Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289 ZAKARIA HAGIG,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and LASHANDA JONES, Denver Director, CBP,
Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig is a lawful resident of the United States, the state of Colorado, and the city of Denver. He is a student at the Community College of Denver studying business. He also works and pays taxes. He is Muslim. He is from Libya and his family lives in Libya. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to travel to Libya in the event of a family emergency, or other need, and return to the United States to continue his studies and work, and not be banned from reentry without justification and due process protections. He cannot currently exercise his right to travel in the event of a family emergency, without being detained or barred from reentry, solely pursuant to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017. The executive order, which prevents Plaintiff and others similarly situated from travel, despite their otherwise lawful presence in or travel to the United States, violates Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and equal protection rights, his First Amendment Establishment right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, and his statutory rights under federal immigration statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, the unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination against Plaintiff and others similarly situated is part of a widespread policy, pattern, and practice infringing on rights of many people traveling after issuance of the executive order now subject to suspension, detention and removal. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court for immediate declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent such unlawful and unconstitutional harms from occurring now and in the future.
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig is a Libyan national and a lawful resident of the United States, the state of Colorado, and the city of Denver. He is a student at the Community College of Denver studying business. He works and pays taxes. He is Muslim. His family lives in Libya.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
2. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department of the United States federal government with the primary mission of securing the United States.
3. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an agency within DHS with primary mission of detecting and preventing unlawful entry of persons and goods into the United States.
4. Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. Secretary Kelly is responsible for DHS actions affecting Plaintiff and others similarly situated. He is sued in his official capacity.
5. Defendant Kevin McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP. Acting Commissioner McAleenan is responsible for CBP actions affecting Plaintiff and others similarly situated. He is sued in his official capacity.
6. Defendant LaShanda Jones is the Director of the Denver Office of CBP, which is responsible for CBP actions affecting Plaintiff and others similarly situated, including actions affecting those traveling into Denver International Airport. She is sued in her official capacity.
7. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. As the President, he issued the January 27, 2017 executive order titled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” giving rise to this action. He is sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 2241, 2243, and the United States Constitution, and remedial authority pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. 9. Venue properly lies within the District of Colorado because Plaintiff lawfully resides in Colorado, works and pays taxes in Colorado, and passes through Denver International Airport, indicating that a substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to this action have occurred, are occurring, and/or will occur within the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
STATEMENT OF FACTS President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order
10. On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of the United States. During his campaign, he stated he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S.
11. On January 27, one week after his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order titled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”
12. In statements to the media, President Trump made negative comments about Muslims and stated that his executive order would help Christian refugees to enter the United States.
13. Citing the threat of terrorism committed by foreign nationals, the executive order directs a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens – including green card holders, visa holders, and refugees – may seek and obtain entry to the United States. The executive order singles out refugees and non-citizens from particular nations for discrimination.
14. Most relevant to the instant action is Section 3(c) of the executive order, in which President Trump proclaims “that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and that he is therefore “suspend[ing] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order,” with narrow exceptions not relevant here.
15. There are seven countries that fit the criteria in 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12): Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. According to the terms of the executive order, “entry into the United States” of non-citizens from those countries is “suspended” for 90 days from the date of the executive order. Non-citizens from other countries are not subject to the suspension.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
16. Challenges to aspects of the executive order have been initially successful in the Eastern District of New York, Darweesh and Alshawi v. Trump et al., E.D. N.Y. (2017), No. 17 Civ. 480, District of Massachusetts, Tootkaboni and Loughghalam v. Trump et al., D. M.A. (2017), No. 17-cv-10154, Eastern District of Virginia, Aziz et al. v. Trump et al., E.D. V.A. (2017), No. 1:17-cv-116, and Western District of Washington, Doe and Doe v. Trump et al., W.D. W.A. (2017), No. C17-126. Such decisions are hereby incorporated by reference. Plaintiff Hagig
17. Plaintiff is a Libyan national and a lawful resident of the United States. 18. Plaintiff is a student at the Community College of Denver studying business. 19. Plaintiff, as a student, lives, works, and pays taxes in Colorado, a U.S. state. 20. Plaintiff is Muslim. 21. Plaintiff’s family is in Libya. 22. Plaintiff’s closest international airport is Denver International Airport. 23. In the event of family emergency or other need, which necessitated Plaintiff and others similarly situated to travel outside the U.S., Plaintiff and others similarly situated would be denied reentry and be subject to detention and removal, solely pursuant to the discriminatory, unlawful, and unconstitutional executive order signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT ONE
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS – DUE PROCESS 24. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
25. Due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, due process requires that arriving immigrants and other non-citizens be afforded those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that “[m]inimum due process rights attach to statutory rights.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996)).
26. In particular, returning lawful residents have constitutional due process rights with respect to their return to the United States. In evaluating the due process rights available to a lawful resident, including a student who leaves to handle a family emergency or other need, “courts must consider the interest at stake for the individual, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used as well as the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards, and the interest of the government in using the current procedures rather than additional or different procedures.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982).
27. Defendants’ actions, taken pursuant to the executive order, violate the procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Darweesh and Alshawi v. Trump et al., E.D. N.Y. (2017), No. 17 Civ. 480; Tootkaboni and Loughghalam v. Trump et al., D. M.A. (2017), No. 17-cv-10154; Aziz et al. v. Trump et al., E.D. V.A. (2017), No. 1:17-cv-116; Doe and Doe v. Trump et al., W.D. W.A. (2017), No. C17-126.
COUNT TWO FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS – EQUAL PROTECTION 28. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
29. The executive order discriminates against Plaintiff on the basis of his country of origin and religion, without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
30. Additionally, the executive order was substantially motivated by animus toward and has a disparate effect on Muslims, violating the Equal Protection components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985); Jana-Rock Const., Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Econ. Dev., 438 F.3d 195, 204 (2d Cir. 2006).
31. Defendants have demonstrated an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion via public statements that show the executive order was designed to prohibit entry of Muslims to the U.S. See Michael D. Shear & Helene Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries, N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2017); Carol Morello, Trump Signs Order Temporarily Halting Admission of Refugees, Promises Priority for Christians, Wash. Post (Jan. 27, 2017).
32. Applying a general law in a fashion that discriminates on the basis of religion in this way violates Plaintiff’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1999); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 (1886). Plaintiff satisfies the Supreme Court’s test to determine whether a facially neutral law – in the case, the executive order and federal immigration law – has been applied in a discriminatory fashion. The Supreme Court requires an individual bringing suit to demonstrate a “prima facie case of discriminatory purpose.” Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-7 (1977). This test examines the impact of the official action, whether there has been a clear pattern unexplainable on other grounds besides discrimination, the historical background of the decision, the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision, and departures from the normal procedural sequence. Id.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
33. President Donald Trump and senior staff have made clear that executive order will be applied to primarily exclude individuals on the basis of their national origin and being Muslim. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration, (Dec. 7, 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.”); Abby Phillip and Abigail Hauslohner, Trump on the Future of Proposed Muslim Ban, Registry: ‘You know my plans’, Wash. Post (Dec. 22, 2016). Further, the President has promised that preferential treatment will be given to Christians, unequivocally demonstrating the special preferences and discriminatory impact that the executive order has upon Plaintiff.
34. Thus, Defendants have applied the executive order with forbidden animus and discriminatory intent, violating equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Darweesh and Alshawi v. Trump et al., E.D. N.Y. (2017), No. 17 Civ. 480; Tootkaboni and Loughghalam v. Trump et al., D. M.A. (2017), No. 17-cv-10154; Aziz et al. v. Trump et al., E.D. V.A. (2017), No. 1:17-cv-116; Doe and Doe v. Trump et al., W.D. W.A. (2017), No. C17-126.
COUNT THREE FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 35. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 36. The First Amendment prohibits the government from exhibiting hostility or giving preference to specific religious faiths. The executive order exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, Islam, and gives preference to other, specific religious faiths. Therefore, the executive order of January 27, 2017, is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by not pursuing a course of neutrality between religious faiths.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
COUNT FOUR IMMIGRATION LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 37. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 38. Defendants violated the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiff and others similarly situated solely pursuant to an executive order issued on January 27, 2017, which expressly discriminates against Plaintiff and others based specifically on country of origin, exhibits hostility to a specific religious faith, and gives preference to other religious faiths. 39. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) specifically forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s “race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). The executive order, facially and as applied, violates this prohibition. 40. The INA and implementing regulations, including 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal), 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.3(b)(4), 208.30, and 1003.42; 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal), and U.N. Convention Against Torture, implemented in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub.L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note), entitle many non-citizens entering the U.S. to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and other relief. 41. Defendants’ actions with regard to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, including specific violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1152, were and continue to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of APA § 706(2)(A); contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in violation of APA § 706(2)(B); in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, in violation of APA § 706(2)(C); and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of § 706(2)(D).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ
ZAKARIA HAGIG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and LASHANDA JONES, Denver Director, CBP,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig, through undersigned counsel, states the following First Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants:
INTRODUCTION On January 27, 2017, Defendant Donald Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). A copy of the Executive Order is attached as Exhibit A. Among other things, the Executive Order imposes a 120-day moratorium on the resettlement of refugees; proclaims that “that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and therefore “suspend[s]” indefinitely their entry to the country; and drastically limits to 50,000 the number of refugees from all countries who may be admitted in fiscal year 2017 on the ground that admission of a greater number of refugees would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Also on January 27, 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services at the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State, relying on the authority of the Executive Order, summarily and provisionally revoked all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of seven predominantly Muslim Countries (the “Designated Countries”), subject to exceptions not relevant here (the “Provisional Revocation Letter”). The Designated Countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Provisional Revocation letter threatens countless nationals of the Designated Countries who are currently in the United States or who reside in the United States but were traveling abroad when the letter was issued.
The Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter included international students who had entered the United States or were planning to enter the United States to pursue a course of educational study on student visas.
Among other constitutional and statutory violations, the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter violate the First Amendment because they are thinly-veiled attempts to discriminate against Muslims by barring them from entry to the United States.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) ensures that the United States does not adopt certain discriminatory immigration policies. The INA prohibits preference or discrimination on the basis of “a person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” U.S.C.§1152(a)(1)(A). The Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
contradict this statute and instead would revoke visas and deny entry based on nothing but “nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”
Mr. Zakaria Hagig (“Mr. Hagig” or “Plaintiff”) and the other similarly situated Plaintiffs include nationals of the Designated Countries who currently are or recently have been, lawfully present in Colorado on student visas and who would be able to travel internationally, including to the United States, if it were not for the Executive Order. Mr. Hagig brings this action on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated to challenge various provisions of the Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter that violate the First Amendment, the equal-protection and due process rights granted under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et. seq, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. §§1331, and has further remedial authority pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Venue properly lies within the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
PARTIES A. Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig, Class Representative
Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig is a 24-year-old student of Libyan national origin who is Muslim. Mr. Hagig resides in the United States and studies business at Colorado Community College in Denver, Colorado.
Mr. Hagig began his studies in 2010 at Tripoli University, but due to the conflict and violence in Libya, he was not able to complete his studies. Mr. Hagig applied for a student (F1) visa and left his immediate family behind in Libya in order to pursue his academic dreams at an accredited institution of higher education within the United States.
Mr. Hagig lawfully entered the United States on a student visa in October 2014, and he has remained here in the United States since that time. Mr. Hagig has been continuously enrolled as a full-time student. Mr. Hagig has a 3.6 GPA, and he has received both academic and leadership awards during his time in the United States. In November 2015, Mr. Hagig received an International Student Distinguished Leadership Award. In December 2015, he was inducted into the National Society of Leadership and Success. And in October 2016, Mr. Hagig was inducted into the Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society for his academic achievements.
Mr. Hagig has lawfully worked on-campus at a computer lab since June 2016. He helps students with IT assistance, supports faculty with IT needs, and monitors the computer lab. Mr. Hagig, as a student worker, pays taxes in the United States, including taxes which have been withheld from his paycheck. He is currently preparing to timely file his taxes owed for 2016.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
Mr. Hagig expects to graduate from the Community College of Denver in May 2017, and has begun the application process and intends to transfer to a four-year institution of higher education and study finance after earning his associate degree in business.
Since the Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter, Mr. Hagig’s ability to travel internationally has been eliminated. He has been unable to travel to see his family and fears that if he is not permitted to re-enter the United States because of the Executive Order and its implementation, he will be prevented from continuing his undergraduate studies. He is also fearful about the effects of the Provisional Revocation Letter on his immigration status.
Mr. Hagig currently plans to travel to Canada in March 2017 to visit his family. Mr. Hagig has a cousin, Nizaar Gherfal, who is a Canadian citizen living in Canada. Mr. Hagig’s cousin extended to him a written invitation (pursuant to Canadian law) stating, in pertinent part: “This letter shall serve as an invitation and certification that Zakaria Hagig, my cousin, will be visiting me in Montreal, Canada, from March 17-26, 2017, over Zakaria’s spring break from his studies. Zakaria is a full-time student (F-1 visa) at the Community College of Denver in Colorado, USA. Zakaria will be staying at my home for the duration of his stay. I am a Canadian citizen, and responsible for all of Zakaria’s expenses during his visit to Canada.” The letter of invitation, dated February 5, 2017, concluded with the following: “Please accept this letter as a formal invitation for Zakaria’s upcoming visit to Canada, returning to the United States.”
As a Muslim, Mr. Hagig travels to a mosque every Friday to worship and prays five times daily.
If Mr. Hagig were to leave the country, he would not be permitted to return to complete his studies. Mr. Hagig would be denied reentry on the basis of his national origin and
5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
religion. Moreover, pursuant to the Executive Order, Mr. Hagig will not be allowed to pursue a path to citizenship in the United States based solely on his religious status as a Muslim and his Libyan national origin. B. Defendants
Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity.
Defendant U.S. Department of State is a cabinet department of the United States federal government that is responsible for issuing visas.
Defendant The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet department of the United States federal government with the primary mission of securing the United States.
Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an agency within DHS with the primary mission of detecting and preventing unlawful entry of persons and goods into the United States.
Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of DHS. Secretary Kelly is responsible for DHS actions affecting Plaintiff and others similarly situated. He is sued in his official capacity.
Defendant Kevin McAleenan is the Acting Commissioner of CBP. Acting Commissioner McAleenan is responsible for CBP actions affecting Plaintiff and others similarly situated. He is sued in his official capacity.
Defendant LaShanda Jones is the Director of the Denver Office of CBP, which is responsible for CBP actions affecting Plaintiff and others similarly situated, including actions affecting those traveling into Denver International Airport. She is sued in her official capacity.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order
On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth President of the United States. During his campaign, he stated he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S.
On January 27, one week after his inauguration, President Trump signed the Executive Order. The Executive Order directs a series of changes to the manner in which noncitizens, including those already holding lawfully-issued visas, may seek and obtain entry to the United States.
In statements to the media, Mr. Trump made negative comments about Muslims and stated that his Executive Order would help Christian refugees enter the United States, in preference over Muslim refugees. Mr. Trump’s staff have also articulated to the public that the Executive Order grew out of Mr. Trump’s intention to ban Muslims from the United States.
Citing the threat of terrorism committed by foreign nationals, the Executive Order directs a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens – including green card holders, student visa holders, and refugees – may seek and obtain entry to the United States. The executive order singles out refugees and non-citizens from the Designated Countries for discrimination. All seven Designated Countries have a majority Muslim population.
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in Section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), i.e., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Executive Order
7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
“suspend[s] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order,” with narrow exceptions not relevant here.
Sections 5(a)-(b) of the Executive Order suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program in its entirety for 120 days and then, upon its resumption, direct the Secretary of State to prioritize refugees who claim religious-based persecution, “ provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.”
While the Executive Order states that it suspends any entry into the United States of immigrants and nonimmigrants from the Designated Countries for 90 days, at the conclusion of the first 60 days, the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of State will submit a list of countries for a permanent ban on entry.
The Executive Order prevents student visa-holders from traveling abroad for religious purposes, study, travel, or family unification. If a student from one of the Designated Countries studying in the United States were to leave the United States, that student would be barred from reentering the United States to continue his or her studies. If international students wish to continue their studies and retain their investment in their education, they cannot leave the United States. The Executive Order traps the international students from the Designated Countries in the United States for fear of losing their student visas and investment in their education.
While purporting to advance national security, the Executive Order is discriminatory and lacks a rational connection to national security, resulting in needless and irreparable harm to international students living and studying in this country.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
Mr. Hagig and those similarly situated have suffered and will continue to suffer on ongoing concrete harm since the initial announcement of the Executive Order’s condemnation of their religion and national origin and the endorsement of other religions, including Christians, over Muslims.
For the reasons set forth below, the Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter unlawfully deprive Plaintiff of his rights under the United States Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS Mr. Hagig brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons who are nationals of the Designated Countries who currently are, or recently have been, lawfully present in Colorado on student visas and who, but for the January 27, 2017, Executive Order, would be able to travel to the United States or leave and return to the United States. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. According to the Annual Report of the Visa Office, in 2015, the last year for which data are available, the United States issued approximately 85,000 immigrant and non-immigrant visas to nationals from the seven Designated Countries.1 Furthermore, according to the Association of Public and LandGrant Universities, more than 17,000 students from the Designated Countries studied at United States universities during the 2015–2016 academic year.
1 For these recent statistics, visit: https://travelstate.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual Reports/FY2015AnnualReport/FY15AnnualReport-TableXVIII.pdf (last accessed on February 1, 2017).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
On information and belief, a large number of such persons reside, or have recently resided, in Colorado. As one example, the University of Colorado Denver has 58 international students from the Designated Countries, including 27 from Libya, 17 from Iran, and 11 from Iraq. Furthermore, on information and belief, the University of Colorado Boulder has approximately 75 international students from the Designated Countries, and Colorado State University has at least 100 international students from the Designated Countries.
The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law, including but not limited to whether the Executive Order violates their associational, religious exercise, and due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of fact, including but not limited to whether the Executive Order is being or will be enforced so as to prevent them from entering the United States from abroad or from re-entering the United States should they choose to leave the United States briefly, even though they would otherwise be admitted.
The claims or defenses of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims or defenses of members of the Plaintiff Class.
The named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff class. The named Plaintiff has no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiff class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiff include experienced class action attorneys and are considered able practitioners in federal litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) (2).
Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE
FIRST AMENDMENT — ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 45. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from officially preferring one religion over another. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants and agents of the Defendants concerning their intent and application, are intended to disfavor Islam and favor Christianity. The Executive Order constitutes an unlawful attempt to discriminate against Muslims and to establish a preference for one religion over another. References in the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter to the seven Designated Countries are transparently a pretext for the underlying aim of establishing this preference.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
Mr. Hagig and the Plaintiff Class are Muslims and are directly harmed by the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter’s intended and implied discrimination against Muslims in violation of the First Amendment.
The Plaintiff Class continues to be harmed by this preference in that Defendants seek to disadvantage them, as compared to other religions, in the consideration and continuation of their status as lawfully entering, or being present in the United States.
Defendants’ violations cause ongoing harm to the Plaintiff Class. COUNT TWO
FIFTH AMENDMENT – EQUAL PROTECTION Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 51. Prior to the Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter, students from the Designated Countries were treated the same as other international students seeking entry or continued presence in the United States. In adopting the Executive Order and issuing the Provisional Revocation Letter, Defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against the Plaintiff Class on the basis of their religion. Under the Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter, Defendants have singled out students from the Designated Countries for disparate treatment based solely on their national origin and religion. Defendants singled out the Plaintiff Class for disparate treatment as compared to similarly situated individuals not from the Designated Countries. The Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter were based upon considerations unrelated to the Plaintiff Class members’ student visa applications. The Executive
12

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
Order and Provisional Revocation letter were based upon an intent to ban individuals from the Designated Countries on the basis of their national origin and religion.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from denying equal protection of the laws. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants concerning their intent and application, target individuals for discriminatory treatment based on their country of origin, and and/or religion, without sufficient justification.
Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order were substantially motivated by animus toward—and have a disparate effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The discriminatory terms and application of the Executive Order are arbitrary and cannot be sufficiently justified by federal interests.
The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs equal protection of the law by both treating the Plaintiffs differently as compared to other similarly situated international students and by singling out the Plaintiffs for disparate treatment based on their national origin and religion.
Defendants’ violations cause ongoing harm to the Plaintiff Class. COUNT THREE
FIFTH AMENDMENT — PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 59. Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts in a way that deprives individuals of liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
The United States government is obligated by international law and by U.S. law, including but not limited to the INA, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(13)(C), to fairly process for entry or reentry into the United States those persons who are lawful permanent residents, who have established a significant connection with the United States and continuously resided in the United States, or who have complied with all of the legal and procedural requirements for lawful entry into the United States.
Defendants have not offered those subject to the Executive Order the ability to contest the decision to bar them from reentry after having traveled abroad. Instead, the Defendants acted in great haste in an attempt to temporarily and permanently bar entry for those students from the Designated Countries on the basis of their national origin and religion.
Defendants’ actions, as described above, have denied the Plaintiff Class who are currently outside the United States the opportunity to re-enter the United States, and have denied Plaintiffs who currently lawfully reside in the United States the opportunity to travel outside the United States, for fear that they will be denied re-entry. Such actions, taken pursuant to the Executive Order, violate the procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Defendants’ violations cause ongoing harm to the Plaintiff Class. COUNT FOUR
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 65. The INA forbids discrimination in issuance of visas based on a person’s nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
14

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by Defendants and their agents concerning their intent and application, discriminate on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence in the issuance of visas, in violation of Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA.
Defendants’ violation of Section 1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA directly harmed the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs rely on their student visas to remain lawfully in the United States and to reenter the United States after traveling abroad.
The Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter’s exclusion of students from the Designated Countries, including the Plaintiffs, violates Section 1152(a)(1)(A).
Defendants’ violations cause ongoing harm to the Plaintiff Class. COUNT FIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 71. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2), places clear limits on the exercise of discretion to revoke a visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i). Specifically, the Secretary of State must comply with statutory procedures for the revocation of a visa; the Secretary’s action must not exceed his or her statutory authority; and the Secretary must respect the constitutional rights enjoyed by visa holders. In implementing Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, federal agencies have changed the substantive criteria by which individuals from affected countries may enter the United States. Federal agencies did not follow the procedures required by the APA before taking action impacting those substantive rights.
15

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19
The Provisional Revocation Letter is facially improper because it was issued on a blanket basis, without considering information related to the eligibility of any individual alien. Under 22 C. F. R. § 41.122(b)(2) and 22 C. F. R. § 41.82(b), a visa can only be provisionally revoked on the basis of a particularized finding that a visa holder is ineligible.
The Provisional Revocation Letter is also facially defective for lack of proper notice. Under 22 C. F. R. § 41.122(c) and 22 C. F. R. § 41.82(c), notice of provisional revocation must be given to the visa holder where practicable, unless otherwise instructed by the Department of State. There is no evidence of an instruction not to give notice, or that notice was not practicable.
Defendants’ actions as set forth above were arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, 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).
Defendants’ actions directly harmed Plaintiffs by virtue of their status as students from the Designated Countries.
Defendants’ violations cause ongoing harm to the Plaintiff Class. COUNT SIX
DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 79. The above allegations and claims constitute an actual case and controversy between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19
et seq., therefore authorizes the Court to enter declaratory relief against the Defendants on the above claims.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment that Defendants, in adopting Section 3(c), 5 (a)–(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order and in adopting the Provisional Revocation Letter, violated the Constitution and laws of the United States and violated the rights of the Plaintiffs as set forth above.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a speedy hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.
Defendants’ violations cause ongoing harm to the Plaintiff Class.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief: 1. A determination that this action may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2); 2. A declaration that Section 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, together with the Provisional Revocation Letter, are unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class members for the reasons set forth above; 3. A speedy hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 on the Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim; 4. A preliminary and permanent injunction barring any enforcement of Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c) and 5(e) of the Executive Order and barring any enforcement of the Provisional
17

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19

Revocation Letter against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class members in connection with their entry or

re-entry into the United States;

6. Award Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs as allowed by applicable law; and

7. Such other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.

Dated: February 10, 2017

By: /s/ Christopher H. Toll Christopher H. Toll 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Cir., Suite 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 290-1637 ctoll@hollandhart.com
Jessica J. Smith 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 295-8374 Facsimile: (303) 295-8261 jjsmith@hollandhart.com
HOLLAND & HART LLP
By: /s/ Alan Kennedy-Shaffer Alan Kennedy-Shaffer 1051 14th Street, Box 21101 Denver, CO 80202 (712) 433-5488 alan.kennedy-shaffer@aya.yale.edu

By: /s/ Morgan L. Carroll Morgan L. Carroll 1165 Ouray Street Aurora, CO 80011 (303) 726-1742 morganlcarroll@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 2/10/2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document, First Amended Class Action Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, with the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
alan.kennedy-shaffer@aya.yale.edu (representing Plaintiff) MorganLCarroll@gmail.com (representing Plaintiff) Briana.Yuh@usdoj.gov (representing Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
s/Dorina O’Toole Dorina O’Toole Holland & Hart LLP
9559291_1
19

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 27, 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 laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism -related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
A

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecuti on of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. 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.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(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 review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State 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 of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry int o the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C -2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, 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 applic ation forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), 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 such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and 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 admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would caus e undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) 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 Homeland Security 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. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. 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 all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. 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. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
(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 non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements 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 a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a 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 the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement 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 within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(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, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United 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, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 13-1 Filed 02/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. 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 pers on. DONALD J. TRUMP

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 17 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ
ZAKARIA HAGIG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and LASHANDA JONES, Denver Director, CBP,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Hagig”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, by undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for an expedited briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be due in one week, on Friday, February 24, 2017, and the reply be due the following Wednesday, March 1, 2017. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 17 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
1. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with Defendants’ counsel concerning this Motion. Defendants’ counsel opposes the relief requested herein.
2. The standard briefing schedule under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) takes five weeks to complete—21 days for the response and 14 additional days for the reply. Under that schedule, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction would not be ripe until March 24, 2017.
3. As explained in the Amended Complaint (dkt. no. 13) ¶ 16, Mr. Hagig plans to visit his family in Canada over his spring break, from March 17-26, 2017. Under the Executive Order as it stands, Mr. Hagig will not be permitted to re-enter the United States following that trip.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeks this Court to enjoin the application of the Executive Order to Mr. Hagig and others similarly situated until the final resolution of this case.
5. If Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is not ripe until March 24, 2017, Mr. Hagig will have to choose between visiting his family and finishing his education in the United States.
6. Mr. Hagig therefore requires an expedited briefing schedule to prevent Defendants from causing additional irreparable harm to Plaintiff while the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is pending.1
1 Other federal courts around the country are simultaneously addressing similar issues as those raised in the First Amended Complaint, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and this motion. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to stay enforcement of portions of the Executive Order nationwide. Because of the temporary nature of that decision and the uncertain future of the Executive Order (and any future attempts by the Government to issue similar executive orders), Plaintiffs nonetheless still seek the relief requested here.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 17 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
7. Plaintiff also respectfully requests that any hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be held as soon as the Court’s schedule permits.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order that the response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be due on Friday, February 24, 2017, and the reply be due on Wednesday, March 1, 2017.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of February, 2017.
By: /s/ Christopher H. Toll Christopher H. Toll 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Cir., Suite 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 290-1637 ctoll@hollandhart.com Jessica J. Smith 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 295-8374 Facsimile: (303) 295-8261 jjsmith@hollandhart.com HOLLAND & HART LLP
By: /s/ Alan Kennedy-Shaffer Alan Kennedy-Shaffer 1051 14th Street, Box 21101 Denver, CO 80202 (712) 433-5488 alan.kennedy-shaffer@aya.yale.edu
By: /s/ Morgan L. Carroll Morgan L. Carroll 1165 Ouray Street Aurora, CO 80011 (303) 726-1742 morganlcarroll@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 17 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 17, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document, Motion for Expedited Briefing, with the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
alan.kennedy-shaffer@aya.yale.edu (representing Plaintiff) MorganLCarroll@gmail.com (representing Plaintiff) Briana.Yuh@usdoj.gov (representing Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

9559291_1

s/ Christopher H. Toll Holland & Hart LLP

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ ZAKARIA HAGIG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  HOMELAND  SECURITY  (“DHS”);; U.S.  CUSTOMS  AND  BORDER  PROTECTION  (“CBP”);; JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and LASHANDA JONES, Denver Director, CBP,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, by undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Section 3(c) of the Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017.1
INTRODUCTION Section  3(c)  of  the  President’s  Executive  Order  entitled  “Protecting  the  Nation  from   Foreign Terrorist Entry  into  the  United  States”  (the  “Executive  Order”)  violates  the  Due  Process   Clause and Equal Protection principles of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Establishment
1 Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(a), counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for the Defendants regarding this motion. Defendants oppose the relief requested.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 17
Clause of the First Amendment. Absent preliminary injunctive relief, irreparable harm from the unconstitutional Executive Order will continue to afflict numerous Colorado residents who hail from the seven majority-Muslim countries in question, and to whom the Federal Government (the  “Government”),  after  thorough  vetting,  has  already  granted valid student visas (and accompanying spousal/family visas). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff seeks entry of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 3(c) of the Executive Order.2
STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 27, 2017, Defendant Donald Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting  the  Nation  from  Foreign  Terrorist  Entry  into  the  United  States”  (the  “Executive   Order,” attached as Exhibit A). Among other things, the Executive Order imposes a 120-day moratorium on the resettlement  of  refugees;;  proclaims  “that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees  is  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States,”  and  therefore  “suspend[s]”   indefinitely their entry to the country; and limits to 50,000 the number of refugees from all countries who may be admitted in fiscal year 2017 on the ground that admission of a greater number  of  refugees  would  be  “detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States.” Also on January 27, 2017, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services at the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State, relying on the authority of the Executive Order, summarily and provisionally revoked all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of
2 Other federal courts around the country are simultaneously addressing similar issues as those raised in the First Amended Complaint and this motion. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s  decision  to  stay  enforcement  of  portions of the Executive Order nationwide. See Appendix, Tab 11. Because of the temporary nature of that decision and the uncertain future of the Executive Order (and any future attempts by the Government to issue similar executive orders), Plaintiffs nonetheless still seek the relief requested here.
-2-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 17
seven  predominantly  Muslim  Countries  (the  “Designated  Countries”),  subject  to  exceptions  not   relevant  here  (the  “Provisional  Revocation  Letter”).  The  Designated  Countries  are  Iran,  Iraq,   Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Provisional Revocation letter ] threatens countless nationals of the Designated Countries who are currently in the United States or who reside in the United States but were traveling abroad when the letter was issued.3
The Executive Order and Provisional Revocation Letter included international students who had entered the United States or were planning to enter the United States to pursue a course of educational study on student visas. This includes the named Plaintiff, Mr. Zakaria Hagig. Mr. Hagig is a 24-year-old student of Libyan national origin who is Muslim. Mr. Hagig lawfully entered the United States on a student visa in October 2014, and he has remained here since then, studying business at Community College of Denver in Colorado.
Mr. Hagig currently plans to travel to Canada in March 2017 to visit his family. But since the Executive  Order  and  Provisional  Revocation  Letter,  Mr.  Hagig’s  ability  to  travel   internationally has been eliminated. Further, if he is not permitted to re-enter the United States because of the Executive Order and its implementation, he will be prevented from continuing his undergraduate studies. He would be denied reentry and his opportunity to study on the basis of his national origin and religion.
3 The  Government’s  various  press  releases  suggesting  that  the  Executive  Order  may or may not be enforced against lawful visa holders does not address the constitutional violations discussed below. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)  (“It  is  well  settled  that  a  defendant’s  voluntary  cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. If it did, the courts would  be  compelled  to  leave  the  defendant  .  .  .  free  to  return  to  his  old  ways.”)  (citations  and   quotation marks omitted).
-3-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 17
The stated justification for the Executive Order is national security, but in the various travel ban cases around the country the Defendants have proffered no evidence that the Executive Order furthers that goal. The evidence is exactly the opposite. See Declaration of Madeleine Albright et. al, included in the attached Appendix at Tab 5. (“We  view  the  Order  as  one  that   ultimately  undermines  the  national  security  of  the  United  States,  rather  than  making  us  safer.”) Further, the public record is replete with statements by the President and others that the true motivation of the Executive Order is to impermissibly disfavor one religious group as compared to others. See Exhibit B (compiling a list of web pages the Court can access that reflect the various public quotes other courts in travel ban cases have relied upon in finding discriminatory animus).
LEGAL STANDARD A preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy available within the discretion of the trial court. Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980). While it is an extraordinary remedy,  an  injunction  nevertheless  should  issue  when  the  right  to  relief  is  “clear  and   unequivocal.”  Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2001).  “The  burden  is  on  the  movant  to  make  a  prima facie showing of a probable right  to  the  ultimate  relief  and  a  probable  danger  of  injury  if  the  motion  is  denied.”  Big O Tires, Inc. v. Bigfoot 4X4, Inc., 167 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1221 (D. Colo. 2001). Whether Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief requires consideration of the following  factors:  “(1)  a  likelihood  of  success  on  the  merits;;  (2)  a  likelihood  that  the  movant  will   suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the  movant’s  favor;;  and  (4)  that  the  injunction  is  in  the  public  interest.”  RoDa Drilling Co., et al.
-4-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 17
v. Siegal, et al., 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also Haggard v. Spine, No. 09-cv-00721, 2009 WL 1655030, at *13 (D. Colo. June 12, 2009). Plaintiff satisfies each of these elements, warranting the imposition of preliminary injunctive relief.
ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.
Plaintiff has pleaded a number of reasons why the Executive Order is invalid. See Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 46–84 (alleging six different claims for relief). For purposes of the present motion, Plaintiff focuses on three claims: that Section 3(c) violates (1) the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause; (2) the Equal Protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause; and (3) the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of one or more of these claims.
A. The Denial Of Re-Entry To And De Facto Travel Ban On Visa Holders Violates Their Due Process Rights Under the Fifth Amendment.
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order denies entry and re-entry to Plaintiffs studying in the United States on student visas. Under the Executive Order, Plaintiffs travelling abroad will be deported if they attempt to re-enter the United States, and those who remain will be forced to refrain from international travel to avoid that devastating result. This draconian restriction violates the due process rights of those individuals.
Student Visa Holders Are Protected By The Fifth Amendment. Student visa holders have property interests protected by the Due Process Clause. The Fifth Amendment protects all persons who have entered the United States  “from  deprivation  of   life, liberty, or property  without  due  process  of  law.”  Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 69, 77
-5-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 17
(1976). This protection applies to all persons within our borders, regardless of immigration status. Id.  (“Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.”);;  Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001); see also de la Llana-Castellon v. I.N.S., 16 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 1994).
Like lawful permanent residents, visa holders have routinely relied on and built their lives around a legal status the United States has accorded them. Those extensive reliance interests demonstrate  that  visa  holders  have  a  “legitimate  claim  of  entitlement  to,”  as opposed to  “a   unilateral  expectation  of,”  their  visa  status.  Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576–77 (1972).  As  the  Supreme  Court  recently  observed,  “[b]efore  issuing  a  visa,  the   consular office must ensure the alien is not inadmissible under any provision  of  the  INA.”  Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) (emphasis added). The award of such a visa after complying with that drawn-out vetting process entitles the recipient to present himself for entry to the United  States,  and  surely  “secure[s]  certain  benefits and . . . support[s] claims of entitlement to those  benefits.”  Roth, 408 U.S. at 577.
Mr. Hagig is a current Colorado resident who lives, works, and attends school in Colorado under a lawfully-issued visa. Plaintiff and the Class therefore have a constitutionally protected property and liberty interest in not having their approved visas arbitrarily revoked based on their national origin and religion.
The Executive Order violates the Plaintiffs’ due process rights by both denying them entry and precluding them from traveling outside the United States. The Executive Order infringes on multiple protected liberty interests enjoyed by visa holders, most relevant here being the right to travel.
-6-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 17
The Supreme Court has made clear  that  due  process  “is  a flexible concept that varies with the  particular  situation.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990). Courts apply the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to determine what the Constitution requires in each case:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s  interest,  including  the  function  involved  and  the   fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). First,  the  Executive  Order’s  effective trapping of Plaintiffs here in the United States violates  due  process.  A  “temporary  absence from our  shores”  does  not  deprive  Plaintiffs  of their right to due process. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 213 (1953) (citing Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 601 (1953) (holding that denial of re-entry to legal permanent resident must comport with due process where resident had spent four months abroad)); Ricketts v. Simonse, No. 16 CIV. 6662 (LGS), 2016 WL 7335675, at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (legal permanent resident who had spent a few weeks abroad and was caught with drugs upon re-entry  entitled  to  due  process).  “[N]oncitizens,  even  those  charged  with  entering   the country illegally, are entitled to due process when threatened  with  deportation[.]”  de la Llana-Castellon,  16  F.3d  at  1096.  Specifically,  “[t]he  fundamental  requirement  of  due  process  is   the  opportunity  to  be  heard  at  a  meaningful  time  and  in  a  meaningful  manner.”  Id. By denying international students the ability to leave and return, the Executive Order also impermissibly infringes on their right to travel, which is a well-established constitutionally protected liberty interest. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958) (holding that Secretary of
-7-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 17
State could not deny passports to Communists on the basis that right to travel abroad is a constitutionally  protected  liberty  interest).  The  right  to  travel  “may  be  as  close  to  the  heart  of  the   individual  as  the  choice  of  what  he  eats,  or  wears,  or  reads,”  and  is  “basic  in  our scheme of values.”  Id. at 126; see also Haig v. Agee,  453  U.S.  280,  307  (1981)  (“the  ‘right’  of  international   travel  [is]  an  aspect  of  the  ‘liberty’  protected  by  the  Due  Process  Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”).  Additionally, the  Executive  Order’s  arbitrary  deprivation  of  the  students’  legal   status implicates the right to pursue employment and education. See Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 353 U.S. 232, 238–39  (1957)  (“A  state  cannot  exclude  a  person  from  the  practice  of   law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal  Protection  Clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.”);;  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). And for students with family abroad, the de facto travel ban also denies the right to connect  with  their  families,  “a  right  that  ranks  high  among  the  interests  of  the  individual.”   Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982). Section 3(c) directly infringes those rights and liberty interests.
The Executive Order provides no process for the deprivation of Plaintiffs due process rights. The Executive Order plainly provides no individualized process, let alone process that meets the Mathews v. Eldridge test, for providing Plaintiffs their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Considering  “the  interest  at  stake  for  the  individual,  the  risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used as well as the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards, and the interest of the government in using the current procedures  rather  than  additional  or  different  procedures,”  Landon, 459 U.S. at 34. Blanket exclusions based on national origin cannot pass muster.
-8-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 17
Residents currently present in Colorado based on a student visa must be given the opportunity to dispute the characterization that they personally pose a national security risk (a determination Defendants have made based on national origin). Those Colorado residents are entitled to an individualized, pre-deprivation hearing. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972)  (“The  right  to  a  prior  hearing  has  long  been  recognized  by  this  Court . . . . [T]he Court has traditionally insisted that, whatever its form, opportunity for that hearing must be provided before  the  deprivation  at  issue  takes  effect.”);;  see also Kerry, 135 S. Ct. at 2144 (Breyer, J., dissenting)  (“These  procedural  protections  help  to  guarantee  that  government  will  not  make  a   decision directly affecting an individual arbitrarily but will do so through the reasoned application  of  a  rule  of  law.”). Section 3(c) denies procedural due process by telling Colorado residents who come from the majority-Muslim countries that the Government will not readmit them if they leave the United States. But visa holders have extensive reliance interests premised on the knowledge that their visas will continue to be recognized and not arbitrarily canceled.
It would be fundamentally unfair and discriminatory to permit the Defendants to summarily  revoke  an  individual’s  legal  right  to  be  in  the  United  States  for  no  reason  other  than   that they were born or naturalized in, or traveled through, a majority-Muslim country. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 344 n.30 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (discussing Korematsu v. United States,  323  U.S.  214  (1944),  and  the  decision  to  uphold  “the  exclusion  from  particular   ‘military  areas’  .  .  .  all  persons  of  Japanese  ancestry  without  a  determination  as  to  whether  any   particular individual actually  posed  a  threat  of  sabotage  or  espionage”). This bar on departure or re-entry  by  international  students  without  “proceedings  conforming  to  .  .  .  due  process  of  law”  is   patently unconstitutional, Shaughnessy, 345 U.S. at 212, and the Plaintiffs are therefore likely to
-9-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17
succeed on the merits of their due process claim. 4. The Executive Order Violates the Equal Protection Component of the Fifth Amendment The Supreme Court has made clear that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause also
has  an  “equal  protection  component,”  and  noncitizens  come within the ambit of that Clause. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 297 (1980); see also Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 874 (1985) (Marshall,  J.,  dissenting).  Under  standard  Equal  Protection  jurisprudence,  “classifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial  scrutiny.”  Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371–72 (1971). The blanket assumption—that Colorado residents from the seven majority-Muslim countries pose some sort of terror threat—is a form of religious bigotry that cannot possibly survive strict scrutiny.
But  even  if  the  Court  were  to  apply  lesser  scrutiny  in  consideration  of  the  Government’s   plenary control over immigration, the result would be the same. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001). Where governmental action is principally motivated by animus towards a religious group, the action denies equal protection of the law. See, e.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct.  2675,  2693  (2013)  (“In  determining  whether  a  law  is  motivated  by  an  improper   animus  or  purpose,  ‘[d]iscriminations  of  an  unusual  character’  especially  require  careful   consideration.”)  (citation  omitted);;  Romer v. Evans,  517  U.S.  620,  632  (1996)  (“[I]ts  sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus towards the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship with legitimate state  interests.”).  As  the  Court  recently  said  in  Windsor,  “[t]he  Constitution’s  guarantee  of   equality ‘must  at  the  very  least  mean  that  a  bare  congressional  desire  to  harm  a  politically   unpopular group  cannot’  justify  disparate  treatment  of  that  group.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693.
-10-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 17
Just as Windsor and Romer invalidated laws based on animus towards gay people, even under the rational-basis tests the religious animus here cannot be justified either. As other courts have found, the public record clarifies that religious animus motivates the Executive Order. See Exhibit B (collection of public statements); see, e.g., Appendix at Tab 8 (order from Judge Brinkema of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia).
B. The Executive Order Violates The Establishment Clause By Discriminating Against Visa Holders On the Basis of Their Religion.
Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on their Establishment Clause challenge because the Executive Order plainly discriminates against visa-holders on the basis of religion. As the Supreme Court explained in Larson v. Valente,  “[t]he  clearest  command  of  the  Establishment   Clause is that one religious denomination  cannot  be  officially  preferred  over  another.”  456  U.S.   228, 244 (1982). “The  State  may  not  adopt  programs  or  practices  .  .  .  which  aid  or  oppose  any   religion . . . . This prohibition is  absolute.”  Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1127 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Larson, 456 U.S. at 246); see also Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 728 (1994) (Kennedy, J.,  concurring)  (“[T]he  Establishment  Clause  forbids  the   government to use religion as a line drawing criterion. . . . Just as the government may not segregate people on account of their race, so too  it  may  not  segregate  on  the  basis  of  religion.”).   Where  a  “law  grant[s]  a  denominational  preference,”  the Court  “treat[s]  the  law  as  suspect  and   [applies]  strict  scrutiny  in  adjudging  its  constitutionality.”  Larson, 456 U.S. at 246; see also Lynch v. Donnelly,  465  U.S.  668,  694  (1984)  (O’Connor,  J.,  concurring).
Here,  “[t]o  survive  strict  scrutiny  under  Larson, [Defendants] must show (1) a compelling government  interest,  and  (2)  that  the  [Executive  Order]  is  ‘closely  fitted’  to  that  compelling   interest.” Awad, 670 F.3d at 1129 (“Strict  scrutiny  is  required  when  laws  discriminate  among  
-11-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 17
religions because [n]eutral treatment of religions [is] the clearest command of the Establishment Clause.”).  The Executive Order fails this test.
First, the two purposes listed in the Order are (1) national security, and (2) to reduce “investigative  burdens  on  relevant  agencies”  during  visa-adjudication review process. See Exhibit A at § 3(c). However, no post-hoc excuse the Government might now offer can justify what operates  as  a  Muslim  ban.  With  respect  to  national  security,  there  is  a  “near-absence of terror  attacks”  perpetrated  by  lawful  permanent  residents  or  visa  holders  from  Iran,  Iraq,  Syria,   Libya, Somalia, Yemen, or Sudan in the United States.4 Thus, it is a vast overreach to claim that all members of those majority-Muslim countries pose national security risks, let alone Colorado residents with  strong  ties  to  Colorado.  With  respect  to  the  “investigative  burdens  on  relevant   agencies,”  there  is  no  reason  to  believe visa applications from 7 countries will overwhelm the Executive branch. The Executive Order is not justified by a compelling government interest.
Second, even assuming the Executive Order had a compelling government interest, banning all individuals from seven countries from the United States plainly is not narrowly tailored to either purpose. Even if there were a risk to national security and administrative burdens, neither of those exist for the Plaintiffs who have already been vetted and already gone through the administrative process. And limiting the order to seven countries—as a pretense to survive legal challenge—cannot purge the unconstitutional motive. Courts look for unconstitutional motive in history and context of a challenged law. E.g., Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. 290, 309 (2000) (examining  “evolution”  and  history”  of  high  school  football   prayer policy to conclude that it promoted religion); McCreary, 545 U.S. 844, 857 (2005) 4 Elise Labott, Over 900 US career diplomats protest Trump order, CNN, January 31, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/career-diplomats-dissent-memo/.
-12-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 17
(rejecting changes to Ten Commandments display to cover up initial religious motivation). In short, the intent of the Executive Order is to discriminate against persons from Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan on the basis that they are more likely to be Muslim. Because the Executive Order was motivated by animus to a particular religious group, the Order is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. II. Plaintiffs Are Suffering Ongoing Irreparable Harm
Members of the Plaintiff Class are suffering immediate and irreparable constitutional harm.  Irreparable  injury  is  established  “when  the  court  would  be  unable  to  grant  an  effective   monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be inadequate or difficult to ascertain.”  Dominion Video, 269 F.3d at 1156.  “When  an  alleged  constitutional  right  is  involved,   most  courts  hold  that  no  further  showing  of  irreparable  injury  is  necessary.”  Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710, 752 (10th Cir. 2016). As  to  Establishment  Clause  specifically,  “[t]he  Supreme  Court   has  explained  that  ‘loss  of  First  Amendment  freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably  constitutes  irreparable  injury[.]’”  Id. (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 374 & n.29 (1976)).
As long as § 3(c) of the Executive Order remains in effect, the Government denies Colorado residents their fundamental due process rights and subjects them to arbitrary detention, exclusion, and expulsion from the country. Students currently present in the United States are effectively barred from leaving no matter the circumstances—like going home in the event of a family  member’s  illness  or  death—under penalty of being denied reentry. These injuries are happening now and are not fanciful or speculative. This factor weighs heavily in favor of granting a preliminary injunction.
-13-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 17
III. The  Balance  of  the  Equities  Weighs  Strongly  in  Plaintiffs’  Favor.   The balance of equities plainly weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Any benefit to
enforcing a legal  action  that  “is  likely  unconstitutional”  does  “not  outweigh  [Mr.  Hagig’s]   interest in having  his  constitutional  rights  protected.”  Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131–32. Additionally, “delayed  implementation  of  a  governmental  measure  that  does  not  appear  to  address  any   immediate problem with generally not cause material harm, even if the measure were eventually found  to  be  constitutional  and  enforceable.”  Verlo v. Martinez, 820 F.3d 1113, 1127 (10th Cir. 2016) (citing Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131).
Because Plaintiff is likely to succeed in its challenges to the Executive Order, Defendants cannot claim to be harmed by being forced to stop their illegal actions. Even further, enjoining Section  3(c)  as  applied  to  Colorado  residents  cannot  somehow  threaten  the  Government’s   legitimate security interests. These visa holders who reside in Colorado have already been vetted and approved for travel to the United States. If any particular person poses a security risk, existing law amply allows the Government to take protective action. Thus, the balance of the equities  weighs  in  favor  of  granting  Plaintiffs’  request  for  injunctive  relief. IV. The Public Interest Will Be Served by Granting Injunctive Relief.
Here, the public interest is served by preventing the Defendants from enforcing the Executive Order. Indeed,  the  Defendants’  violation  of  Constitutional  and  federal  law  “invokes  a   public interest of the highest order: the interest in having government officials act in accordance with law.”  Hackwell v. United States, No. 04-cv-00827, 2008 WL 2900933, at *6 (D. Colo. July 23,  2008)  (citation  omitted).  In  addition,  “it  is  always  in  the  public  interest  to  prevent  the   violation  of  a  party’s  constitutional  rights.”  Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114,
-14-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 17

1145 (10th Cir. 2013); see also Verlo, 820 F.3d at 1127; Awad, 670 F.3d at 1132. V. A Bond Is Not Necessary.
Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 67.1 requires the movant to post a bond,  the  district  court  has  “wide  discretion”  as  to  the  amount  of  any  bond.  Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 2002). Absent harm to a defendant, the Court may determine that no bond is required. See, e.g., Xantrex Technology, Inc. v. Advanced Energy Indus., Inc., No. 07-cv-02324, 2008 WL 2185882, at *22 (D. Colo. 2008) (“Because . . . Defendants  will  not  suffer  any  harm  as  the  result  of  the  injunction,  there  is  no  need  for  a  bond”).  
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons,  Plaintiffs  respectfully  request  that  the  Court  grant  Plaintiffs’   Motion for Preliminary Injunction and enjoin the Defendants from enforcing Section 3(c) of the Executive Order. Dated February 17, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/  Christopher  H.  Toll Christopher H. Toll 8390 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite 400 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 290-1067 ctoll@hollandhart.com
Jessica J. Smith 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 295-8000 Facsimile: (303) 295-8261 jjsmith@hollandhart.com
HOLLAND  &  HART  LLP
-15-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 17
By: /s/  Alan  Kennedy-Shaffer Alan Kennedy-Shaffer 1051 14th Street, Box 21101 Denver, CO 80202 (712) 433-5488 alan.kennedy-shaffer@aya.yale.edu
By: /s/  Morgan  L.  Carroll Morgan L. Carroll 1165 Ouray Street Aurora, CO 80011 (303) 726-1742 morganlcarroll@gmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
-16-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 17, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado using the CM/ECF system, which sent a Notice of Electronic filing to the attorneys of record for the parties.

