On January 31, 2017, the Arab American Civil Rights League and seven of its individual members filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, claiming that President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) of January 27, 2017, violated these statutes as well as their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process and equal protection rights. They also claimed the EO violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by giving preference to Christian over Muslim refugees.

The plaintiffs, represented by private attorneys, included ACRL members who were Muslim lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from Yemen and Syria, countries whose nationals were banned from entering the United States by the challenged EO. On Jan. 27, some of the plaintiffs were outside the United States when the EO was issued. They were unable to board flights to return to their homes and families in Detroit, or they feared being denied flights to do so. Other plaintiffs were inside the United States and feared that they would be denied re-entry if they left, or were unable to petition for immigration status for their family members abroad.

The plaintiffs asked the court to strike down the EO, enjoining the defendants from detaining or stopping individuals solely on its basis, and to declare unlawful the defendants’ actions preventing the plaintiffs from traveling to the United States.

The lawsuit was assigned to Judge Victoria A. Roberts.

On Feb. 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), seeking an order that "prohibits the denial of entry into the US of legal permanent residents and those with valid immigrant visas on the basis of [the] January 27, 2017 Executive Order." The same day, the Court entered a permanent injunction barring the United States from applying Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Jan. 27, 2017 EO against lawful permanent residents of the United States. This injunction protected four of the named plaintiffs, who are lawful permanent residents, as well as all other lawful permanent residents of the United States who are similarly situated. The injunction did not apply to the remainder of the named plaintiffs, who sought other relief.

On Feb. 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the ACLU of Michigan as counsel and several new plaintiffs. That same day, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the permanent injunction, arguing that both parties agreed that the EO did not apply to lawful permanent residents and therefore there was no case or controversy.

On Feb. 9, 2017 the plaintiffs withdrew their Feb. 2 motion for a TRO for emergency relief. The plaintiffs cited changed circumstances created by the entry of the nationwide TRO in State of Washington v. Trump. Some of the plaintiffs had already entered the United States and the rest planned to enter within the next several days. However, the plaintiffs continued to pursue a permanent injunction guaranteeing them the ability to travel outside the country and re-enter in the future.

Meanwhile, the U.S. had appealed the temporary injunction in Washington v. Trump, but the 9th Circuit declined to stay that injunction while the appeal proceeded, and expressed considerable skepticism about the EO's legality in the opinion denying a stay. The federal government responded on Mar. 6, 2017, when the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. On the same day, the government filed notice of the new EO in this case.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Mar. 16, arguing that although the Mar. 6 EO was intended to bolster the President's policy against legal challenges, the new EO's purpose suffers the same problem as the old EO--it is discriminatory. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to expedite discovery and a concurrent motion to expedite briefing. However, since the new EO did definitively except lawful permanent residents from its scope, that same day, the plaintiffs did file a notice of voluntary dismissal on behalf of the lawful permanent resident plaintiffs. Finally, plaintiffs asked the court to deny defendants' motion to dissolve the prior injunction as moot.

On Mar. 20, defendants renewed their motion to vacate the permanent injunction; the court agreed with the plaintiffs that this motion was moot, because the new EO rendered the court's original injunction ineffective. The court explained, "[a]n order vacating or dissolving the injunction is unnecessary and would be inappropriate."

On Apr. 17, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The motion argued that the plaintiffs' claims were not justiciable because the individual plaintiffs had not demonstrated injury as a result of the new EO and the organizational plaintiffs lacked associational standing. The motion further argued that the plaintiffs' claims failed on the merits because the INA grants the president the authority to create temporary entry-suspension provisions.

Several procedural developments ensued as the parties engaged in discovery.

However, on May 31, defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court's "likely consideration" of the 4th Circuit's decision in IRAP v. Trump. Plaintiffs responded to the defendants' motion to stay on Jun. 2, arguing that "[t]his last-minute motion to stay is just the latest attempt by Defendants to avoid responding to the narrow discovery requests approved by the Court...The Court should deny the new motion to stay, and resolve the motion to dismiss." On Jun. 9, the court granted the motion to stay proceedings. The order stated that while the case in the Supreme Court will not resolve all issues in the case here, it would "settle some issues and simplify others" while also providing "the legal standard for reviewing the Executive Order under the Establishment Clause." Further, the order stated that the consequences of a stay for the plaintiffs will not be as drastic as the plaintiffs indicated.2017 WL 2501060.

Several organizations and individuals filed documents supporting the plaintiffs in late May. Muslim Advocates, American Muslim Health Professionals, Network of Arab-American Professionals, and Muppies, Inc. filed an amicus brief opposing the government's motion to dismiss. A number of constitutional law professors filed a separate amicus brief opposing the motion to dismiss. Professor Lila Abu-Lughod filed a declaration.

On Sept. 24, the EO challenged in this case expired. That same day, the Trump Administration signed a proclamation indefinitely restricting travel from the following eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. In response, the court held on Nov. 13 that plaintiffs' complaint did not present a live case or controversy. However, the court allowed plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint addressing any new issues arising out of the Sept. 24 proclamation.

On Dec. 6, 2017, the parties jointly filed a motion to extend the deadline to submit the plaintiffs' amended complaint and defendant's response until 30 days after the Supreme Court of the United States denied cert to Hawaii v. Trump or Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project or 30 days after the Supreme Court's orders. This motion was granted on Dec. 7, 2017.

This case is ongoing.

Ava Morgenstern - 02/15/2017
Julie Aust - 02/24/2017
Jamie Kessler - 11/21/2017
Taylor Brook - 03/22/2018


compress summary