On January 28, 2017, lawful permanent residents of the United States, represented by the Legal Aid Justice Center and Mayer Brown, filed this case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. They brought the action as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and they simultaneously filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order.

The plaintiffs were 50 to 60 lawful permanent residents of the United States who were detained at Dulles International Airport pursuant to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump to ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and denied access to counsel. The original named plaintiffs--the Aziz brothers--are Yemeni citizens, legal permanent residents of the U.S. who were denied admission at Dulles. The complaint argued that detaining the plaintiffs solely pursuant to the Executive Order violated Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The plaintiffs also argued that they would suffer irreparable harm if they continued to be denied counsel and if they were deported. They sought a temporary restraining order to compel the defendants to allow them access to counsel and to prohibit the defendants from deporting them for seven days.

On January 28, 2017, Judge Leonie Brinkema granted the plaintiffs' motion and issued a seven-day temporary restraining order granting detainees at Dulles International Airport access to counsel and prohibiting deportation of detainees.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 30, 2017, clarifying the class. The plaintiffs defined the class as: "individuals with legal permanent resident status or who are traveling on valid U.S. immigrant visas who have been or will be either detained and/or coerced into signing a Form I-407." The complaint asserted that CBP had refused to follow the court's TRO by claiming that the affected individuals were not in "detention," but were rather undergoing "processing." The Aziz brothers in particular had been deported and were stranded in the airport in Addis Ababa, without their passports or green cards, both of which had been confiscated.

The amended complaint sought an injunction ordering respondents to invalidate the improperly coerced I-407 forms, reinstate the petitioners’ immigrant visas and/or LPR status, return the petitioners to Dulles Airport, and admit them into the United States, subject to the laws and regulations existing prior to January 27, 2017.

The Commonwealth of Virginia moved to intervene in the case on Jan. 31, 2017. The Commonwealth's stated interest was in protecting its universities from the disruption created by the Executive Order. Virginia also filed a motion in which it stated:

Contemporary news reports and first-hand accounts indicate that officials of respondent Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not comply with the Court’s directive in paragraph (a) that “respondents shall permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport.” Moreover, because such access was not provided and respondents have not disclosed, despite request, whether any such persons were removed from the United States after they knew of the TRO, it cannot be determined whether respondents complied with the prohibition on such removal in paragraph (b). The Commonwealth has attempted since Sunday, January 29, to obtain that information, but respondents have not answered. Under these circumstances, the Court should require that respondents demonstrate their compliance with the TRO and show cause why they are not in contempt.

On Feb. 1, the parties jointly moved to put the case briefly on hold while they tried to work out what would happen to the Aziz brothers. In addition, Virginia moved for a preliminary injunction.

Oral arguments took place, and Judge Brinkema eventually extended the TRO until Friday Feb. 10. She also allowed two individuals (a Somali citizen deported from Dulles under the Executive Order and his U.S. citizen fiance) and the Commonwealth of Virginia to intervene in the case. In addition, the court ordered the U.S. to provide the Commonwealth, by close of business Thursday Feb. 9, with "a list of all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States since the Executive Order . . . who, as of 8:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, on Friday, January 27, 2017, had a residence in the Commonwealth of Virginia and had lawful permanent resident status, an immigrant visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa), a valid student visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa), or a valid work visa (or accompanying family or spousal visa)."

On February 7, the Aziz brothers and John Does 1-50 moved to voluntarily dismiss their part of the case. That motion was granted, leaving only the Commonwealth of Virginia as a plaintiff.

On February 13, Judge Brinkema granted the Commonwealth of Virginia's motion for a preliminary injunction, with an accompanying memorandum order. This enjoined the defendants from enforcing the section 3(c) enforcement clause of the Executive Order against any person who was a Virginia resident or an employee or student of a Virginia public educational institution; and who, as of the time that the Executive Order was issued, had LPR status, an immigrant visa entitling the person to LPR status upon admission, a nonimmigrant student visa, a nonimmigrant work visa, or was a derivative of one of the latter two visas.

In the accompanying memorandum order to the preliminary injunction, the court noted that the Executive Order presented a risk to the status of LPRs from the seven covered countries; that the Executive Order had injured the Commonwealth of Virginia and its residents by disrupting the functioning of its public higher education institutions; and that the defendants had offered no evidence to prove that the Executive Order was necessary for national security concerns -- but instead had made statements suggesting that animus was the motivating reason for the "Muslim ban." The court held that the plaintiff's claim was justiciable because the plaintiff had alleged constitutional violations; and that the plaintiff had established all elements of its preliminary injunction showing (it was likely to succeed on the merits of its Establishment Clause claim, it was likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief, the balance of equities tipped in its favor, and an injunction would be in the public interest). However, the court also declined the plaintiff's request for a nationwide preliminary injunction, instead limiting the injunction to affected Virginia parties, pointing to the nationwide temporary restraining order from State of Washington v. Trump, deferring to other circuits to make their own decisions on the matter, and wishing to avoid challenges to the preliminary injunction as over broad.

On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. On the same day, DOJ filed notice of the new EO in this case.

On Mar. 30, 2017, the court ordered the U.S. to respond to Virginia's intervention complaint by May 1, 2017, and commented that the parties were discussing amicable resolution of the case. That deadline was extended to June 1, 2017.

On June 1, 2017, the case was dismissed without prejudice, dissolving the preliminary injunction. After this court's preliminary injunction order as to the first EO, that EO was revoked and other nationwide preliminary injunctions were put in place in IRAP v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump as to the second EO. This case is closed.

Virginia Weeks - 06/03/2017
Julie Aust - 02/07/2017
Ava Morgenstern - 02/14/2017
Jamie Kessler - 05/01/2017
Eva Richardson - 04/23/2019


compress summary