On January 31, 2017, this class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to challenge President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO) banning admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The suit alleged that the EO illegally targeted Muslims.
Represented by private attorneys, 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 had left Yemen for the U.S. before the EO was announced; they were issued visas in Djibouti but prevented from boarding their plane to the U.S.
On Jan. 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO). The case was initially assigned to Judge Andre Birotte Jr.; he granted the motion that same day. The order barred the defendants from enforcing the EO 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 are 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.
The case was eventually transferred to Judge S. James Otero.
On Feb. 21, 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 Jan. 31 would not be extended or converted into a preliminary injunction. The court found that, given the existence of 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 were 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 US.
On Mar. 6, 2017, prompted by the Washington v. Trump litigation, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780. On Mar. 7, the defendants filed a notice in this case, presumably informing the Court of the new EO (the notice it is not publicly available).
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 16.
Separately, on Jun. 26, the Supreme Court granted the government's petition for certiorari for IRAP v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump. The same day, this court invited the parties to submit a joint status report by Jul. 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 Aug. 21, this court stayed all discovery related to the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause Claim until after the Supreme Court issues an opinion. 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." Finally, the court severed and dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs' mandamus claims.
On Aug. 31, the defendants moved to stay the case pending Supreme Court proceedings. In October, the court granted the stay.
2018 DEVELOPMENTS --
On Mar. 21, Judge Otero ordered plaintiffs to show by Mar. 28 why the action was not moot in light of developments in another case,
Hawaii v. Trump . On Mar. 28, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on Apr. 26, 2018.
Many of the documents for this case are not available.
Jamie Kessler - 05/20/2018
Ava Morgenstern - 02/19/2017
Virginia Weeks - 09/01/2017
Julie Aust - 03/08/2017
compress summary
