This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenged President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO) 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 were 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 alleged that they were at risk of not being reunited with their families.
The complaint argued that one of the purposes of the EO was 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 argued that the EO applied only to Muslims. Therefore, it said, the EO had an illegal purpose and effect, and violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause and right to free exercise of religion, Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The complaint sought class declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case was assigned to Judge Anthony J. Trenga.
On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780.
In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. The amended complaint, filed on Mar. 13, argued 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 plaintiffs filed the emergency motion the same day.
After a Mar. 24 hearing on the emergency motion, Judge Trenga denied it the same day. He found that while plaintiffs had standing to challenge the second EO, they failed to show thus far that the second EO exceeded the President's authority. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs had not made a showing that they were 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." 245 F.Supp.3d 719 (E.D. Va. 2017).
On Apr. 21, defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the
IRAP case currently on appeal in the Fourth Circuit. The court granted the stay on Apr. 24, which it continued on Aug. 18. After the Supreme Court remanded IRAP v. Trump with orders to dismiss the case, the court lifted the stay in this case for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on Dec. 26, adding a challenge to the third EO on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Following plaintiffs' amended complaint, defendants again moved to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the IRAP and Hawaii cases. The court granted defendants' motion to stay on Jan. 9.
This case is ongoing, although currently stayed.
Virginia Weeks - 03/21/2017
Jamie Kessler - 01/20/2018
Virginia Weeks - 09/15/2017
compress summary
