This class action was filed on Feb. 2, 2017 in response to President Trump’s January 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 private counsel, 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 are 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 Jan. 27, 2017 EO and the Provisional Revocation Letter, would be able to travel to the United States or leave and return to the United States."
Judge William Orrick was assigned to the case.
On Mar. 6, 2017, prompted by adverse developments in the
Washington v. Trump litigation in the 9th Circuit, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780.
The plaintiffs quickly responded to the new EO. On Mar. 13, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, arguing that the new EO resolved "none of [the] fatal flaws" of the first EO. In addition to the violations stated in the first complaint, the amended complaint added that the EO violated 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, to which defendants responded in opposition on Mar. 30.
In the meantime, other litigation against the second EO proceeded across the country, with some rulings ultimately having nationwide effects. On Mar. 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii enjoined the second EO in
Hawaii v. Trump. Across the country in Maryland, the District Court also granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against portions of the EO in the
IRAP v. Trump case. The government appealed in both cases. On June 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to review both cases.
In response to the Hawaii ruling, the U.S. filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome of that 9th Circuit appeal. Judge Orrick set the preliminary injunction hearing for May 31, after oral arguments took place in the 9th Circuit. However, in light of the 4th Circuit's ruling in IRAP v. Trump, the court vacated the preliminary injunction hearing. On June 19, the court approved the parties' stipulation to stay most of the proceedings while the nationwide injunction from Hawaii v. Trump remains in effect. Following a series of orders regarding the Hawaii v. Trump and IRAP v. Trump cases, the court in this case lifted the stay on Dec. 8. That same day, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and preliminary injunction motion.
On Dec. 23, 2017, Judge James L. Robart enjoined on a nationwide basis certain aspects of Executive Order No. 13815. As a result, the plaintiffs in this case conceded that they “do not currently face irreparable injury.” Given the concession and the nationwide injunction, the court stayed the case again on Jan. 8, 2018. Case management conferences continued throughout 2018.
On Jan. 22, 2019, Judge Orrick granted the defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings in this case in light of the lapse of appropriations to the U.S. Department of Justice and other agencies. On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and a case management conference was held on May 21, 2019.
Many of the documents in this case are not publicly available, but this case is ongoing.
Virginia Weeks - 03/23/2017
Jamie Kessler - 01/20/2018
Virginia Weeks - 06/21/2017
Sichun Liu - 01/13/2020
compress summary
