This class action, filed January 30, 2017, challenged President Trump’s January 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 Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs are represented by the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Immigration Council. The case was assigned to Judge James Robart.
The plaintiffs are a U.S. citizen and her six year old son--who is a Somali citizen with a pending immigrant visa application; a U.S. citizen and his 12 year old daughter--who is a Yemeni citizen with an approved immigrant visa application; and a lawful permanent resident and her 16 year old son--who is a Syrian citizen with a pending immigrant visa application. In each case, plaintiffs sought to be reunited as families living in the U.S. But pursuant to the EO, review of the pending visa applications was suspended and the plaintiff with the approved visa application was not allowed to board a flight to the U.S.
The complaint also sought inclusion of a class of "all nationals of countries designated by Section 3(c) of the Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 (currently Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), who have applied for or will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those nationals, whose visa applications have been or will be suspended or denied, or whose immigrant visas have been or will be revoked, or who have been or will be denied the ability to travel to the United States, on the basis of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order."
The complaint argued that the EO violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus), and Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. The complaint sought class certification, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
On Feb. 2, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, with supporting declarations. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
However, on Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780. On Mar. 7, the government filed notice of the new EO in this case.
On Mar. 10, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in response to the second EO, arguing that it did "not remedy the unlawful discrimination against Plaintiffs and proposed class members on these bases, but rather continues it." The plaintiffs represented by the new complaint were two U.S. citizens and two U.S. legal permanent residents and their family members who are citizens of Syria, Somalia, or Iran. The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of "all nationals of countries designated by Section 2 of Executive Order 13780 (currently Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), who have applied for or will apply for an immigrant visa and the visa petitioners for those nationals; whose visa application adjudication has been or will be suspended or denied, or who have been or will be denied the ability to seek entry into and/or enter the United States, on the basis of Executive Order 13780." The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, and the Establishment Clause. In conjunction, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to certify a class.
That day, the plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, as well as four accompanying declarations. The motion argued that pending the court's decision in
Washington v. Trump to clarify if its nationwide injunction applies to the new EO, "Plaintiffs and proposed class members face immediate irreparable harm on March 16, 2017, the order’s effective date" if that court does not extend the nationwide injunction to the new EO.
However, on Mar. 17, the Court stayed the emergency motion in light of the nationwide preliminary injunction granted in
Hawai'i v. Trump, so as to "conserve its resources and to benefit from any Ninth Circuit rulings in Hawai'i v. Trump regarding [the second EO]." On Mar. 30, the defendants then moved to stay district court proceedings in this case pending the resolution of defendant's appeal of the preliminary injunction granted in Hawai'i v. Trump.
The court stayed the proceedings on May 22, 2017 pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. That stay was extended on Nov. 1 and again on Jan. 23, 2018. In light the Supreme Court's decision in the Hawaii case, the parties filed a status report in July 2018 indicating their pending motions for class certification and injunctive relief were moot, and that the Supreme Court's ruling resolved most of their claims. On Sept. 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed notice for voluntary dismissal.
The case is now closed.
More information may be available at the American Immigration Council's page for the case,
here.
Virginia Weeks - 01/31/2017
Julie Aust - 02/24/2017
Jamie Kessler - 01/30/2018
Virginia Weeks - 09/25/2018
compress summary