9559353_7

s/Christopher H. Toll Christopher H. Toll ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

-17-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 79

$33(1',;



7DUHT$THO0RKDPPHG$]L]HWDOY'RQDOG7UXPSHWDO&DVH1RFY/0%7&%

(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI9LUJLQLD



7$% '$7(

'(6&5,37,21

     

%ULHILQ6XSSRUWRI7KH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLD¶V0RWLRQIRU 3UHOLPLQDU\,QMXQFWLRQ>@ 'HFODUDWLRQRI:7D\ORU5HYHOH\,,,>@

  

'HFODUDWLRQRI1DMZD(O\D]JL6WXGHQWIRU0RWLRQIRU3,>@

  

'HFODUDWLRQRI7DUHT$THO0RKDPPHG$]L]>@IRU3,

     

-RLQW'HFODUDWLRQRI0DGHOHLQH$OEULJKW$YULO+DLQHV0LFKDHO+D\GHQ -RKQ.HUU\-RKQ0F/DXJKOLQ/LVD0RQDFR0LFKDHO0RUUHOO-DQHW 1DSROLWDQR/HRQ3DQHWWDDQG6XVDQ5LFH>@ 'HFODUDWLRQRI0DPRRQD6LGGLTXL,623,>@

   0HPRUDQGXP2SLQLRQ*UDQWLQJ3,>@

   3UHOLPLQDU\,QMXQFWLRQ2UGHU>@



6WDWHRI:DVKLQJWRQDQG6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWDY'RQDOG7UXPSHWDO&DVH1RFY

-/5

:HVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI:DVKLQJWRQ



7$% '$7(

'(6&5,37,21

  

7HPSRUDU\5HVWUDLQLQJ2UGHU>@

 

'HIHQGDQWV¶1RWLFHRI$SSHDO>@







6WDWHRI:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWDY'RQDOG7UXPSHWDO&DVH1R

&RXUWRI$SSHDOVIRUWKH1LQWK&LUFXLW



7$% '$7(

'(6&5,37,21

  WK&LUFXLW2UGHU2Q0RWLRQ)RU6WD\>@

 
B

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 27 PageID# 173

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, et al.,

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

)

)

Intervenor-Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United

)

States, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-116

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Mark R. Herring Attorney General of Virginia
Trevor S. Cox (VSB No. 78396) Deputy Solicitor General tcox@oag.state.va.us
Matthew R. McGuire (VSB No. 84194) Assistant Attorney General mmcguire@oag.state.va.us

Stuart A. Raphael (VSB No. 30380) Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-7240 – Telephone (804) 371-0200 – Facsimile sraphael@oag.state.va.us
Counsel for Commonwealth of Virginia

February 2, 2017

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 27 PageID# 174
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 5 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5 I. The Commonwealth is likely to prevail on the merits.........................................................5
A. The detention, summary removal, and travel ban imposed on lawful permanent residents and visa holders violate their due process rights. ...................6 1. Lawful permanent residents have a property interest in their status that is protected by the Fifth Amendment................................................... 6 2. Visa holders likewise have a property interest in their status that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. ............................................................ 8 3. The Executive Order also impairs the fundamental liberty interests of lawful permanent residents and visa holders. ........................................... 10 4. The Executive Order affords no process to individuals detained under the Order. ........................................................................................ 12
B. The Executive Order was motived by animus towards Muslims and therefore violates the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection aspects of the Due Process Clause. ........................................................................16
II. The Commonwealth, its residents, and its public universities are suffering ongoing irreparable harm. ..................................................................................................21
III. The balance of equities weighs in favor of granting the injunction...................................22 IV. The public interest strongly favors the injunction. ............................................................23 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 25
ii

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 27 PageID# 175
INTRODUCTION The Commonwealth of Virginia respectfully requests that this Court enter a preliminary injunction barring Respondents from enforcing Section 3(c) of last week’s Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). Section 3(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Absent preliminary injunctive relief, irreparable harm will continue to afflict numerous Virginia residents who hail from the seven majority-Muslim countries in question, and to whom the Federal Government (the “Government”), after thorough vetting, has already granted lawful-permanent-resident (“LPR” or “green card”) status or valid student or work visas (and accompanying spousal/family visas). The balance of equities weighs decidedly in favor of a preliminary injunction because the Virginia residents to whom the ban now applies have already been thoroughly vetted by the United States as a condition of earning their green cards or visa status, and any security concern the Government might have as to particular Virginia residents may be addressed on an individualized basis under existing law. The public interest additionally favors granting the preliminary injunction to protect the constitutional rights of Virginia’s lawful immigrant and nonimmigrant residents, as well as to mitigate the major disruption that Section 3(c) is causing to Virginia’s colleges and universities.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Respondents have applied the Executive Order to individuals with lawful permanent resident status, to persons with valid student and work visas, and to individuals who would seek asylum in the United States.1 Section 3(c) of the Executive Order provides, in pertinent part:
1 In addition, § 5 of the January 27 Executive Order suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, indefinitely bars the admission of Syrian refugees, caps the number of
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 27 PageID# 176
(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 of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).2
Section 3(c) effectively bans anyone from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and
Somalia from entering the United States for the next 90 days unless they are U.S. citizens or
“foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2
visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas.” Section 3(c) thus bars,
from those countries, lawful permanent residents and persons possessing valid visas entitling
them to reside in the United States, such as work and student visas (e.g., B-1, H-1B, L-1, O, F-1,
F-2, J-1), and their family members traveling on authorized visas (e.g., B-2, J-2, F-2).
Many of the relevant facts were laid out in the Commonwealth’s brief in support of its
motion to intervene (ECF No. 15) and its show-cause motion (ECF No. 19). Filed in support of
this brief is a declaration from W. Taylor Reveley, III, President of the College of William &
Mary and the Chair of Virginia’s Council of Presidents. We previously filed a declaration by
Congressman Donald S. Beyer, Jr., who represents Virginia’s 8th congressional district in the
United States House of Representatives. (ECF No. 20.)
refugees at 50,000 for 2017, and allows for “case-by-case” exceptions such as “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.” 2 ECF No. 7-1.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 27 PageID# 177
In his declaration, President Reveley describes the disruption that § 3(c) has caused to students and faculty at Virginia’s colleges and universities, including the plight of students who have left the country and now cannot return, and students who are here now but cannot leave because they will not be readmitted.3 He describes the disruption to those schools’ operations as a result of § 3(c)’s restrictions on faculty members who reside in Virginia with LPR or work visas but who come from the seven majority-Muslim countries at issue.4 He also discusses the injury to Virginia’s economy that will be suffered as a result of restricting access by foreign students, describing the financial advantage “that foreign students bring to our local and State economies, not just during their periods of study but after graduation.”5
In his declaration, Congressman Beyer details his experience at Washington-Dulles International Airport (“Dulles”) on January 29, 2017 and the chaos that resulted from the sudden announcement and immediate implementation of the Executive Order.6 Congressman Beyer describes how, despite the Temporary Restraining Order (the “TRO”) issued by this Court the previous evening (ECF No. 3), “[a]ttorney after attorney complained . . . that [Respondents] would not allow them access to the holding rooms where travelers may have been detained,” and that “to [his] knowledge, not a single attorney was permitted access to any detained traveler.”7 Based on Respondents’ conduct, Congressman Beyer “concluded (and characterized to others) that [Respondents’] continued enforcement of the Executive Order amounted to a constitutional crisis: four members of Congress asked [Respondents] to enforce a federal court order, and we
3 Reveley Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. 4 Id. ¶¶ 8-12. 5 Id. ¶ 13. 6 Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 5-9 (ECF No. 20). 7 Id. ¶ 7.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 27 PageID# 178
were all turned away.”8 That already strong evidence that Respondent Customs & Border Protection (CBP)
willfully disobeyed this Court’s TRO on attorney-access was amplified by information counsel just learned today from Edward Grass, a pro bono attorney who was present at the International Arrival area at Dulles last Saturday night. (ECF No. 30.) His first-hand account shows that Respondent Biondi, the CBP Port Director at Dulles, had physical possession of the TRO by no later than 10:44 p.m. and communicated through Brian Leuck (the Vice President and Airport Manager at Dulles) that CBP “will not comply to allow any access.”9
The Commonwealth has attempted unsuccessfully to discover the full adverse impact of § 3(c) on Virginia residents but has been hampered by the Government’s refusal to cooperate and apparent disobedience of the TRO. Last Sunday, the Attorney General of Virginia sent a letter to CBP seeking the identities of Virginia residents with green cards or student or work visas who were removed from the United States. (ECF No. 19-1.) The Government has not responded. In addition, Respondents’ apparent refusal to permit detainees access to counsel, as required by the Court’s TRO, has restricted the flow of important information to the Commonwealth. (We addressed that problem in the brief in support of our show-cause motion, ECF No. 19.)
Even without the benefit of full information from the Government, it is clear that § 3(c) is inflicting irreparable harm right now on Virginia residents. In addition to the disruption to specific students and faculty members we currently know about (on the fourth business day after the Executive Order was issued), reports arrive daily of others whose lives have been thrown into turmoil. As President Reveley put it: “Daily we discover ways, large and small, in which the
8 Id. ¶ 9. 9 Grass Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 ¶ 37 (ECF No. 30).
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 27 PageID# 179
Executive Order is disrupting our operations.”10 Congressman Beyer also describes one affected Virginia resident: “a constituent who is in a coma” with a “Sudanese mother . . . [who] was recently granted a visa to visit him in intensive care” but “was prevented from boarding her plane in Dubai to make that trip.”11
STANDARD OF REVIEW To obtain a preliminary injunction, the Commonwealth must show that it (1) “is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) “is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.”12 The court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.13
ARGUMENT I. The Commonwealth is likely to prevail on the merits.
Petitioners have pleaded a number of reasons why the Executive Order is invalid.14 In addition, the Commonwealth has filed a Complaint in Intervention (ECF No. 22) that includes most of those theories but focuses particularly on the irreparable injury that § 3(c) is inflicting on the Commonwealth, its public colleges and universities, and its residents (many of whom, of course, travel through Dulles).
In light of the exigencies giving rise to this motion, however, we focus here on perhaps the two clearest reasons why § 3(c) is illegal: it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
10 Reveley Decl. ¶ 16. 11 Beyer Decl. ¶ 11 (ECF No. 20). 12 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 13 Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184, 192 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Doran v. Salem Inn., Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 934 (1975)). 14 Am. Pet. ¶¶ 72-104 (ECF No. 7).
5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 27 PageID# 180
Amendment (Count I) and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Count II). A. The detention, summary removal, and travel ban imposed on lawful permanent residents and visa holders violate their due process rights. The Executive Order violates the due process rights of the hundreds of Virginia residents
who are lawful permanent residents and visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. Many of the individuals who are being excluded, or who will be excluded upon their return if they leave the United States, are long-term Virginia residents. They include university professors, students, business owners, employees of business owners, and their family members. The ban imposed by § 3(c) of the Executive Order, as amply demonstrated by the events over the weekend of January 28, arbitrarily strips these individuals of their legal right to be in the United States, denying any process whatsoever.15 The Fifth Amendment demands more. “There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment . . . protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”16
1. Lawful permanent residents have a property interest in their status that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
It is beyond debate that lawful permanent residents have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause.17 In Landon v. Plasencia, the Supreme Court held that lawful permanent residents have due process rights even if they have been absent and are in the process
15 See Am. Pet. ¶¶ 2-9 (ECF No. 7). See also Beyer Decl. ¶ 11 (ECF No. 20). 16 Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) (emphasis added). 17 Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-34 (1982) (“[T]he United States has conceded that [a lawful permanent resident] has a right to due process . . . .”).
6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 27 PageID# 181
of returning to the United States.18 Landon explains that, if the government seeks to eliminate a person’s status, each person’s claim must be assessed at “a fair hearing” on its own merits.19 Although due process claims will be stronger for residents who previously have “gain[ed] admission to our country and beg[an] to develop the ties that go with permanent residence,”20 every lawful permanent resident has a legally protected interest in that status.
The Court further explained that the ties and reliance interests that lawful permanent residents form with their communities are a “weighty” component in the due process analysis.21 The Court specifically pointed to the person’s “right ‘to stay and live and work in this land of freedom’” and “the right to rejoin her immediate family.”22 Given these important interests, “the courts must evaluate the particular circumstances [of the individual] and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”23 As shown below, § 3(c) deprives Virginia residents of those property and liberty interests without any process at all, simply because they have come to the United States from one of the seven majority-Muslim countries at issue.
18 Id. at 33 (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (citing Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). 19 Id. at 32-33. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 34. 22 Id. (citing Bridges v. Wilson, 326 U.S. 135, 154 (1945), and Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 503-04 (1977)). 23 Id. at 35.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 27 PageID# 182
2. Visa holders likewise have a property interest in their status that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Visa holders likewise have property interests protected by the Due Process Clause.24 To
be sure, courts have not often grappled with whether a property interest is created when a person
has successfully negotiated the lengthy visa application process and in fact been awarded a visa,
immigrated to the United States, and participated as a member of American society. But the
Supreme Court has instructed that property interests “may take many forms,” and that the
protection attaches as “a safeguard of the security interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits.”25 “It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined.”26
In that light, visa holders’ claim to a property interest is similar to that of lawful
permanent residents. Like lawful permanent residents, visa holders have routinely relied on and built their lives around a legal status accorded them by the United States.27 Those extensive
reliance interests demonstrate that visa holders have a “legitimate claim of entitlement to,” as opposed to “a unilateral expectation of,” their visa status.28 Although various courts have found that visa applicants do not have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause,29 those
cases are all inapplicable here. This case involves current Virginia residents who live, work, and
24 Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 62 F. Supp. 3d 909, 920 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“A visa is permission for an alien, also known as a foreign national, to approach the borders of the United States and ask to enter.”). 25 Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576 (1972). 26 Id. 27 See, e.g., Univ. of Va., Curry Sch. Of Educ., Faiza Jamil Works to Support Teachers, Becomes U.S. Citizen (May 14, 2013) (describing how Faiza Jamil started as a student from Kuwait at an American university before eventually becoming a nationalized citizen), https://goo.gl/KjZSSF. 28 Roth, 408 U.S. at 577. 29 See, e.g., Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2133 (2015) (no due process right for an individual whose visa application was denied).
8

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 27 PageID# 183
attend school in Virginia under lawfully issued visas. These individuals plainly have a
constitutionally protected property and liberty interest in not having their approved visa
arbitrarily revoked based on their national origin.
What is more, the duration and extensiveness of the visa application process further
shows that individuals have a property interest in their visa once it is granted. In Ibrahim v.
Department of Homeland Security, the court summarized the extensive vetting that is part of that
cumbersome process:
First, the alien applies for a visa by submitting a visa application to a consular officer. The consular officer then evaluates whether the individual is eligible for a visa and what type of visa he or she may be eligible to receive. Second, the applicant makes an appointment for a visa interview with a consular officer at the United States embassy or a consulate abroad. Consular officers are employees of the Department of State who are authorized to adjudicate visa applications overseas. Third, an interview is conducted. Fourth, after the interview, the consular officer grants or denies the application.30
Congressman Beyer became personally familiar with the vetting process for visa applicants based on his service as the United States ambassador to Switzerland from 2009-2013.31 He
explains that “visa applicants from a Middle Eastern country are subjected to extensive research, often requiring six months to a year to complete.”32
As the Supreme Court recently observed, “[b]efore issuing a visa, the consular office must ensure the alien is not inadmissible under any provision of the INA.”33 The award of such
a visa after complying with that drawn-out vetting process entitles the recipient to present
himself for entry to the United States, and surely “secure[s] certain benefits and . . . support[s] 30 62 F. Supp. 3d at 920. 31 Beyer Decl. ¶ 2 (ECF No. 20). 32 Id. 33 Kerry, 135 S. Ct. at 2131 (emphasis added).
9

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 12 of 27 PageID# 184
claims of entitlement to those benefits.”34
Congress has recognized as much, affording persons arriving at the border but deemed
inadmissible the right to specific, extensive hearing procedures under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.35 They
cannot be summarily sent away. Section 3 cuts the legs out of those procedural-due-process
protections, however. It bars valid visa holders from now boarding a plane to the United States
and intimidates Virginia residents who come from those majority-Muslim countries by telling
them that the Government will not readmit them if they leave this country.
3. The Executive Order also impairs the fundamental liberty interests of lawful permanent residents and visa holders.
The Executive Order also infringes on other protected liberty interests enjoyed by lawful
permanent residents and visa holders. The Supreme Court has made clear that due process “is a
flexible concept that varies with the particular situation.”36 Courts apply the Mathews v.
34 Roth, 408 U.S. at 577. Like with lawful permanent residents, the scope of process due to these individuals will depend on a variety of factors such as the length of their continuous residency in the United States under a valid visa, the presence of their family, and whether they have lawful employment. 35 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3) (“Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States . . . .”). See Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 373 (2005) (“An alien arriving in the United States must be inspected by an immigration official, and, unless he is found ‘clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,’ must generally undergo removal proceedings to determine admissibility.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). To the extent Respondents claim that 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(i) would provide sufficient process, that is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions cited by that regulation and with the Fifth Amendment. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(i) (applying expedited removal to “aliens who are determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or (7) of the” INA). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (“Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.”), § 1182(a)(6)(7) (stating, in relevant part, that an alien is inadmissible if they are “not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this chapter”). 36 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990).
10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 27 PageID# 185
Eldridge balancing test to determine what the Constitution requires in a particular case:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.37 “Due process provides heightened protection against governmental interference when certain fundamental rights and liberty interests are involved.”38 Most relevant here are the right to travel, the right to pursue an occupation, and the right to acquire knowledge.39 With respect to the right to travel,40 the court in Ibrahim found that the Government had
violated the due process rights of an individual who had been admitted to the United States on a
student visa but who was later “denied a visa to return to the United States” because she had been erroneously placed on the no-fly list.41 The court concluded that the government’s actions infringed directly on her right to travel.42 Like the no-fly list in Ibrahim, the Executive Order
severely restricts the freedom of LPRs and visa holders to travel—as they were permitted to do
under their valid visas until the Executive Order issued last week.
Moreover, lawful permanent residents and visa holders have extensive reliance interests
premised on the knowledge that their visas will continue to be recognized and not arbitrarily
canceled. President Reveley describes how university professors’ careers are tied to their
research and grants at their universities and how students commit to a course of study on the 37 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). 38 Ibrahim, 62 F. Supp. 3d at 928 (citing Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997)). 39 Id. See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). 40 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1957). 41 62 F. Supp. 3d at 911, 927-28. 42 Id.
11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 14 of 27 PageID# 186
assumption that their student visas will not be arbitrarily revoked.43 Thus, in addition to the right to travel, the arbitrary deprivation of a person’s legal status implicates the right to pursue employment and education.44 Because § 3(c) directly infringes those rights and reliance interests, the Due Process Clause applies.
4. The Executive Order affords no process to individuals detained under the Order.
Section 3(c) provides no process at all to the Virginia residents whose green cards and visas were effectively canceled by last Friday’s surprise order. Petitioners claim that CBP has coerced or attempted to coerce arriving air passengers to relinquish their legal right to enter the United States without affording them an individualized hearing or access to counsel as ordered by this Court.45 Intervenors Nasreldin and Fadul complain that they suffered the same mistreatment by CBP at Dulles. Fadul, a Sudanese national, was traveling on a K-1 visa to meet her fiancé, an American citizen. But when she arrived at Dulles, her travel documents and telephone were seized; she was not allowed to call her fiancé or anyone else; she was coerced into signing documents waiving her visa rights; she was deported to Addis Ababa later that evening; and, adding insult to injury, the airline kept her passport to coerce her into paying for the return flight.46
The undersigned counsel for Virginia do not know how many Virginia residents were removed from the United States before the TRO was entered, or whether Respondents ceased
43 See Reveley Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8, 11-12. 44 See Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39 (1957) (“A state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399. 45 See Am. Pet. ¶¶ 2-9 (ECF No. 7). 46 ECF No. 27 at 6 (PageID# 153).
12

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 15 of 27 PageID# 187
their removal activities following the TRO.47 The Government has failed to answer our request.48
So far as has come to counsel’s attention, the only written guidance specifying any
“process” under § 3(c) is a recent press statement from Secretary Kelly, issued on Sunday night, January 29.49 Secretary Kelly decreed that “[i]n applying the provisions of the president’s
executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.”50 How many Virginia lawful permanent residents were removed from the United
States before the Government changed its mind about their security risk is still unknown. The
Government has not answered the Commonwealth’s questions about that. And the Executive
Order itself has not been amended, so it is unclear if Kelly’s actions are in derogation of it.
That Sunday Press Release was followed by a televised press conference on Tuesday, January 31.51 Respondent McAleenan represented that CBP, in the first 72 hours after the
Executive Order, had denied boarding to 721 visa holders in the seven countries, preventing
travelers even from presenting themselves for entry to the United States, as they were entitled to do under their visas.52 That clearly constitutes insufficient process for returning Virginia
47 Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 (ECF No. 20). 48 See Letter from Attorney General Mark R. Herring to Secretary John Kelly, et al. (Jan. 29, 2017), ECF No. 19-1. 49 Statement by Secretary John Kelly on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents into the United States (Jan. 29, 2017) [hereinafter Press Release], https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanentresidents-united-states. 50 Id. 51 Homeland Security Secretary On Trump’s Travel Ban Orders—Full News Conference (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdF5SSk8aQ. 52 Id. at 5:11. See also Ron Nixon, 721 – not 109 – denied entry to the US under Trump’s travel ban, N.Y. Times (Feb. 1, 2017), https://goo.gl/00Fju7 (“A far larger number of people were affected by President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees than he initially said,
13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 16 of 27 PageID# 188
residents. McAleenan exacerbated the appearance of arbitrariness about whether the Executive
Order applies to LPRs. He said they are “technically covered,” but that DHS “worked quickly with counsel” to devise the class-based exemption for LPRs as a blanket waiver.53
In any case, the Press Release and the Government’s flip-flopping shows just how hastily
the order was conceived and how arbitrarily it has been implemented. Just because the
Government has said that LPRs will be readmitted (or is it only readmitted by “waiver”?),
nothing prevents Respondents from resuming their illegal exclusion of Virginia’s green card
holders based on national origin. Indeed, a press release plainly does not carry the force of law.54 And in this case, the Press Release appears to have been issued only after litigation was
filed in numerous jurisdictions challenging the order’s validity. The rule of law is plainly
undermined when major immigration laws can be changed with the snap of an executive’s fingers, subject to being snapped back on a later date.55
The Executive Order plainly provides no individualized process, let alone process that
Department of Homeland Security officials acknowledged Tuesday. 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 Tuesday, officials said that 721 people had been denied boarding for the United States after it began enforcing the travel ban.”). 53 Full News Conference, supra note 51, at 22:47-23:41 (statement of Director McAleenan). 54 See, e.g., Molycorp, Inc. v. EPA, 197 F.3d 543, 545-46 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The document (which was not published in the Federal Register) states that it ‘is intended solely to provide information to the public and the regulated community . . . . We take this to mean only . . . that the agency is advising the public as to its present enforcement inclinations—not that the document itself would be given any weight at all in enforcement proceedings.”). 55 We don’t know if the Government will claim that its new position on LPRs somehow moots that part of the case. It plainly does not. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (“It is well settled that a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. If it did, the courts would be compelled to leave the defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
14

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 17 of 27 PageID# 189
meets the Mathews v. Eldridge test. Considering “the interest at stake for the individual, the risk
of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used as well as the probable
value of additional or different procedural safeguards, and the interest of the government in using the current procedures rather than additional or different procedures,”56 the one-size-fits-all
blanket exclusions based on national origin cannot pass muster.
With respect to residents currently present in Virginia based on an LPR or visa, or who
present themselves at the border with valid visas predating the Executive Order, those
individuals must be given the opportunity to dispute the characterization that they personally
pose a national security risk (a determination Respondents have made based on national origin). Those Virginia residents are entitled to an individualized, pre-deprivation hearing.57 And for
individuals possessing a valid visa but who have been denied their right to board a plane bound
for the United States, those individuals must be permitted to present themselves at the border and
similarly be afforded a hearing to contest the arbitrary determination that they are a national
security risk. It would be fundamentally unfair and discriminatory to permit the Respondents to
summarily revoke an individual’s legal right to be in the United States for no reason other than that they were born or naturalized in, or traveled through, a majority-Muslim country.58
56 Landon, 459 U.S. at 34. 57 See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972) (“The right to a prior hearing has long been recognized by this Court under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. . . . [T]he Court has traditionally insisted that, whatever its form, opportunity for that hearing must be provided before the deprivation at issue takes effect.”). See also Kerry, 135 S. Ct. at 2144 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“These procedural protections help to guarantee that government will not make a decision directly affecting an individual arbitrarily but will do so through the reasoned application of a rule of law.”). 58 See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 344 n.30 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (discussing Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), and the decision to uphold “the exclusion from particular ‘military areas’ . . . all persons of Japanese ancestry without a determination as to whether any particular individual actually posed a threat of sabotage or espionage” in connection
15

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 18 of 27 PageID# 190
B. The Executive Order was motived by animus towards Muslims and therefore violates the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection aspects of the Due Process Clause.
The Commonwealth is also likely to succeed on its Establishment Clause and Equal
Protection challenges because of the overwhelming evidence that the Executive Order resulted
from animus towards Muslims. Whether a governmental action is motivated by hostility towards
a particular religious group is a touchstone under both claims.
With respect to the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court explained in Larson v.
Valente that “[t]he clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious
denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”59 “The First Amendment mandates
governmental neutrality between religion and religion . . . . The State may not adopt programs or
practices . . . which aid or oppose any religion . . . . This prohibition is absolute.”60 Where a
“law grant[s] a denominational preference,” the Supreme Court “treat[s] the law as suspect and
. . . appl[ies] strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.”61
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
with the detention of juvenile immigrants and noting that “the Court should proceed with extreme caution when asked to permit the detention of juveniles when the Government has failed to inquire whether, in any given case, detention actually serves the Government’s interest . . . .”) (emphasis added). 59 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). 60 Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1127 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Larson, 456 U.S. at 246). See also Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 728 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause forbids the government to use religion as a line drawing criterion. In this respect, the Establishment Clause mirrors the Equal Protection Clause. Just as the government may not segregate people on account of their race, so too it may not segregate on the basis of religion.”). 61 Larson, 456 U.S. at 246. See also Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“Every government practice must be judged in its unique circumstances to determine whether it constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion. In making that determination, courts must keep in mind both the fundamental place held by the Establishment Clause in our constitutional scheme and the myriad, subtle ways in which Establishment Clause values may be eroded.”).
16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 19 of 27 PageID# 191
Amendment has an “equal protection component,” and also that noncitizens “com[e] within the
ambit of” that Clause.62 Under standard Equal Protection jurisprudence, “classifications based
on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently suspect and subject to close
judicial scrutiny.”63 The blanket assumption—that Virginia residents from the seven majority-
Muslim countries pose some sort of terror threat—is an ugly and poisonous form of bigotry that
cannot possibly survive strict scrutiny.
But even if the Court were to apply lesser scrutiny in consideration of the Government’s
plenary control over immigration, the result would be the same.64 Where governmental action is
principally motivated by animus towards a religious group, the action denies equal protection of
the law.65 As the Court recently said in Windsor, “[t]he Constitution’s guarantee of equality
‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular
group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group.”66 Just as Windsor and Romer
invalidated laws based on animus towards gay people, even under the rational-basis tests, the
religious animus here cannot be justified either.
62 Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 297 (1980); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 974 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 874 (1985) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“[T]he principle that unadmitted aliens have no constitutionally protected rights defies rationality. Under this view, the Attorney General, for example, could invoke legitimate immigration goals to justify a decision to stop feeding all detained aliens. He might argue that scarce immigration resources could be better spent by hiring additional agents to patrol our borders than by providing food for detainees. Surely we would not condone mass starvation.”). 63 Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372 (1971). 64 See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001). 65 See, e.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (“In determining whether a law is motivated by an improper animus or purpose, ‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’ especially require careful consideration.”) (citation omitted); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996) (“[I]ts sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus towards the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship with legitimate state interests.”). 66 Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693.
17

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 20 of 27 PageID# 192
Indeed, the President and his advisers have laid bare that the purpose of the Executive Order is to ban Muslims and to tilt the balance of immigration to the United States in favor of Christians. In 2015, then-candidate Trump issued a statement unequivocally “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.”67 In that statement, Trump revealed his belief that Muslims as a class are “people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”68 And when explaining what the immigration process would look like “for a Muslim noncitizen attempting to enter the” United States, Trump stated, “‘That would be probably—they would say, are you Muslim?”69 When the journalist inquired, “‘And if they said yes, they would not be allowed in the country[?],’” Trump responded “‘That’s correct.’”70
Just last week, after the Executive Order had issued, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of the President’s advisers, revealed that the President had asked him to craft a Muslim ban that would withstand judicial scrutiny.71 And at DHS’s January 31 press conference, Secretary Kelly explicitly tied the Executive Order to the President’s promise as a candidate; Kelly explained that he knew the Order was coming and that “[t]his whole approach
67 Donald Trump proposes “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-trump-muslims (last visited Jan. 31, 2017). 68 Id. 69 Trump not bothered by comparisons to Hitler, Politico (Dec. 8, 2015 7:51 a.m.), http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison. 70 Id. 71 Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says – and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’, The Wash. Post (Jan. 29, 2017) (“‘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.’”), https://goo.gl/VL155w.
18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 21 of 27 PageID# 193
was part of what then-candidate Trump talked about for a year or two.”72 Steve Bannon, President Trump’s Chief Strategist, is publicly credited with developing the Executive Order.73
On a radio program in November 2015, when he was the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News,
Bannon questioned why refugees from majority-Muslim countries should be admitted to the United States, saying that the money spent vetting them would better be spent in this country.74
And on the same day the Executive Order issued, President Trump was asked the following
question about the Executive Order’s refugee exemption for religious minorities: “As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?”; he answered “Yes.”75
A claim requiring proof of intentional discrimination seldom has a stronger evidentiary
foundation than what we already have here (before discovery has even commenced), because the
evidence in this case comes from the very mouth of the person who promulgated the
discriminatory policy. Indeed, President Trump just said on January 31 that he keeps his campaign promises: “I am a man of my word. I will do as I say.”76 So as to then-Candidate
Trump’s promised Muslim ban, there is plainly no reason not to take him at his word. Indeed,
his word is echoed by the words of his senior advisors. And that is true even if the President and
senior advisors now claim—as they do post hoc—that the Executive Order is really not intended
to be a Muslim ban after all.
72 Full News Conference, supra note 51, at 11:24-42 (statement of Sec. Kelly) (emphasis added). 73 Frances Stead Sellers & David A. Fahrenthold, ‘Why let ’em in?’ Understanding Bannon’s worldview and the policies that follow,” The Wash. Post (Jan. 31, 2017, at 8:05 p.m.), https://goo.gl/IPIV14. 74 Id. 75 Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees, CBN News (Jan. 27, 2017), https://goo.gl/DTUdWo. 76 Ron Elving, Gorsuch Pick For Top Court Fulfills Trump Campaign Pledge, Confirms Democrats’ Fears, NPR (Feb. 1, 2017, 3:37 a.m.), https://goo.gl/XOvzqK; President Trump Announces Supreme Court of the United States Nominee, at 33:18, https://goo.gl/DB5Ods.
19

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 22 of 27 PageID# 194
Apparently recognizing the unconstitutional nature of a ban motivated by animus towards
Muslims, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates instructed Department of Justice attorneys
on Monday night not to defend the Executive Order, believing that “the intent” of the order
appeared to “single out people based on religion” and that “‘[t]he intent was clear from the face of it.’”77 She was promptly fired by the President.78
No post-hoc excuse that the Government might now offer can justify what operates as a
Muslim ban. The two purposes listed in the Order are (1) national security, and (2) to reduce
“investigative burdens on relevant agencies” during the visa-adjudication review process.
Banning all individuals from seven countries from the United States plainly is not narrowly tailored to either purpose.79 With respect to national security, there is a “near-absence of terror
attacks” perpetrated by lawful permanent residents or visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, or Sudan in the United States.80 Thus, it is a vast overreach to claim that all
members of those majority-Muslim countries pose national security risks, let alone Virginia residents with strong ties to the Commonwealth.81 And with respect to the “investigative
burdens on relevant agencies,” there is no reason to believe that the number of visa applications
77 Trump’s Talk About Muslims Led Acting Attorney General to Defy Ban, N.Y. Times (last visited Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sally-yates-trumpimmigration-ban.html. See also Yates Memo (Jan. 30, 2017), http://documents.latimes.com/message-acting-attorney-general/. 78 Michael D. Shear, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Defied Him, N.Y. Times (Jan. 30, 2017), https://goo.gl/kxLYJo. 79 State Dep’t Memo at 1 (“This ban, which can only be lifted under conditions which will be difficult or impossible for countries to meet, will not achieve its stated aim of to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”), https://goo.gl/JCAUdL. 80 Id. at 2. 81 See id. at 5 (“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.”).
20

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 23 of 27 PageID# 195
from those seven countries will overwhelm the Executive branch. No facts have been offered suggesting that an inordinately large number of visa applications come from those countries, or that the individuals responsible for conducting the review are instrumental in reviewing those applications. Furthermore, the Government’s abrupt about-face in applying the Executive Order to LPRs unwittingly admits that the Executive Order was not narrowly tailored at all.
In short, the intent of the Executive Order is to discriminate against persons from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan on the basis that they are more likely than not to be Muslim and more likely to be terrorists. Because the Executive Order was motivated by animus to a particular religious group, the Order is very likely to be found unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause and under the Equal Protection aspects of the Due Process Clause. II. The Commonwealth, its residents, and its public universities are suffering ongoing
irreparable harm. The Commonwealth, its residents, and its public universities are suffering irreparable harm that can be stanched only by a preliminary injunction. With respect to the Establishment Clause violation, “[t]he Supreme Court has explained that ‘loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”82 With respect to the Due Process violation, Virginia residents are suffering ongoing discrimination on account of their national origin that, in light of the Government’s sovereign immunity and the incalculable injury to dignity and freedom, cannot be redressed by a money-damages award.83 As long as § 3(c) of the Executive Order remains in effect, the Government denies Virginia residents their fundamental due process rights and subjects them to arbitrary detention, 82 Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). 83 See RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1210 (10th Cir. 2009). See also Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir. 1984) (irreparable harm is harm that cannot be prevented or fully rectified by judgment after trial).
21

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 24 of 27 PageID# 196
exclusion, and expulsion from the country. Virginia residents cannot board planes bound for the United States or leave the country without fear of not being barred from returning. Some remain stranded in foreign airports.84 Students denied entry or detained cannot attend classes, causing them to fall behind or abandon their course of study.85 Students currently present in the United States are effectively barred from leaving no matter the circumstances—like going home in the event of a family member’s illness or death—under penalty of being denied reentry.86 Many university faculty members who are unable to travel will be unable to satisfy the obligations of their grants.87 These injuries are happening now and are not fanciful or speculative.88 III. The balance of equities weighs in favor of granting the injunction.
The balance of equities plainly weighs in favor of granting the injunction. The Fourth Circuit has held that “‘a state is in no way harmed by issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevents the state from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional. If anything, the system is improved by such an injunction.’”89 Because the Commonwealth is likely to succeed in its challenges to the Executive Order, Respondents cannot claim to be harmed by being forced to stop their unconstitutional actions.
And as should be plain from what we have already said, the notion is indefensible that enjoining § 3(c) as applied to Virginia residents would somehow threaten the Government’s legitimate security interests. These green card and visa holders who reside in Virginia have 84 Am. Pet. ¶ 10. 85 Reveley Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. 86 Reveley Decl. ¶¶ 7, 14. 87 Reveley Decl. ¶ 12. 88 See Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir. 1991) (irreparable harm is actual and imminent). 89 Centro Tepeyac, 722 F.3d at 191 (quoting Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002)).
22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 25 of 27 PageID# 197
already been vetted and approved for travel to the United States. If any particular person poses a security risk, existing law amply allows the Government to take protective action. IV. The public interest strongly favors the injunction.
The public interest further warrants enjoining the Executive Order. As the Fourth Circuit has made clear, “upholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.”90 And the public interest is further served by not disrupting the lives of students, teachers, workers, and other Virginia residents, pending a trial on the merits.
CONCLUSION This is a monumental case involving a monumental abuse of Executive Power. So it is worth remembering another monumental case, Plessy v. Ferguson, that enshrined in American law—for more than a half century—the approval of government-mandated racial segregation.91 The majority in Plessy reasoned that government-mandated segregation “does not discriminate against either race, but prescribes a rule applicable alike to white and colored citizens.”92 We admire the first Justice Harlan for putting the lie to that claim: “Every one knows” what was being justified, he said.93 The same is true here. And what Justice Harlan said next may be even more important for Twenty-First Century Americans to remember: “the seeds of race hate” should not be “planted under the sanction of law.”94
90 Id. (citation omitted). 91 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 92 Id. at 556-57 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 93 Id. 94 Id. at 560.
23

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 26 of 27 PageID# 198

In this case, the seeds of hate towards Muslims are “planted under the sanction” of the Executive Order. Those seeds must be rooted out, as soon as possible, lest they germinate and poison more Americans. The Executive Order was conceived in bigotry and does not reflect who we are as a people.
* * * The Court should issue a preliminary injunction in the form attached.
Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

By:

/s/

Stuart A. Raphael (VSB No. 30380)

Solicitor General

Office of the Attorney General 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-7240 – Telephone (804) 371-0200 – Facsimile sraphael@oag.state.va.us

Mark R. Herring Attorney General of Virginia

Trevor S. Cox (VSB No. 78396) Deputy Solicitor General tcox@oag.state.va.us

Matthew R. McGuire (VSB No. 84194) Assistant Attorney General mmcguire@oag.state.va.us

Counsel for Commonwealth of Virginia

24

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31 Filed 02/02/17 Page 27 of 27 PageID# 199
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the counsel of record for Petitioners and Respondents.
By: /s/ Stuart A. Raphael
25

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 200

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, et al., )

Petitioners,

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

)

Intervenor,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-116

)

DONALD TRUMP, President of the

)

United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF )

HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOM

)

AND BORDER PROTECTION; JOHN

)

KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. )

MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of )

CBP; and WAYNE BIONDI, Customs

)

and Border Protection (CBP) Port )

Director of the Area Port of

)

Washington, Dulles.

)

)

Respondents.

)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THIS MATTER came before the Court on the motion of Intervenor-Petitioner, the Commonwealth of Virginia, for a preliminary injunction barring the above-named Respondents from enforcing § 3(c) of the President’s Executive Order, dated January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” (Dkt. 7-1.) IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that Virginia is likely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional challenges, that Virginia and Virginia residents are suffering ongoing irreparable harm as a result of the enforcement of § 3(c), that

1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 201
the balance of hardship weighs decidedly against Respondents, and that the public interest favors granting preliminary injunctive relief, it is, therefore,
ORDERED that: 1. Each above-named Respondent, and all officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys of the Executive Branch of the United States government, and anyone acting under their authorization or direction, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing § 3(c) of the Executive Order; 2. Respondents may not solicit, coerce, or pressure any person to release their LPR or visa rights, or any of the rights protected by this Order. Respondents must provide persons arriving in the United States who are covered by this Order prompt access to counsel (at no cost to the Government) and may not prohibit such persons from meeting with counsel in person. 3. No person who, as of 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, on Friday, January 27, 2017, had a residence in the Commonwealth of Virginia and who had lawful permanent residence (“LPR” or “green card”) status, a valid student visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa), or a valid work visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa) may be denied on the basis of § 3(c) of the Executive Order:
a. entry at any port of entry of the United States; or 2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 202
b. the right to depart from a foreign destination bound for the United States.
4. Within five calendar days, Respondents must provide to Counsel for the Commonwealth a list of all Virginia residents who have been denied entry to the United States, removed from the United States, or denied the privilege to board a vessel or airplane bound for the United States, based on the authority of the Executive Order. Respondents must immediately restore the pre-Executive-Order status of those persons and permit them to present themselves at any port of entry to the United States on the basis of that restored status.
5. The Clerk shall serve this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court orders the United States Marshal Service to take such actions as necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions of this Order. If the Marshal Service requires further guidance concerning this Order, it must apply to this Court. Respondents are hereby ordered not to interfere with the Marshal Service in carrying out this Order.
6. Nothing in this Preliminary Injunction Order interferes with the immigration laws of the United States in effect before the Executive Order was issued.
This Preliminary Injunction is issued as of February __, 2017, at _____ o’clock [a.m./p.m].
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 31-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 203

The Commonwealth shall post a $100 bond or cash deposit as security.
SO ORDERED.

Date: _______________

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia

4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 204

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, et al., )

)

Petitioners,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United )

States, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-116

DECLARATION OF W. TAYLOR REVELEY III I, W. Taylor Reveley III, declare that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief: 1. I am president of the College of William & Mary (“William & Mary” or “the university”), and have served in that capacity since September 2008. I had previously served as interim president of the university for six months, and as dean of William & Mary Law School for a decade. Before joining William & Mary, I practiced law at Hunton & Williams LLP for almost three decades, including nine years as the firm’s managing partner. My academic expertise focuses on the constitutional division of the war powers between the President and Congress. 2. I am also the current Chair of the Council of Presidents, a group consisting of the presidents and chancellors of Virginia’s 14 publicly supported universities and colleges and 23 community colleges. As a member of that group for the past eight years, and now as its chair, I am keenly aware of the challenges and opportunities facing Virginia’s public institutions of higher education, including the competition for talented students and faculty, the
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 205
internationalization of the university experience, the importance of diversity on campus, and the financial realities of public education.
3. I am familiar with the Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 (the “Executive Order”).
4. I am deeply concerned about the disruptive impact that the Executive Order has had, is having, and will have on William & Mary and Virginia’s other public universities and colleges. I am primarily concerned for three reasons.
5. First, the Executive Order imposes severe limitations on the travel of students and faculty at Virginia institutions who are from the countries covered by the Executive Order. Based on what I have learned from other university presidents and representatives, we believe that the affected graduate and undergraduate students number in the hundreds, including more than 350 at just Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech, George Mason University, the University of Virginia, and William & Mary. There are numerous other affected students in Virginia’s other public universities and community colleges, as well as dozens of affected employees and faculty.
6. The impact of the Executive Order has fallen most dramatically on the students who were abroad when the Executive Order was issued and who have now been denied reentry to the United States. I am aware of two students at Virginia schools who have been prevented from returning to the United States to resume their studies: an Iranian doctoral student who had been approved and cleared for a visa to return to the United States to defend his dissertation, but who was blocked from doing so by the Executive Order; and a Libyan undergraduate who was
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 206
traveling for family reasons and was prevented from boarding a plane from Istanbul back to the United States and remains stranded in Turkey.
7. Many other affected students must refrain from leaving the United States for fear of not being able to return. Many universities are advising their affected students and scholars not to travel abroad at all. Even if reentry were ultimately possible for foreign students who leave the country, I am concerned that the Executive Order’s suspension of the Visa Interview Waiver Program will greatly prolong visa approval wait times, making travel more difficult and unpredictable. Not only will affected students and faculty not be able to travel home to see their families, they may also have to forfeit research opportunities and projects abroad. For instance, I have learned that some Iranian-born faculty and students at a Virginia university (some of whom are naturalized citizens and have given up their Iranian citizenship) have already canceled their plans to present their work at an international conference on engineering because of the Executive Order.
8. If the Executive Order is not enjoined until its requirements and constitutionality can be clarified, I am concerned that our universities will not be able to attract some of the academic talent that enriches our campuses – both faculty and students alike. Foreign-born faculty who are here on visas typically have specialized expertise that cannot easily be replaced. University hospitals and other facilities also compete for talented medical professionals, including foreign-born doctors and residents. With a national deadline approaching in midFebruary for medical school graduates to “match” with academic hospitals, it is possible that they will lose excellent candidates as a result of the Executive Order, and may end up with understaffed clinical programs serving our communities.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 207
9. Virginia universities have already felt the effect of the Executive Order on visiting scholars. For instance, in the coming weeks one university was expecting three foreign scholars from one of the affected countries. Despite having valid J-1 visas, and having visited the United States previously, they have abandoned their plans in light of the Executive Order. At another university, two other visiting scholars with J-1 visas who were scheduled to be here for the spring semester have canceled their plans.
10. Bringing international students to campus is a key aspect of efforts to make our universities global in caliber and perspective. William & Mary, for instance, has been recognized by NAFSA: Association of International Educators for its commitment to international education. More than 800 international students and scholars from over 65 countries came to William & Mary in 2016. The limitations imposed by the Executive Order threaten to undo some of the progress we, and other public universities in Virginia, have made in this area.
11. Second, I am concerned about the financial impact that the Executive Order will have on Virginia’s public institutions of higher learning, whose budgets are already strained. We depend on tuition dollars from out-of-state and out-of-country students, so the loss of revenue – whether due to an affected student’s decision to withdraw in light of the travel restrictions, or the inability even to reenter the country – could have an effect. For instance, the two students stranded abroad may be forced to withdraw from their programs if they are not allowed to reenter. At other schools, I am aware that two Sudanese applicants have had to abandon plans to enroll in language programs here, and that a handful of Iranian students have withdrawn applications to engineering programs. While I expect to learn of other specific examples, the amount of lost tuition revenue as a result of the Executive Order is not quantifiable, given that
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 208
many foreign students may not apply to Virginia schools in the first place due to uncertainty about the reach of the Executive Order.
12. Continued enforcement of the Executive Order may also jeopardize some of the grants and contracts that fund the research conducted at William & Mary and Virginia’s other research universities. Because State support for higher education is dependent on sometimes unstable economic conditions, we increasingly look to grants (as one of a number of revenue streams) to sustain ongoing research and programs that fund the work not only of faculty but also graduate students. William & Mary and other schools will need to investigate and confront the Executive Order’s ramifications on these programs. But many administrators are concerned that restrictions on some scholars’ ability to travel will cause a gradual but significant decline in research collaborations and funding. I fear that will further erode public universities’ ability to attract compelling talent to our universities.
13. On a related note, I am also conscious of the financial impact that foreign students bring to our local and State economies, not just during their periods of study but after graduation. Many foreign students remain here following graduation, sometimes in Optional Practical Training programs, working in (and even starting) businesses, as well as in academia. One notable foreign student who continues to contribute to Virginia’s economy is my colleague Ángel Cabrera, the president of George Mason University, the largest public university in Virginia. The Executive Order risks our ability to retain foreign students’ talents and expertise, both in the short run as well as long term.
14. Finally, there is the anxiety, confusion, and distress the Executive Order has caused in university communities. Affected faculty and students are unsure whether they should take the trips they had planned to visit family and fulfill research obligations, whether future trips
5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 209
should be planned, and whether members of their family or research partners will be able to visit the United States. Their concern is heightened by the potential that the list of countries covered by the Executive Order will grow to include other Middle Eastern or majority-Muslim countries. Indeed, since the Executive Order was issued, some universities have experienced an uptick in students, employees, and faculty using their counseling services. The cost of providing these additional services is another financial impact.
15. There is also anxiety among administrators that the Executive Order will undermine the safety of our many American students studying abroad. William & Mary alone sends more than 750 undergraduates abroad each year, to over 50 countries; about half of our college students study abroad by the time they graduate. Other Virginia schools also have active study-abroad programs, and Virginia Commonwealth University has an entire campus in Qatar that hosts exchange programs with students in the United States. Concern exists that the Executive Order, by barring certain foreign students and scholars from entering the United States, will inflame anti-American sentiment and jeopardize not only our relationships with programs in host countries but also the safety of our students studying abroad. I am aware of several universities that are reviewing their study-abroad programs in light of this concern.
16. Although the concerns described above are the primary ones that I and other leaders in the university community are facing, I emphasize that they are not the only ones. Daily we discover ways, large and small, in which the Executive Order is disrupting our operations. The amount of administrators’ time and attention that must be devoted to addressing these issues, instead of to other productive uses, is a final negative consequence of the Executive Order.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 32 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 210

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, W. Taylor Reveley III, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 1, 2017.

W. TAYLOR REVELEY III

7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 54 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 356
  

IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT  

FOR  THE  EASTERN  DISTRICT  OF  VIRGINIA  

  

Alexandria  Division  

  

TAREQ  AQEL  MOHAMMED  AZIZ,  et  al.,   )     

  

)     

  

  

Petitioners,  

)     

  

)  

THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  VIRGINIA,   )  

  

)  

                                                    Intervenor-­Petitioner,  

)  

  

)     

v.  

)     

  

)     

Civil  Action  No.  1:17-­cv-­116  

DONALD  TRUMP,  President  of  the  United   )     

States,  et  al.,    

)  

  

)     

  

  

Respondents.  

)     

  

DECLARATION  OF  NAJWA  ELYAZGI  

  

I,  Najwa  Elyagi,  declare  that  the  following  facts  are  true  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  

information  and  belief:  

1.   I  am  a  twenty-­three-­year-­old  student  at  George  Mason  University  in  Fairfax,  

Virginia.    I  have  been  a  student  at  GMU  since  2014,  and  I  am  now  in  my  senior  year  pursuing  a  

gree  in  international  relations,  with  minors  in  leadership  and  conflict  resolution.    I  

have  devoted  myself  with  passion  to  my  studies  and  currently  have  a  3.98  grade  point  average  

(GPA).    I  am  active  in  organizations  that  relate  to  my  interest  in  international  relations  and  

politics,  and  I  want  my  career  to  involve  helping  countries  get  along  better.    

2.   I  am  a  citizen  of  Libya.    While  there  is  political  instability  in  Libya,  the  vast  

majority  of  Libyans  yearn  for  peace  and  democracy.    They  consider  the  United  States  their  friend  

and  are  allies  in  the  fight  against  terrorism.    I  have  family  who  live  in  the  United  States,  

1     

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 54 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 357
  

including  a  brother  who  is  a  green-­card  holder  and  is  doing  his  medical  residency,  and  an  aunt  

and  uncle  and  cousins  who  are  U.S.  citizens.  

