This class action challenged President Trump's January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) which prohibited admission to the US for nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on February 7, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU of Washington and private counsel. On November 29, 2017, this case was consolidated with Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. C17-1707JLR.

Although another suit challenging the EO had been filed in Washington on January 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 that they would be able to 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 and Minnesota v. Trump provided plaintiffs temporary relief, but argued that the chaotic rollout of EO-1 along with the temporary nature of the extant order left the plaintiffs in limbo.

The complaint alleged that EO-1 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 February 10, the case was assigned to Judge James Robart, who was also presiding over States of Washington and Minnesota v. Trump.

Prompted by adverse developments in the 9th Circuit in Washington v. Trump, on March 6, 2017, President Trump rescinded EO-1 and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2).

On March 14, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, that asserted a class-action claim on behalf of Washington residents who were 1) nationals of the Designated Countries with 2) non-immigrant visas who 3) did 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 had 2) filed derivative applications for 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 EO-2 on First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, RFRA, INA, and APA grounds.

On April 10, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to extend deadlines. On April 11, the individual plaintiffs filed a series of declarations and a motion for class certification.

Another lawsuit challenging EO-2, Hawaii v. Trump, led to a March 15, 2017, preliminary injunction against its enforcement; the government 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 April 11, the court adjusted the deadlines in light of those developments.

On April 26, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation that the government need not respond to the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and that the plaintiffs would 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 memoranda explaining why the case should not be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in Hawaii. On May 26, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that a stay would be appropriate and 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 appeal. The parties agreed to file a joint status report by July 14.

On July 13, the parties filed a joint status report agreeing that the stay should remain in place until the conclusion of the Supreme Court proceedings in Hawaii and IRAP.

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

On November 6, the plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint and accompanying motion for a preliminary injunction. Amended plaintiffs were refugees and asylees in Washington who had 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.

On November 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. Eight days later, the parties agreed that the cases could be consolidated so long as the actions retain their separate character, the parties to one action would not be designated as parties to the other, the parties could continue to file separate briefings so long as they were not duplicative, and consolidation would 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 December 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 December 27, the government 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 government then filed an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction on December 29, ultimately appealing the grant of the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit on January 4, 2018.

On January 5, 2018, the district court denied the government's 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 enjoined defendants from enforcing the challenged provisions of EO-3 against refugee applicants whose sole connection to the U.S. was through resettlement assurance. The court denied both this request for a more limited stay and the defendants' Dec. 29 emergency stay motion on January 9. 284 F.Supp.3d 1172.

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

At the Court of Appeals, defendants filed a motion to dismiss their own appeal and remand for dismissal on February 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. On Mar. 29, 2018 the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court and ordered the parties to address whether the claim was moot. 2018 WL 1774089.

The government moved to dismiss and dissolve the preliminary injunction in the district court on May 25, 2018. The court denied this motion 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. District 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.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in the consolidated cases on November 13, 2019. According to the settlement, the government would be required to expedite the refugee resettlement applications of over 300 refugees affected by the ban. In addition, any refugee benefitting from the settlement who will travel to the United States would be counted among refugees settled in 2018, ensuring that they would not take any slots away from the 18,000 refugees that the Administration planned to resettle for the year 2020. Further information about the settlement can be found here.

On February 10, 2020, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal in light of the settlement agreement. As of April 2020, there has been no further docket activity, and the case is presumably now closed.

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