On January 30, 2017, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, represented by private counsel, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was held for questioning at Atlanta International Airport as he was trying to return to his home to Atlanta, solely due to the Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017 suspending entry into the United States of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The complaint further alleged that the defendants, in denying an LPR re-entry after a brief visit abroad, violated Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint was filed as a petition for mandamus (directing inspection of returning LPRs under the INA rather than under the Executive Order) and a civil complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff was an Iraqi refugee who has worked for CNN since 2004 and currently is an International Desk Producer. He was based at CNN's Atlanta bureau and travels to the Middle East regularly for his reporting work. On January 29, 2017, after returning to the US from a trip to Iraq, he was detained and questioned at Atlanta International Airport, before being released. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff alleged that he was therefore uncertain whether he may leave and re-enter the United States in the future, and that this is a substantial problem, because he travels often for his work.
The case was assigned to Judge Timothy Batten. On February 1, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion to expedite proceedings, arguing that the issues raised in the complaint are of immediate importance and could evade review if not expedited. On February 2, the court ordered the defendants to respond by February 8 to the plaintiff's emergency motion. On February 7, the government filed a motion to dismiss and on February 8 they filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's emergency motion. On February 9, the plaintiffs filed an answer to the government's response, and on February 10 Judge Batten denied the motion to expedite proceedings.
On February 17, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the response timeline to the government's motion to dismiss. On February 21, Judge Batten granted plaintiffs' motion for an extension through February 28.
On Feb. 27, the plaintiffs filed a response to the government's motion to dismiss the complaint as moot. The plaintiffs argued that executive documents issued to clarify the EO do not change the clear text of the EO, which is still binding and still purports to exclude all "immigrants" - including LPRs like the named plaintiff - despite the government's clarifying documents indicating otherwise. The plaintiffs further argued that, as the EO remains in effect and the defendants have therefore not yet established full voluntary cessation of their conduct, the EO falls under a mootness exception for conduct "capable of repetition yet evading review."
Prompted by adverse developments in the Ninth Circuit in
Washington v. Trump, another litigation challenging the Executive Order, on Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780.
On Mar. 9, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the reply and pretrial discovery timeline. The court granted this motion on Mar. 13. The parties now have until Mar. 23 to file a discovery plan and for the defendants to respond on their Feb. 7 motion to dismiss the complaint as moot.
On Mar. 21, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the reply timeline. On Mar. 22, the court granted the motion, giving plaintiff through Mar. 23 to file an amended complaint and giving the government 30 days from the plaintiff's filing date to respond. The court additionally allowed the government to withdraw its Feb. 7 motion to dismiss the complaint.
On Mar. 23, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging Section 1(g) (which applied greater scrutiny to Iraqi nationals during the visa issuance/U.S. admissions process) and Section 4 (which provides that applications for visa/admissions/any immigration benefit by Iraqi nationals should be "subjected to thorough review") of the second EO. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that no section of the EO removes Iraqi LPR's from the "additional scrutiny" and "thorough review" requirements, in violation of the INA, APA, and Fifth Amendment due process rights. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of mandamus instructing DHS to instruct its employees inspecting aliens at U.S. points of entry to exclude returning Iraqi resident immigrants from the new screening terms under the EO.
On Apr. 24, the government filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The parties filed a joint preliminary report and discovery plan on July 7. Later in July, the parties noted their disagreement over the discovery deadlines, and discovery was stayed pending the district court's ruling on the Apr. 24 motion to dismiss.
On Aug. 11, Judge Batten granted the defendants' Apr. 24 motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that Tawfeeq lacked standing to challenge sections 2 (which does not apply to Iraqi nationals such as Tawfeeq), 1(g) (which the plaintiffs acknowledge would only apply to Tawfeeq if erroneously implemented, and the court will not presume that the law would be erroneously implemented), and 4 (which the court determined was too speculative to grant standing). Finally, the court determined that the revocation of the January EO rendered moot Tawfeeq's claims challenging its application to lawful permanent residents.
This case is now closed.
Ava Morgenstern - 02/22/2017
Julie Aust - 08/13/2017
compress summary