3.   In  2011,  I  had  the  highest  GPA  for  my  high-­school  year  in  Libya,  and  I  was  

awarded  a  full  scholarship  by  the  Libyan  government  to  study  at  any  university  in  the  world  that  

granted  me  admission.    I  chose  to  apply  to  schools  in  the  United  States  because  I  believed  it  was  

a  country  that  would  accept  my  culture,  and  I  located  near  Washington,  D.C.  because  of  my  

interest  in  international  relations  and  politics.    Studying  in  the  U.S.  has  been  a  cross-­cultural  and  

educational  opportunity  that  is  rarely  available  to  Libyan  women.      

4.   As  a  citizen  of  Libya,  I  can  travel  to  the  United  States  only  on  a  Libyan  passport.    

Visa  applications  from  Libyans  are  heavily  scrutinized  and  visas  are  difficult  to  get.    I  have  an  F-­

1  student  visa,  which  required  about  a  year  to  obtain  in  the  first  place.    Whenever  I  leave  the  

United  States  and  wish  to  reenter,  I  need  to  obtain  an  updated  F-­1  visa.    Without  a  U.S.  embassy  

in  the  Libyan  capital,  Tripoli,  Libyan  citizens  like  me  must  travel  outside  the  country  to  obtain  a  

U.S.  visa.    Before  this  year,  I  had  entered  and  left  the  United  States  seven  times  since  2014  

without  any  problems.      

5.  

I  traveled  home  to  

Libya  to  visit  family.    I  departed  the  United  States  from  Dulles  International  Airport  on  

December  27,  2016.    I  originally  planned  to  return  to  the  United  States  on  January  22,  2017,  but  

the  issuance  of  my  updated  F-­1  visa  by  the  U.S.  consulate  in  London,  England  was  delayed.        

6.   On  January  27,  having  obtained  an  updated  F-­1  visa  in  London,  I  began  my  

planned  trip  back  to  the  United  States.    My  travel  itinerary  from  London  to  Dulles  on  Turkish  

Airlines  included  a  10-­hour  layover  in  Istanbul

Airport.    I  arrived  in  Istanbul  at  5  a.m.  

local  time  on  January  28.    My  excitement  about  returning  to  school  turned  to  high  anxiety  when  I  

2     

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 54 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 358   
got  off  the  plane  and  learned  on  social  media  and  at  airport  television  monitors  of  President   issued  while  I  was  in  the  air.    I  
learned  that  the  Executive  Order  prohibits  persons  travelling  on  passports  from  seven  countries,   including  Libya,  from  entering  or  re-­entering  the  United  States.      
7.   I  went  to  the  boarding  gate  for  my  scheduled  outbound  flight  to  Dulles  and  asked   the  security  officials  assigned  to  that  gate  if  I  would  be  affected  by  the  Executive  Order,  and  they   said  no.    They  explained  that  they  did  not  yet  have  official  instructions  from  the  U.S.  Customs   and  Border  Protection  to  implement  the  Executive  Order.    I  felt  deep  relief  when  I  was  provided   a  boarding  pass  by  airline  personnel.      
8.   At  2  p.m.,  when  I  arrived  to  wait  in  line  to  board  my  scheduled  flight,  my  relief   turned  to  anxiety  again  when  one  of  the  same  security  officials  approached  me  and  said  that  he   had  received  updated  information  about  the  Executive  Order  and  that  I  would  not  be  allowed  to   board  the  plane  to  Dulles.    He  pulled  me  out  of  line  and  the  flight  departed  without  me.    I  waited   at  the  airport  until  7  p.m.  for  my  checked  luggage  to  be  returned  to  me,  and  then  I  left  the  airport   in  search  of  a  hotel.      
9.   I  found  a  hotel  near  the  airport  and  ended  up  staying  there  for  more  than  6  days,   alone  and  worried  about  what  was  going  to  happen.    It  was  a  nightmare.    I  checked  the  news   frequently,  and  spoke  often  with  my  family  and  with  contacts  in  the  United  States,  including   GMU,  trying  to  figure  out  how  I  was  going  to  get  back.    My  classes  at  GMU  had  resumed,  and  I   worried  about  my  absence  from  them.    I  was  also  worried  about  the  money  I  was  spending  while   stranded.    My  family  had  to  arrange  for  money  to  be  sent  to  cover  my  unexpected  lodging  and   travel  expenses.    Without  knowing  if  I  would  ever  be  allowed  to  return  to  the  United  States,  I  
3     

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 54 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 359   
began  looking  at  other  universities  outside  the  United  States.    I  even  applied  to  and  was  accepted   by  one,  given  my  high  grades  and  the  emergency  circumstances.      
10.   Late  in  the  week,  I  learned  that  Lufthansa  was  recognizing  an  order  by  a  federal   court  in  Massachusetts  that  stopped  the  U.S.  government  and  authorities  from  implementing  the   Executive  Order  against  persons  like  me  who  had  valid  visas  to  study  in  the  U.S.  but  happened  to   be  abroad  when  the  Executive  Order  was  issued.    The  few  tickets  on  Lufthansa  flights  to  Boston   were  quickly  snatched  up,  and  although  I  would  have  paid  a  very  high  price  just  to  get  back,  I   was  unable  to  purchase  one.        
11.   Early  on  February  4,  I  learned  that  a  federal  court  in  Washington  State  had   temporarily  stopped  enforcement  of  the  Executive  Order.    Hoping  it  was  true  that  the  ban  was   lifted,  I  went  to  the  airport  and  was  so  happy  when  security  officials  verified  that  for  me.    I   quickly  bought  a  ticket  to  Dulles  on  a  Turkish  Airlines  flight  that  departed  that  morning the   same  itinerary  I  had  booked  for  a  week  earlier and  I  was  cleared  to  fly.        
12.   I  arrived  at  Dulles  the  evening  of  February  4  and  was  very  prepared  for  extra   security  to  re-­enter  the  United  States.    I  was  surprised  to  be  allowed  in  very  quickly.    Instead  of   the  hour  or  more  I  expected  to  wait,  the  process  took  only  a  few  minutes.    When  I  left  the  secure   area,  I  was  so  happy  to  be  greeted  by  my  family  and  others  who  celebrated  my  arrival  back.      
13.   I  am  now  back  in  classes  at  GMU  and  I  have  been  catching  up  on  schoolwork   since  I  returned.    I  am  still  frustrated  by  the  ordeal  that  I  experienced.    The  Executive  Order  was   released  hastily  and  became  immediately  effective  without  any  advance  warning  to  travelers  like   me.    The  lack  of  notice  was  grossly  unfair  to  students  like  me  who  have  respected  the  laws  of  the   United  States  and  made  travel  plans  in  reliance  on  our  ability  to  come  and  go.    My  experience   made  me  understand  better  how  refugees  must  feel  when  their  world  is  turned  upside  down.      
4     

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 54 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 360
  

14.   I  also  wonder  why  the  U.S.  government  did  not  do  more  to  help.    The  Department  

of  Homeland  Security  and  the  State  Department  were  tasked  by  the  Executive  Order  to  develop  

any  exceptions  to  the  ban,  but  they  appeared  uninterested  in  making  these  exceptions.    The  U.S.  

Consulate  in  Istanbul  told  me  it  did  not  have  jurisdiction  to  review  my  request  for  an  exception  

to  the  Executive  Order.      I  wondered  whether  the  people  who  drafted  the  Executive  Order  really  

meant  to  keep  me  out  of  America  and  deprive  me  of  an  invaluable  opportunity  to  complete  my  

education  at  GMU.      

15.   Because  of  the  Executive  Order,  I  estimate  that  I  incurred  extra  costs  of  about  

$4,000  in  food,  lodging,  and  travel  and  flight-­change  fees.    Luckily,  my  family  was  able  to  

scramble  and  get  the  money  to  me,  but  I  know  others  are  not  as  fortunate.  

16.   Because  of  the  Executive  Order,  I  missed  a  week  of  classes,  and  I  hope  that  I  

never  have  to  miss  any  more.    I  worry  that  if  the  Executive  Order  is  extended,  and  I  am  

prevented  from  re-­entering  the  United  States  if  I  have  to  leave,  then  my  education  plans  will  be  

severely  disrupted,  and  I  will  have  lost  the  significant  time  and  money  that  I  have  invested  in  my  

education  in  the  last  three  years.            

17.   Because  of  the  Executive  Order,  I  am  reconsidering  my  plans  to  pursue  a  further  

degree  in  the  United  States.    

  degree  would  take  about  three  years,  and  I  could  not  risk  

the  possibility  of  not  being  able  to  visit  my  parents  during  that  time.    Although  I  love  the  people  

of  the  United  States,  I  am  now  considering  applying  to  graduate  programs  in  Canada  instead.      

  

Pursuant  to  28  U.S.C.  §  1746,  I,  Najwa  Elyazgi,  declare  under  the  penalty  of  perjury  that  

the  foregoing  is  true  and  correct.      

Executed  on  February  7,  2017.        

____________________________________   NAJWA  ELYAZGI  
5  

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 54 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 361 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 8, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the counsel of record for Petitioners and Respondents. By: /s/ Stuart A. Raphael
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 362

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, et al.,

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

)

)

Intervenor-Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United

)

States, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-116

DECLARATION OF TAREQ AQEL MOHAMED AZIZ

1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 363
Declaration of Tareg Agel Mohamed Aziz
I, Tareq Aqel Mohamed Aziz, do hereby declare and depose as follows: 1. I am over 18 years of age and have personal knowledge of the facts I state below, and ifl were to be called as a witness, I could competently testify about what I have written in this declaration. 2. I am a citizen and national of Yemen. My childhood in Yemen before the civil war was comfortable, thanks in large part to the support afforded by my father Aqel Aziz who was living in the United States. I was learning English by watching American TV shows, listening to American music, and taking English lessons with my brother Ammar Aziz at an American non-profit educational organization. To further my education, I planned on attending the British University in Yemen. 3. However, all this came to an end when the civil war began. Every night the bombs would fall , and many times they were so close that my brother and I could not sleep. My neighbors began to starve around me, electricity became scarce, and everyday necessities became prohibitively expensive. One day after an unusually big explosion, I saw something that I never thought I would see. I was at the main square in Sana'a after the bomb was dropped. It was like a scene from a movie with people crying, people without limbs, and disfigured corpses beyond recognition. 4. Life in Yemen came to a standstill- people were afraid to go outside. Many foreign organizations closed including the British University where I planned on attending college and the non-profit where I was taking English lessons. My life in Yemen lacked opportunity and security in the most extreme sense.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 364
5. After my father obtained his U.S. citizenship in April2015, we began the visa application process for my younger brother Ammar and I to be able to join him in America. He filed paperwork with the help of an immigration attorney in Michigan.
6. Due to the civil war, there was no longer a functioning U.S. Embassy in Sana ' a. So my father requested that my brother and I be scheduled an interview with the U.S. Embassy in Algeria. But Algeria would not issue a visa to me and my brother. Accordingly, I had no choice but to accept an interview in Djibouti.
7. In October 2016, we were told that we could have an interview with the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti. However, there was no longer a functioning airport in Sana'a. My brother and I had to travel through areas under control ofdifferent warring factions to get to Aden where there was still a functioning airport. After waiting for space on a flight, we were finally able to get to Djibouti via Jordan and Qatar. This was an extremely expensive flight.
8. Due to our protracted journey, we missed our first scheduled interview with the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, which was set for November 27, 2016. So we had to wait about four weeks for another interview, which was fmally held on January 4, 2017. Our immigrant visas (category IR2) were approved that same day. My immigrant visa came quickly, but my brother's visa took longer to arrive.
9. Finally, on or about January 26, 2017, my brother received his immigrant visa and we prepared to join our father in Michigan.
10. My brother and I were ecstatic that we would be joining our father in Michigan, and we boarded the ftrst available flight departing Djibouti on January 27. We flew Ethiopian Airlines to Addis Ababa, and then got on our flight to Washington-Dulles International Airport.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 365
Our plane took off at the equivalent of 2:50pm Washington, D.C. time on Friday, January 27. The plane stopped in Dublin, Ireland, but we did not have to get off of the plane.
11. While on the flight, we had no idea- nor any means of knowing- that about two hours after our flight took off, President Donald Trump had signed an Executive Order barring our entry into the United States; nor that a State Department official had signed a separate order purporting to provisionally revoke our valid immigrant visas.
12. At about 8:00am on Saturday, January 28, we landed at Dulles Airport excited and thinking that we were still on our way to join our father. However, as we got off the plane, a man was saying, "all Ycmenis come this way." A uniformed officer fingerprinted us and then took us back to a special office where he took our immigrant visa packets and our passports. They then called my brother Ammar to come to another office. My brother asked for a translator, since his English is not very good, but they told me that I had to come and translate for my brother.
13. We were then told that our visas had been cancelled and we were going back to our country. We asked if we could call our father and he told us, "give us his name and phone number and we will call him." But this was a lie, no-one ever called my father.
14. Then they told me to tell my brother to sign a form. I asked to call our lawyer (the lawyer in Michigan who helped prepare our immigration paperwork), and the officer said, "You can' t, it's a presidential order." He then told me, "You sign this paper, you will go back to your country, your government will talk to our government, and then maybe you will be able to come back later. If you don't sign this form, we force you to go back, and you will not be able to come back for five years." We tried to read the form but we couldn't understand all the words in it, so we asked the officer to explain it. The other officer responded, "Just sign it, it's good for
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 366
you, it's the good option you have right now." So we signed the form, without having the opportunity to read it carefully or understand what it meant. We were then fingerprinted again, and the officers took pictures of us.
15. I could see that my visa, and my brother's visa, had been stamped multiple times with a stamp reading "CANCELLED-WAS, APPLICATION WITHDRAWN" in giant letters over top of the visas. But the officers did not give us back our passports. Instead, they gave our passports to airline personnel from Ethiopian Airlines.
16. The officer told us that once the situation was resolved between Yemen and the United States, we could reapply for visas. I understood this to mean that we would have to start the entire process all over again.
17. After this had been done, we were escorted by police in full view of every other passenger and put on a plane to Ethiopia - the same airplane that we had just come off.
18. I saw that about 8 other people from the same flight were also put back on the same airplane with us.
19. After landing in Ethiopia, my brother and I called our father for the ftrst time in 36 hours. He told us that he had been extremely worried for us, because no-one had called him to tell him what had happened to us. We then spent three more nights in the airport in Addis Ababa, because Ethiopian Airlines personnel would not give us our passports back - they were holding them hostage to try to get us to pay for the return flight.
20. At some point during this time, an official from the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa called me on the phone (by means of Ethiopian Airlines) and asked me for various personally identifying information. The next day he called back and told me that I had to go back to Djibouti and apply for another visa, and I should listen to the people from Ethiopian Airlines
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 367
who were trying to get me to board a flight to Djibouti. I asked if I could wait one more day before leaving Addis Ababa, because my lawyer had told me that he was working on a settlement with the U.S. government. But the U.S. Embassy official said, no, you have to go to Djibouti. Also, an Ethiopian Airlines official told us we had to go to Djibouti or we would be arrested. So we complied. We only got our passports back when we arrived in Djibouti.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true.
/J 7 z}J Date:
5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 55 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 368 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 8, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the counsel of record for Petitioners and Respondents. By: /s/ Stuart A. Raphael
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 394

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, et al., )

)

Petitioners,

)

)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, )

)

Intervenor-Petitioner

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United )

States, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-116

JOINT DECLARATION OF MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, AVRIL D. HAINES, MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, JOHN F. KERRY, JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN,
LISA O. MONACO, MICHAEL J. MORELL, JANET A. NAPOLITANO, LEON E. PANETTA AND SUSAN E. RICE
We, Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice declare as follows:
1. We are former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government:
a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. A refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and has been a member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 2009 and the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has received assessments of threats facing the United States.
b. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2015, and as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015 to January 20, 2017.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID# 395
c. Michael V. Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009.
d. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017. e. John E. McLaughlin served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency from 2000-2004 and Acting Director of CIA in 2004. His duties included briefing President-elect Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. f. Lisa O. Monaco served as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to January 20, 2017. g. Michael J. Morell served as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2011 and from 2012 to 2013, Deputy Director from 2010 to 2013, and as a career official of the CIA from 1980. His duties included briefing President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, and briefing President Barack Obama regarding the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden. h. Janet A. Napolitano served as Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013. i. Leon E. Panetta served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2009-11 and as Secretary of Defense from 2011-13. j. Susan E. Rice served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 2009-13 and as National Security Advisor from 2013 to January 20, 2017.
2. We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats that the United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have all held the highest security clearances. A number of us have worked at senior levels in administrations of both political parties. Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”).
3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless 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, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID# 396
lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.
4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized 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.
5. In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States in many respects:
a. The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field. Every day, American soldiers work and fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who put their lives on the line to protect Americans. For example, allies who would be barred by the Order work alongside our men and women in Iraq fighting against ISIL. To the extent that the Order bans travel by individuals cooperating against ISIL, we risk placing our military efforts at risk by sending an insulting message to those citizens and all Muslims.
b. The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining the necessary information sharing and collaboration in intelligence, law enforcement, military, and diplomatic channels to address the threat posed by terrorist groups such as ISIL. The international criticism of the Order has been intense, and it has alienated U.S. allies. It will strain our relationships with partner countries in Europe and the Middle East, on whom we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation, undermining years of effort to bring them closer. By alienating these partners, we could lose access to the intelligence and resources necessary to fight the root causes of terror or disrupt attacks launched from abroad, before an attack occurs within our borders.
c. The Order will endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who have risked much or all to keep Americans safe – and whom our officers had promised always to protect with the full might of our government and our people.
d. Left in place, the Executive Order will likely feed the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with Islam. As government officials, we took every step we could to counter

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID# 397
violent extremism. Because of the Order’s disparate impact against Muslim travelers and immigrants, it feeds ISIL’s narrative and sends the wrong message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the world: that the U.S. government is at war with them based on their religion. The Order may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a recruiting tool and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is engaged in a religious war. e. The Order will disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating Muslim-American communities in the United States, it will harm our efforts to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino and Orlando. f. The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact. When the Order issued, those disrupted included women and children who had been victimized by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of travelers today face deep uncertainty about whether they may travel to or from the United States: for medical treatment, study or scholarly exchange, funerals or other pressing family reasons. While the Order allows for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to agree to admit travelers from these countries on a case-by-case basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of affected individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel. g. The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and residents. The Order will affect many foreign travelers, particularly students, who annually inject hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well over a million U.S. jobs. Since the Order issued, affected companies have noted its adverse impacts on many strategic economic sectors, including defense, technology, medicine, culture and others.
6. As a national security measure, the Order is unnecessary. National security-based immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on (1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed, or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has developed a rigorous system of security vetting, leveraging the full capabilities of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. This vetting is applied to travelers not once, but multiple times. Refugees receive the most thorough vetting of any traveler to the United States, taking on the average more than a year. Successive administrations have continually worked to improve this vetting through robust informationsharing and data integration to identify potential terrorists without resorting to a blanket ban on all aliens and refugees. Because various threat streams are constantly mutating, as government officials, we sought continually to improve that vetting, as was done in response to particular threats identified by U.S. intelligence in 2011 and 2015. Placing additional restrictions on individuals from certain countries in the visa waiver program –as has been done on occasion in the past – merely allows for more individualized vettings before individuals with particular passports are permitted to travel to the United States.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID# 398
7. In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained. The “considered judgment” of the President in the prior cases where courts have deferred was based upon administrative records showing that the President’s decision rested on cleared views from expert agencies with broad experience on the matters presented to him. Here, there is little evidence that the Order underwent a thorough interagency legal and policy processes designed to address current terrorist threats, which would ordinarily include a review by the career professionals charged with implementing and carrying out the Order, an interagency legal review, and a careful policy analysis by Deputies and Principals (at the cabinet level) before policy recommendations are submitted to the President. We know of no interagency process underway before January 20, 2017 to change current vetting procedures, and the repeated need for the Administration to clarify confusion after the Order issued suggest that that Order received little, if any advance scrutiny by the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security or the Intelligence Community. Nor have we seen any evidence that the Order resulted from experienced intelligence and security professionals recommending changes in response to identified threats.
8. The Order is of unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a President has invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for such a broad class of people. Even after 9/11, the U.S. Government did not invoke the provisions of law cited by the Administration to broadly bar entrants based on nationality, national origin, or religious affiliation. In past cases, suspensions were limited to particular individuals or subclasses of nationals who posed a specific, articulable threat based on their known actions and affiliations. In adopting this Order, the Administration alleges no specific derogatory factual information about any particular recipient of a visa or green card or any vetting step omitted by current procedures.
9. Blocking the Executive Order while the underlying legal issues are being adjudicated would not jeopardize national security. It would simply preserve the status quo ante, still requiring that individuals be subjected to all the rigorous legal vetting processes that are currently in place. Allowing the Executive Order to take effect would wreak havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values. Ours is a nation of immigrants, committed to the faith that we are all equal under the law and abhor discrimination, whether based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. As government officials, we sought diligently to protect our country, even while maintaining an immigration system free from intentional discrimination, that applies no religious tests, and that measures individuals by their merits, not stereotypes of their countries or groups. Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people are beneath the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we each took oaths to protect. Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a “Muslim Ban” as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID# 399
10. For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional opinion, the January 27 Executive Order does not further – but instead harms – sound U.S. national security and foreign policy.
Respectfully submitted,
s/MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT* s/AVRIL D. HAINES s/MICHAEL V. HAYDEN s/JOHN F. KERRY s/JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN s/LISA O. MONACO s/MICHAEL J. MORELL s/JANET A. NAPOLITANO s/LEON E. PANETTA s/SUSAN E. RICE
*All original signatures are on file with Harold Hongju Koh, Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT. 06520-8215 203-432-4932
We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. [Individual signature pages follow]

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID# 400

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID# 401

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID# 402

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID# 403

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID# 404

LIOZ'KmnrqeCJo f,ep q,g slql CgJOlgXg

NITHJOY'ICW'g NIHO 73

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID# 405

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID# 406

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 66 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID# 407

EXECUTED this 5 th day of February, 2017

APOLITANO

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 67 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID# 408

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 68 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID# 409
EXECUTED this 5th day of February, 2017
________/s/___________________ SUSAN E. RICE

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 69 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 57 Filed 02/08/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID# 410
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 8, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the counsel of record for Petitioners and Respondents.
By: /s/ Stuart A. Raphael
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 70 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 452

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, et al.,

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

)

)

Intervenor-Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United

)

States, et al.,

)

)

Respondents.

)

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-116

DECLARATION OF MAMOONA “MONA” H. SIDDIQUI I, Mamoona “Mona” H. Siddiqui, declare that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 1. I am an Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I have served in this capacity since January 12, 2015.
PRINT SOURCES 2. I have compiled and attached the print sources cited in the Commonwealth’s Brief in Support of Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 31. 3. A true and accurate copy of Department of Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly’s January 29, 2017 Statement on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents into the United States, referenced in footnotes 49 and 50, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The statement can also be found at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawfulpermanent-residents-united-states. 4. A true and accurate copy of the December 7, 2015 Vox article titled, “Donald
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 71 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 453
Trump proposes ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’” referenced in footnotes 67 and 68 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The article can also be found at http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-trump-muslims.
5. A true and accurate copy of the December 8, 2015 Politico article by Nick Gass titled “Trump not bothered by comparisons to Hitler,” referenced in footnotes 69 and 70 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The article can also be found at http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitler-comparison.
6. A true and accurate copy of the January 29, 2017 Washington Post article by Amy B. Wang titled “Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Guiliani says – and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally,’” referenced in footnote 71 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The article can also be found at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/thefix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-todo-it-legally/?utm_term=.2f88f830c54c.
7. A true and accurate copy of the January 31, 2017 Washington Post article by Francis Stead Sellers and David A. Fahrenthold titled “‘Why even let ’em in?’ Understanding Bannon’s worldview and the policies that follow,” referenced in footnotes 73 and 74 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The article can also be found at https://goo.gl/IPIV14.
8. A true and accurate copy of the January 27, 2017 CBN News article titled “Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees,” referenced in footnote 75 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. The article can also be found at http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brodyfile-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 72 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 454
9. A true and accurate copy of the February 1, 2017 NPR article by Ron Elving titled “Gorsuch Pick For Top Court Fulfills Trump Campaign Pledge, Confirms Democrats’ Fears,” referenced in footnote 76 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. The article can also be found at https://goo.gl/XOvzqK.
10. A true and accurate copy of the January 31, 2017 New York Times article by Alan Blinder and Matt Apuzzo titled “Trump’s Talk About Muslims Led Acting Attorney General to Defy Ban,” referenced in footnote 77 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. The article can also be found at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sally-yatestrump-immigration-ban.html.
11. A true and accurate copy of then-Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates’s January 30, 2017 Memo, referenced in footnote 77 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The memo can also be found at http://documents.latimes.com/message-actingattorney-general/.
12. A true and accurate copy of the January 30, 2017 New York Times article by Michael D. Shear, Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo, and Eric Lichtblau titled “Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Defied Him,” referenced in footnote 78 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. The article can also be found at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html.
13. A true and accurate copy of Memo of Dissent from Foreign Service officers and other diplomats published on January 30, 2017, referenced in footnotes 79-81 of Virginia’s opening brief, is attached hereto as Exhibit 11. The memo can also be found at https://goo.gl/JCAUdL.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 73 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 455
VIDEO AND AUDIO SOURCES 14. I have compiled the original video and audio clips cited in the Commonwealth’s Brief in Support of Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 31. The video and audio clips are identified below and also are contained on a USB flash drive, which will be filed if the Court grants the Commonwealth permission to file the flash drive.
a. A true and accurate copy of video clips, published on February 1, 2017, from the January 31, 2017 news conference by Secretary Kelly and Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Kevin K. McAleenan on President Trump’s Travel Ban Orders, referenced in footnotes 51, 52, and 72 of Virginia’s opening brief. The full video can also be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdF5SSk8aQ.
b. A true and accurate copy of a video clip of an interview by Jeanine Pirro with informal White House Cybersecurity Advisor1 Rudy Giuliani on Fox News regarding President Trump’s Ban published on January 29, 2017, referenced in footnote 71 of Virginia’s opening brief. The interview can also be found at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/giuliani-after-trump-announced-muslim-ban-he-asked-mefor-right-way-to-do-it-legally/.
c. A true and accurate copy of an audio clip of the November 18, 2015 radio interview by White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, then Executive Chairman of Breitbart News, with Congressman Ryan Zinke, referenced on page 19 and footnote 74 of Virginia’s opening brief. The statement can also be found at https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-congressman-ryan-zinke-
1 See Abby Phillip, Trump names Rudy Giuliani as cybersecurity advisor, The Wash. Post: PowerPost (Jan. 12, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/trump-names-rudy-giulianias-cybersecurity-adviser/?utm_term=.0e1f9e6a467d.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 74 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 456
november-18-2015. d. A true and accurate copy of a video clip from the January 27, 2017 CBN
Brody File interview with President Trump (“Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees”), referenced in footnote 75 of Virginia’s opening brief. The full interview can be found at http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brodyfile-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority-asrefugees.
e. A true and accurate copy of the President Trump’s January 31, 2017 announcement of his Supreme Court nominee, referenced in footnote 76 of Virginia’s opening brief. The announcement can also be found at https://goo.gl/DB5Ods.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES TO BE RELIED UPON 15. I have compiled additional articles, which are attached as exhibits to this Declaration and identified below. 16. A true and accurate copy of the December 7, 2015 press release titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 12. The press release can also be found at https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumpstatement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration. 17. A true and accurate copy of the November 18, 2016 Independent article by Harriet Agerholm titled “Donald Trump seen calling for a Muslim registry in new video despite denials,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 13. The article can also be found at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-muslim-registryvideo-president-islam-policies-immigration-a7424511.html. 18. A true and accurate copy of the December 21, 2016 Washington Post article by
5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 75 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 457
Aaron Blake titled “Trump says we’ve known his Muslim ban and database plans ‘all along.’ But we still don’t — not really,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 14. The article can also be found at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/the-evolution-of-donald-trumpand-the-muslim-database/?utm_term=.4e0291cebb68.
19. A true and accurate copy of the January 31, 2017 College Factual article titled “How Trump’s Executive Order Affects Thousands of International Students in the U.S.,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 15. The article can also be found at http://inside.collegefactual.com/blog/how-trumps-travel-ban-affects-thousands-of-internationalstudents.
20. A true and accurate copy of the February 1, 2017 Business Insider article by Abby Jackson titled “The 10 US colleges that stand to lose the most from Trump’s immigration ban,” is attached hereto as Exhibit 16. The article can also be found at http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-potentially-most-affected-trump-immigration-ban2017-2.
21. A true and accurate copy of the February 5, 2017 8:55 a.m. online update of the Washington Post article by Josh Rogin titled “Inside the White House-Cabinet battle over Trump’s immigration order” is attached hereto as Exhibit 17. The article can also be found at https://goo.gl/3aYFlI.
22. A true and accurate copy of a string of tweets by Donald J. Trump @ realDonaldTrump ranging from December 2011 through December 2015, published at storify.com is attached hereto as Exhibit 18. The article can also be found at https://storify.com/saenpremium/donald-trump-on-islam-muslims-and-the-middle-east.
23. A true and accurate copy of a transcript of Donald J. Trump’s March 30, 2011
6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 76 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 458
interview with Bill O’Reilly is attached hereto as Exhibit 19. The transcript can also be found at http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-trump-sits-down-bill-oreilly/.
24. A true and accurate copy of the November 20, 2015 New York Times article by Trip Gabriel titled “Donald Trump Says He’d ‘Absolutely’ Require Muslims to Register” is attached as Exhibit 20. The article can also be found at https://www.nytimes.com/politics/firstdraft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/.
25. A true and accurate copy of the December 8, 2015 Daily Wire article by Robert Kraychik titled “Trump to MSNBC: ‘The Muslim Community Is Not Reporting What’s Going On’” is attached as Exhibit 21. The article can also be found at http://www.dailywire.com/news/1692/trump-msnbc-muslim-community-not-reporting-whatsrobert-kraychik.
26. A true and accurate copy of a transcript of Donald J. Trump’s and Mike Pence’s July 17, 2016 interview with Lesley Stahl is attached as Exhibit 22. The transcript can also be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/.
27. I have compiled the additional video and audio clips identified below. The video and audio clips also are contained on a USB flash drive, which will be filed if the Court grants the Commonwealth permission to file the flash drive.
a. A true and accurate video of then-Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump’s December 7, 2015 Pearl Harbor Day campaign rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina reading from his press release dated December 7, 2015 “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration.” The full video can be found at https://www.cspan.org/video/?401762-1/presidential-candidate-donald-trump-rally-mount-pleasantsouth-carolina&start=1811.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 77 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 459
b. A true and accurate copy of a video of a November 2015 exchange between Donald Trump and a reporter regarding a Muslim. In this video, thenPresidential Candidate Trump is asked how do you actually get Muslims registered; he responds, “It would just be good management what you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do this.” The video can also be found at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-muslimregistry-video-president-islam-policies-immigration-a7424511.html.
c. A true and accurate copy of the March 9, 2016 video of then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on ‘Anderson Cooper 360’ explaining that “Islam hates us.” The video can also be found at http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/10/donaldtrump-islam-intv-ac-cooper-sot.cnn.
d. A true and accurate copy of the May 11, 2016 audio of then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on ‘Kilmeade & Friends’ discussing the Muslim ban. The video can also be found at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4890453028001/?#sp=show-clips.
e. A true and accurate copy of the May 11, 2016 interview of thenPresidential Candidate Donald Trump on ‘On the Record with Greta’ on Fox News discussing the five- to seven-member immigration commission headed by Rudy Giuliani to look at the Muslim ban. The video can also be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyS2zL2ofbs.
f. A true and accurate video of then-Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump’s December 7, 2016 Pearl Harbor Day campaign rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina reading his press release dated December 7, 2016 “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration.” The press full video can be found at https://www.c-
8

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 78 of 79 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 460

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-1 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 79 of 79 2/5/2017 Case 1:S1ta7te-cmven-t0  B0y1  S1ec6re-tLarMy  JBoh-nT  KCelBly  OnD  Tohec  Eunmtrye  Onf  tLa6w1fu-l 1 PermFainleendt  R0e2si/d0en8ts/ 1 In7to  ThPe a Ugnieted1  Stoatfes1  |  PHoamgeelanIDd  S#ec4u6rit1y

      Official  website  of  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security

Contact  Us   Quick  Links   Site  Map   A-­Z  Index

              

  

Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States

Release  Date:   January  29,  2017

For  Immediate  Release   Office  of  the  Press  Secretary   Contact:  202-­282-­8010

WASHINGTON  –  In  applying  the  provisions  of  the  president's executive  order,  I  hereby  deem  the  entry  of  lawful  permanent residents  to  be  in  the  national  interest.

Accordingly,  absent  the  receipt  of  significant  derogatory information  indicating  a  serious  threat  to  public  safety  and welfare,  lawful  permanent  resident  status  will  be  a  dispositive factor  in  our  case-­by-­case  determinations.

#  #  #

Topics:    International  (/topics/international) Keywords:    international  (/keywords/international)  ,  Legal  Permanent  Residents
(/keywords/legal-­permanent-­residents)

Last  Published  Date:  January  29,  2017

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 1

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-­secretary-­john-­kelly-­entry-­lawful-­permanent-­residents-­united-­states

1/2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00D1o1n6al-dL  TMrumBp-  pTroCpoBses  D“tootacl  aunmd  ceomnptle6te1  s-h2utdoFwinle  odf  M0us2li/m0s8  e/n1te7ring  Pthea  Ugneite1d  Sotafte5s"P  -­  VaogxeID# 462
EXPLAIN THE NEWS
Donald Trump proposes “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"
Updated by Dara Lind dara@vox.com Dec 7, 2015, 5:57pm EST

Scott Olson/Getty Images
Donald Trump — who has spent his months atop the Republican polls slowly replacing the anti-immigrant rhetoric in his campaign with anti-Muslim rhetoric — is now officially calling to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.
His campaign has clarified that this would apply to "everybody," mentioning in particular Muslims entering the US as immigrants or tourists. Presumably, "everyone" also includes people entering on temporary work or student visas. His campaign initially claimed Muslim American citizens who are currently traveling abroad would be prevented from reentering the US (something that has already happened in isolated cases, though not

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 2

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-­trump-­muslims

1/7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00D1o1n6al-dL  TMrumBp-  pTroCpoBses  D“tootacl  aunmd  ceomnptle6te1  s-h2utdoFwinle  odf  M0us2li/m0s8  e/n1te7ring  Pthea  Ugneite2d  Sotafte5s"P  -­  VaogxeID# 463
deliberately, to citizens placed on the no-fly list), but in a talk-show appearance Tuesday Trump said Muslim citizens would be allowed to return.
Trump wants the ban to hold "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Here's the full statement:

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 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.
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

Trump's announcement comes as the FBI has uncovered evidence that the two Muslim American attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, last week were both "radicalized" and "had been for some time." One of those attackers, Syed Farook, was born in America. The other, his wife Tashfeen Malik, was born abroad but came to the US to marry Farook.

Is it constitutional to prevent all Muslims from entering the US?
It certainly sounds unconstitutional — the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion for all Americans. But when it comes to approving visas to come to the US, the government has a lot of leeway: It doesn't have to tell someone why his or her visa (or

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 2

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-­trump-­muslims

2/7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00D1o1n6al-dL  TMrumBp-  pTroCpoBses  D“tootacl  aunmd  ceomnptle6te1  s-h2utdoFwinle  odf  M0us2li/m0s8  e/n1te7ring  Pthea  Ugneite3d  Sotafte5s"P  -­  VaogxeID# 464
application to immigrate permanently) was denied. So in practice, the US could probably
quietly deny Muslims' visa requests for a while. But announcing it in advance would
probably be unwise, and the policy might get challenged in court.

Furthermore, tourists visiting from countries participating in the visa waiver program, which allows short visits from certain countries without a visa at all, don't have to apply for visas — so the government wouldn't have the opportunity to quietly bar them from entering. (Ironically, if Congress overhauls the visa waiver program — something both it and the White House think needs to happen in the wake of the Paris attacks last month — this would get easier.)
Trump's been slowly escalating his Islamophobic rhetoric for several weeks
Donald Trump climbed to the top of the GOP presidential polls in part on the strength of his attacks on Mexican and Latino immigrants. But as the summer has turned to fall, Trump — partly in response to news events, and partly to maintain his relevance with a political establishment (and political press) that's been frankly desperate to stop paying attention to him — has turned his focus to Muslims and Muslim Americans.

Trump was weeks ahead of his rivals in calling for the US to stop accepting Syrian refugees — as early as October, he was saying in stump speeches that refugees could be a "Trojan horse" for ISIS and that they should be sent back to Syria to fight there. (Other Republicans adopted variations on this position after the Paris attacks; at least one of the attackers was able to reenter Europe on a fake Syrian passport after leaving.)

In November, Trump began to call for particular mosques to be shut down. He flirted with the idea of requiring all Muslim Americans to register in a database. And just last week, in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, he offset his relatively blatant antiSemitism with an insinuation that Obama himself is Muslim: "Our president doesn’t want to use the term [...] ’radical Islamic terrorism.' There is something wrong with him that we don’t know about."

Trump is tapping into a wave of genuine Islamophobia in the US

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 2

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-­trump-­muslims

3/7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00D1o1n6al-dL  TMrumBp-  pTroCpoBses  D“tootacl  aunmd  ceomnptle6te1  s-h2utdoFwinle  odf  M0us2li/m0s8  e/n1te7ring  Pthea  Ugneite4d  Sotafte5s"P  -­  VaogxeID# 465
Trump justified his call for a Muslim ban by citing a poll that purports to show 25 percent of Muslims believe violence against America is justified. That poll is totally bogus; it comes from the organization of Frank Gaffney, a man who once said that the US missile defense logo is evidence of President Obama's "submission to shariah," and it's riddled with methodological flaws.
But the real reason for Trump's statement — and the reason it resonates so much — is because of a different set of poll results: those showing rising Islamophobia in America.
Americans are more afraid of terrorism than they used to be: Even before the Paris attacks, they were more fearful of becoming victims of terrorism than they had been at any point since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This is partly because Americans are just more worried, period; they're also more afraid of crime, more worried about race relations, and more concerned about illegal immigration.
They are also less tolerant of Muslims: A survey from the Public Religion Research Institute in September 2015 found that a majority — 56 percent — of Americans think Islam is "at odds with American values and way of life," up from 47 percent in 2011.
This poll was not an outlier, as my colleague Max Fisher has documented:
A February poll showed that 54 percent of Republican respondents believe that Obama "deep down" is best described as Muslim. By September, an Iowa poll found that only 49 percent of Republicans there believed that Islam should be legal, with 30 percent saying it should be illegal and 21 percent "unsure." Among Trump supporters in Iowa, hostility toward Muslims was higher but not that much higher: 36 percent said Islam should be outlawed… Fifty-seven percent of Americans, and 83 percent of Republicans, say that Muslims should be barred from the presidency.
This isn't just about polls, either. Last week, Max documented several examples of Islamophobic violence and threats of violence over the past several months. Here's his conclusion:

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 2

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-­trump-­muslims

4/7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00D1o1n6al-dL  TMrumBp-  pTroCpoBses  D“tootacl  aunmd  ceomnptle6te1  s-h2utdoFwinle  odf  M0us2li/m0s8  e/n1te7ring  Pthea  Ugneite5d  Sotafte5s"P  -­  VaogxeID# 466
The United States does not officially track the number of citizens who are Muslim, but it's likely a few million. A 2010 Pew survey estimated the Muslim American population at 2.6 million and predicted that by 2030 it would rise to 6.2 million, or about 1.7 percent of the population. These Americans increasingly live in a climate where they face not just hateful and discriminatory rhetoric but also violence and the threat of violence.
The threat of violence often has the same theatrical point as violence itself: to terrify and intimidate, to inflict psychological suffering on the targeted group in the form of fear and alienation, to force that targeted group to live a little bit less in the open and more in the shadows. Obviously, actual attacks on Muslims are worse than implicit or explicit threats — and, make no mistake, when militias stand outside an Islamic center, even if they have no intention of using violence, they are conveying a threat — but they serve the same goal of inflicting suffering on Muslims meant to drive them into the shadows or out of public society altogether.
The day after Fisher wrote this piece, the San Bernardino attacks happened — and law enforcement subsequently discovered they'd been carried out by a pair of radicalized Muslim Americans. And from what we've seen after the shootings, it certainly doesn't seem like Islamophobia is going to lessen, to say the least. As Jennifer Williams catalogued, it didn't take long for coverage of the San Bernardino attacks to turn Islamophobic. President Obama was worried enough about rising Islamophobia that he felt the need to give a primetime Oval Office address Sunday night partly warning Americans not to do exactly what Trump is encouraging them to do. (For what it's worth, the White House wasted no time in condemning Trump's Muslim ban proposal: Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said it was "totally contrary to our values as Americans.")
But the bottom line is this: Donald Trump would not be attracting a plurality of support among primary voters as a presidential candidate if he weren't saying things many Americans believe. It might be unconstitutional to turn those beliefs into government policy, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous to American Muslims who could be the victims of emboldened Islamophobic violence.

Watch: President Obama's speech

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 2

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-­trump-­muslims

5/7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCBTrumDpo  ncotu  bmotheenretd  6by1  c-o3mpaFrisiloensd  to0  H2it/le0r8  -­  /P1O7LITICPOage 1 of 6 PageID# 467


Donald  Trump  went  on  a  series  of  rhetorical  rants  on  Tuesday  morning,  saying  he  does  not mind  comparisons  to  Adolf  Hitler  and  tussling  with  morning  show  anchors  about  his proposal  to  temporarily  ban  all  Muslims  from  entering  the  United  States,  calling  his approach  more  akin  to  what  Hitler's  American  contemporary  did  during  World  War  II.
“You’re  increasingly  being  compared  to  Hitler.  Doesn’t  that  give  you  any  pause  at  all?”  ABC News'  George  Stephanopoulos  asked  the  Republican  poll  leader  on  "Good  Morning

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 3

http://www.politico.com/trump-­muslims-­shutdown-­hitler-­comparison

1/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCBTrumDpo  ncotu  bmotheenretd  6by1  c-o3mpaFrisiloensd  to0  H2it/le0r8  -­  /P1O7LITICPOage 2 of 6 PageID# 468
America,"  displaying  an  image  of  the  Philadelphia  Daily  News'  punning  Tuesday  front-page headline  "The  New  Furor."
In  response,  Trump  said  no,  invoking  what  he  termed  President  Franklin  D.  Roosevelt's "solution  for  Germans,  Italians,  Japanese  many  years  ago"  during  World  War  II.  “This  was  a president  that  was  highly  respected  by  all,"  Trump  said,  remarking  upon  the  Democratic president's  actions  during  the  war.  "If  you  look  at  what  he  was  doing,  it  was  far  worse."
Pressed  whether  he  would  then  advocate  the  establishment  of  internment  camps  for Muslims,  for  example,  Trump  forcefully  denied  that  notion.  “No,  I’m  not.  No,  I’m  not.  No, I’m  not,"  he  said,  remarking  that  European  cities  like  Paris  and  London  no  longer  look  like they  once  did.
"I  hope  it  will  go  quickly.  I  hope  we  can  figure  it  out,"  Trump  said.  "We  will  have  many,  many more  World  Trade  Centers  as  sure  as  you're  sitting  there,  our  country  will  never  be  the same."

Trump,  no  stranger  to  dropping  rhetorical  bombs  since  he  announced  his  presidential  run in  June,  still  managed  to  stun  with  his  proposal  emailed  late  Monday  with  the  simple  title: "Donald  J.  Trump  Statement  on  Preventing  Muslim  Immigration."
In  it,  Trump  used  research  from  the  Center  for  Security  Policy,  which  has  been  called  an extremist  group,  to  back  his  claim  that  an  alarming  number  of  Muslims  want  to  unleash violence  in  the  United  States.  "Without  looking  at  the  various  polling  data,  it  is  obvious  to anybody  the  hatred  is  beyond  comprehension,"  Trump  said  in  his  statement,  which  many  in the  media  believed  might  have  been  a  hoax  when  it  landed.  "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."
The  proposal  came  less  than  a  week  after  a  married  Muslim  couple  killed  14  people  and wounded  21  in  a  shooting  attack  that  is  apparently  the  most  deadly  terrorist  act  on  U.S.  soil since  9/11.  Trump's  statement,  which  he  promoted  at  a  Pearl  Harbor  Day  rally  in  South Carolina  on  Monday  night,  played  into  Americans'  fears  stoked  by  the  attack  and  also  gave

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 3

http://www.politico.com/trump-­muslims-­shutdown-­hitler-­comparison

2/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCBTrumDpo  ncotu  bmotheenretd  6by1  c-o3mpaFrisiloensd  to0  H2it/le0r8  -­  /P1O7LITICPOage 3 of 6 PageID# 469
Trump  a  chance  to  draw  attention  back  to  him  after  a  poll  released  earlier  in  the  day showed  Ted  Cruz  zooming  past  him  in  Iowa.
Many  of  his  rivals  quickly  condemned  the  comments,  with  Jeb  Bush  calling  Trump "unhinged,"  Chris  Christie  calling  it  “a  ridiculous  view,”  and  Marco  Rubio  saying,  "His  habit of  making  offensive  and  outlandish  statements  will  not  bring  Americans  together."
But  the  outcry  only  further  threw  attention  Trump's  way,  and  the  billionaire  businessman did  not  let  up  on  Tuesday  morning.
He  continued  trying  to  justify  his  proposal  in  interviews  on  CNN's  "New  Day"  and  MSNBC's "Morning  Joe,"  the  latter  of  which  suspended  its  interview  with  Trump  only  minutes  into the  segment  after  co-host  Joe  Scarborough  complained  that  the  candidate  was  not  allowing him  to  ask  any  questions.  The  show  returned  with  a  full  panel  of  questions,  and  the  entire segment  ran  more  than  a  half-hour.

During  his  questioning  on  MSNBC,  Trump  was  grilled  on  what  the  customs  process  would look  like  for  a  Muslim  non-citizen  attempting  to  enter  the  U.S.
“That  would  be  probably  —  they  would  say,  are  you  Muslim?"  Trump  told  contributor  Willie Geist.
“And  if  they  said  yes,  they  would  not  be  allowed  in  the  country,"  Geist  volunteered.  “That’s correct,"  Trump  responded.
In  the  same  interview,  Trump  also  claimed  that  the  Muslim  community  is  not  doing enough  to  self-report  suspicious  activity  in  light  of  last  Wednesday's  attack  in  California. Asked  by  co-host  Mika  Brzezinski  whether  he  would  want  to  engage  the  Muslim community,  the  Manhattan  mogul  said  he  would  not,  "but  the  Muslim  community  has  to help  us,  Mika.  They’re  not  helping  us."
"The  Muslim  community  is  not  reporting  what’s  going  on.  They  should  be  reporting  that their  next-door  neighbor  is  making  pipe  bombs  and  they’ve  got  them  all  over  the  place.  The mother’s  in  the  apartment,  other  people,  his  friend  was  buying  him  rifles.  Nobody  was reporting  that,"  he  said  of  the  San  Bernardino  case.  "The  Muslim  community  has  to  help  us, because  without  the  Muslim  community,  we  would  have  to  get  very  tough  and  much

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 3

http://www.politico.com/trump-­muslims-­shutdown-­hitler-­comparison

3/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCBTrumDpo  ncotu  bmotheenretd  6by1  c-o3mpaFrisiloensd  to0  H2it/le0r8  -­  /P1O7LITICPOage 4 of 6 PageID# 470
tougher,  and  I  don’t  want  to  do  that.  But  the  Muslim  community  is  not  a  one-way  street. The  Muslim  community  knew  that  this  guy,  what  he  was  doing,  and  his  wife,  his  very heavily  radicalized  wife,  they  knew  what  they  were  doing  was  wrong.  Nobody  called  the police.  Nobody  said  this  is  what  happened.”
At  the  start  of  the  interview  on  ABC,  Trump  forcefully  defended  his  statement,  citing "tremendous  support"  and  the  "thousands  and  thousands  of  people  you  saw  last  night"  at his  rally  in  South  Carolina.  "We  were  on  a  ship.  There  were  thousands  of  people  there,  there were  thousands  of  people  outside  that  couldn’t  get  in.  And  frankly,  it  was  a  standing ovation  that  wouldn’t  stop,"  he  remarked.
"I  mean,  people  went  and  interviewed  the  people  that  were  at  my  speech  last  night,  and they  just  want  to  see  something  happening.  We  had  the  World  Trade  Center,  we  had  the pre-World  Trade  Center,"  he  said,  referring  to  both  the  Sept.  11,  2001,  attacks  that  destroyed the  twin  towers  as  well  as  the  Feb.  26,  1993,  bombing.
"You  know,  remember,  a  lot  of  people  forget  now  —  they  tried  to  blow  it  up  twice.  We  had so  many  other  incidents,  and  we  had  now  the  last  incident  in  California.  Now  it  turns  out that  $28,000  was  deposited  in  this  punk’s  savings  account  probably  given  by  some  people that  we  are  fighting,"  he  speculated,  following  reports  Monday  that  more  than  $28,000  had been  deposited  into  the  account  of  San  Bernardino  co-attacker  Syed  Rizwan  Farook. "Something  has  to  be  done,"  he  added.

