University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Doe v. Trump IM-OR-0009
Docket / Court 3:19-cv-01743-SB ( D. Or. )
State/Territory Oregon
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Public Benefits / Government Services
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
On October 30, 2019, seven individual plaintiffs and Latino Network filed this putative class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging President Trump’s October 4, 2019 “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will ... read more >
On October 30, 2019, seven individual plaintiffs and Latino Network filed this putative class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging President Trump’s October 4, 2019 “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System” (the “Proclamation”). The plaintiffs, represented by the Innovation Law Lab, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Justice Action Center, and private counsel, alleged that the Proclamation imposes a new ground of inadmissibility whereby immigrants will be denied visas unless they prove they can get health insurance. The individual plaintiffs are U.S. citizens in the process of sponsoring family members for visas, but face denial under the new Proclamation. The plaintiffs sued President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of State, alleging that the Proclamation is ultra vires and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment due process. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the Proclamation would block nearly two thirds of all prospective legal immigrants from receiving visas to travel to the U.S. Specifically, they claimed the Proclamation would bar qualified immigrant applicants from receiving visas and entering the U.S. unless they can establish, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, that they either will be covered by approved health insurance within 30 days after entry, or are wealthy enough—and/or healthy enough—to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs. The plaintiffs argued that such a policy contravenes well-established immigration and healthcare laws, exceeds the scope of the President’s statutory authority, and violates procedural due process and equal protection.

On November 1, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court heard oral argument on November 2 and granted the plaintiff’s motion, temporarily enjoining the defendants from enforcing the Proclamation for at least 28 days. 2019 WL 5685204.

On November 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, as well as a motion to certify two subclasses: (1) a subclass of U.S. citizens who are petitioners sponsoring a visa for family members; and (2) a subclass of foreign nationals who are visa applicants. On November 11, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to compel the administrative record. On November 15, the court ordered the defendants to produce the record by November 20. 2019 WL 6050111.

On November 26, 2019, the court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Proclamation. The court found that the Proclamation contravened and overrode Congress’s intent as expressed in certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 2019 WL 6324560.

On November 27, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding another individual plaintiff to represent the Visa Applicant Subclass.

On December 4, 2019, the defendants appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (#19-36020). The defendants requested an emergency temporary stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction, as well as a stay of the injunction pending appeal.

On December 20, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a temporary stay. The Court found that the status quo would be disrupted by granting the temporary stay request because the Proclamation would make major and unprecedented changes to American immigration policy and the harms the government would allegedly suffer absent the stay were long-term rather than immediate. 944 F.3d 1222.

Back in the district court, the defendants were ordered to supplement the administrative record on February 11, 2020.

On April 7, 2020, Judge Simon granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He certified the following two subclasses:

(1) U.S. Petitioner Subclass
"Individuals in the United States who currently have or will have an approved or pending petition to the United States government to sponsor a noncitizen family member for an immigrant visa; and whose sponsored family member is subject to the Proclamation and unable to demonstrate to a consular officer's satisfaction that he or she 'will be covered by approved health insurance' within 30 days after entry or will be able 'to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs;'"


(2) Visa Applicant Subclass
"Individuals who are foreign nationals who (i) have applied for or will soon apply to the United States government for an immigrant visa; (ii) are otherwise eligible to be granted the visa; but (iii) are subject to the Proclamation and unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a consular officer that they 'will be covered by approved health insurance' within 30 days after entry or will be able 'to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.'"


In his order, Judge Simon explained that the U.S. Petitioner Subclass plaintiffs had standing because they had shown a credible threat or realistic danger of injury from the Proclamation.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the enforcement of a new Presidential Proclamation that had been issued on April 22, 2020, titled "Suspension of Entry of Immigrants who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak" (No. 10014). The plaintiffs requested that the court restrain enforcement of the Proclamation to the extent that it prevents certain underage members of the Visa Applicant Subclass from accessing emergency consular processing services to prevent their aging out of their place in the visa queue (which could prevent them from receiving visas).

On April 29, Judge Simon issued an opinion and order denying the plaintiffs' motion. He found that the court's existing jurisdiction in this lawsuit focused only on the October 4th Proclamation, and that the new April 22nd Proclamation was completely unrelated. Thus, Judge Simon concluded that there was no basis for invoking the All Writs Act to suspend the new Proclamation.

On May 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion to stay the district court's preliminary injunction pending appeal. The Court found that the government had failed to meet its burden of showing irreparable harm. It also concluded that the government had not sustained its burden of showing that it had a strong likelihood of prevailing against the plaintiffs' claims on the merits. Finally, it held that the nationwide scope of the district court's injunction was appropriate given the nationwide class. 2020 WL 2110978.

The case is ongoing.

Sam Kulhanek - 02/13/2020
Sam Kulhanek - 05/10/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Equal Protection
Federalism
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Constitutional rights
Visas - criteria
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of State
Plaintiff Description (1) a subclass of U.S. citizens who are petitioners sponsoring a visa for family members; and (2) a subclass of foreign nationals who are visa applicants.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Filed 10/30/2019
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:19-cv-01743-SB (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0009-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/05/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action Complaint [ECF# 1]
IM-OR-0009-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/30/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 33] (414 F.Supp.3d 1307) (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0009-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/02/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 95] (418 F.Supp.3d 573) (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0009-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/26/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Class Action Complaint [ECF# 100]
IM-OR-0009-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/27/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (944 F.3d 1222)
IM-OR-0009-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/20/2019
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion and Order [ECF# 132] (2020 WL 1689727) (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0009-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/07/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [ECF# 143] (D. Or.)
IM-OR-0009-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/29/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 65] (957 F.3d 1050)
IM-OR-0009-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/04/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Berzon, Marsha Siegel (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0008
Bress, Daniel Aaron (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0007 | IM-OR-0009-0008
Simon, Michael Howard (D. Or.) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0002 | IM-OR-0009-0003 | IM-OR-0009-0005 | IM-OR-0009-0006 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0007 | IM-OR-0009-0008
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bless, Jesse (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Dahab, Nadia H. (Oregon) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Fee, Kevin M. Jr. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Hellgren, Tess (Oregon) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Igra, Naomi Ariel (California) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Manning, Stephen W. (Oregon) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Stein, Scott D. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Sung, Esther (California) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Tumlin, Karen C. (California) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-0001 | IM-OR-0009-0004 | IM-OR-0009-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Edwards, Brian D. (Georgia) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Moran, Courtney Elizabeth (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Ward, Brian Christopher (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Other Lawyers Baxter-Neal, Leland (Oregon) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Chang, Deanna J. (Oregon) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000
Franklin, Richard D (Oregon) show/hide docs
IM-OR-0009-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -