Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15637&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:17:36+00:00

Document:
On February 7, 2017, several individual U.S. immigrants, the International Refugee Project (IRAP), and HIAS, a refugee resettlement and advocacy organization, filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of their clients. Represented by the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, plaintiffs brought the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO) limiting admission to the U.S. by nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries and suspending the U.S. refugee program.
IRAP is an organization that provides free legal services to refugees seeking to resettle in the United States. The complaint states that the overwhelming majority of IRAP’s plaintiffs are Muslim. HIAS is a refugee resettlement agency that provides programs and legal services to refugees who have recently resettled in the United States. Many of its clients are from the seven countries listed on the EO. The case was assigned to Judge Theodore D. Chuang.
The complaint alleged that the EO was intended and designed to discriminate against Muslims and “does just that in operation.” The complaint focused on the disproportionate impact the EO had on Muslims and argued that the order’s chaotic and irregular policy changes indicate that it intended to discriminate against Muslims. Plaintiffs alleged that the EO violated their rights under the First Amendment Establishment Clause, Fifth Amendment Equal Protection clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Refugee Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of all persons “in the United States for whom the Executive Order either interferes with family reunification or the ability to travel internationally and return to the United States.” The complaint sought a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from implementing the EO. Additionally, the complaint sought a declaration from the court that the entire EO is unlawful.
On Feb. 22, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction motion sought to "enjoin Defendants from enforcing § 5(d) of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...[which] reduces the annual number of refugees who may be admitted to the United States this year by more than half." The motion argued that "[i]f § 5(d) is not enjoined, no additional refugees can be approved and admitted for resettlement this fiscal year. Thousands of those already approved will not be allowed to resettle in the United States."
In early March, several organizations filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs, including the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish World Service on behalf of more than fifty faith organizations. Those briefs are available below.
On March 6, 2017, prompted by adverse developments in the Ninth Circuit in another case challenging the EO, Washington v. Trump, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. That day, the government filed notice in this case of the new EO.
After the new EO was signed, plaintiffs moved forward with their preliminary injunction motion because the new EO still substantially reduced refugee admission. They also filed an amended complaint. The complaint alleged that "the March 6 Order was motivated by the same anti-Muslim purpose that motivated the January 27 Order. The amended complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the new EO violates the Establishment Clause, Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980 as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Concurrently, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction and a supplemental motion to expedite discovery "so that the Court may have the benefit of additional evidence bearing on the central question of the March 6 Order’s discriminatory intent."
On Mar. 11, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order. The defendants responded two days later, arguing that no emergency existed. The defendants also filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery. On Mar. 13, plaintiffs filed a response in support of the temporary restraining order motion. Plaintiffs argued that they had standing because the revised EO directly harms plaintiffs as organizations that serve refugees. The EO, plaintiffs argued, had forced HIAS and IRAP to divert substantial resources away from their core missions of providing free legal services to refugees as well as scale back the number of new clients they can take on. Additionally, plaintiffs argued that they met the requirements for asserting third-party legal standing on behalf of the thousands of refugee clients they are currently serving.
On Mar. 15, Judge Chuang granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against the travel ban portion of the second EO. 241 F.Supp.3d 539 (D.Md. 2017).
In response, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Immediately, defendants moved for an expedited hearing, citing national security concerns. The court agreed to an expedited schedule. Defendants then also filed a motion for a stay pending the appeal. The court then asked both parties to submit their positions on initial en banc review--that is, whether the case should be heard by the full set of Fourth Circuit judges, not just the ordinary panel of three. Defendants quickly responded in support. Plaintiffs followed suit, arguing that "although the government views the issues in this case through a different lens," en banc review was appropriate in light of the case's importance.
Also at issue on appeal was a stay of the preliminary injunction while the appeal proceeded. On Mar. 31, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the government's motion for a stay; defendants replied on Apr. 5. On Apr. 14, the plaintiffs filed their response to the defendants' opening merits appellate brief, arguing that the government improperly "urges this Court to look away...[and] blind themselves to the ample, public, and uncontested evidence of improper purpose—even in the President’s post-election statements—and instead accept, without question, whatever the government said its purpose was in the revised Order." Defendants filed their reply brief on Apr. 22.
