeks as of the date of this Order, review those visa applications to ensure there is no unjustified delay, and take appropriate steps to timely resolve such visa applications under the processes and procedures in place on January 26, 2017, including without limitation reinstating or reopening any applications pending on January 26 that were closed or cancelled as a result of the January 27 or March 6 Executive Orders without a final determination, or where individuals were instructed to refile new applications as a result of the January 27 or March 6 Executive Orders;
(d) identify any individuals whose visas were physically cancelled as a result of the January 27 Executive Order that have not been reissued and reissue such visas if otherwise appropriate under the processes and procedures in place on January 26, 2017. 3. With regard to refugee applicants who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, Defendants are ordered to identify any individuals whose USCIS field
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42-1 Filed 04/27/17 Page 5 of 6
interviews were cancelled or delayed as a result of the January 27 Executive Order and offer such individuals a prompt field interview.
4. Defendants are ordered to provide status reports to the Court on the compliance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order within two weeks and every month thereafter.
5. Defendants are further ordered: (a) within 10 days from the date of this Order, to provide written guidance to
employees, contractors, and agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and all other necessary U.S. government agencies, officials, employees, and contractors to ensure full and timely compliance with all terms of this Order. Defendants will promptly post such written guidance on federal government websites, including but not limited to www.whitehouse.gov, www.dhs.gov, www.state.gov, www.usdoj.gov, www.uscis.gov, and www.cpb.gov;
(b) immediately to rescind any guidance, directive, memorandum, or statement interpreting or implementing the March 6 Executive Order that conflicts with any term of this Order. Defendants will promptly post such written guidance on federal government websites, including but not limited to www.whitehouse.gov, www.dhs.gov, www.state.gov, www.usdoj.gov, www.uscis.gov, and www.cpb.gov; and
(c) promptly to update all relevant public guidance, documentation, and FAQs to reflect the terms of this Order and post such updates on federal government websites, including but not limited to www.whitehouse.gov, www.dhs.gov, www.state.gov, www.usdoj.gov, www.uscis.gov, and www.cpb.gov.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 42-1 Filed 04/27/17 Page 6 of 6

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May ___, 2017

____________________________ U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

5

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 44 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP et al., Defendants.

No. 17-cv-537 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

DOE PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs John Doe #1 and Jane Doe #1 (collectively, “the Doe Plaintiffs” ) hereby voluntarily dismiss their claims pending before this Court in this action. This dismissal applies only to the claims of the Doe Plaintiffs and does not affect the claims of Plaintiff Universal Muslim Association of America (“UMAA” ), which remain pending in this case. The Doe Plaintiffs, Yemeni nationals who are currently living in the United States based on Mr. Doe’s status as an asylee, sought to enjoin Section 2(c) of President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13,780 insofar as it would bar their two young sons living in Yemen (“the Doe sons” ) from obtaining follow-to-join asylee visas and entering the United States to be reunited with the Doe Plaintiffs. Section 2(c) of the Executive Order is currently preliminarily enjoined from taking effect by federal district courts in Hawai’i and Maryland, although appeals of both injunctions are currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth and

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 44 Filed 05/01/17 Page 2 of 4
Ninth Circuits. On Friday, April 28, while these injunctions remained in effect, the two Doe sons were able to travel to and enter the United States.
Voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is appropriate because Defendants have neither answered the Doe Plaintiffs’Complaint nor moved for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Doe Plaintiffs accordingly file this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of all their claims pending before this Court and respectfully request that this dismissal be entered without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 44 Filed 05/01/17 Page 3 of 4

DATED: May 1, 2017.
Johnathan Smith (admitted pro hac vice) Aziz Huq (admitted pro hac vice) MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-1484 Johnathan@muslimadvocates.org Aziz.huq@gmail.com
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar # 1033743) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-3234 Facsimile: (202) 466-3353 Katskee@au.org Girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers (admitted pro hac vice) Kristi L. Graunke (admitted pro hac vice) Naomi R Tsu (admitted pro hac vice) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org

/s/ Emily Newhouse Dillingham
David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda J. Sherwood (D.C. Bar # 1021108) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 David.weiner@apks.com Charles.blanchard@apks.com Amanda.johnson@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (admitted pro hac vice) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 583-2300 Facsimile: (312) 583-2360 Emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman (admitted pro hac vice) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 Andrew.bergman@apks.com

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 44 Filed 05/01/17 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 1, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.
/s/ Emily Newhouse Dillingham Emily Newhouse Dillingham Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60602 emily.dillingham@apks.com

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING PRELIMINARY RELIEF

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 2 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. Plaintiffs Ignore Two Fundamental Principles Governing the Court’s Authority to
Issue Relief.......................................................................................................................... 1 II. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Irreparable Harm Given the Existing Injunctions. .................. 3 III. Plaintiffs Have Not Justified Entry of Relief as to the Individuals..................................... 6
A. Plaintiffs Fail to Submit Any Evidence Connecting Their Claimed Injuries to the March 6 Order. .............................................................................................. 6
B. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Relief Violates Principles of Consular NonReviewability. ......................................................................................................... 7
IV. The Broad Relief Requested Is Factually Unsupported and Legally Unfounded............... 8 A. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Submit Evidence Establishing Their Alleged Harms. ..................................................................................................................... 9 B. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Harms Have No Connection to the March 6 Order. ................. 9 C. The Proposed Relief Would Not Benefit the Plaintiffs. ........................................ 10 D. Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief Would Be Highly Intrusive and Burdensome. ......... 11
V. At a Minimum, the Court Should Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motions................... 12 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 12
-ii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 3 of 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .................................................................................................... 6
Al-Mowafak v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00557-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017) ....................................................... 4, 5, 12
Ali v. Trump, 2017 WL 1057645 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017) .......................................................... 3, 4, 5, 12
Castillo v. Rice, 581 F. Supp. 2d 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................................................... 8
*Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 1
Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 11
Cobell v. Norton, 428 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 11, 12
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004).................................................................................................................... 3
Fla. Audubon Soc. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 11
Florida ex rel. Bondi v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (N.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................... 4
Hawaii v. Trump, 2017 WL 536826 (D. Haw. Feb. 9, 2017)......................................................................... 3, 5, 12
Henke v. Dep’t of Interior, 842 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2012) .............................................................................................. 5
*Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................................... 8
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).............................................................................................................. 2, 10
-iii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 4 of 17
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).................................................................................................................. 12
*Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................... 8
Sarsour v. Trump, 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017) ............................................................................ 10
*Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2015) .................................................................................. 2, 3, 10
*Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974).................................................................................................................... 2
*Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009).................................................................................................................... 2
Sweis v. U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Comm’n, 950 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2013) .............................................................................................. 4
United States v. Borden Co., 347 U.S. 514 (1954).................................................................................................................... 4
United States v. Cty. of Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015) ........................................................................................... 4
Wash. v. Trump, 2017 WL 1050354 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017) .............................................................. 3, 5, 12
Wash. v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 5
Wash. v. Trump, 2017 WL 1045950 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017) ...................................................................... 10
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)........................................................................................................................ 3
*Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................... 1
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Exec. Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017)............................................... passim
-iv-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 5 of 17
INTRODUCTION This Court’s Minute Order of April 21, 2017 directed Plaintiffs to answer three specific questions regarding the legal authority for their requested relief. Rather than heed the Court’s instruction to “tailor [the briefing] very precisely to those questions,” PI Hr’g Tr. at 88 (Apr. 21, 2017), Plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum instead demands new forms of relief—going far beyond what either set of Plaintiffs had previously requested. Even if the Court were to entertain this belated attempt to expand the requested relief, such relief in any event is unsupported both legally and factually. None of the Plaintiffs in these lawsuits would be aided by a third nationwide injunction, Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence substantiating the alleged ongoing harms they seek to redress, and the Court cannot enter an injunction based on hypothetical injuries suffered by unknown individuals wholly unconnected to this case. Ultimately, Plaintiffs are not seeking relief tailored to any documented irreparable harm they are suffering, but are instead requesting that this Court become a global superintendent of the visa application process and refugee admissions operations. This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request as such intrusive relief is not legally available or practically possible or, at a minimum, stay consideration of Plaintiffs’ motions pending resolution of the ongoing appeals of the existing injunctions. I. Plaintiffs Ignore Two Fundamental Principles Governing the Court’s Authority to Issue Relief. Plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum fails to acknowledge two fundamental principles limiting this Court’s ability to issue relief. First, Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the particular relief requested. See Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“To warrant preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must show . . . it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted[.]”); Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“[T]he movant
-1-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 6 of 17
must show that the alleged harm will directly result from the action which the movant seeks to enjoin.”); accord Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 (1996) (observing that inadequacies that “have not been found to have harmed any plaintiff in this lawsuit . . . were not the proper object of this District Court’s remediation”). And Article III requires Plaintiffs to establish “standing for each type of relief sought.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (citation omitted); see Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 221-22 (1974) (“The desire to obtain sweeping relief cannot be accepted as a substitute for compliance with the general rule that the complainant must present facts sufficient to show that his individual need requires the remedy for which he asks.” (alteration and citation omitted)).
Second, in discharging their burden of demonstrating standing and irreparable harm at the preliminary-injunction stage, Plaintiffs are required to come forward with actual evidence proving their injuries. See Save Jobs USA v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 112-13 (D.D.C. 2015) (Chutkan, J.) (“As these authorities make clear, to meet the standard for irreparable harm the movant must present sufficient evidence that the purported injury is certain, great, actual, imminent, and beyond remediation.”); see also id. at 113 (declining to enter preliminary injunction based on predictive statement in affidavit lacking “any corroborating evidence,” because “that speculative injury, however possible, is not actual and certain” (citation omitted)).
Here, Plaintiffs’ requested relief fails to satisfy these fundamental principles for several reasons: (1) Plaintiffs’ purported irreparable harm is not impending, but is instead contingent on the lifting of the two nationwide injunctions already in place; (2) Plaintiffs have not adequately proven that any claimed harms exist, let alone that they are attributable to the challenged March 6 Executive Order; and (3) Plaintiffs’ requested relief does not address injuries to themselves, but
-2-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 7 of 17
rather is designed to redress purported, unproven injuries of individuals unconnected to this suit. As demonstrated below, each of these grounds requires that Plaintiffs’ requested relief be denied. II. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Irreparable Harm Given the Existing Injunctions.
Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they are suffering any “certain, great, actual, imminent” injury, Save Jobs USA, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 112-13, because provisions of the challenged Order have already been enjoined nationwide by two other district courts. Instead, Plaintiffs offer a series of policy arguments that they contend support “the exercise of discretion in favor of a preliminary injunction now.” Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 4 (ECF No. 80). Those arguments are irrelevant, however, unless Plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites governing entry of a preliminary injunction—an “extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). Pertinent here, the requirement that a party show irreparable harm restricts a court’s authority to enter a duplicative nationwide injunction. See Pars, ECF No. 26. Either Plaintiffs are not currently harmed (due to the nationwide injunctions), or their harms are not judicially redressable (because existing nationwide injunctions did not redress them).
As for their policy arguments, Plaintiffs note that “multiple courts have issued overlapping injunctions blocking both of President Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration.” Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 1 (citation omitted). But none of the decisions cited by Plaintiffs addressed the irreparable harm argument advanced here. Cf. Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157, 170 (2004) (“Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” (quotation omitted)). And of course, Plaintiffs largely ignore the several decisions staying requests for preliminary relief after entry of nationwide injunctions. See Hawaii v. Trump, 2017 WL 536826 (D. Haw. Feb. 9, 2017); Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 1050354 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017); Ali
-3-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 8 of 17

v. Trump, 2017 WL 1057645 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017); Al-Mowafak v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv00557-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017), ECF No. 63.1 Furthermore, in each of the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs, the challengers filed their preliminary injunction motions prior to any nationwide injunctions—so they could still argue that their interests were “either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time the movant seeks injunctive relief.” Sweis v. U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Comm’n, 950 F. Supp. 2d 44, 49 (D.D.C. 2013) (quotation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs filed their motions after the District of Hawaii had already entered its injunction.
Plaintiffs also rely on purported “overlapping orders” in Affordable Care Act litigation, but none involved nationwide orders. See, e.g., Florida ex rel. Bondi v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1318 (N.D. Fla. 2011) (“[M]y declaratory judgment, of course, only applies to the parties to this litigation.”). Moreover, all three involved final judgments on the merits, and none involved injunctive relief at all, only declaratory judgments. Those cases thus provide no support for a third preliminary, nationwide injunction here.2
More generally, Plaintiffs argue that courts regularly permit parallel litigation against the Government. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 2. But those cases support the Government’s position that courts should not issue nationwide injunctions against Government policies in the first instance (as has

1

Plaintiffs acknowledge only the Ali decision (which they incorrectly caption as Washington

v. Trump), and assert that these cases are different because this Court will not be “bound by the

Ninth Circuit’s decision” in the Hawaii appeal. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 4. It is far from clear, however,

that the individual plaintiffs in Ali will be bound by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hawaii—e.g.,

if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse the preliminary injunction on grounds particular to the Hawaii

plaintiffs, such as standing or irreparable harm.

2

Plaintiffs’ other cited cases—United States v. Borden Co., 347 U.S. 514 (1954), and United

States v. Cty. of Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d 998 (D. Ariz. 2015), appeal docketed, No. 15-17558

(9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2015)—allowed the Attorney General to seek an injunction after a private party

had obtained such relief, due to the United States’ unique law-enforcement duties. Borden, 347

U.S. at 518-20; Maricopa, 151 F. Supp. 3d at 1011-13. Those cases do not support private parties

obtaining duplicative preliminary relief.

-4-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 9 of 17
occurred here). And none speaks to whether a court should proceed with a duplicative request for preliminary relief even after a nationwide injunction has already been entered. Nor can Plaintiffs seriously accuse the Government of seeking “a one-way ratchet in their efforts to defend the Executive Orders.” Id. at 3. Rather, it is Plaintiffs who, by seeking nationwide injunctions, have sought to “improperly skew” the law by prohibiting any enforcement of the Order even though, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, some courts have concluded that the Order is lawful. Id. at 1 n.1, 3.
Plaintiffs argue they might suffer irreparable harm in the future, if the Government’s appeals result in the injunctions being vacated or narrowed. See Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 3. However, that is or was equally true for the Hawaii, Washington, Ali, and Al-Mowafak cases, yet those courts still declined to move forward with the plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary relief. Moreover, an injury that is expressly contingent on a future event is, by definition, not an imminent, irreparable injury. See Henke v. Dep’t of Interior, 842 F. Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Injury that is hypothetical or speculative does not rise to the level of irreparable harm.”).3
Finally, Plaintiffs rely on their challenges to Sections 3 and 4 of the Order, which are not enjoined. But again, Plaintiffs do not identify any irreparable harm they are currently suffering as a result of those sections. Moreover, an injunction against Section 3 would be senseless: it would have no practical effect so long as Section 2 remains enjoined, and in the event Section 2 came into force, enjoining Section 3 would effectively expand the scope of the Order, despite the Ninth Circuit’s invitation for the President to make exactly the type of distinctions that Section 3’s exceptions and waivers provide. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017).

3

Plaintiffs incorrectly assert that, if both nationwide injunctions were reversed, it would

“caus[e] chaos and uncertainty similar to that seen on January 27.” Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 3. That

assertion ignores fundamental changes between the Revoked Order and the March 6 Order, as

discussed at length in the Government’s prior briefings with the Court.

-5-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 10 of 17
As for Section 4, the injunction Plaintiffs seek—prohibiting the use of information from the Iraqi government “concerning individuals suspected of ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations and individuals coming from territories controlled or formerly controlled by ISIS,” Exec. Order No. 13,780 § 4—highlights Plaintiffs’ overreach into the Executive Branch’s foreign affairs and national security judgments, including to otherwise non-reviewable aspects of a consular official’s duty to vet appropriately applicants for visas. Such intrusion should not be undertaken at all, much less on a record that lacks evidence of irreparable harm. See Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 95455 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“extraordinarily strong showing” required when injunction “deeply intrudes into the core concerns of the executive branch”). III. Plaintiffs Have Not Justified Entry of Relief as to the Individuals.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the individual plaintiffs “have not requested relief specific to themselves.” Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 6. That statement, by itself, explains why no such relief should be granted. The forms of relief that Plaintiffs do mention are impermissible for several reasons.
A. Plaintiffs Fail to Submit Any Evidence Connecting Their Claimed Injuries to the March 6 Order.
The sole policy being challenged in Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction is the March 6 Order. See Pars PI Mot. (ECF No. 35) at 1 (“Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from enforcing or implementing certain provisions of President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order No. 13,780[.]”); UMAA PI Mot. (ECF No. 11) at 1-2 (same). Plaintiffs, however, mention several forms of relief directed at events occurring before the March 6 Order was even signed. See Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 8. The denials of visa applications for relatives of Ali Asaei and Jane Doe #13 all occurred prior to March 6, 2017. See Pars PI Mot., Asaei Decl. ¶ 14 (Exh. 5); Jane Doe #13 Decl. ¶ 14 (Exh. 14). And with respect to the visa applications of Jane Doe #1’s fiancé, the parents of Jane Doe #4, the husband of Jane Doe #10, the parents of Shiva Hissong, and the wife of John Doe
-6-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 11 of 17
#3, all of them appear to have made visa applications (and were adjudicated and refused for administrative processing) in October 2016 or November 2016—months prior to the March 6 Order. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to submit any evidence demonstrating a connection between the challenged March 6 Order and the alleged injuries that would be redressed by these forms of relief. Nor could Plaintiffs plausibly establish such a connection, given that relevant portions of the March 6 Order were enjoined prior to its effective date, and thus have never been implemented.
With respect to the two claimed injuries potentially occurring in the future, Plaintiffs fail to prove the existence of these injuries or their connection to the March 6 Order. For example, Plaintiffs propose an order directing the Government to “[p]rocess the refugee applications” of Pars Plaintiffs, Jane Does #8 and #9, and John Does #7 and #8. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 8. But there is no evidence that those refugee applications are currently not being processed. Nor is there any basis for connecting any alleged delay in processing those applications to the March 6 Order. Plaintiffs’ theories of harm assume that, although relevant portions of the Order have been enjoined (and therefore have never been implemented), they are still somehow having a lasting effect. That assumption is remarkable, given that there have been no allegations of non-compliance in either of the courts that have actually enjoined the Order.4
B. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Relief Violates Principles of Consular Non-Reviewability. Even assuming arguendo that consular non-reviewability principles do not preclude Plaintiffs’ overall claim in this case, those principles certainly preclude the type of intrusive, individualized relief Plaintiffs describe here.

4

Plaintiffs had also proposed relief for the UMAA Doe Plaintiffs’ children, but those children

have now been admitted to the United States and Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed those

claims. See Doe Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, UMAA v. Trump, ECF No. 44.

-7-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 12 of 17

The doctrine of consular non-reviewability is rooted in the broader principle that “any policy toward aliens” is “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Thus, the doctrine is not limited only to final visa determinations. See, e.g., Castillo v. Rice, 581 F. Supp. 2d 468, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (collecting cases for the proposition that “Petitioners simply do not have a right to an expedited interview date from the Consulate”). Entering the type of relief envisioned by Plaintiffs—i.e., a command to take a “second look” at an already-denied visa application, or to process applications at a certain pace according to certain procedures, see Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 8—would be contrary to these longstanding principles.5 Plaintiffs fail to cite any legal authority that would allow a court to second-guess a consular officer’s visa adjudication decision, or to order Defendants to re-review a consular officer’s prior adjudication. Indeed, “it has been consistently held that the consular official's decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject either to administrative or judicial review.” Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 971 (9th Cir. 1986). IV. The Broad Relief Requested Is Factually Unsupported and Legally Unfounded.
Plaintiffs state that, “[f]or clarity and convenience,” they have jointly filed a new proposed order. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 9; see Pars, ECF No. 80-1. But Plaintiffs fail to mention that their new proposed order seeks several new forms of relief—even more expansive than what was previously requested. For example, neither set of Plaintiffs’ prior proposed orders mentioned conducting “second look” reviews of previously denied applications, id. ¶ 2(b); taking various steps regarding “pending” visa applications, id. ¶ 2(c); or affirmatively rescheduling refugee interviews, id. ¶ 3.

