This lawsuit, filed on January 31, 2017, challenged 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. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a Libyan citizen who attended university in the United States. The plaintiff was represented by private counsel.

The complaint argued that the threat of being detained or barred from reentry to the U.S. solely pursuant to the EO violated Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, federal immigration statutes, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It further argued that "the unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination against [the plaintiff] and others similarly situated is part of a widespread policy, pattern, and practice infringing on rights of many people traveling after issuance of the EO now subject to suspension, detention and removal." The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to "prevent such unlawful and unconstitutional harms from occurring now and in the future." The case was assigned to Judge R. Brooke Jackson.

The plaintiff lived and attended college in Colorado. He worked and paid taxes in the U.S. The plaintiff's family lived in Libya, and he alleged he was unable to visit them for a family emergency or any other reason due to the risk of not being able to return to the U.S.

Soon after filing the original complaint, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 10, seeking to designate a class of "all other persons who are nationals of the Designated Countries who currently are, or recently have been, lawfully present in Colorado on student visas and who, but for the January 27, 2017, Executive Order, would be able to travel to the United States or leave and return to the United States." The amended complaint also claimed violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Next, on February 17, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a concurrent motion to expedite the injunction briefing schedule. But on February 21, Judge Jackson denied that motion, finding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient need for expedited action, given that the EO had been suspended by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the 9th Circuit in State of Washington v. Trump. However, Judge Jackson stated that he would reconsider expedited action if the Ninth Circuit's order were vacated or the government released a new EO.

Prompted by the adverse developments in the 9th Circuit in the Washington v. Trump case, on March 6, the President rescinded the January 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. On the same day, the defendants in this case filed a notice informing the court of the change. The defendants argued that the case was now moot; the plaintiff, they said, would not be affected by the new EO because he was in the United States on January 27 and because he already held a valid student visa.

But the defendants soon learned that the plaintiff's student visa had expired, and they therefore filed a March 9 correction to the Mar. 6 notice. In the correction, the defendants noted the visa issue, but also stated that the new EO would not affect the plaintiff; he would be in the United States at the time of its implementation on March 16, whereas the new EO only applied to people outside the United States on that day. The defendants noted that the plaintiff planned to travel to Canada from March 17-23, but reiterated that the new EO would not apply so long as he were in the United States on March 16. The plaintiff's ability to reenter the United States, according to the defendants, would be governed by the INA rather than the EO.

Also on March 9, the defendants filed an unopposed motion for an extension of the March 10 deadline to respond to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Jackson granted this motion on March 13. Defendants, on April 3, then requested another extension until April 24, citing the need for additional time to respond in light of injunctions granted by other courts against the revised EO.

On April 5, the plaintiff asked the court to withdraw his February 17 motion for preliminary injunction, in light of the revised EO. He specified that the defendants consented to the withdrawal and agreed that the plaintiff reserved the right to raise any issues with the new EO in subsequent motions, if necessary. Judge Jackson granted the plaintiff's request for withdrawal on April 5.

On April 21, the defendants filed an unopposed motion for a 60-day extension of the April 24 deadline to respond to the plaintiff's first-amended complaint. The defendants again cited the need for additional time to respond in light of the injunctions on the revised EO. Judge Jackson granted this motion on June 13, setting the defendants' response to be due June 23.

However, on June 22, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hawaii v. Trump and IRAP v. Trump. Judge Jackson granted the motion to stay on June 26.

The Supreme Court issued a decision in Hawaii v. Trump on June 26, 2018. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the EO, finding it was a lawful exercise of the President's discretion.

On May 2, 2019, the plaintiff in this case notified the district court that he was voluntarily dismissing all of his claims. The case was then closed on May 3, 2019.

Virginia Weeks - 02/13/2017
Julie Aust - 02/18/2017
Jamie Kessler - 02/21/2017
Ava Morgenstern - 10/25/2017
Sam Kulhanek - 04/10/2020


compress summary