Meanwhile, back in the district court, several procedural updates occurred. Judge Chuang held a telephone status conference in late March and plaintiffs also filed notice of intent to file a new motion for a preliminary injunction as to the new EO's provision regarding the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Plaintiffs' brief was filed Mar. 24 and Defendants' on Mar. 31. On Apr. 5, plaintiffs filed a response to defendant's brief. On Mar. 22, plaintiffs filed a notice withdrawing their motion for expedited discovery. The court then denied without prejudice the various pending motions for further relief, in light of the pending appeal and the nationwide injunction resulting from Hawai'i v. Trump.
Back in the appeals court, oral arguments took place on May 8, with the court sitting en banc. On May 11, the court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion to supplement the record to support one of the plaintiff's standing argument (John Doe #3). Many amici filed briefs (all of which are posted below).
On Jun. 1, the Trump Administration sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court, with expedited briefing (so that the case could be argued in October), and also sought a stay of the preliminary injunction pending adjudication by the Court. The next day, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the cert petition and the stay application by Jun. 12. That response was duly filed.
On June 26, the Supreme Court granted the government's petition for certiorari for this case and a related one, Hawaii v. Trump. SCOTUS also directed the parties to address "whether the challenges to §2(c) [the part of the EO that suspended entry to nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for ninety days] became moot on June 14, 2017."
In a per curiam opinion on the government's requested stay of the preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court granted that request partially; it declined to stay most of the preliminary injunction, but did reverse that injunction's application to "foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." For example, foreign nationals who do not have a close family tie or a formal, documented relationship with an entity (such as a school or employer) may have §2(c) enforced against them. Justices Thomas, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Alito, partially dissented, writing that the preliminary injunction was incorrect in its entirety.
On Aug. 11, the government submitted a merits brief. In it, the government put forth four main arguments: (1) challenges to the order are not justiciable and that the plaintiffs cannot establish any violation of their own constitutional rights; (2) section 2(c) did not become moot on June 14; (3) the EO does not violate the INA; and (4) the order does not violate the Establishment clause.
In advance of that argument, many organizations and individuals filed amicus briefs. Those briefs are available on this page. IRAP filed its merits brief on Sept. 12. In it the organization addressed the issue of mootness, arguing that the issue was not moot because a partial ban was still in effect and the government still sought to ban those who were protected by the lower courts' injunctions.
Meanwhile, a good deal of litigation over the EO continued in the lower courts, mostly in the Hawaii v. Trump case rather than this one. However, on Jul. 27, the Maryland District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against section 5 of the order, which pertained to the refugee cap. The court's decision was made in light of the Supreme Court's ruling granting the Government a stay on the Hawaii District Court's order modifying the preliminary injunction with respect to refugees.
Supreme Court oral arguments were set for Oct. 10. However, the travel ban imposed by the second EO was set to expire in the weeks leading up to oral arguments. On Sept. 24 - the same day the ninety-day ban was set to expire - the Trump Administration issued a proclamation indefinitely restricting travel from the following eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The Supreme Court cancelled the Oct. 10 hearing and asked the parties to file new briefs in light of the government's new order.
On Oct. 4, the Government filed its merits brief arguing that the case was moot because the Mar. 6 order had expired. Plaintiffs replied arguing that the case was not moot despite the new proclamation (or, as plaintiffs referred to it, EO 3.0). Instead, plaintiffs argued, "the religious condemnation of the earlier Executive Order is not dissipated by EO-3," which continues to discriminate against Muslims. Plaintiffs requested that the Supreme Court reschedule the case for oral arguments. In addition to filing their merits brief with the Supreme Court, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a new motion for a preliminary injunction against EO-3 in the Maryland District Court. There, plaintiffs argued that this new, indefinite ban threatens families, is "immense in scope," and displaces Congress's immigration laws.
Despite plaintiffs insistence that the case was not moot, on Oct. 11 the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's May ruling. 2017 WL 4518553. Given the lapse of the travel ban, the Supreme Court found that the case no longer presented a "live case in controversy." As such, it remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the challenge as moot.