5

Notably, Plaintiffs do not simply request an injunction prohibiting decisions from being

based on the March 6 Order. Rather, they seek to dictate the exact procedures that the Government

must employ—i.e., those in place on January 26, 2017. See Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 8.

-8-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 13 of 17

Plaintiffs’ belated attempt to inject these new issues into the case should be rejected outright. But
even beyond that, Plaintiffs’ requests are also wholly meritless.
A. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Submit Evidence Establishing Their Alleged Harms.
Plaintiffs request relief for five categories of individuals, Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 10-11, but do
not establish the need for any such relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs submit no evidence regarding:
1. Any individuals whose consular interviews were cancelled as a result of the Executive Orders, who remain interested in obtaining a visa, and are available for a consular interview, but have not yet been re-scheduled for an interview;
2. Any individuals who were denied visas based solely on the Executive Orders, who remain interested in obtaining a visa, and who have not yet been able to obtain one;
3. Any individuals whose visa applications are not being processed for reasons related solely to the Executive Orders;
4. Any individuals whose visas were physically cancelled, who remain interested in obtaining a visa, and who have not yet been able to obtain one6; or
5. Any refugee applicants whose USCIS field interviews were cancelled based solely on the Executive Orders, and who have not yet been re-scheduled for an interview.
Quite simply, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that any of these individuals purportedly suffering
harm even exist. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to carry their burden on this point.
B. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Harms Have No Connection to the March 6 Order.
Plaintiffs’ alleged harms (even if they could be established) stem from the first, now-
revoked Executive Order, which is not even being challenged here.

6

The March 6 Executive Order already addresses this issue. It specifically provides that

“[a]ny individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked cancelled as a result of Executive

Order 13769 shall be entitled to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to

travel to the United States and seek entry.” Executive Order No. 13,780, § 12(d); see also U.S.

Department of State, Alert: Executive Order on Visas (Mar. 22, 2017),

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html (“Any individual in

this situation who seeks to travel to the United States should contact the closest U.S. embassy or

consulate to request a travel document.”).

-9-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 14 of 17
All of Plaintiffs’ claimed harms relate to actions taken during the brief window when the Revoked Order was being implemented (January 27 – February 3, 2017). However, Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction do not challenge the Revoked Order or contain any arguments as to why that Order was unlawful. And given the two Orders’ differences, Plaintiffs cannot rely on their arguments as to the March 6 Order as a basis for challenging (and seeking relief as to) the Revoked Order. Cf. Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 1045950, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017) (holding that injunction as to the Revoked Order did not apply to the March 6 Order, given the “substantial distinctions between EO1 and EO2”); Sarsour v. Trump, 2017 WL 1113305, at *12 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017). Thus, Plaintiffs’ current preliminary-injunction motions provide no basis for entering their requested relief: any past injuries attributable to the Revoked Order do not justify an injunction against the legally distinct March 6 Order.
C. The Proposed Relief Would Not Benefit the Plaintiffs. As discussed above (Section I), Plaintiffs must establish not only irreparable harm but also Article III standing for each form of relief sought. Here, Plaintiffs make no effort to do so: they seek relief that is designed to remedy hypothetical injuries associated with unknown individuals wholly unconnected to this lawsuit. Nor can Plaintiffs justify this relief based on the alleged injuries of the organizational Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence demonstrating—and certainly no reasonable basis for assuming—that entry of Plaintiffs’ proposed order would result in the organizations no longer needing to expend resources on educating the Iranian-American community about this topic, or advocating on their behalf on this topic. Cf. Save Jobs USA, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 112 (declining to enter an injunction based on predictive allegations lacking corroborating evidence). Because Plaintiffs’ requested relief has no connection to the actual parties in this lawsuit, such relief is legally unavailable. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 358.
-10-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 15 of 17
D. Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief Would Be Highly Intrusive and Burdensome. Even beyond principles of consular non-reviewability, courts should not attempt to micromanage the Executive Branch’s functions. See, e.g., Fla. Audubon Soc. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (“The federal judiciary is not a back-seat Congress nor some sort of super-agency.”). Plaintiffs, however, seek broad-ranging relief that would inevitably require the Court to become a global superintendent, managing various governmental operations overseas. The requested relief would also tie the President’s hands in the areas of immigration and national security, including by demanding that the Government apply only those standards and procedures for visa processing that existed on January 26, 2017. See Pls.’ Supp. Br. at 10. This type of relief is precisely the kind criticized by the D.C. Circuit, as demonstrated by the Cobell v. Kempthorne litigation upon which Plaintiffs themselves rely. See, e.g., 455 F.3d 301, 317 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“A court cannot order programmatic supervision of an agency’s operations, nor can it displace an agency as the actor with primary responsibility for carrying out a statutory mandate by prescribing particular tasks for [the agency] to perform based on policies developed by the district court.” (citation omitted)); Cobell v. Norton, 428 F.3d 1070, 1078-79 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (reversing an injunction that “reflected no deference to defendants’ expertise or to their judgment regarding the allocation of scarce resources”). Moreover, as described in the attached declaration, the relief Plaintiffs request in Section 2 of their proposed order (ECF No. 80-1) is either infeasible or would be extremely burdensome. See Decl. of Jeremy A. Cornforth ¶¶ 3-6 (May 2, 2017) (filed herein) (explaining, among other things, that the Department of State’s Consular Consolidated Database cannot be used to identify individuals whose consular interviews or visas were cancelled as a result of the Executive Orders). And implementing the requested relief likely would have significant negative effects on third
-11-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 16 of 17
parties, because it would “divert resources from normal visa adjudications, potentially extending visa application interview wait times and the processing of current visa applications for all applicants world-wide.” See id. ¶ 5. These factors weigh heavily against entry of such relief. Cf. Cobell, 428 F.3d at 1077 (reversing injunction because “the district court completely disregarded relevant information about the costs of its injunction”).
Particularly based on this record—devoid of irreparable harm—the Court should reject Plaintiffs’ invitation to conduct global oversight of the State Department’s consular operations. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79 (1976) (“When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of a government agency . . . his case must contend with the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal affairs.” (citation omitted)). V. At a Minimum, the Court Should Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction. At a minimum, however, this Court should follow the same course as the courts in Hawaii, Washington, Ali, and Al-Mowafak, and stay consideration of Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeals. If circumstances were to change, Plaintiffs could move this Court to lift the stay, at which point the Court—having already received lengthy briefing and heard oral argument—would be in a position to act promptly. As of right now, however, there is no need for urgent action, and therefore this Court should, at a minimum, stay consideration of Plaintiffs’ motions.
CONCLUSION The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions.
-12-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 45 Filed 05/02/17 Page 17 of 17

Dated: May 2, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Brad P. Rosenberg BRAD P. ROSENBERG (D.C. BAR NO. 467513) DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar) MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Co. Bar No. 37050) ARJUN GARG (D.C. Bar No. 975335) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530
Tel.: (202) 514-3374 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: brad.rosenberg@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

-13-

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL, PUBLIC AFFAIRS ALLIANCE OF IRANIAN AMERICANS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-255 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP et al., Defendants.

No. 17-cv-537 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. The Court Can and Should Enjoin §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order ................ 1 II. The Court Has Broad Power To Grant Relief Restoring the Status Quo Ante................... 3 III. The Court Should Grant Plaintiffs’ Proposed Relief to Fully Restore the Status Quo....... 5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 6
i

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Already, LLC, v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (2013).................................................................................................................2

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................1

Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................3

Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................1

League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................6

Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman, 310 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................3, 6

Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) .....................................................................................................3

Sarsour v. Trump, 2017 WL 1113305 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017) ............................................................................1

United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984)...................................................................................................................2

United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953)...................................................................................................................2

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Karoun Demirjian & Abigail Hauslohner, ‘Refugee processing has ground to a halt’: A group of senators wants to know why, Wash. Post, May 4, 2017 ................................4

Yeganeh Torbati, Number of U.S. Visas to Citizens of Trump Travel Ban Nations Drop, Reuters, April 27, 2017 ...................................................................................................5

ii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 11
I. The Court Can and Should Enjoin §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order On the Court’s first question, Defendants do not identify, much less substantiate, any
“restriction” on the Court’s ability to enjoin §§ 2 and 6 of the March 6 Executive Order. Instead,
they rehash their argument that other courts’ nationwide injunctions preclude a finding of
irreparable harm. Opp. 1-6. But the Court did not ask about irreparable harm. The Court asked
whether it has power to issue an overlapping injunction, and, if so, whether exercising that power would be “in the public interest.” Defendants do not address those questions.1
In any event, Defendants do not cite a single case—not one—holding that a nationwide
injunction precludes other courts from finding irreparable harm to support an overlapping
injunction. To our knowledge, no court has ever so held. Given Defendants’ discriminatory
conduct here, this Court should not be the first. Beyond the total lack of precedent, Defendants
are wrong. This case “per se satisfies the irreparable injury requirement.” Chaplaincy of Full
Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 301 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs’ unrebutted
declarations and live testimony underscore the harms here, including harms not redressed by the
existing injunctions. And Defendants do not dispute that if they prevail in their expedited Fourth
and Ninth Circuit appeals, even if just to narrow the existing injunctions, the March 6 Order will
take effect immediately, further harming Plaintiffs. Defendants’ observation that this Court
1 Defendants’ brief confirms that this Court has power to issue an overlapping injunction. Defendants acknowledge that the Government itself may seek and obtain injunctions that duplicate relief already granted to private parties, Opp. 4 n.2, and that other courts have entered overlapping injunctions against both Executive Orders here, Opp. 3. They note that those courts did not consider their irreparable-harm argument, id., but the Eastern District of Virginia recently concluded—after the nationwide injunctions by the Districts of Hawaii and Maryland—that “Plaintiffs should . . . not be denied injunctive relief based on the lack of irreparable harm.” Sarsour v. Trump, 2017 WL 1113305, at *14 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2017). Defendants’ attempt to distinguish the Affordable Care Act litigation on the ground that courts there issued declaratory judgments rather than injunctions is frivolous. Opp. 4. In litigation against the Government, a “declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 11
could “act promptly,” Opp. 12, is cold comfort from a Government that on January 27 detained lawful immigrants, separated parents from young children, and denied access to counsel.
It would be passing strange to hold that a litigant actively seeking to engage in unlawful conduct should not be enjoined from doing so. Even if Defendants voluntarily abandoned efforts to enforce the March 6 Order, the Court still could issue an injunction so long as “there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953); see also Already, LLC, v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 733 (2013) (voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not “moot a case” unless defendants meet “the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur”). An injunction is all the more necessary when, as here, Defendants are fighting tooth-and-nail to resume their shameful misconduct as soon as possible.
Defendants emphasize “several decisions staying requests for preliminary relief after entry of nationwide injunctions.” Opp. 3-4. But only district courts within the Ninth Circuit stayed requests for preliminary relief, which makes sense because of the Government’s appeals of other courts’ injunctions to the Ninth Circuit. If the D.C. Circuit were already considering an appeal, a stay might be appropriate here. But that is not the case. Just the opposite: these are the only cases that can give the D.C. Circuit an opportunity to address these important questions.
Defendants’ characterization of the need to develop the law through parallel litigation as a mere “policy argument,” Opp. 3, ignores the Supreme Court’s encouragement of such litigation. To foster development of the law, the Supreme Court has held that the Government is not precluded from relitigating an issue that it previously lost against a different party. United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 160-64 (1984). That is why Defendants are able to relitigate the merits of the March 6 Executive Order here, despite having lost the issue before. It would be perverse, then, to hold that those prior losses protect the Government from losing again here.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 11
Likewise disregarding the second part of the Court’s question, Defendants do not identify any “factors [to] guide the Court’s discretion in weighing whether such a duplicative injunction is in the public interest.” Their brief does not even use the words “public interest.” And Defendants ignore nearly all the public-interest factors identified by Plaintiffs. See Pls.’ Br. 4-6. Those factors conclusively establish that an overlapping injunction is in the public interest.2
Finally, the Court should reject Defendants’ half-hearted request for a stay. Opp. 12. Defendants do not identify or analyze the factors for granting a stay, nor do they attempt to refute Plaintiffs’ arguments that those factors weigh heavily against a stay here. See Pls.’ Br. 3-4. II. The Court Has Broad Power To Grant Relief Restoring the Status Quo Ante
Defendants do not dispute that this Court has broad equitable power to grant injunctive relief restoring “the last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 301, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see Pls.’ Br. 6-7. Nor do Defendants dispute that courts have ordered such relief against the Government unless compliance would be practically impossible because “[t]he egg has been scrambled and there is no apparent way to restore the status quo.” Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman, 310 F.3d 747, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Defendants’ reliance on the doctrine of consular non-reviewability is misplaced. Opp. 78. That doctrine does not apply, inter alia, “when [a] suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion.” Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs do not seek to mandate a specific decision or outcome for any particular visa applicant or refugee. Rather, Plaintiffs ask that
2 Defendants’ objections to enjoining §§ 3 and 4 of the March 6 Order, Opp. 5-6, underscore that all four challenged sections should be enjoined together. As Defendants make clear, §§ 2 and 3 operate in tandem to create a separate but unequal system for nationals of the affected countries. And Defendants’ national-security “justification” is just as pretextual with respect to § 4 as it is with respect to §§ 2, 3, and 6; the same anti-Muslim animus underlies all four sections.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 11
Defendants be required to restore affected individuals to the positions they held on January 26. Defendants also are wrong that “[t]he sole policy being challenged in Plaintiffs’ motions
for preliminary injunction is the March 6 Order.” Opp. 6; accord Opp. 9-10. Plaintiffs explicitly sought redress of harms caused by both the March 6 Order and Defendants’ unlawful actions in response to the January 27 Order, and established that individual plaintiffs continue to suffer harm from Defendants’ post-January 27 unlawful actions that other injunctions have not remedied. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3-6, 72-74, 165-85 (PARS Doc. 31-1); PI Mot. 2-4, 9, 18-21 (PARS Doc. 35-1). Defendants have engaged in a continuous course of discriminatory, unlawful conduct starting with the January 27 Order and continuing through today. It should be remedied.
The individual plaintiffs have amply established the “existence” of specific, personalized injuries warranting redress. Opp. 7. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs Ali Asaei, Jane Doe #13, Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #4, Shiva Hissong, and John Doe #3 have established such injuries. Opp. 6-7. As for Jane Does #8 and #9 and John Does #7 and #8, Defendants assert, in a double negative, that “there is no evidence that those refugee applications are currently not being processed.” Opp. 7. But those plaintiffs attested in declarations that they were notified that their applications were suspended because of the January 27 Order, and their applications have not progressed. See Jane Doe #8 Decl. ¶¶ 15-19, 21 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 9); Jane Doe #9 Decl. ¶¶ 14-18, 20 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 10); John Doe #7 Decl. ¶ 9 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 18A); John Doe #7 Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 3-5 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 18B); John Doe #8 Decl. ¶ 9 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 19A); John Doe #8 Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 3-5 (PARS Doc. 35-2, Ex. 19B). If their applications were currently being processed, Defendants presumably would have said so. There is cause for concern. See Karoun Demirjian & Abigail Hauslohner, ‘Refugee processing has ground to a halt’: A group of senators wants to know why, Wash. Post, May 4, 2017.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 8 of 11
III. The Court Should Grant Plaintiffs’ Proposed Relief to Fully Restore the Status Quo Defendants’ procedural gripes about Plaintiffs’ consolidated proposed order lack merit.
Opp. 8-9. The consolidated proposal closely tracks Plaintiffs’ separate original proposals and reflects the narrowest relief that would fully restore the individual and organizational plaintiffs to the pre-January 27 status quo. This is especially appropriate in a dynamic situation like this one.
Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs failed “to submit evidence establishing their alleged harms,” Opp. 9, ignores the detailed record citations in Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief. Plaintiffs carefully linked each element of requested relief to record evidence that actual people continue to suffer the specific injuries that the requested relief is designed to remedy. Pls.’ Br. 8, 10-12. And there is nothing “remarkable,” Opp. 7, about Plaintiffs’ claim of ongoing harm tied to the January 27 Order. State Department data released last week show that in March 2017, the Government issued 40 percent fewer visas to citizens of the listed countries than it did in any average month in 2016. See Yeganeh Torbati, Number of U.S. Visas to Citizens of Trump Travel Ban Nations Drop, Reuters, April 27, 2017. The number of visas issued to Iranians dropped precipitously—from 2,450 per month in 2016 to 1,572 in March 2017—notwithstanding the nationwide injunctions against both the January 27 and March 6 Orders. Id.
Defendants double down on the notion that Plaintiffs have sought relief only as to the March 6 Order. Opp. 9-10. As described above, that is demonstrably incorrect. See supra p. 4.
Defendants’ claim that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would be “highly intrusive and burdensome” falls flat. Opp. 11-12. The declaration from a State Department employee is filled with caveats, and is more noteworthy for what it does not say than what it does. For example:
 Neither Defendants’ brief nor Mr. Cornforth’s declaration makes any mention of the relief sought in Paragraphs 2(c), 3, 4, 5(a), 5(b), or 5(c) of the Proposed Order. This requested relief is readily administrable, and Defendants do not contend otherwise.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 9 of 11
 On Paragraph 2(a), Mr. Cornforth acknowledges that consular interviews “may have been cancelled as a result of the [January 27] Order.” Cornforth Decl. ¶ 3. And he does not dispute that “the CCD could be used to identify individuals whose consular interview appointments were cancelled.” Id. He instead contends identifying these individuals would involve more than the click of a button. So be it. Defendants should be ordered— in conjunction with the “National Visa Center,” the “Kentucky Consular Center,” the relevant “overseas consular section[s],” any relevant “third party contractors,” and anyone else involved, see id.—to identify these individuals, determine whether the cancellations related to the January 27 Order, and if so offer prompt interviews now. If anything, Mr. Cornforth’s declaration provides a roadmap for Defendants to do so.
 On Paragraph 2(b), Mr. Cornforth states that the CCD cannot be used “reliably” or “automatically” to identify all applicants who were denied a visa since January 26 but who previously had been granted a visa. Cornforth Decl. ¶ 4. But he acknowledges that Defendants could identify these applicants within “several weeks” through automated searches and “manual intervention.” Id. Applicants’ visa histories are routinely crosschecked to prevent consular fraud; such cross-checks could be used here. Further, his assertion that a “second look” at these visa denials would be burdensome, id. ¶ 5, ignores State Department policy requiring supervisors to “review as many nonimmigrant visa refusals as is practical, but not fewer than 20%.” 9 FAM 403.10-3(D). And the Bureau of Consular Affairs routinely makes temporary “peak staffing” assignments through the Consular Incentive Program and Peak Staffing program. 4 FAH-1 H-524 (4180).
 On Paragraph 2(d), Mr. Cornforth acknowledges that the CCD could be used to identify at least some individuals from the affected countries whose visas were physically cancelled in the wake of the January 27 Order. Cornforth Decl. ¶ 6. The Court should order Defendants to do whatever they can in this regard.
None of this requires unscrambling an egg. See Milk Train, 310 F.3d at 756. Any burden on
Defendants is “of [their] own making,” Newby, 838 F.3d at 14, because, in response to the
January 27 Order, they unlawfully cancelled consular interviews, denied visa applications, and
physically cancelled valid visas. Relevant records are less than 100 days old, and Defendants
can readily identify affected individuals and provide meaningful relief. This Court can order
Defendants to restore the status quo without any need for judicial micromanaging.
CONCLUSION
The President promised to ban Muslims from entering this country. He delivered. The
Court has the power to remedy the injuries caused by this invidious discrimination. Plaintiffs’
motions for preliminary injunction should be granted.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 10 of 11

Dated: May 5, 2017
/s/ David J. Weiner David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda J. Sherwood (D.C. Bar # 1021108) ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 (202) 942-5999 (fax) david.weiner@apks.com charles.blanchard@apks.com amanda.sherwood@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 583-2300 (312) 583-2360 (fax) emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 576-2400 (713) 576-2499 (fax) andrew.bergman@apks.com
Johnathan Smith Aziz Huq MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 692-1484 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org aziz.huq@gmail.com

