On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of Michigan filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of more than a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's Jan. 27 and Mar. 6 Executive Orders (EO) banning 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 concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Detroit Field Office. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the EO.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through the Detroit Field Office" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." The complaint stated that "Michigan residents were among those most severely impacted by the Executive Orders...Of the major metropolitan areas in the United States, Detroit has the highest number of residents per capita from the seven countries barred under Executive Order No. 1."
On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multidistrict litigation" effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. For the transfer motion see
this case. The ACLU filed their opposition to the motion to transfer on May 30, arguing that "[g]ranting consolidation and transfer would promote forum-shopping and delay, not justice." On August 3, the U.S. District Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the government's transfer motion. In its order, the Panel found that, although the thirteen FOIA cases shared "a limited number of factual issues," these issues "appear[ed] relatively straightforward and unlikely to entail extensive pretrial proceedings."
On Oct. 26, 2017, the court ordered the government to review the first 820 pages of records it had identified as potentially responsive to the FOIA request, and produce responsive records from that batch, by Nov. 27. The court also ordered the government to repeat this process monthly. A joint status report filed on April 27, 2018 indicated that the production was complete and the ACLU was in the process of reviewing the government's production. The report indicated further litigation may be possible in light of disagreement over search terms between the parties. A subsequent August status report indicated the parties were attempting to negotiate a resolution and avoid further litigation.
On August 20, 2019, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement. On September 16, 2019, the parties stipulated dismissal of claims against the defendants, with prejudice, and the court dismissed the case.
Virginia Weeks - 04/16/2017
Virginia Weeks - 08/25/2018
Jamie Kessler - 08/07/2017
Gregory Marsh - 06/23/2020
compress summary
