The Justice Department's appeal to restore the Trump immigration ban

The government argued the district court's injunction on Trump's ban was "vastly overbroad" and was "accompanied by virtually no legal analysis."

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 1 of 125

No. 17-35105

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.
Defendants-Appellants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

EMERGENCY MOTION
UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
_____________________
NOEL J. FRANCISCO
Acting Solicitor General

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General
DOUGLAS N. LETTER
SHARON SWINGLE
H. THOMAS BYRON
LOWELL V. STURGILL JR.
CATHERINE DORSEY
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7241
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 2 of 125

CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE
The undersigned counsel certifies that the following is the information
required by Circuit Rule 27-3:
(1) Telephone numbers and addresses of the attorneys for the parties
Counsel for Appellants Donald Trump, et al.
Noel J. Francisco
Chad A. Readler (Chad.A.Readler@usdoj.gov)
August E. Flentje
Douglas N. Letter (Douglas.Letter@usdoj.gov)
Sharon Swingle (Sharon.Swingle@usdoj.gov)
H. Thomas Byron (H.Thomas.Byron@usdoj.gov)
Lowell V. Sturgill Jr. (Lowell.Sturgill@usdoj.gov)
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7241
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-3427
Counsel for Appellees
For State of Washington:
Colleen N. Melody (Coleenm1@atg.WA.Gov)
Noah Guzzo Purcell (Noahp@atg.Wa.Gov)
Anne Elizabeth Egeler (Annee1@atg.Wa.Gov)
Patricio A. Marquez (Patriciom@atg.Wa.Gov)
Marsha J. Chien (Marshac@atg.Wa.Gov)
Office of the Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744

i

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 3 of 125

For State of Minnesota:
Jacob Campion (Jacob.Campion@ag.State.Mn.Us)
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 757-1459
(2) Facts showing the existence and nature of the emergency
As set forth more fully in the motion, the district court has entered a
nationwide injunction barring enforcement of provisions of an Executive Order
issued pursuant to constitutional and statutory authority to address national security
concerns, which is imposing irreparable harm on the defendants and the general
public. The injunction contravenes the constitutional separation of powers; harms
the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the nationas
elected representative responsible for immigration matters and foreign affairs; and
second-guesses the Presidentas national security judgment about the quantum of risk
posed by the admission of certain classes of aliens and the best means of minimizing
that risk.
(3) When and how counsel notified
The undersigned counsel notified counsel for the plaintiffs by email on
February 4, 2017, of the defendantsa intent to file this motion. Service will be
effected by electronic service through the CM/ECF system.

ii

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 4 of 125

(4) Submissions to the district court
The defendants requested a stay from the district court on February 3, 2017,
which the district court orally denied.

Counsel to Defendants
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General
DOUGLAS N. LETTER
SHARON SWINGLE
H. THOMAS BYRON
LOWELL V. STURGILL JR.
CATHERINE DORSEY
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7241
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

NOEL J. FRANCISCO
/s/ Noel J. Francisco
Acting Solicitor General

iii

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 5 of 125

INTRODUCTION
The President of the United States has determined that a[d]eteriorating
conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase
the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States,a
and that our Nation accordingly must take additional steps ato ensure that those
approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties
to terrorism.a Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry
into the United States (Jan. 27, 2017) (Order) (Exhibit A).
Invoking his constitutional authority to control the entry of aliens into this
country and congressionally delegated authority to asuspend the entry of * * * any
class of aliensa whose entry awould be detrimental to the interests of the United
States,a the President has directed a temporary 90-day suspension of entry for
individuals from seven countries previously identified as posing a heightened risk of
terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch; a temporary 120-day suspension of
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; and a suspension of entry of Syrian nationals
as refugees until the President determines that measures are in place ato ensure that
admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.a Exec. Order
ASSASS 3(c), (5)(a), (c).
As another district court recently concluded in a thorough, well-reasoned
opinion, the Order is a lawful exercise of the political branchesa plenary control over
1

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 6 of 125

the admission of aliens into the United States. Louhghalam v. Trump, Civ. No. 1710154-NMG, Order 11 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017) (Exhibit B).
The district court here nevertheless issued an immediate, nationwide
injunction barring enforcement of the Order, accompanied by virtually no legal
analysis. R 52 (Exhibit C).
The district courtas sweeping injunction should be stayed pending appeal. It
conflicts with the basic principle that aan alien seeking initial admission to the
United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his
application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.a
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). It also contravenes the considered
judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to
suspend the admission of any class of aliens. The district court did not confront
those authorities; indeed, it gave no explanation why the State of Washington has a
high likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. And it entered the injunction
at the behest of a party that is not itself subject to the Executive Order; lacks Article
III standing or any right to challenge the denial of entry or visas to third-party aliens;
and brings a disfavored facial challenge. The injunction is also vastly overbroada
it is untethered to Washingtonas particular claims; extends even to aliens abroad who
currently have no visas; and applies nationwide, effectively overriding the judgment

2

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 7 of 125

of another district court that sustained the Executive Order against parallel
challenges.
The balance of harms weighs strongly in favor of a stay, as well as an
immediate administrative stay pending consideration of the request for a full stay
pending appeal.

The injunction immediately harms the public by thwarting

enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national
security judgment.

As the President acted well within both statutory and

constitutional authorization, the relief irreparably harms our system of government
by contravening the Constitutionas separation of powers. The State, by comparison,
has identified only speculative harms it would suffer from temporary suspension of
the entry of aliens affected by the Order, and that harm could be minimized by
expediting appeal.
BACKGROUND
A. The Presidentas Authority
1. In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (aINAa), 8 U.S.C. ASSASS 1101
et seq., as amended, Congress established the framework for deciding which aliens
may enter and remain in the United States. Congress expressly granted the President
broad discretionary authority, whenever he afinds that the entry of any aliens or of
any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the
United States,a to asuspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants
3

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 8 of 125

or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to
be appropriate * * *.a 8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f).
Numerous Presidents have invoked this authority,1 including an order by
President Reagan based on nationality, i.e., a suspension of entry of certain Cuban
nationals as immigrants into the United States. See 1986 WL 796773 (Aug. 22,
1986).
2.

In addition to that statutory authority, the President has expansive

constitutional authority under Article II over foreign affairs, national security, and
immigration. aThe exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty * * *
inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.a Knauff
v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950).
B. The Presidentas Order
Invoking these constitutional and statutory authorities, the President issued
the Order ato protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals
admitted to the United States.a Order ASS 2.

1

Presidential Proclamation 5517 (President Reagan); Exec. Order No. 12,324
(President Reagan); Exec. Order No. 12,807 (President George H.W. Bush);
Presidential Proclamation 6958 (President Clinton); Presidential Proclamation 8342
(President George W. Bush); Presidential Proclamation 8693 (President Obama);
Exec. Order No. 13,694 (President Obama); Exec. Order No. 13,726 (President
Obama).
4

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 9 of 125

The Order directs a number of actions in the interests of national security. Id.
ASSASS 2-11. The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to conduct an immediate
review to identify the ainformation needed from any country * * * to determine that
[an] individual seeking [an immigration-related] benefit is who the individual claims
to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.a Id. ASS 3(a). The Order also directs
a process for requesting necessary information from foreign governments that do not
supply such information, and consequences for countries not providing it. See id.
ASS 3(d)-(f).
While that review is ongoing, the Order suspends entry for 90 days of aliens
from seven countries previously identified as being associated with a heightened risk
of terrorism pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ASS 1187(a)(12). Id. ASS 3(c). Section 1187(a)(12),
enacted in 2015, modifies the visa waiver program. Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat.
2242, 2990 (2015). That program allows nationals of certain countries to enter the
United States without a visa. See 8 U.S.C. ASS 1187. Section 1187(a)(12) bars from
the visa waiver program any individuals who are nationals of or have recently
travelled to certain countries that raise terrorism-related concerns. Congress itself
identified Iraq and Syria as countries of concern, and also included countries that
have been designated by the Secretary of State as sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Sudan,
and Syria.