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John A. Freedman John A. Freedman (D.C. Bar # 453075) David P. Gersch (D.C. Bar # 367469) R. Stanton Jones (D.C. Bar # 987088) Nancy L. Perkins (D.C. Bar # 421574) Ronald A. Schechter (D.C. Bar # 245019) Robert N. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 298133) Samuel M. Witten (D.C. Bar # 378008) Sally L. Pei (D.C. Bar # 1030194) Sonia Tabriz (D.C. Bar # 1025020) Stephen K. Wirth (D.C. Bar # 1034038) ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 (202) 942-5999 (fax) john.freedman@apks.com
Christopher M. Odell* ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 576-2400 (713) 576-2499 (fax) christopher.odell@apks.com
Susan S. Hu* ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 836-8000 (303) 836-8689 (fax) susan.hu@apks.com

7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 47 Filed 05/05/17 Page 11 of 11

Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar # 1033743) AMERICANS UNITED FOR
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3234 (202) 466-3353 (fax) katskee@au.org girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers Kristi L. Graunke Naomi R Tsu SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW
CENTER 1989 College Ave., NE Atlanta, GA 30317 (404) 521-6700 (404) 221-5857 (fax) gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Case No. 17-cv-537

Adrienne D. Boyd* ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 370 Seventh Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 863-1000 (303) 832-0428 (fax) adrienne.boyd@apks.com
Cyrus Mehri (D.C. Bar # 420970) Joanna K. Wasik (D.C. Bar # 1027916) Amelia Friedman (D.C. Bar # 1033583) MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-5100 (202) 822-4997 (fax) cmehri@findjustice.com
Kristen Clarke (D.C. Bar # 973885) Jon Greenbaum (D.C. Bar # 489887) LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 662-8600 (202) 783-0857 (fax) jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs in Case No. 17-cv-255

*Pro hac vice motion pending 8

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 48 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 17-cv-0255 (TSC) Case No. 17-cv-0537 (TSC)

ORDER

Plaintiffs in two related cases challenge the President’s Executive Order No. 13,780

(“Second Executive Order”) and in both cases have moved for a preliminary injunction. (Pars

ECF No. 35; UMAA ECF No 11). The court heard the arguments of counsel at the combined

hearing on April 21, 2017. Following the hearing, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the

need for a nationwide injunction, particularly as to Sections 2 and 6 of the Second Executive Order, given that these sections of the order have already been enjoined by other courts.1

1 See Hawai‘i v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) (issuing temporary restraining order as to Sections 2 and 6); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) (preliminarily enjoining Section 2(c)); Hawai‘i v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017) (converting TRO to a preliminary injunction).
1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 48 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 2
Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the court is inclined to agree with Plaintiffs that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims with respect to Sections 2 and 6 of the Second Executive Order. However, the court recognizes that it must additionally find that Plaintiffs face imminent and certain irreparable harm in order to grant a preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The existence of two other nationwide injunctions temporarily casts uncertainty on the issue of whether the harms Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain. Because both existing preliminary injunctions are actively being considered on appeal by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits this month and the continued existence of these injunctions will directly impact this court’s analysis, the court finds that the most appropriate course of action is to temporarily stay resolution of the Plaintiffs’ motions pending the outcome of the current appeals. In the event that both existing injunctions are overturned, this court is prepared to issue a ruling without delay.
On April 4, 2017, this court issued a Minute Order directing Defendants to file their Answer or Motion to Dismiss within fifteen days of this court’s decision on the preliminary injunction motions. In order to avoid undue delay in this litigation, the court now orders that this time period shall commence with this filing of today’s Order. Accordingly, Defendants’ Answers or Motions to Dismiss are due by May 26, 2017, Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to any motions are due by June 16, 2017, and Defendants’ Replies are due by June 26, 2017.

Date: May 11, 2017

Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

2

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING SUPREME COURT REVIEW

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 2 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4 I. A Stay of Proceedings Would Promote Judicial Economy and Conserve the Parties’
Resources by Awaiting the Supreme Court’s Guidance on Important Legal Issues. .......... 4 A. Courts Routinely Stay Proceedings to Await Guidance from Appellate
Courts. ..................................................................................................................... 4 B. Awaiting Supreme Court Guidance Is the Most Efficient Way to Proceed in
These Cases............................................................................................................. 7 II. Plaintiffs Will Not Be Harmed By the Proposed Stay. ..................................................... 10 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 11
-i-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 3 of 16
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Ali v. Trump,
No. 2:17-cv-135, 2017 WL 2222873 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2017) ............................................ 6
Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius, 756 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2010) .............................................................................................. 5
Cal. Ass’n of Health Facilities v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 10-cv-3259, 2010 WL 2612694 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2010) ................................................. 6
Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002) .............................................................................................. 5
Canal Props., LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., No. 04-cv-3201, 2005 WL 1562807 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005)................................................. 8
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004).................................................................................................................... 9
Coombs v. Diguglielmo, No. 04-cv-1841, 2004 WL 1631416 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2004) ................................................... 6
Fairview Hosp. v. Leavitt, No. 05-cv-1065, 2007 WL 1521233 (D.D.C. May 22, 2007)..................................................... 5
Felix v. United States, No. 91-0946, 1992 WL 361745 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 1992) ....................................................... 6
Fonville v. Dist. of Columbia, 766 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.D.C. 2011) ............................................................................................ 5
Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of State, 925 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2013) .............................................................................................. 8
Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-15889 (9th Cir. argued May 15, 2017) ............................................... 2
Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50, 2017 WL 536826 (D. Haw. Feb. 9, 2017) ............................................... 6, 10, 11
Hussain v. Lewis, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) ................................................................................................ 5
-ii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 4 of 16
IBT/HERE Emps. Representatives’ Council v. Gate Gourmet Div. Americas, 402 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D.D.C. 2005) ...................................................................................... 5, 10
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015)................................................................................................................ 7
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)................................................................................................................ 7, 9
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936).................................................................................................................... 4
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) ....................................................................................................... 5
Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Fin. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:08-cv-135, 2010 WL 567993 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 12, 2010) .................................................. 6
McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005).................................................................................................................... 9
Sumler v. Sovran Bank/DC Nat’l, No. 91-cv-3276, 1992 WL 315975 (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 1992) ....................................................... 5
Tax Analysts & Advocates v. IRS, 405 F. Supp. 1065 (D.D.C. 1975) ............................................................................................... 5
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017), cert pending, No. 16-____ (filed June 1, 2017)................................................................ 1, 7, 12
Univ. of Colo. Health Mem’l Hosp. v. Burwell, No. 14-cv-1220, 2017 WL 535246 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2017) ......................................................... 5
Walker v. Monsanto Co. Pension Plan, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (S.D. Ill. 2006) ......................................................................................... 6
Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141, 2017 WL 2172020 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017) .................................. 6, 9, 11
REGULATIONS Exec. Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017)........................................................ 1
-iii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 5 of 16
INTRODUCTION Defendants respectfully request that this Court stay further proceedings in these matters until the Supreme Court acts on the Government’s pending petition for writ of certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017), cert. pending, No. 16-1436 (filed June 1, 2017), and, if certiorari is granted, pending the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision on the merits. Defendants have filed this emergency motion because, absent this relief, Defendants must file motions to dismiss in both cases pending before this Court a week from today, on June 9, 2017. As described further below, to the extent the Court is inclined to provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to this emergency motion, Defendants respectfully request an immediate stay of the June 9 deadline until one week after the Court decides this stay motion. In the two cases pending before this Court, Plaintiffs are challenging the President’s Executive Order No. 13,780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (Mar. 6, 2017) (“the Order”), which is the same Order challenged by the plaintiffs in IRAP. The en banc Fourth Circuit in IRAP recently upheld a preliminary injunction against Section 2(c) of the Order. See IRAP, 2017 WL 2273306 at *26. Yesterday, the Government filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari in IRAP, as well as an application for a stay of the preliminary injunction entered in IRAP pending a decision on certiorari and, if review is granted, an ultimate decision on the merits. See No. 16-1436 (filed June 1, 2017) (attached hereto as Exh. A); No. 16A-1190 (filed June 1, 2017) (attached hereto as Exh. B). Yesterday the Government also filed with the Supreme Court an application for a stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the District of Hawaii against the Order; that preliminary injunction is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. See Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50,
-1-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 6 of 16
2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-15589 (9th Cir. argued May 15, 2017). The Government’s application sought a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s consideration and disposition of the Government’s appeal and, if the Ninth Circuit affirms the injunction, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court. See No. 16A-1191 (filed June 1, 2017) (attached hereto as Exh. C).
In light of the Government’s pending petition for certiorari in IRAP—and potential future Supreme Court proceedings regarding Hawaii—the Supreme Court is now likely to decide questions of law that will bear directly upon the cases pending before this Court. The Supreme Court’s resolution of those fundamental legal questions would govern all future proceedings in this case, if any. Moving forward in this case prior to potential Supreme Court review, in contrast, will unnecessarily duplicate the proceedings, threaten to create inconsistent rulings, and place significant, unnecessary burdens on both the parties and this Court. Accordingly, in order to promote judicial economy and preserve the parties’ resources, Defendants respectfully request that further proceedings in these cases be stayed pending potential Supreme Court review in IRAP (and, if necessary, in Hawaii).
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs in both cases, both of whom indicated that their clients oppose this emergency motion and requested that Defendants report their positions as set forth in the attached meet-and-confer correspondence, including that they intend to respond to this motion on or before Wednesday, June 7. As Defendants proposed in the meet-and-confer correspondence, to the extent the Court is inclined to provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to this emergency motion, Defendants respectfully request an immediate stay of the June 9 deadline for responding to the Complaints, until one week after the Court decides this stay motion.
-2-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 7 of 16
BACKGROUND In Pars Equality Center v. Trump, No. 17-cv-255 (D.D.C.), Plaintiffs filed their operative Amended Complaint on March 15, 2017, seeking to challenge the Order on a variety of grounds, including the Establishment Clause. See ECF No. 34. Later that day, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against certain sections of the Order. See ECF No. 35. In Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) v. Trump, No. 17-cv-537 (D.D.C.), Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on March 24, 2017, see ECF No. 10, and later amended their Complaint on April 11, 2017. See ECF No. 32. The Amended Complaint likewise challenges the Order on a variety of grounds, including the Establishment Clause. See id. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction against various sections of the Order. See ECF No. 11. The Court heard combined argument in both cases on April 21, 2017. Following that hearing, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental memoranda regarding the need for preliminary relief given the existence of two nationwide injunctions already entered against the Order. See Minute Order of Apr. 21, 2017. Following the parties’ supplemental briefs, the Court stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions: The existence of two other nationwide injunctions temporarily casts uncertainty on the issue of whether the harms Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain. Because both existing preliminary injunctions are actively being considered on appeal by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits this month and the continued existence of these injunctions will directly impact this court’s analysis, the court finds that the most appropriate course of action is to temporarily stay resolution of the Plaintiffs’ motions pending the outcome of the current appeals. In the event that both existing injunctions are overturned, this court is prepared to issue a ruling without delay. Pars ECF No. 84 at 2, UMAA ECF No. 48 at 2.
-3-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 8 of 16
In that Order, the Court also directed Defendants to respond to the operative complaints in the two cases by May 26, 2017. See id. That deadline was subsequently extended until June 9, 2017. See Minute Orders of May 22, 2017.
ARGUMENT I. A Stay of Proceedings Would Promote Judicial Economy and Conserve the Parties’
Resources by Awaiting the Supreme Court’s Guidance on Important Legal Issues. Given the pending petition for certiorari in IRAP, and the possibility of future Supreme Court proceedings in Hawaii, the cases before this Court should be stayed. The Government has asked the Supreme Court to decide fundamental legal questions raised by these cases, the resolution of which would govern all future proceedings in these cases, if any. Given the significant overlap between the legal issues in these cases and the legal issues the Supreme Court may soon decide in IRAP, proceeding now—without the benefit of potential Supreme Court guidance—would be a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources. Consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority, therefore, this Court should stay proceedings in these cases pending potential Supreme Court review. A. Courts Routinely Stay Proceedings to Await Guidance from Appellate Courts. A trial court has broad discretion to stay a case pending the outcome of proceedings in another court. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). Thus, “a trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 74 (D.D.C.
-4-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 9 of 16
2002) (modifications omitted, quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 86364 (9th Cir. 1979)).
Courts within this District routinely stay proceedings where resolution of an appeal in another matter may guide the district court in deciding the issues before it. See, e.g., Univ. of Colo. Health Mem’l Hosp. v. Burwell, No. 14-cv-1220, 2017 WL 535246, at *12 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2017) (“Because many of the applicable issues may be resolved by the D.C. Circuit, and because the D.C. Circuit may otherwise provide instruction on the issues here, the Court finds a stay would serve the interests of judicial efficiency.”); Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius, 756 F. Supp. 2d 61, 71 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding “good cause to stay this matter” given that “the parties agree that the resolution of [a related case] by the D.C. Circuit will be dispositive of the Plaintiffs’ arguments here”); Tax Analysts & Advocates v. IRS, 405 F. Supp. 1065, 1067 (D.D.C. 1975) (staying proceedings because “the Supreme Court could, in effect, overrule [a relevant precedent] should it choose to grant the petition for certiorari”); cf. Sumler v. Sovran Bank/DC Nat’l, No. 91-cv-3276, 1992 WL 315975, at *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 1992) (inviting the parties to request a stay because “it may be in the interest of judicial economy to stay these proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision” in a related matter).*
Courts outside this District similarly stay proceedings to await guidance from appellate courts, including when a petition for certiorari has been filed. See, e.g., Walker v. Monsanto Co.
* Even outside the appeal context, courts within this District also routinely grant stays to allow the conclusion of other related proceedings. See, e.g., Hussain v. Lewis, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2012) (staying case pending state court proceedings and arbitration request); Fonville v. Dist. of Columbia, 766 F. Supp. 2d 171, 174 (D.D.C. 2011) (staying case pending resolution of litigation in the D.C. Court of Appeals); Canady, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 74-75 (granting stay pending ongoing agency proceedings); IBT/HERE Emps. Representatives’ Council, 402 F. Supp. 2d 289, 292 (D.D.C. 2005) (staying case pending arbitrator’s decision); Fairview Hosp. v. Leavitt, No. 05cv-1065, 2007 WL 1521233 (D.D.C. May 22, 2007) (granting a stay pending district court’s resolution of a similar case).
-5-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 10 of 16
Pension Plan, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1055 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (granting a stay pending resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari in case presenting related issue, and collecting cases for the proposition that “such stays are entered quite routinely”); Cal. Ass’n of Health Facilities v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 10-cv-3259, 2010 WL 2612694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2010) (granting a stay pending Supreme Court’s decision on a petition for certiorari, because the plaintiffs were challenging the same policy at issue in the case pending before the Supreme Court); Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Fin. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:08-cv-135, 2010 WL 567993, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 12, 2010) (staying case until outcome of Supreme Court decision, so as to provide the court with “clear direction on the precise standard to be applied” in evaluating the claims in the case); Coombs v. Diguglielmo, No. 04-cv-1841, 2004 WL 1631416, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2004) (stay granted in light of pending petition for certiorari in case that may have “significant impact” on case before the court); Felix v. United States, No. 91-0946, 1992 WL 361745, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 1992) (stay of proceedings granted to allow government opportunity to consider seeking Supreme Court review of court of appeals’ decision).
Consistent with this usual practice, numerous other courts hearing challenges to the Order have also entered stays. Indeed, at least six courts have stayed district court proceedings due to pending appellate proceedings. See Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141, 2017 WL 2172020 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017); Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50, 2017 WL 536826, at *5 (D. Haw. Feb. 9, 2017) (first Executive Order); Ali v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-135, 2017 WL 2222873 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-178 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2017), ECF No. 34 (attached hereto as Exh. D); IRAP v. Trump, No. 17-cv-361 (D. Md. Apr. 19, 2017), ECF No. 184 (attached hereto as Exh. E); Sarsour v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-120 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2017), ECF No. 42 (attached hereto as Exh. F); Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-cv-50 (D. Haw. Apr. 3, 2017), ECF
-6-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 11 of 16
No. 279 (attached hereto as Exh. G) (second Executive Order). Just as those six courts stayed proceedings due to the prospect of binding appellate decisions, this Court should likewise stay proceedings pending potential Supreme Court review.
B. Awaiting Supreme Court Guidance Is the Most Efficient Way to Proceed in These Cases.
As the above courts have recognized, it makes eminent sense for a district court to refrain from deciding the very same issues that may soon be resolved by a binding appellate court.
Here, there can be no doubt about the significant overlap between the legal issues raised in these cases and the legal issues the Supreme Court may soon decide in IRAP. Just as with the two cases pending before this Court, IRAP also involves questions regarding: an individual’s standing to sue over the potential exclusion of foreign national family members (see 2017 WL 2273306 at *9-13); the scope of the doctrine of consular non-reviewability (see id. at *13); the appropriate application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), and Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (see 2017 WL 2273306 at *14-18); and the appropriate application of domestic Establishment Clause precedents (see id. at *18-24). Thus, any decision by the Supreme Court in IRAP is certain to be highly relevant—if not entirely dispositive—of the legal issues currently confronting this Court.
Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves have previously acknowledged that the core issues in Pars and UMAA largely overlap with the issues presented in IRAP and other cases. See Pls.’ Suppl. PI Mem. (Pars ECF No. 80, UMAA ECF No. 42) at 5 (“[I]f the Supreme Court hears challenges to the March 6 Executive Order at the preliminary-injunction stage, the PARS and UMAA cases present important complements to the Hawaii and Maryland suits.” (citation omitted)); id. at 4 (urging this Court to decide the preliminary-injunction motions because “reasoned opinions by multiple courts will develop the law on, and aid any Supreme Court review of, the critically
-7-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 12 of 16
important questions here about invidious religious and national-origin discrimination and the scope of executive authority” (emphasis added)); see also Tr. of PI Hr’g of Apr. 21, 2017 at 7 (discussing “if and when this case goes to the Supreme Court”). As Plaintiffs’ own statements acknowledge, therefore, it is likely that the Supreme Court will grant review over these fundamental legal issues. See also Exh. B (Gov’t’s Appl. for Stay, Trump v. IRAP, No. 16A-1190) at 18-22 (explaining why the Supreme Court is likely to grant review in the IRAP case). Accordingly, now that the Government has asked the Supreme Court to decide these critical issues, this Court should stay further proceedings in both Pars and UMAA.
If the Court were to deny a stay here, that would unnecessarily waste the Court’s and the parties’ resources, and would threaten to complicate future stages of the proceeding. First, the parties would be required to brief and litigate a motion to dismiss—even though the motion to dismiss would present many of the same legal arguments the Government has asked the Supreme Court to decide. That briefing process, and this Court’s consideration of the motion, would itself be wasteful. Cf. Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of State, 925 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59 (D.D.C. 2013) (granting a stay “[n]ot needing more lawyers to spend more time on more briefs on more subjects”); Canal Props. LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., No. 04-cv-3201, 2005 WL 1562807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005) (exercising the “power to stay duplicative litigation” because “given the similarity of issues in the two cases, and the potential for [the case on appeal]’s preclusive effect, it would be a poor use of judicial resources to proceed”).
Moreover, if the Court were to deny the motion to dismiss—as it has tentatively signaled, see Pars ECF No. 84 at 2, UMAA ECF No. 48 at 2 (“the court is inclined to agree with Plaintiffs that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims with respect to Sections 2 and 6 of the Second Executive Order”)—denial of that motion would not itself resolve Plaintiffs’ claims or
-8-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 13 of 16
provide them any relief. Instead, denial of that motion would only require the parties to move into the next stage of the litigation—increasing the burden on the parties still further. And depending on what Plaintiffs propose as the next stage of the litigation, cf. UMAA’s Reply Br. (ECF No. 38) at 16 (asserting that “eventual discovery will show that no advice from national-security professionals was sought and no ‘different course’ was considered, much less adopted”), that could embroil the parties and the Court in significant and time-consuming disputes regarding the appropriate scope of discovery (if any).
Of course, the next stage of the proceedings would also depend on resolution of certain fundamental questions governing these cases, which the Supreme Court may soon decide. For example, is a court’s review of the Order limited to determining whether the four corners provide a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the policy, Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 770, or may courts undertake a more searching review? Even if a court could look beyond the four corners of the Order, would an objective observer’s determination of purpose be limited to “openly available data” such as official acts, McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 862-63 (2005), or would consideration of internal government documents be permitted? These types of foundational questions are critical for determining the scope of any future proceedings in these cases, and thus it makes eminent sense to wait for the Supreme Court’s potential guidance on such questions. As Judge Robart in the Western District of Washington noted, “this factor weighs heavily in favor of granting Defendants’ motion for a stay” because “[i]n the context of this case, the ‘high respect’ owed to the Executive warrants a stay to protect Defendants from the burden of resource intensive discovery while the Ninth Circuit addresses issues that may inform the appropriateness, scope, and necessity of that discovery.” Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 2172020, at *4 (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004))).
-9-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 14 of 16
Finally, moving forward now—despite the uncertainty inherent in not awaiting potential Supreme Court review—would create a “risk of inconsistent rulings that the appellate courts might then need to disentangle.” Hawaii v. Trump, 2017 WL 536826, at *5. For example, a future Supreme Court ruling could “change[] the applicable law or the relevant landscape of facts that need to be developed,” id., such that any intervening rulings by this Court will be nullified or will be need to be made anew. Even if this Court were to decide the motions to dismiss or undertake further proceedings in these cases, therefore, all of it could be for naught—if the Supreme Court grants review and then articulates the governing legal framework for these cases, this Court (or an appellate court) would then have to go back and re-analyze everything to ensure those prior decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
In short, it is impossible to escape how a decision by the Supreme Court would permeate every aspect of these cases. And given the likelihood of Supreme Court review, in these circumstances it is far more efficient—and far less burdensome on the parties and the Court—to stay proceedings pending potential Supreme Court review. Cf. IBT/HERE Emps. Representatives’ Council, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 293 (granting a stay when a decision in a separate proceeding “may affect the parties’ understanding of the scope of this case going forward, may reorient the parties’ arguments, may catalyze a settlement of this matter, . . . or may resolve the issues raised in this lawsuit in their entirety”). Consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority—including from other courts hearing challenges to the Order—this Court should likewise stay further proceedings pending potential Supreme Court review. II. Plaintiffs Will Not Be Harmed By the Proposed Stay.
In contrast to the significant waste of resources that will occur if this case proceeds, Plaintiffs will not suffer any harm from a stay. Indeed, this Court has already determined that
-10-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 15 of 16
“[t]he existence of two other nationwide injunctions temporarily casts uncertainty on the issue of whether the harms Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain.” Pars ECF No. 84 at 2, UMAA ECF No. 48 at 2. And the Court has likewise stated that “[i]n the event that both existing injunctions are overturned, this court is prepared to issue a ruling without delay.” Id. That would remain true even if the Court entered a stay of future district court proceedings; the stay would not prevent the Court from entering preliminary relief if appropriate, and thus Plaintiffs cannot complain of any prejudice resulting from the stay itself.
Moreover, Defendants’ proposed stay is of a limited duration. All of these cases, including IRAP and Hawaii, have been moving extremely quickly. In IRAP, for example, litigating the entire case—from the filing of the Complaint to resolution by the en banc Fourth Circuit—took under three months. The Government is also moving expeditiously in the Supreme Court, filing its petition for certiorari only four business days after the en banc Fourth Circuit issued its opinion (which, in total, was over 200 pages in length). Given the speed of these proceedings, the Government’s requested stay is reasonable in length and will not prejudice Plaintiffs. See Hawaii v. Trump, 2017 WL 536826, at *3 (“[T]he expedited timeline of appellate proceedings that has already been on display before the Ninth Circuit in the Western District of Washington case indicates that any delay in this case pending resolution of that appeal will be reasonable in length. And if that does not turn out to be the case, any party may petition the Court to lift or partially lift the stay for good cause[.]”); see also Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 2172020, at *4. Thus, all factors weigh squarely in favor of a stay of these proceedings.
CONCLUSION The Court should stay further proceedings in this matter until the Supreme Court acts on the Government’s pending petition for writ of certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee
-11-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 51 Filed 06/02/17 Page 16 of 16

