This action, filed on Jan. 31, 2017, challenged 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. 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. 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 Procedures Act. It further argued that "the unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination against 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.

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, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Feb. 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 Jan. 27, 2017, EO, 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.

Next, on Feb. 17, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a concurrent motion to expedite the injunction briefing schedule, but on Feb. 21 Judge Jackson denied that motion because 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 administration released a new EO.

Prompted by the adverse developments in the 9th Circuit in the Washington v. Trump case, on Mar. 6, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780.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

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

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

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

Defendants next, on Apr. 21, filed an unopposed motion for a 60-day extension of the Apr. 24 deadline to respond to plaintiffs' Feb. 10 first amended complaint. 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 defendants' response to be due June 23.

However, on June 22, 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.

This case is ongoing.

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


compress summary