The case then moved to the Fourth Circuit again. There, the government filed a motion for an emergency stay of the District Court's injunction pending appeal. The government also moved to expedite the merits briefing, arguing that there was still a possibility the Supreme Court could review the case this term. On Oct. 27, IRAP filed its brief opposing the government's motion for an emergency stay. In their brief, IRAP argued that "once again," the Trump administration asked for an emergency stay without showing "any actual emergency" while simultaneously trivializing the irreparable harm their clients face in the absence of an injunction. In response, defendants filed a brief supporting their motion on Oct. 30. The following day, the court granted defendant's motion for an expedited briefing schedule. On Nov. 1, defendants filed their opening brief, again arguing that President Trump's proclamation is justified and necessary and that the injunction posed a clear threat to national security.
On Nov. 6, the court issued an order granting initial hearing en banc. In advance of oral argument, many organizations again filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs in mid-November. Among the briefs filed were ones by Immigration Equality, The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and a group of ninety-six technology companies including Microsoft, Amazon, and Google.
Plaintiffs submitted their cross appeal brief on Nov. 15. In it they argued that the District Court erred by limiting the preliminary injunction to individuals with a bona-fide relationship to people or organizations in the United States. Defendants subsequently filed their brief opposing the preliminary injunction on Nov. 22. In their brief, defendants argued that the claim is non-justiciable because courts cannot review decisions made by the political branch to exclude non-citizens. As they did earlier in the litigation, plaintiffs also argued that the risk to national security pushed the balance of harms in their favor.
In a separate case, Hawaii v. Trump, the government asked the Supreme Court for a stay on that injunction. The Supreme Court granted that stay in a 7-2 decision on Dec. 4. The stay lifted all of the injunctions the lower courts had put on EO-3 pending litigation in the Court of Appeals. The following day, the plaintiffs in this case moved to have the 4th Circuit take note of a series of videos that President Trump tweeted in early December. The videos were first posted by an far-right British party that expressly opposes Islam. The plaintiffs argue that they prove the President's animus towards Muslims.
On Feb. 15, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction of EO-3. In its nearly three-hundred page opinion (including concurrences and dissents), the court founds that the plaintiffs had standing and that they were likely to succeed on the merits of at least some of their claims, including their claims based on the Establishment Clause. In regards to the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, the court found that plaintiffs offered "undisputed evidence" that EO-3 was driven by anti-Muslim bias, including "President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States." The court went on to write that EO-3 "denies the possibility of a complete, intact family to tens of thousands of Americans . . . and second-guesses our nation’s dedication to religious freedom and tolerance." Although the court found primarily in favor of the plaintiffs, it also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the injunction to individuals with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States. In addition to the majority opinion, several judges dissented on the grounds that plaintiffs did not have standing.
injunction with the “bona fide relationship”". Second, plaintiffs argued that granting review of their case "will ensure that the Court has before it the best vehicle for resolving the Establishment Clause question." Supreme Court was a better On Feb. 23, plaintiffs moved to expedite consideration of their petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted on Feb. 27. Defendants filed their memo in response to plaintiffs' request for certiorari on Feb. 28. In their response, defendants opposed the motion on the grounds that review would "bring no meaningful benefit" to resolving the issues because the Supreme Court is already addressing them in Hawaii v. Trump.
In Feb. 2018, defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in two related cases (Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump and Zakzok v. Trump). Defendants did not move to stay this case. However, on Apr. 24, the court granted defendants' motion to stay this case in addition to the two related cases pending the Supreme Court's resolution of Hawaii v. Trump.
On October 2, 2018, the court of appeals in this case remanded the case back to the district court in light of the Supreme Court decision.
On December 3, 2018, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their statutory claims pertaining to the INA, APA, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Refugee Act. Their constitutional claims remained.
Plaintiff Description The organizational plaintiffs are refugee advocacy and resettlement organizations. The putative Class is "persons in the United States for whom the Executive Order either interferes with family reunification or the ability to travel internationally and return to the United States."

References: § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.