This class action 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. 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. On Nov. 29, 2017, this case was consolidated with Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. C17-1707JLR (W.D. Wash.).

Although another suit challenging the EO 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 EO along with the temporary nature of the extant order left the plaintiffs in limbo.

The complaint alleged that the EO violated Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint sought class certification and an injunction 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.

Prompted by adverse developments in the 9th Circuit in that Washington v. Trump case, on Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780.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 EO 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. On Apr. 11, the individual plaintiffs filed a series of declarations and a motion for class certification.

Another lawsuit challenging the revised EO, Hawaii v. Trump, had led on March 15 to a preliminary injunction against its operation; the U.S. appealed the injunction on March 30, and the Ninth Circuit scheduled expedited briefing, with argument to take place on May 15. In this case, on Apr. 11, the court adjusted the deadlines in light of that other case. It set the U.S. deadline to file a response to the amended complaint on Apr. 28, and its time to respond to the plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Hawaii v. Trump; the plaintiffs' reply was due seven days later.

On Apr. 26, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation that the defendants need not respond to the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and that the plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint before May 8, with the defendants' response due by May 22. On May 8, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.

On May 22, Judge Robart directed the parties to file separate memoranda discussing any reason why this case should not be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. On May 26, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that a stay is appropriate in this case pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump. The parties agreed that all deadlines, including the Defendants' deadlines to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and class certification moment, should be so stayed. On May 30, Judge Robart directed that all proceedings in the case should be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the Hawaii v. Trump appeal. The parties agreed to file a joint status report by Jul. 14.

On Jul. 13, the parties filed a joint status report agreeing that the stay should remain in place until the conclusion of the SCOTUS proceedings in Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. IRAP.

On Nov. 2, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to lift the stay of proceedings, which the court granted that day.

On Nov. 6, the plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint and accompanying motion for a preliminary injunction. Amended plaintiffs are refugees and asylees in Washington who've filed petitions to reunify with their family members; the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, a religious entity which supports refugee resettlement in Washington; and the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Washington ("CAIR-WA"), a non-profit that promotes community understanding of Islam through dialogue, education, civil liberties protection, and coalition-building. The Department of Justice ("DOJ") responded on Nov. 16, and the plaintiffs replied on Nov. 22.

On Nov. 21, the court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause as to why the current case should not be consolidated with a case filed on related grounds, Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump. On Nov. 29, the parties agreed that the cases may be consolidated so long as the actions retain their separate character, the parties to one action will not be designated as parties to the other, the parties may continue to file separate briefing so long as it is not duplicative, and consolidation will not affect the parties' page limits. That same day, the court consolidated the two cases and the Doe plaintiffs joined the Jewish Family Service ("JFS") plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion.

On Dec. 5, the court directed the parties to provide supplemental briefing concerning what impact, if any, the Supreme Court's Dec. 4 order lifting the district courts' injunction against EO-3 will have concerning the plaintiffs' pending motions for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed their supplemental briefs on Dec. 7, arguing that the Supreme Court's order did not opine on the merits of the case, making it impossible to discern the bases on which the stay was granted. Further, the plaintiffs conclude that because the IRAP/Hawaii challenges involved different policies than those raised in the instant case, the Supreme Court's stay should have no bearing on Doe's case. Defendants filed their supplemental brief that same day, arguing that the instant court would be likely to conclude, as the Supreme Court did, that the DOJ may enforce the challenged provisions of EO-3. The DOJ filed a preliminary injunction motion response on Dec. 7, and a response to the plaintiffs' supplemental brief on Dec. 11. The plaintiffs replied on Dec. 13.

On Dec. 23, the court granted the Doe plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, restraining the defendants from suspending the processing of "following-to-join" ("FTJ") refugee applications. The court also granted the JFS plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, restraining the defendants from suspending the processing of refugee applications of refugees from countries on the Security Advisory Opinion list ("SAO countries"), but limited the scope of the injunction to those refugees who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

On Dec. 27, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. In response, the court ordered plaintiffs in the consolidated cases to file a joint response to the defendants' motion. 288 F.Supp.3d 1045. The defendants then filed an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction on Dec. 29, to which the JFS plaintiffs responded on Dec. 30. On Jan. 4, the JFS plaintiffs responded both to the motion for reconsideration and again to the emergency stay motion. The Doe plaintiffs also responded to the emergency motion that same day. Also on Jan. 4, 2018, the defendants appealed the Dec. 23 preliminary injunction to the 9th Circuit.

-- 2018 Developments --

On Jan. 5, the district court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration. 284 F.Supp.3d 1182. That same day, the defendants filed a notice requesting that the court, in considering the stay motion, specifically consider whether to stay only that portion of the preliminary injunction order that enjoins defendants from enforcing the challenged provisions of EO3 against refugee applicants whose sole connection to the US is through resettlement assurance. The court denied both this request for a more limited stay and the defendants' Dec. 29 emergency stay motion on Jan. 9. 284 F.Supp.3d 1172.

On Jan. 11, 2018 the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to the Ninth Circuit (18-35026) regarding the Dec. 23 injunction. On Jan. 16, the defendants moved to stay district court proceedings pending the appeal.

At the 9th Circuit, defendants filed a motion to dismiss their own appeal and remand for dismissal on Feb. 21. In their motion, defendants argued that the case was moot because the enjoined policies (suspending the "following-to-join" refugee program and suspending the processing of refugee applications of refugees from countries on the Security Advisory Opinion list) had expired by their own terms. The plaintiffs filed a motion opposing the motion to dismiss, noting that the defendants had not rescinded the agency memo that indefinitely suspended FTJ admissions and have made no guarantee that they will not invoke it at some point again. In their brief, the plaintiffs argued first that the court should remand the case to the District Court to address the issue of mootness. In the alternative, plaintiffs argued that the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply in this case: first, that defendants' purported policy change is insufficient to moot the case, and, second, that defendants' actions can reasonably be expected to recur.

On Mar. 29, 2018 the 9th Circuit remanded the case to the District Court and ordered the parties to address whether the claim was moot. 2018 WL 1774089.

Meanwhile, on May 25, 2018 back at the District Court, the government moved to dismiss and dissolve the preliminary injunction. The court (Judge James L. Robart) denied it without prejudice on July 27. The court held that the plaintiffs' request for limited discovery was appropriate as to the issue of the government's compliance with the preliminary injunction. The court held that such discovery did not extend to the merits of the compliance question, but rather was limited to the factual dispute of mootness between the parties.

On January 2, 2019, the government moved to stay the proceedings in light of the government shutdown. Judge Robart denied the motion on January 28 (after the government had reopened), but ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding any adjustments necessary because of the shutdown.

On November 13, 2019, Judge Robart ordered that this case be dismissed with prejudice after the parties stipulated to a settlement agreement. The Clearinghouse does not have access to the terms of the settlement agreement. The case is closed, but any party may reopen the case within 60 days of the order if the settlement is not perfected.

Jamie Kessler - 04/23/2018
Julie Aust - 01/12/2018
Virginia Weeks - 11/04/2018
Alexandra Gilewicz - 01/31/2019
Eva Richardson - 05/27/2019
Aaron Gurley - 11/21/2019


compress summary