On January 28, 2017, a lawyer named Andrew W. Shalaby filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Proceeding under California "Private Attorney General" statutes, the action purported to be by the "People of the United States of America and the State of California," "for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights and for their vindication pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988." The lawsuit challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO) banning nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States. The complaint contended that the EO violated the separation of powers doctrine without statutory exception and that it violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The complaint additionally alleged that section 217(a)(12) of the INA, referenced by the EO, "does not appear to exist." The case was filed as a civil complaint and sought an immediate injunction of the EO "until its validity and constitutionality is adjudicated."

On Jan. 30, the case was assigned to Hon. James Donato.

Several procedural updates occurred next. On Jan. 31, the plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On Feb. 1, Judge Donato dismissed the complaint for failing to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and subsequently denied the IFP as moot. Judge Donato's order gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint by Feb. 15. On Feb. 4, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on Feb. 6. On Feb. 13, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the deadline for reconsideration until Mar. 10 in order to file an amended complaint in the event that President Trump re-drafts the EO. Judge Donato granted this motion on Feb. 14, noting that no further extensions would be granted and reminding the filing attorney that any amended complaint must conform to the Court's dismissal order.

The plaintiffs filed statements of support for the repeal and recession of the EO from seven of in the individuals represented in the lawsuit on Feb. 19.

On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780.

The plaintiffs responded on Mar. 10 with an amended complaint. In it, the plaintiffs noted that President Trump did a "commendable job" in revising the EO; they narrowed their challenge to just section 3 of the revised order.

On Apr. 4, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On May 1, the court concluded that defendant's motion to dismiss could be decided without oral arguments and vacated a hearing that had been sent for May 11. On Dec. 7, Judge Donato granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice citing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The case is now closed.

Julie Aust - 02/18/2017
Jamie Kessler - 01/07/2018
Virginia Weeks - 04/24/2017
Taylor Brook - 03/21/2018


compress summary