Id. ASS 1187(a)(12)(A)(i)(I)-(II), (ii)(I)-(II).

In addition, Congress

authorized the Executive Branch to designate additional acountries or areas of
5

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 10 of 125

concerna based on awhether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases
the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United
States,a awhether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the
country or area,a and awhether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.a 8
U.S.C. ASS 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii). In February 2016, the Executive Branch exercised that
authority to bar from the visa waiver program individuals who had recently travelled
to Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, in an effort to ensure that the visa waiver programas
arequirements are commensurate with the growing threat from foreign terrorist
fighters.a

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-

restrictions-visa-waiver-program.
Exceptions to the Orderas suspension of the entry of aliens from the seven
countries identified under ASS 1187(a)(12) can be made on a case-by-case basis. Order
ASS 3(g). The suspension of entry does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the
United States (i.e., an immigrant admitted with the privilege of residing permanently
in the United States, 8 U.S.C. ASS 1101(a)(20)). Feb. 1, 2017 Memorandum (Exhibit
D).
The Order also suspends for 120 days the U.S. refugee program, which is
independently committed to the discretion of the President under 8 U.S.C. ASS 1157(a),
to permit a review of the aapplication and adjudication process to determine what
additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee
6

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 11 of 125

admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.a
Order ASS 5(a). Once the refugee program is resumed, the Secretary of State is directed
to amake changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made
by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion
of the individual is a minority religion in the individualas country of nationality.a Id.
ASS 5(b). The Order contemplates the entry of a total of up to 50,000 refugees during
Fiscal Year 2017. Id. ASS 5(d).
Finally, the Order suspends entry of nationals of Syria as refugees under 8
U.S.C. ASS 1182(f) until the President determines that sufficient changes have been
made to the refugee program athat admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with
the national interest.a Id. ASS 5(c).
C. Procedural History
The State of Washington brought this action on January 30, 2017, asserting
constitutional and statutory claims against the United States, the President, and the
Secretaries of Homeland Security and State. Complaint, R1. On the same day,
Washington moved for a temporary restraining order.

R3.

Washington

subsequently amended its complaint to add Minnesota as a plaintiff. See R8.
Defendants opposed Washingtonas motion. R50. The district court held a
hearing on February 3, 2017. First orally, and then in a brief written order, the court
issued a nationwide injunction, effective immediately, barring enforcement of
7

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 12 of 125

sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Order. Transcript 48-49 (Exhibit E); R52.
The court also denied defendantsa motion for a stay. Transcript 50.
ARGUMENT
An immediate stay pending appeal is appropriate in this case because
defendants can establish (1) a strong likelihood of success on appeal; (2) a likelihood
that it will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) that plaintiffs will not be
substantially harmed by a stay; and (4) public interest in a stay. See Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ASS 1292(a)(1).

Although

temporary restraining orders are ordinarily not appealable, this Court has jurisdiction
over appeals from ainterlocutory orders of the district courts pertaining to
injunctionsa; athe essence of the order, not its moniker,a determines appealability.
Service Employees v. Natal Union of Healthcare, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.
2010). Where, as here, the adistrict court holds an adversary hearing and the basis
for the courtas order was strongly challenged,a and the length of the injunction (in
this case, indefinite) aexceeds the ordinary durationa of temporary restraining orders,
the order is properly treated as an appealable injunctive order. Id.

8

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 13 of 125

A. Defendants Are Likely to Succeed on Appeal.
The district court erred in concluding that Washington is likely to succeed on
the merits.2 In fact, Washington lacks Article III standing, has no basis for
challenging the denial of visas or entry to third-party aliens, and has not identified
any legal defect in the Orderamuch less one that would justify the facial injunctive
relief granted by the district court.
1.

Washington Lacks Article III Standing to Bring this Action.

