On March 24, 2017, the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) and two individual Yemenis filed this lawsuit against President Donald Trump in a challenge to his Mar. 6, 2017 Executive Order (EO) barring legal immigrants and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US and barring Syrian refugees indefinitely. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the EO 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." The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Additionally, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in conjunction with the complaint.
Specifically, the complaint argued that the EO--which was a second, narrower version of an EO previously issued on the same topic, but rescinded
under court pressure by the President--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.).
According to the complaint, the Universal Muslim Association of America is a nonprofit organization whose membership constitutes the largest organization of Shi'a Muslims in the U.S. 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 EO prevented the organization from conducting its activities. Specifically, UMAA complained it was unable to bring speakers and paying attendees from abroad for its upcoming 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 the EO.
The two individual plaintiffs were Yemeni nationals residing in the U.S. under asylum status. In the wake of 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 U.S., 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 will be forced to return to Yemen in the absence of visas.
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 Apr. 11.
Judge Chutkan heard evidence and argument on the preliminary injunction between April 18 and 21. After additional briefing, on May 11, Judge Chutkan stayed resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that plaintiffs could not show that they faced irreparable harm, citing the two nationwide injunctions that are currently in effect from two separate cases, available
here and
here. However, on Jun. 2, the government filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings pending Supreme Court review of those two cases. The court granted the motion to stay and denied without prejudice the motion for preliminary injunction on Jun. 20, arguing that in light of the "substantial overlap between the legal issues present here and those that the Supreme Court," the stay is "the most appropriate path for conserving the court’s resources and adjudicating these cases in the most efficient manner possible."
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 pending claim.
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
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project. 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
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance, 138 S. Ct. 353 (2017), litigation continued in the lower courts.
On April 9, 2018 the court administratively closed this case, noting that the parties could file a motion to following the resolution of other cases addressing President Trump's executive orders. As of March 21, 2020, the case has remained closed.
Virginia Weeks - 03/27/2017
Virginia Weeks - 06/21/2017
Jamie Kessler - 04/09/2018
Caitlin Kierum - 03/21/2020
compress summary