Assistance Project (IRAP), --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017), cert. pending, No. 16-1436 (filed June 1, 2017), and, if certiorari is granted, pending the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision on the merits. To the extent the Ninth Circuit affirms the injunction at issue in Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-15589 (9th Cir. argued May 15, 2017), this stay should also encompass the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari, and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court, regarding that injunction. A proposed order is attached.

Dated: June 2, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Daniel Schwei DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar) MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Co. Bar No. 37050) ARJUN GARG (D.C. Bar No. 975335) BRAD P. ROSENBERG (D.C. Bar No. 467513) Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-8693 Fax: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: daniel.s.schwei@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

-12-

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-537 (TSC) Electronically Filed Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING SUPREME COURT REVIEW

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 3 I. Defendants’ Petition for Certiorari Does Not Warrant a Stay. ........................................... 3
A. It Is Unlikely That Defendants Will Prevail Before the Supreme Court. ............... 5 B. A Supreme Court Decision Will Not Resolve All Legal Issues In This Case........ 5 II. Defendants Cannot Meet Their Burden To Demonstrate a Stay Is Necessary. .................. 8 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 11
i

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 3 of 15

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Page(s)

Abdah v. Bush, No. Civ. A. 04-1254, 2005 WL 711814 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2005)............................................10

Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv-116, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) .....................................................5

Free Speech v. FEC, 720 F. 3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2288 (2014) ..........................................................................................7

Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0050, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017) .................................................5

Holland v. ACL Transp. Servs, LLC, 815 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2011) .........................................................................................8, 9

IRAP v. Trump, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. 2017), aff’g No. 17-cv-361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017)................................... passim

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)...................................................................................................................6

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936)...........................................................................................................3, 4, 8

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)...................................................................................................................4

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, IRAP v. Trump, 2017 WL 2273306 (filed June 1, 2017) ........................................................................... passim

Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2012) ...........................................................................................10

Sonnier v. Crain, 649 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. La. 2009).........................................................................................4

Via Christi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, Civ. A. No. 09-02060 (CKK), 2011 WL 13161451 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2011) ............................4

Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................5
ii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 4 of 15
OTHER AUTHORITIES: Adam Liptak and Peter Baker, Trump Promotes Original ‘Travel Ban,’ Eroding
His Legal Case, NEW YORK TIMES, June 5, 2017......................................................................2 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871674214356484096 .........................................2 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871899511525961728 .........................................3 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871677472202477568 ...............................................3 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871679061847879682 ...............................................3 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871675245043888128 ...............................................3 Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,
82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017)............................................................................................2 Veronica Stracqualursi and Adam Kelsey, Consider Trump’s tweets to be ‘official statements,’ says Spicer, ABC News, June 6, 2017, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-tweets-official-statementsspicer/story?id=47871334................................................................................................................3 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3921.2 (3d ed. 2017) ..........................................................7
iii

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 5 of 15
INTRODUCTION Defendants filed an “emergency” motion to stay this case, which has reached only the preliminary-injunction-hearing stage, on the ground that they have filed a petition for certiorari in a different case—IRAP v. Trump—that is itself only at the preliminary-injunction stage. While IRAP and this case involve some overlapping legal considerations, the government has not met its burden to demonstrate that the Supreme Court will actually decide to grant review and reach those issues, or that its disposition of the legal issues presented in the cert. petition would fully resolve even IRAP itself, much less this separate case. And indeed, that is not so: Both cases would still have to be litigated on the merits to resolve the various plaintiffs’ claims for permanent injunctions. In addition, the preliminary injunction at issue in IRAP v. Trump is narrow, and Supreme Court review of that injunction would not even address, let alone resolve, many of the issues presented in this case. Hence, the government has not shown that the interests of the parties and of judicial economy warrant stopping this case in its tracks before the government has even responded to the amended complaint. Indeed, the record that will ultimately determine UMAA’s right to a preliminary injunction is fluid and developing. Just this week, the President’s tweets confirmed that the Executive Order is the ban UMAA has always said it was, despite previous denials. UMAA should not be delayed in building its case.
BACKGROUND On May 11, 2017, this Court entered an order temporarily staying review of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction and setting a briefing schedule for Defendants’ response to UMAA’s Complaint. Defendants subsequently sought an extension of their response deadline from May 26 to June 9, which UMAA did not oppose. Then, on May 31, Defendants filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP v.

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 6 of 15
Trump. In IRAP, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District of Maryland’s preliminary injunction of Section 2(c) of the President’s Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017), against all Defendants except President Trump himself. The Fourth Circuit did not rule on any other portions of the Executive Order.
On June 2, Defendants filed what they styled an emergency motion seeking a stay of these proceedings. Defendants based their emergency motion on speculation that the Supreme Court might grant their petition for review in IRAP, and that the Supreme Court might reverse the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, and that the Supreme Court’s decision might come to that conclusion in a way that would render any proceedings in this case pointless. Defendants contend that allowing this case to proceed “would unnecessarily waste the Court’s and the parties’ resources, and would threaten to complicate future stages of the proceeding.” Defendants’ Motion (“Mot.”) at 8.
Meanwhile, three days after Defendants filed their motion, President Trump made a series of statements via Twitter that reinforce why UMAA should be allowed to proceed to the merits. The President corrected statements previously made by White House staff that the Executive Order is not a travel ban,1 explaining, “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”2 and “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS COUNTRIES, not some
1 See, e.g., Adam Liptak and Peter Baker, Trump Promotes Original ‘Travel Ban,’ Eroding His Legal Case, NEW YORK TIMES, June 5, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html (attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of David J. Weiner, attached to this Opposition as Exhibit 1).
2 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871674214356484096 (last accessed: June 7, 2017) (attached as Exhibit B to Declaration of David J. Weiner).
2

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 7 of 15
politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!”3 The President further stated that the Department of Justice should “seek [a] much tougher version” of the travel ban,”4 that “we are [conducting] EXTREME VETTING [of] people coming into the U.S.,”5 and that the “Justice
Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version submitted to the S.C.”6 The White House Press Secretary has confirmed, moreover, that President Trump’s tweets are “official statements by the president of the United States.”7 The
government’s shifting positions about what the Order is, what its purpose is, and how it is
operating even while preliminarily enjoined reinforce the need to avoid delay.
ARGUMENT
I. Defendants’ Petition for Certiorari Does Not Warrant a Stay.
This Court, of course, has broad discretion in deciding whether to stay proceedings.
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 256 (1936). But a party seeking a stay bears the burden to
demonstrate that there is pressing need for delay, and that neither the other party nor the public
will suffer harm from entry of the order. Id. When the ground for such a motion is that a
3 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871899511525961728 (last accessed: June 7, 2017) (attached as Exhibit C to Declaration of David J. Weiner).
4 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871677472202477568 (last accessed: June 7, 2017) (Attached as Exhibit D to Declaration of David J. Weiner).
5 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871679061847879682 (last accessed: June 7, 2017) (attached as Exhibit E to Declaration of David J. Weiner).
6 Donald J. Trump, Twitter (@RealDonaldTrump), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871675245043888128 (last accessed: June 7, 2017) (attached as Exhibit F to Declaration of David J. Weiner).
7 Veronica Stracqualursi and Adam Kelsey, Consider Trump’s tweets to be ‘official statements,’ says Spicer, ABC NEWS, June 6, 2017, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumpstweets-official-statements-spicer/story?id=47871334 (attached as Exhibit G to Declaration of David J. Weiner).
3

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 8 of 15
different case in a different court might, at some point in the future, somehow affect the issues currently in front of this Court, the party seeking a stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Id. at 255. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation omitted).
What is more, the existence of a proceeding in another case addressing similar issues cannot, by itself, determine the merits of a stay request, particularly when the parties have not agreed to a stay—as the parties did in most of the cases in this District that Defendants cited in support of their request. See Mot. 9. The Court “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. These considerations should include the traditional considerations associated with stays and injunctions, including likelihood of success and harm and prejudice to the parties. See Via Christi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, Civ. A. No. 0902060 (CKK), 2011 WL 13161451, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2011) (denying unopposed motion to stay proceedings because plaintiff had not demonstrated that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari or that substantial harm would result from continuing proceedings); Sonnier v. Crain, 649 F. Supp. 2d 484, 490 (E.D. La. 2009) (“The factors the court assesses when considering a motion to stay are substantially similar to those weighed when determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, and the movant bears the burden of showing the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.”). For myriad reasons, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that would make ongoing efforts by the parties in this case unproductive.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 9 of 15
A. It Is Unlikely That Defendants Will Prevail Before the Supreme Court. First, it is not clear whether the Supreme Court will grant certiorari. And even if it does, it is far from clear that the Supreme Court will rule in the government’s favor. This Court has already concluded that it is inclined “to agree with Plaintiffs that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims with respect to Section 2 and 6 of the Second Executive Order,” UMAA ECF No. 48 at 2, and that determination is consistent with the view of nearly every federal court to consider any aspect of the Executive Orders—including of the en banc Fourth Circuit. See, e.g., IRAP v. Trump, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. 2017), aff’g No. 17-cv-361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017); Hawai’i v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0050, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv116, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017). With the overwhelming weight of authority all pointing in the same direction, to suppose that the Supreme Court will grant review and reach precisely the opposite conclusion is speculative, to say the least. B. A Supreme Court Decision Will Not Resolve All Legal Issues In This Case. Nor, in all events, would even that sort of imagined decision by the Supreme Court be dispositive of the claims in this case. The petition for certiorari in IRAP outlines three issues on which the government seeks Supreme Court review: (1) whether the Fourth Circuit correctly held that a particular individual plaintiff had standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim, based on allegations that the Executive Order conveys an anti-Islamic message and affects his wife’s ability to obtain a visa; (2) whether the Fourth Circuit correctly held that the IRAP plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on their Establishment Clause claim; and (3) whether the district court’s injunction in IRAP was overbroad. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Trump v. IRAP, June 1, 2017 (“IRAP Pet.”) at I.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 10 of 15
With respect to the first issue, even if the Supreme Court were to determine that the individual petitioner in IRAP lacked Establishment Clause standing based on separation from his wife or the message of disapproval that the government has conveyed to him based on his faith, that determination would not address whether UMAA, an organization, has standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim here. And indeed, the government concedes in its IRAP petition that a First Amendment challenge like the one that UMAA brings concerning exclusion of speakers whom UMAA wishes to bring to the United States suffices to confer standing. IRAP Pet. 14-15 (citing Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)). Hence, a grant of certiorari and a ruling in the government’s favor on standing in IRAP would resolve that proceeding without disposing of standing in this case—except, perhaps, to say by way of comparison that claims of the sort that UMAA brings are justiciable.
With respect to the second issue on which the government seeks Supreme Court review, even if the Court concludes the IRAP petitioners have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that ruling would not dispose of UMAA’s case because: (i) IRAP is not bringing precisely the same Establishment Clause claim as UMAA is; (ii) the facts that go to IRAP’s allegations of constitutional injury are not all the same as those that go to UMAA’s; and (iii) a decision on the Establishment Clause would have no bearing whatever on UMAA’s likelihood of success on its claims under the Free Speech Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the INA. Moreover, the district court preliminary injunction at issue in IRAP—the injunction for which Defendants are requesting Supreme Court review—only touches Section 2(c) of the Executive Order. In this case, Plaintiff challenges the entirety of Section 2 of the Executive Order, in addition to sections 4 and 5.
The third issue—the scope of the injunction—is pertinent only in that a determination by the Supreme Court that the nationwide preliminary injunction by the District of Maryland is
6

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 11 of 15
overbroad would make it all the more important for UMAA and its members to pursue injunctive relief expeditiously here; and a stay of these proceedings would frustrate that end.
Finally, and perhaps most critically, the government is seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling on a preliminary injunction only. Hence, any decision by the Supreme Court would not and could not be a final decision on the merits even of the IRAP case, much less of this case. Presumptively, proceedings seeking a permanent injunction move forward even when a preliminary-injunction ruling is on appeal, at least if the parties have not agreed to stay the merits phase. See 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3921.2 (3d ed. 2017) ( “Interlocutory injunction appeals would come at high cost if the trial court were required to suspend proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The delay and disruption alone would be costly.”). “The desirability of prompt trial-court action in injunction cases justifies trial-court consideration that may be open in the court of appeals. A good illustration is provided by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Free Speech v. FEC, 720 F. 3d 788, 791-92 (10th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2288 (2014).
The record here is different from and more robust than the record that either this Court or any court considering IRAP has had the opportunity to consider. Indeed, the body of evidence that UMAA will bring to bear here on its claim for a permanent injunction is already greater than in IRAP because of the President’s tweets, which (a) resolved any remaining confusion over whether the second Executive Order is a “ban”; (b) confirmed that the second Executive Order is merely cosmetically, but not practically, different from the first one, and (c) surfaced new issues about whether the government is already engaging in “extreme vetting” that may violate the existing injunctions or create additional constitutional issues. None of that is in the IRAP record.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 12 of 15
II. Defendants Cannot Meet Their Burden To Demonstrate a Stay Is Necessary. Defendants bear the heavy burden to show that the equities between the parties justify a
stay that would completely derail Plaintiff’s pursuit of a permanent injunction in this case: “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. And Defendants’ motion does not identify any substantial harm that would result from this Court’s denial of a stay.8 Instead, Defendants merely contend that a stay would promote judicial economy (which they do not support with anything but self-serving statements), that this Court should await guidance from the Supreme Court of a character that is not likely to emerge given the nature of the respective proceedings, and that UMAA will not suffer any harm should this Court stay this case. Each of Defendants’ arguments fails.
First, as to judicial economy, it is unlikely, for the reasons already explained, that a ruling from the Supreme Court against the IRAP petitioners would render this case moot. In all likelihood, this case will continue on the merits of some or all claims. And even when considerations of judicial economy and preservation of resources are present, a stay may still be denied. See, e.g., Holland v. ACL Transp. Servs,, LLC, 815 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (D.D.C. 2011) (“courts in this Circuit have warned against mechanically applying” the rule favoring granting of
8 Nor do Defendants present any reason for filing their motion on an emergency basis. The only “emergency” that the government confronts is a previously extended June 9 briefing deadline requested by the government itself. Defendants asked UMAA in this case and the plaintiffs in Pars Equality Center for a stay on May 18, or “in the alternative,” a two-week extension—to June 9—of the deadline for responding to the complaints in both cases. See May 18, 2017 e-mail from B. Rosenberg to D. Weiner and J. Freedman (attached as Exhibit 2). UMAA agreed to the extension, not knowing that the government would pocket that agreement, avail itself of the extension, move for a stay anyway, and then treat that agreed-upon response date as an emergency, thereby necessitating a separate round of briefing by the parties. Whether or not Defendants had any intention of responding to the amended complaint by the extended deadline they requested, the “emergency” here is of the government’s own making.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 13 of 15
a stay to “avoid duplicative litigation.”) (citations omitted). The other stays entered in cases involving the travel ban—including those in IRAP and in the Hawai’i appeal—are beside the point, because most were by stipulation of the parties or were unopposed.
Second, there is no need for this Court to await guidance from the Supreme Court. Quite the contrary: in considering the issues pending in the IRAP case, the Supreme Court would benefit from analysis from other courts, as UMAA noted in its supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction. See Pl.’s Supp. PI Mem. (ECF No. 42) at 5 (“[I]f the Supreme Court hears challenges to the March 6 Executive Order at the preliminaryinjunction stage, the PARS and UMAA cases present important complements to the Hawaii and Maryland suits”); id. at 4 (“reasoned opinions by multiple courts will develop the law on, and aid any Supreme Court review of, the critically important questions here about invidious religious and national-origin discrimination and the scope of executive authority”).
Third, UMAA and its members will suffer harm should this Court enter a stay. Despite the government’s assurances that a stay would be “of a limited duration” because “[a]ll of these cases . . . have been moving extremely quickly” (Mot. at 11), the government’s motion to stay the IRAP preliminary injunction, filed concurrently with its petition for certiorari, asks the Court to consider that petition on an expedited basis so that “merits briefing could be completed by the beginning of next Term.” App. for Stay Pending Disposition of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 16A1190, at 40. Presumptively, therefore, the very earliest that the Supreme Court would hear the case if a writ of certiorari were granted this Term would be in late 2017, assuming merits briefing is completed at the beginning of the new Term in October. Building in time for argument and a ruling, Defendants are asking this Court to stay the proceedings here for at least five or six months, and quite likely longer.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 14 of 15
Such a prolonged stay would severely prejudice UMAA and its members, particularly in light of the President’s recent statements that Defendants are conducting “extreme vetting” that may not comply with the injunctions currently in place. A stay would also affect UMAA’s ability to pursue its claims regarding Section 4 of the travel ban, which is not currently enjoined, and which is being challenged only in this lawsuit. Finally, the delay that would result from a stay would harm the public interest, as “‘[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012), quoting Abdah v. Bush, No. Civ. A. 04-1254, 2005 WL 711814, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2005).
At bottom, Defendants’ motion seeks to stay this case just to avoid having to respond to the amended complaint. But whether Defendants file an answer or a motion to dismiss, their filing plainly cannot constitute the pressing need that they must show in order to justify a stay.
Defendants have also asked the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunctions issued in both IRAP and Hawai’i v. Trump pending the Supreme Court’s review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP. See Mot. Exhs. B and C. If these injunctions are stayed, the travel ban will immediately spring into effect. See Mot. Exh. B at 36 (explaining that Defendants request stays of both preliminary injunctions “to enable Sections 2 and 6 of [Executive Order 13,780] to go into effect without further delay[.]”). If Defendants’ requests for these stays are granted, there will be no injunction left to protect UMAA, its members, and countless other individuals and organizations, all of whom will be harmed by the discriminatory effect of the travel ban. Defendants cannot contend that the existing injunctions in IRAP and Hawai’i will protect UMAA and its members from the harms of a stay here (see Mot. at 10-11), while simultaneously seeking to stay those very injunctions (see Mot. Exhs. B and C).
10

