Replies

Case Profile

Case Summary

This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The plaintiffs are Muslim Americans residing in the U.S. Many are public figures in the U.S. or have otherwise prominent roles in their communities. Many are executive members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Some are students, and others are asylees. Still others are at risk of not being reunited with their families.

The complaint argues that one of the purposes of the executive order is to “initiate the mass expulsion of immigrant and nonimmigrant Muslims lawfully residing in the United States by denying them the ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration benefits afforded to them under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Moreover, it argues that the Executive Order applies only to Muslims. As such, the executive order has an illegal purpose and effect, and violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause and right to free exercise of religion, Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The complaint seeks class declaratory and injunctive relief as well as jury demand.

The case was assigned to Judge Anthony J Trenga. On February 3, 2017, two private citizens filed motions to intervene in support of defendants. On February 6, 2017, Judge Trenga denied both motions because they failed to state a connection to the action. Then on February 27, 2017 another private citizen filed a motion to intervene in support of the defendants. The individual had also filed - and was denied - a motion to intervene in Aziz v. Trump. That motion was denied by Judge Trenga on March 3, 2017 because the individual's interests are already adequately represented by the parties involved.

On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13 addressing the new EO and arguing that "[b]ecause the history and text of the First Muslim Ban reveal an illegal purpose and effect, because the effects of the Revised Order continue to impact foreign nationals whose visa applications were not approved pursuant to the First Muslim Ban, and because the illegal purpose and effect of the First Muslim Ban can still be accomplished through the Revised Order via the case‐by‐case discretionary and nonreviewable waivers, Plaintiffs’ claims must be sustained."

The same day, the plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction as to the March 6 EO. On March 17, the defendants filed their memorandum in opposition the the plaintiffs' motion. There was a hearing for the motion on March 21.

On Mar. 24, Judge Trenga denied plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. In his corresponding memo, Judge Trenga found that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the second executive order, but that plaintiffs have failed to show thus far that the second executive order exceeds the President's authority. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs have not made a showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. Diverging from the court in Hawaii v. Trump, Judge Trenga refused to use the President's past statements as evidence of the order's discriminatory nature: "the Court cannot conclude for the purposes of the Motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority."

This case is ongoing.

Virginia Weeks - 03/21/2017
Jamie Kessler - 03/24/2017

compress summary