On Apr. 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented President Trump's Jan. 27 and Mar. 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request at issue in this particular case concerned implementation at CBP's Boston Field Office, including Boston's Logan International Airport and other smaller international airports and ports of entry throughout New England.
In the complaint, plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding" of how defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through CBP's Boston Field Office, and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." Plaintiffs argued that "[a]t Boston’s Logan International Airport, implementation of the order harmed both individuals and institutions. Scholars and academics from Boston-area institutions were denied entry into the United States. Doctors from New England hospitals and patients seeking medical care were delayed, denied entry, or subjected to unnecessary anguish."
The case was assigned to Judge George Z. Singal.
On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively seeking to consolidate them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. For the transfer motion and subsequent procedure see
this case.
On May 11, the government filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the decision by the judicial panel regarding the multidistrict litigation. The ACLU opposed the government's motion on May 31, and on June 14 the government replied. On June 19, Judge Singal granted the motion to stay for the next 60 days.
On Aug. 2, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied defendants' transfer motion. The next day, Judge Singal lifted the stay. Defendants answered the complaint on Aug. 24. Although the court soon set a trial schedule, the court then vacated this at the parties' request on Sept. 15. The parties agreed to instead submit a joint status report by Nov. 1.
In their Nov. 1 status report, the parties sharply disputed defendants' progress on identifying local records. Defendants had, as of Oct. 17, produced a list of core search terms and had begun locating records. Plaintiffs argued that defendants had refused to release any records or to estimate a time frame for doing so, and asked the court to set a production deadline or timeline. The Court held a Nov. 21 status conference, and ordered the parties to brief several issues of document production.
Both parties sent separate letters to the Court on Dec. 8. Defendants asked the Court to permit CBP to process plaintiff's request in coordination with the other ACLU cases "as swiftly as practicable." Plaintiffs, meanwhile, asked the Court to order CBP to process the request responsively to this specific case, and to produce 820 pages monthly until Nov. 2018. Both parties filed responses on Dec. 22.
In the status report of Mar. 30, 2018, the parties described the government's 16 productions to date and their disputes over the adequacy of production. Subsequent status reports indicated the government has processed and produced thousands of responsive pages.
The documents released by the government in all the ACLU cases are available through
this case page. This case is ongoing.
Ava Morgenstern - 04/07/2018
Virginia Weeks - 08/21/2018
compress summary