Trump,  who  on  MSNBC  declared  himself  to  be  more  specific  than  any  other  candidate  in the  race,  had  a  parting  message  for  Muslims:  “We  love  you,  we  want  to  work  with  you,  we want  you  to  turn  in  the  bad  ones,  we  want  you  to  practice  vigilance,  we  know  that  if  you know  a  lot,  in  many  cases,  we  want  you  to  turn  in  the  bad  ones.  We  all  want  to  get  along.  We want  to  get  back  to  a  normal,  peaceful  life."
On  how  he  would  get  it  done,  Trump,  offered  no  specifics  other  than  to  again  lambaste President  Barack  Obama's  Sunday  night  speech  on  defeating  ISIL  and  to  repeat  his  Monday statement.
“What  I’m  doing  is  I’m  calling  very  simply  for  a  shutdown  of  Muslims  entering  the  United States  —  and  here’s  a  key  —  until  our  country’s  representatives  can  figure  out  what  is  going on.  They  don’t  know.  Our  president,  I  watched  him  make  a  fool  of  himself  the  other  night

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 3

http://www.politico.com/trump-­muslims-­shutdown-­hitler-­comparison

4/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCBTrumDpo  ncotu  bmotheenretd  6by1  c-o3mpaFrisiloensd  to0  H2it/le0r8  -­  /P1O7LITICPOage 5 of 6 PageID# 471
with  a  speech  that  nobody  still  knows  —  I  tweeted  out,  is  that  all  there  is?  He  didn’t  say anything.  He  doesn’t  know  what’s  going  on.  And  we  have  people  in  this  country  that  want to  blow  up  our  country.  You  know  it,  and  so  do  I,"  he  said  on  "Good  Morning  America."
"The  polls  have  come  out,  and  various  polls  that  I’ve  quoted,  with  25  percent  of  those  polls agreed  the  violence  against  the  Americans  in  the  United  States  is  justified.  And  they’re looking  at  the  jihad.  They  want  a  global  jihad.  George,  we  can't  take  it  sitting  back.  You  will have  many  more  World  Trade  Centers.  It  will  only  get  worse,"  Trump  warned.  "You  look  at Paris,  you  know,  and  I’m  not  talking  about  the  horrible  carnage  that  took  place.  Paris  is  no longer  the  same  city."
American  Muslim  citizens  would  be  able  to  come  back  to  the  U.S.,  Trump  said,  adding,  "but we  have  to  figure  things  out."
Many  legal  scholars  came  out  against  the  proposal,  saying  such  a  religious  test  would violate  the  U.S.  Constitution.  And  the  spectrum  of  blowback  stretched  wide  and  far.  Former Vice  President  Dick  Cheney  said  on  Hugh  Hewitt's  radio  show,  "Well  I  think  this  whole notion  that  somehow  we  need  to  say  no  more  Muslims  and  just  ban  a  whole  religion  goes against  everything  we  stand  for  and  believe  in.  I  mean  religious  freedom’s  been  a  very important  part  of  our,  our  history.”
Huma  Abedin,  the  vice  chairwoman  of  Hillary  Clinton's  campaign,  sent  an  email  to supporters  saying,  "I’m  a  proud  Muslim  —  but  you  don’t  have  to  share  my  faith”  to  know “my  disgust."
After  Obama  aides  spoke  out  on  Monday  evening,  White  House  communications  director Jen  Psaki  said  at  a  POLITICO  Playbook  breakfast  on  Tuesday  morning  that  Trump  is  not  the only  Republican  making  irresponsible  comments,  but  she  said  the  real  estate  mogul's statement  are  especially  dangerous.
"So  the  reason  it’s  dangerous  ...  is  that  this  is  kind  of  sending  a  message  that  the  American people,  that  our  values  are  different  from  what  they  once  were.  Sending  the  message  that we  want  to  be  in  competition  or  we  want  to  be,  you  know,  thwarting  the  Muslim community  instead  of  working  with  the  Muslim  community  as  a  partner,"  Psaki  said.
On  the  Republican  side,  Sen.  Lindsey  Graham  re-upped  his  criticism,  speaking  on  both CNN  and  MSNBC  on  Tuesday  morning  to  call  out  his  presidential  rival.  “He  is  a  wrecking ball  for  the  Republican  Party.  He  is  a  xenophobic,  race-baiting,  religious  bigot,  and  I  think that’s  who  they’re  supporting.  Time  will  tell  how  long  this  goes."

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 3

http://www.politico.com/trump-­muslims-­shutdown-­hitler-­comparison

5/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCBTrumDpo  ncotu  bmotheenretd  6by1  c-o3mpaFrisiloensd  to0  H2it/le0r8  -­  /P1O7LITICPOage 6 of 6 PageID# 472
The  heads  of  state  Republican  parties  in  the  early  voting  states  of  Iowa,  New  Hampshire and  South  Carolina  also  expressed  public  disapproval  of  Trump's  proposal.  "There  are  some issues  that  transcend  politics.  While  my  position  [as  party  chairwoman]  is  certainly political,  I  am  an  American  first,"  said  New  Hampshire  GOP  Chairwoman  Jennifer  Horn, who  has  been  a  Trump  critic,  according  to  WMUR.  "There  should  never  be  a  day  in  the United  States  of  America  when  people  are  excluded  based  solely  on  their  race  or  religion.  It is  un-Republican.  It  is  unconstitutional.  And  it  is  un-American."
In  response,  Trump  told  Stephanopoulos,  "Well,  first  of  all,  George,  she’s  a  Bush  person. And  she  wants  to  see  Bush,  and  Bush  has  crashed  like  nobody  else  has  ever  seen  anyone crash  before."
The  United  Nations'  refugee  settlement  agency  said  Tuesday  that  campaign  rhetoric  from the  United  States  is  doing  real  harm.
"What  the  candidate  you  are  speaking  of  was  speaking  of  was  an  entire  population,  but  this also  impacts  the  refugee  program,"  Melissa  Fleming,  a  spokeswoman  for  the  United Nations  High  Commission  on  Refugees,  told  reporters  in  Geneva,  according  to  Reuters. "Because  our  refugee  program  is  religion-blind.  Our  resettlement  program  selects  the people  who  are  the  most  in  need."

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 3

http://www.politico.com/trump-­muslims-­shutdown-­hitler-­comparison

6/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-4 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 473 The Fix
By Amy B Wang January 29
Former  New  York  mayor  Rudy  W.  Giuliani  said  President  Trump  wanted  a  “Muslim  ban”  and  requested  he  assemble  a commission  to  show  him  “the  right  way  to  do  it  legally.” Giuliani,  an  early  Trump  supporter  who  once  had  been  rumored  for  a  Cabinet  position  in  the  new  administration,  appeared  on Fox  News  late  Saturday  night  to  describe  how  Trump's  executive  order  temporarily  banning  refugees  came  together. Trump  signed  orders  on  Friday  not  only  to  suspend  admission  of  all  refugees  into  the  United  States  for  120  days  but  also  to implement  “new  vetting  measures”  to  screen  out  “radical  Islamic  terrorists.”  Refugee  entry  from  Syria,  however,  would  be suspended  indefinitely,  and  all  travel  from  Syria  and  six  other  nations  —  Iran,  Iraq,  Libya,  Somalia,  Sudan  and  Yemen  —  is suspended  for  90  days.  Trump  also  said  he  would  give  priority  to  Christian  refugees  over  those  of  other  religions,  according  to the  Christian  Broadcasting  Network. Fox  News  host  Jeanine  Pirro  asked  Giuliani  whether  the  ban  had  anything  to  do  with  religion. “How  did  the  president  decide  the  seven  countries?”  she  asked.  “Okay,  talk  to  me.” “I'll  tell  you  the  whole  history  of  it,”  Giuliani  responded  eagerly.  “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.'  " Giuliani  said  he  assembled  a  “whole  group  of  other  very  expert  lawyers  on  this,”  including  former  U.S.  attorney  general Michael  Mukasey,  Rep.  Mike  McCaul  (R-­Tex.)  and  Rep.  Peter  T.  King  (R-­N.Y.). “And  what  we  did  was,  we  focused  on,  instead  of  religion,  danger  —  the  areas  of  the  world  that  create  danger  for  us,”  Giuliani told  Pirro.  “Which  is  a  factual  basis,  not  a  religious  basis.  Perfectly  legal,  perfectly  sensible.  And  that's  what  the  ban  is  based
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-4 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 474
on.  It's  not  based  on  religion.  It's  based  on  places  where  there  are  substantial  evidence  that  people  are  sending  terrorists  into our  country.”
It  was  unclear  when  the  phone  call  Giuliani  took  place  and  when  the  commission  began  working.  An  email  to  the  White  House press  office  was  not  immediately  returned  Sunday.
Clips  of  the  exchange  between  Giuliani  and  Pirro  quickly  went  viral  Saturday  night,  with  some  claiming  that  Giuliani's statement  amounted  to  admitting  Trump's  intent  had  been  to  institute  a  ban  based  on  religion.
Others,  including  Trump  senior  adviser  Kellyanne  Conway  and  White  House  Chief  of  Staff  Reince  Priebus,  have  insisted  it  is not  a  ban  on  Muslims,  but  rather  one  based  on  countries  from  which  travel  was  already  restricted  under  Barack  Obama's administration.
Priebus  appeared  on  CBS's  “Face  the  Nation”  Sunday  morning  to  say  it  was  possible  Trump  would  expand  the  list  of  countries included  in  the  travel  ban.
“You  can  point  to  other  countries  that  have  similar  problems,  like  Pakistan  and  others,”  Priebus  told  host  John  Dickerson. “Perhaps  we  need  to  take  it  further.”
Priebus  also  said  there  had  been  weeks  of  work  and  “plenty  of  communication”  between  the  White  House,  the  State Department  and  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  regarding  the  ban.
“We  didn't  just  type  this  thing  up  in  an  office  and  sign  up,”  he  told  Dickerson.
Later  on  the  same  program,  Rep.  Keith  Ellison  (D-­Minn.)  called  out  Giuliani's  interview  with  Pirro  from  the  night  before.
“They  can't  deny  that  this  is  a  Muslim  ban,”  Ellison  told  Dickerson.  “On  the  campaign  trail,  [Trump]  said  he  wanted  a  Muslim ban.  ...  Rudolph  W.  Giuliani  who  helped  him  write  it  said  that  they  started  out  with  the  intention  of  a  Muslim  ban  and  then they  sort  of  'languaged'  it  up  so  to  try  to  avoid  that  label,  but  it  is  a  religiously  based  ban.”
Senate  Democrats  vowed  to  draft  legislation  to  block  the  travel  ban.
“We’re  demanding  the  president  reverse  these  executive  orders  that  go  against  what  we  are,  everything  we  have  always  stood for,”  Senate  Minority  Leader  Charles  E.  Schumer  (D-­N.Y.)  said  in  a  news  conference  Sunday  morning,  noting  later  that  his middle  name,  Ellis,  was  originally  inspired  by  Ellis  Island.
“It  was  implemented  in  a  way  that  created  chaos  and  confusion  across  the  country,  and  it  will  only  serve  to  embolden  and inspire  those  around  the  globe  those  that  will  do  us  harm,”  Schumer  added  of  the  ban.  “It  must  be  reversed  immediately.”
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-4 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 475
Trump's  executive  order  sparked  massive  protests  at  airports  around  the  country  Friday  and  Saturday,  as  reports  surfaced that  dozens  of  travelers  from  the  affected  countries,  including  green-­card  holders,  were  being  detained.
The  American  Civil  Liberties  Union  filed  a  lawsuit  Saturday  morning  challenging  Trump’s  order  after  two  Iraqi  men  with immigrant  visas  were  barred  from  entering  the  United  States  at  New  York's  John  F.  Kennedy  International  Airport.
As  Giuliani  was  speaking,  Fox  News  simultaneously  aired  an  alert  that  noted  federal  judge  Ann  M.  Donnelly  had  issued  a  stay to  stop  the  deportations  nationwide.
Donnelly  wrote  that  there  was  a  strong  likelihood  the  order  had  violated  the  petitioners'  rights  to  due  process  and  equal protection  by  the  Constitution.
“There  is  imminent  danger  that,  absent  the  stay  of  removal,  there  will  be  substantial  and  irreparable  injury  to  refugees,  visa-­ holders,  and  other  individuals  from  nations  subject  to  the  January  27,  2017  Executive  Order,”  Donnelly  wrote.
The  ACLU  hailed  the  victory.
“Clearly  the  judge  understood  the  possibility  for  irreparable  harm  to  hundreds  of  immigrants  and  lawful  visitors  to  this country,”  ACLU  executive  director  Anthony  D.  Romero  said  in  a  statement.  “Our  courts  today  worked  as  they  should  as bulwarks  against  government  abuse  or  unconstitutional  policies  and  orders.  On  week  one,  Donald  Trump  suffered  his  first loss  in  court.”
On  Sunday,  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  issued  a  statement  saying  it  did  not  plan  to  back  off  enforcing  Trump's orders.
“President  Trump’s  Executive  Orders  remain  in  place  —  prohibited  travel  will  remain  prohibited,  and  the  U.S.  government retains  its  right  to  revoke  visas  at  any  time  if  required  for  national  security  or  public  safety,”  the  statement  read.  “President Trump’s  Executive  Order  affects  a  minor  portion  of  international  travelers,  and  is  a  first  step  towards  reestablishing  control over  America's  borders  and  national  security.”
The  department  said  that  less  than  1  percent  of  daily  international  air  travelers  to  the  United  States  had  been “inconvenienced”  on  Saturday.
Matthew  Kolken,  an  immigration  attorney  based  in  Buffalo  said  there  has  been  “a  systemic  bias  against  individuals  from Muslim  countries  in  the  U.S.  immigration  departments”  for  years,  including  under  the  Obama  administration.
“This  isn't  unprecedented,”  Kolken  told  The  Washington  Post  by  phone  Sunday.  “The  unfortunate  reality  is  the  executive branch  does  have  vast  discretionary  authority  to  determine  who  they  are  going  to  [allow  in  or  not].”

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 4

Sign up

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20 Keeping upCawsiteh 1p:o1li7ti-ccsv-is00e1as1y6n-LoMw.B-TCB Document 61-4 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 4 PSaiggneIuDp# 476
Still,  Kolken  said,  he  believes  “Trump  has  gone  a  step  further  without  a  doubt”  in  including  even  people  who  are  lawful permanent  residents  and  suspending  all  immigration  applications  from  people  from  the  seven  countries  on  the  banned  list. If  there  was  evidence  of  disparate  treatment  of  individuals  from  the  same  country  —  if  there  were  anecdotal  evidence  of,  for example,  a  Syrian  family  of  one  religious  background  allowed  to  enter  over  that  of  another  religious  background  —  then  that  is where  lawsuits  could  come  into  play,  he  said.
“The  question  becomes  whether  they're  trying  to  do  an  end-­around  by  couching  the  ban  as  a  country-­specific  ban  based  on  a security-­related  issues  when  in  reality  it's  a  religious  ban,”  Kolken  said. Read  more: Fact  Checker:  What  you  need  to  know  about  terror  threat  from  foreigners  and  Trump’s  executive  order ‘I  am  heartbroken’:  Malala  criticizes  Trump  for  ‘closing  the  door  on  children’  fleeing  violence A  ship  full  of  refugees  fleeing  the  Nazis  once  begged  the  U.S.  for  entry.  They  were  turned  back. Trump’s  travel  ban  could  make  Rex  Tillerson’s  potential  job  harder,  a  former  defense  secretary  says
Amy B Wang is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post.  Follow @amybwang

PAID PROMOTED STORIES

Do  you  like  game shows?  Do  you  like politics?  Whatever,
you’ll  LOVE  The Ciquizza  anyway.
Listen  on  iTunes.
Listen  on  Stitcher.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 4

Recommended  by

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-5 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 477 Politics
By Frances Stead Sellers and David A. Fahrenthold January 31
In  November  2015,  Stephen  K.  Bannon  —  then  the  executive  chairman  of  Breitbart  News  —  was  hosting  a  satellite  radio  show. His  guest  was  Rep.  Ryan  Zinke  (R-­Mont.),  who  opposed  President  Obama’s  plan  to  resettle  some  Syrian  refugees  in  the  United States. “We  need  to  put  a  stop  on  refugees  until  we  can  vet,”  Zinke  said. Bannon  cut  him  off. “Why  even  let  ’em  in?”  he  asked. Bannon  said  that  vetting  refugees  from  Muslim-­majority  countries  would  cost  money  and  time.  “Can’t  that  money  be  used  in the  United  States?”  he  said.  “Should  we  just  take  a  pause  and  a  hiatus  for  a  number  of  years  on  any  influx  from  that  area  of  the world?” In  the  years  before  Bannon  grabbed  the  world’s  attention  as  President  Trump’s  chief  White  House  strategist,  he  was developing  and  articulating  a  fiery  populist  vision  for  remaking  the  United  States  and  its  role  in  the  world. Bannon’s  past  statements,  aired  primarily  on  Breitbart  and  other  conservative  platforms,  serve  as  a  road  map  for  the controversial  agenda  that  has  roiled  Washington  and  shaken  the  global  order  during  Trump’s  first  two  weeks  in  office. Now,  at  the  center  of  power  in  the  White  House,  Bannon  is  moving  quickly  to  turn  his  ideas  into  policy,  helping  direct  the biggest  decisions  of  Trump’s  administration.  The  withdrawal  from  a  major  trade  pact.  A  ban  on  all  visitors  from  seven majority-­Muslim  countries.  And  —  in  an  echo  of  that  conversation  with  Zinke,  who  is  now  Trump’s  nominee  for  interior secretary  —  there  was  a  temporary  ban  on  all  new  refugees.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-5 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 478
The  result  has  been  intense  fury  from  Democrats,  discomfort  among  many  Republicans,  and  a  growing  sense  of  unease  in  the
world  that  Trump  intends  to  undermine  an  America-­centered  world  that  has  lasted  70  years.  This  sense  of  turmoil,  welcomed
by  many  Trump  supporters  as  proof  that  the  new  president  is  following  through  on  his  vow  to  jolt  Washington,  reflects  the
sort  of  transformation  that  Bannon  has  long  called  for.

That  worldview,  which  Bannon  laid  out  in  interviews  and  speeches  over  the  past  several  years,  hinges  largely  on  Bannon’s belief  in  American  “sovereignty.”  Bannon  said  that  countries  should  protect  their  citizens  and  their  essence  by  reducing immigration,  legal  and  illegal,  and  pulling  back  from  multinational  agreements.

At  the  same  time,  Bannon  was  concerned  that  the  United  States  and  the  “Judeo-­Christian  West”  were  in  a  war  against  an expansionist  Islamic  ideology  —  but  that  they  were  losing  the  war  by  not  recognizing  what  it  was.  Bannon  said  this  fight  was  so important,  it  was  worth  overlooking  differences  and  rivalries  with  countries  like  Russia.

It  is  not  yet  clear  how  far  Bannon  will  be  able  to  go  to  enact  his  agenda.  His  early  policy  moves  have  been  marred  by administrative  chaos.  But  his  worldview  calls  for  bigger  changes  than  those  already  made.

In  the  past,  Bannon  had  wondered  aloud  whether  the  country  was  ready  to  follow  his  lead.  Now,  he  will  find  out.

“Is  that  grit  still  there,  that  tenacity,  that  we’ve  seen  on  the  battlefields  .  .  .  fighting  for  something  greater  than  themselves?” Bannon  said  in  another  radio  interview  last  May,  before  he  joined  the  Trump  campaign.

That,  said  Bannon,  is  “one  of  the  biggest  open  questions  in  this  country.”

Bannon,  62,  is  a  former  Navy  officer  and  Goldman  Sachs  banker  who  made  a  fortune  after  he  acquired  a  share  of  the  royalties from  a  fledgling  TV  show  called  “Seinfeld.”  In  the  past  15  years,  he  shifted  into  entertainment  and  conservative  media,  making films  about  Ronald  Reagan  and  Sarah  Palin  and  then  taking  a  lead  role  at  Breitbart  News.

At  Breitbart,  Bannon  cemented  his  role  as  a  voice  for  the  alt-­right,  the  far-­right  movement  that  has  attracted  white supremacists  and  has  found  a  home  on  the  website.

Bannon  also  forged  a  rapport  with  Trump,  interviewing  the  businessman-­candidate  on  his  show  and  then,  in  August  2016, joining  the  campaign  as  chief  executive.

Now,  Bannon  has  become  one  of  the  most  powerful  men  in  America.  And  he’s  not  afraid  to  say  so.

In  interviews  with  reporters  since  Trump’s  election,  Bannon  has  eschewed  the  traditional  it’s-­all-­about-­the-­boss  humility  of presidential  staffers.

“Dick  Cheney.  Darth  Vader.  Satan.  That’s  power,”  he  told  the  Hollywood  Reporter  in  November,  embracing  the  comparisons

of  him  to  those  figures.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-5 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 479
In  the  same  interview,  Bannon  compared  himself  to  a  powerful  aide  to  England’s  Henry  VIII  —  an  aide  who  helped  engineer  a world-­shaking  move  of  his  era,  the  split  of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  Catholic  Church.
“I  am  Thomas  Cromwell  in  the  court  of  the  Tudors,”  Bannon  told  the  Hollywood  Reporter.
To  explore  Bannon’s  worldview,  The  Washington  Post  reviewed  hours  of  radio  interviews  that  Bannon  conducted  while hosting  a  Breitbart  radio  talk  show,  as  well  as  speeches  and  interviews  he  has  given  since  2014.
Bannon  did  not  respond  to  a  request  for  comment  made  on  Tuesday  afternoon.
In  his  public  statements,  Bannon  espoused  a  basic  idea  that  Trump  would  later  seize  as  the  centerpiece  of  his  campaign.
While  others  saw  the  world  rebounding  from  the  financial  crisis  of  2008,  Bannon  just  saw  it  becoming  more  divided  by  class.
The  elites  that  had  caused  the  crisis  —  or,  at  least,  failed  to  stop  it  —  were  now  rising  higher.  Everyone  else  was  being  left behind.
“The  middle  class,  the  working  men  and  women  in  the  world  .  .  .  are  just  tired  of  being  dictated  to  by  what  we  call  the  party  of Davos,”  Bannon  said  in  a  2014  speech  to  a  conference  at  the  Vatican  in  a  recording  obtained  by  BuzzFeed.  Davos  is  a  Swiss  ski resort  that  hosts  an  annual  conclave  of  wealthy  and  powerful  people.
Bannon  blamed  both  major  political  parties  for  this  system  and  set  out  to  force  his  ideas  on  an  unwilling  Republican leadership.
What  he  wanted,  he  said  again  and  again,  was  “sovereignty.”  Both  in  the  United  States  and  in  its  traditional  allies  in  Western Europe.
On  one  of  the  first  Breitbart  Radio  shows,  in  early  November  2015,  Bannon  praised  the  growing  movement  in  Britain  to  exit the  European  Union.  He  said  that  the  British  had  joined  the  E.U.  merely  as  a  trading  federation  but  that  it  had  grown  into  a force  that  had  stripped  Britons  of  sovereignty  “in  every  aspect  important  to  their  own  life.”
Bannon  has  been  supportive  of  similar  movements  in  other  European  countries  to  pull  out  of  the  union.  Trump  has  echoed those  sentiments  in  his  first  few  days  as  president.  It  is  a  remarkable  shift  in  U.S.  policy:  After  decades  of  building multinational  alliances  as  a  guarantee  of  peace,  now  the  White  House  has  indicated  it  may  undermine  them.
Bannon,  in  his  2014  speech  at  the  Vatican,  cast  this  as  a  return  to  a  better  past.
“I  think  strong  countries  and  strong  nationalist  movements  in  countries  make  strong  neighbors,”  Bannon  said.  “And  that  is really  the  building  blocks  that  built  Western  Europe  and  the  United  States,  and  I  think  it’s  what  can  see  us  forward.”
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-5 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 480
In  the  case  of  the  United  States,  Bannon  was  skeptical  of  multinational  trade  pacts,  saying  that  they  ceded  control.  In  a  radio interview  in  November  2015,  Sen.  Jeff  Sessions  (R-­Ala.)  agreed  with  Bannon.
“We  shouldn’t  be  tying  ourselves  down  like  Gulliver  in  the  land  of  Lilliputians  with  so  many  strings  a  guy  can’t  move,”  said Sessions,  who  is  now  Trump’s  nominee  to  become  attorney  general.  He  was  referring  to  a  scene  from  the  novel  “Gulliver’s Travels”  in  which  the  hero  is  tied  down  by  a  race  of  tiny  men.  “That  is  where  we  are  heading,  and  it’s  not  necessary.”
One  solution  put  forward  by  Bannon:  the  United  States  should  pursue  bilateral  trade  agreements  —  one  country  at  a  time  — rather  than  multi-­country  agreements  such  as  the  Trans-­Pacific  Partnership  supported  by  Obama.
He  suggested  as  much  to  Trump  himself,  when  the  candidate  appeared  on  his  show  in  November  2015.
“Trump  brings  [a  deal]  back  to  the  Senate  and  gets  his  bilateral  trade  deal  with  Taiwan  or  with  Japan  approved  by  two-­thirds of  the  Senate,”  Bannon  said.  “And  you  have  to  go  argue,  ‘Hey,  this  is  why  it’s  a  good  deal.’  And  that’s  the  way  the  Founders wanted  it.”
On  a  March  2016  episode,  Bannon  said  that  restoring  sovereignty  meant  reducing  immigration.  In  his  radio  shows,  he criticized  the  federal  H-­1B  visa  programs  that  permit  U.S.  companies  to  fill  technical  positions  with  workers  from  overseas.
The  “progressive  plutocrats  in  Silicon  Valley,”  Bannon  said,  want  unlimited  ability  to  go  around  the  world  and  bring  people back  to  the  United  States.  “Engineering  schools,”  Bannon  said,  “are  all  full  of  people  from  South  Asia,  and  East  Asia.  .  .  . They’ve  come  in  here  to  take  these  jobs.”  Meanwhile,  Bannon  said,  American  students  “can’t  get  engineering  degrees;;  they can’t  get  into  these  graduate  schools  because  they  are  all  foreign  students.  When  they  come  out,  they  can’t  get  a  job.”
“Don’t  we  have  a  problem  with  legal  immigration?”  asked  Bannon  repeatedly.
“Twenty  percent  of  this  country  is  immigrants.  Is  that  not  the  beating  heart  of  this  problem?”  he  said,  meaning  the  problem  of native-­born  Americans  being  unable  to  find  jobs  and  rising  wages.
In  another  show,  Bannon  had  complained  to  Trump  that  so  many  Silicon  Valley  chief  executives  were  South  Asian  or  Asian. This  was  a  rare  time  when  Trump  —  normally  receptive  to  Bannon’s  ideas  on-­air  —  pushed  back.  “I  still  want  people  to  come in,”  Trump  said.  “But  I  want  them  to  go  through  the  process.”
So  far,  Trump  has  made  no  changes  to  the  high-­skilled  visa  program.  This  week,  White  House  press  secretary  Sean  Spicer  said that  the  Trump  administration  may  reexamine  the  program.
Even  as  Bannon  was  calling  for  a  general  retreat  from  multinational  alliances,  however,  he  was  warning  of  the  need  for  a  new alliance  —  involving  only  a  subset  of  the  world’s  countries.
The  “Judeo-­Christian  West”  was  at  war,  he  said,  but  didn’t  seem  to  understand  it  yet.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-2 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-5 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 481
“There  is  a  major  war  brewing,  a  war  that’s  already  global,”  Bannon  said  at  the  Vatican  in  2014,  at  a  time  when  the  Islamic State  was  gaining  territory.  “Every  day  that  we  refuse  to  look  at  this  as  what  it  is  —  and  the  scale  of  it,  and  really  the viciousness  of  it  —  will  be  a  day  where  you  will  rue  that  we  didn’t  act.”
Bannon  has  given  few  details  about  the  mechanics  of  the  war  he  thinks  the  West  should  fight.  But  he  has  been  clear  that  it  is urgent  enough  to  take  priority  over  other  rivalries  and  worries.
In  his  talk  at  the  Vatican,  Bannon  was  asked  about  Russian  President  Vladi m  ir  Putin.  Bannon’s  answer  was  two-­sided.
“I  think  that  Putin  and  his  cronies  are  really  a  kleptocracy,  that  are  really  an  imperialist  power  that  want  to  expand,”  he  said. But,  Bannon  said,  there  were  bigger  concerns  than  Russia  —  and  there  was  something  to  admire  in  Putin’s  call  for  more traditional  values.

Evening Edition newsletter The day's most important stories.

Sign up

“However,  I  really  believe  that  in  this  current  environment,  where  you’re  facing  a  potential  new  caliphate  that  is  very aggressive  that  is  really  a  situation  —  I’m  not  saying  we  can  put  [Russia]  on  a  back  burner  —  but  I  think  we  have  to  deal  with first  things  first,”  Bannon  said.

If  Bannon  succeeds,  Bannon’s  own  comparison,  to  England’s  Thomas  Cromwell,  might  be  apt  —  to  a  point.

“The  analogy  —  if  it’s  going  to  work  —  is  that  Bannon  has  his  own  agenda,  which  he  will  try  to  use  Trump  for,  and  will  try  to exploit  the  power  that  Trump  has  given  him,  without  his  master  always  noticing,”  said  Diarmaid  MacCulloch,  a  professor  of history  at  England’s  Oxford  University.

But  Cromwell  was  later  executed,  after  Henry  VIII  turned  against  him.  For  a  man  like  that,  MacCulloch  said,  power  is  always tenuous:  “It’s  very  much  dependent  on  the  favor  of  the  king.”

Read  more:

Questions  multiply  over  Bannon’s  role  in  Trump  administration

How  Bannon  flattered  and  coaxed  Trump  on  policies  key  to  the  alt-­right

Trump  agrees  with  Bannon’s  assessment  that  the  media  is  the  ‘opposition  party’

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-5 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 482 Frances Stead Sellers is a senior writer at The Washington Post, currently covering the 2016 campaign. She was editor of the Style section from 2011-2014 and prior to that ran the newsroom’s health, science and environmental coverage.  Follow @FrancesSSellers
David A. Fahrenthold covers the 2016 presidential campaign for The Washington Post. He has been at the Post since 2000, and previously covered Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the environment, and the D.C. police.  Follow @Fahrenthold

PAID PROMOTED STORIES

Recommended  by

Tips  and  Tricks  on  Dressing  for Your  Body  Type
Macys.com

The  Latest:  Pence  cancels  on WI  GOP  rally  with  Ryan
Political Storm

Homeowners  Urged  To  Claim Their  $4264  In  Early  2017.
Smart Tips

The  Rare  Advice  Jim  Cramer  Is Giving  To  Individual  Investors
PayPath

The  6  Most  Amazing  Photo Spots  in  Europe
British Airways on AARP

Tarek  El  Moussa  Clears  Up Rumors  About  His  Divorce
E! Online

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 31 2/7/2017 Case 1:17-cBvro-d0y0  F1ile1  E6x-cLluMsivBe: - PTreCsidBent  TDruomcpu  Smayes  Pnetrs6e1cu-t6ed  CFhriisletiadns0  W2il/l 0 B8e  /G1iv7en  PPrioarigtye  As1  Roeffug2eePs  |a  CgBeNI.cDom# 483
Watch  About/Follow

Watch  About/Follow
Brody  File  Exclusive:  President  Trump  Says  Persecuted  Christians  Will  Be  Given Priority  As  Refugees

blogs thebrodyfile

Brody  File  Exclusive:  President  Trump  Says  Persecuted  Christians  Will  Be  Given  Priority  As  Refugees

01-­27-­2017 David  Brody
Share

Tweet

Email

+125

Tweet

  

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  iSni, d bduti  iqf u yoiuD  weecrle.  a-  C- hErixsthiainb, i itt  w6as  almost
http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-­file-­exclusive-­president-­trump-­says-­persecuted-­christians-­will-­be-­given-­priority-­as-­refugees 7/15

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 31 2/7/2017 Case 1:17-cBvro-d0y0  F1ile1  E6x-cLluMsivBe: - PTreCsidBent  TDruomcpu  Smayes  Pnetrs6e1cu-t6ed  CFhriisletiadns0  W2il/l 0 B8e  /G1iv7en  PPrioarigtye  As2  Roeffug2eePs  |a  CgBeNI.cDom# 484
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.”
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.
Become  a  Partner Give  a  special  gift

Share

Tweet

Email

+12   5

JOIN  THE  CONVERSATION

Login Write  a  comment

125  Comments

Subscribe RSS

Steve

7  days  ago

Christian  persecution  is  running  at  about  100,000  deaths  per  month.  I'm  so  glad  that our  President  is  cognizant  of  this  and  willing  to  alleviate  some  of  the  pain  and suffering  of  these  people.  

Like Reply Share

0

Israel  Friend  Di

8  days  ago

Our  President  Donald  Trump  is  doing  his  Christian  duty  by  banning  terrorists  Muslims and  illegals  into  the  USA  that  want  to  promote  Sharia  laws  upon  us  and  terrorize  this country.    Isis  and  Hamas  chop  off  the  heads  of  their  own  people  if  they  are  found  to
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 6
http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-­file-­exclusive-­president-­trump-­says-­persecuted-­christians-­will-­be-­given-­priority-­as-­refugees

8/15

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra1ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 485
OŌŎŐǾNŃŅŇ AĀĂĄǺIĪĬĮİRŔŖŘ NŃŅŇOŌŎŐǾWŴẀẂẄ
NŃŅŇPRŔŖŘ 24 HĦoōŏőǿuūŭůűųrŕŗř Prŕŗřoōŏőǿgğġģrŕŗřaāăąǻm SŚŞȘtţťțrŕŗřeēĕėęěaāăąǻm
nńņňprŕŗřpoōŏőǿlĺļľŀiīĭįtţťțiīĭįcćċčsśşș
GĞĠĢoōŏőǿrŕŗřsśşșuūŭůűųcćċčhħ Piīĭįcćċčkķ Foōŏőǿrŕŗř TŢŤȚoōŏőǿp CĆĊČoōŏőǿuūŭůűųrŕŗřtţťț Fuūŭůűųlĺļľŀfiīĭįlĺļľŀlĺļľŀsśşș TŢŤȚrŕŗřuūŭůűųmp CĆĊČaāăąǻmpaāăąǻiīĭįgğġģnńņň Plĺļľŀeēĕėęědďđgğġģeēĕėęě, CĆĊČoōŏőǿnńņňfiīĭįrŕŗřmsśşș DĎĐeēĕėęěmoōŏőǿcćċčrŕŗřaāăąǻtţťțsśşș' Feēĕėęěaāăąǻrŕŗřsśşș
Feēĕėęěbrŕŗřuūŭůűųaāăąǻrŕŗřyŷỳ 1, 2017 · 3:37 AĀĂĄǺM EĒĔĖĘĚTŢŤȚ
RŔŖŘOŌŎŐǾNŃŅŇ EĒĔĖĘĚLĹĻĽĿVIĪĬĮİNŃŅŇGĞĠĢ

President  Trump  shakes  hands  with  Judge  Neil  Gorsuch  after  nominating  him  to  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  during  a  ceremony in  the  East  Room  of  the  White  House  on  Tuesday.
Chip  Somodevilla/Getty  Images

After  a  dozen  tumultuous  days  in  the  White  House,  President  Trump  on  Tuesday  night found  a  way  to  unite  his  party,  delight  his  most  ardent  supporters  and  change  the storyline  on  his  nascent  presidency  in  a  single  stroke.

It  wasn't  magic  that  did  it,  it  was  the  choice  of  Neil  Gorsuch  to  serve  on  the  U.S. Supreme  Court.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

1/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra2ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 486
WŴẀẂẄhħoōŏőǿ IĪĬĮİsśşș NŃŅŇeēĕėęěiīĭįlĺļľŀ GĞĠĢoōŏőǿrŕŗřsśşșuūŭůűųcćċčhħ, TŢŤȚrŕŗřuūŭůűųmp'sśşș Fiīĭįrŕŗřsśşștţťț Piīĭįcćċčkķ Foōŏőǿrŕŗř TŢŤȚhħeēĕėęě SŚŞȘuūŭůűųprŕŗřeēĕėęěmeēĕėęě CĆĊČoōŏőǿuūŭůűųrŕŗřtţťț?
Gorsuch  is  now  a  judge  on  the  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  10th  Circuit  Court,  which sits  in  Colorado,  his  home  state.  Gorsuch  began  his  service  at  that  powerful  level  of  the federal  judiciary  in  2006,  at  age  39.
Well-­regarded  even  then,  Gorsuch  won  Senate  approval  on  a  voice  vote.  He  has  since emerged  as  a  leading  candidate  for  promotion  to  the  high  court.  Indeed,  he  might  have been  chosen  by  any  of  the  more  conventional  Republican  presidential  candidates  in 2016.
But  the  night  of  his  anointing  began  with  the  key  light  on  the  president,  who  strode into  the  East  Room  by  himself  and  mounted  a  podium  to  the  lectern.
"I  took  the  task  of  this  nomination  very  seriously,"  Trump  intoned.  "I  have  selected  an individual  whose  qualities  define  —  really,  and  I  mean  closely  define  —  what  we're looking  for.  Judge  Gorsuch  has  outstanding  legal  skills,  a  brilliant  mind,  tremendous discipline,  and  has  earned  bipartisan  support."
What Might President Trump's Nomination Mean For The Supreme Court? |...

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

2/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra3ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 487
YouTube
He  had  been  on  a  list  of  21  names  Trump  said  had  been  suggested  to  him  by conservative  think  tanks  and  advocacy  groups  determined  to  find  a  suitable  successor to  the  late  Antonin  Scalia.
It  was  impossible  to  clone  Scalia,  the  anchor  of  the  court's  conservative  wing  for  a generation.  But  Trump  seemed  resolved  to  come  as  close  as  he  could,  and  that  led  him to  the  man  from  Colorado.
"Months  ago  as  a  candidate,  I  publicly  presented  a  list  of  brilliant  and  accomplished people  to  the  American  electorate  and  pledged  to  make  my  choice  from  among  that list,"  Trump  said.  "Millions  of  voters  said  this  was  the  single  most  important  issue  to them  when  they  voted  for  me  for  president."
TŢŤȚrŕŗřuūŭůűųmp Maāăąǻdďđeēĕėęě HĦiīĭįsśşș SŚŞȘuūŭůűųprŕŗřeēĕėęěmeēĕėęě CĆĊČoōŏőǿuūŭůűųrŕŗřtţťț Piīĭįcćċčkķ. NŃŅŇoōŏőǿwŵẁẃẅ WŴẀẂẄhħaāăąǻtţťț? 5 SŚŞȘtţťțeēĕėęěpsśşș TŢŤȚoōŏőǿ CĆĊČoōŏőǿnńņňfiīĭįrŕŗřmaāăąǻtţťțiīĭįoōŏőǿnńņň

Indeed,  exit  polls  showed  that  filling  Scalia's  seat  was  "an  important  factor"  for  48 percent  of  those  who  voted  and  the  most  important  factor  for  another  21  percent. Among  those  who  said  it  was  the  most  important,  a  clear  majority  voted  for  Trump.
"I  am  a  man  of  my  word.  I  will  do  as  I  say,  something  that  the  American  people  have been  asking  for  from  Washington  for  a  very,  very  long  time,"  Trump  said  Tuesday night.
It  could  be  said  that  the  new  president  has  been  doing  what  he  had  promised  since  his Inauguration  Day  on  a  range  of  other  issues,  and  none  of  his  other  actions  have engendered  the  broad-­based  positive  reaction  that  greeted  Gorsuch.
DĎĐoōŏőǿnńņňaāăąǻlĺļľŀdďđ TŢŤȚrŕŗřuūŭůűųmp'sśşș SŚŞȘuūŭůűųprŕŗřeēĕėęěmeēĕėęě CĆĊČoōŏőǿuūŭůűųrŕŗřtţťț Piīĭįcćċčkķ — IĪĬĮİnńņň 100 WŴẀẂẄoōŏőǿrŕŗřdďđsśşș AĀĂĄǺnńņňdďđ 9 TŢŤȚwŵẁẃẅeēĕėęěeēĕėęětţťțsśşș

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

3/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra4ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 488
In  fact,  the  announcement  had  originally  been  scheduled  for  Thursday  night,  and  it appeared  to  have  been  moved  up  to  counter  the  rocky  rollout  of  the  president's  new restrictions  on  refugees  and  others  arriving  to  the  U.S.  from  seven  predominantly Muslim  countries.  That  set  of  moves,  which  culminated  in  the  firing  of  Acting  Attorney General  Sally  Yates  on  Monday  night,  had  dominated  the  news  since  Friday.
But  as  of  late  Tuesday  afternoon,  that  storm  seemed  to  subside,  if  only  long  enough  to make  room  for  the  dramatic  announcement  at  the  White  House.  Instead  of  bringing out  his  nominee  in  a  daytime  visit  to  the  Rose  Garden,  Trump  scheduled  a  prime-­time event  and  created  added  suspense  by  refusing  to  confirm  Gorsuch's  selection  before that  event.
It  was  even  reported  that  a  "runner-­up"  candidate,  Judge  Thomas  Hardiman  of  the 3rd  U.S.  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  had  been  summoned  to  Washington  and  might  be present  at  the  White  House  event  Tuesday  night.  The  notion  conjured  up  images  of The  Apprentice  or  other  reality  shows  produced  by  Trump  where  contestants  are  kept in  suspense  onstage  until  a  final  winner  is  named.
In  the  end,  the  actual  event  was  not  nearly  so  dramatic  or  unconventional.  A  gathering of  Republican  senators,  lawyers  and  other  denizens  of  the  judicial  system  filled  the East  Room  and  provided  hearty  applause.
Among  those  praising  the  choice  of  Gorsuch  was  Sen.  Mitch  McConnell  of  Kentucky, the  Senate  majority  leader  who  kept  the  Scalia  seat  vacant  last  year  by  refusing  to process  President  Barack  Obama's  nomination  of  Judge  Merrick  Garland.  McConnell said  the  voters  of  November  2016  should  have  a  say,  and  stuck  by  that  even  when  it appeared  those  voters  would  choose  Hillary  Clinton  to  succeed  Obama.
When  Trump  won  the  Electoral  College,  McConnell's  gamble  paid  off.  He  has  since made  it  clear  he  will  "guarantee"  Trump's  nominee  is  not  only  considered  but confirmed.  He  has  only  52  Republican  votes  toward  the  60  needed  to  cut  off  debate  on a  nominee,  but  he  can  either  recruit  eight  Democrats  or  change  the  rules  to  make  the filibuster  unavailable  in  this  instance.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

4/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra5ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 489
Recruiting  that  much  Democratic  support  might  seem  difficult  at  this  stage,  with  the
partisan  fervor  still  running  high.  But  10  of  the  Senate's  Democrats  who  face  re-­
election  struggles  in  2018  are  in  states  that  were  won  by  Trump  in  2016.  A  filibuster  of
Gorsuch  might  be  costly  to  their  prospects.

On  the  other  hand,  every  Democrat  in  Congress  must  deal  with  a  high  level  of  anger among  core  constituents,  who  are  demanding  relentless  resistance  to  virtually  every move  Trump  makes.

So  the  warm  feelings  in  the  East  Room  at  announcement  time  had  only  begun  to  fade when  the  battle  lines  began  forming  on  cable  TV,  in  social  media  and  countless  emails.

The  White  House  called  Gorsuch  "impossible  to  oppose"  and  produced  a  list  of supporters  from  Colorado  and  conservative  circles,  studded  with  a  few  Democrats  who have  at  least  praised  Gorsuch  in  the  past.

But  there  was  plenty  of  pushback  from  Democrats  in  Congress  and  various  advocacy groups.  Progressives,  in  particular,  took  issue  with  Gorsuch's  well-­known  views  on "religious  liberty"  and  his  willingness  to  let  employers  refuse  to  provide  birth  control services  under  Obamacare.  Also  noted  was  his  devotion  to  the  rights  of  gun  owners,  as well  as  those  of  campaign  donors  facing  strictures  under  campaign  finance  reform.

Gorsuch  also  has  been  controversial  for  questioning  the  long-­standing  practice  of court  deference  to  the  interpretive  expertise  of  administrative  agencies  when  laws leave  legislators'  intentions  ambiguous.

Some  Democrats  also  found  in  Gorsuch  a  symbol  of  Trump's  overall  approach  to governing  and  his  alleged  indifference  to  the  interests  of  certain  constituencies.

Sen.  Tammy  Baldwin  of  Wisconsin,  a  state  won  by  Trump,  released  a  statement  that said,  in  part:  "With  this  Supreme  Court  nomination,  President  Trump  has  made  it clear  he  has  no  interest  in  being  a  President  for  all  Americans  and  that  he  is  intent  on creating  more  division  in  our  country."

She  predicted  he  would  not  find  much  bipartisan  support,  a  suggestion  seconded  by

more  senior  Democrats  such  as  their  Senate  leader,  Charles  Schumer  of  New  York,

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

5/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra6ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 490
and  Judiciary  Committee  ranking  Democrat  Dianne  Feinstein  of  California.
Many  of  the  Democrats  couched  their  critiques  in  references  to  the  lack  of consideration  of  the  Garland  nomination  last  year.  One  was  Pat  Leahy  of  Vermont,  the former  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee:
"Before  Senate  Republicans  waged  the  unprecedented  blockade  of  Judge  Garland's nomination  to  the  Supreme  Court  last  year,  the  Senate  took  seriously  its  constitutional duty  to  provide  advice  and  consent  on  nominees  to  the  highest  court  in  the  land.  But Republicans  abdicated  the  Senate's  constitutional  role  by  choosing  politically-­charged obstruction,  so  that  a  president  [Trump]  who  lost  the  popular  vote  could  nominate extreme  candidates  to  the  Supreme  Court."
The  Garland  history  is  indeed  a  bitter  pill  for  Democrats  to  swallow  at  this  moment. But  they  also  struggle  with  the  dilemma  that  has  always  plagued  Senate  minority parties  when  presented  with  an  adversarial  president's  nominee  to  the  court.  They  can resist,  in  all  likelihood  losing  and  looking  weak  in  the  process,  or  they  can  stand  down and  sidestep  the  fight,  risking  the  rage  of  activists  in  their  support  base  who  are  most incensed  about  Trump's  court  choice  —  or  about  Trump  in  general.
There  was  one  sense  in  which  Gorsuch  did  not  seem  to  fit  the  profile  Trump  had initially  sketched  for  his  Supreme  Court  pick.  Trump  had  wanted  to  move  in  a  more unconventional  or  anti-­establishment  direction,  but  on  Tuesday  night  he  was  touting his  man's  exceptional  Ivy  League  pedigree.
In  addition  to  degrees  from  Columbia  University  and  Harvard  Law  School  (both  with honors,  as  Trump  himself  stressed),  Gorsuch  earned  a  doctorate  from  Oxford University  before  clerking  for  Supreme  Court  Justices  Byron  White  and  Anthony Kennedy.  (If  confirmed,  Gorsuch  will  be  the  first  former  clerk  to  share  the  Supreme Court  bench  with  the  justice  he  once  served.)
Gorsuch  thanked  previous  mentors  Kennedy  and  White  in  his  remarks  Tuesday  night. He  also  described  a  bit  of  his  own  judicial  philosophy,  saying  that  "in  our  legal  order  it is  for  Congress  and  not  the  courts  to  write  new  laws."

