This class action challenged President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The complaint was filed on Feb. 7, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Counsel for the ...
read more >
This class action challenged President Trump’s Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order ban on admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The complaint was filed on Feb. 7, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Counsel for the plaintiffs are the American Civil Liberties Union and private attorneys.
Although another suit challenging the executive order was filed in Washington on Jan. 30, 2017, this claim specifically sought to protect non-immigrant visa holders - primarily students - who were either trapped inside the United States unable to leave with assurance they can return, or stuck abroad. The complaint acknowledged that the Temporary Restraining Order granted by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in States of Washington & Minnesota v. Trump
provided plaintiffs temporary relief, but argued that the chaotic rollout of the executive order along with the temporary nature of the extant order left the plaintiffs in limbo.
The complaint alleged that the executive order violated the Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint sought class certification and an injunction order barring the government from enforcing the order against non-immigrant visa holders.
On Feb. 10, the case was assigned to Judge James Robart, who is also the judge for States of Washington and Minnesota v. Trump
On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780
On Mar. 14, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, asserting a class-action claim on behalf of Washington residents who are 1) nationals of the Designated Countries with 2) non-immigrant visas who 3) do not have unexpired multiple-entry visas. The amended complaint also asserted a claim on behalf of refugees and asylees who 1) now reside in Washington and who have 2) filed derivative applications for 3) family members who have "completed and cleared their final security screenings as of the effective date of the Revised Order." The amended complaint challenged the new Executive Order on First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, RFRA, INA, and APA grounds. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
On Apr. 6, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to allow the plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. The court granted the order the following day.
On Apr. 10, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to extend deadlines. The court extended the deadlines on the following day: the government's deadline to file a response to the amended complaint is now Apr. 28; the government's response to the plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification is now due within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii v. Trump; and the plaintiffs' reply is due seven days later.
On Apr. 11, the individual plaintiffs filed a series of declarations and a motion for class certification.
On Apr. 12, the court set a series of deadlines regarding status reports.
On Apr. 26, the court entered a stipulation noting that the defendants need not respond to the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and that the plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint before May 8. The defendants shall respond by May 22.
This case is ongoing. Jamie Kessler - 02/10/2017
Julie Aust - 04/26/2017