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 52 Filed 06/07/17 Page 15 of 15

CONCLUSION Defendants’ emergency motion for a stay of these proceedings should be denied. Dated: June 7, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David J. Weiner David J. Weiner (D.C. Bar # 499806) Charles A. Blanchard (D.C. Bar # 1022256) Amanda J. Sherwood (D.C. Bar # 1021108) ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 (202) 942-5999 (fax) david.weiner@apks.com charles.blanchard@apks.com amanda.sherwood@apks.com
Emily Newhouse Dillingham ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 583-2300 (312) 583-2360 (fax) emily.dillingham@apks.com
Andrew D. Bergman ARNOLD & PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 576-2400 (713) 576-2499 (fax) andrew.bergman@apks.com

Johnathan Smith Sirine Shebaya (application for admission pending) Aziz Huq MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 71080 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 692-1484 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org sirine@muslimadvocates.org aziz.huq@gmail.com
Richard B. Katskee (D.C. Bar # 474250) Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar # 1033743) AMERICANS UNITED FOR
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 1310 L Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3234 (202) 466-3353 (fax) katskee@au.org girard@au.org
Gillian B. Gillers Kristi L. Graunke Naomi R Tsu SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW
CENTER 1989 College Ave., NE Atlanta, GA 30317 (404) 521-6700 (404) 221-5857 (fax) gillian.gillers@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.or