The district court reasoned that the Washington has Article III standing
because the Order aadversely affects the Statesa residents in areas of employment,
education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,a and that these harms
aextend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living
within their borders.a R52, at 4-5. But a State cannot bring a parens patriae action
against federal defendants. In dismissing Massachusettsa challenge to a federal
statute designed to aprotect the health of mothers and infantsa in Massachusetts v.
Mellon, the Supreme Court explained that ait is no part of [a Stateas] duty or power
to enforce [its citizensa] rights in respect of their relations with the federal
government.a

262 U.S. 447, 478, 485-86 (1923); accord South Carolina v.

Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 324 (1966).

2

Because Minnesota, which was added as a plaintiff in the amended complaint,
did not move for interim injunctive relief, we address only Washingtonas standing.
Regardless, the arguments apply equally to Minnesota.
9

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 14 of 125

The district court also reasoned that athe States themselves are harmed by
virtue of the damage that implementation of the Order has inflicted upon the
operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher
learning, as well as injury to the Statesa operations, tax bases, and public funds.a
R52, at.5. These attenuated and speculative alleged harms are neither concrete nor
particularized.
With respect to Washingtonas public universities, most if not all of the
students and faculty members the State identifies are not prohibited from entering
the United States, and othersa alleged difficulties are hypothetical or speculative.3
That is particularly true given the Orderas waiver authority. See Executive Order
ASSASS 3(g), 5(e). Furthermore, any assertion of harm to the universitiesa reputations and
ability to attract students is insufficiently concrete for standing. Whitmore v.
Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). And although Washington suggested that the
Order might affect its recruitment efforts and child welfare system, it conceded that
it could not identify any currently affected state employees, nor any actual impact
on its child welfare system. See Schumacher Decl. AP 7, R17-5; Strus Decl., R17-6.

3

See, e.g., Second Riedinger Decl. APAP 3-7, R17-2 (allegations about lawful
permanent residents, who are not impacted by the Executive Order); Boesenberg
Decl. AP 6, R17-3 (same); Second Riedinger Decl. AP 8 (asserting that certain countries
may aban * * * U.S. travelersa in response to the Executive Order); Second
Chaudhry Decl. AP 8, R17-4 (alleging one faculty member may be unable to return to
the university in the future).
10

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 15 of 125

Washingtonas contentions regarding its tax base and public funds are equally
flawed. See Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 17-18 (1927) (finding no standing based
on Floridaas allegation that challenged law would diminish tax base); see also, e.g.,
Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir. 1985).4
Nor does Washington have any alegally protected interest,a Arizona Christian
Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 134 (2011), in the grant or denial of entry
to an alien outside the United States. The INAas carefully reticulated scheme
provides for judicial review only at the behest of an alien adversely affected, and
even then only if the alien is subject to removal proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. ASS 1252.
Under longstanding principles exemplified by the doctrine of consular
nonreviewability, an alien abroad cannot obtain judicial review of the denial of a
visa (or his failure to be admitted as a refugee). Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352
U.S. 180, 184 n.3, 185 n.6 (1956). It follows that a third party, like Washington, has
no ajudicially cognizable interest,a Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
(1973), in such a denial. Or to put it in Administrative Procedure Act (APA) terms,
review is precluded by the INA, the relevant determinations are committed to the

4

Washington cited no case recognizing the standing of a State, which cannot
suffer aspiritual or psychological harma or hold areligious beliefsa that could be
astigmized,a Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cty. of San
Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1050-52 (9th Cir. 2010), to bring an Establishment Clause
challenge.
11

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 16 of 125

Executiveas discretion (indeed, to the President, who is not subject to the APA), and
Washington lacks a cause of action. 5 U.S.C. ASSASS 701(a), (702).
2.

The Order Is a Valid Exercise of the Executiveas
Constitutional and Statutory Power

This express delegation from Congress in 8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f), coupled with
the Presidentas own Article II powers over foreign affairs and national security,
mean that the Presidentas aauthority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he
possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.a Zivotofsky ex rel.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2083-84 (2015); see also, e.g., Harisiades v.
Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 (1952) (recognizing that control over immigration
is an integral part of Article II authorities ain regard to the conduct of foreign
relations [and] the war powera).
In the immigration context specifically, a[t]he Supreme Court has along
recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute
exercised by the Governmentas political departments largely immune from judicial
control.aa Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). aWhen Congress delegates this plenary
power to the Executive, the Executiveas decisions are likewise generally shielded
from administrative or judicial review.a Cardenas, 826 F.3d at 1169.
The Order falls squarely within Congressa delegation in 8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f) of
the apower to prevent the entry of any alien or groups of aliens into this country as
12

