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 Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order banning admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The suit alleged that ...
read more >
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 Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order banning admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The suit alleged that the Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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. 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 Executive Order 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.
A hearing regarding the request for a preliminary injunction was held on Feb. 10, at which time the parties were allowed to file a joint stipulation to continue the hearing regarding the preliminary injunction to Feb. 21. In the meantime, the parties are trying to reach a stipulation to dismiss.
On Feb. 21, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for class certification. However, those documents are not yet available. 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 PI. 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 Feb. 27, the defendants filed an ex parte application to continue time to respond to the amended complaint and the hearing on motion for class certification to May 7 and June 27, respectively. The court granted the application on Feb. 28.
On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780
. How the new order will affect existing litigation is not yet clear; we will continue to update this case. On March 7, the defendants filed a notice, though it is not yet publicly available.
Many of the documents for this case are not yet available. Jamie Kessler - 02/21/2017
Ava Morgenstern - 02/19/2017
Virginia Weeks - 02/16/2017
Julie Aust - 03/08/2017