11

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

DEFENDANTS’ CONSOLIDATED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING SUPREME COURT REVIEW

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2 I. Consistent with Courts’ Routine Practice, a Stay of Proceedings Is Amply
Warranted Given the Significant Overlap Between the Cases............................................ 2 A. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute that Courts Routinely Stay Proceedings to Await
Appellate Guidance in a Related Matter ................................................................. 3 B. There Is Significant Overlap Between the Cases Here and the Cases Before
the Supreme Court .................................................................................................. 5 1. The Preliminary Nature of IRAP Does Not Justify Denying a Stay ........... 6 2. A Stay is Warranted When The Issues are Substantially Similar................ 7 3. There Is Significant Overlap Between the Legal Issues in These
Cases ........................................................................................................... 8 II. Proceeding with Litigation Now Would Cause Concrete Harms to the Parties and
the Court.............................................................................................................................. 9 III. Plaintiffs Will Not Be Harmed By the Proposed Stay ...................................................... 12
A. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated Any Harm from the Proposed Stay................ 12 B. The President’s Recent Comments Are Wholly Irrelevant to the Stay
Motion, and In Any Event Are Consistent with the Government’s Prior Arguments ............................................................................................................. 16 C. The Government’s Proposed Stay Is Reasonable In Length................................. 19 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 20
-i-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012).................................................................................................................... 6
Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov't of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 3
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)................................................................................................................ 6
Cal. Ass’n of Health Facilities v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 10-cv-3259, 2010 WL 2612694 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2010) ................................................. 4
Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 565 U.S. 606 (2012).................................................................................................................... 4
Fairview Hosp. v. Leavitt, No. 05-1065, 2007 WL 1521233 (D.D.C. May 22, 2007) .......................................................... 7
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).................................................................................................................... 8
FTC v. Church & Dwight Co., 756 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2010) ............................................................................................ 10
Holland v. ACL Transp. Servs., LLC, 815 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2011) ............................................................................................ 10
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) ................................................................................................................ 8
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) .................................................................................................................... 8
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936).......................................................................................................... 3, 7, 19
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) ....................................................................................................... 7
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 10
Monaghan v. Sebelius, No. 12-15488, 2013 WL 3212597 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2013)........................................ 5, 7, 11
-ii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 24
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009).................................................................................................................... 3
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017) ........................................................... 1
Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958) .................................................................................................. 10
Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141, 2017 WL 2172020 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017) ............................ 5, 7, 10, 11
REGULATIONS Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Agency Information Collection Activities: Arrival and Departure
Record (Forms I-94 and I-94W) and Electronic System for Travel Authorization, 81 Fed Reg. 40,892 (June 23, 2016) ......................................................................................... 18 Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 6, 2017)................................. 1, 5, 15, 17 OTHER AUTHORITIES 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3921.2 (3d ed. 2017).......................................................... 4, 12
-iii-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 24
INTRODUCTION Before this Court are two cases where Plaintiffs are challenging the same Executive Order, Executive Order No. 13,780 (Order), that is at issue in IRAP and Hawaii, on similar legal grounds as in IRAP and Hawaii. See Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017); Trump v. Hawaii, --- F.3d ----, No. 17-15589, ECF No. 314-1 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017), available at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/ datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf. The United States has requested that the Supreme Court review, on an expedited basis, the preliminary injunction affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in IRAP. See Exh. A (Pars ECF No. 87-1, UMAA ECF No. 51-1). The United States has also requested that the Supreme Court stay the preliminary injunction at issue before the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii. See Exh. B (Pars ECF No. 87-2, UMAA ECF No. 51-2). In light of these requests for Supreme Court review, and given that a decision by the Supreme Court in IRAP and/or Hawaii would provide significant guidance on many (if not all) of the key issues presented by the two cases pending before this Court, a stay of further proceedings is amply warranted. Plaintiffs in both cases oppose the Government’s requested stay. See Pars Equality Center v. Trump, No. 17-cv-255 (D.D.C.), ECF No. 88 [hereafter “Pars Opp.”]; Universal Muslim Assoc. of Am. v. Trump, No. 17-cv-537 (D.D.C.), ECF No. 52 [hereafter “UMAA Opp.”]. In doing so, Plaintiffs rely on a series of fundamentally flawed arguments: they misconstrue the legal framework governing stays of further proceedings; they rely on the straw-man argument that a future Supreme Court decision may not fully resolve all issues presented in these cases; and they emphasize the President’s recent remarks on Twitter, none of which has anything to do with the factors this Court must consider in deciding whether to grant a stay.
-1-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 24
Notably, Plaintiffs offer no substantive response to the significant case law cited by the Government establishing that courts, both inside and outside this District, routinely stay further proceedings pending forthcoming appellate guidance. In particular, Plaintiffs do not respond substantively to the decisions by six other courts hearing challenges to the Order to stay further merits proceedings pending resolution of appeals. And since the time the Government filed its stay motion, a seventh court has now done the same. See Arab Am. Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10310, ECF No. 114 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2017) (attached hereto as Exh. H). Consistent with this clear pattern, this Court should likewise stay proceedings pending potential Supreme Court review. There is significant overlap between the legal issues presented by all of the cases; proceeding further in these cases now would be burdensome and contrary to the interests of judicial economy; and Plaintiffs will not suffer any harm during the limited stay sought by the Government. A stay of proceedings is more than justified here.
ARGUMENT I. Consistent with Courts’ Routine Practice, a Stay of Proceedings Is Amply Warranted
Given the Significant Overlap Between the Cases A decision by the Supreme Court in IRAP and/or Hawaii would be highly relevant to many of the core legal issues this Court would need to confront if it continued with district court proceedings. It is irrelevant whether there are some potential differences between IRAP (and/or Hawaii) and the two cases pending before this Court; the standard for granting a stay requires only substantial similarity between the cases. Consistent with the numerous other courts that have stayed further proceedings to await potentially forthcoming appellate guidance—including seven other courts hearing challenges to the Order—this Court should likewise stay proceedings here.
-2-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 24
A. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute that Courts Routinely Stay Proceedings to Await Appellate Guidance in a Related Matter
The Government’s motion cited numerous authorities, both within and outside this District, establishing that courts frequently stay proceedings in district court when resolution of an appeal in a separate matter will likely guide the district court’s decision in the case before it. See Stay Mot. (Pars ECF No. 87, UMAA ECF No. 51) at 5-7. Plaintiffs do not respond to this ample body of case law. Plaintiffs instead rely on various other authorities, none of which supports denying a stay here.
First, many of Plaintiffs’ cited cases seek to apply the incorrect legal standard to the Government’s stay motion. Plaintiffs rely on cases such as Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), to argue that the Government’s stay request should be governed by a four-factor test (similar to the preliminary-injunction factors). See, e.g., Pars Opp. at 1; UMAA Opp. at 4. But the framework described in Nken relates to whether to stay a judgment pending appeal. Nken, 556 U.S. at 421. Here, the Government is not seeking to stay a court ruling, but only to stay future court proceedings. And this type of stay motion is analyzed under a more flexible standard:
[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov't of Belize, 668 F.3d 724, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (when a stay is issued “pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority in the interest of judicial economy, the applicable jurisprudence appears in Landis” (modifications omitted)). As discussed further below (Sections I.B, II-III), the Landis framework amply supports a stay here.
-3-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 24
Second, UMAA relies on the Wright & Miller treatise for the proposition that “[p]resumptively, proceedings seeking a permanent injunction move forward even when a preliminary-injunction ruling is on appeal[.]” UMAA’s Opp. at 7. Even assuming that presumption exists, however, it is clearly overcome where, as here, the appellate court is likely to decide the very same legal issues the district court must confront. Indeed, the very same section of Wright & Miller confirms as much. See 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3921.2 (3d ed. 2017) (“At the same time, it would be advisable for the district court to determine whether the same issue has been presented on appeal, and to defer action when it seems reasonably probable that appellate decision of the same question is imminent.”).
Third, the Pars Plaintiffs assert that “the Government cites no case in which a court stayed proceedings on the merits pending resolution of appellate litigation regarding preliminary relief in a different case.” Pars Opp. at 2. As discussed further below (Section I.B), however, Plaintiffs place undue emphasis on whether the appellate court is deciding the legal issues in the context of preliminary relief or a final judgment on the merits. In both scenarios the appellate court’s decision will be highly relevant to the district court’s consideration of the same legal issues.
In any event, Plaintiffs’ assertion is also wrong: the Government did in fact cite cases where merits proceedings were stayed pending appeals from preliminary relief entered in other matters. That was the exact situation in Cal. Ass’n of Health Facilities v. Maxwell-Jolly, No. 10cv-3259, 2010 WL 2612694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2010). See Stay Mot. at 6; Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 565 U.S. 606, 612 (2012) (discussing procedural history, including fact that case was at preliminary-injunction stage). And of course, that situation also existed for the precedents that are most directly relevant here—the other courts hearing challenges to Executive
-4-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 9 of 24
Order No. 13,780 that have stayed merits proceedings pending appeals from preliminary injunctions in other cases. See Stay Mot. at 6-7; Arab Am. Civil Rights League v. Trump, Exh. H.1
Plaintiffs do not respond to these highly persuasive precedents, except to note that “most were by stipulation of the parties or were unopposed.” UMAA Opp. at 9. Not all of the stays were unopposed, however, and Plaintiffs do not even attempt to distinguish, for example, Judge Robart’s thorough opinion in Washington v. Trump explaining why a stay is appropriate. See Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-141, 2017 WL 2172020 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2017). Moreover, the fact that many of the other stays were by stipulation (or were unopposed) is itself notable: it confirms the common-sense proposition that when a higher court is likely to decide similar (if not identical) legal issues, it makes little sense to continue litigating those same issues in district court.
In light of this demonstrated practice, this Court would be a rare exception if it allowed district court proceedings to continue while the very same legal issues may soon be decided by the Supreme Court.
B. There Is Significant Overlap Between the Cases Here and the Cases Before the Supreme Court
Plaintiffs do not genuinely dispute the significant overlap between the legal issues presented in IRAP (and Hawaii) and these two cases. Plaintiffs instead respond on the margins, arguing that IRAP is only in a preliminary posture and that the issues raised in IRAP are not identical to the issues raised in these cases. But this argument is a straw-man: courts considering
1 These cases are not the only examples of courts staying merits proceedings pending appellate resolution of preliminary relief in different cases. See, e.g., Monaghan v. Sebelius, No. 12-15488, 2013 WL 3212597 (E.D. Mich. June 26, 2013) (staying proceedings in plaintiff’s challenge to contraceptive coverage regulations, pending resolution of appeal from preliminaryinjunction motion in different case); Ozinga v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-cv-3292, ECF No. 29 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2013) (same, attached hereto as Exh. I); Triune Health Group, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-cv-6756, ECF No. 64 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2013) (same, attached hereto as Exh. J).
-5-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 24
stays have never required complete overlap between the two proceedings (in terms of procedural posture, legal issues presented, or any other feature). Rather, the question is simply whether the cases are sufficiently similar to make a stay of proceedings economical for the Court and/or the parties. Here, that is plainly the case.
1. The Preliminary Nature of IRAP Does Not Justify Denying a Stay Plaintiffs are correct that the IRAP appeal involves a preliminary injunction, but Plaintiffs incorrectly assert—without any supporting authority—that “[t]his procedural posture is fatal to the Government’s request to stay these proceedings.” Pars Opp. at 3; see also UMAA Opp. at 7. Any decision by the Supreme Court in IRAP and/or Hawaii—even if limited to analyzing the preliminary-injunction factors—would still be highly relevant to future proceedings in this case. This Court’s evaluation of Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim would certainly benefit from knowing whether the Supreme Court believes the IRAP or Hawaii plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their Establishment Clause claim. And this Court’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ standing would likewise benefit from knowing the Supreme Court’s views on the IRAP or Hawaii plaintiffs’ claims of standing and irreparable harm. Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously granted certiorari in cases at the preliminaryinjunction stage, only to then consider the merits of the legal claims with little attention paid to the preliminary nature of the case. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2785 (2014) (concluding that “[t]he contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA,” not simply that there was a likelihood of success on the claim); Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (concluding that three state-law provisions are pre-empted by federal law, not simply that they were likely pre-empted). Thus, Plaintiffs cannot dismiss the likelihood
-6-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 11 of 24
of a persuasive (if not binding) decision from the Supreme Court solely by noting that IRAP is on appeal from a preliminary injunction.
2. A Stay is Warranted When The Issues are Substantially Similar Plaintiffs argue that their claims, theories, and bases for standing are different than the ones at issue in IRAP. See Pars Opp. at 3; UMAA Opp. at 5-7. To obtain a stay, however, the Government need not demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s decision would “resolve all of the issues” in these cases. Pars Opp. at 3 (emphasis added); see also UMAA Opp. at 5. That has never been the standard, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Landis itself: “True, a decision in the cause then pending in New York may not settle every question of fact and law in suits by other companies, but in all likelihood it will settle many and simplify them all.” 299 U.S. at 256. Following Landis, district courts have routinely granted stays—including in challenges to the Order—even when the decision in the separate case would not decide all issues. See Arab Am. Civil Rights League, Exh. H at 3 (“Although Plaintiffs are correct that the Supreme Court’s review in IRAP will likely not be fully dispositive of this case, it is sufficient that those proceedings will likely ‘settle many’ issues and ‘simplify them all,’ such that a stay will ‘foster efficiency and conservation of resources for both the parties and the court.’” (internal citation omitted, quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 256, and Fairview Hosp. v. Leavitt, No. 05-1065, 2007 WL 1521233, at *3 (D.D.C. May 22, 2007)); see also Washington, 2017 WL 2172020, at *2 (“Where a stay is considered pending the resolution of another action, the court need not find that the two cases involve identical issues; a finding that the issues are substantially similar is sufficient to support a stay.” (citing Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)); Monaghan, 2013 WL 3212597, at *1 (staying proceedings despite “potential differences” between
-7-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 12 of 24
cases, because “the factual circumstances and central legal issues in both cases are substantially similar to those in this case”).
3. There Is Significant Overlap Between the Legal Issues in These Cases There can be no serious dispute that the legal issues in these cases are sufficiently similar to IRAP (and Hawaii) to justify a stay. All of the cases involve significant legal questions regarding an individual’s standing to sue over the potential exclusion of foreign national family members; the scope of the doctrine of consular non-reviewability; the appropriate application of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), and Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015); and the appropriate application of domestic Establishment Clause precedents. Plaintiffs acknowledge that IRAP involves an Establishment Clause challenge to the Order, which is also Plaintiffs’ primary claim here. See Pars Opp. at 3; UMAA Opp. at 6. But Plaintiffs contend that they have additional claims beyond the Establishment Clause, and also that they seek to challenge sections of the Order that are not at issue in the IRAP (or Hawaii) appeal. Plaintiffs’ additional claims do not undermine the persuasive force of a potential Supreme Court decision, however, because those claims would also be analyzed under the same Mandel standard. See Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762 (First Amendment speech claim); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 794-95 (1977) (applying Mandel to Equal Protection claim); Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (same, Due Process claim). Similarly, although Plaintiffs seek to challenge other sections of the Order beyond § 2(c), their legal theories are generally the same and thus Plaintiffs’ claims beyond § 2(c) are equally implicated by a potential Supreme Court decision. The differences between IRAP (and Hawaii) and the two cases here are minor, and a ruling from the Supreme Court would provide significant guidance on critical issues present in all cases.
-8-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 13 of 24
Indeed, Plaintiffs have effectively conceded the overlapping nature of the cases. In their supplemental memorandum urging this Court to rule on their preliminary-injunction motions, Plaintiffs argued that “reasoned opinions by multiple courts will develop the law on, and aid any Supreme Court review of, the critically important questions here about invidious religious and national-origin discrimination and the scope of executive authority.” Pls.’ Suppl. PI Mem. (Pars ECF No. 80, UMAA ECF No. 42) at 5 (emphasis added). If resolution of the two cases before this Court would aid other courts in their review of the IRAP and Hawaii appeals (as Plaintiffs previously suggested), then a fortiori resolution of the IRAP and Hawaii appeals would also inform this Court’s analysis of how to resolve these two cases. Plaintiffs cannot backtrack on this prior position, to now argue that resolution of the IRAP and Hawaii appeals would have absolutely no bearing on the two cases before this Court.
In short, given the significant similarities between the cases, a stay is amply warranted— as recognized by the seven other courts hearing challenges to the Order that have now stayed merits proceedings pending resolution of appeals. This Court should do the same here. II. Proceeding with Litigation Now Would Cause Concrete Harms to the Parties and the
Court The Government’s motion to stay explained the concrete harms that would flow from denying a stay—specifically, the unnecessary waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources, and the potential complications to future stages of the proceedings. See Stay Mot. at 8-10. Plaintiffs respond that the Government has not adequately established that a stay would promote judicial economy. See Pars Opp. at 2-3; UMAA Opp. at 8-9. To the contrary, a stay is warranted for at least three reasons. First, a stay would promote judicial economy and conserve the parties’ resources. As discussed above, there is a strong possibility that a Supreme Court decision in IRAP or Hawaii
-9-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 14 of 24
would either eliminate or simplify many of the issues that this Court would have to decide if litigation continued in this case. It would be a tremendous waste to require the parties to brief and litigate issues that the Supreme Court may soon decide. Cf. Washington, 2017 WL 2172020, at *3 (noting that in moving for dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), “Defendants are likely to raise the same arguments that they would have raised in opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion”). And of course, even if the parties briefed and the Court decided the motion to dismiss, that decision itself would provide Plaintiffs no relief—meaning there is no benefit to Plaintiffs in having that motion decided now, rather than after the Supreme Court’s potential decision.
Plaintiffs respond by arguing that being required to defend a lawsuit is not a sufficient hardship to justify a stay. See Pars Opp. at 2-3; UMAA Opp. at 8-9. Out of all the cases cited by Plaintiffs, however, only one actually involves a stay of proceedings pursuant to Landis.2 And that case’s holding was expressly conditioned on several unique features of the case, including that the separate proceeding “in the bankruptcy court is unlikely to decide, or to contribute to the decision of, the factual and legal issues before the district court.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1113 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, of course, the opposite is true: the potential Supreme Court proceedings would contribute significantly to the decision of the issues currently before this Court.
Moreover, the Government is not arguing that the mere act of defending this lawsuit is a hardship justifying a stay. Rather, the hardship to be avoided is undertaking further proceedings without the benefit of potential Supreme Court guidance—guidance that would at least clarify the
2 Plaintiffs’ other cited cases arise in distinct contexts. Two of the cases involved stays of judgments pending appeal. See Pars Opp. at 3 (citing FTC v. Church & Dwight Co., 756 F. Supp. 2d 81, 83 (D.D.C. 2010), and Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Another case involved a question of which action to stay when two identical actions are filed between the same parties; the case did not address when a stay of proceedings is warranted pending guidance from an appellate court. See UMAA Opp. at 8 (citing Holland v. ACL Transp. Servs., LLC, 815 F. Supp. 2d 46, 55 (D.D.C. 2011)).
-10-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 15 of 24
scope of those future proceedings, and potentially eliminate the need for such proceedings altogether. In these circumstances, a stay would greatly promote the interests of judicial economy. Cf. Monagahan, 2013 WL 3212597, at *2 (“[I]t would be at odds with the notion of judicial economy for this Court to proceed in this case and risk reaching an ultimate resolution that is inconsistent with precedent the Sixth Circuit creates shortly thereafter.”).
Second, a stay would also avoid the significant burdens of any proceedings that follow after the Government’s motion to dismiss. Notably, neither the Pars nor UMAA Plaintiffs offered to limit the burden on the Government from this potential stage of proceedings—for example, by clarifying that Plaintiffs do not intend to seek burdensome, intrusive discovery from Defendants. Instead, UMAA once again suggested it intended to seek discovery. See UMAA Opp. at 1 (“UMAA should not be delayed in building its case.”). As Judge Robart noted in the Washington case, potential discovery against the Government “weighs heavily in favor of granting Defendants’ motion for a stay[.]” 2017 WL 2172020, at *4.
Third, a stay would conserve the Court’s resources, particularly by avoiding undue complication of these proceedings. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari and issues a decision in IRAP and/or Hawaii, all of the proceedings in these cases will need to be re-evaluated and revisited to ensure consistency between the Supreme Court’s decision and this Court’s prior rulings. That would be a tremendously burdensome task, either for this Court or the Court of Appeals. And depending on the stage of the case, some of the Court’s rulings may be difficult to correct retroactively (e.g., discovery rulings). Because it is impossible to predict the various rulings this Court would need to make that may subsequently be in tension with a future Supreme Court decision, the better course is to stay proceedings to await the potential Supreme Court decision. Cf. 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3921.2 (3d ed.
-11-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 16 of 24
2017) (“[T]he district court should—with help from the parties—consider the possibility that the issues framed on appeal may change the context of the matters presented for district-court action.”).
Regardless of the stage of the proceedings, therefore, a Supreme Court decision would almost certainly have a profound effect on how these cases unfold. Proceeding without the benefit of the Supreme Court’s guidance, in contrast, would be a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources, and would threaten to create inconsistent rulings, which would later need to be reconciled either by this Court or by the Court of Appeals. III. Plaintiffs Will Not Be Harmed By the Proposed Stay
On the other side of the scale, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any injuries they would suffer as a result of the proposed stay. Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture harm based on the President’s recent comments on Twitter, but those remarks have nothing to do with the present stay motion. Moreover, the length of the Government’s proposed stay is reasonable, particularly given the extraordinary pace with which these proceedings have been unfolding. Accordingly, a temporary stay pending potential Supreme Court review is warranted here.
A. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated Any Harm from the Proposed Stay Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any concrete injuries resulting from the proposed stay, particularly in light of the two existing nationwide injunctions prohibiting enforcement of certain challenged sections of the Order. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs fail to reconcile their supposed harms with this Court’s prior conclusion staying consideration of their motions for preliminary injunctions: “The existence of two other nationwide injunctions temporarily casts uncertainty on the issue of whether the harms Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain.” Order (Pars ECF No. 84, UMAA ECF No. 48)
-12-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 17 of 24
at 2. In reaching that conclusion, this Court rejected the very same harms that Plaintiffs once again seek to invoke here. Compare Pars Opp. at 7, and UMAA Opp. at 10, with Pls.’ Suppl. PI Mem. (Pars ECF No. 80, UMAA ECF No. 45) at 10-11, and Pls.’ Suppl. Reply PI Mem. (Pars ECF No. 83, UMAA ECF No. 47) at 4-5. Just as the Court concluded in connection with staying Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motions, Plaintiffs’ claimed harms are insufficient to justify moving forward here as well, particularly in light of the nationwide injunctions which remain in effect.3
UMAA responds by arguing that the Government is actively contesting the existing injunctions on appeal. See UMAA Opp. at 10. But that was also true when the Court stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motions. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument fails to account for this Court’s statement that, “[i]n the event that both existing injunctions are overturned, this court is prepared to issue a ruling without delay.” Order (Pars ECF No. 84, UMAA ECF No. 48) at 2. That would remain true even if further proceedings in this case were stayed. Thus, the proposed stay here has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Order is enjoined during the pendency of these lawsuits—that will be up to this Court and the other courts hearing appeals from the preliminary injunctions. Because the stay would not affect the existence vel non of preliminary injunctions against the Order, there is no basis for denying the requested stay based on Plaintiffs’ fears about what might happen in connection with the outstanding preliminary injunctions.
3 Although the Ninth Circuit recently narrowed the Hawaii injunction to allow the Government to conduct internal reviews, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction with respect to the 90-day suspension of entry for foreign nationals in § 2(c); the 120-day suspension of refugee admissions in § 6(a); and the 50,000 cap on refugee admissions for FY2017 in § 6(b). See Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-15589, --- F.3d ----, ECF No. 314-1 at 77-78 (June 12, 2017).
-13-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 18 of 24
As for the Pars Plaintiffs, they assert that certain individual plaintiffs are continuing to be harmed because their family members still have not been found eligible and issued visas, and the refugee plaintiffs outside the United States still have not received interviews. See Pars Opp. at 7. But as the Government argued at the preliminary-injunction hearing and in its supplemental memorandum following the hearing, that argument depends on a wholly unsupported premise— i.e., that the reason the plaintiffs’ family members have not yet been found eligible and issued visas is because of § 2(c) of the Order (which is currently enjoined), as opposed to the State Department’s regular visa-application requirements and procedures. See PI Hr’g Tr. at 52-53; Govt’s Suppl. PI Mem. (Pars ECF No. 82, UMAA ECF No. 45) at 9-10. Similarly, Plaintiffs have not shown that the reason the refugee plaintiffs have not yet received interviews is specifically attributable to the currently enjoined suspension in § 6(a) of the Order, as opposed to the normal operation of the Refugee Program.
Indeed, the record currently before the Court wholly undermines the Pars plaintiffs’ theory that their supposed harms are attributable to the Order. With respect to the refugees, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the overall process typically takes about 18-24 months. See Govt’s PI Opp. (Pars ECF No. 50) at 18. It is therefore wholly speculative that the refugee plaintiffs have not received interviews specifically because of the suspension in § 6(a) of the Order (which is currently enjoined), as opposed to the many other factors that would typically affect the timing of interviews. See also Dep’t of State, “U.S. Refugee Admissions Program,” https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/ admissions/index.htm (describing the refugee process, and stating that “[t]he total processing time varies depending on an applicant’s location and other circumstances”).
As for the individual plaintiffs with family members applying for visas, Plaintiffs rely on five specific plaintiffs. See Pars Opp. at 7 n.4. One of those—Jane Doe #10—involves a Form
-14-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 19 of 24
I-730 petition for her husband as a “derivative asylee,” and therefore Jane Doe #10 and her husband are not subject to the Order at all.4 And in any event, DHS processing times for such petitions were approximately eight months even before the Order was effective. See Govt’s PI Opp. (Pars ECF No. 50) at 21-22 & n.8. As for the other four individual plaintiffs, their family members’ visa applications (assuming they were officially executed at an interview) appear to have been already refused for administrative processing, see id. at 22, and in any event all of the family members appear to have submitted their applications in October and November 2016—months before the Order, and even the Revoked Order, were issued. Thus, there is absolutely no basis for assuming that the reason the family members have not been found eligible and issued visas is because of the now-enjoined Section 2(c) of the Order, as opposed to other admissibility requirements or visaapplication procedures.5
In sum, Plaintiffs’ assertions of harm all depend on unsupported assumptions that are contrary to the record currently before the Court. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to demonstrate any harm attributable to the requested stay, particularly in light of the existing nationwide injunctions and this Court’s ability to issue a prompt ruling on Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motions if necessary.
4 See Order § 3(b)(iii); UMAA ECF No. 31 at 18-20 (explaining that the Order does not affect processing or travel of derivative or follow-to-join asylees).
5 Plaintiffs also rely on a news report purportedly demonstrating a decrease in visas issued to nationals of the six countries at issue, by comparing yearly averages of visa issuances to the monthly issuance numbers for March and April 2017. See Pars Opp. at 7 n.3. As the article itself notes, however, there are many possible explanations for those numbers, such as a decrease in the overall number of visa applications, or differences between travel during March and April compared to other times of the year. Obviously a number of factors—wholly unrelated to Section 2(c) of the Order—can affect the number and timing of visa issuances.
-15-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 20 of 24
B. The President’s Recent Comments Are Wholly Irrelevant to the Stay Motion, and In Any Event Are Consistent with the Government’s Prior Arguments
Unable to demonstrate harm from the Government’s requested stay, Plaintiffs instead focus on the President’s recent remarks on Twitter, none of which has anything to do with the stay motion presently before the Court. Nor are the President’s comments inconsistent with the Government’s prior representations in this case.
As an initial matter, both Pars and UMAA correctly recognize that, to the extent the President’s recent comments are relevant at all, it would only be on the merits of their claims—not the present stay motion. See Pars Opp. at 4 (arguing that “President Trump’s recent statements further undermine the Government’s arguments on the merits”); UMAA Opp. at 7 (discussing the President’s comments in the context of “the body of evidence that UMAA will bring to bear here on its claim for a permanent injunction”). Plaintiffs make no effort to connect the President’s remarks to the factors the Court must consider in deciding this stay motion. Thus, the Court need not even consider the comments.
Although the President’s remarks are wholly irrelevant to the present issues, a brief discussion is warranted to demonstrate that the Pars Plaintiffs’ accusations that the Government has made inaccurate representations to the Court and is potentially failing to comply with the injunctions entered in other cases, see Pars Opp. at 4-9, are wholly unfounded. Simply put, the Pars Plaintiffs’ assertions all depend on the false premise that the implementation of “extreme vetting” means that the Government has implemented Section 2(c) of the Order. It has not: The Government has complied fully with the injunctions against Section 2(c) by halting the implementation of that section. Of course, as Plaintiffs and the Court are well aware, that does not mean the Government has stopped vetting altogether, or has stopped working on vetting
-16-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 21 of 24
improvements as part of normal operations or in connection with other policies or directives that have not been enjoined.
For example, Section 5 of the Order—which has not been enjoined—is titled “Implementing Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards for All Immigration Programs,” and directs various agencies to “implement a program, as part of the process for adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry.” Order § 5(a). Similarly, a Presidential Memorandum—issued separate from the Order challenged here—directs agencies to “implement protocols and procedures as soon as practicable that in their judgment will enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and all other immigration benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.” Presidential Memorandum, Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits (Mar. 6, 2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/03/06/memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary-homeland-security.
The Government’s implementation of enhanced vetting procedures pursuant to Section 5 of the Order and/or the Presidential Memorandum does not contradict any of the Government’s prior statements or arguments made in this case. The Pars Plaintiffs do not challenge either Section 5 or the Presidential Memorandum, and therefore it remains true that their requested preliminary injunction—against specific portions of Sections 2, 3, and 6 of the Order—would not redress whatever harms they believe they are presently suffering. Additionally, as the Secretary of Homeland Security recently explained in his testimony before Congress, although “[t]he men and women of DHS will do everything we can . . . within the law to keep the American people safe,”
-17-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 22 of 24
the court injunctions against the Order have “prevented us from doing what I . . . believe we need to do to protect our homeland.” See Secretary John F. Kelly, Oral Testimony of DHS Secretary Kelly for a House Committee on Homeland Security Hearing (June 7, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/06/07/oral-testimony-dhs-secretary-kelly-house-committeehomeland-security-hearing-titled.
There is also no injunction-compliance issue. Neither Section 5 nor the Presidential Memorandum has been enjoined, and those two policy initiatives serve different purposes than Section 2 of the Order. Specifically, Section 2 directed a worldwide review to determine whether additional information from foreign governments is needed for vetting purposes. Section 5 and the Presidential Memorandum, in contrast, are generally aimed at the United States’ internal efforts to implement a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures, including obtaining appropriate information from individual applicants themselves. Thus, the Government’s implementation of increased measures with respect to individual applicants pursuant to Section 5 of the Order does not run afoul of the injunctions against Section 2.6
In short, there is absolutely no basis for the Pars Plaintiffs’ accusations of misrepresentations and non-compliance. Neither Section 5 of the Order nor the Presidential Memorandum is challenged by the Pars Plaintiffs; neither one is enjoined; and neither one has been concealed or misrepresented to the Plaintiffs or this Court. Indeed, both Section 5 of the Order and the Presidential Memorandum have been publicly available since March 6, 2017. Cf.
6 The only specific policy mentioned by Plaintiffs is DHS’s recent announcement that it would begin seeking social media information from certain individuals seeking admission to the United States. See Pars Opp. at 5 n.1; see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Agency Information Collection Activities: Arrival and Departure Record (Forms I-94 and I-94W) and Electronic System for Travel Authorization, 81 Fed Reg. 40,892 (June 23, 2016). This policy has no connection to Sections 2 or 6 of the Order, and therefore is not prohibited by the injunctions against those sections.
-18-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 23 of 24
UMAA Am. Compl. (ECF No. 32) ¶ 179 (seeking relief against Section 5 of the Order); id. ¶¶ 7475 (discussing the Presidential Memorandum). And Section 5 was expressly discussed at the preliminary-injunction hearing—with counsel for UMAA speaking approvingly of Section 5’s across-the-board policies. See PI Hr’g Tr. at 29-30, 36-38. The Pars Plaintiffs can hardly claim surprise, therefore, about the Government’s implementation of increased vetting procedures pursuant to those distinct policy directives.
C. The Government’s Proposed Stay Is Reasonable In Length Plaintiffs’ filings confirm that the Government’s proposed stay is reasonable in length. Plaintiffs do not dispute the remarkable pace with which the IRAP and Hawaii cases have proceeded. Indeed, the UMAA filing expressly acknowledges that a stay here would likely be only a matter of months, because the Government has requested expedited consideration of its petition for certiorari and expedited merits briefing to be completed by the beginning of the Supreme Court’s next Term. See UMAA Opp. at 9. In cases like these presenting these exceptionally important issues, a stay of a matter of months is quite reasonable. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 256 (“Especially in cases of extraordinary public moment, the individual may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted.”); see also Arab Am. Civil Rights League, Exh. H at 5 (“Although a stay will delay these proceedings, the Court finds that potential prejudice to Plaintiffs is less drastic than they set forth. The Supreme Court is expediting its decision on Defendants’ petition for certiorari.”). Given the limited amount of time that a stay would likely require—combined with the significant benefits to judicial economy and conservation of the parties’ resources—a stay of further proceedings pending potential Supreme Court review is amply warranted here.
-19-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53 Filed 06/14/17 Page 24 of 24

CONCLUSION The Court should grant Defendants’ motion to stay further proceedings in this matter pending Supreme Court review, pursuant to the previously filed proposed orders.

Dated: June 14, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Daniel Schwei DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar) MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Co. Bar No. 37050) ARJUN GARG (D.C. Bar No. 975335) BRAD P. ROSENBERG (D.C. Bar No. 467513) Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-8693 Fax: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: daniel.s.schwei@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

-20-

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53-1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Exhibit H:

Order Regarding Proceedings in Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10310 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2017)

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/117of 8PagPeg2IDof29303

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

Case No. 17-10310 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS [Doc. 105]

I. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

This case is one of many challenging the constitutionality of President Trump’s

Executive Order No. 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry

Into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (the “Executive Order”).

On May 25, 2017, in a case presenting a similar challenge to the Executive

Order, the Fourth Circuit upheld a Maryland District Court’s nationwide preliminary

injunction prohibiting enforcement of § 2(c) of the Executive Order – which temporarily

suspended entry into the United States of nationals from six predominately Muslim

countries. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 17-1351, --- F.3d ---, 2017

WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017), as amended (May 31, 2017) (“IRAP”). On June 1,

2017, the government filed a petition for certiorari in IRAP, and the Supreme Court

ordered an expedited response due June 12, 2017.

Defendants move for a stay of these proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s

consideration of the decision in IRAP. [Doc. 105]. Plaintiffs oppose the stay.

