Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (in Los Angeles) on January 31, 2017, this class action complaint challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) banning non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the U.S. The suit alleged that EO-1 illegally targeted Muslims. Represented by private counsel, the named plaintiffs were Yemeni-born U.S. citizens and noncitizens. Some of the named plaintiffs lived in the U.S. The others were family members who had been issued immigrant visas and left Yemen for the U.S. before EO-1 was announced; they were issued visas in Djibouti but prevented from boarding their plane to the U.S.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the State Department, Customs and Border Patrol, the Department of Justice, and President Donald Trump (in his official capacity) were named as defendants. The complaint asserted eleven causes of action against the defendants, alleging that the EO violated: (1) the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights; (2) the Equal Protection Clause; (3) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; (4) the Emoluments Clause; (5) the Immigration and Nationality Act; and (6) the Administrative Procedure Act.
On January 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO). The case was initially assigned to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr.; he granted the motion that same day. The order barred the defendants from enforcing EO-1 by removing, detaining, or blocking entry of the plaintiffs or any person from the seven listed countries holding a valid immigrant visa. It also ordered the defendants to return to the plaintiffs any confiscated visas and immediately inform all relevant airport officials that they were permitted to travel to the U.S. Finally, the order barred defendants from further canceling any of the plaintiffs’ validly obtained visas. We cannot tell from the order whether it was local or national. 2017 WL 438750.
The case was eventually transferred to District Judge S. James Otero.
On February 21, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for class certification. That same day, the court held a status conference where it determined that the TRO issued on January 31 would not be extended or converted into a preliminary injunction. The court found that, given the nationwide TRO issued in
Washington v. Trump, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that irreparable harm would occur in the event that this court's TRO was dissolved. Further, the plaintiffs' counsel were unable to identify any named plaintiffs with validly-issued immigrant visas who were currently being denied the ability to immigrate to the U.S.
On March 6, 2017, prompted by the Washington v. Trump litigation, the President rescinded EO-1 and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780 (EO-2). On March 7, the defendants filed a notice in this case, presumably informing the court of EO-2 (though the notice is not publicly available).
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2017.
Separately, on June 26, 2017 the Supreme Court granted the government's petition for certiorari in
IRAP v. Trump and
Hawaii v. Trump. The same day, the district court in this case invited the parties to submit a joint status report by July 6 "[i]n light of the Supreme Court's granting of certiorari and narrowing of the two nationwide injunctions." The court asked the parties to address if "either side believe[d] that any putative class members located abroad 'lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States?'" The court also asked the parties to answer if it should "exercise its discretion to stay these proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in
IRAP regarding the merits of constitutional and statutory challenges to EO-2." Finally, the court urged the parties to not use the Supreme Court's pending decision as a way of delaying processing valid visa applications.
On August 21, the district court stayed all discovery related to the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause Claim until after the Supreme Court issued an opinion. Additionally, the court severed and dismissed the plaintiffs' mandamus claims and dismissed the remaining claims in the plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The court also denied class certification but permitted the plaintiffs to re-file such a motion addressing the court's concerns by "carefully and precisely defin[ing] the class to eliminate overbreadth and vagueness frailties."
On August 31, the defendants moved to stay the case pending Supreme Court proceedings. In October, the court granted the stay. 2017 WL 6888705.
2018 DEVELOPMENTS:
On March 21, 2018, Judge Otero ordered the plaintiffs to show by March 28 why the action was not moot in light of developments in
Hawaii v. Trump . On March 28, plaintiffs moved to dismiss their remaining claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on April 26, 2018.
Many documents are not available for this case. This case is now closed.
Jamie Kessler - 05/20/2018
Ava Morgenstern - 02/19/2017
Virginia Weeks - 09/01/2017
Julie Aust - 03/08/2017
Eva Richardson - 05/15/2019
Esteban Woo Kee - 10/24/2021
compress summary