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 17 of 125

well as * * * to grant entry to such person or persons with any restriction on their
entry as he may deem to be appropriate.a Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d
739, 744 n.9 (9th Cir. 1980); accord Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d
1498, 1507 (11th Cir. 1992). aPursuant to, and without exceeding, that grant of
discretionary authority, the President * * * suspended entry of aliens from the seven
subject countries.a Louhghalam, Order 17.
As noted above (at p. 4), prior Presidents have repeatedly invoked this
authority to suspend entry of certain classes of aliens, including on the basis of
nationality. In reviewing an Executive Order directing the interdiction and forcible
repatriation of undocumented aliens outside the territorial waters of the United
States, the Supreme Court found it aperfectly clear that 8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f) * * *
grants the President ample power to establish [by Executive Order] a naval blockade
that would simply deny illegal Haitian migrants the ability to disembark on our
shores.a Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 187 (1993) (emphasis
added). And courts have repeatedly affirmed that a[d]istinctions on the basis of
nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive.a
Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see also, e.g., Jean v.
Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 978 n.30 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc), affad, 472 U.S. 846
(1985); Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 435 (2d Cir. 2008).

13

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 18 of 125

Washington argued in district court that the Presidentas authority under
ASS 1182(f) is limited by 8 U.S.C. ASS 1152(a)(1)(A), which provides, with certain
exceptions, that ano person shall receive any preference or priority or be
discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the personas
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.a But this restriction does
not address the Presidentas authority under ASS 1182(f) to asuspend the entrya of aliens,
which is an entirely different act under the immigration laws. An immigrant visa
does not entitle an alien to admission to the United States, and even if an alien is
issued a valid visa, he is subject to being denied admission to this country when he
arrives at the border. See, e.g., Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325, 330 (7th Cir. 2010).
There is no inconsistency between ASS 1152(a)(1)(A) and the Presidentas issuance of
the Order under ASS 1182(f).
In any event, even if there were thought to be some potential inconsistency
between ASS 1152(a)(1)(A) and ASS 1182(f) , 8 U.S.C. ASS 1152(a)(1)(B) makes clear that
the statute does not alimit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the
procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications * * *.a This establishes
that the Order is not covered by the restrictions of subsection (A), because the Order
directs a review and revision of procedures for processing of visa applications and
adopts procedures for a temporary suspension and then resumption of processing of
certain visa applications following that review. See, e.g., Order ASSASS 3(a), 5(a).
14

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 19 of 125

Furthermore, while the review is pending, the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security have discretion to grant visas on a case-by-case basis. Id. ASSASS 3(g), 5(e).
Washingtonas interpretation of the two provisions, in contrast, would lead to the
untenable result that the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a
country with which the United States is at war, which would raise a serious
constitutional question about Congressas ability to restrict the Presidentas Article II
authority to ensure the nationas security.
3.

The District Court Improperly Second-Guessed the
Presidentas National Security Determinations

By its plain terms, 8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f) vests complete discretion in the
President to determine whether athe entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into
the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,a to
suspend entry or impose such conditions of entry as the President amay deem
appropriatea for such period as ahe shall deem necessary.a The Presidentas exercise
of this discretion ais not limited to circumstances defined in the statute,a and athe
statute provides no discernable standardsa for reviewing his determination. Haitian
Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 789 F. Supp. 1552, 1575-76 (S.D. Fla. 1991); see also
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 594, 600-01 (1988).
Judicial second-guessing of the Presidentas determination that a temporary
suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect
national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political
15