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/217of 8PagPeg3IDof29304
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for stay [Doc. 105]. II. ANALYSIS
The Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), and in considering the “economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This power applies “especially in cases of extraordinary public moment,” where “a plaintiff may be required to submit to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be promoted.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court “must tread carefully in granting a stay of proceedings, since a party has a right to a determination of its rights and liabilities without undue delay.” Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.
In determining whether to stay proceedings pending “another case’s imminent disposition,” the Court considers four factors: “[1] the potential dispositive effect of the other case, [2] judicial economy achieved by awaiting adjudication of the other case, [3] the public welfare, and [4] the relative hardships to the parties created by withholding judgment.” Caspar v. Snyder, 77 F. Supp. 3d 616, 644 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The parties do not address the “public welfare” factor, and neither does the Court. However, the remaining three factors weigh in favor of a stay pending the Supreme Court’s review in IRAP.
2

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/317of 8PagPeg4IDof29305
A. Potential Dispositive Effect of Supreme Court Review in IRAP; and Judicial Economy Achieved by Staying the Proceedings
Although Plaintiffs are correct that the Supreme Court’s review in IRAP will likely not be fully dispositive of this case, it is sufficient that those proceedings will likely “settle many” issues and “simplify them all,” Landis, 299 U.S. at 256, such that a stay will “foster efficiency and conservation of resources for both the parties and the court.” Fairview Hosp. v. Leavitt, No. 05-1065, 2007 WL 1521233, at *3 (D.D.C. May 22, 2007) (granting a stay pending the resolution of another case that “would not foreclose the necessity of litigation in [the stayed] case,” but would likely settle some issues and simplify others).
Any decision by the Supreme Court will be particularly relevant to – and likely controlling of – this Court’s disposition of a pending motion to dismiss and pending motion to compel. It would also provide guidance regarding the appropriate scope of discovery, and may help to resolve anticipated disputes related to Plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests. Specifically, a decision should provide the legal standard for reviewing the Executive Order under the Establishment Clause, and should answer whether Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), limits review to the four corners of the order. If the Supreme Court holds that Mandel limits review to the face of the Executive Order, most – if not all – of Plaintiffs’ current discovery requests would become irrelevant. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court concludes that review is not limited to the four corners of the Executive Order, then Plaintiffs’ discovery requests concerning pre-inauguration evidence (e.g., statements made by Candidate Trump, documents prepared related to the so-called Muslim ban, etc.) may be highly relevant. A Supreme Court decision in IRAP will guide, if not control, the Court’s disposition of
3

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/417of 8PagPeg5IDof29306
both pending and upcoming issues. Accordingly, a stay is warranted to conserve the resources of the parties and the Court.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants do not establish that there is a “significant possibility that the Supreme Court [will] reverse the judgment below,” see United States v. Mandycz, 321 F. Supp. 2d 862, 864 (E.D. Mich. 2004). However, this does not prevent the Court from entering a stay. In determining whether the Executive Order likely violated the Establishment Clause, the Fourth Circuit applied a standard set forth in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Kerry v. Din, --- U.S. ---, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140-41 (2015). See IRAP, 2017 WL 2273306, at *16-18. Although the Fourth Circuit’s use of, and analysis under, that standard was well reasoned and sound, the legal standard is not well settled. The Supreme Court is likely to address the standard used by the Fourth Circuit and settle a question of law – i.e., the correct legal standard to use in reviewing the Executive Order under the Establishment Clause. Such guidance by the Supreme Court will simplify these proceedings. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 256.
Defendants sufficiently demonstrate that the dispositive effect of the Supreme Court’s review in IRAP and the judicial economy achieved by awaiting that review weigh in favor of granting a stay.
B. Relative Hardships to the Parties if Proceedings are Stayed Plaintiffs say any review by the Supreme Court would likely take at least six months, and that such a lengthy stay would prejudice them by: (1) severely delaying their case; (2) preventing them from securing the evidence they need to proceed; and (3) increasing the risk that relevant evidence is lost or that Defendants or third parties fail to preserve relevant evidence.
4

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/517of 8PagPeg6IDof29307
Defendants say that allowing Plaintiffs to proceed with their “novel and highly burdensome discovery” would prejudice them if the Supreme Court finds that Mandel limits review to the four corners of the Executive Order. They further say that the discovery sought by Plaintiffs raises complicated executive privilege issues, and that because the Supreme Court’s decision will likely provide guidance on the scope and necessity of such discovery, a stay is warranted.
Although a stay will delay these proceedings, the Court finds that potential prejudice to Plaintiffs is less drastic than they set forth. The Supreme Court is expediting its decision on Defendants’ petition for certiorari. Regardless of the length of stay, because the Fourth Circuit upheld the nationwide injunction of the Executive Order, Plaintiffs’ interests are protected. Should circumstances change during the duration of the stay, Plaintiffs may move to lift the stay or for other appropriate relief.
In addition, based on the voluminous filings and issues raised in relation to Plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel – which pertains only to one document request seeking a single document – it is clear that resolution of disputes related to Plaintiffs’ “limited” discovery requests will require significant resources on behalf of the parties and the Court. Requiring the parties and the Court to devote time and resources to resolve these matters during the appeal in IRAP would not be economical, because the Supreme Court’s decision will be significantly relevant to, and possibly control, the Court’s consideration of issues raised in this suit. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254, 256. This is especially true based on the nature of the case and type of discovery sought.
Because of the “high respect” owed to the Executive, a stay is warranted to protect Defendants from the burden of resource intensive discovery during the
5

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/617of 8PagPeg7IDof29308
pendency of the Supreme Court review in IRAP, particularly since a stay will not greatly prejudice Plaintiffs. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004) (“‘[T]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive ... is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery,’ and … the Executive’s ‘constitutional responsibilities and status are factors counseling judicial deference and restraint’ in the conduct of litigation against it.” (internal citations omitted)).
Finally, the Court believes that steps can be taken to alleviate Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding preservation of relevant evidence. There is both a common law obligation and a duty under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for parties to preserve information in their possession, custody, or control that may be relevant to pending litigation. Here, Defendants’ duty extends to evidence that predates January 20, 2017, and, although the individual Defendants were sued in their official capacity, their duty extends to information created, received or maintained in their personal capacities. The parties must discuss the scope of discovery and preservation efforts during their upcoming Rule 26(f) conference, which they must hold prior to June 23, 2017.
To alleviate Plaintiffs’ concerns about their need to obtain information and preserve evidence from third parties, the Court suggests that they send preservation letters to the third parties at issue. If Plaintiffs are concerned that this does not resolve the issue of third-party evidentiary preservation, they may move for a limited modification of the stay order, as explained in the Conclusion, below.
The relative hardships to the parties created by withholding judgment weighs in favor of staying these proceedings pending Supreme Court review in IRAP.
6

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/717of 8PagPeg8IDof29309
III. CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion for a stay pending Supreme Court proceedings [Doc. 105] is
GRANTED, and this case is STAYED until two weeks after the “final action” (i.e., denial
of certiorari or a decision/opinion on the merits) by the Supreme Court in IRAP, with the
following limitations and conditions:
1. The parties must conduct a Rule 26(f) conference by June 23, 2017;
2. Defendants must preserve information in their possession, custody, or control – in both their official and personal capacities – that may be relevant to pending litigation, including information that predates January 20, 2017. The parties must discuss the scope of discovery and preservation efforts during their Rule 26(f) conference.
3. Plaintiffs may send preservation letters to third parties to notify them of the litigation and to request that they preserve any potentially relevant evidence. If this does not alleviate Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding thirdparty evidentiary preservation, Plaintiffs may move for a limited modification of this stay to allow them to issue subpoenas to third parties. If any such motion is granted, the third party would not be required to produce discovery, or respond to the subpoena, until the stay is fully lifted;
4. Any party may move to lift the stay, or for other appropriate relief, if circumstances change prior to the “final action” by the Supreme Court in IRAP;
5. The parties must file a joint statement proposing the schedule for any further proceedings within seven days after the “final action” by the Supreme Court in IRAP;
6. The joint statement should take into consideration any impact the Supreme Court’s opinion in IRAP has on Plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests and the pending motions to dismiss and compel. Specifically, if the Supreme Court issues an opinion, arguments made in support of and in opposition to the motions to dismiss and/or compel may no longer be relevant; if that is the case, the Court would be inclined to strike the pending motions and have the parties re-file them, if necessary, using the appropriate standard(s) set forth by the Supreme Court. The parties should contemplate this when filing the joint statement;
7

2:1C7-acsve-110:31170-c-vV-A0R05-S37D-DTSCDocD#oc1u1m4enFtil5e3d-106/F0i9le/1d706P/1g4/817of 8PagPeg9IDof29310

7. The joint statement should include the dates that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are due, if those discovery requests are still relevant; and

8. The June 13 hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is cancelled.

IT IS ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2017

s/Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge

8

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53-2 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Exhibit I:

Order Regarding Proceedings in Ozinga v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-cv-3292 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2013)

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/117of 7PPagaege2IDof#8:429

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Martin Ozinga III, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

No. 13 C 3292

)

)

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Defendants move to stay all further proceedings in this case pending the

Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.), and Grote v.

Sebelius, No. 12-1077 (7th Cir.). R. 17. For the following reasons, Defendants’

motion to stay is granted.

Background

Plaintiffs—eight members of the Ozinga family and their privately-held, for-

profit business, Ozinga Bros., Inc.—challenge certain provisions of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). As in Korte and Grote, this case

involves the ACA’s requirement that nongrandfathered and nonexempt group

health insurance plans cover certain preventive health services without cost

sharing, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), and regulations promulgated by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services specifying that the required coverage

must include all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures.

45 C.F.R. § 147.130. Plaintiffs argue that these ACA provisions contradict their

1

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/217of 7PPagaege3IDof#8:430
Christian beliefs (and the “foundational ethos” of their for-profit business) and violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”), the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.
On July 16, 2013, the Court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the relevant ACA provisions and regulations against Plaintiffs until 30 days after the Seventh Circuit issues any mandate denying injunctive relief in Korte and Grote. R. 16. Defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case.
Legal Standard “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In deciding whether to enter such a stay, courts consider the following factors: (i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the nonmoving party; (ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial; and (iii) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Atrix Labs, Inc., 2004 WL 422697, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2004). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to someone else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. Indeed, the court “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
2

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/317of 7PPagaege4IDof#8:431
balance.” Id. (citing Kansas City S. R. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931); Enelow v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 382 (1935)).
Courts in this district have recognized that when two related cases are pending in separate federal courts, either of those courts may exercise that inherent power to stay the proceedings before it in deference to the related action. See GE Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Spratt, 2009 WL 1064608, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2009); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. Metropolis Capital Grp., 1991 WL 212112, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 1991). Indeed, this Court has a “duty . . . to avoid duplicative litigation in more than one federal court.” Whirlpool, 1991 WL 212112, at *3 (citing Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)); see also CIGNA Healthcare of St. Louis, Inc. v. Kaiser, 294 F.3d 849, 851 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A federal court is authorized to stay proceedings in a lawsuit before it because parallel proceedings are pending in another court, either federal or state.”). Therefore, the Seventh Circuit not surprisingly has advised that “[a] district court has ‘an ample degree of discretion’ in deferring to another federal proceeding involving the same parties and issues to avoid duplicative litigation.” Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-OTwo Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)).
Analysis Defendants argue that the Court should stay the proceedings here pending the Seventh Circuit’s resolution of the Korte and Grote appeals, which involve similar issues, namely plaintiffs from for-profit businesses challenging the validity
3

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/417of 7PPagaege5IDof#8:432
and constitutionality of the same provisions of the ACA. The Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeals in Korte and Grote and heard oral arguments on May 22, 2013. In both Korte and Grote, the district courts denied the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunctions, which sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the ACA’s contraception mandate against the plaintiffs’ businesses. Defendants argue that the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Korte and Grote will address issues at the heart of this case, and that briefing a motion to dismiss in this Court before the Seventh Circuit rules would be a waste of resources.
The Court agrees that a stay is warranted. First, a stay will promote judicial economy by avoiding duplicative litigation, simplifying the issues in question, and reducing the burden of litigation on the parties and the Court. This case is materially similar to Korte and Grote—the defendants are the same and all of the plaintiffs represent for-profit companies seeking to escape the ACA’s contraception mandate. Because a motion for preliminary injunction requires a court to assess the likelihood of success on the merits, the Seventh Circuit will likely address issues such as: (i) whether a for-profit corporation can exercise religion under the RFRA; (ii) whether a mandate upon a corporation can impose a substantial burden on a corporation’s owners under the RFRA; (iii) whether any such burden on the owners would be too attenuated to constitute a “substantial” burden under the RFRA; and (iv) whether the legislature narrowly tailored the ACA’s mandate to serve compelling government interests. Each of these issues will be material to, and potentially dispositive of, the issues raised here. It would be a waste of resources to
4

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/517of 7PPagaege6IDof#8:433
require the parties to brief these issues now under pre-Korte and Grote case law and for this Court to prematurely proceed in this case only to risk issuing an opinion inconsistent with the Seventh Circuit’s forthcoming ruling in Korte and Grote. The better approach is to await the Seventh Circuit’s guidance.
Second, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate any prejudice or hardship from staying this matter. The Court has already entered a preliminary injunction staying the enforcement of the ACA’s contraception mandate against Plaintiffs until 30 days after the Seventh Circuit issues any mandate denying injunctive relief in Korte and Grote. Plaintiffs cite the hardship and uncertainty this matter poses to their business, but that uncertainty will exist whether this case proceeds immediately or not. Indeed, the bulk of that uncertainty at this stage hinges on how the Seventh Circuit ultimately resolves the pending Korte and Grote appeals.
In opposing a stay, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion assumes that the government will ultimately prevail in Korte and Grote. The Court disagrees. Regardless of where the Seventh Circuit ends up, its ruling would still provide valuable guidance to this Court and could greatly streamline this case. The Seventh Circuit’s forthcoming ruling in Korte and Grote could just as easily benefit Plaintiffs in this case as opposed to Defendants.
Plaintiffs also argue that this case is not substantially similar to Korte and Grote. Although there are certainly some factual differences between the plaintiffs in each case, the cases still share substantially similar fact patterns and central
5

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/617of 7PPagaege7IDof#8:434
legal issues. The resolution of Korte and Grote will therefore inform the Court’s decision in this case and narrow the issues which it must resolve.
Finally, the Court notes that many of Plaintiffs’ exact arguments for opposing a stay were considered and rejected in Triune Health Group, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Inc., No. 12 C 6756, R. 64 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2013) (St. Eve, J.). Triune involved another challenge to the ACA’s contraception mandate. Notably, Triune was even further along than this case—a fully-briefed motion to dismiss was pending. Nonetheless, the court stayed the case until the Seventh Circuit issues its decision and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice, indicating that it would give the parties sufficient time to refile the motion once the Seventh Circuit provides additional guidance. R. 65. The court’s approach in Triune readily illustrates the folly of allowing the parties here to begin briefing a motion to dismiss while the Korte and Grote appeals are still pending. That briefing would almost certainly be rendered obsolete once the Seventh Circuit rules, and the parties would inevitably have to engage in additional rounds of supplemental briefing to address the Seventh Circuit’s forthcoming ruling.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay. The Court will therefore stay these proceedings until the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in Korte and Grote.
6

CasCea: s1e:113:-1c7v-c0v3-2090253D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c2u9mFenilet d5:30-28/1F4i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/717of 7PPagaege8IDof#8:435

ENTERED:

Dated: August 14, 2013

_______________________________ Honorable Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge

7

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 53-3 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00255-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official

)

capacity as President of the

)

United States, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Exhibit J:

Order Regarding Proceedings in Triune Health Group, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 12-cv-6756 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2013)

Order Form (01/2005) CasCea: s1e:112:-1c7v-c0v6-7050653D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c6u4mFenilet d5:30-34/0F2i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/117of 3PPagaege2IDof#4:626
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge
CASE NUMBER
CASE TITLE

Amy J. St. Eve

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

12 C 6756

DATE

4/2/2013

Triune Health Group, Inc et al vs. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
The Court grants Defendants' motion to stay [58]. The Court will stay the proceedings until the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.), and Grote v. Sebelius, No. 12-1077 (7th Cir.). Status hearing set for 4/17/13 is stricken and reset to 7/16/13 at 8:30 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Defendants, Kathleen Sebelius, et al., move to stay all further proceedings in this case pending the Seventh Circuit ‘s ruling in Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.), and Grote v. Sebelius, No. 12-1077 (7th Cir.). (R. 58, Mot.) For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Christopher and Mary Anne Yep, challenge the validity and constitutionality of certain provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the PPACA”). Plaintiffs, who own Triune Health Group Inc. (“Triune”), a for-profit corporation, argue that the provisions of the PPACA which require Triune to provide health care coverage for preventative care for women are“wholly at odds with their religious and moral values and sincere religious beliefs and sacred commitments.” (R. 21, Amend. Compl. ¶ 5); see also 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). The provisions require Triune to provide a group health plan covering the full rang of Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and to provide education and counseling with respect to these matters for all women with reproductive capacity. (Id. ¶ 40); see also 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130. Plaintiffs argue that these provisions, which contradict their Roman Catholic beliefs, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”), the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.

Courtroom Deputy

KF

Initials:

12C6756 Triune Health Group, Inc et al vs. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services et al

Page 1 of 3

CasCea: s1e:112:-1c7v-c0v6-7050653D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c6u4mFenilet d5:30-34/0F2i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/217of 3PPagaege3IDof#4:627
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936). In deciding whether to enter such a stay, courts consider the following factors: (i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party, (ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Atrix Labs., Inc., No. 03, C 7822, 2004 WL 422697, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2004). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. Indeed, the Court “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. (citing Kansas City S. R. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763, 51 S. Ct. 304, 305, 306, 75 L. Ed. 684 (1931); Enelow v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 382, 55 S. Ct. 310, 311, 79 L. Ed. 440(1935)).
Courts in this district have recognized that when two related cases are pending in separate federal courts, either of those courts may exercise that inherent power to stay the proceedings before it in deference to the related action. See GE Bus. Fin’l Servs. Inc. v. Spratt, 2009 WL 1064608, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2009); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. Metropolis Capital Grp., 1991 WL 212112, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 1991). Indeed, this Court has a “duty . . . to avoid duplicative litigation in more than one federal court.” Whirlpool Fin. Corp., No. 90 C 5845, 1991 WL 212112, at *3 (citing Co. River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 47 L .Ed.2d 483 (1976)); see also CIGNA HealthCare of St. Louis, Inc. v. Kaiser, 294 F.3d 849, 851 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A federal court is authorized to stay proceedings in a lawsuit before it because parallel proceedings are pending in another court, either federal or state.”) Therefore, the Seventh Circuit not surprisingly has advised that “[a] district court has ‘an ample degree of discretion’ in deferring to another federal proceeding involving the same parties and issues to avoid duplicative litigation.” Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995).
ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that the Court should stay the proceedings here pending the Seventh Circuit’s resolution of appeals pending in Korte and Grote, which involve similar issues, namely plaintiffs from for-profit, secular corporations challenging the validity and constitutionality of the same provisions of the PPACA. The Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeals in Korte and Grote, which both involve the same defendants as this case. In both Korte and Grote, the district courts denied the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction, which sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the contraception mandate of the PPACA against the plaintiff corporation. On January 3, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in light of the Seventh Circuit’s grant of a preliminary injunction pending appeal in Korte. (R. 49, Prel. Inj. Ord.) The Court has yet to rule on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, and Defendants argue that the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Korte and Grote will address issues at the heart of that motion and this case . (R. 24, MTD.)
Indeed, as noted in the Court’s preliminary injunction order, this case is materially similar to Korte and Grote. Although the specific plaintiffs in each case differ, they are substantially similar because each plaintiff represents a for-profit, secular company seeking to escape the PPACA’s preventative care mandate on the grounds that it interferes with and burdens the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The plaintiff companies here, as in Korte and Grote, do not qualify for any type of religious or other exemption from the PPACA’s mandate.