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

6/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00N1e1il  G6o-rLsuMchB  P-icTkC  FoBr  TopD  Coocurut  Fmulefillns  tTr6um1p- 7 CamFpailiegnd  Pl0ed2g/e0,  8Co/1nf7irms P Deamgoecra7ts'o  Ffea7rs P :  NaPgReID# 491
"It  is  the  role  of  judges  to  apply,  not  alter,  the  work  of  the  people's  representatives,"  he added.  "A  judge  who  likes  every  outcome  he  reaches  is  very  likely  a  bad  judge.  [W]hen we  judges  don  our  robes,  it  doesn't  make  us  any  smarter,  but  it  does  serve  as  a reminder  of  what's  expected  of  us:  impartiality  and  independence,  collegiality  and courage."
Correction
Feb.  1,  2017 A  previous  version  of  this  story  incorrectly  referred  to  someone  as  Justice  Byron  York  when  Justice  Byron White  was  meant.
SŚŞȘuūŭůűųbsśşșcćċčrŕŗřiīĭįbeēĕėęě tţťțoōŏőǿ tţťțhħeēĕėęě NŃŅŇPRŔŖŘ Poōŏőǿlĺļľŀiīĭįtţťțiīĭįcćċčsśşș Poōŏőǿdďđcćċčaāăąǻsśşștţťț

Moōŏőǿrŕŗřeēĕėęě SŚŞȘtţťțoōŏőǿrŕŗřiīĭįeēĕėęěsśşș Frŕŗřoōŏőǿm NŃŅŇPRŔŖŘ

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 7

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512761458/gorsuch-­pick-­for-­top-­court-­fulfills-­trump-­campaign-­pledge-­confirms-­democrats-­fea

7/13

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011T6ru-mLpM’s  BTa-lkT  ACboBut  MDusolimcsu  Lmede  Ancttin6g 1 A-tt8orneFy  Gileendera0l  2to/  D0e8fy/ 1 B7an  -­  TPhae g Neew1  Yoorkf  T4imPesageID# 492

https://nyti.ms/2jOn1Hg
POLITICS
Trump’s  Talk  About  Muslims  Led  Acting Attorney  General  to  Defy  Ban
By  ALAN  BLINDER  and  MATT  APUZZO JAN.  31,  2017 ATLANTA  —  As  a  young  prosecutor  in  the  late  1990s,  Sally  Q.  Yates  sat  at  a conference  table  with  a  former  sheriff  and  began  picking  away  at  his  story.  With  an F.B.I.  agent  watching,  Ms.  Yates  soon  had  the  lawman  in  knots  about  a  deposition.
“I  watched  him  as  she  broke  him  down,  and  he  confessed  that  he  had  lied  under oath,”  the  agent,  Oliver  G.  Halle,  now  retired,  recalled  on  Tuesday.  “She  can  be  very disarming,  but  underneath  that  disarming  appearance  is  a  woman  who  knows  how to  fight.”
As  acting  attorney  general,  Ms.  Yates  picked  the  fight  of  her  life  on  Monday when  she  ordered  the  Justice  Department  not  to  defend  President  Trump’s  executive order  blocking  refugees  and  restricting  immigration  to  the  United  States.  Ms.  Yates became  convinced,  based  on  the  president’s  own  statements,  that  he  had  intended  to unlawfully  single  out  Muslims,  senior  officials  said.
“We  have  comments  from  the  president  about  what  this  is  supposed  to  do,”  Ms. Yates  said  in  one  meeting  on  Monday,  according  to  two  people  involved  in  the discussions.  She  later  added,  “The  intent  was  clear  from  the  face  of  it.”
Ms.  Yates,  56,  was  swiftly  fired.  Before  she  even  finished  packing  up  her  office,  she had  become  a  hero  to  many  Democrats,  the  face  of  a  simmering  resistance  inside  the government  to  Mr.  Trump’s  administration.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sally-­yates-­trump-­immigration-­ban.html

1/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011T6ru-mLpM’s  BTa-lkT  ACboBut  MDusolimcsu  Lmede  Ancttin6g 1 A-tt8orneFy  Gileendera0l  2to/  D0e8fy/ 1 B7an  -­  TPhae g Neew2  Yoorkf  T4imPesageID# 493

Her  firing  was  a  politically  divisive  turn  in  a  career  that  had,  until  now,  earned her  bipartisan  praise.
“She  will  be  a  hero  of  the  American  people,  a  hero  of  what’s  right,”  Senator Johnny  Isakson,  Republican  of  Georgia,  said  in  2015  at  Ms.  Yates’s  confirmation hearing.  “She’ll  call  them  like  she  sees  them,  and  she  will  be  fair,  and  she  will  be just.”
While  Ms.  Yates  was  a  reliably  liberal  voice  in  the  Justice  Department  on  issues of  civil  rights,  criminal  justice  and  sentencing,  she  worked  her  way  up  as  a  career prosecutor  in  Atlanta  under  political  appointees  from  both  parties.  A  native Georgian,  she  led  prosecutions  against  some  of  the  highest  profile  defendants  in Atlanta,  including  former  Mayor  Bill  Campbell,  a  Democrat  who  was  accused  of racketeering  and  tax  fraud,  and  Eric  Robert  Rudolph,  who  set  bombs  at  a  park during  the  1996  Olympic  Games,  a  gay  nightclub  and  two  Southern  abortion  clinics.
She  also  took  on  the  leaders  of  an  Atlanta  suburb  who  refused  to  allow construction  of  a  mosque.  The  Justice  Department  sued,  and  the  city  reversed  itself. “Religious  freedom  requires  that  local  government  decisions  impacting  the  exercise of  that  freedom  be  free  of  discrimination,”  Ms.  Yates  said  at  the  time.
When  Ms.  Yates,  who  declined  to  comment  on  Tuesday,  became  deputy attorney  general  in  2015,  she  told  colleagues  that  she  had  no  intention  of  merely being  a  caretaker.  “We’re  going  to  run  through  the  tape,”  she  often  said.
In  Washington,  her  outgoing  personality  made  her  a  counterpoint  to  her  more reserved  boss,  Attorney  General  Loretta  E.  Lynch.  At  times  that  made  Ms.  Yates  the face  of  the  Justice  Department  in  ways  that  caused  tension  with  Ms.  Lynch’s  staff. Ms.  Yates  was  regarded  as  professionally  ambitious,  though  she  has  told  friends  that she  has  no  interest  in  running  for  political  office.
Last  year,  Ms.  Yates  and  Ms.  Lynch  earned  the  ire  of  Democrats  —  including many  in  the  department  —  for  not  intervening  to  prohibit  the  F.B.I.  director,  James B.  Comey,  from  sending  a  letter  to  Congress  in  the  final  days  of  the  presidential campaign.  The  letter  raised  the  prospect  of  new  and  potentially  damaging  evidence against  Hillary  Clinton  related  to  an  investigation  that  had  been  closed.  Nothing

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sally-­yates-­trump-­immigration-­ban.html

2/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011T6ru-mLpM’s  BTa-lkT  ACboBut  MDusolimcsu  Lmede  Ancttin6g 1 A-tt8orneFy  Gileendera0l  2to/  D0e8fy/ 1 B7an  -­  TPhae g Neew3  Yoorkf  T4imPesageID# 494
came  of  the  new  evidence,  and  Mrs.  Clinton’s  team  says  the  letter  cost  her  the presidency.  Her  supporters  argued  that  Justice  Department  leaders  were  too  timid to  stand  up  to  Mr.  Comey.
Mr.  Trump’s  executive  order  prompted  a  new  challenge  for  Ms.  Yates,  who  was serving  until  the  Senate  confirmed  a  new  attorney  general.  The  Justice  Department’s Office  of  Legal  Counsel  had  reviewed  and  signed  off  on  the  order,  but  Ms.  Yates believed  that  the  department  had  to  also  consider  the  president’s  intent,  which  she said  appeared  aimed  at  singling  out  people  based  on  religion.
Mr.  Trump  had  promised  to  do  as  much.  His  campaign  website  still  calls  for  a “total  and  complete  shutdown  of  Muslims  entering  the  United  States  until  our country’s  representatives  can  figure  out  what  is  going  on.”  After  the  decision  was announced,  one  of  his  advisers,  Rudolph  W.  Giuliani,  the  former  mayor  of  New  York, said  in  an  interview  that  Mr.  Trump  had  wanted  a  Muslim  ban  but  needed  “the  right way  to  do  it  legally.”  Mr.  Trump  then  said  in  an  interview  with  the  Christian Broadcasting  Network  that  Christian  refugees  would  be  given  priority  for  entry  visas to  the  United  States.
In  meetings  on  Monday,  some  in  the  department  said  it  should  defend  the order,  as  it  normally  does.  Others  disagreed.
Prominent  lawyers  echoed  that  debate  on  Tuesday.  Some  former  Justice Department  officials,  like  Martin  Lederman,  praised  Ms.  Yates’s  decision.  Ms.  Lynch said  “her  courageous  leadership  embodies  the  highest  traditions  of  the  Department of  Justice.”
But  others,  like  Jack  Goldsmith,  said  she  should  have  either  defended  the president’s  order  or  resigned.  George  J.  Terwilliger  III,  a  former  deputy  attorney general  who,  like  Ms.  Yates,  served  briefly  as  acting  attorney  general,  said  that  Ms. Yates  had  made  herself  and  the  Justice  Department  “look  blatantly  political.”
Ms.  Yates  considered  resigning,  four  current  and  former  Justice  Department officials  said,  but  she  concluded  that  doing  so  would  only  defer  a  difficult  decision  to a  temporary  successor.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sally-­yates-­trump-­immigration-­ban.html

3/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011T6ru-mLpM’s  BTa-lkT  ACboBut  MDusolimcsu  Lmede  Ancttin6g 1 A-tt8orneFy  Gileendera0l  2to/  D0e8fy/ 1 B7an  -­  TPhae g Neew4  Yoorkf  T4imPesageID# 495
That  dilemma  was  foreshadowed  two  years  ago  in  her  confirmation  hearing, when  Senator  Jeff  Sessions,  the  Alabama  Republican  who  is  poised  to  become  the next  attorney  general,  questioned  whether  Ms.  Yates  had  the  independent  streak needed  to  be  the  Justice  Department’s  second  in  command.
“If  the  views  the  president  wants  to  execute  are  unlawful,  should  the  attorney general  or  the  deputy  attorney  general  say  no?”  Mr.  Sessions  asked.
“I  believe  the  attorney  general  or  deputy  attorney  general  has  an  obligation  to follow  the  law  and  Constitution  and  give  their  independent  legal  advice  to  the president,”  Ms.  Yates  replied.
Shortly  after  9  p.m.  on  Monday,  roughly  three  hours  after  she  ordered department  lawyers  not  to  defend  the  president’s  position,  a  White  House  courier arrived  with  a  copy  of  her  dismissal  letter.
“Dear  Deputy  Attorney  General  Yates,”  said  the  letter,  which  was  signed  by John  DeStefano,  an  assistant  to  Mr.  Trump.  “I  am  informing  you  that  the  president has  removed  you  from  the  office  of  Deputy  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States.”
Alan  Blinder  reported  from  Atlanta,  and  Matt  Apuzzo  from  Washington.
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  A15  of  the  New  York  edition  with the  headline:  Trump’s  Talk  on  Muslims  Led  Acting  Attorney  General  to  Defy  Immigration  Order.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sally-­yates-­trump-­immigration-­ban.html

4/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-9 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 496

6 Stocks to Hold Forever
Looking to retire? These 6 stocks will generate regular income. Go to wealthyretirement.com/PreferredStocks
ADVERTISEMENT

Start Download
Weekend, 10-day & Current Weather. Instant Weather w/ Free App! Go to weatherblink.com

Document Message from Sally Yates to Justice Department lawyers before she was fired
JAN. 30, 2017
Act i ng  Atty.  Gen.  Sally  Yates  ordered  Justice  De p  art m  ent  at t  or n  eys  not  to  de f end  Pres i d e  nt  Trump’s  ex e  c u  t i ve  or d  er  on  travel  and  refugees  in  court.  Hours  later, Trump  fired  her.  Here  is  the  memo  she  wrote.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 9

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-9 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 497
On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 9

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMBTr-uTmCp  FBires  DAcotincgu  Amttoernneyt  G6e1n-e1ra0l  WhFo  iDleefdied0  H2im/0  -­ 8 T/h1e 7 NewP  Yoarkg  Teim1esof 5 PageID# 498

https://nyti.ms/2jOiH8q
POLITICS
Trump  Fires  Acting  Attorney  General Who  Defied  Him
By  MICHAEL  D.  SHEAR,  MARK  LANDLER,  MATT  APUZZO  and  ERIC  LICHTBLAU JAN.  30,
2017
WASHINGTON  —  President  Trump  fired  his  acting  attorney  general  on  Monday night,  removing  her  as  the  nation’s  top  law  enforcement  officer  after  she  defiantly refused  to  defend  his  executive  order  closing  the  nation’s  borders  to  refugees  and people  from  predominantly  Muslim  countries.
In  an  escalating  crisis  for  his  10-­day-­old  administration,  the  president  declared in  a  statement  that  Sally  Q.  Yates,  who  had  served  as  deputy  attorney  general  under President  Barack  Obama,  had  betrayed  the  administration  by  announcing  that Justice  Department  lawyers  would  not  defend  Mr.  Trump’s  order  against  legal challenges.
The  president  replaced  Ms.  Yates  with  Dana  J.  Boente,  the  United  States attorney  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Virginia,  saying  that  he  would  serve  as  attorney general  until  Congress  acts  to  confirm  Senator  Jeff  Sessions  of  Alabama.  In  his  first act  in  his  new  role,  Mr.  Boente  announced  that  he  was  rescinding  Ms.  Yates’s  order.
Monday’s  events  have  transformed  the  confirmation  of  Mr.  Sessions  into  a referendum  on  Mr.  Trump’s  immigration  order.  Action  in  the  Senate  could  come  as early  as  Tuesday.
Ms.  Yates’s  order  was  a  remarkable  rebuke  by  a  government  official  to  a  sitting president,  and  it  recalled  the  so-­called  Saturday  Night  Massacre  in  1973,  when

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 10

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-­immigration-­ban-­memo.html

1/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMBTr-uTmCp  FBires  DAcotincgu  Amttoernneyt  G6e1n-e1ra0l  WhFo  iDleefdied0  H2im/0  -­ 8 T/h1e 7 NewP  Yoarkg  Teim2esof 5 PageID# 499

President  Richard  M.  Nixon  fired  his  attorney  general  and  deputy  attorney  general for  refusing  to  dismiss  the  special  prosecutor  in  the  Watergate  case.
Mr.  Boente  was  sworn  in  at  9  p.m.,  according  to  White  House  officials,  who  did not  provide  details  about  who  performed  the  ceremony.  In  a  statement,  Mr.  Boente pledged  to  “defend  and  enforce  the  laws  of  our  country.”
At  9:15  p.m.,  Ms.  Yates  received  a  hand-­delivered  letter  at  the  Justice Department  that  informed  her  that  she  was  fired.  Signed  by  John  DeStefano,  one  of Mr.  Trump’s  White  House  aides,  the  letter  informed  Ms.  Yates  that  “the  president has  removed  you  from  the  office  of  Deputy  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States.”
Two  minutes  later,  the  White  House  officials  lashed  out  at  Ms.  Yates  in  a statement  issued  by  Sean  Spicer,  the  White  House  press  secretary.
“Ms.  Yates  is  an  Obama  administration  appointee  who  is  weak  on  borders  and very  weak  on  illegal  immigration,”  the  statement  said.
The  firing  of  Ms.  Yates  came  at  the  end  of  a  turbulent  three  days  that  began  on Friday  with  Mr.  Trump’s  signing  of  his  executive  order.  The  action  stranded travelers  around  the  world,  led  to  protests  around  the  country  and  created  alarm inside  the  bureaucracy.
Ms.  Yates,  like  other  senior  government  officials,  was  caught  by  surprise  by  the executive  order  and  agonized  over  the  weekend  about  how  to  respond,  two  Justice Department  officials  involved  in  the  weekend  deliberations  said.  Ms.  Yates considered  resigning  but  she  told  colleagues  she  did  not  want  to  leave  it  to  her successor  to  face  the  same  dilemma.
By  Monday  afternoon,  Ms.  Yates  added  to  a  deepening  sense  of  anxiety  in  the nation’s  capital  by  publicly  confronting  the  president  with  a  stinging  challenge  to  his authority,  laying  bare  a  deep  divide  at  the  Justice  Department,  within  the  diplomatic corps  and  elsewhere  in  the  government  over  the  wisdom  of  his  order.
“At  present,  I  am  not  convinced  that  the  defense  of  the  executive  order  is consistent  with  these  responsibilities,  nor  am  I  convinced  that  the  executive  order  is lawful,”  Ms.  Yates  wrote  in  a  letter  to  Justice  Department  lawyers.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 10

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-­immigration-­ban-­memo.html

2/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMBTr-uTmCp  FBires  DAcotincgu  Amttoernneyt  G6e1n-e1ra0l  WhFo  iDleefdied0  H2im/0  -­ 8 T/h1e 7 NewP  Yoarkg  Teim3esof 5 PageID# 500

Mr.  Trump’s  senior  aides  huddled  together  in  the  West  Wing  to  determine  what to  do.
They  decided  quickly  that  her  insubordination  could  not  stand,  according  to  an administration  official  familiar  with  the  deliberations.  Among  the  chief  concerns  was whether  Mr.  Sessions  could  be  confirmed  quickly  by  the  Senate.
After  Reince  Priebus,  the  White  House  chief  of  staff,  received  reassurances  from Senator  Mitch  McConnell  of  Kentucky,  the  Republican  leader,  that  the  confirmation was  on  track,  aides  took  their  recommendation  to  Mr.  Trump  in  the  White  House residence.
The  president  decided  quickly:  She  has  to  go,  he  told  them.
The  official  statement  from  Mr.  Spicer  accused  Ms.  Yates  of  failing  to  fulfill  her duty  to  defend  a  “legal  order  designed  to  protect  the  citizens  of  the  United  States” that  had  been  approved  by  the  Justice  Department’s  Office  of  Legal  Counsel.
“It  is  time  to  get  serious  about  protecting  our  country,”  Mr.  Spicer  said  in  the statement.  He  accused  Democrats  of  holding  up  the  confirmation  of  Mr.  Sessions  for political  reasons.  “Calling  for  tougher  vetting  for  individuals  traveling  from  seven dangerous  places  is  not  extreme.  It  is  reasonable  and  necessary  to  protect  our country.”
Former  Justice  Department  officials  said  the  president’s  action  would  send  a deep  shudder  through  an  agency  that  was  already  on  edge  as  officials  anticipated  an ideological  overhaul  once  Mr.  Sessions  takes  over.  One  former  senior  official  said that  department  lawyers  would  be  unnerved  by  the  firing.
Democrats,  meanwhile,  hailed  Ms.  Yates  as  a  principled  defender  of  what  she thought  was  right.  Senator  Chuck  Schumer  of  New  York,  the  Democratic  leader,  said in  a  statement  that  the  “attorney  general  should  be  loyal  and  pledge  fidelity  to  the law,  not  the  White  House.  The  fact  that  this  administration  doesn’t  understand  that is  chilling.”
Mr.  Boente  has  told  the  White  House  that  he  is  willing  to  sign  off  on  Mr. Trump’s  executive  order  on  refugees  and  immigration,  according  to  Joshua  Stueve,  a

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 10

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-­immigration-­ban-­memo.html

3/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMBTr-uTmCp  FBires  DAcotincgu  Amttoernneyt  G6e1n-e1ra0l  WhFo  iDleefdied0  H2im/0  -­ 8 T/h1e 7 NewP  Yoarkg  Teim4esof 5 PageID# 501

spokesman  for  the  United  States  attorney’s  office  in  Alexandria,  Va.,  where  Mr. Boente  has  served  as  the  top  prosecutor  since  2015.
Mr.  Boente,  who  has  been  a  prosecutor  with  the  Justice  Department  for  31 years,  had  no  hesitation  about  accepting  the  acting  attorney  general’s  job  given  his “seniority  and  loyalty”  to  the  department,  Mr.  Stueve  said  in  a  telephone  interview on  Monday  night.
As  acting  attorney  general,  Ms.  Yates  was  the  only  person  at  the  Justice Department  authorized  to  sign  applications  for  foreign  surveillance  warrants. Administrations  of  both  parties  have  interpreted  surveillance  laws  as  requiring foreign  surveillance  warrants  be  signed  only  by  Senate-­confirmed  Justice Department  officials.  Mr.  Boente  was  Senate-­confirmed  as  United  States  attorney and,  though  the  situation  is  unprecedented,  the  White  House  said  he  was  authorized to  sign  the  warrants.
Ms.  Yates’s  decision  had  effectively  overruled  a  finding  by  the  Justice Department’s  Office  of  Legal  Counsel,  which  had  already  approved  the  executive order  “with  respect  to  form  and  legality.”
Ms.  Yates  said  her  determination  in  deciding  not  to  defend  the  order  was broader,  however,  and  included  questions  not  only  about  the  order’s  lawfulness,  but also  whether  it  was  a  “wise  or  just”  policy.  She  also  alluded  to  unspecified  statements the  White  House  had  made  before  signing  the  order,  which  she  factored  into  her review.
Mr.  Trump  initially  responded  to  the  letter  with  a  post  on  Twitter  at  7:45  p.m., complaining  that  the  Senate’s  delay  in  confirming  his  cabinet  nominees  had  resulted in  leaving  Ms.  Yates  in  place.

Donald  J.  Trump    
@    realDonaldTrump

  Follow

The  Democrats  are  delaying  my  cabinet  picks  for purely  political  reasons.  They  have  nothing  going  but to  obstruct.  Now  have  an  Obama  A.G.
7:45  PM  -­  30  Jan  2017

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 10

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-­immigration-­ban-­memo.html

4/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 31 2/5/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMBTr-uTmCp  FBires  DAcotincgu  Amttoernneyt  G6e1n-e1ra0l  WhFo  iDleefdied0  H2im/0  -­ 8 T/h1e 7 NewP  Yoarkg  Teim5esof 5 PageID# 502
     28,243     128,144
The  1973  “Saturday  Night  Massacre”  led  to  a  constitutional  crisis  that  ended when  Robert  H.  Bork,  the  solicitor  general,  acceded  to  Mr.  Nixon’s  order  and  fired Archibald  Cox,  the  special  prosecutor.
Ms.  Yates,  a  career  prosecutor,  is  different  because  she  is  a  holdover  from  the Obama  administration.  She  agreed  to  Mr.  Trump’s  request  to  stay  on  as  acting attorney  general  until  Mr.  Sessions  is  confirmed  to  be  attorney  general.
Reporting  was  contributed  by  David  E.  Sanger,  Ron  Nixon,  Michael  R.  Gordon  and  Eric Schmitt  in  Washington.
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  January  31,  2017,  on  Page  A1  of  the  New  York  edition  with  the headline:  Trump  Fires  Justice  Chief  Who  Defied  Him.

Access  to  NYTimes.com  and  all  NYTimes  apps Unlimited  article  access,  anytime,  anywhere Learn  more  ►

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 10

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-­immigration-­ban-­memo.html

5/6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 503
  

BREAKING  NEWS:  Full  Text  of  Draft  Dissent  Channel  Memo  on  Trump Refugee  and  Visa  Order
  Monday,  January  30,  2017,  9:25  AM
Omphalos:  Middle  East  Con ict  in  Perspective

  

Consider  this  a  major  bureaucratic  uprising  on  the  part  of  career  foreign  service  of cers  against  the President  on  his  executive  order  on  refugees.

Numerous  Foreign  Service  of cers  and  other  diplomats have  drafted  a  dissent  memo  expressing  opposition  to President  Donald  Trump’s  executive  order  banning refugees  and  immigrants  from  Iran,  Iraq,  Libya, Somalia,  Sudan,  Syria,  and  Yemen  from  entering  the United  States.  ABC  reported  this  morning  on  the  draft, which  is  likely  to  be  submitted  today.
Here’s  a  copy  of  the  actual  draft.  We  are  hearing  that literally  hundreds  of  foreign  service  of cers  are planning  to  be  party  to  the  dissent  memo;  it’s  still unclear  exactly  how  many.  We  have  redacted  all  names and  personally  identi able  information  from  this  document.

If  you  are  finding  Lawfare  useful  in these  times,  please  consider  making  a
contribution  to  support  what  we  do.
  

  

To  print  the  document,  click  the  "Original  Document"  link  to  open  the  original  PDF. At  this  time  it  is  not  possible  to  print  the  document  with  annotations.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 504
   The  State  Department’s  Dissent  Channel  is  a  mechanism  for  employees  to  con dentially  express  policy disagreement,  created  in  1971  as  a  response  to  concerns  within  the  Department  over  the  government’s handling  of  the  Vietnam  War.  Authors  of  a  memo  submitted  through  the  Channel,  which  is  open  to  all regular  employees  of  the  State  Department  and  USAID,  may  not  be  subject  to  any  penalty  or  disciplinary action  in  response.  Once  a  memo  is  submitted,  the  Secretary  of  State’s  Policy  Planning  Staff  must acknowledge  its  receipt  within  two  working  days  and  will  usually  distribute  it  to  the  Secretary  of  State, the  Deputy  Secretary  of  State,  the  Under  Secretary  for  Political  Affairs,  the  Chairperson  of  the  Open Forum,  and,  if  the  memo’s  author  is  employed  by  USAID,  by  the  head  of  that  agency  as  well.  Taking  into account  the  wishes  of  the  author,  the  memo  may  also  be  distributed  more  broadly  within  the  State Department  and  may  be  done  so  anonymously. The  ultimate  signi cance  of  the  channel  is  that  memos  must  receive  a  substantive  response  within  30-60 working  days.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11


Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 505



_






First,  They  Came  for  the  Iranians
  
International  Fallout  from  Trump’s  Immigration  and  Refugee  Order,  U.S.  Raid  Targets  AQAP in  Yemen,  Greece-Turkey  Tensions  Escalate  over  Coup  Extradition
  
Why  Trump’s  Policies  Will  Increase  Terrorism—and  Why  Trump  Might  Bene t  as  a  Result
  

Litigation  Documents  &  Resources  Related  to  Trump  Executive  Order
  

Malevolence  Tempered  by  Incompetence:  Trump’s  Horrifying  Executive  Order  on  Refugees

and  Visas

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 506
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 507
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 508
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 509
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 31 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-11 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 510
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 11

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 31 2/1/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116D  -oLnMaldB  J.-  TTruCmBp  StaDtemoecnut  omn  Perenvten6tin1g-  M1u2slimF  Imilmeidgra0ti2on/  0|  D8o/n1al7d  J  TPrumagp  feor  1Preosifde2ntPageID# 511

INSTAGRAM

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

NEWS

GET INVOLVED

GALLERY

ABOUT US

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 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 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.
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

CATEGORIES
VIEW ALL STATEMENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS ENDORSEMENTS ADS
ARCHIVE
NOVEMBER 2016 OCTOBER 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016 AUGUST 2016 JULY 2016

JUNE 2016

Next Release: Donald J. Trump Announces State Directors in Massachusetts and Mississippi
Previous Release: Donald J. Trump Announces Statewide Leadership Team in Oklahoma

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

APRIL 2015

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 12 MARCH 2015

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-­releases/donald-­j.-­trump-­statement-­on-­preventing-­muslim-­immigration

1/2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-3 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 31 2/1/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116D  -oLnMaldB  J.-  TTruCmBp  StaDtemoecnut  omn  Perenvten6tin1g-  M1u2slimF  Imilmeidgra0ti2on/  0|  D8o/n1al7d  J  TPrumagp  feor  2Preosifde2ntPageID# 512
Paid  for  by  Donald  J.  Trump  for  President,  Inc. Contact  The  Campaign  -­  Privacy  Policy  -­  Tel:  646-­736-­1779 *By  entering  your  mobile  number  you  are  agreeing  to  receive  periodic  text  messages  from  Donald  J.  Trump  for  President,  Inc.   Message  and  data  rates  may  apply.  Text  "STOP"  to  opt-­out.  T&C/Privacy  Policy:  sms-­terms/88022

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 12

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-­releases/donald-­j.-­trump-­statement-­on-­preventing-­muslim-­immigration

2/2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011D6o-nLaMld  TBru-mTpC  sBeen  cDalloincg u fomr  Meunslitm6  re1g-is1tr3y  in  nFeiwle  vdide0o 2 de/0sp8it/e1  d7enialPs  |a  Tghee  In1deopfen6dePntageID# 513

News Voices Sports Culture



News › World › Americas › US elections
Donald Trump seen calling for Muslim registry in new video despite denials

Billionaire 'never advocated for any registry based on religion,' claims communications head

Harriet Agerholm | @HarrietAgerholm | Friday 18 November 2016 |  58 comments

2K
shares

Like

Click to follow The Independent US

POPULAR VIDEOS
Could A Cure for Wellness be the ﬁrst great horror ﬁlm http://www.independent.co.uko/nfew2s0/w1o7rl?d/americas/us-­electSioinds/ddoiqnauldi-­tDrumecp-l­m. u-s-liEm-x­rehgiisbtriyt-­v1id3eo-­president-­islam-­policies-­immigration-­a7424511.h... 1/22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011D6o-nLaMld  TBru-mTpC  sBeen  cDalloincg u fomr  Meunslitm6  re1g-is1tr3y  in  nFeiwle  vdide0o 2 de/0sp8it/e1  d7enialPs  |a  Tghee  In2deopfen6dePntageID# 514

of 2017?

News Voices Sports Culture



Ghost in the Shell spot gets inside Scarlett Johansson's The Major
Donald Trump spent a National Prayer meeting plugging The Apprentice
Trump vows to 'totally destroy' US rules on religion in politics

A spokesperson for Donald Trump has claimed the presidentelect “never advocated” for a registry that tracks individuals based on their religion, despite a video showing him endorsing precisely such a plan.
The Republican was captured on ﬁlm in November 2015 describing a network that would register and trace Muslims living across the US.
Yet Mr Trump's transition team communication director Jason Miller released a statement on Thursday saying: “President-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false."
READ MORE
Trump's national security adviser thinks fearing Muslims is 'rational' The big problem with Donald Trump’s new adviser- in one tweet Trump to meet with Mitt Romney over possible Secretary of State job Trump's national security adviser thinks fearing Muslims is 'rational'
In 2015 Mr Trump said he said he would bring in “a lot of systems” that could track Muslims, after signing them up in various places across the country.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 13
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-­elections/donald-­trump-­muslim-­registry-­video-­president-­islam-­policies-­immigration-­a7424511.h... 2/22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011D6o-nLaMld  TBru-mTpC  sBeen  cDalloincg u fomr  Meunslitm6  re1g-is1tr3y  in  nFeiwle  vdide0o 2 de/0sp8it/e1  d7enialPs  |a  Tghee  In3deopfen6dePntageID# 515

   When asked by NBC whether Muslims would be legally obliged News Voices Sports Culture



to register on the database, Mr Trump replied: “They have to be,

they have to be.”

Asked to conﬁrm whether he would introduce the policy against Muslims if he won the White House he said: “I would certainly implement that, absolutely.”

Mr Trump said it was possible to bring in the scheme because he would implement “good management”.

READ MORE
People are ﬁghting Donald Trump's 'Muslim register' by campaigning fo
The idea of a Muslim register was one of the most controversial issues of the Trump campaign and the billionaire already appears to have rowed back on some of his statements.
A key member of the Republican’s transition team caused consternation on Wednesday when he said that Mr Trump's policy advisors were discussing plans for tracking Muslim immigrants living in the US.
Kris Kobach, the secretary of state for Kansas, has helped devise strict immigration laws in a number of US states and claims to
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 13
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-­elections/donald-­trump-­muslim-­registry-­video-­president-­islam-­policies-­immigration-­a7424511.h... 3/22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011D6o-nLaMld  TBru-mTpC  sBeen  cDalloincg u fomr  Meunslitm6  re1g-is1tr3y  in  nFeiwle  vdide0o 2 de/0sp8it/e1  d7enialPs  |a  Tghee  In4deopfen6dePntageID# 516

have participated in regular conference calls with Mr Trump’s
News Voices Sports Culture
immigration advisers.



0:00 / 0:34
Trump: We're going to deport millions

   

The anti-immigrant hardliner also said the Trump administration could push ahead quickly with the construction of a US-Mexico border wall — without seeking congressional approval ﬁrst.
The Muslim registration scheme is reminiscent of a programme launched in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) which required thousands of Arab and Muslim visitors and temporary US residents to register with the state.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 13
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-­elections/donald-­trump-­muslim-­registry-­video-­president-­islam-­policies-­immigration-­a7424511.h... 4/22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011D6o-nLaMld  TBru-mTpC  sBeen  cDalloincg u fomr  Meunslitm6  re1g-is1tr3y  in  nFeiwle  vdide0o 2 de/0sp8it/e1  d7enialPs  |a  Tghee  In5deopfen6dePntageID# 517

News Voices Sports Culture



READ MORE
History tells us Trump's database of Muslims will deﬁnitely end well
NSEERS – of which Mr Kobach was a key architect – was abandoned in 2011 after it was criticised for unfairly targeting immigrants from Muslim-majority nations.
It is not yet clear whether Mr Kobach will have a role in the Trump administration, but he is tipped for the role of Attorney General.
The Muslim registration scheme would reportedly hand Muslims a form of identiﬁcation that notes their religion and parallels between Mr Trump’s proposals and the Nazi’s treatment of Jews have been drawn.
 President Trump protests

  Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 13
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-­elections/donald-­trump-­muslim-­registry-­video-­president-­islam-­policies-­immigration-­a7424511.h...

5/22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-0011D6o-nLaMld  TBru-mTpC  sBeen  cDalloincg u fomr  Meunslitm6  re1g-is1tr3y  in  nFeiwle  vdide0o 2 de/0sp8it/e1  d7enialPs  |a  Tghee  In6deopfen6dePntageID# 518



 News Voices Sports Culture



 20
show all

In an interview on Sunday Mr Trump told CBS he would deport two to three million undocumented immigrants “immediately” on taking oﬃce.

He also conﬁrmed his plans to “build a wall”, although he added that some parts of the barrier could be a fence.

The President-elect is reported to be considering appointing the vice-president of a think-tank that has said Muslims are inﬁltrating the American government as his deputy security advisor.

More about: | Donald Trump | anti-immigration | American Muslims | Anti-Muslim | Islamophobia | immigrants | US elections 2016

Melania Trump's IQ Is Unnerving
Majorten

Reuse content Sponsored  Links  by  Taboola      

Limitless WordPress Support And Help on Small Jobs Starting At 67 Bucks A Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 13
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-­elections/donald-­trump-­muslim-­registry-­video-­president-­islam-­policies-­immigration-­a7424511.h... 6/22

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-14 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 519 The Fix
By Aaron Blake December 21, 2016
Update:  President-­elect  Trump  offered  his  latest  oblique  statement  about  how  his  administration  might  register  Muslims  or ban  Muslim  immigrants  on  Wednesday,  telling  reporters  when  asked  about  a  Muslim  ban  or  registry,  "You've  known  my plans  all  along"  and  adding,  "I've  been  proven  to  be  right.  100  percent  correct"  in  response  to  attacks  in  Berlin  and  Turkey. It's  just  the  latest  opaque  comment  from  Trump  on  this  topic.  Last  month,  we  looked  at  his  evolution  on  the  issue  after  one  of his  potential  attorneys  general  spoke  about  instituting  some  kind  of  database.  That  post  is  below,  with  the  new  comments  at the  bottom. The  idea  of  a  so-­called  Muslim  registry  or  Muslim  database  has  been  back  in  the  news  in  recent  days  after  a  pair  of  high-­ profile  Donald  Trump  supporters  rekindled  it. Kansas  Secretary  of  State  Kris  Kobach  —  formerly  rumored  to  be  a  candidate  for  Trump's  attorney  general  —  talked  to  Reuters on  Tuesday  about  the  Trump  administration  implementing  one.  By  Wednesday,  Trump  surrogate  Carl  Higbie  cited  Japanese American  internment  camps  during  World  War  II  as  “precedent”  for  doing  such  a  thing. But  it's  worth  noting  how  this  idea  evolved  over  the  course  of  Trump's  campaign. What  Kobach  and  Higbie  are  talking  about  is  actually  less  far-­reaching  than  the  Muslim  database  that  Trump  suggested  he might  support  as  a  candidate.  They  are  talking  about  a  registry  for  immigrants  from  Muslim  countries  —  similar  to  one Kobach  helped  implement  as  a  staff  member  in  the  George  W.  Bush  Justice  Department  and  that  was  scrapped  in  2011  —  but Trump  at  times  expressed  an  openness  to  a  database  for  all  Muslims  in  the  United  States. The  idea  for  both  versions  is  basically  that  radical  Islam  poses  such  a  threat  that  Muslims  —  irrespective  of  their  potential  ties to  extremism  —  should  be  on  some  kind  of  registry  so  they  can  be  tracked.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 14

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-14 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 520
Trump  has  not  stated  clearly  exactly  what  he  favors,  and  he  has  even  disputed  reports  that  he  supported  the  broader  version  of the  Muslim  database.  His  campaign  released  a  statement  late  Thursday  stating,  "President-­elect  Trump  has  never  advocated for  any  registry  or  system  that  tracks  individuals  based  on  their  religion,  and  to  imply  otherwise  is  completely  false."
But  he  has  also  pointedly  declined  to  rule  it  out  and  has  at  times  talked  about  implementing  just  such  a  system.
In  other  words,  as  with  many  policies  he  might  push  as  president,  we  just  don't  know  exactly  what  he'll  do  —  until  he  steps forward  and  says  it  himself.  And  he  has  offered  plenty  of  conflicting  signals.
So  how  did  we  get  to  this  point?  And  what  exactly  has  Trump  said?  Let's  recap.
A noncommittal start
Almost  exactly  one  year  ago,  on  Nov.  19,  2015,  Trump  was  asked  by  a  Yahoo  News  reporter  what  measures  he  might  take  when it  came  to  his  stated  proposal  to  increase  surveillance  of  Muslims  in  the  United  States.
“We’re  going  to  have  to  do  certain  things  that  were  frankly  unthinkable  a  year  ago,”  Trump  said.  Asked  about  registering Muslims  in  a  database  or  noting  their  religion  on  IDs,  Trump  responded:  “We’re  going  to  have  to  look  at  a  lot  of  things  very closely.  We’re  going  to  have  to  look  at  the  mosques.  We’re  going  to  have  to  look  very,  very  carefully.”
Asked  the  following  day  again  whether  he  supported  a  Muslim  database,  Trump  was  again  oblique:  “There  should  be  a  lot  of systems  —  beyond  databases.  I  mean,  we  should  have  a  lot  of  systems.”  Trump  then  began  talking  about  a  border  wall.
Leaning in
The  MSNBC  reporter  followed  up:  “But  that’s  something  your  White  House  would  like  to  implement?”
Trump  responded:  “I  would  certainly  implement  that.  Absolutely.”
It  wasn't  clear  whether  the  “that”  he  was  referring  to  was  a  database  or  “a  lot  of  systems”  or  a  border  wall.  But  the  reporter then  asked  how  he  would  register  people,  and  Trump's  responses  suggested  that  he  supported  a  database.
“It  would  just  be  good  management,”  he  said.  When  asked  whether  they  would  be  required  to  register,  he  responded:  “They have  to  be  —  they  have  to  be.  Let  me  just  tell  you:  The  key  is  people  can  come  to  the  country,  but  they  have  to  come  legally.”
Trump disputes it — somewhat
Later  that  same  day,  Trump  disputed  the  reports  saying  he  had  endorsed  a  Muslim  database,  but  he  still  didn't  say  he disagreed  with  it.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 14

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-14 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 521
Still  later  that  day,  though,  Trump  again  left  open  the  possibility.  Asked  on  Fox  News  Channel  whether  he  would  support  a
“full  Muslim  database,”  he  said:  “Basically  the  suggestion  was  made  and  [is]  certainly  something  we  should  start  thinking
about.  …  But  certainly  I  would  want  to  have  a  database  for  the  refugees  —  for  the  Syrian  refugees  that  are  coming  in,  because
nobody  knows  where  they're  coming  from.”

The database is 'all right' and 'okay'
The  following  day  in  Alabama,  Trump  seemed  to  lean  in  more  toward  some  kind  of  a  database,  saying  it  would  be  “all  right” and  “okay”  but  again  quibbled  with  the  idea  that  it  was  a  big  deal.
“So  the  database  —  I  said  yeah,  that’s  all  right,  fine,”  he  said.  “But  they  also  said  the  wall,  and  I  said  the  wall,  and  I  was referring  to  the  wall.  But  database  is  okay,  and  watch  list  is  okay,  and  surveillance  is  okay.  ...  And  the  biggest  story  yesterday  — the  biggest  —  was  'Trump  wants  database  on  Muslims.’  I  said,  'What's  all  happening  here?'”
A  day  later,  Trump  again  left  open  the  possibility.  Asked  by  ABC  News  if  he  would  rule  out  a  database  on  all  Muslims,  he  said no,  but  then  shifted  to  talking  about  a  database  just  of  refugees.
“No,  not  at  all,”  he  said.  “I  want  a  database  for  the  refugees  that  —  if  they  come  into  the  country.  We  have  no  idea  who  these people  are.  When  the  Syrian  refugees  are  going  to  start  pouring  into  this  country,  we  don't  know  if  they're  ISIS,  we  don't  know if  it's  a  Trojan  horse.
“And  I  definitely  want  a  database  and  other  checks  and  balances.  We  want  to  go  with  watch  lists.  We  want  to  go  with databases.  And  we  have  no  choice.”
The  issue  was  soon  overshadowed  by  Trump's  proposal  in  December  to  ban  all  Muslim  immigration  —  which  he  may  or  may not  have  walked  back  since  then.  And  in  an  anti-­terrorism  speech  in  June,  he  made  no  mention  of  a  database  or  registry.

5-Minute Fix newsletter Keeping up with politics is easy now.

Sign up

But  judging  from  these  comments,  it's  little  surprise  that  the  Trump  transition  team  is  looking  at  some  kind  of  database involving  Muslims  or  Muslim  countries.  The  real  question  from  here  is  how  far  they  take  the  idea.

'You've known my plans all along'
In  a  very  brief  Q&A  session  with  reporters,  this  exchange  occurred:
QUESTION:  [Have  the  attacks  in  Berlin  and  Turkey]  caused  you  to  rethink  your  reevaluate  your  plans  to create  a  Muslim  registry  or  ban  Muslim  immigration  to  the  United  States?
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 14

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-14 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 522
TRUMP:  You've  known  my  plans  all  along.  I've  been  proven  to  be  right  -­-­  100  percent  correct. The  latter  statement  is  debatable.  The  former  is  just  not  the  case.
Aaron Blake is senior political reporter for The Fix.  Follow @aaronblake

PAID PROMOTED STORIES

Do  you  like  game shows?  Do  you  like politics?  Whatever,
you’ll  LOVE  The Ciquizza  anyway.
Listen  on  iTunes. Listen  on  Stitcher.
Recommended  by

Amal  Stuns  In  Dress,  Proving That  George  Is  A  Lucky  Man
Livingly

Trump  Is  Giving  Homeowners Until  February  28th  To  Claim Their  $4,240  Rebate!
TheDollarDaily

These  Are  the  Best  Luxury  Cars
Yahoo Search

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 14

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 523
H O M E    ( / ) O U R    R A N K I N G    P H I L O S O P H Y    ( / R A N K I N G S - F O R - B E T T E R - D E C I S I O N S / ) R A N K I N G S    M E T H O D O L O G I E S    ( / R A N K I N G S - M E T H O D O L O G I E S / )
I N S I G H T S    &    U P D A T E S    ( / B L O G / )
higher ed industry (/blog/? category=higher+ed+industry)
How  Trump's  Executive Order  Affects  Thousands of  International  Students  in
the  U.S.

Team  CollegeFactual  (/blog/?author=55c11d37e4b0615e0875c99c) ·   January  31,  2017  (/blog/how-­trumps-­travel-­ban-­affects-­
thousands-­of-­international-­students)
On  January  27,  President  Donald  J.  Trump  issued  an  executive  order that  affects  thousands  of  international  students  currently  studying  at U.S.  colleges  and  universities.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 15 The  order  banned  citizens  of  seven  countries  from  entering  the  U.S.

HOW

(/blog/hoTwR-­ UMP' S

trumps-­ travel-­

EXECUTIVE

ban-­ ORDER

affects-­ AFFECTS

thousandTsH-­ OUSANDS oinft-­ernatioOnaFl-­
INTERNATIONAL

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC The  oCradseer  b1a:1n7n-ecdv - c0i0ti1ze1n6s-L  oMf  Bse-TvCenB  coDuonctruiemse  fnrot m61  e-n1t5erinFgile  tdhe0  2U/.0S8./17 for  90  days.  During  the  90-­day  travel  ban,  the  Department  of Homeland  Security  is  meant  to  improve  the  vetting  process  for

PCaogloerisnat2utdedoroenfna5ttsPio)POIanNaagFgleT-­ eE1IRD2N#oAf562T54I O N A STUDENTS  IN

L

immigrants  from  those  countries.  The  countries  affected  include  Iran,

THE  U.S.

Iraq,  Libya,  Somalia,  Sudan,  Syria,  and  Yemen.

(/BLOG/HOW-

The  number  of  international  students  in  the  U.S.  has  grown tremendously  in  the  past  few  years,  and  thousands  of  students  will be  affected  by  this  travel  ban.

TRUMPST R AV E L - B A N AFFECTS-

The  travel  ban  prevents  students  who  are  citizens  of  the  seven countries  mentioned  from  traveling  to  and  from  their  country  of  origin and  the  United  States.  Some  students  have  already  been  detained from  re-­entering  America.

THOUSANDSOFI N T E R N AT I O N A L STUDENTS)

There  may  be  exceptions  made  on  a  case-­by-­case  basis,  but  for now,  these  students  face  extreme  uncertainty  as  to  their  future.  This ban  will  also  no  doubt  affect  the  number  of  new  international students  who  decide  to  choose  the  U.S.  to  pursue  their  education.
Based  on  2015  data,  there  are  23,763  students  studying  in  the U.S.A.  who  are  affected  by  this  travel  ban,  the  majority  of  whom  are from  Iran.

Trump  recently issued  an  executive order  that  bans travel  from  seven countries.  This  ban affects  thousands of  international students  currently studying  in  the  U.S.
Jan  31,  2017

www.collegefactual.com
International  students  from  these  countries  have  grown  steadily  over the  past  five  years.

HOW  TO  PICK

(/blog/hoAw-­N  ONLINE

to-­ choose-­

COLLEGE

an-­ (/BLOG/HOW-

online-­ TO-CHOOSE-

college) AN-ONLINE-

COLLEGE)

So  you're  thinking about  choosing  an online  college? There  are  three important  factors  to consider  first: accreditation, reputation,  and affordability.  Learn how  to  choose  an online  school  that offers  you  the  best quality  for  the money.

Jan  26,  2017

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 15

TIPS  FOR

(/blog/tipsA-­ DULTS

for-­ adults-­

RETURNING

TO  SCHOOL

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Coloraaddulots-­ Page 13 of 65
Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-15 Filed 02/08/17 Pagere3tuornf i5ngPT-­ Oag  eSICD#H5O2O5 L to-­ (/BLOG/TIPSschool) FOR-ADULTSRETURNINGTO-SCHOOL)

www.collegefactual.com

Adults  who  have decided  to  take  the plunge  and  go  back to  school  have  a  lot to  think  about  when it  comes  to choosing  a  college. Let  this  guide  help you  make  the  best decision.

Jan  19,  2017

www.collegefactual.com
Of  the  23,763  students  affected  by  the  travel  ban,  15,773  of  them  are attending  higher  education  institutions  offering  bachelor  degrees  or higher.  The  colleges  most  likely  to  be  affected  include  Texas  A&M (http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/texas-­a-­and-­m-­university-­ college-­station/),  University  of  Southern  California (http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-­of-­southern-­ california/),  and  Northeastern  University (http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/northeastern-­university/), among  others.

International  students  often  pay  full  tuition  prices  at  the  colleges  in

which  they  are  enrolled.  We  estimate  the  economic  benefit  of  having

those  students  in  the  U.S.  could  be  as  much  as  $701,802,834  for  all

students.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 15

IS  AN  ONLINE

(/blog/is-­DEGREE  A

an-­ online-­

GOOD

degree-­ INVESTMENT?

worth-­ (/BLOG/IS-

it) AN-ONLINE-

DEGREE-

WORTH-IT)

Many  worry  that there  is  a  stigma surrounding  online degrees.  However, they  can  be  a  very good  investment  for the  right  type  of student.  Learn  how to  make  an  online degree  work  for you.

Jan  10,  2017

I T T    T E C H (/blog/itt-­STUDENTS: tech-­ START  HERE
students)
TO  FIND W H AT ' S    N E X T ( / B LO G / I T T TECHSTUDENTS)
What's  the  next step  for  the

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 65

We  cCaalcsuela1te:1  t7h-icsv  b-0y0  a1s1s6u-mLMinBg - tThCesBe  inDtoecrnuamtieonnta6l  1st-u1d5enFtsil  eadre02/08/17 paying  full  undergraduate  tuition  and  fees,  room  and  board,  books and  other  typical  charges  at  the  596  different  colleges  they  attend. The  calculation  is  for  one  year  of  costs.

Page 4 of 5 PthaoguseaIDnd#s 5 o2f  6ITT
Tech  students  who need  to  find another  place  to finish  their  degree?

The  table  below  shows  the  colleges  that  will  be  most  affected.

Nov  8,  2016

www.collegefactual.com
The  U.S.  states  who  currently  see  the  most  financial  gains  from international  students  from  the  seven  banned  countries  are California,  Massachusetts,  and  Texas.  These  states  could  also  stand to  see  the  biggest  loss  if  the  ban  were  to  be  made  permanent.  

W H AT ' S    N E X T (/blog/whFaOts-­R  THE next-­ ACCREDITING
for-­
the-­ COUNCIL  FOR acics) INDEPENDENT
COLLEGE  & SCHOOLS (ACICS) (/BLOG/WHATSNEXT-FORTHE-ACICS)
What  happens  to thousands  of students  when  the accrediting  agency for  their  school goes  out  of business?
Sep  23,  2016

WHY  WE

(/blog/paPrtAneRriTngN-­ ERED

with-­ sva)

WITH

STUDENT

VETERANS  OF

AMERICA

(/BLOG/PARTNERIN

WITH-SVA)

Learn  more  about our  partnership  with Student  Veterans  of America.

Sep  21,  2016

The  majority  of  these  students  are  at  pSuibdldici q uuniivDeercsli.ti-e-sE  axnhdib  situ1p5ply

WHY  WE (/blog/whPyA-­ RTNERED wpaer-­tneredW-­ ITH with-­ 51OFFER 51offer) (/BLOG/WHY-
WE-

The  mCasjoeri1ty: 1 o7f - tchve-s0e0 2 s8tu9d-RenBtJs  aDreo  actu  pmuebnlitc1  u6n-i4verFsilteieds0  a2n/1d7  s/u1p7plyUSDC Colorado Page 15 of 65
quiteC  aa  sbeit  1o:f1  r7e-vcevn-u0e0 1 to1 6 th-LeM  inBs-tTitCutBionDs  othceuym  aetntetn6d1.-15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 5 PWagEe- ID# 527 PARTNEREDWITH51OFFER)

Data  comes  from  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  and  is  based on  the  number  of  F1  and  M1  Student  Visas  granted  in  the  past  five years.
Cost  estimates  come  from  the  Department  of  Education.

