On March 24, 2017, the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) and two individual Yemenis filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a challenge to President Trump’s March 6, 2017, Executive Order barring legal immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US and barring Syrian refugees indefinitely. The March 6 order was the second of four 2017 executive orders issued by President Trump that placed restrictions on people who sought to travel from a number of majority Muslim countries into the U.S. and is referred to as EO-2 below and in other entries in this collection.

According to the complaint, UMAA is a nonprofit organization whose membership constitutes the largest organization of Shi'a Muslims in the US. UMAA seeks to build mutual understanding between Shi'a Muslims and their fellow Americans, while encouraging its members to be active in their communities. The complaint alleged that EO-2 prevented the organization from conducting its activities. Specifically, UMAA complained that it was unable to bring speakers and paying attendees from abroad for its national convention. Moreover, UMAA's members were harmed in various ways, including in their ability to visit their countries of origin or obtain visas for their family members living in one of the nations targeted by EO-2.

The two individual plaintiffs were Yemeni nationals residing in the U.S. under asylum status. In the wake of the civil war in Yemen resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, the plaintiffs, who are a family, came to the U.S. on visas. However, they could not afford to bring two of their five children. While in the US, the plaintiffs applied for visas for their two children, who fled to Djibouti for safety while awaiting their visa interviews. Without further financing, the children would be forced to return to Yemen in the absence of visas.

The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that EO-2 subjected the plaintiffs and all Muslims residing in the U.S. to "hostile treatment under the law and...stigma upon them based on their religious affiliation." In addition to the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel from Muslim Advocates, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a private law firm. The complaint named President Trump (in his official capacity), the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, the State Department, and the Department of Justice as defendants.

Specifically, the complaint argued that EO-2 discriminated on the basis of religion and national origin, in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause and Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. UMAA further argued that the EO violated the First Amendment Free Speech clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.).

The case was assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan and marked as related to Pars Equality Center v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-00255).

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2017.

District Judge Chutkan heard arguments on the preliminary injunction between April 18 and 21, 2017. After additional briefing, on May 11, 2017, Judge Chutkan stayed resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that plaintiffs could not show that they faced the kind of “imminent and certain” irreparable harm necessary for a court to grant a preliminary injunction because of the fact that the two nationwide injunctions were already in effect as a result of related litigation in Hawaii v. Trump and IRAP v. Trump . However, on June 2, the government filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings pending Supreme Court review of Hawaii and IRAP . The court granted the stay and denied, without prejudice, the motion for preliminary injunction on June 20.

On May 1, 2017, the two individual plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims after their children were able to travel to the United States, leaving only UMAA's claim pending.

On June 2, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision to grant a writ of certiorari in IRAP. On June 20, 2017, Judge Chutkan entered an order staying the proceedings until the Supreme Court reached a final decision. While the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal as moot on October 10, 2017, see IRAP, 138 S. Ct. 353 (2017), litigation continued in the lower courts.

On April 5, 2018 the court administratively closed this case, noting that the parties could file a motion following the resolution of other cases addressing President Trump's executive orders.

Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential election and revoked the executive orders at issue in this case on Inauguration Day (January 20, 2021). As a result, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on March 29, 2021. District Judge Chutkan ordered the case dismissed without prejudice on April 1, 2021.

Virginia Weeks - 03/27/2017
Virginia Weeks - 06/21/2017
Jamie Kessler - 04/09/2018
Caitlin Kierum - 03/21/2020
Esteban Woo Kee - 07/23/2021


compress summary