12C6756 Triune Health Group, Inc et al vs. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services et al

Page 2 of 3

CasCea: s1e:112:-1c7v-c0v6-7050653D7o-cTuSmCenDt #o:c6u4mFenilet d5:30-34/0F2i/l1e3d P06a/g1e4/317of 3PPagaege4IDof#4:628
Even though the Seven Circuit will not determine the merits of the underlying claims in Korte and Grote, as it will only review orders denying motions for preliminary injunctions, its decision will address issues material to the resolution of this case. It would, therefore, be a waste of judicial resources for this Court to prematurely proceed in this case only to risk issuing an opinion inconsistent with precedent the Seventh Circuit creates shortly thereafter. Indeed, because a motion for preliminary injunction requires a court to assess the likelihood of success on the merits, the Seventh Circuit will likely address issues such as: (1) whether a for-profit, secular corporation can exercise religion under the RFRA; (2) whether a mandate upon a corporation can impose a substantial burden on a corporation’s owners under the RFRA; (3) whether any such burden on the owners would be too attenuated to constitute a “substantial” burden under the RFRA; (4) whether the legislature narrowly tailored the PPACA’s mandate to serve compelling governmental interests. Each of these issues will be material to, if not dispositive of, the pending motion to dismiss in this case. The Court, therefore, will await the binding guidance of the Seventh Circuit’s resolution of Korte and Grote, which the parties have briefed.
Contrary to the Court’s preliminary injunction order, Plaintiffs argue that Korte and Grote do not present substantially similar issues because there are some factual differences. (Resp. at 7.) These potential differences, such as how closely each privately owned corporation is held, may result in different ultimate outcomes on the merits in Korte and Grote than here. The cases still, however, share substantially similar fact-patterns and central legal issues. The resolution of Korte and Grote will, therefore, inform the Court’s decisions in this case and potentially narrow the issues which it must resolve.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate any prejudice or hardship requiring the Court to deny Defendants’ motion to stay. Rather, Plaintiffs offer two misguided arguments. First, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ motion to stay seeks reconsideration of issues the Court already addressed in the motion for preliminary injunction. (R. 61, Resp. at 1.) Defendants, however, are not asking the Court to reconsider its previous decision, but ask the Court to postpone its ruling on the motion to dismiss and other matters.
Second, Plaintiffs miss the mark by arguing that the Court has the ability to maintain jurisdiction while awaiting ruling on an interlocutory appeal. (Resp. at 2.) Defendants, however, are not asking the Court to stay the proceedings pending the Seventh Circuit’s resolution of the interlocutory appeal in this case. Rather, Defendants argue that, for the sake of efficiency and conservation of judicial resources, this Court should stay proceedings in this case pending the resolution in a parallel proceeding pending in the Seventh Circuit.
Indeed, the only hardships Plaintiffs allege are that (1) they have to face the uncertainty of seeking out health plans without understanding what the law requires; and (2) the Plaintiffs face accumulated potential fines if the Court does not grant a permanent injunction. (Resp. at 9.) Waiting for guidance from the Seventh Circuit, rather than plowing ahead only to face possibly reversal and further delay, promotes judicial economy and efficiency for this case. It does not, therefore, create an undue hardship of unnecessarily prolonged uncertainty. These alleged hardships, therefore, do not necessitate denial of the stay.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay. The Court, therefore, will stay the proceedings until the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in Korte and Grote.

12C6756 Triune Health Group, Inc et al vs. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services et al

Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 54 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION )

OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 17-cv-0255 (TSC) Case No. 17-cv-0537 (TSC)

ORDER

Before the court are Defendants’ motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the

Government’s petition for certiorari and request for expedited review in International Refugee

Assistance Project v. Trump. (Pars ECF No. 87; UMAA ECF No. 51). Plaintiffs in both cases

oppose staying the proceedings. (Pars ECF No. 88; UMAA ECF No. 52). After careful

consideration of the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons stated below, the court finds that a

stay is warranted and GRANTS the motions.

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Therefore,

“[a] trial court has broad discretion to stay all proceedings in an action pending the resolution of

1

Case 1:17-cv-00537-TSC Document 54 Filed 06/20/17 Page 2 of 2

independent proceedings elsewhere.” Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 74 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). However, a court may not “order[] a stay ‘of indefinite duration in the absence of a pressing need.’” Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).
In both of these cases, a stay pending the result of the Supreme Court’s decision is the most appropriate path for conserving the court’s resources and adjudicating these cases in the most efficient manner possible. Most significant to the court in making this determination is the substantial overlap between the legal issues present here and those that the Supreme Court may itself soon decide. Importantly, this stay is not indefinite, but instead will last only until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision either by denying the Government’s petition or by issuing a ruling on the merits. Though Plaintiffs argue that they may be harmed by a stay of proceedings, the court notes that the operative sections of the Executive Order remain preliminarily enjoined following the recent decisions from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017); Hawai‘i v. Trump, --F.3d ----, 2017 WL 2529640 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017).
Within seven days of the Supreme Court’s final decision—either denial of the petition or ruling on the merits—the parties shall jointly submit a proposed schedule for proceeding with these cases. In light of this court’s decision to stay proceedings in both of these cases, the court also hereby denies without prejudice the parties’ pending motions for preliminary injunctions. If circumstances change prior to the Supreme Court issuing its final decision, any party may file a motion to lift the stay and may then re-file a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Date: June 20, 2017

Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge
2

 
 CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE-D
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv-00537-TSC

UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. et al v. TRUMP et al Assigned to: Judge Tanya S. Chutkan Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

Date Filed: 03/24/2017 Date Terminated: 04/06/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

represented by Charles Alan Blanchard ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington D.C., DC 20001-3743 202-942-5000 Email: charles.blanchard@arnoldporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. Weiner ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 202-942-6702 Email: david.weiner@arnoldporter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew D. Bergman ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 713-576-2430

Email: andrew.bergman@arnoldporter.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aziz Zahirul Huq UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW 1111 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 (773) 703-9566 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: aziz.huq@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Newhouse Dillingham ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 70 West Madison Street Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60602 312-583-2435 Email: Emily.Dillingham@arnoldporter.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gillian B. Gillers SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 521-6700 Fax: 404-221-5857 Email: gillian.gillers@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnathan James Smith MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, DC 20043 (202) 897-1897 Fax: (202) 508-1007 Email: johnathan@muslimadvocates.org

Plaintiff
JOHN DOE CORPORATION TERMINATED: 05/03/2017

TERMINATED: 02/01/2019
Kristi L. Graunke SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 521-6700 Fax: 404-221-5857 Email: kristi.graunke@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi R. Tsu SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 521-6700 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Alan Blanchard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David J. Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew D. Bergman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aziz Zahirul Huq (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (See above for address)

Plaintiff
JANE DOE TERMINATED: 05/03/2017

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gillian B. Gillers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/01/2019
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi R. Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Alan Blanchard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David J. Weiner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew D. Bergman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aziz Zahirul Huq (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Newhouse Dillingham (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gillian B. Gillers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Johnathan James Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/01/2019
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi R. Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
DONALD J. TRUMP In his official capacity as President of the United States

represented by Brad P. Rosenberg U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-3374 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: brad.rosenberg@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305-8693 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: daniel.s.schwei@usdoj.gov

Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Defendant U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address)

Defendant JOHN KELLY In his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Defendant KEVIN K. MCALEENAN In his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Defendant REX W. TILLERSON In his official capacity as Secretary of State
Defendant JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III In his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/24/2017
03/24/2017 03/24/2017
03/24/2017

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
2 MOTION to File Under Seal the DOE Plaintiffs' Names and Addresses by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
3 MOTION to Seal Their Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Supporting Declarations by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
4 REDACTED ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms ; granting 2 Motion to File Under Seal the DOE Plaintiffs' Names and Addresses. Signed by Judge Colleen KollarKotelly on 3/24/17. (td) Modified text on 3/27/2017 (td). (Entered: 03/27/2017)
5 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Seal Their Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and Supporting Declarations and that redacted versions of these documents be file by no later than March 31, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/24/17. (td). (Entered: 03/27/2017)
6 SEALED ORDER re 1 MOTION for Order filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., 2 MOTION for Order filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC..(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/24/17.(ztd) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
7 SEALED DOCUMENT (Memorandum) filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

03/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/24/2017
03/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/27/2017

INC.. re 5 Order on Motion for Order, 1 MOTION for Order filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
8 SEALED DOCUMENT (Declarations) filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. re 5 Order on Motion for Order, 3 MOTION for Order filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
9 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. re 6 Sealed Order, 4 Order on Motion for Order, 2 MOTION for Order filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
10 COMPLAINT against JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W. TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616083694) filed by JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration UMAA, # 3 Declaration David J. Weiner)(td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
12 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. Case related to Case No. 17-255 TSC. (td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
13 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(td) (Entered: 03/27/2017)

03/27/2017
03/27/2017
03/27/2017 03/28/2017 03/28/2017
03/28/2017 04/03/2017 04/03/2017

14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Emily Dillingham, :Firm- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, :Address- 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Phone No. - 312-583-2435. Fax No. - (312) 583-2535 Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Weiner, David) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameAndrew Bergman, :Firm- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, :Address- 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600, Houston. Phone No. - +1 713 576 2430. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
16 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Aziz Huq, :Firm- University of Chicago School of Law, :Address- 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Phone No. - 773-687-8127. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's redaction of documents due by 3/31/2017. (tb) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
17 NOTICE OF FILING REDACTED DOCUMENT Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms, Declaration of John Doe #1, and Declaration of Jane Doe #1 by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (The original PDF Document contained privacy information and was restricted pursuant to the E-Government Act.) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles Alan Blanchard on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Blanchard, Charles) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Brad P. Rosenberg on behalf of All Defendants (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
20 Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W. TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

04/03/2017
04/03/2017 04/03/2017 04/03/2017
04/05/2017 04/06/2017

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20
Motion for Briefing Schedule. Defendants' Response is due by 4/10/2017. Plaintiffs' Reply is due by 4/17/2017. A hearing is hereby set for 4/21/2017 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2. During this hearing, the court will also hear arguments for the pending preliminary injunction motion in Pars Equality Center et al. v. Trump et al. (17cv-0255). Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/3/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Response due by 4/10/2017 Reply due by 4/17/2017. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (tb) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Denying without prejudice 14 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for failing to fully comply with Local Civil Rule 83.2(d)(4), which requires "a certification that the attorney [seeking admission] either HAS or HAS NOT BEEN DISCIPLINED by any bar, and if the attorney has been disciplined by any bar, the circumstances and details of the discipline." Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/3/17. (DJS) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Denying without prejudice 15 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Denying without prejudice 16 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for failing to fully comply with Local Civil Rule 83.2(d)(4), which requires "a certification that the attorney [seeking admission] either HAS or HAS NOT BEEN DISCIPLINED by any bar, and if the attorney has been disciplined by any bar, the circumstances and details of the discipline." Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/3/17. (DJS) Modified on 4/4/2017 to reflect correct order date as 4/3/17 (DJS). (Entered: 04/03/2017)
25 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DONALD J. TRUMP served on 4/3/17 (td) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
21 NOTICE Filing of Exhibits by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. re 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Declaration of David J. Weiner, # 2 Exhibit 1-34 to Declaration of David J. Weiner, # 3 Exhibit 35-72 to Declaration of David J. Weiner, # 4 Exhibit B. Declaration of The Universal Muslim Association of America,

04/06/2017 04/06/2017 04/06/2017
04/06/2017 04/06/2017

# 5 Exhibit C. Declaration of John Doe #1, # 6 Exhibit D. Declaration of Jane Doe #1)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
22 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Kristi Graunke, :Firm- Southern Poverty Law Center, :Address- 1989 College Ave. NE, Atlanta, GA 30317. Phone No. - 404-5216700. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
23 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameGillian Gillers, :Firm- Southern Poverty Law Center, :Address- 1989 College Ave. NE, Atlanta, GA 30317. Phone No. - 404-5216700. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
24 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JOHN KELLY served on 3/27/2017; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN served on 3/27/2017; JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III served on 3/27/2017; REX W. TILLERSON served on 3/27/2017; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION served on 3/27/2017; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 3/27/2017; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 3/27/2017; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 3/27/2017, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 3/27/17. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/26/2017.) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Certificate of Service, # 5 Certificate of Service, # 6 Certificate of Service, # 7 Certificate of Service, # 8 Certificate of Service)(td) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
26 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameNaomi R. Tsu, :Firm- Southern Poverty Law Center, :Address- 1989 College Ave. NE, Atlanta, GA 30317. Phone No. - 404-5216700. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
27 Amended MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Emily Dillingham, :Firm- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer,

04/06/2017 04/07/2017 04/10/2017 04/10/2017
04/11/2017 04/11/2017

:Address- 70 West Madison Street, Suite 400, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Phone No. - 312-583-2435. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
28 Amended MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Andrew D. Bergman, :Firm- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, :Address- 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77002. Phone No. - 713-576-2430. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
29 Amended MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Aziz Zahirul Huq, :Firm- University of Chicago Law School, :Address- 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Phone No. 773-687-8127. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Stephen Garrett Schwei on behalf of All Defendants (Schwei, Daniel) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
31 Memorandum in opposition to re 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W. TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Joint Letter to President, # 2 Exhibit B: DHS Q&A: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States, # 3 Exhibit C: Department of State, Guidance Document, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
32 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by JANE DOE.(Weiner, David) Modified on 4/11/2017 to correct docket text (jf). (Entered: 04/11/2017)
33 AFFIDAVIT re 32 Amended Complaint by JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit,

04/11/2017
04/11/2017 04/11/2017 04/12/2017 04/17/2017 04/17/2017

# 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
34 AFFIDAVIT re 32 Amended Complaint by JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
35 AFFIDAVIT re 32 Amended Complaint by JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
36 AFFIDAVIT re 32 Amended Complaint by JANE DOE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
37 ERRATA SHEET Re: 32 AMENDED COMPLAINT by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA, INC. 33 Affidavit,, filed by JANE DOE, 35 Affidavit, filed by JANE DOE, 34 Affidavit,,, filed by JANE DOE, 36 Affidavit filed by JANE DOE. (Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
38 REPLY to opposition to motion re 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of the Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
39 MOTION for Leave to File (Re: docket entry 38) by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of the Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. in Support of the

04/18/2017 04/18/2017
04/18/2017
04/18/2017 04/20/2017
04/20/2017 04/21/2017

Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 39 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/18/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 22 23 [ 26] [ 27] [ 28] [29 ] Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Kristi Lee Graunke, Gillian B. Gillers, Naomi R. Tsu, Emily Newhouse Dillingham, Andrew D.Bergman, and Aziz Zahirul Huq are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/18/17. (DJS) Modified on 4/19/2017 (tb). (Entered: 04/18/2017)
40 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney NameJohnathan Smith, :Firm- Muslim Advocates, :Address- P.O. Box 71080, Oakland, CA 94612. Phone No. - 347-731-3221. Filing fee $ 100. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
41 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (ztd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Parties are directed to limit their arguments at the 4/21/2017 hearing to 45 minutes per side. Plaintiffs in this case and in Pars Equality Center et al. v. Trump et al. (17-cv-255) will share the allotted 45 minutes and should coordinate to avoid unnecessarily repetitive arguments. Plaintiffs will have time for rebuttal following Defendants' arguments. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/20/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Granting 40 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Johnathan Smith is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/20/17. (DJS) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs are directed to file a supplemental brief on the following three questions: (1) Is there any restriction on a judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction on the provisions of the Order that have already been enjoined, and if not, what factors should guide the court's discretion in weighing whether such a duplicative injunction is in the public interest?; (2) If the court

04/21/2017 04/24/2017 04/27/2017 04/28/2017

intends to issue injunctive relief specific to the individual plaintiffs, what would be the scope of that injunction and what authority does the court have to issue it?; (3) What is the authority for the court to issue the proposed injunctive relief in Section 2 of the Pars Proposed Preliminary Injunction (with particular focus on 2(e)) and Sections 49 of the UMAA Proposed Preliminary Injunction? Plaintiffs' single Supplemental Brief should be no more than 12 pages and is due by 4/27/2017. Defendants are to file a Response of no more than 12 pages by 5/2/2017. Defendants are also directed to attach a table listing all other preliminary injunction motions filed against Executive Order 13,780 and indicating whether they have been stayed or remain pending. Plaintiffs are to file a Reply of no more than 6 pages by 5/5/2017. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/21/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/21/2017 before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: re 11 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; Motion heard and taken under advisement, SEE MINUTE ORDER ENTERED ON 04/21/17. (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshiro-Miller) (tb) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's supplemental brief due by 4/27/2017. Defendant's response due by 5/2/2017. Plaintiff's reply due by 5/5/2017. (tb) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
42 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(Dillingham, Emily) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
43 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on April 21, 2017; Page Numbers: 1-107. Date of Issuance:April 28, 2017. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia A Kaneshiro-Miller, Telephone number 202-354-3243, Tape Number: Patricia_Kaneshiro-Miller@dcd.uscourts.gov. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href="http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/node/110">Transcript Order Form</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P>NOTICE RE REDACTION OF

05/01/2017 05/02/2017
05/03/2017
05/05/2017 05/11/2017 05/11/2017 05/22/2017

TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 5/19/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2017.(pk) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
44 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re / DOE PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (Dillingham, Emily) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
45 RESPONSE re 42 Supplemental Memorandum, Order,,,,, Regarding Preliminary Relief filed by JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W. TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeremy A. Cornforth, # 2 List of Other Cases Seeking Preliminary Relief Against Executive Order No. 13,780)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
46 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL: In light of the Stipulation of
Dismissal filed by the Plaintiffs 44 , all claims asserted by Plaintiffs John Doe #1 and Jane Doe #1 are hereby dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 5/3/17. (DJS) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
47 REPLY re 45 Response to Document, filed by UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (Blanchard, Charles) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
48 ORDER temporarily staying resolution of 11 Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. See Order for more details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 5/11/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer/Dispositive Motion due by 5/26/2017. Response to Dispositive Motion due by 6/16/2017. Reply to Dispositive Motion due by 6/26/2017. (tb) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
49 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions to Dismiss by JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W.

05/22/2017 05/23/2017 05/25/2017 06/02/2017
06/07/2017 06/07/2017

TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwei, Daniel) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' Motion is due on 6/9/2017. Plaintiffs' Opposition is due on 6/30/2017. Defendants' Reply is due on 7/14/2017. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 5/22/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion due by 6/9/2017. Response to Dispositive Motion due by 6/30/2017. Reply to Dispositive Motion due by 7/14/2017. (tb) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
50 NOTICE of Change of Address by Gillian B. Gillers (Gillers, Gillian) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
51 Emergency MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review by JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W. TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - IRAP Cert Petition, # 2 Exhibit B IRAP Stay Application, # 3 Exhibit C - Hawaii Stay Application, # 4 Exhibit D - Stay Order in Doe (WDWash), # 5 Exhibit E - Stay Order in IRAP (DMd), # 6 Exhibit F - Stay Order in Sarsour (EDVa), # 7 Exhibit G - Stay Order in Hawaii (DHaw), # 8 Supplement UMAA Meet-and-Confer Correspondence, # 9 Supplement Pars Meet-and-Confer Correspondence, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwei, Daniel) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The 6/9/2017 deadline for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby vacated pending the court's decision on 51
Defendants' emergency motion to stay proceedings. In the event the court denies Defendants' motion, the court will issue a new briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 6/7/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
52 Memorandum in opposition to re 51 Emergency MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review filed by UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David J. Weiner in Support of

06/14/2017
06/20/2017 11/02/2017 11/03/2017 04/05/2018 02/01/2019 03/29/2021

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review with Exhibits A-G, # 2 Exhibit 2 - E-mail)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
53 REPLY to opposition to motion re 51 Emergency MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review filed by JOHN KELLY, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, REX W. TILLERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H Stay Order (Arab Am Civil Rights League, EDMich), # 2 Exhibit I Stay Order (Ozinga v HHS), # 3 Exhibit J - Stay Order (Triune v HHS))(Schwei, Daniel) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
54 ORDER granting 51 Defendants' Motion to Stay and denying without prejudice 11 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Order for more details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 6/20/2017. (lctsc2) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
55 STIPULATION Joint Agreement to Stay by UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (Weiner, David) Modified event title on 11/3/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 11/02/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the parties' joint agreement, proceedings in this case will remain stayed, pending final resolution of related preliminary injunctions in other jurisdictions. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/3/2017. (lctsc2). (Entered: 11/03/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the 11/03/2017 Order staying this case, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to Administratively Close this case. Upon resolution of the preliminary injunction motions in other jurisdictions, the parties may file a motion to return this case to the court's active docket. Any such motion shall contain a proposed order for moving forward with this case. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/5/18. (DJS) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
56 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. Attorney Johnathan James Smith terminated. (Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
57 Unopposed MOTION to Reopen Case , and Notice of Voluntary, MOTION to Dismiss Case by UNIVERSAL MUSLIM

03/29/2021 04/01/2021

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weiner, David) (Entered: 03/29/2021)
58 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. (ztd); (See docket entry no. 57 to view.) (Entered: 03/31/2021)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Notice of Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Universal Muslim Association of America 57 , this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/1/21. (DJS) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

07/16/2021 08:52:01

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 14

Cost:

Woo Kee
1:17-cv-00537TSC 1.40