Learn  about  our partnership  with 51offer,  a  company that  helps  students successfully  apply and  attend international colleges  and universities.
Aug  22,  2016

This  report  covered  in  Bloomberg,  the  Wall  Street  Journal,  Fortune, Business  Insider,  MarketWatch,  and  other  media  outlets. (http://inside.collegefactual.com/press)
Note  we  will  continue  to  add  data  to  this  story  as  we  are  able  to collect  and  analyze  it.
Resources:
Full  Text  of  Trumps  Executive  Order: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-­of-­trump-­executive-­ order-­nation-­ban-­refugees/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-­of-­trump-­executive-­ order-­nation-­ban-­refugees/index.html)
US-­bound  migrants  blocked  from  flying  to  JFK  airport https://www.theguardian.com/us-­news/2017/jan/28/rights-­groups-­ flooded-­with-­calls-­as-­people-­fear-­re-­entry-­to-­us-­will-­be-­denied (https://www.theguardian.com/us-­news/2017/jan/28/rights-­groups-­ flooded-­with-­calls-­as-­people-­fear-­re-­entry-­to-­us-­will-­be-­denied)
Clemson  grad  denied  re-­entry  to  the  U.S. http://www.thetigernews.com/news/recent-­clemson-­grad-­denied-­ entry-­into-­the-­u-­s-­clemson/article_9f4fc0d2-­e69a-­11e6-­9c1b-­ 8b3dadf48161.html  (http://www.thetigernews.com/news/recent-­ clemson-­grad-­denied-­entry-­into-­the-­u-­s-­clemson/article_9f4fc0d2-­ e69a-­11e6-­9c1b-­8b3dadf48161.html)
Trump  blocks  student’s  return  to  MIT https://thetech.com/2017/01/29/immigration-­order-­blocks-­students-­ from-­mit  (https://thetech.com/2017/01/29/immigration-­order-­blocks-­ students-­from-­mit)
Tagged:  international  students  (/blog/? tag=international+students)
0  Likes    Share
20  Cleaning  Secrets  From  Hotel  MaidSsiddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 15

THE (/blog/theM-­ OTIVATION mbeohtiivnadt-­ioBn-E­ HIND  EARLY early-­ DECISION decision)(/BLOG/THE-
MOTIVATIONBEHINDEARLYDECISION)
The  Common  App has  revolutionized college  admissions, but  it  has  also made  it  difficult  for college  admissions officers  to determine  how serious  an applicant  is  about attending.  Early decision  and  early action  options change  that.
Jul  21,  2016
WHY  WE (/blog/whPyA-­ RTNERED wpaer-­tneredW-­ ITH with-­ COLLEGE admissioVnsI-­NE hero) (FORMALLY
ADMISSIONS HERO) (/BLOG/WHY-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116C-LolMlegBes-  tThaCt  cBouldD  loosec  tuhem  meosnt t m6on1e-y1  fr6om  TFruilmepd's  i0m2m/ig0r8at/io1n7  ban P -­  Baugsiene1ss  oInfsid2erPageID# 528
The  10  US  colleges  that  stand  to  lose  the most  from  Trump's  immigration  ban
ABBY  JACKSON FEB.  1,  2017,  2:30  PM
Last week,

Trump's  immigration  ban  have  a  sizable  impact  on  the  bottom  line  at  certain  American  colleges.
REUTERS

President  Donald  Trump  signed  an  executive  order  that  bars  citizens  of  Iran,  Iraq,  Libya,  Somalia,  Sudan,  Syria, and  Yemen  from  entering  the  US  for  90  days  and  all  refugees  for  120  days.  Opponents  of  the  ban  worry  that  the temporary  travel  ban  will  turn  into  a  permanent  one.
Around  the  nation,  news  has  emerged  of  college  students  from  the  affected  countries  not  being  able  to  get  back into  the  US.
Aside  from  the  personal  hardship  the  ban  has  been  seen  to  cause,  it  may  also  have  a  big  effect  on  the  bottom  line at  certain  American  colleges,  according  to  estimates  provided  to  Business  Insider  from  College  Factual,  a  higher education  data  analytics  and  research  company.
International  students  can  pay  up  to  three  times  more  than  in-­state  students  at  public  universities,  Business Insider's  Tanza  Loudenback  reported  in  September,  citing  data  from  SelfScore,  a  company  providing  financial services  to  international  students.  Foreign  students  effectively  subsidize  education  costs  for  other  students  at schools  where  they  pay  more,  taking  some  of  the  financial  burden  off  of  American  students.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 16

http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-­potentially-­most-­affected-­trump-­immigration-­ban-­2017-­2

1/3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 65 2/6/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116C-LolMlegBes-  tThaCt  cBouldD  loosec  tuhem  meosnt t m6on1e-y1  fr6om  TFruilmepd's  i0m2m/ig0r8at/io1n7  ban P -­  Baugsiene2ss  oInfsid2erPageID# 529 College  Factual  collected  data  from  Department  of  Homeland  Security  on  the  number  of  student  visas  that  were approved  in  2015,  the  most  recent  year  they  were  able  to  get  information.  The  10  universities  that  had  the  highest number  of  student  visas  from  the  seven  countries  which  now  have  a  temporary  travel  ban  are:
1.  Texas  A&M  University  —  271 2.  University  of  Southern  California  —  252 3.  Northeastern  University  —  249 4.  The  Pennsylvania  State  University  —  227 5.  University  of  Central  Florida  —  224 6.  University  of  Houston-­System  —221 7.  Kaplan  International  Centers  —  219 8.  The  University  of  Texas  at  Arlington  —  219 9.  Arizona  State  University  —  199 10.  Virginia  Polytechnic  Institute  and  State  University  —  197
To  estimate  the  potential  yearly  revenue  loss  of  these  figures,  College  Factual  used  the  tuition  and  fees  and  room and  board  cost  for  bachelor's  degree  programs  at  each  of  these  schools.  The  schools  that  stand  to  lose  the  most revenue  assuming  these  students  have  their  visas  revoked  are:
1.  University  of  Southern  California  —  $16.9  million 2.  Northeastern  University  —  $15.6  million 3.  Texas  A&M  University  —  $11.5  million 4.  The  Pennsylvania  State  University  —  $11.1  million 5.  University  of  Central  Florida  —  $8.6  million 6.  Virginia  Polytechnic  Institute  and  State  University  —  $8.2  million 7.  Arizona  State  University  —  $8.2  million 8.  University  of  Houston-­System  —  $7.9  million 9.  The  University  of  Texas  at  Arlington  —  $7.3  million 10.  Kaplan  International  Centers  —  $4.3  million
These  estimates  assume  all  students  are  seeking  bachelor's  degrees,  as  the  visa  data  was  not  able  to  split  between those  seeking  bachelor's  degrees  and  those  seeking  master's  or  doctoral  degrees.
Of  note:  Texas  institutions  of  higher  education  seem  to  be  most  susceptible  to  revenue  loss  if  Trump's immigration  ban  becomes  permanent,  with  Texas  A&M,  the  University  of  Houston  System,  and  the  University  of Texas  at  Arlington  losing  an  estimated  $26.7  million  combined.
Amy  Smith,  senior  vice  president  and  chief  marketing  officer  at  Texas  A&M,  said  that  while  the  school  has  not conducted  an  impact  analysis,  she  thought  the  numbers  were  likely  inflated  as  some  of  its  doctoral  students attend  the  school  on  scholarship.  Smith  also  said  that  the  school  doesn't  support  the  ban.  "We  would  not  be  the university  we  are  without  a  diverse  student  body,"  Smith  said.
Some  experts  warn  that  the  effect  on  foreign  enrollment  in  US  schools  could  be  far  greater  than  just  adjusting  for the  seven  banned  countries.
"The  domino  effect  of  this  ban  will  result  in  a  precipitous  decline  in  international  student  enrollment  from Muslim-­majority  countries,"  Rahul  Choudaha,  cofounder  of  international  student  support  organization interEDGE,  told  Business  Insider  in  an  email.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 16

http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-­potentially-­most-­affected-­trump-­immigration-­ban-­2017-­2

2/3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-17 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 530
Josh Rogin | Opinion

By Josh Rogin February 4
Editor’s  Note:  Prior  to  publication  of  this  column,  The  Post  sought  comment  from  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  but not  from  the  White  House.  We  should  have  done  both.  The  article  has  been  updated.  –  Fred  Hiatt
UPDATE  (Feb.  4,  6:13  p.m.):  The  article  has  been  updated  to  reflect  comments  from  White  House  press  secretary  Sean Spicer.  The  article  previously  stated  that  Stephen  K.  Bannon  visited  Homeland  Security  Secretary  John  F.  Kelly’s  office  on Jan.  28.  Spicer  said  Bannon  did  not  make  such  a  visit.  He  also  said  that  Secretary  of  State  Rex  Tillerson  and  Bannon  did not  participate  in  a  2  a.m.  conference  call  on  Jan.  29.  The  article  also  previously  stated  that  President  Trump  approved  a pause  in  executive  orders  pending  new  procedures.  According  to  Spicer,  it  was  White  House  Chief  of  Staff  Reince  Priebus, rather  than  the  president,  who  approved  the  new  procedures,  but  not  a  pause.
UPDATE  (Feb.  5,  8:55  a.m.):  This  post  has  been  updated.

Read These Comments The best conversations on The Washington Post

Sign up

Over  the  weekend  of  Jan.  28-­29,  as  airport  protests  raged  over  President  Trump’s  executive  order  on  immigration,  the  man charged  with  implementing  the  order,  Homeland  Security  Secretary  John  F.  Kelly,  had  a  plan.  He  would  issue  a  waiver  for lawful  permanent  residents,  a.k.a.  green-­card  holders,  from  the  seven  majority-­Muslim  countries  whose  citizens  had  been banned  from  entering  the  United  States.

White  House  chief  strategist  Stephen  K.  Bannon  wanted  to  stop  Kelly  in  his  tracks  and  told  him  not  to  issue  the  order.  Kelly, according  to  two  administration  officials  familiar  with  the  confrontation,  refused  to  comply.  That  was  the  beginning  of  a weekend  of  negotiations  among  senior  Trump  administration  staffers  that  led,  on  Sunday,  Jan.  29,  to  a  White  House  decision to  change  the  process  for  the  issuance  of  executive  orders.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 17

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 65 The  disagrCeeamseen1t : b1e7tw-ceve-n0  B0a1n1n6o-nL  ManBd-  KTeCllBy  piDtteodc  au  mpoelintitc6al1  o-p1e7ratForil  eagdai0n2s/t0  a8  m/1il7itarPy a dgiseci2plionfa3riaPna.  gTweIoD  a#dm53in1istration
officials  gave  the  following  account  of  their  exchange:  Respectfully  but  firmly,  the  retired  general  told  Bannon  that  despite  his high  position  in  the  White  House  and  close  relationship  with  President  Trump,  the  former  Breitbart  chief  was  not  in  Kelly’s chain  of  command.  If  the  president  wanted  Kelly  to  back  off  from  issuing  the  waiver,  Kelly  would  have  to  hear  it  from  the president  directly,  he  told  Bannon.  White  House  press  secretary  Sean  Spicer  said  Kelly  and  Bannon  spoke  on  Jan.  27  and  29, but  denied  they  had  a  confrontation  over  the  green  card  waiver.  In  an  email  sent  late  Saturday,  Bannon  also  denied  a confrontation  with  Kelly  and  said  he  had  not  told  him  to  withhold  the  waiver.

Trump  didn’t  call  Kelly  to  tell  him  to  hold  off.  Kelly  issued  the  waiver  late  Saturday  night,  although  it  wasn’t  officially announced  until  the  following  day.

That  did  not  end  the  dispute.  At  approximately  2  a.m.  Sunday,  according  to  the  two  officials,  a  conference  call  of  several  top officials  was  convened  to  discuss  the  ongoing  confusion  over  the  executive  order  and  the  anger  from  Cabinet  officials  over their  lack  of  inclusion  in  the  process  in  advance.

On  the  call  were  White  House  senior  policy  adviser  Stephen  Miller,  White  House  Counsel  Donald  McGahn,  national  security adviser  Michael  Flynn,  Kelly,  Defense  Secretary  Jim  Mattis  and  a  senior  State  Department  official,  who  represented  the  State Department  because  Secretary  of  State  nominee  Rex  Tillerson  had  not  yet  been  confirmed.

One  White  House  official  and  one  administration  official  told  me  that  the  Cabinet  officials  presented  a  united  front  and complained  about  the  process  that  led  to  the  issuance  of  the  immigration  executive  order,  focusing  on  their  near-­complete lack  of  consultation  as  well  as  the  White  House’s  reluctance  to  make  what  they  saw  as  common-­sense  revisions,  such  as exempting  green-­card  holders.

Bannon  and  Miller  pushed  back,  defending  the  White  House’s  actions  and  explaining  that  the  process  and  substance  of  the order  had  been  kept  to  a  close  circle  because  the  Trump  administration  had  not  yet  installed  its  own  officials  in  key government  roles  and  other  officials  were  still  getting  settled  into  place.

Flynn,  according  to  the  White  House  official,  partially  sided  with  the  Cabinet  officials,  arguing  that  they  should  be  included  in the  process,  even  if  the  White  House  ultimately  decided  not  to  adopt  their  recommendations.

“Flynn’s  argument  was  a  process  argument,  that  we  are  unnecessarily  putting  these  guys  in  a  tough  position,”  the  White House  official  said.  “If  you  are  going  to  ignore  them,  you  have  to  at  least  give  them  a  chance  to  say  their  piece.”

Later  on  Sunday,  White  House  Chief  of  Staff  Reince  Priebus  met  with  senior  staff  and  made  a  decision  at  that,  following  the already  scheduled  rollout  of  an  executive  order  on  regulatory  reforms,  all  other  executive  orders  would  be  held  up  until  a process  was  established  that  included  the  input  of  key  officials  outside  the  White  House.

Spicer  told  The  Post  that  there  was  no  pause  and  that  Priebus  simply  issued  new  procedures  for  executive  orders  that  were

meant  for  improving  the  process.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 17

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 65 “We  have  Ctoa  esvealu1a:1te7  t-hcev  -w0a0y1  w1e6  g-LetM  inBp-uTtC  frBom D thoec  Cuambiennett  s6e1c-r1et7arieFsi  laefdfec0t2ed/0  b8e/f1o7re  wPea  dgoe  th3inogfs,3”  tPhae g WehIDite#  H5o3u2se  official
said.  The  pause  appeared  to  end  on  Friday,  when  Trump  signed  an  executive  order  and  a  memorandum  on  financial regulation.
The  weekend’s  events  were  the  first  major  dust-­up  between  the  White  House  political  leadership  and  the  powerful  figures Trump  has  appointed  to  head  the  national  security  bureaucracies.  The  Cabinet  members  stood  up  for  themselves  and  their agencies  and  successfully  pushed  for  a  policy  tweak  that  the  administration  later  embraced  in  a  memorandum  to  “clarify”  the executive  order.
The  Cabinet  members  also  demonstrated  that  they  had  something  to  offer  the  White  House  besides  their  policy  input;;  they are  the  most  credible  spokespeople  for  controversial  White  House  policies  in  the  eyes  of  the  public.  On  Tuesday,  Kelly  gave the  White  House  badly  needed  political  cover  by  holding  a  news  conference  and  strongly  defending  the  immigration  executive order.
“This  is  not,  I  repeat,  not,  a  ban  on  Muslims,”  Kelly  said.  “We  cannot  gamble  with  American  lives.  I  will  not  gamble  with American  lives.  These  orders  are  a  matter  of  national  security,  and  it  is  my  sworn  responsibility  as  secretary  of  homeland security  to  protect  and  defend  the  American  people,”  he  said.
He  said  the  DHS  would  implement  the  order  “humanely,”  that  the  DHS  lawyers  had  been  involved  in  preparing  the  order  and that  he  did  have  some  advance  notice,  denying  reports  he  found  out  about  it  being  signed  while  he  was  on  an  airplane.  “We knew  it  was  coming.  It  wasn’t  a  surprise,”  Kelly  said.
Minutes  later,  Spicer  told  reporters  at  the  daily  briefing  that  “there  was  proper  coordination  and  preparation”  between  the White  House  and  the  DHS.
If  the  White  House  is  now  serious  about  working  with  the  Cabinet,  that’s  a  positive  sign  and  means  that  this  series  of  events had  a  constructive  impact  on  policymaking.  But  there’s  a  good  chance  that  this  won’t  be  the  last  time  that  Cabinet secretaries  will  have  to  confront  Bannon  and  Miller.  Score  their  first  battle  as  a  tie.

Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security.  Follow @joshrogin

PAID PROMOTED STORIES

Recommended  by

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 17

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 65

Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 533

Browse

Search Stories...

Log In

Sign Up

Embed

Donald Trump's tweets on Islam, Muslims and the Middle East
Themes include oil, predictions of an Iranian takeover of Iraq, an Obama-led strike on Iran, and more oil. Did we mention oil?
by ExpressNews.com a year ago 5,989 Views
On Muslims in America and terrorism:
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 21 PageID# 534

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Con  Ed  has  won  its  suit  against  the  Ground  Zero  Mosque developers  nyp.st/Lj4JJ2  The  mosque  is  never  going  up.
12:15  PM  -­  3  Jul  2012

Con  Ed  wins  one  over  mosque  back  rent
Chalk  one  up  for  Con  Edison  in  its  battle  over back  rent  with  the  mosque  developer  at  51  Park Place.  The  Post  has  learned  that  in  June,  State nypost.com

     251     38

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

The  Ground  Zero  Mosque  should  not  go  up  where  planned.  It  is wrong.  My  offer  still  stands  to  buy  the  property.  Good  deal  for everyone.
5:45  PM  -­  10  Dec  2012
     808     657

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Can  someone  explain  to  me  how  a  Chechnyan  permanent resident  non-­citizen  in  our  country  is  planning  Jihad  while  on welfare?
1:01  PM  -­  24  Apr  2013
     1,175     539

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

The  Boston  terrorist  thugs’  mother  is  also  a  radical.  I  am  sure she  will  be  granted  citizenship  shortly.
1:07  PM  -­  26  Apr  2013
     523     259 Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 21 PageID# 535

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

"@jp_sitles:  @realDonaldTrump  HillaryClinton:  she  compared republicans  to  terrorist  but  will  not  call  terrorists  ,  terrorists. #OhMe"
9:52  PM  -­  27  Aug  2015
     2,851     4,678

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Why  won't  President  Obama  use  the  term  Islamic  Terrorism? Isn't  it  now,  after  all  of  this  time  and  so  much  death,  about  time!
10:30  PM  -­  14  Nov  2015

     6,845     13,226

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

"@shawnlivinlife:  I  still  haven't  heard  the  WH  say  the  words islamic  terrorist.  Call  it  what  it  is.  #Trump2016  can't  happen  fast enough.
6:30  PM  -­  14  Nov  2015
     2,507     5,553

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

When  will  President  Obama  issue  the  words  RADICAL  ISLAMIC TERRORISM?  He  can't  say  it,  and  unless  he  will,  the  problem will  not  be  solved!
9:18  AM  -­  15  Nov  2015
     6,962     13,903

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 21 PageID# 536

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  didn't  suggest  a  database-­a  reporter  did.  We  must  defeat Islamic  terrorism  &  have  surveillance,  including  a  watch  list,  to protect  America
1:51  PM  -­  20  Nov  2015
     4,039     6,808

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  LIVE  IN  NEW  JERSEY  &  @realDonaldTrump  IS  RIGHT: MUSLIMS  DID  CELEBRATE  ON  9/11  HERE!  WE  SAW  IT! infowars.com/i-­live-­in-­jers…
7:22  PM  -­  25  Nov  2015

I  Live  In  Jersey  And  Trump  Is  Right:  Muslim…
Donald  Trump  is  telling  the  truth  about  Muslims celebrating  in  New  Jersey  on  September  11, 2001. infowars.com

     2,243     4,020

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

"@thumpmomma:  I  likewise  saw  militant  Muslims  burning  our flag  and  burning  George  Bush  photos  and  figures,  right  after 9/11!  Not#here!"
5:36  PM  -­  2  Dec  2015
     690     1,769

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 21 PageID# 537

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Wonder  if  Obama  will  ever  say  RADICAL  ISLAMIC TERRORIST?
7:42  PM  -­  5  Dec  2015
     4,898     10,247

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Hillary  won't  call  out  radical  Islam!  She  will  be  soundly  defeated.
7:55  PM  -­  6  Dec  2015
     2,618     6,814

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump
"Credible  Source  on  9-­11  Muslim  Celebrations:  FBI" wkrg.com/2015/11/25/cre…
11:43  AM  -­  7  Dec  2015

  Follow

Credible  Source  on  9-­11  Muslim  Celebrations:  FBI One  retired  FBI  agent  says  Donald  Trump’s  claims  of  seeing  Muslim celebrations  following  the  attacks  on  9-­11  are  absolutely  plausible. Jwimkr g B.cuorkmett  was  an  assistant  special  agent  in  charge  wit…
     1,293     2,739
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 21 PageID# 538

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump
Statement  on  Preventing  Muslim  Immigration: donaldjtrump.com/press-­releases…
5:32  PM  -­  7  Dec  2015
     4,749     7,516

  Follow

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Our  country  is  facing  a  major  threat  from  radical  Islamic terrorism.  We  better  get  very  smart,  and  very  tough,  FAST, before  it  is  too  late!
9:56  PM  -­  8  Dec  2015
     7,618     14,776

On civil liberties:

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

With  Boston  terrorist  cell  widening  in  suspects,  it's  now  clear  that it  was  a  mistake  to  read  the  bomber  the  Miranda  warning  so early.
12:37  PM  -­  2  May  2013
     160     81

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 21 PageID# 539

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Why  are  some  more  concerned  with  granting  terrorist  rights  than protecting  innocent  Americans?
4:57  PM  -­  2  May  2013
     378     174

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Any  American  who  fights  w/  ISIS  in  Iraq  or  Syria  should  have their  passport  revoked.  If  they  try  to  come  back  in,  send  them  to Gitmo.
2:08  PM  -­  4  Sep  2014

     561     733

On Iraq:

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

"@TheBrodyFile:  On  the  Muslim  issue:  It  might  help @BarackObama  if  he  actually  supported  Christians  religious liberty  rights.
8:32  AM  -­  21  Sep  2015  ·  Manhattan,  NY
     1,235     2,214

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Govt.  collapsing  in  Iraq  only  2  weeks  after  withdrawal  of  our troops.  Sadly,  I  called  this  one  and  please  remember,  I  alone called  it.
2:38  PM  -­  27  Dec  2011
     215     42

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 21 PageID# 540

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

America  wasted  billions  and  precious  lives  in  Iraq  and  Iran  will soon  take  control-­-­very  very  sad.
3:26  PM  -­  29  Dec  2011
     219     30

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Why  are  we  building  a  $1Billion  embassy  in  Iraq  when  the country  kicked  us  out,  didn't  give  us  any  oil  &  is  about  to  get taken  over  by  Iran?
4:01  PM  -­  10  Jan  2012

     606     46

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Under  Obama,  Iran  has  taken  over  Iraq,  Al  Qaeda  has  taken over  Libya,  the  Muslim  Brotherhood  now  controls  Egypt.  Worst foreign  policy  ever.
3:24  PM  -­  2  Oct  2012
     1,322     315

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

10  yrs  ago  today,  the  Iraq  war  began.  4,485  of  our  nation’s  finest have  not  returned  home  alive.  Iran  will  soon  control  Iraq  &  its  oil.
3:20  PM  -­  19  Mar  2013
     359     101

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 21 PageID# 541

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iran  is  moving  troops  into  Iraq  under  the  guise  that  it  is  helping out.  Actually,  they  will  take  over  Iraq  and  all  of  their  oil.  Stupid U.S.
7:17  PM  -­  14  Jun  2014
     454     319

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iran  will  convince  our  incompetent  President  that  they  are  trying to  help  us  with  Iraq,  take  over  the  country  &  oil,  and  "O"  will  say thanks
7:56  PM  -­  14  Jun  2014
     187     203

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Remember  when  I  said  when  Saddam  Hussein  fell  -­  the  new leader  of  Iraq  will  be  meaner  and  tougher  and  hate  the  U.S. even  more.  Welcome  ISIS!
7:25  AM  -­  11  Oct  2014  ·  Manhattan,  NY
     270     365

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 10 of 21 PageID# 542

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iraq's  Army  Chief  of  Staff  is  already  seeking  "Stronger"  Ties  with Iran.  Once  we  leave,  Iran  will  take  over  Iraq.  bit.ly/uJZfV6
2:17  PM  -­  16  Nov  2011

Iraq's  Army  Chief  of  Staff  Seeks  'Stronger'  T…
Secretary  of  Defense  Leon  Panetta  testified before  the  Senate  Armed  Services  Committee today  that  “Iraq  is  ready  to  handle  security  without nationalreview.com

     78     12

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iraq  should  be  paying  us  while  we  fight  ISIS.  Give  the  money  to the  families  of  our  brave  soldiers.
3:29  PM  -­  20  Nov  2014
     255     399

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Wow,  ISIS  has  just  taken  the  City  of  Ramadi  in  Iraq.  So  many  of our  great  soldiers  died  in  originally  going  after  it.  Such  a  waste.
6:09  AM  -­  18  May  2015  ·  Manhattan,  NY
     178     243

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

If  any  candidate  believes  that  with  what  we  know  today  we  still should  have  invaded  Iraq  then  they  are  unqualified  to  be Commander-­in-­Chief.
3:03  PM  -­  26  May  2015
     67     146

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 11 of 21 PageID# 543

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Has  Charles  @krauthammer  ever  apologized  for  being  so  totally wrong  on  Iraq?  I  called  it  right  in  every  way—Make  America Great  Again!
10:35  AM  -­  19  Jun  2015
     154     319

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Jeb,  why  did  your  brother  attack  and  destabalize  the  Middle East  by  attacking  Iraq  when  there  were  no  weapons  of  mass destruction?  Bad  info?
9:29  AM  -­  18  Oct  2015
     4,371     5,841

On Obama's middle east policy, and predictions of an attack on Iran:

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

In  order  to  get  elected,  @BarackObama  will  start  a  war  with Iran.
2:48  PM  -­  29  Nov  2011
     458     115

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

THe  WH  should  not  have  hosted  the  Muslim  Brotherhood. @BarackObama's  friends  are  enemies  of  the  US  and  @Israel. The  Islamist  winter  is  here.
1:23  PM  -­  6  Apr  2012
     377     241

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 12 of 21 PageID# 544

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Just  as  I  predicted,  @BarackObama  is  preparing  a  possible attack  on  Iran  right  before  November.  nyti.ms/N5CTdm
1:29  PM  -­  3  Jul  2012

U.S.  Adds  Forces  in  Persian  Gulf,  a  Signal  t…
The  United  States’  quiet  military  buildup  in  the Strait  of  Hormuz,  in  response  to  Iranian  threats  to disrupt  sea  traffic,  carries  risks  of  confrontation. nytimes.com

     325     29

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  always  said  @BarackObama  will  attack  Iran,  in  some  form, prior  to  the  election.
4:24  PM  -­  16  Aug  2012
     129     23

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Remember  that  I  predicted  a  long  time  ago  that  President Obama  will  attack  Iran  because  of  his  inability  to  negotiate properly-­not  skilled!
9:55  PM  -­  10  Nov  2013
     137     147

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Message  to  Obama  re:  Iran:  “The  worst  thing  you  can  possibly do  in  a  deal  is  seem  desperate  to  make  it.”  –  The  Art  of  the  Deal
3:11  PM  -­  26  Mar  2015
     685     720

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 13 of 21 PageID# 545

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

"I  would  triple  the  sanctions  on  Iran  if  the  American  pastor  is  not released."  -­  my  @SRQRepublicans  speech
8:04  PM  -­  21  May  2015
     80     156

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Just  as  I  predicted,  while  Obama  lifted  sanctions  18  months  ago, Iran  cheated  &  increased  its  nuclear  fuel  by  20%.  We  must DOUBLE  sanctions!
3:36  PM  -­  3  Jun  2015

     170     233

On not taking the oil from Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 14 of 21 PageID# 546

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

USA  should  take  oil  from  Iraq  in  repayment  for  their  liberation.   bit.ly/pqBAMc
9:24  AM  -­  7  Sep  2011

Trump:  Taking  Iraq's  Oil  Would  Boost  US  Economy Donald  Trump  says  it  is  not  necessary  to  cut  social  programs  to reduce  America  s  debt  and  revitalize  the  economy  what  is  needed  is newsmax.com
     342     49

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iraq's  government  is  treating  us  like  fools.  We  should  demand their  oil.
4:07  PM  -­  18  Oct  2011
     289     123

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

We  are  leaving  Iraq  after  expending  a  tremendous  amount  of blood  and  treasure.  We  should  be  reimbursed  with  oil!  -­-­  Don't give  it  to  Iran.
1:01  PM  -­  24  Oct  2011
     275     33

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 15 of 21 PageID# 547

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Why  aren't  we  getting  any  oil  from  Iraq  before  we  leave?  We  are leaving  the  country  wide  open  for  Iran.  Big  mistake.
4:26  PM  -­  26  Oct  2011
     357     45

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

When  will  our  nation's  sacrifices  be  respectfully  appreciated? Iraq  and  Libya  should  reimburse  us  in  oil.
1:31  PM  -­  27  Oct  2011
     455     169

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iran  will  soon  take  all  of  the  oil  in  Iraq...and  Iraq  itself-­-­-­Keep  the oil.
1:32  PM  -­  28  Nov  2011
     84     11

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump
I  still  can't  believe  we  didn't  t  take  the  oil  from  Iraq.
1:20  PM  -­  21  Dec  2011
     3,074     2,296

  Follow

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 16 of 21 PageID# 548

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

China  has  5  oil  projects  in  Iraq  and  we  didn't  get  anything  from the  Iraqis  except  asked  to  leave.  Iraq  is  going  (cont)  tl.gd/f0ec7f
1:43  PM  -­  28  Dec  2011
     158     13

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

We  should  have  gotten  more  of  the  oil  in  Syria,  and  we  should have  gotten  more  of  the  oil  in  Iraq.  Dumb  leaders.
3:28  PM  -­  16  Mar  2012
     297     73

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump
The  dummies  left  Iraq  (and  Libya)  without  the  oil!
1:33  PM  -­  30  Aug  2012
     693     672

  Follow

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump
I  still  can’t  believe  we  left  Iraq  without  the  oil.
2:14  PM  -­  23  Jan  2013
     8,140     4,944

  Follow

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Just  as  I  predicted,  Iraq  is  deteriorating  into  utter  chaos bit.ly/11ZsNT7  The  war  was  a  waste.  China  is  taking  all  the  oil.
2:04  PM  -­  26  Apr  2013
     125     49 Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 17 of 21 PageID# 549

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  still  can’t  believe  we  left  Iraq  without  the  oil.
2:14  PM  -­  23  Jan  2013
     8,140     4,944

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump
WHO  IS  GOING  TO  GET  IRAQ'S  OIL???????
7:32  AM  -­  19  Mar  2013
     367     115

  Follow

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  was  never  a  fan  of  Bush  2  FOR  MANY  REASONS,  including the  fact  that  we  should  never  have  gone  into  Iraq  but  once  there, kept  the  oil!  DUMB
6:25  AM  -­  17  May  2013
     186     158

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Our  debt  is  about  to  reach  $17T.  Iraq  has  $20T  in  oil  reserves. Interesting.
1:50  PM  -­  20  Jun  2013
     490     188

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 18 of 21 PageID# 550

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

China  is  taking  the  oil  from  Iraq  after  we  spent  1.5  trillion  dollars and  thousands  of  lives  for  their  "freedom".  Our  leaders  are  so stupid!
7:29  AM  -­  23  Jul  2013
     562     227

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

"@Bigjohn6531  You  were  100%  on  the  mark  Donald  when  you said  we  should  have  taken  some  Iraqi  oil  ..."  True,  now  Iran  has it.
3:33  PM  -­  27  Mar  2014
     15     40

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Once  the  tragic  mistake  of  going  into  Iraq  was  made,  we  should have  at  least  taken  the  oil  (or  at  least  some  of  it).  Now  Iran  & China  get  it
4:53  AM  -­  22  Apr  2014
     111     131

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  told  you  so  a  long  time  ago:  Iraq  just  lost  second  largest  city  as their  soldiers  drop  their  guns  and  run.  Only  the  beginning!  OIL.
7:32  PM  -­  10  Jun  2014
     131     129

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 19 of 21 PageID# 551

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Iraq  told  us  to  get  out,  Iraq  is  now  falling,  and  Iraq  now  wants  us to  come  back!  Don't  do  it  unless  we  get  the  OIL,  and  I  mean  ALL OF  IT!
8:03  AM  -­  12  Jun  2014
     2,032     1,151

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

I  told  all  of  the  haters  and  losers  long  ago  that  Iraq  would  fall, take  the  OIL  or  get  out  fast!  Massive  waste  of  lives  and  trillions of  $'s
8:07  AM  -­  12  Jun  2014
     397     351

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

After  foolishly  spending  two  trillion  $'s  and  losing  so  many  great young  people,  the  U.S.  will  be  the  only  one  who  won't  get  the  oil in  Iraq
12:38  AM  -­  4  Jul  2014
     283     251

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

We  should  have  taken  the  oil  in  Iraq,  and  now  our  mortal enemies  have  got  it,  and  with  no  opposition.  Really  dumb  U.S. pols!  I'm  so  angry!
10:16  AM  -­  4  Aug  2014
     236     261

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 20 of 21 PageID# 552

Donald  J.  Trump    
@realDonaldTrump

  Follow

Do  not  go  back  into  Iraq  unless  they  agree,  in  a  signed  formal instrument,  to  give  the  U.S.  50%  of  their  oil  reserves.Make  the deal  dummies!
9:39  PM  -­  7  Nov  2014
     459     552

HDNUX · A YEAR AGO

Photo: AP
Like

Share

Related stories

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 61-18 Filed 02/08/17 Page 21 of 21 PageID# 553
Donald Trump Twitter Activity Trump Twitter

Trump Tweets
Report Abuse Storify 2 About Blog Jobs Tools API Terms Privacy

© 2017 Storify

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 18

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DDonoalcd u Trmumepn  Stits6  D1o-w1n9  WithF  Biliell  Od'R0e2illy/0  |  8Fo/x1  N7ewsPage 1 of 6 PageID# 554

Home Politics U.S. Opinion Business Entertainment Tech Science Health Travel Lifestyle World On  Air
INTERVIEWS
Donald  Trump  Sits  Down  With  Bill  O'Reilly

Published  March  30,  2011 FOX  News

  

  

  

NOW  PLAYING
Donald  Trump  in  No  Spin  Zone
This  is  a  RUSH  transcript  from  "The  O'Reilly  Factor,"  March  30,  2011.  This  copy  may  not  be  in  its  final  form  and  may  be updated.
Watch  "The  O'Reilly  Factor"  weeknights  at  8  p.m.  and  11  p.m.  ET!
BILL  O'REILLY,  HOST:  In  the  "Personal  Story"  segment  tonight:  Donald  Trump for  president.  The  real  estate  mogul  and  TV  personality  says  he's  considering  a run  for  the  Republican  nomination  in  2012.  Mr.  Trump  has  made  millions building  and  selling  real  estate.  His  program  "The  Celebrity  Apprentice"  is  very highly  rated,  and  he  is  a  no-­spin  guy.  Just  ask  the  ladies  on  "The  View."  But  he has  not  been  closely  questioned  about  policy  until  tonight.
(BEGIN  VIDEOTAPE)
O'REILLY:  Obamacare.  Do  you  believe  the  federal  government  has  an obligation,  a  moral  obligation,  to  provide  people  who  can't  afford  health insurance  with  health  insurance?

 M  ore  on  this...
Donald  Trump  in  No  Spin  Zone,  Part  2

DONALD  TRUMP,  REAL  ESTATE  MOGUL:  I  certainly  would  like  to  see  -­-­  you  know,  I  have  a  big  heart.  I  really  do,  despite what  you  may  think.

O'REILLY:  Me?

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 19

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-­trump-­sits-­down-­bill-­oreilly/print

1/10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DDonoalcd u Trmumepn  Stits6  D1o-w1n9  WithF  Biliell  Od'R0e2illy/0  |  8Fo/x1  N7ewsPage 2 of 6 PageID# 555
TRUMP:  And  I  have  a  great,  big,  fat,  beautiful  heart.  And  when  people  are  in  trouble,  I  like  to  help  them  out.  We  have  a
moral  obligation  to  help  people.  I  really  believe  that.  I  believe  that  strongly  and  not  everybody  does.

O'REILLY:  So  there  will  be  Trumpcare  then?

TRUMP:  Well,  it  would  be  a  form  of  much  better.  As  an  example,  I  have  a  big  company.  When  I  buy  health  insurance,  I can't  go  across  state  lines  to  buy  it.  You  know  why?

O'REILLY:  Yes.

TRUMP:  And  I  can  make  a  better  deal  in  New  Jersey  than  I  can  in  New  York  with  a  better  company.  Yet,  I  can't  go.  No.  1, anywhere  in  the  United  States  has  to  be  a  strong  company.  But  we  should  be  able  to  go  out  and  price  it  privately.  I  believe in  the  private.  But  I  don't  want  to  be  stuck  with  one  or  two  companies  in  New  York.  I  should  be  able  to  go  to  Wisconsin.  I should  be  able  to  go  to  Iowa.  If  I  want  to  buy  health  care  for  my  people,  as  long  as  it's  a  strong  company,  I  should  be  able to  bid  it  out.

O'REILLY:  All  right.

TRUMP:  So  that  would  be  a  big  thing  right  there.

O'REILLY:  One  of  the  reasons  the  recession  hit  us  so  hard  is  because  weasels  on  Wall  Street  ginned  up  these  real  estate derivatives.  You're  a  real  estate  guy.  Would  you  crack  down  on  Wall  Street?  Would  you  have  more  regulations  on  these people?  More  rules  they  have  to  follow  over  there?

TRUMP:  I  would  not  do  that.  You're  making  it  so  tough  for  our  companies  and  our  Wall  Street  people  -­-­  let's  use  the  word nicely  -­-­  our  Wall  Street  people  to  compete  with  the  rest  of  the  world  because  you  have  guys  in  London,  guys  in Switzerland,  guys  in  Hong  Kong  that  are  giving  very,  very  good  deals,  and  they  don't  have  the  kind  of  regulation  that  we have  here.  I'm  not  a  big  regulation  person.

O'REILLY:  OK,  all  right.  Now,  you  have  a  situation  where  the  unions,  all  right,  are  being  attacked  by  some  governors because  the  public  service  unions,  tremendous  perks.  OK.  You  use  union  labor.

TRUMP:  I  do.

O'REILLY:  What  do  you  think  about  the  unions?

TRUMP:  I  have  a  great  relationship  with  unions.  I  understand  what's  happening,  let's  say  in  Wisconsin.  I  understand.

O'REILLY:  Is  Walker  right  in  Wisconsin?

TRUMP:  I  think  that  he  is  maybe  right  for  his  state.  I  think  it  doesn't  necessarily  apply  to  all  states.  You  know,  I  have  had great  relationship  over  the  years  with  unions.  We've  had  collective  bargaining.  I  have  become  very  wealthy.  I  have  dealt with  unions  because,  as  you  know,  New  York  is  largely  unions.  You  are  dealing  with  them.  I  have  great  friends  that  are  in unions  and  heads  of  unions.  So  I  haven't  had  the  same  difficulty  and  problem.  But  I  think  you  have  to  do  what's  right  for your  area.  I  respect  him.  He  is  tough.

 O  'REILLY:  Walker,  you're  talking  about.
TRUMP:  Yes.  He  is  unyielding  and  maybe  sometimes  too  unyielding  and  maybe  not  too  unyielding.  He  wants  Wisconsin  to come  back.  He  wants  to  have  a  great  balanced  budget.  So  I  understand  what  he  is  doing.

O'REILLY:  All  right.  Illegal  immigration.  How  are  we  going  to  stop  that?

TRUMP:  Well,  you  either  have  a  country  or  you  don't.  You  either  have  a  line  and  a  boundary  or  you  don't.  Something  has

to  be  done.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 19

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-­trump-­sits-­down-­bill-­oreilly/print

2/10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DDonoalcd u Trmumepn  Stits6  D1o-w1n9  WithF  Biliell  Od'R0e2illy/0  |  8Fo/x1  N7ewsPage 3 of 6 PageID# 556
O'REILLY:  What?

TRUMP:  Well,  you  put  soldiers  on  that  line.

O'REILLY:  You  militarize  it.

TRUMP:  Do  you  have  a  choice?

O'REILLY:  I  don't  think  so.  I've  been  calling  for  that  for  10  years.

TRUMP:  They  are  coming  over  and  they  are  -­-­  they  are  climbing  over  a  fence  and  there's  nobody  within  10  miles.  And  they walk…

O'REILLY:  All  right,  you  militarize  the  border.  You  make  it  very  difficult.

TRUMP:  They  get  a  job  and  they  are  selling  drugs  all  over  the  place…

O'REILLY:  Yes,  you  stop  the  narcotics.

TRUMP:  …and  they  are  killing  people  all  over  the  place.  We're  not  doing  anything  about  it.

O'REILLY:  OK.  Now,  the  15  million  illegal  aliens  already  in  the  United  States.  What  do  you  do  with  them?

TRUMP:  I  think  right  now  you're  going  to  have  to  do  something  and,  you  know,  it's  hard  to  generalize.  But  you're  going  to have  to  look  at  the  individual  people.  See  how  they've  done.  See  how  productive  they  have  been.  See  what  their references  are  and  then  make  a  decision.

O'REILLY:  And  then  make  a  decision.  All  right,  on  case  by  case.  It's  going  to  take  a  long  time  and  a  lot  of  people.

TRUMP:  A  long  time,  but,  you  know,  you  have  some  great  productive  people  that  came  in.

O'REILLY:  No  doubt.

TRUMP:  And  then  you  have  some  total  disasters  that  probably  should  be  in  prison.

O'REILLY:  OK.  Real  quick,  social  issues.  Abortion.

TRUMP:  Right.

O'REILLY:  You  favor  it?

TRUMP:  No.  As  you  know,  I'm  pro-­life.

O'REILLY:  OK,  so  you're  pro-­life  on  abortion.  But  would  you  outlaw  abortion?

TRUMP:  Well,  I'd  -­-­  I'd  go  a  step  -­-­  I'd  go  a  pretty  strong  step.  Something  I  don't  like,  I  used  to  not  be  pro-­life.  I  have
become  pro-­life.  I  have  seen  friends  that  had  children  that  they  didn't  want.  And  now  they  have  children  and  they  are  the
apple  of  the  eye.  So  I  really  have  changed  in  my  views  over  the  years  but  I  am  pro-­life.  I  would  -­-­  I  would  really  -­-­  I'm
  
forming  an  opinion,  I'm  forming  a  very  strong  opinion  but  I'll  let  you  know  in  about  three  or  four  weeks  if  I  decided  to.

O'REILLY:  All  right.  Gay  marriage,  favor  it?

TRUMP:  I'm  against  it.

O'REILLY:  Why?

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 19

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-­trump-­sits-­down-­bill-­oreilly/print

3/10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DDonoalcd u Trmumepn  Stits6  D1o-w1n9  WithF  Biliell  Od'R0e2illy/0  |  8Fo/x1  N7ewsPage 4 of 6 PageID# 557
TRUMP:  I  just  don't  feel  good  about  it.  I  don't  feel  right  about  it.  I'm  against  it  and  I  take  a  lot  of  heat  because  I  come  from
New  York.  You  know,  for  New  York  it's  like,  how  can  you  be  against  gay  marriage?  But  I'm  opposed  to  gay  marriage.

O'REILLY:  They  say,  the  gays,  that  this  violates  their  rights,  that  they  are  American  citizens  and  they  should  have  a  right  to live  the  same  way  heterosexuals  live,  and  you  say?

TRUMP:  Well,  I  think  it's  a  tough  situation,  and  I'll  tell  you  what  I  say.  I  say  that  we  have  other  problems.  We  have  other problems  in  this  country.  And  I  don't  think  a  president  should  be  elected  on  gay  marriage  or  not  gay  marriage  because  we have  some  very  big  problems.  Based  on  everything  I  see,  Obama,  who  said  basically  the  same  thing  as  I  do,  I  think  he  is going  to  come  out  in  favor  of  gay  marriage.

O'REILLY:  Yes,  he  will.  But  you  remain  opposed?

TRUMP:  I  am  opposed,  yes.

(END  VIDEO  CLIP)

O'REILLY:  All  right.  Now  we'll  have  more  with  Mr.  Trump  in  a  moment.  We'll  pin  him  down  on  the  tax  question.  That's  pretty interesting.

(COMMERCIAL  BREAK)

O'REILLY:  Continuing  now  with  our  interview  of  Donald  Trump,  who  may  run  for  president  in  the  Republican  primaries.  We begin  our  second  segment  with  Trump's  media  exposure.

(BEGIN  VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY:  You  saw  me  on  "The  View"  with  the  ladies  walking  out.

TRUMP:  Yes,  I  did.

O'REILLY:  But  they  did  not  walk  out  with  you  when  you  brought  up  the  birth  certificate  and  they  should  have.  That  was worse  than  what  I  did.  Is  there  a  Muslim  problem  in  the  world?

TRUMP:  Absolutely.  Absolutely.  I  don't  notice  Swedish  people  knocking  down  the  World  Trade  Center.

O'REILLY:  So  why…

TRUMP:  I  came  out  very  strongly  against  the  mosque  being  built  virtually…

O'REILLY:  So  did  I.  You  and  I  are  on  the  same  page.  However,  Muslim-­Americans  say  you  are  picking  on  us.

TRUMP:  No,  nobody  is  picking.  The  fact  is  it  was  so  insensitive  when  they  announced  the  mosque  in  that  location.  Don't forget  that's  my  territory,  Manhattan  real  estate.  When  they  announced  the  mosque  in  that  location  I  couldn't  believe  it.  You know,  you  have  people  -­–  3,000  people  died  and  you  have  all  those  parents  and  sisters  and  brothers  and  wives,  I  mean, just  saying,  "I  can't  believe  it.  The  World  Trade  Center  came  down,  my  loved  one  more  than  anybody  in  the  world  I  love this  person,  dead  and  now  they  are  building  a  mosque  across  it."
  
O'REILLY:  Yes.  I  thought  it  was  the  same  way.

TRUMP:  I  think  it's  very  insensitive  and  I…

O'REILLY:  But  you  do  believe  overall  there  is  a  Muslim  problem  in  the  world.

TRUMP:  Well,  there  is  a  Muslim  problem.  Absolutely.  You  just  have  to  turn  on  your  television  set.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 19

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-­trump-­sits-­down-­bill-­oreilly/print

4/10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DDonoalcd u Trmumepn  Stits6  D1o-w1n9  WithF  Biliell  Od'R0e2illy/0  |  8Fo/x1  N7ewsPage 5 of 6 PageID# 558
O'REILLY:  And  do  you  think  it  encompasses  all  Muslims?
TRUMP:  No.  And  that's  the  sad  part  about  life.  Because  you  have  fabulous  Muslims.  I  know  many  Muslims  and  they're fabulous  people.  They're  smart.  They're  industrious.  They're  great.  Unfortunately,  at  this  moment  in  time,  there  is  a  Muslim problem  in  the  world.  And  by  the  way,  and  you  know  it  and  it  I  know  it  and  some  people  don't  like  saying  it  because  they think  it's  not  politically  correct.
O'REILLY:  Whoopi  and  Joy  will  walk  off  on  me.  But  when  I  say  there  is  a  Muslim  problem  in  the  world  I  basically  say  why don't  the  good  Muslims  that  I  believe  outnumber  the  bad  Muslims  probably  eight  or  nine  to  one…
TRUMP:  Or  more.
O'REILLY:  …why  don't  they,  the  Muslim  community  throughout  the  world,  speak  out  more  forcefully  against  the  jihadists?
TRUMP:  Well,  there  is  something  out  there  that  brings  a  level  of  hostility  that  I  have  never  seen  in  any  religion.  I  mean,  you can  say  what  you  want  about  the  Koran.  You  can  say  what  you  want,  but  there's  something  there.  There  is  tremendous hatred  and  tremendous  hatred  of  us.  I  look  at  Iraq.  I  was  watching  the  other  day,  you  know,  we  have  spent  all  this  money and  all  those  lives  in  Iraq.  They  hate  us.  They  hate  us.  They  can't  get  rid  of  us  fast  enough.
O'REILLY:  Now,  when  you  were  on  "The  View"  and  they  didn't  walk  out,  which  they  should  have  because  they  walked  out on  me  and  they  should  have  stayed.  You  were  way,  way  worse  than  I  was  on  "The  View."  You  were  hammering  the  birth certificate.
Now,  we  very  early  on  did  an  investigation  about  Barack  Obama's  birth  certificate.  What  "The  Factor"  found  out  was  there were  two  announcements  the  week  he  was  born  in  both  Honolulu  newspapers  saying  that  he  was  born,  OK.  That  is impossible  -­-­  that  is  impossible  to  make  happen  if  he  had  not  been  born  in  the  hospital.  So  therefore,  I  just  put  it  to  bed.  I said  he  was  born  in  Honolulu.  The  two  newspapers  documented  it.  His  mother  was  a  hippy.  His  father  was  a  guy  from Kenya  who  split.  There  couldn't  have  been  a  sophisticated  -­-­  what  is  he,  Baby  Jesus?  -­-­  there  was  a  sophisticated conspiracy  to  smuggle  this  baby  back  into  the  country?  So  I  just  dismissed  it.  But  you  made  a  big  deal  of  it.
TRUMP:  Bill,  I  grew  up  with  Wall  Street  geniuses.  What  they  do  in  terms  of  fraud  and  how  they  change  documents  and  I will  tell  you  something.  If  you  notice  those  dates  were  three  days  later.  Here  is  what  I  ask  people.  Who  puts announcements?  Here  are  two  poor  people,  a  man  and  a  woman  with  no  money,  they  have  a  baby.  There's announcements  in  the  newspaper?
O'REILLY:  The  grandparents  did  it.
TRUMP:  Excuse  me.  The  grandparents.  Nelson  Rockefeller  doesn't  put  announcements.
O'REILLY:  Sure,  there  are  birth  announcements  all  the  time.
TRUMP:  I  have  never  seen  one.
O'REILLY:  Really?  They  are  common.
TRUMP:  I've  never  seen  one.
  
O'REILLY:  But  why  is  this  important  to  you?
TRUMP:  Because  if  you  are  going  to  be  president  of  the  United  States  you  have  to  be  born  in  this  country.  And  there  is  a doubt  as  to  whether  or  not  he  was  born…
O'REILLY:  Oh  come  on.  Do  you  really  feel  this  about  him?

