This class action was filed on Feb. 2, 2017 in response to President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ("EO") ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Northern California and the law firm Keker & Van Nest, also challenged the Department of State's Jan. 27 letter "provisionally revoking all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas" of nationals of these nations. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The complaint argued that the Department of State letter expanded the scope of the EO to include covered nationals living in the U.S. as well those trying to gain entry to the U.S. It further argued that the text and history of these documents demonstrated discriminatory intent on the basis of nationality, place of birth, place of residence, or religion, and that they violate the First Amendment's Establishment, Free Exercise, Speech, and Assembly Clauses; Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the Immigration and Nationality Act; and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Plaintiffs were students attending California schools, the ACLU of Northern California, and Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay. The complaint sought class certification for "persons who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen (the “Designated Countries”) who currently are, or recently have been, lawfully present in California and who, but for the January 27, 2017 Executive Order and the Provisional Revocation Letter, would be able to travel to the United States or leave and return to the United States."
The case was assigned to Judge William Orrick.
On Feb. 2, the plaintiffs moved to proceed anonymously, and the court granted their motion on Feb. 28.
On Mar. 6, 2017, prompted by adverse developments in the
Washington v. Trump litigation in the 9th Circuit, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780.
The plaintiffs responded to the new EO. On Mar. 13, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, arguing that the new EO "resolves none of [the] fatal flaws" of the first EO. In addition to the violations stated in the first complaint, the amended complaint adds that the EO violates the separation of powers "because it is contrary to Congress’s establishment of uniform rules of naturalization, as expressed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and because it exceeds the President’s constitutional authority at the expense of Congress’s power to legislate."
On Mar. 16, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction (PI). On Mar. 22, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify their class. The defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a PI on Mar. 30.
In the meantime, other litigation against the second EO was also proceeding; on March 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii enjoined the second EO in
Hawaii v. Trump; the U.S. appealed to the 9th Circuit on March 30. On Apr. 5, in this case, the U.S. filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of that 9th Circuit appeal; the plaintiffs filed their opposition on Apr. 11. Oral argument in the 9th Circuit was set for 15, so in this case, Judge Orrick set the PI hearing for May 31, if the Ninth Circuit rules by May 24. In light of the 4th Circuit's ruling in IRAP v. Trump on May 25 and the government's statement it will seek Supreme Court review, the court vacated the PI hearing.
The parties had a case management conference on May 31. On June 19, the court approved the parties' stipulation to stay most of the proceedings while the nationwide injunction from Hawai’i v. Trump remains in effect.
Many of the documents in this case are not publicly available. This case is ongoing.
Virginia Weeks - 03/23/2017
Jamie Kessler - 03/20/2017
Virginia Weeks - 06/21/2017
compress summary
