This lawsuit, filed February 13, 2017, challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO-1) barring legal immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US and barring Syrian refugees indefinitely. The complaint argued that by indefinitely barring Syrian refugees, EO-1 violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and exceeded executive power under Article II of the Constitution. This lawsuit argued that EO-1 effectuated President Trump's long-standing campaign promise of implementing a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," and that it unlawfully and unconstitutionally prevented the plaintiff, a Syrian refugee, from reuniting with his wife and daughter, who resided in Aleppo. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff filed the complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin, where it was immediately assigned to District Judge William M. Conley and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.
The plaintiff was a Syrian Sunni Muslim asylee who, after fleeing to the United States in 2014 and being fully vetted by US immigration authorities, was granted asylum status in 2016 because of the torture and religious persecution he had suffered in Syria. After being granted asylum in the US, the petitioner filed a derivative asylum application in 2016 in order to reunite with his wife and only surviving child, who remained in Syria. The petitioner claimed that his derivative asylum application had cleared the security vetting process and had been returned to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center for final processing before it was halted by EO-1.
The plaintiff filed a motion to proceed anonymously in order to protect his wife and daughter from harm that they stood to suffer in Aleppo, were his identity to have been revealed.
Along with the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and summary judgment.
On February 13, 2017, District Judge Conley issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously. In the same order, Judge Conley instructed the government to file a response by February 17, 2017, informing the court of: 1) the current status of the plaintiff's derivative asylum request; 2) whether the government continued processing derivative asylee/refugee petitions for Syrian nationals after the January 27 EO; and 3) if not, whether the government took the position that the preliminary injunction issued by the court in
State of Washington v. Trump enjoined EO-1's enforcement as to the processing of derivative asylee/refugee petitions for Syrian nationals. Upon receipt of these filings, the court said it would determine the next steps.
On February 17, the government filed a response to Judge Conley's February 13 order (documents not available), and the court issued an order denying the motion for preliminary injunction as moot.
On March 6, 2017, after adverse developments in
Washington v. Trump, the President rescinded the January 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one,
Executive Order 13780 (EO-2).
As a result, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2017, and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. District Judge Conley set a telephone status conference for that day, and at the conference found that the plaintiff was at great risk of suffering irreparable harm were the TRO to be denied. The court then granted the TRO as it applies to plaintiff John Doe, noting that "while defendants object to the entry of temporary injunctive relief, they argue during the hearing that the executive order may not even apply to plaintiff's asylum relative petition, thus ameliorating any harm to the government, or at least any harm caused by the brief period covered by this temporary restraining order." This was the first temporary restraining order to be granted in a case responding to EO-2. The court ordered the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction by March 16, and scheduled an in-person hearing for March 21.
After a number of extensions to the hearings and filing deadlines, on April 28, the plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the motion for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction, as well as a notice of voluntary dismissal.
On May 1, the case closed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) without further order of the court.
Many documents in this case are unavailable.
Julie Aust - 05/01/2017
compress summary