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 19

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-­trump-­sits-­down-­bill-­oreilly/print

5/10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DDonoalcd u Trmumepn  Stits6  D1o-w1n9  WithF  Biliell  Od'R0e2illy/0  |  8Fo/x1  N7ewsPage 6 of 6 PageID# 559
TRUMP:  You  know,  I  started  off  by  saying  -­-­  and  I  always  do  and  I  did  on  the  "The  View."  I'm  a  very  smart  guy.  I  went  to  the best  college.  I  had  good  marks.  I  was  a  very  smart  guy,  good  student  and  all  that  stuff.  Because  what  they  do  to  the birthers,  which  is  a  term  I  hate  because  a  lot  of  these  birthers  are  just  really  quality  people  that  just  want  the  truth.  What they  do  to  the  birthers  is  unbelievable  to  a  point  where  people  are  afraid  to  talk  about  this  subject.  They  are  afraid  to confront  you  or  anybody  about  this  subject.
O'REILLY:  Do  you  think  it's  an  important  subject?
TRUMP:  Listen,  I  have  a  birth  certificate.  I  have  my  birth  certificate.  And  in  fact,  they  said  the  one  I  gave  yesterday  wasn't good  enough.  So  I  actually  got  the  one  from  the  Health  Department,  which  is  the  perfect  one.  Because  they  were  saying the  one  I  gave  yesterday  wasn't  good  enough,  so  I  got  the  other.  People  have  birth  certificates.  He  doesn't  have  a  birth certificate.  He  may  have  one  but  there's  something  on  that,  maybe  religion,  maybe  it  says  he  is  a  Muslim.  I  don't  know. Maybe  he  doesn't  want  that.  Or  he  may  not  have  one.  But  I  will  tell  you  this.  If  he  wasn't  born  in  this  country,  it's  one  of  the great  scams  of  all  time.
O'REILLY:  Absolutely.  But  I  don't  think  that's  the  case.
TRUMP:  You  don't,  but  I'm  starting  to  think.
O'REILLY:  I  don't  think  you  believe  that  either.  I  think  it's  provocative,  you  get  a  lot  of  attention  raising  the  question.  But  I don't  think  you  believe  it  either.
TRUMP:  Two  weeks  ago  I  felt  like  probably  he  was  born  in  the  country.  Today  it's  possibly.  I'm  telling  you  it's  changed.  I have  seen  too  many  things.
O'REILLY:  Why  did  Whoopi  Goldberg  get  so  angry  about  it?
TRUMP:  I  don't  know.
O'REILLY:  Didn't  you  ask  her?
TRUMP:  Then  she  said  to  me.  She  likes  me,  she  said,  "Donald,  I  love  you  but"  -­-­  she  actually  said,  if  it  were  a  white  man. Now,  I  know  they  asked  for  Bush's  birth  certificate.  I  know  for  a  fact  they  asked  for  John  McCain's  birth  certificate.
O'REILLY:  So  why  did  she  make  it  racial?  Why  did  she…
TRUMP:  I  don't  know.  She  brought  race  into  it.  She  brings  race  into  it.  What  can  I  tell  you?
(END  VIDEOTAPE)
O'REILLY:  All  right.  So,  I  misspoke.  We  are  going  to  have  that  tax  thing  tomorrow  and  then  we're  going  to  go  to  Libya tomorrow  and  Afghanistan  and  all  of  that  with  Trump,  so  we  hope  you  tune  in.  It  gets  even  more  flamboyant.
Content  and  Programming  Copyright  2011  Fox  News  Network,  Inc.  Copyright  2011  Roll  Call,  Inc.  All  materials  herein  are protected  by  United  States  copyright  law  and  may  not  be  reproduced,  distributed,  transmitted,  displayed,  published  or broadcast  without  the  prior  written  permission  of  Roll  Call.  You  may  not  alter  or  remove  any  trademark,  copyright  or  other  n  otice  from  copies  of  the  content.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 19

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donald-­trump-­sits-­down-­bill-­oreilly/print

6/10

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17D-ocnavld-0  T0ru1m1p  6Sa-yLsM  HeB'd-  'TAbCsoBlutelDy'  Roecquuimre  eMnustlim6s1  t-o2  R0egisFteri l -e­  Fdirs0t  D2r/a0ft.8  P/o1li7tical  PNeawgs,e  No1w.o  -­ f Th3e  PNeawg  YeoIrkD  T#im5es60

  

  

  

  

May.  13,  2016 May.  12,  2016 May.  11,  2016 May.  10,  2016 May.  9,  2016 May.  6,  2016 May.  5,  2016 May.  4,  2016 May.  3,  2016 May.  2,  2016
Sign  Up

1:31  am  ET By  Trip  Gabriel
Donald  Trump  Says  He’d  ‘Absolutely’ Require  Muslims  to  Register
1:31  am  ET Trip  Gabriel
NEWTON,  Iowa  —  Donald  J.  Trump,  who  earlier  in  the  week  said  he  was  open to  requiring  Muslims  in  the  United  States  to  register  in  a  database,  said  on  Thursday night  that  he  “would  certainly  implement  that  —  absolutely.”
Mr.  Trump  was  asked  about  the  issue  by  an  NBC  News  reporter  and  pressed  on whether  all  Muslims  in  the  country  would  be  forced  to  register.  “They  have  to  be,”  he said.  “They  have  to  be.’’

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 20

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-­draft/2015/11/20/donald-­trump-­says-­hed-­absolutely-­require-­muslims-­to-­register/

1/33

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17D-ocnavld-0  T0ru1m1p  6Sa-yLsM  HeB'd-  'TAbCsoBlutelDy'  Roecquuimre  eMnustlim6s1  t-o2  R0egisFteri l -e­  Fdirs0t  D2r/a0ft.8  P/o1li7tical  PNeawgs,e  No2w.o  -­ f Th3e  PNeawg  YeoIrkD  T#im5es61
When  asked  how  a  system  of  registering  Muslims  would  be  carried  out  — whether,  for  instance,  mosques  would  be  where  people  could  register  —  Mr.  Trump said:  “Different  places.  You  sign  up  at  different  places.  But  it’s  all  about management.  Our  country  has  no  management.’’
Asked  later,  as  he  signed  autographs,  how  such  a  database  would  be  different from  Jews  having  to  register  in  Nazi  Germany,  Mr.  Trump  repeatedly  said,  “You  tell me,”  until  he  stopped  responding  to  the  question.
Both  Mr.  Trump  and  Ben  Carson,  the  top  two  Republican  presidential candidates  in  most  polls,  have  made  sharply  provocative  remarks  about  Muslim refugees  from  Syria  and  Iraq,  and  have  been  criticized  by  Muslim  groups  in  the United  States.
On  Thursday,  Mr.  Carson  seemed  to  equate  refugees’  seeking  entrance  to  the United  States  to  “a  rabid  dog  running  around  your  neighborhood.’’  Both  Mr. Carson’s  and  Mr.  Trump’s  remarks  came  the  day  the  House  voted  to  severely  restrict the  flow  of  Syrian  and  Iraqi  refugees  into  the  United  States,  amid  security  concerns after  the  terrorist  assaults  in  Paris.
Donald  Trump’s  Call  for  Muslim  Registry  Denounced  by  Democrats
By  MAGGIE  HABERMAN
Donald  J.  Trump’s  remarks  took  hours  to  penetrate  over  social  media,  but  by  Friday morning,  Democrats  were  calling  him  out.  Jeb  Bush  was  one  of  the  first  Republican presidential  candidates  to  respond,  calling  Mr.  Trump’s  words  “just  wrong.”
Donald  Trump  Steps  Back  From  Calling  for  Muslim  Registry
By  ALAN  RAPPEPORT
Mr.  Trump  said  the  idea  that  Muslims  in  America  should  register  with  the  federal government  had  come  from  a  reporter.
Donald  Trump  Sets  Off  a  Furor  With  Call  to  Register  Muslims  in  the  U.S.
By  MAGGIE  HABERMAN  and  RICHARD  PÉREZ-­PEÑA
Mr.  Trump  drew  back  from  his  call  for  a  mandatory  registry  of  Muslims  in  the  United States,  capping  a  week  where  candidates  discussed  their  approaches  to  terrorism.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 20

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-­draft/2015/11/20/donald-­trump-­says-­hed-­absolutely-­require-­muslims-­to-­register/

2/33

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17D-ocnavld-0  T0ru1m1p  6Sa-yLsM  HeB'd-  'TAbCsoBlutelDy'  Roecquuimre  eMnustlim6s1  t-o2  R0egisFteri l -e­  Fdirs0t  D2r/a0ft.8  P/o1li7tical  PNeawgs,e  No3w.o  -­ f Th3e  PNeawg  YeoIrkD  T#im5es62
Find  out  what  you  need  to  know  about  the  2016  presidential  race  today,  and  get politics  news  updates  via  Facebook,  Twitter  and  the  First  Draft  newsletter.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 20

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-­draft/2015/11/20/donald-­trump-­says-­hed-­absolutely-­require-­muslims-­to-­register/

3/33

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116T-rLumMp B to-  MTSCNBBC:  'DThoe  cMuusmlime  Cnotm6m1u-n2ity1  Is  NFoti  lReedpo0rti2ng/ 0 W8h/a1t's7  GoiPnga  Ogne'  |  D1aiolyf  W3irePageID# 563
Trump to MSNBC: 'The Muslim Community Is Not Reporting What's Going On'

BY: ROBERT KRAYCHIK on DECEMBER 8, 2015
Donald Trump told MSNBC on Tuesday that Muslims in America “aren’t helping” authorities combat domesticallycultivated Islamic terrorism. Calling in to speak with Morning Joe, Trump told Joe Scarborough, “I want (Muslims in America) to be on our side, I hope they are on our side." Referring to last week’s Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, he asserted that those close to Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik - including family and friends had advance knowledge of the threat they posed and refused to contact authorities.
Asked by Mika Brzezinski about engaging the “Muslim community”, Trump said, “I would want to engage the Muslim community, but the Muslim community has to help us, Mika, they’re not helping us. The Muslim community is not reporting what’s going on. They should be reporting that their next door neighbor is making pipe bombs.”

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 21

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1692/trump-­msnbc-­muslim-­community-­not-­reporting-­whats-­robert-­kraychik

1/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116T-rLumMp B to-  MTSCNBBC:  'DThoe  cMuusmlime  Cnotm6m1u-n2ity1  Is  NFoti  lReedpo0rti2ng/ 0 W8h/a1t's7  GoiPnga  Ogne'  |  D2aiolyf  W3irePageID# 564
Trump is "playing into the hands of ISIS": CAIR
VIDEO

Trump explained his views of the responsibilities of Muslims in America with knowledge of threats from potential Islamic terrorists, saying, “The Muslim community has to help us, because without the Muslim community we would have to get very tough, and much tougher, and I don’t wanna do that. But the Muslim community, it’s not a one way street, the Muslim community knew that this guy, what he was doing, and his wife, his very heavily radicalized wife, they knew what they were doing was wrong. Nobody called the police. Nobody said this is what happened.”
Trump’s statement echoes an interview conducted yesterday (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/fmrfbi-counterterrorism-agent-weve-received-nearly-zero-help-from-u-s-muslim-community-since-911/) by Breitbart News Daily with a former FBI counterterrorism agent, asserting that since 9/11, “we have effectively received zero help from the Muslim community.” Also asserted is that “major Islamic organizations” across America put their efforts towards harming national security measures in the realm of counterterrorism, rather than cooperation with authorities. As an example, organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations - ostensibly a group defending civil liberties - obfuscate the overlap between Islamic terrorism, Islam, and Muslims.
Pushing back against what he said was an unfair generalization of Muslims, Scarborough invited Trump to join him in meeting Muslims in America, asking, “What if you and I go to an Islamic center in Washington, D.C.? Or New York City?”

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 21

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1692/trump-­msnbc-­muslim-­community-­not-­reporting-­whats-­robert-­kraychik

2/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 65 2/8/2017 Case 1:17-cv-00116T-rLumMp B to-  MTSCNBBC:  'DThoe  cMuusmlime  Cnotm6m1u-n2ity1  Is  NFoti  lReedpo0rti2ng/ 0 W8h/a1t's7  GoiPnga  Ogne'  |  D3aiolyf  W3irePageID# 565 Scarborough described Trump’s proposal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIxd_o2OwA) to ban Muslim entry (http://www.dailywire.com/news/1668/desperate-trump-drops-ugly-policy-bomb-ban-all-ben-shapiro) into the U.S. as “counterproductive and unconstitutional” - despite its not being unconstitutional (http://www.dailywire.com/news/1685/no-donald-trumps-immigration-plan-isnt-ben-shapiro) with respect to immigration - and likened the broad measure as akin to the TSA’s searching (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4GUElkRcYk) of 7-year-old children.
Trump warned of “radicalized” Islamic neighborhoods in Paris and other cities in Europe as coming to America in the absence of his leadership. Scarborough scoffed at the assertion of the existence of such zones, parroting the denial of their existence that has gone on for years (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/16/exclusive-bobbyjindal-right-muslim-no-go-zones/) in left-wing media.
If his warnings aren’t heeded, Trump warned, “you are going to have other world trade centers, you are going to have other cities being blown up.”
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

(http://www.dailywire.com/news/6648/democrat-senator-due-processkilling-us-robert-kraychik)
Democrat Senator: 'Due Process Is Killing Us' (http://www.dailywire.com/news/6648/democrat-senator-due-process-killing-us-
robert-kraychik)
ROBERT KRAYCHIK

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 21

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1692/trump-­msnbc-­muslim-­community-­not-­reporting-­whats-­robert-­kraychik

3/5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 1 of 14 PageID# 566

CBS  News / CBS  Evening  News / CBS  This  Morning / 48  Hours / 60  Minutes / Sunday  Morning / Face  The  Nation / CBSN

Log  In

Episodes Overtime Topics The Team 60 Minutes All Access

RELATED VIDEO

60 MINUTES POLITICS
The Republica Ticket

The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence

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
216

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

STUMBLE

MORE

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?

60 MINUTES OVERTIM
Trump OK wi Pence's vote f war, but not Clinton's
60 MINUTES OVERTIM
Mike Pence on waging war ag radical Islam
60 MINUTES OVERTIM
Did Trump co
Recent Segments
60 Minutes Presents: A Fro Row Seat
Enhancing the
Finding Refuge
Avalanche

But there are signiﬁcant areas in terms of values and policy where he has differed with Mr. Trump in the past.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

Barack Obama 60 MINUTES ALL ACCESESight Years in
White1/1H6ouse

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 2 of 14 PageID# 567

We had the chance to ask the two of them about that in their ﬁrst and only interview

White House

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.

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.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 2/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 3 of 14 PageID# 568
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?
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.

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 3/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 4 of 14 PageID# 569
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 OVERTIME
Trump OK with 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--
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 4/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 5 of 14 PageID# 570
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.

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
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 5/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 6 of 14 PageID# 571
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?
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 6/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 7 of 14 PageID# 572
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 is-

Lesley 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.
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 7/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 8 of 14 PageID# 573
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--

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--

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 8/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 65 2/8/2017Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB TDheo  Rceupmubleicnant  T6ic1ke-t2:  T2rumFp  ialendd  Pe0n2ce/0  -­  8C/B1S7  NewPs age 9 of 14 PageID# 574
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.

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."

Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 9/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 65 2/8/201C7 ase 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DThoec  Ruepmubelincatn 6 Ti1ck-e2t:2  TrumFpi l aendd  P0e2nc/e0  -8­  C/1BS7  NePwsage 10 of 14 PageID# 575
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--

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--
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 10/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 65 2/8/201C7 ase 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DThoec  Ruepmubelincatn 6 Ti1ck-e2t:2  TrumFpi l aendd  P0e2nc/e0  -8­  C/1BS7  NePwsage 11 of 14 PageID# 576
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--

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?
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 11/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-4 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 65 2/8/201C7 ase 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DThoec  Ruepmubelincatn 6 Ti1ck-e2t:2  TrumFpi l aendd  P0e2nc/e0  -8­  C/1BS7  NePwsage 12 of 14 PageID# 577
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
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 12/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 65 2/8/201C7 ase 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DThoec  Ruepmubelincatn 6 Ti1ck-e2t:2  TrumFpi l aendd  P0e2nc/e0  -8­  C/1BS7  NePwsage 13 of 14 PageID# 578
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 greaStipdrdesiqidueintDoefcthl.e-U-nEitxehd iSbtaitte2s.2
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 13/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 65 2/8/201C7 ase 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB DThoec  Ruepmubelincatn 6 Ti1ck-e2t:2  TrumFpi l aendd  P0e2nc/e0  -8­  C/1BS7  NePwsage 14 of 14 PageID# 579
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.
More from 60 Minutes

The Coming Swarm
JANUARY 8, 2017
Autonomous drones are being called the biggest thing in military technology since the nuclear bomb. David Martin reports.

The Hunt for Planet Nine
JANUARY 9, 2017
At the farthest edges of our solar system, scientists have found evidence of a ninth
planet. Bill Whitaker reports.

The Hostage Policy
JANUARY 9, 2017
Lesley Stahl speaks to a counterterroris adviser who admits U.S. failures in deal with hostages, and to the parents of Stev Sotloff, a journalist who was kidnapped
...

1 LIKE / REPLY
AGIBSON95   July 25, 2016 10:10PM
Siddiqui Decl. -- Exhibit 22
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-­minutes-­trump-­pence-­republican-­ticket/

Most Discussed

460

Obama tells 60 Minutes shaping public opinion is "

of the job"

123

Obama says his family's re to leave the White House

32 Barack Obama: Eight Years the White House

31 Obama doesn't think Presi elect Trump can be improvisational in oﬃce

31 Obama to make last netwo TV appearance as presiden "60 Minutes"

60 MINUTES ALL ACCESS 14/16

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 1263

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, M^

Plaintiffs/Petitioners
V.

l:17-cv-116(LMB/TCB)

DONALD TRUMP, President ofthe United States, ^ al..

Defendants/Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this civil action, the Commonwealth ofVirginia ("Commonwealth") alleges that

Executive Order 13,769, entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the

United States" ("the EO"), violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act and Religious Freedom Restoration

Act. Before the Court is the Commonwealth's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, to which defendants have responded and on which oral argumenthas been held. Attachedto the Commonwealth's motionweremultiple exhibits and declarations. The defendants have
responded withno evidence other thanthe EO, which theyhave defended primarily with arguments attacking the Commonwealth's standing to oppose the EO and emphasizing the authority of the president to issue suchan EO. Forthe reasons thatfollow, the Commonwealth's
Motion for a Preliminary Injimction will be granted.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Executive Order
On January 20,2017, Donald Trump ("Trump") was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. On January 27,2017, he signed the EO. Section 3 of the EO "proclaim[ed]

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 22 PageID# 1264

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 22 PageID# 1265

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 4 of 22 PageID# 1266

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 5 of 22 PageID# 1267

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 6 of 22 PageID# 1268

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 7 of 22 PageID# 1269

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 8 of 22 PageID# 1270

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 9 of 22 PageID# 1271

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 10 of 22 PageID# 1272

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 11 of 22 PageID# 1273

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 12 of 22 PageID# 1274

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 13 of 22 PageID# 1275

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 14 of 22 PageID# 1276

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 15 of 22 PageID# 1277

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 16 of 22 PageID# 1278

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 17 of 22 PageID# 1279

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 18 of 22 PageID# 1280

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 19 of 22 PageID# 1281

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 20 of 22 PageID# 1282

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 21 of 22 PageID# 1283

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 111 Filed 02/13/17 Page 22 of 22 PageID# 1284

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 112 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1285

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

TAREQ AQEL MOHAMMED AZIZ, ^

Petitioners,
V.

l:17-cv-116(LMB/TCB)

DONALD TRUMP, President ofthe United States, §t al..

Defendants.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,the Court finds that the Conmionwealth of Virginia hasstanding to maintain this civil action andhasestablished that it is likely to prevail onthemerits, thatit is likely to suffer ureparable harm intheabsence ofinjunctive

relief, and that the balance ofthe equities and the public interest favor an injunction. Accordingly, the Commonwealth's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 23] is GRANTED

and it is hereby
ORDERED that respondents, and all officers, agents, andemployees of the Executive Branch of the United States government, and anyone acting under their authorization or direction

be and are ENJOINED from enforcing § 3(c) ofExecutive Order 13,769 against any person who hasa Virginia residence or is employed byorattends aneducational institution administered bythe Commonwealth of Virginia, and who, as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 27,2017, waslawfully admitted for permanent residency in the United States, heldan immigrant

visa that would entitle the bearer to be lawfully admitted for permanent residencyupon admission

to the United States, held a valid student visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa), or held a valid work visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa); and it is further

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 65 Case 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB Document 112 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 1286

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 7

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 53 Filed 02/04/17 Page 1 of 3

1

The Honorable James L. Robart

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9

STATE OF WASHINGTON and

STATE OF MINNESOTA, 10

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR) NOTICE OF APPEAL

13

DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as

14

President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

15

SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official

capacity as Secretary of the Department of

16

Homeland Security; REX W. TILLERSON, in

his official capacity as Secretary of State; and

17

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

18 Defendants.
19

20

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the defendants Donald Trump, in his official capacity as

21 President of the United States; United States Department of Homeland Security; John F. Kelly,
22 in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson,
23 in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and the United States of America hereby appeal to
24
25 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the February 3, 2017 Order (ECF

26 No. 52) enjoining and restraining enforcement of portions of the January 27, 2017 Executive

27 Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. 28

NOTICE OF APPEAL State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-8902

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 53 Filed 02/04/17 Page 2 of 3

1 DATED: February 4, 2017 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Michelle R. Bennett MICHELLE R. BENNETT ERIC SOSKIN DANIEL SCHWEI ARJUN GARG Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-8902 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov
arjun.garg@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

NOTICE OF APPEAL State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-8902

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 65 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 53 Filed 02/04/17 Page 3 of 3

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on February 4, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of

3 Appeal using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel
4 of record.
5

6 Dated: February 4, 2017 7

/s/ Michelle Bennett MICHELLE BENNETT

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF APPEAL State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-8902

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 1 of 29

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF MINNESOTA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; REX W. TILLERSON, Secretary of State; JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-35105 D.C. No.
2:17-cv-00141
ORDER

Motion for Stay of an Order of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017
Filed February 9, 2017
Before: William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam Order

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 2 of 29

2

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

COUNSEL
August E. Flentje (argued), Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General; Douglas N. Letter, Sharon Swingle, H. Thomas Byron, Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., and Catherine Dorsey, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Noel J. Francisco, Acting Solicitor General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellants.
Noah G. Purcell (argued), Solicitor General; Marsha Chien and Patricio A. Marquez, Assistant Attorneys General; Colleen M. Melody, Civil Rights Unit Chief; Anne E. Egeler, Deputy Solicitor General; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Attorney General’s Office, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Washington.
Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General; Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General; Lori Swanson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for PlaintiffAppellee State of Minnesota.

ORDER
PER CURIAM:
At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 3 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

3

temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds.
To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.
Background
On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977. Citing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and stating that “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorismrelated crimes” since then, the Executive Order declares that “the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.” Id. It asserts, “Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 4 of 29

4

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” Id.
The Executive Order makes several changes to the policies and procedures by which non-citizens may enter the United States. Three are at issue here. First, section 3(c) of the Executive Order suspends for 90 days the entry of aliens from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-78 (citing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 217(a)(12), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)). Second, section 5(a) of the Executive Order suspends for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. Upon resumption of the refugee program, section 5(b) of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to prioritize refugee claims based on religious persecution where a refugee’s religion is the minority religion in the country of his or her nationality. Id. Third, section 5(c) of the Executive Order suspends indefinitely the entry of all Syrian refugees. Id. Sections 3(g) and 5(e) of the Executive Order allow the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make case-by-case exceptions to these provisions “when in the national interest.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,978-80. Section 5(e) states that situations that would be in the national interest include “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. The Executive Order requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the United States’ visa, admission, and refugee programs during the periods in which entry is suspended. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977-80.
The impact of the Executive Order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 5 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

5

immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained. Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants the President, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the United States (collectively, “the Government”). Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State’s economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a “Muslim ban” as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.
Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide. On the same day, Washington filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to enjoin the enforcement of sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order. Two days later, Washington’s Complaint was amended to add the State of Minnesota as a plaintiff and to add a claim under the Tenth Amendment. Washington and Minnesota (collectively, “the States”) jointly filed an amended motion for a TRO. The Government opposed the

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 6 of 29

6

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

motion the next day, and the district court held a hearing the day after that.
That evening, the court entered a written order granting the TRO. Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141-JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful. Id. at *2. The district court enjoined and restrained the nationwide enforcement of sections 3(c) and 5(a)-(c) in their entirety. Id. It enjoined section 5(e) to the extent that section “purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities,” and prohibited the government from “proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.” The court also directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the States’ request for a preliminary injunction and denied the Government’s motion to stay the TRO pending an emergency appeal. Id. at *3.
The Government filed a notice of appeal the next day and sought an emergency stay in this court, including an immediate stay while its emergency stay motion was under consideration. We denied the request for an immediate stay and set deadlines for the filing of responsive and reply briefs on the emergency stay motion over the next two days.1 Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017 WL 469608 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2017). The motion was submitted after oral argument was conducted by telephone.

1 We have also received many amicus curiae briefs in support of both the Government and the States.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 7 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

7

Appellate Jurisdiction
The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the Government’s stay motion because the Government’s appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable. See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO if it “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction.” Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings before the district court and that it has or will remain in force for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g., id.
We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which the Government has argued that emergency relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism, we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 8 of 29

8

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction.2
Standing
The Government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the States have no standing to sue. We have an independent obligation to ascertain our jurisdiction, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and we consider the Government’s argument de novo, see, e.g., Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the States have made a sufficient showing to support standing, at least at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Article III, section 2 of the Constitution allows federal courts to consider only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007). “Those two words confine ‘the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Id. (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). ”Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement” and is therefore a prerequisite to our jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The “gist of the question of standing” is whether the plaintiff has a sufficiently “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” to ensure that the parties will be truly adverse and their legal

2 Our conclusion here does not preclude consideration of appellate jurisdiction at the merits stage of this appeal. See Nat’l Indus., Inc. v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 677 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 9 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

9

presentations sharpened. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
Because standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” it “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. At this very preliminary stage of the litigation, the States may rely on the allegations in their Complaint and whatever other evidence they submitted in support of their TRO motion to meet their burden. See id. With these allegations and evidence, the States must make a “clear showing of each element of standing.” Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013).3
The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law. See, e.g., Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001).

3 Our decision in Townley concerned a motion for a preliminary injunction, but the legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 10 of 29

10

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.
According to declarations filed by the States, for example, two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University were not permitted to enter the United States; one was informed he would be unable to obtain a visa. Similarly, the University of Washington was in the process of sponsoring three prospective employees from countries covered by the Executive Order for visas; it had made plans for their arrival beginning in February 2017, but they have been unable to enter the United States. The University of Washington also sponsored two medicine and science interns who have been prevented by the Executive Order from coming to the University of Washington. The University of Washington has already incurred the costs of visa applications for those interns and will lose its investment if they are not admitted. Both schools have a mission of “global engagement” and rely on such visiting students, scholars, and faculty to advance their educational goals. Students and faculty at Minnesota’s public universities were similarly restricted from traveling for academic and personal reasons.
Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 11 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

11

rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 11416 (1976) (explaining that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights). Vendors, for example, “have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.” Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976). Likewise, doctors have been permitted to assert the rights of their patients. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). And advocacy organizations such as the NAACP have been permitted to assert the constitutional rights of their members. See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
Most relevant for our purposes, schools have been permitted to assert the rights of their students. See, e.g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 175 & n.13 (1976) (“It is clear that the schools have standing to assert these arguments [asserting free-association rights, privacy rights, and ‘a parent’s right to direct the education of his children’] on behalf of their patrons.”); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) (allowing a school to assert the “right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training [and] the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of a school”); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pierce and rejecting the argument that the plaintiff school had no standing to assert claims of discrimination against its minority students); see also Ohio Ass’n of Indep. Sch. v. Goff, 92 F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing similar authorities). As in those cases, the interests

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 12 of 29

12

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

of the States’ universities here are aligned with their students. The students’ educational success is “inextricably bound up” in the universities’ capacity to teach them. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 115. And the universities’ reputations depend on the success of their professors’ research. Thus, as the operators of state universities, the States may assert not only their own rights to the extent affected by the Executive Order but may also assert the rights of their students and faculty members.4
We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave. And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The Government does not argue otherwise.

4 The Government argues that the States may not bring Establishment Clause claims because they lack Establishment Clause rights. Even if we assume that States lack such rights, an issue we need not decide, that is irrelevant in this case because the States are asserting the rights of their students and professors. Male doctors do not have personal rights in abortion and yet any physician may assert those rights on behalf of his female patients. See Singleton, 428 U.S. at 118.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 13 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

13

We therefore hold that the States have standing.5
Reviewability of the Executive Order
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see also Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the

5 The States have asserted other proprietary interests and also presented an alternative standing theory based on their ability to advance the interests of their citizens as parens patriae. Because we conclude that the States’ proprietary interests as operators of their public universities are sufficient to support standing, we need not reach those arguments.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 14 of 29

14

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 15 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

15

permissible means of implementing that power”).6 Our court has likewise made clear that “[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), does not compel a different conclusion. The Government cites Mandel for the proposition that “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” The Government omits portions of the quoted language to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority. In fact, the Mandel standard applies to lawsuits challenging an executive branch official’s decision to issue or deny an individual visa based on the

6 See also, e.g., Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 530 (1954) (reaffirming the broad power of Congress over immigration, but observing that “[i]n the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process”); Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100-01 (1903) (reaffirming, in the context of adjudicating a constitutional challenge to an immigration policy, that “this court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in ‘due process of law’ as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”); Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 604 (1889) (“The powers to declare war, make treaties . . . and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations.”).

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 16 of 29

16

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

application of a congressionally enumerated standard to the particular facts presented by that visa application. The present case, by contrast, is not about the application of a specifically enumerated congressional policy to the particular facts presented in an individual visa application. Rather, the States are challenging the President’s promulgation of sweeping immigration policy. Such exercises of policymaking authority at the highest levels of the political branches are plainly not subject to the Mandel standard; as cases like Zadvydas and Chadha make clear, courts can and do review constitutional challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41.
This is no less true when the challenged immigration action implicates national security concerns. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 19 (1942) (stating that courts have a duty, “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty”); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866) (“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace . . . under all circumstances.”). We are mindful that deference to the political branches is particularly appropriate with respect to national security and foreign affairs, given the relative institutional capacity, informational access, and expertise of the courts. See Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 3334.
Nonetheless, “courts are not powerless to review the political branches’ actions” with respect to matters of national security. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 559 n.17 (9th Cir. 2005). To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches, the Supreme Court has made clear that

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 17 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

17

the Government’s “authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals,” even in times of war. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 34 (quoting id. at 61 (Breyer, J., dissenting)); see also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967) (“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“[S]imply because a statute deals with foreign relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice.”).
Indeed, federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of—and even invalidate—actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict. See, e.g., Boumediene, 553 U.S. 723 (striking down a federal statute purporting to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by non-citizens being held as “enemy combatants” after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere and accused of authorizing, planning, committing, or aiding the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11, 2001); Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) (holding unconstitutional a statute denying passports to American members of the Communist Party despite national security concerns); Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (holding unconstitutional the detention of a law-abiding and loyal American of Japanese ancestry during World War II and affirming federal court jurisdiction over habeas petitions by such individuals). As a plurality of the Supreme Court cautioned in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), “Whatever power the United

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 18 of 29

18

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.” Id. at 536 (plurality opinion).
In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.
Legal Standard
The Government moves to stay the district court’s order pending this appeal. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (quoting Virginian, 272 U.S. at 672-73) (alterations omitted). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34.
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434, and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an applicant satisfies the first two

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 19 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

19

factors,” id. at 435. We conclude that the Government has failed to clear each of the first two critical steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of a stay. We emphasize, however, that our analysis is a preliminary one. We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims.
Likelihood of Success—Due Process
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered. United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985); ASSE Int’l, Inc. v. Kerry, 803 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel. Indeed, the Government does not contend that the Executive

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 20 of 29

20

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

Order provides for such process. Rather, in addition to the arguments addressed in other parts of this opinion, the Government argues that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.
In the district court, the States argued that the Executive Order violates the procedural due process rights of various aliens in at least three independent ways. First, section 3(c) denies re-entry to certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders without constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond. Second, section 3(c) prohibits certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders from exercising their separate and independent constitutionally protected liberty interests in travelling abroad and thereafter re-entering the United States. Third, section 5 contravenes the procedures provided by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum and related relief in the United States. The district court held generally in the TRO that the States were likely to prevail on the merits of their due process claims, without discussing or offering analysis as to any specific alleged violation.
At this stage of the proceedings, it is the Government’s burden to make “a strong showing that [it] is likely to” prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims. Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). We are not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for a stay pending appeal.
The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 21 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

21

presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens. For example, the Government has failed to establish that lawful permanent residents have no due process rights when seeking to re-enter the United States. See id. (“[T]he returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him.” (quoting Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 460 (1963))). Nor has the Government established that the Executive Order provides lawful permanent residents with constitutionally sufficient process to challenge their denial of re-entry. See id. at 35 (“[T]he courts must evaluate the particular circumstances and determine what procedures would satisfy the minimum requirements of due process on the re-entry of a permanent resident alien.”).
The Government has argued that, even if lawful permanent residents have due process rights, the States’ challenge to section 3(c) based on its application to lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the Executive Order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II issued “[a]uthoritative [g]uidance” stating that sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Executive Order do not apply to lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 22 of 29

22

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.
Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added).
Even if the claims based on the due process rights of lawful permanent residents were no longer part of this case, the States would continue to have potential claims regarding possible due process rights of other persons who are in the United States, even if unlawfully, see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 693; non-immigrant visaholders who have been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, see Landon, 459 U.S. 33-34; refugees, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note 8; and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). Accordingly, the Government has not demonstrated that the States lack viable claims based

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 23 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

23

on the due process rights of persons who will suffer injuries to protected interests due to the Executive Order. Indeed, the existence of such persons is obvious.
The Government argues that, even if the States have shown that they will likely succeed on some of their procedural due process claims, the district court nevertheless erred by issuing an “overbroad” TRO. Specifically, the Government argues that the TRO is overbroad in two independent respects: (1) the TRO extends beyond lawful permanent residents, and covers aliens who cannot assert cognizable liberty interests in connection with travelling into and out of the United States, and (2) the TRO applies nationwide, and enjoins application of the Executive Order outside Washington and Minnesota. We decline to modify the scope of the TRO in either respect.
First, we decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.” That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. That would also omit claims by citizens who have an interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (six Justices declining to adopt a rule that would categorically bar U.S. citizens from asserting cognizable liberty interests in the receipt of visas by alien spouses). There might be persons covered by the TRO who do not have viable due process claims, but the Government’s proposed revision leaves out at least some who do.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 24 of 29

24

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

Second, we decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). At this stage of the litigation, we do not need to and do not reach such a legal conclusion for ourselves, but we cannot say that the Government has established that a contrary view is likely to prevail. Moreover, even if limiting the geographic scope of the injunction would be desirable, the Government has not proposed a workable alternative form of the TRO that accounts for the nation’s multiple ports of entry and interconnected transit system and that would protect the proprietary interests of the States at issue here while nevertheless applying only within the States’ borders.
More generally, even if the TRO might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the Executive Order. See United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479 (1995) (declining to rewrite a statute to eliminate constitutional defects); cf. Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 516 (1964) (invalidating a restriction on freedom of travel despite the existence of constitutional applications). The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions. For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the Government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.
Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination
The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause,

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 25 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

25

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), as does one that “officially prefer[s] [one religious denomination] over another,” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The Supreme Court has explained that this is because endorsement of a religion “sends the ancillary message to . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). The Equal Protection Clause likewise prohibits the Government from impermissibly discriminating among persons based on religion. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 50 (9th Cir. 1978).
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 26 of 29

26

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.
The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 27 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

27

perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.8 We disagree, as explained above.
To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles.”).

7 Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.
8 In addition, the Government asserts that, “[u]nlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal and maintain its confidentiality. Regulations and rules have long been in place for that. 28 C.F.R. § 17.17(c) (describing Department of Justice procedures to protect classified materials in civil cases); 28 C.F.R. § 17.46(c) (“Members of Congress, Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal and District Courts do not require a determination of their eligibility for access to classified information . . . .”); W.D. Wash. Civ. L.R. 5(g) (providing procedures governing filings under seal).

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 28 of 29

28

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).
The Government suggests that the Executive Order’s discretionary waiver provisions are a sufficient safety valve for those who would suffer unnecessarily, but it has offered no explanation for how these provisions would function in practice: how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when? Moreover, as we have explained above, the Government has not otherwise explained how the Executive Order could realistically be administered only in parts such that the injuries listed above would be avoided.
Finally, in evaluating the need for a stay, we must consider the public interest generally. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Aspects of the public interest favor both sides, as evidenced by the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages. On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-5 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 65 Case: 17-35105, 02/09/2017, ID: 10310971, DktEntry: 134, Page 29 of 29

STATE OF WASHINGTON V. TRUMP

29

discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this; when considered alongside the hardships discussed above, these competing public interests do not justify a stay.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
7KH:KLWH+RXVH 2IILFHRIWKH3UHVV6HFUHWDU\ )RU,PPHGLDWH5HOHDVH -DQXDU\ 
(;(&87,9(25'(53527(&7,1* 7+(1$7,21)520)25(,*1 7(5525,67(175<,1727+( 81,7('67$7(6
(;(&87,9(25'(5

3URWHFWLQJWKH1DWLRQIURP)RUHLJQ7HUURULVW(QWU\LQWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
%\WKHDXWKRULW\YHVWHGLQPHDV3UHVLGHQWE\WKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDQGODZVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI $PHULFDLQFOXGLQJWKH,PPLJUDWLRQDQG1DWLRQDOLW\$FW,1$86&et seqDQGVHFWLRQRI WLWOH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RGHDQGWRSURWHFWWKH$PHULFDQSHRSOHIURPWHUURULVWDWWDFNVE\IRUHLJQ QDWLRQDOVDGPLWWHGWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLWLVKHUHE\RUGHUHGDVIROORZV
6HFWLRQ3XUSRVH.7KHYLVDLVVXDQFHSURFHVVSOD\VDFUXFLDOUROHLQGHWHFWLQJLQGLYLGXDOVZLWK WHUURULVWWLHVDQGVWRSSLQJWKHPIURPHQWHULQJWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV3HUKDSVLQQRLQVWDQFHZDVWKDWPRUH DSSDUHQWWKDQWKHWHUURULVWDWWDFNVRI6HSWHPEHUZKHQ6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWSROLF\SUHYHQWHG FRQVXODURIILFHUVIURPSURSHUO\VFUXWLQL]LQJWKHYLVDDSSOLFDWLRQVRIVHYHUDORIWKHIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOV ZKRZHQWRQWRPXUGHUQHDUO\$PHULFDQV$QGZKLOHWKHYLVDLVVXDQFHSURFHVVZDVUHYLHZHG DQGDPHQGHGDIWHUWKH6HSWHPEHUDWWDFNVWREHWWHUGHWHFWZRXOGEHWHUURULVWVIURPUHFHLYLQJYLVDV WKHVHPHDVXUHVGLGQRWVWRSDWWDFNVE\IRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVZKRZHUHDGPLWWHGWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
1XPHURXVIRUHLJQERUQLQGLYLGXDOVKDYHEHHQFRQYLFWHGRULPSOLFDWHGLQWHUURULVPUHODWHGFULPHV VLQFH6HSWHPEHULQFOXGLQJIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVZKRHQWHUHGWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDIWHUUHFHLYLQJ YLVLWRUVWXGHQWRUHPSOR\PHQWYLVDVRUZKRHQWHUHGWKURXJKWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVUHIXJHHUHVHWWOHPHQW SURJUDP'HWHULRUDWLQJFRQGLWLRQVLQFHUWDLQFRXQWULHVGXHWRZDUVWULIHGLVDVWHUDQGFLYLOXQUHVW LQFUHDVHWKHOLNHOLKRRGWKDWWHUURULVWVZLOOXVHDQ\PHDQVSRVVLEOHWRHQWHUWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV7KH 8QLWHG6WDWHVPXVWEHYLJLODQWGXULQJWKHYLVDLVVXDQFHSURFHVVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKRVHDSSURYHGIRU DGPLVVLRQGRQRWLQWHQGWRKDUP$PHULFDQVDQGWKDWWKH\KDYHQRWLHVWRWHUURULVP
A

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
,QRUGHUWRSURWHFW$PHULFDQVWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVPXVWHQVXUHWKDWWKRVHDGPLWWHGWRWKLVFRXQWU\GR QRWEHDUKRVWLOHDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGLWDQGLWVIRXQGLQJSULQFLSOHV7KH8QLWHG6WDWHVFDQQRWDQGVKRXOG QRWDGPLWWKRVHZKRGRQRWVXSSRUWWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQRUWKRVHZKRZRXOGSODFHYLROHQWLGHRORJLHVRYHU $PHULFDQODZ,QDGGLWLRQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVVKRXOGQRWDGPLWWKRVHZKRHQJDJHLQDFWVRIELJRWU\RU KDWUHGLQFOXGLQJKRQRUNLOOLQJVRWKHUIRUPVRIYLROHQFHDJDLQVWZRPHQRUWKHSHUVHFXWLRQRIWKRVH ZKRSUDFWLFHUHOLJLRQVGLIIHUHQWIURPWKHLURZQRUWKRVHZKRZRXOGRSSUHVV$PHULFDQVRIDQ\UDFH JHQGHURUVH[XDORULHQWDWLRQ
6HF3ROLF\,WLVWKHSROLF\RIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWRSURWHFWLWVFLWL]HQVIURPIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVZKR LQWHQGWRFRPPLWWHUURULVWDWWDFNVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGWRSUHYHQWWKHDGPLVVLRQRIIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOV ZKRLQWHQGWRH[SORLW8QLWHG6WDWHVLPPLJUDWLRQODZVIRUPDOHYROHQWSXUSRVHV
6HF6XVSHQVLRQRI,VVXDQFHRI9LVDVDQG2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ%HQHILWVWR1DWLRQDOVRI&RXQWULHV RI3DUWLFXODU&RQFHUQ. D7KH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\LQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH6HFUHWDU\RI 6WDWHDQGWKH'LUHFWRURI1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFHVKDOOLPPHGLDWHO\FRQGXFWDUHYLHZWRGHWHUPLQHWKH LQIRUPDWLRQQHHGHGIURPDQ\FRXQWU\WRDGMXGLFDWHDQ\YLVDDGPLVVLRQRURWKHUEHQHILWXQGHUWKH,1$ DGMXGLFDWLRQVLQRUGHUWRGHWHUPLQHWKDWWKHLQGLYLGXDOVHHNLQJWKHEHQHILWLVZKRWKHLQGLYLGXDOFODLPV WREHDQGLVQRWDVHFXULW\RUSXEOLFVDIHW\WKUHDW
E7KH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\LQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHDQGWKH'LUHFWRU RI1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFHVKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH3UHVLGHQWDUHSRUWRQWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHUHYLHZGHVFULEHGLQ VXEVHFWLRQDRIWKLVVHFWLRQLQFOXGLQJWKH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\
VGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKH LQIRUPDWLRQQHHGHGIRUDGMXGLFDWLRQVDQGDOLVWRIFRXQWULHVWKDWGRQRWSURYLGHDGHTXDWHLQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHU7KH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOSURYLGHDFRS\RIWKH UHSRUWWRWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHDQGWKH'LUHFWRURI1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFH
F7RWHPSRUDULO\UHGXFHLQYHVWLJDWLYHEXUGHQVRQUHOHYDQWDJHQFLHVGXULQJWKHUHYLHZSHULRG GHVFULEHGLQVXEVHFWLRQDRIWKLVVHFWLRQWRHQVXUHWKHSURSHUUHYLHZDQGPD[LPXPXWLOL]DWLRQRI DYDLODEOHUHVRXUFHVIRUWKHVFUHHQLQJRIIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVDQGWRHQVXUHWKDWDGHTXDWHVWDQGDUGVDUH HVWDEOLVKHGWRSUHYHQWLQILOWUDWLRQE\IRUHLJQWHUURULVWVRUFULPLQDOVSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQIRIWKH,1$ 86&I,KHUHE\SURFODLPWKDWWKHLPPLJUDQWDQGQRQLPPLJUDQWHQWU\LQWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI DOLHQVIURPFRXQWULHVUHIHUUHGWRLQVHFWLRQDRIWKH,1$86&DZRXOGEH GHWULPHQWDOWRWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG,KHUHE\VXVSHQGHQWU\LQWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDV LPPLJUDQWVDQGQRQLPPLJUDQWVRIVXFKSHUVRQVIRUGD\VIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUH[FOXGLQJ WKRVHIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVWUDYHOLQJRQGLSORPDWLFYLVDV1RUWK$WODQWLF7UHDW\2UJDQL]DWLRQYLVDV& YLVDVIRUWUDYHOWRWKH8QLWHG1DWLRQVDQG***DQG*YLVDV
G,PPHGLDWHO\XSRQUHFHLSWRIWKHUHSRUWGHVFULEHGLQVXEVHFWLRQERIWKLVVHFWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKH LQIRUPDWLRQQHHGHGIRUDGMXGLFDWLRQVWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOUHTXHVWDOOIRUHLJQJRYHUQPHQWVWKDW

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
GRQRWVXSSO\VXFKLQIRUPDWLRQWRVWDUWSURYLGLQJVXFKLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHLUQDWLRQDOVZLWKLQ GD\VRIQRWLILFDWLRQ
H$IWHUWKHGD\SHULRGGHVFULEHGLQVXEVHFWLRQGRIWKLVVHFWLRQH[SLUHVWKH6HFUHWDU\RI +RPHODQG6HFXULW\LQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH3UHVLGHQWDOLVWRI FRXQWULHVUHFRPPHQGHGIRULQFOXVLRQRQD3UHVLGHQWLDOSURFODPDWLRQWKDWZRXOGSURKLELWWKHHQWU\RI IRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVH[FOXGLQJWKRVHIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVWUDYHOLQJRQGLSORPDWLFYLVDV1RUWK$WODQWLF7UHDW\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQYLVDV&YLVDVIRUWUDYHOWRWKH8QLWHG1DWLRQVDQG***DQG*YLVDVIURP FRXQWULHVWKDWGRQRWSURYLGHWKHLQIRUPDWLRQUHTXHVWHGSXUVXDQWWRVXEVHFWLRQGRIWKLVVHFWLRQXQWLO FRPSOLDQFHRFFXUV
I$WDQ\SRLQWDIWHUVXEPLWWLQJWKHOLVWGHVFULEHGLQVXEVHFWLRQHRIWKLVVHFWLRQWKH6HFUHWDU\RI 6WDWHRUWKH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\PD\VXEPLWWRWKH3UHVLGHQWWKHQDPHVRIDQ\DGGLWLRQDO FRXQWULHVUHFRPPHQGHGIRUVLPLODUWUHDWPHQW
J1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJDVXVSHQVLRQSXUVXDQWWRVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKLVVHFWLRQRUSXUVXDQWWRD 3UHVLGHQWLDOSURFODPDWLRQGHVFULEHGLQVXEVHFWLRQHRIWKLVVHFWLRQWKH6HFUHWDULHVRI6WDWHDQG +RPHODQG6HFXULW\PD\RQDFDVHE\FDVHEDVLVDQGZKHQLQWKHQDWLRQDOLQWHUHVWLVVXHYLVDVRU RWKHULPPLJUDWLRQEHQHILWVWRQDWLRQDOVRIFRXQWULHVIRUZKLFKYLVDVDQGEHQHILWVDUHRWKHUZLVHEORFNHG
K7KH6HFUHWDULHVRI6WDWHDQG+RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH3UHVLGHQWDMRLQWUHSRUWRQ WKHSURJUHVVLQLPSOHPHQWLQJWKLVRUGHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUDVHFRQGUHSRUWZLWKLQ GD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUDWKLUGUHSRUWZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUDQGDIRXUWK UHSRUWZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHU
6HF,PSOHPHQWLQJ8QLIRUP6FUHHQLQJ6WDQGDUGVIRU$OO,PPLJUDWLRQ3URJUDPV. D7KH 6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHWKH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\WKH'LUHFWRURI1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFHDQGWKH 'LUHFWRURIWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQVKDOOLPSOHPHQWDSURJUDPDVSDUWRIWKHDGMXGLFDWLRQ SURFHVVIRULPPLJUDWLRQEHQHILWVWRLGHQWLI\LQGLYLGXDOVVHHNLQJWRHQWHUWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRQD IUDXGXOHQWEDVLVZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRFDXVHKDUPRUZKRDUHDWULVNRIFDXVLQJKDUPVXEVHTXHQWWRWKHLU DGPLVVLRQ7KLVSURJUDPZLOOLQFOXGHWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDXQLIRUPVFUHHQLQJVWDQGDUGDQGSURFHGXUH VXFKDVLQSHUVRQLQWHUYLHZVDGDWDEDVHRILGHQWLW\GRFXPHQWVSURIIHUHGE\DSSOLFDQWVWRHQVXUHWKDW GXSOLFDWHGRFXPHQWVDUHQRWXVHGE\PXOWLSOHDSSOLFDQWVDPHQGHGDSSOLFDWLRQIRUPVWKDWLQFOXGH TXHVWLRQVDLPHGDWLGHQWLI\LQJIUDXGXOHQWDQVZHUVDQGPDOLFLRXVLQWHQWDPHFKDQLVPWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH DSSOLFDQWLVZKRWKHDSSOLFDQWFODLPVWREHDSURFHVVWRHYDOXDWHWKHDSSOLFDQW
VOLNHOLKRRGRIEHFRPLQJ DSRVLWLYHO\FRQWULEXWLQJPHPEHURIVRFLHW\DQGWKHDSSOLFDQW
VDELOLW\WRPDNHFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKH QDWLRQDOLQWHUHVWDQGDPHFKDQLVPWRDVVHVVZKHWKHURUQRWWKHDSSOLFDQWKDVWKHLQWHQWWRFRPPLW FULPLQDORUWHUURULVWDFWVDIWHUHQWHULQJWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
E7KH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\LQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHWKH'LUHFWRURI 1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFHDQGWKH'LUHFWRURIWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQVKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH 3UHVLGHQWDQLQLWLDOUHSRUWRQWKHSURJUHVVRIWKLVGLUHFWLYHZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUD VHFRQGUHSRUWZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUDQGDWKLUGUHSRUWZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRI WKLVRUGHU
6HF5HDOLJQPHQWRIWKH865HIXJHH$GPLVVLRQV3URJUDPIRU)LVFDO<HDU. D7KH 6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOVXVSHQGWKH865HIXJHH$GPLVVLRQV3URJUDP865$3IRUGD\V'XULQJ WKHGD\SHULRGWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\DQG LQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH'LUHFWRURI1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFHVKDOOUHYLHZWKH865$3DSSOLFDWLRQDQG DGMXGLFDWLRQSURFHVVWRGHWHUPLQHZKDWDGGLWLRQDOSURFHGXUHVVKRXOGEHWDNHQWRHQVXUHWKDWWKRVH DSSURYHGIRUUHIXJHHDGPLVVLRQGRQRWSRVHDWKUHDWWRWKHVHFXULW\DQGZHOIDUHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV DQGVKDOOLPSOHPHQWVXFKDGGLWLRQDOSURFHGXUHV5HIXJHHDSSOLFDQWVZKRDUHDOUHDG\LQWKH865$3 SURFHVVPD\EHDGPLWWHGXSRQWKHLQLWLDWLRQDQGFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHVHUHYLVHGSURFHGXUHV8SRQWKH GDWHWKDWLVGD\VDIWHUWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOUHVXPH865$3 DGPLVVLRQVRQO\IRUQDWLRQDOVRIFRXQWULHVIRUZKLFKWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHWKH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG 6HFXULW\DQGWKH'LUHFWRURI1DWLRQDO,QWHOOLJHQFHKDYHMRLQWO\GHWHUPLQHGWKDWVXFKDGGLWLRQDO SURFHGXUHVDUHDGHTXDWHWRHQVXUHWKHVHFXULW\DQGZHOIDUHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
E8SRQWKHUHVXPSWLRQRI865$3DGPLVVLRQVWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHLQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH 6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\LVIXUWKHUGLUHFWHGWRPDNHFKDQJHVWRWKHH[WHQWSHUPLWWHGE\ODZWR SULRULWL]HUHIXJHHFODLPVPDGHE\LQGLYLGXDOVRQWKHEDVLVRIUHOLJLRXVEDVHGSHUVHFXWLRQSURYLGHGWKDW WKHUHOLJLRQRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOLVDPLQRULW\UHOLJLRQLQWKHLQGLYLGXDO
VFRXQWU\RIQDWLRQDOLW\:KHUH QHFHVVDU\DQGDSSURSULDWHWKH6HFUHWDULHVRI6WDWHDQG+RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOUHFRPPHQG OHJLVODWLRQWRWKH3UHVLGHQWWKDWZRXOGDVVLVWZLWKVXFKSULRULWL]DWLRQ
F3XUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQIRIWKH,1$86&I,KHUHE\SURFODLPWKDWWKHHQWU\RI QDWLRQDOVRI6\ULDDVUHIXJHHVLVGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGWKXVVXVSHQGDQ\ VXFKHQWU\XQWLOVXFKWLPHDV,KDYHGHWHUPLQHGWKDWVXIILFLHQWFKDQJHVKDYHEHHQPDGHWRWKH865$3 WRHQVXUHWKDWDGPLVVLRQRI6\ULDQUHIXJHHVLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHQDWLRQDOLQWHUHVW
G3XUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQIRIWKH,1$86&I,KHUHE\SURFODLPWKDWWKHHQWU\RIPRUH WKDQUHIXJHHVLQILVFDO\HDUZRXOGEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG WKXVVXVSHQGDQ\VXFKHQWU\XQWLOVXFKWLPHDV,GHWHUPLQHWKDWDGGLWLRQDODGPLVVLRQVZRXOGEHLQWKH QDWLRQDOLQWHUHVW
H1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJWKHWHPSRUDU\VXVSHQVLRQLPSRVHGSXUVXDQWWRVXEVHFWLRQDRIWKLVVHFWLRQ WKH6HFUHWDULHVRI6WDWHDQG+RPHODQG6HFXULW\PD\MRLQWO\GHWHUPLQHWRDGPLWLQGLYLGXDOVWRWKH8QLWHG 6WDWHVDVUHIXJHHVRQDFDVHE\FDVHEDVLVLQWKHLUGLVFUHWLRQEXWRQO\VRORQJDVWKH\GHWHUPLQHWKDW WKHDGPLVVLRQRIVXFKLQGLYLGXDOVDVUHIXJHHVLVLQWKHQDWLRQDOLQWHUHVWLQFOXGLQJZKHQWKHSHUVRQLV

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
DUHOLJLRXVPLQRULW\LQKLVFRXQWU\RIQDWLRQDOLW\IDFLQJUHOLJLRXVSHUVHFXWLRQZKHQDGPLWWLQJWKHSHUVRQ ZRXOGHQDEOHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWRFRQIRUPLWVFRQGXFWWRDSUHH[LVWLQJLQWHUQDWLRQDODJUHHPHQWRU ZKHQWKHSHUVRQLVDOUHDG\LQWUDQVLWDQGGHQ\LQJDGPLVVLRQZRXOGFDXVHXQGXHKDUGVKLSDQGLW ZRXOGQRWSRVHDULVNWRWKHVHFXULW\RUZHOIDUHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
I7KH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH3UHVLGHQWDQLQLWLDOUHSRUWRQWKHSURJUHVVRIWKH GLUHFWLYHLQVXEVHFWLRQERIWKLVVHFWLRQUHJDUGLQJSULRULWL]DWLRQRIFODLPVPDGHE\LQGLYLGXDOVRQWKH EDVLVRIUHOLJLRXVEDVHGSHUVHFXWLRQZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUDQGVKDOOVXEPLWDVHFRQG UHSRUWZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHU
J,WLVWKHSROLF\RIWKHH[HFXWLYHEUDQFKWKDWWRWKHH[WHQWSHUPLWWHGE\ODZDQGDVSUDFWLFDEOH 6WDWHDQGORFDOMXULVGLFWLRQVEHJUDQWHGDUROHLQWKHSURFHVVRIGHWHUPLQLQJWKHSODFHPHQWRUVHWWOHPHQW LQWKHLUMXULVGLFWLRQVRIDOLHQVHOLJLEOHWREHDGPLWWHGWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDVUHIXJHHV7RWKDWHQGWKH 6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOH[DPLQHH[LVWLQJODZWRGHWHUPLQHWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKFRQVLVWHQW ZLWKDSSOLFDEOHODZ6WDWHDQGORFDOMXULVGLFWLRQVPD\KDYHJUHDWHULQYROYHPHQWLQWKHSURFHVVRI GHWHUPLQLQJWKHSODFHPHQWRUUHVHWWOHPHQWRIUHIXJHHVLQWKHLUMXULVGLFWLRQVDQGVKDOOGHYLVHDSURSRVDO WRODZIXOO\SURPRWHVXFKLQYROYHPHQW
6HF5HVFLVVLRQRI([HUFLVHRI$XWKRULW\5HODWLQJWRWKH7HUURULVP*URXQGVRI ,QDGPLVVLELOLW\. 7KH6HFUHWDULHVRI6WDWHDQG+RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOLQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH$WWRUQH\ *HQHUDOFRQVLGHUUHVFLQGLQJWKHH[HUFLVHVRIDXWKRULW\LQVHFWLRQRIWKH,1$86& UHODWLQJWRWKHWHUURULVPJURXQGVRILQDGPLVVLELOLW\DVZHOODVDQ\UHODWHGLPSOHPHQWLQJPHPRUDQGD
6HF([SHGLWHG&RPSOHWLRQRIWKH%LRPHWULF(QWU\([LW7UDFNLQJ6\VWHPD7KH6HFUHWDU\RI +RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOH[SHGLWHWKHFRPSOHWLRQDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIDELRPHWULFHQWU\H[LWWUDFNLQJ V\VWHPIRUDOOWUDYHOHUVWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDVUHFRPPHQGHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO&RPPLVVLRQRQ7HUURULVW $WWDFNV8SRQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
E7KH6HFUHWDU\RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\VKDOOVXEPLWWRWKH3UHVLGHQWSHULRGLFUHSRUWVRQWKH SURJUHVVRIWKHGLUHFWLYHFRQWDLQHGLQVXEVHFWLRQDRIWKLVVHFWLRQ7KHLQLWLDOUHSRUWVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHG ZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUDVHFRQGUHSRUWVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWH RIWKLVRUGHUDQGDWKLUGUHSRUWVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHU)XUWKHUWKH 6HFUHWDU\VKDOOVXEPLWDUHSRUWHYHU\GD\VWKHUHDIWHUXQWLOWKHV\VWHPLVIXOO\GHSOR\HGDQG RSHUDWLRQDO
6HF9LVD,QWHUYLHZ6HFXULW\.D7KH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOLPPHGLDWHO\VXVSHQGWKH9LVD ,QWHUYLHZ:DLYHU3URJUDPDQGHQVXUHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKVHFWLRQRIWKH,1$86&ZKLFK UHTXLUHVWKDWDOOLQGLYLGXDOVVHHNLQJDQRQLPPLJUDQWYLVDXQGHUJRDQLQSHUVRQLQWHUYLHZVXEMHFWWR VSHFLILFVWDWXWRU\H[FHSWLRQV

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
E7RWKHH[WHQWSHUPLWWHGE\ODZDQGVXEMHFWWRWKHDYDLODELOLW\RIDSSURSULDWLRQVWKH6HFUHWDU\RI 6WDWHVKDOOLPPHGLDWHO\H[SDQGWKH&RQVXODU)HOORZV3URJUDPLQFOXGLQJE\VXEVWDQWLDOO\LQFUHDVLQJWKH QXPEHURI)HOORZVOHQJWKHQLQJRUPDNLQJSHUPDQHQWWKHSHULRGRIVHUYLFHDQGPDNLQJODQJXDJH WUDLQLQJDWWKH)RUHLJQ6HUYLFH,QVWLWXWHDYDLODEOHWR)HOORZVIRUDVVLJQPHQWWRSRVWVRXWVLGHRIWKHLU DUHDRIFRUHOLQJXLVWLFDELOLW\WRHQVXUHWKDWQRQLPPLJUDQWYLVDLQWHUYLHZZDLWWLPHVDUHQRWXQGXO\ DIIHFWHG
6HF9LVD9DOLGLW\5HFLSURFLW\. 7KH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOUHYLHZDOOQRQLPPLJUDQWYLVD UHFLSURFLW\DJUHHPHQWVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH\DUHZLWKUHVSHFWWRHDFKYLVDFODVVLILFDWLRQWUXO\UHFLSURFDO LQVRIDUDVSUDFWLFDEOHZLWKUHVSHFWWRYDOLGLW\SHULRGDQGIHHVDVUHTXLUHGE\VHFWLRQVFDQGRI WKH,1$86&FDQGDQGRWKHUWUHDWPHQW,IDFRXQWU\GRHVQRWWUHDW8QLWHG6WDWHV QDWLRQDOVVHHNLQJQRQLPPLJUDQWYLVDVLQDUHFLSURFDOPDQQHUWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOODGMXVWWKH YLVDYDOLGLW\SHULRGIHHVFKHGXOHRURWKHUWUHDWPHQWWRPDWFKWKHWUHDWPHQWRI8QLWHG6WDWHVQDWLRQDOV E\WKHIRUHLJQFRXQWU\WRWKHH[WHQWSUDFWLFDEOH
6HF7UDQVSDUHQF\DQG'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ. D7REHPRUHWUDQVSDUHQWZLWKWKH$PHULFDQSHRSOH DQGWRPRUHHIIHFWLYHO\LPSOHPHQWSROLFLHVDQGSUDFWLFHVWKDWVHUYHWKHQDWLRQDOLQWHUHVWWKH6HFUHWDU\ RI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\LQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH$WWRUQH\*HQHUDOVKDOOFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDSSOLFDEOHODZ DQGQDWLRQDOVHFXULW\FROOHFWDQGPDNHSXEOLFO\DYDLODEOHZLWKLQGD\VDQGHYHU\GD\V WKHUHDIWHU
LLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHQXPEHURIIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZKRKDYHEHHQFKDUJHG ZLWKWHUURULVPUHODWHGRIIHQVHVZKLOHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVFRQYLFWHGRIWHUURULVPUHODWHGRIIHQVHVZKLOH LQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUUHPRYHGIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVEDVHGRQWHUURULVPUHODWHGDFWLYLW\DIILOLDWLRQ RUPDWHULDOVXSSRUWWRDWHUURULVPUHODWHGRUJDQL]DWLRQRUDQ\RWKHUQDWLRQDOVHFXULW\UHDVRQVVLQFHWKH GDWHRIWKLVRUGHURUWKHODVWUHSRUWLQJSHULRGZKLFKHYHULVODWHU
LLLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHQXPEHURIIRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZKRKDYHEHHQ UDGLFDOL]HGDIWHUHQWU\LQWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGHQJDJHGLQWHUURULVPUHODWHGDFWVRUZKRKDYH SURYLGHGPDWHULDOVXSSRUWWRWHUURULVPUHODWHGRUJDQL]DWLRQVLQFRXQWULHVWKDWSRVHDWKUHDWWRWKH8QLWHG 6WDWHVVLQFHWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHURUWKHODVWUHSRUWLQJSHULRGZKLFKHYHULVODWHUDQG
LLLLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHQXPEHUDQGW\SHVRIDFWVRIJHQGHUEDVHGYLROHQFHDJDLQVWZRPHQ LQFOXGLQJKRQRUNLOOLQJVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVE\IRUHLJQQDWLRQDOVVLQFHWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHURUWKHODVW UHSRUWLQJSHULRGZKLFKHYHULVODWHUDQG
LYDQ\RWKHULQIRUPDWLRQUHOHYDQWWRSXEOLFVDIHW\DQGVHFXULW\DVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH6HFUHWDU\RI +RPHODQG6HFXULW\DQGWKH$WWRUQH\*HQHUDOLQFOXGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHLPPLJUDWLRQVWDWXVRIIRUHLJQ QDWLRQDOVFKDUJHGZLWKPDMRURIIHQVHV

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-6 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
E7KH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWHVKDOOZLWKLQRQH\HDURIWKHGDWHRIWKLVRUGHUSURYLGHDUHSRUWRQWKH HVWLPDWHGORQJWHUPFRVWVRIWKH865$3DWWKH)HGHUDO6WDWHDQGORFDOOHYHOV 6HF*HQHUDO3URYLVLRQV.D1RWKLQJLQWKLVRUGHUVKDOOEHFRQVWUXHGWRLPSDLURURWKHUZLVH DIIHFW LWKHDXWKRULW\JUDQWHGE\ODZWRDQH[HFXWLYHGHSDUWPHQWRUDJHQF\RUWKHKHDGWKHUHRIRU LLWKHIXQFWLRQVRIWKH'LUHFWRURIWKH2IILFHRI0DQDJHPHQWDQG%XGJHWUHODWLQJWREXGJHWDU\ DGPLQLVWUDWLYHRUOHJLVODWLYHSURSRVDOV E7KLVRUGHUVKDOOEHLPSOHPHQWHGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDSSOLFDEOHODZDQGVXEMHFWWRWKHDYDLODELOLW\RI DSSURSULDWLRQV F7KLVRUGHULVQRWLQWHQGHGWRDQGGRHVQRWFUHDWHDQ\ULJKWRUEHQHILWVXEVWDQWLYHRU SURFHGXUDOHQIRUFHDEOHDWODZRULQHTXLW\E\DQ\SDUW\DJDLQVWWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLWVGHSDUWPHQWV DJHQFLHVRUHQWLWLHVLWVRIILFHUVHPSOR\HHVRUDJHQWVRUDQ\RWKHUSHUVRQ '21$/'-75803


Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7

Exhibit B

Videos
https://www.c-span.org/video/?401762-1/presidentialcandidate-donald-trump-rally-mount-pleasant-southcarolina&start=1811
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/giuliani-after-trumpannounced-muslim-ban-he-asked-me-for-right-way-to-doit-legally/
http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/bro dy-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecutedchristians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uselections/donald-trump-muslim-registry-video-presidentislam-policies-immigration-a7424511.html

Description
Video of then-Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump’s December 7, 2015 Pearl Harbor Day campaign rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina reading from his press release dated December 7,  2015  “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” (“Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of Muslims entering  the  United  States  until  our  country’s   representatives can figure out what the hell is going  on…”)
Video clip of an interview by Jeanine Pirro with informal White House Cybersecurity Advisor Rudy Giuliani on Fox News regarding President Trump’s Ban published on January 29, 2017 (Muslim ban adapted to become ban on those from certain countries)
Video clip from the January 27, 2017 CBN Brody File interview with President Trump (“Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees”)
Video of a November 2015 exchange between Donald Trump and a reporter regarding a Muslim. In this video, then-Presidential Candidate Trump is asked how do you actually get Muslims registered; he responds, “It would just be good management what you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do this.”

Source
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116

B

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/10/donaldtrump-islam-intv-ac-cooper-sot.cnn
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-responds-to-brusselsattack-were-having-problems-with-the-muslims/
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july24-2016-n615706
https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-dailycongressman-ryan-zinke-november-18-2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkdF5SSk8aQ
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4890453028001/?#sp=showclips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyS2zL2ofbs

March 9, 2016 video of then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on ‘Anderson Cooper 360’ explaining that “Islam hates us.”
In March 2016, Defendant Trump said, “Frankly, look, we’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country.” Alex Griswold, Trump Responds to Brussels Attacks: ‘We’re Having Problems with the Muslims.’ July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press, Defendant Trump was asked directly if a plan similar to the now-enacted Executive Order was a “rollback” from “[t]he Muslim Ban.” Audio clip of the November 18, 2015 radio interview by White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, then Executive Chairman of Breitbart News, with Congressman Ryan Zinke Video clips, published on February 1, 2017, from the January 31, 2017 news conference by Secretary Kelly and Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Kevin K. McAleenan on President Trump’s Travel Ban Orders May 11, 2016 audio of then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on ‘Kilmeade & Friends’ discussing the Muslim ban
May 11, 2016 interview of then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on ‘On the Record with Greta’  on Fox News discussing the five- to seven-member immigration commission headed by Rudy Giuliani to look at the Muslim ban

Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No. 17-cv-00094-JCC
Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116

2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7

https://www.c-span.org/video/?413977-1/donald-trumpdelivers-foreign-policy-address
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/kfile-michaelflynn-august-speech/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtcdn0zAqw
Articles
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9867900/donald-trumpmuslims
http://www.politico.com/trump-muslims-shutdown-hitlercomparison
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/thefix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-bangiulani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-itlegally/?utm_term=.2f88f830c54c https://goo.gl/IPIV14

August 15, 2016, Defendant Trump said that the United States could not  “adequate[ly] screen[]” immigrants because it admits “about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year.”

Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No. 17-cv-00094-JCC

August 2016 speech, Michael Flynn, who is now Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al.,

President Trump’s National Security Advisor, USDC for the Western District

called Islam “a political ideology,” suggesting it of Washington at Seattle, Case

is not a religion, and called it “a vicious

No. 17-cv-00094-JCC

cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on

this planet and it has to be excised.”

December 13, 2015, during an interview on

Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et

CNN, Defendant Trump reaffirmed his intent to al., USDC for the Northern

institute a ban on Muslims entering the

District of California, Case No.

c ountry.

17-cv-00557

Description

Source

December 7, 2015 Vox article  titled,  “Donald Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al.,

Trump  proposes  ‘total  and  complete  shutdown  of   USDC for the Eastern District

Muslims entering the United States’”

of Virginia, Civil Action No.

17-cv-116

December 8, 2015 Politico article by Nick Gass titled “Trump not bothered by comparisons to Hitler”

Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No.

17-cv-116

January 29, 2017 Washington Post article by

Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al.,

Amy B. Wang titled “Trump asked for a ‘Muslim   USDC for the Eastern District

ban,’ Guiliani says – and ordered a commission of Virginia, Civil Action No.

to do it ‘legally’”

17-cv-116

January 31, 2017 Washington Post article by Francis Stead Sellers and David A. Fahrenthold titled “‘Why even let ’em in?’ Understanding Bannon’s worldview and the policies that follow”

Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116

3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/bro dy-file-exclusive-president-trump-says-persecutedchristians-will-be-given-priority-as-refugees
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/sallyyates-trump-immigration-ban.html
http://documents.latimes.com/message-acting-attorneygeneral/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trumpimmigration-ban-memo.html
https://goo.gl/JCAUdL
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uselections/donald-trump-muslim-registry-video-presidentislam-policies-immigration-a7424511.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/thefix/wp/2016/11/17/the-evolution-of-donald-trump-and-themuslim-database/?utm_term=.4e0291cebb68
http://inside.collegefactual.com/blog/how-trumps-travel-

January 27, 2017 CBN News article titled “Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees” January 31, 2017 New York Times article by Alan Blinder and Matt Apuzzo titled “Trump’s Talk About Muslims Led Acting Attorney General to Defy Ban” Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates’s January 30, 2017 Memo
January 30, 2017 New York Times article by Michael D. Shear, Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo, and Eric Lichtblau titled “Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Defied Him” Memo of Dissent from Foreign Service officers and other diplomats published on January 30, 2017
December 7, 2015 press release titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration”
November 18, 2016 Independent article by Harriet Agerholm titled “Donald Trump seen calling for a Muslim registry in new video despite denials” December 21, 2016 Washington Post article by Aaron Blake titled “Trump says we’ve  known his Muslim ban and database plans ‘all along.’ But we still don’t — not really” January 31, 2017 College Factual article titled

Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al.,

4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7

ban-affects-thousands-of-international-students
http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-potentially-mostaffected-trump-immigration-ban-2017-2
https://storify.com/saenpremium/donald-trump-on-islammuslims-and-the-middle-east
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/30/donaldtrump-sits-down-bill-oreilly/
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/firstdraft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutelyrequire-muslims-to-register/ http://www.dailywire.com/news/1692/trump-msnbcmuslim-community-not-reporting-whats-robert-kraychik
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pencerepublican-ticket/
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/asylum-officials-andstate-department-in-turmoil-there-are-people-literallycrying-in-the-office-here/

“How Trump’s Executive Order Affects Thousands of International Students in the U.S.”
February 1, 2017 Business Insider article by Abby Jackson titled “The 10 US colleges that stand to lose the most from Trump’s immigration ban” String of tweets by Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump ranging from December 2011 through December 2015, published at storify.com Transcript of Donald J. Trump’s March 30, 2011 interview with Bill O’Reilly
November 20, 2015 New York Times article by Trip Gabriel titled “Donald Trump Says He’d ‘Absolutely’  Require  Muslims to Register”
December 8, 2015 Daily Wire article by Robert Kraychik titled “Trump to MSNBC:  ‘The  Muslim   Community Is Not Reporting What’s Going On’” Transcript of Donald J. Trump’s and Mike Pence’s July 17, 2016 interview with Lesley Stahl
Email to staff from Daniel M. Renaud, Associate Director of Field Operations for USCIS, on January 28, 2017, Mr. Renaud stated, “Effectively [sic] immediately and until additional guidance is received, you may not take final action on any petition or application

USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116
Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Aziz, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-116 Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No. 17-cv-00094-JCC

5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donaldtrump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nationforeign-terrorist-entry-united-states
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/673993417429 524480 http://wpo.st/O0uY2
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11925122/trump-orlandoforeign-policy-transcript
http://time.com/4611229/donald-trump-berlin-attack/

where the applicant is a citizen or national of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and Libya.” Michael D. Shear and Ron Nixon, How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos, NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 29, 2017) On January 31, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a subdivision of DHS, published a clarification on its website regarding whether the EO applies to people with pending naturalization applications Trump sent a tweet that stated “DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION”
Slightly modified version of the statement himself in public, declaring that “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.”
In a speech on June 13, 2016, Defendant Trump stated, “I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger. But now many … are saying that I was right to do so.” December 22, 2016, a reporter asked Defendant Trump whether his “plans to create a Muslim register or ban Muslim immigration to the United States”  had changed. Defendant Trump responded “you’ve known my plans all

Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No. 17-cv-00094-JCC Wagafe, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No. 17-cv-00094-JCC
Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557 Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557
Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557
Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557

6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 16-7 Filed 02/17/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825 666051
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826774668245 946368
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-stevebannon-sees-the-entire-world
http://www.breitbart.com/biggovernment/2017/01/30/trump-changes-immigrationfavor-american-values/ http://www.breitbart.com/nationalsecurity/2017/01/27/trump-will-give-persecuted-christianspriority-refugeestatus/

along” and that he was “100% correct”  in  his position. On January 30, Defendant Trump tweeted: “If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week.”
On February 1, Defendant Trump expressed his indifference to whether the Executive Order is characterized as a ban on Muslims: “Everyone is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want….” In the summer of 2014, Stephen Bannon, chief strategist and senior counselor to Defendant Trump and a reported principal architect of the Executive Order, advocated for separation from those of the Muslim faith, telling a meeting of the Human Dignity Institute. On January 29, an anonymous  “senior   administration  official”  briefed  a reporter from Breitbart.com on the intended purpose of the Executive Order. Interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on January 27, 2017, Defendant Trump asserted that the United States had been discriminating against Christian refugees from Syria in favor of Muslims.

Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557 Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557
Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557
Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557 Al-Mowafak, et al. v. Trump, et al., USDC for the Northern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-00557

9574583_2

7

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ
ZAKARIA HAGIG, Plaintiff,
v. DONALD TRUMP, et al.
Defendants.
NOTICE TO THE COURT
Undersigned counsel write to update this Court of significant developments since Plaintiff filed his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF 16. On March 6, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “New EO,” attached as Exhibit A).1 The New EO, by its terms, will not take effect until March 16, 2017. See New EO, § 14. As of that date, the New EO revokes Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Old EO”), see New EO, § 13, which is the subject of this litigation, and sets forth new policies that are substantially different in form and scope than the policies articulated by the Old EO, including section 3(c) of the Old EO, the enforcement of which Plaintiff requests be enjoined. See ECF 16.
1 Based on the Government’s representation to the Ninth Circuit that this New EO was forthcoming, the Ninth Circuit stayed en banc proceedings in Washington v. Trump, 17-35105 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017). As of this filing, the Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision with respect to its call for en banc briefing from the parties, although the motions panel has issued a briefing schedule on the merits of the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the district court enjoining enforcement of sections 3(a), 5(a), (b), (c), and (e) of the Old EO. Washington v. Trump, No. 17-cv-141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017).
1

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Relevant to the issues before the Court, the New Executive Order (i) suspends entry for 90 days of certain foreign nationals from six of the seven countries2 designated in the Old EO who do not hold valid visas; (ii) creates a case-by-case waiver process for those foreign nationals that is integrated into the visa application and admission process; (iii) directs a 120-day pause of certain aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which does not apply to refugee applicants who already have been formally scheduled for transit, and also allows for case-bycase waivers; and (iv) contains explanations in support of the newly issued policy.
In light of the New EO, undersigned counsel for the Defendants respectfully inform the Court as follows:
1. First, it is the Government’s view that the New EO excludes Plaintiff from its coverage because, as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 27, 2017, Plaintiff held a valid student visa. See New EO at § 3(a). For the same reason, in the event Plaintiff leaves the United States and attempts to return, the New EO will not apply to him either. See id.
The suspension of entry provisions now apply to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who are outside the United States on the New EO’s effective date of March 16, 2017, do not have a valid visa on that date, and did not have a valid visa as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017. See New EO, § 3(a). The New EO specifically
2 The suspension of entry no longer applies to nationals of Iraq because, since the Old EO 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.” New EO, § 1(g). Moreover, the New EO states there exists a close cooperative relationship between the United States and the Iraqi government, a strong U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq, a significant presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, and a commitment by Iraq to combat ISIS. See id. Accordingly, the New EO provides that Iraq “presents a special case,” id., although “[d]ecisions about issuance of visas or granting admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine if the applicants have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise pose a risk to either national security or public safety.” Id.; see also New EO, § 4.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
excludes from its coverage, among other things: • lawful permanent residents; • any foreign national admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the New EO’s effective date; • any individual who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of the New EO or issued anytime thereafter, that permits the individual to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as advance parole; • any dual national traveling on a passport not issued by one of the six designated countries; • any foreign national traveling on diplomatic, diplomatic-type, or other specified visas; and • any foreign national who has been granted asylum, any refugee already admitted to the United States, or any individual granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. See id., § 3(b).
These provisions explicitly exclude Plaintiff, who currently has a valid student visa and had a valid student visa as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017.3 See ECF 16 at 3. Moreover, the New EO directs that it shall not be the basis for the revocation of any visa, and does not apply to people in the United States, including those students enrolled at one of Colorado’s colleges or universities. Id., §§ 3(a), 12(c). Thus, Plaintiff’s “ability to travel
3 Although beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the New EO also includes waiver provisions for numerous categories of aliens without valid visas, including aliens who may seek to come the United States due to a relationship with a U.S. resident or institution, id., § 3(c), and once a recipient recieves such a waiver and thereafter is lawfully admitted to the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A), he or she will not be required to secure another waiver in order to leave and then return to the United States. New EO § 3(b)(ii).
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
internationally,” ECF 16 at 3, is not limited in any way by the New EO and his request to enjoin enforcement of Section 3(c) of the Old EO is moot. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U.S. 412, 414-415 (1972) (per curiam); accord Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 387-90 (1975).
Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that because the New EO expressly provides that it shall not be the basis for the revocation of any visa, and does not apply to people in the United States, the New EO falls outside of the Western District of Washington’s nationwide injunction. Accordingly, undersigned counsel respectfully submit that nothing in the Western District of Washington’s current nationwide injunctive order precludes the Executive Branch from enforcing the terms of the New EO as of its effective date, March 16, 2017.
2. Second, following the filing of the Notice, undersigned counsel will contact Plaintiff’s counsel to meet and confer concerning a dismissal of this case.
3. Third, given the foregoing, the Government respectfully submits that the New EO does not present a need for emergency, expedited litigation. The concerns relied upon by Plaintiff in bringing this action are no longer at issue. Indeed, by its own terms, the new EO will not apply to Plaintiff and similarly-situated foreign nationals from the six countries because they are not aliens who: (a) are outside the United States on the effective date of the new EO; (b) did not have a valid visa at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27, 2017; and (c) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of the new EO. See New EO, § 3. As to those individuals from the six countries covered by the New EO – i.e. covered aliens overseas without a valid visa – applying for visas prospectively, the Government notes that the visa application and approval process can often be a lengthy one, and the type of temporary pause in entry directed by the New EO will not cause immediate harm where applicants have no entitlement to a visa or travel
4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6

document and normally may wait a period of months or longer for ultimate approval and

issuance of a visa or travel document if found eligible. Notably, however, no such individuals are

at issue in this litigation at this time, and even if they were, the New EO provides robust waiver

authority under which such individuals may seek relief if they wish to travel to the United States.

Thus, the Government respectfully submits that, to the extent Plaintiff has any basis to

challenge the New EO, proceedings in this matter should proceed in a manner to allow this Court

a more complete opportunity to assess any constitutional claims plaintiff may have concerning

the provisions of the New EO.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

WILLIAM PEACHEY Director Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation

GISELA A. WESTWATER Assistant Director

STACEY YOUNG Senior Litigation Counsel

By: /s/ Adrian M. Pandev________________

ADRIAN M. PANDEV

Trial Attorney

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 598-2648

Fax:

(202) 305-7000

Email: adrian.m.pandev@usdoj.gov

DATE: March 6, 2017

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

5

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 6, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel of record.

Dated: March 6, 2017

/s/ Adrian M. Pandev__________ ADRIAN M. PANDEV Trial Attorney

6

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 6, 2017

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 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20
2
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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20
3
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 interests of the United States. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-bycase 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20
4
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:
(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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20
5
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 alQa'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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20
6
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 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20
7
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-treelighting 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 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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20
8
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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20
9
(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 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20
10
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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20

11

(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;

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20

12

(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;

(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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20
13
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 Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20
14
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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20
15
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.
(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 diplomatictype 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20
16
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;

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20
17
(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-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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20
18
(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.
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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 21-1 Filed 03/06/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20

19
(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.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2017.

DONALD J. TRUMP # # #

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ
ZAKARIA HAGIG, Plaintiff,
v. DONALD TRUMP, et al.
Defendants.
CORRECTION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE TO THE COURT
Undersigned counsel write to correct statements made in Defendant’s Notice to the Court (“the Notice”) filed on March 6, 2017. ECF 21. In the Notice, Defendant’s stated that “. . . the New EO excludes Plaintiff from its coverage because, as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 27, 2017, Plaintiff held a valid student visa.”1 ECF 21 at 2. Further, Defendants stated that Plaintiff currently has a valid student visa. ECF 21 at 3. Defendants based these statements on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which states that Plaintiff “. . . is a full-time student (F-1 visa) at the Community College of Denver in Colorado, USA.” ECF 13 at 5. Nowhere in the original Complaint, ECF 1, Amended Complaint, ECF 13, or Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 16, does Plaintiff state that his F-1 student visa has expired.
On March 9, 2017, Defendants obtained information showing that Plaintiff’s F-1 student visa expired on July 1, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiff does not currently have a valid F-1 student visa
1 “New EO” refers to the Executive Order the President signed on March 6, 2017, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” See Exhibit A.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
and did not have a valid F-1 student visa as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 27, 2017.
This correction does not change the fact that Plaintiff’s ability to travel internationally to Montreal, Canada from March 17, 2017 to March 26, 2017, ECF 13 at 5, is not limited by the New EO. This is because the New EO only applies if the person is outside the United States on the New EO’s effective date of March 16, 2017. See New EO, § 3(a) (to be subject to the order, a person must be, among other things, “outside the United States on the effective date of this order”). Because we anticipate that Plaintiff will be in the United States at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on March 16, 2017, when the New EO takes effect, see New EO, § 14, Plaintiff falls outside the scope of the New EO and his ability to travel on March 17, 2017 and re-enter the United States will not be impacted by the New EO. Rather, any travel by Plaintiff would be governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act’s statutory and regulatory provisions, as they existed prior to the effective date of the Old EO.2
Undersigned counsel has alerted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the above correction.
2 Plaintiff’s challenge to Executive Order No. 13,769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Old EO”) is moot because that order is rescinded by the New EO.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted, DATE: March 9, 2017

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

WILLIAM PEACHEY Director Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation

GISELA A. WESTWATER Assistant Director

STACEY I. YOUNG Senior Litigation Counsel

By: /s/ Adrian M. Pandev________________

ADRIAN M. PANDEV

Trial Attorney

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 598-2648

Fax:

(202) 305-7000

Email: adrian.m.pandev@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 9, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel of record.

Dated: March 9, 2017

/s/ Adrian M. Pandev__________ ADRIAN M. PANDEV Trial Attorney

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 6, 2017

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 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20
2
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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20
3
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 interests of the United States. Nonetheless, I permitted the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-bycase 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20
4
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:
(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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20
5
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 alQa'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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20
6
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 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20
7
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-treelighting 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 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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20
8
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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20
9
(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 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20
10
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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20

11

(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;

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20

12

(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;

(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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20
13
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 Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20
14
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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20
15
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.
(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 diplomatictype 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

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20
16
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;

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20
17
(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-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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20
18
(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.
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.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 22-1 Filed 03/09/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20

19
(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.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2017.

DONALD J. TRUMP # # #

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 28 Filed 04/21/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ ZAKARIA HAGIG,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.
Defendants.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Unopposed Motion for a 60-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Class Action Complaint”). ECF 13. In support of their motion, Defendants state as follows:
Under D.C.COLO.LCiv.R. 7.1A, Defendants’ counsel certifies that they have conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel who does not oppose the extension.
Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Action Complaint on February 10, 2017. ECF 13.
Defendants filed a Stipulated Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Class Action Complaint on April 3, 2017. ECF 25.
Defendants’ answer or other responsive pleading to the Amended Class Action Complaint is currently due Monday, April 24, 2017.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 28 Filed 04/21/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
On March 6, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “New EO”), which Executive Order had an effective date of March 16, 2017. See Notice to Court [ECF 21], and Amended Notice [ECF 22].
The New EO is currently being litigated in various other forums, including in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC, where the court issued a preliminary injunction on March 29, 2017, and in United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC, where the court issued a temporary restraining order that was appealed to the Fourth Circuit on March 17, 2017.
Good cause therefore exists, for reasons of judicial efficiency and economy, to extend Defendants’ time to respond to the Amended Class Action Complaint. Because these other courts’ nationwide injunction and restraining order has enjoined the enforcement of the New EO and because those proceedings are ongoing, the parties have agreed to an extension of 60 days for Defendants to respond to the Amended Class Action Complaint.
The requested extension is reasonable and will not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not oppose the extension. The requested relief will simplify and streamline the proceedings.
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(b), undersigned counsel certifies that Defendants filed one stipulated extension to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint. See ECF 25.
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c), undersigned counsel certifies that a copy of this motion will be served on Plaintiff and upon an agency representative for Defendants.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 28 Filed 04/21/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully request that the deadline to

respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint be extended by 60 days to June 23,

2017.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

WILLIAM PEACHEY Director Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation

GISELA A. WESTWATER Assistant Director

STACEY YOUNG Senior Litigation Counsel

By: /s/ Adrian M. Pandev________

ADRIAN M. PANDEV

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 598-2648

Fax:

(202) 305-7000

Email: adrian.m.pandev@usdoj.gov

DATE: April 21, 2017

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 28 Filed 04/21/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 21, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel of record. I also hereby certify that on April 21, 2017, I caused the foregoing document to be served via email upon an agency representative for Defendants.

Dated: April 21, 2017

/s/ Adrian M. Pandev__________ ADRIAN M. PANDEV Trial Attorney

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 26 Filed 04/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ ZAKARIA HAGIG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and LASHANDA JONES, Denver Director, CBP,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Please take notice that Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, by undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully withdraws his pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on February 17, 2017. [Dkt. #16]. The issues raised in that Motion relate to the previous Executive Order, dated January 29, 2017, which has been repealed and superseded by the new Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “New EO”) as of its effective date on March 16, 2017. See Notice to Court, [Dkt. #21], and Amended Notice, [Dkt. #22]. Defendants consent to Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the Motion and agree that Plaintiff reserves his rights to raise any issues with the New EO in subsequent motions as necessary.

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 26 Filed 04/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of April, 2017.
By: /s/ Christopher H. Toll Christopher H. Toll 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Cir., Suite 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 290-1637 ctoll@hollandhart.com Jessica J. Smith 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 295-8374 Facsimile: (303) 295-8261 jjsmith@hollandhart.com HOLLAND & HART LLP
By: /s/ Alan Kennedy-Shaffer Alan Kennedy-Shaffer 1051 14th Street, Box 21101 Denver, CO 80202 (712) 433-5488 alan.kennedy-shaffer@aya.yale.edu
By: /s/ Morgan L. Carroll Morgan L. Carroll 1165 Ouray Street Aurora, CO 80011 (303) 726-1742 morganlcarroll@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 26 Filed 04/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 5, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document, with the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address and to all counsel of record:
adrian.m.pandev@usdoj.gov (representing Defendants) s/ Dorina O’Toole Dorina O’Toole HOLLAND & HART LLP
9741186_2
3

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-289-RBJ ZAKARIA HAGIG,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.
Defendants.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS
Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submit this unopposed motion seeking a stay of proceedings in this case pending the Supreme Court’s potential consideration of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits’ decisions in cases challenging Executive Order No. 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “ New EO”). See Int’l Refugee Assistance Proj. v. Trump, No. 17-1351, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017) (“IRAP”); Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2529640 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017) (“Hawaii”). In support of their motion, Defendants state as follows:
Under D.C. COLO. L Civ. R. 7.1A, Defendants’ counsel certifies that they have conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel who do not oppose the stay of proceedings.
Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Action Complaint on February 10, 2017. ECF 13.
Defendants filed a Stipulated Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Class Action Complaint on April 3, 2017. ECF 25. On April 21, 2017, Defendants filed an

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Class Action Complaint. ECF No. 28. This motion was granted on June 13, 2017. ECF 29.
Defendants’ answer or other responsive pleading to the Amended Class Action Complaint is currently due on June 23, 2017.
On March 6, 2017, the President signed the New EO, which revokes Executive Order No. 13, 769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Old EO”). See Notice to Court [ECF 21], and Amended Notice [ECF 22].
The New EO is the subject of several other lawsuits across the country, including cases in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Proj. v. Trump, No. 17-1351, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017); Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2529640 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017). On Thursday, May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit, in an en banc decision, upheld the District of Maryland’s preliminary injunction of the New EO based on a finding of likelihood of success on plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause Claim. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Proj., 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017). On June 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part the injunction of the New EO issued by the District of Hawaii. See Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2529640 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017).
On June 1, 2017, the Government filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the Supreme Court. See Int’l Refugee Assistance Proj. v. Trump, No. 17-1351, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S. ---, (U.S. June 1, 2017) (No. 16-1436). The same day, the Government also filed an application seeking a stay of a separate injunction issued by the District of Hawaii pending
2

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
appeal in the Ninth Circuit; on June 12, while the Government’s stay application was pending, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming that injunction in part and vacating it in part, and the Government requested that the Supreme Court construe its stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-15589, --F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2529640 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S. ---, (U.S. June 1, 2017) (No. 16A1191).
Further review by the Supreme Court would provide substantial guidance to this Court and the parties in resolving this dispute. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 253 (1936) (holding that a stay may be warranted where the resolution of other litigation will likely “narrow the issues in the pending cases and assist in the determination of the questions of law involved”). Proceeding in the absence of such guidance would be inefficient, waste the resources of the Court and the parties, and potentially result in an inconsistent ruling that would need to be corrected in light of any decision by the Supreme Court.
Good cause therefore exists, for reasons of judicial efficiency and economy, to stay these proceedings.
The requested stay of proceedings is reasonable and will not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not oppose the stay. The requested relief will simplify and streamline the proceedings.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay this case pending disposition of the petitions for writs of certiorari in IRAP and Hawaii, and, if
3

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5

certiorari is granted in either or both cases, pending a final decision by the Supreme Court on the merits, to be lifted two weeks after such final action by the Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted, DATE: June 22, 2017

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

WILLIAM PEACHEY Director Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation

GISELA A. WESTWATER Assistant Director

STACEY YOUNG Senior Litigation Counsel

/s/ Adrian M. Pandev________

ADRIAN M. PANDEV

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 598-2648

Fax:

(202) 305-7000

Email: adrian.m.pandev@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

4

Case 1:17-cv-00289-RBJ Document 30 Filed 06/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 22, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel of record. I also hereby certify that on June 22, 2017, I caused the foregoing document to be served via email upon an agency representative for Defendants.

Dated: June 22, 2017

/s/ Adrian M. Pandev__________ ADRIAN M. PANDEV Trial Attorney

5

 
 Case: 1:17-cv-289 As of: 05/04/2020 01:37 PM MDT 1 of 6
U.S. District Court − District of Colorado District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−00289−RBJ

JD1,TERMED

Hagig v. Trump et al Assigned to: Judge R. Brooke Jackson Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig

Date Filed: 01/31/2017 Date Terminated: 05/03/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Morgan Lenore Carroll Morgan L. Carroll, Attorney At Law 1165 Ouray Street Aurora, CO 80011 303−726−1742 Email: MorganLCarroll@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Hulbert Toll Holland & Hart, LLP−Greenwood Village 6380 South Fiddlers Green Circle Suite 500 Greenwood Village, CO 80111−2800 303−290−1637 Fax: 303−975−5300 Email: ctoll@hollandhart.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Jodene Smith Holland & Hart, LLP−Denver P.O. Box 8749 555 17th Street Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80201−8749 303−295−8374 Fax: 303−974−1133 Email: jjsmith@hollandhart.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Hamilton Kennedy Alan Hamilton Kennedy, Attorney at Law 1975 North Grant Street Suite 421 Denver, CO 80203 303−345−3397 Email: alan.kennedy@aya.yale.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Donald Trump President of the United States

represented by Adrian Mark Pandev U.S. Department of Justice−DC−#868 P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−598−2648 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: adrian.m.pandev@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:17-cv-289 As of: 05/04/2020 01:37 PM MDT 2 of 6

TERMINATED: 07/28/2017

Briana F. Yuh U.S. Department of Justice−DC−#868 Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4165 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: Briana.Yuh@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/01/2018

Samuel P. Go U.S. Department of Justice−DC−#868 Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−353−9923 Email: samuel.go@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security "DHS"

represented by Adrian Mark Pandev (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2017

Briana F. Yuh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2018

Samuel P. Go (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Customs and Border Protection "CBP"

represented by Adrian Mark Pandev (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2017

Briana F. Yuh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2018

Samuel P. Go (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Kelly Secretary of DHS

represented by Adrian Mark Pandev (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2017

Briana F. Yuh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2018

Samuel P. Go (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-289 As of: 05/04/2020 01:37 PM MDT 3 of 6

Defendant Kevin McAleenan Acting Commissioner of CBP
Defendant LaShanda Jones Denver Director, CBP

represented by Adrian Mark Pandev (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2017
Briana F. Yuh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2018
Samuel P. Go (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adrian Mark Pandev (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2017
Briana F. Yuh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2018
Samuel P. Go (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/31/2017
01/31/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017
01/31/2017
01/31/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082−5354257)Attorney Alan Kennedy−Shaffer added to party Zakaria Hagig(pty:pla), filed by Zakaria Hagig. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kennedy−Shaffer, Alan) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
2 Case assigned to Judge R. Brooke Jackson and drawn to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. Text Only Entry (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
3 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The summonses submitted are incomplete and not issued. Please file completed summons for issuance using the event Summons Request. (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
4 ADVISORY NOTICE TO ATTORNEY(S).Morgan L. Carroll was administratively removed from the Attorney Roll for either failing to pay the 2013 one−time renewal fee or failing to register for CM/ECF. Unless an application for admission to the bar of the court is received or a motion to withdraw from this case is filed within 10 days of the date of this entry, action may be taken by the court.(Text Only Entry) (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
5 ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: 1 Complaint, filed by attorney Alan Kennedy−Shaffer. The document was scanned and not converted directly to portable document format (PDF). DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. Action to take − future documents must be filed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(a) and 1.3(f) of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil Cases). (Text Only Entry) (amenz, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
6 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Donald Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"); John Kelly, Secretary of DHS; Kevin McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and LaShanda Jones, Denver Director, CBP by Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons)(Kennedy−Shaffer, Alan) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-289 As of: 05/04/2020 01:37 PM MDT 4 of 6

01/31/2017 02/02/2017
02/04/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017 02/13/2017 02/15/2017
02/17/2017
02/17/2017 02/21/2017
02/21/2017

7 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (jhawk, ) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Briana F. Yuh on behalf of All Defendants Attorney Briana F. Yuh added to party LaShanda Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Briana F. Yuh added to party John Kelly(pty:dft), Attorney Briana F. Yuh added to party Kevin McAleenan(pty:dft), Attorney Briana F. Yuh added to party Donald Trump(pty:dft), Attorney Briana F. Yuh added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Briana F. Yuh added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft) (Yuh, Briana) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
9 Certificate of Service by mail on all Defendants (Kennedy−Shaffer, Alan) Modified on 2/6/2017 to note that these are not returns of service only showing who was served (jhawk, ). (Entered: 02/04/2017)
10 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Christopher Hulbert Toll on behalf of Zakaria HagigAttorney Christopher Hulbert Toll added to party Zakaria Hagig(pty:pla) (Toll, Christopher) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
11 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jessica Jodene Smith on behalf of Zakaria HagigAttorney Jessica Jodene Smith added to party Zakaria Hagig(pty:pla) (Smith, Jessica) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
12 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading re 1 Complaint, by Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig (Attachments: # 1 Pages for the Redline of Amended Complaint)(Toll, Christopher) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT Class Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants, filed by Zakaria Hagig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Toll, Christopher) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
14 MINUTE ORDER. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 02/13/2017. (athom, ) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant(s) LaShanda Jones served on 2/9/2017, answer due 4/10/2017; John Kelly served on 2/6/2017, answer due 4/7/2017; Kevin McAleenan served on 2/6/2017, answer due 4/7/2017; Donald Trump served on 2/6/2017, answer due 4/7/2017; U.S. Customs and Border Protection served on 2/6/2017, answer due 4/7/2017; U.S. Department of Homeland Security served on 2/6/2017, answer due 4/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt Certified Mail Confirmed Delivery, # 2 Receipt Certified Mail Confirmed Delivery, # 3 Receipt Return Receipts Received)(Kennedy−Shaffer, Alan) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
16 WITHDRAWN MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix − Part 1 of 5, # 2 Appendix Appendix − Part 2 of 5, # 3 Appendix Appendix − Part 3 of 5, # 4 Appendix Appendix − Part 4 of 5, # 5 Appendix Appendix − Part 5 of 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit A − Executive Order, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit B − Appendix of Videos)(Toll, Christopher) Modified on 4/5/2017 withdrawn pursuant to the order of 04/05/17(jhawk, ). (Entered: 02/17/2017)
17 MOTION to Expedite Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig. (Toll, Christopher) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
18 ORDER denying 17 MOTION to Expedite Briefing Schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff has not shown a need for expedited action in view of the Ninth Circuit's order. Footnote number 1 doesn't do it. If the Ninth Circuit's order is vacated, or if a new Executive Order is issued that potentially threatens irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the Court will take such action as is appropriate including expedited consideration if necessary (assuming that the parties cannot agree after conferral). By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/21/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
19 ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by attorney Christopher Toll. DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. Action to take − counsel must submit a change of contact request through the Attorney Services Portal Account pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c) and 3.5 of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil Cases). (Text Only Entry) (agarc, ) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-289 As of: 05/04/2020 01:37 PM MDT 5 of 6

03/06/2017
03/06/2017 03/09/2017 03/09/2017
03/13/2017
04/03/2017 04/05/2017 04/05/2017 04/21/2017 06/13/2017 06/22/2017 06/26/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017

20 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Adrian Mark Pandev on behalf of All Defendants Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev added to party LaShanda Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev added to party John Kelly(pty:dft), Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev added to party Kevin McAleenan(pty:dft), Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev added to party Donald Trump(pty:dft), Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft) (Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
21 NOTICE Regarding New Executive Order by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, New Executive Order)(Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
22 NOTICE Correcting Previous Notice to the Court by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, New Executive Order)(Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 New Executive Order)(Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
24 ORDER granting 23 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Granted in reliance on the government position that the new order excludes the plaintiff from its coverage, the Court grants the extension requested by the government. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/13/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
25 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Answer or Respond to the Complaint by Defendants Kevin McAleenan, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, LaShanda Jones, Donald Trump, John Kelly. All Defendants. (Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
26 NOTICE re 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for Withdrawal by Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig (Toll, Christopher) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
27 ORDER withdrawing 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The motion is withdrawn as indicated in the notice at ECF No. 26. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 4/5/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
28 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
29 ORDER granting 28 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond. The defendants answer or response is now due by 6/23/17. (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
30 Unopposed MOTION to Stay by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
31 ORDER granting 30 Unopposed Motion to Stay. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/26/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
32 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Pandev, Adrian) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
33 ORDER granting 32 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Adrian Mark Pandev is withdrawn. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 7/28/17. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-289 As of: 05/04/2020 01:37 PM MDT 6 of 6

09/28/2018 09/28/2018
10/01/2018 05/02/2019 05/03/2019

34 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendants LaShanda Jones, John Kelly, Kevin McAleenan, Donald Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Yuh, Briana) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
35 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Samuel P. Go on behalf of All Defendants Attorney Samuel P. Go added to party LaShanda Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Samuel P. Go added to party John Kelly(pty:dft), Attorney Samuel P. Go added to party Kevin McAleenan(pty:dft), Attorney Samuel P. Go added to party Donald Trump(pty:dft), Attorney Samuel P. Go added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Samuel P. Go added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft) (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
36 ORDER granting 34 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Briana F. Yuh withdrawn. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 10/1/18. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
37 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Case by Plaintiff Zakaria Hagig (Toll, Christopher) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
38 Civil Case Terminated pursuant to the notice of dismissal filed in this case on 5/2/19. Text Only Entry (jdyne, ) (Entered: 05/03/2019)