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 20 of 125

branchesa plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and
immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952)
(a[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with
contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war
power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government.a). a[I]t is not
within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the
determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.a
Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).
Courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the Presidentas
prospective judgment about future risks, as decisions about how best to aconfront
evolving threatsa are aan area where information can be difficult to obtain and the
impact of certain conduct difficult to assess.a Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
561 U.S. 1, 34 (2010). Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified
information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular
nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in
the vetting process. See, e.g., Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Depat of Treasury,
686 F.3d 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2012).
Washington nevertheless argued that the district court should disregard the
Presidentas stated rationale for issuing the Executive Order because Washington
believed it was prompted by religious animus toward Islam. That argument is
16

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 21 of 125

wrong, and it cannot be reconciled with Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 US. 753, 770
(1972), which held that, awhen the Executive exercisesa immigration authority aon
the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look
behind the exercise of that discretion[.]a Cf. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140
(2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that Mandelas areasoning has particular
force in the area of national securitya). Here, as another district court has recognized,
the Executive Order undeniably states a facially legitimate and bona fide reasona
ensuring athe aproper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the
screening of foreign nationalsa and athat adequate standards are established to
prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists.a Order, ASSASS 3(c), 5(a), (c); see Louhghalam,
Order 18-19. The Order does so in part by incorporating a list of seven countries
that were identified by Congressaand by the Executive in 2016aas raising
terrorism-related concerns. Accordingly, Mandel forecloses the Stateas challenge.
Louhghalam, Order 18-19.
The more searching inquiry envisioned by the States would create substantial
separation-of-powers problems, by permitting probing of the Presidentas subjective
motive in issuing the Order, cf. United States v. OaBrien, 391 U.S. 367, 383-84
(1968) (inquiry into the subjective motives of members of Congress is a ahazardous
mattera), and here even seeking an injunction running against the President himself,
see Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1867).
17

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 22 of 125

4.

The Stateas Constitutional Challenges Are Without Merit

Washingtonas equal protection and procedural due process challenges also
fail. See Louhghalam, Order 8-11, 13-16. As an initial matter, a[t]he word apersona
in the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment cannot * * * be
expanded to encompass the States of the Union.a Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 323; see
also Premo v. Martin, 119 F.3d 764, 771 (9th Cir. 1997). Nor can Washington
invoke the Fifth Amendment rights of its citizens against the federal government.
See Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 324.
Furthermore, the vast majority of the individuals that Washington claims are
affected by the Executive Order are aliens outside the United States, but it is acleara
that aan unadmitted and nonresident aliena ahad no constitutional right of entry to
this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.a Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762; see
Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 32. This is fatal to Washingtonas facial challenges, which
require it to show that there is no constitutionally valid application of the Order.
Even if the State could show a constitutional violation with respect to some
individualsaand it cannotathey plainly cannot establish such a violation as to nonresident aliens who are outside the United States and who have no prior connection
to this country.
For the reasons explained in Louhghalam, moreover, the State cannot possibly
make that showing. Indeed, the Stateas claim of animus is irreconcilable with the
18

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 23 of 125

fact that the seven countries listed in Section 3(c) of the Order are the same seven
countries that Congress and the Executive Branch identified in restricting the visawaiver program in 2015 and 2016, precisely because those countries are hotbeds of
terrorist activity. See pp. 5-6, supra; see also 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(iii).
Washington argued in district court that Section 5(b) of the Order violates the
Establishment Clause by agiv[ing] preference to Christian refugees while
disadvantaging Muslim refugees.a TRO Mot. at 7. But Section 5(b) provides an
accommodation for refugees from each country in the refugee program, not just
those specified in sections 3(a) & (c). As a result, it does not favor Christian refugees
at the expense of Muslims, but rather is neutral with respect to religion. See
Louhghalam, Civ. No. 17-10154-NMG, Order 13 (Section 5(b) does not favor
Christians over Muslims in violation of the Establishment Clause because it acould
be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that
is predominantly Christiana). Nor does it violate the Clause to recognize that
religious minorities are more likely to face persecution than members of the
dominant religion. Cf. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 713 (2005) (Establishment
Clause permits accommodation of religion). Washingtonas Establishment Clause
challenge to Section 5(b) also is not ripe, since that section does not take effect for
at least 120 days.

19

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 24 of 125

5. The District Court Improperly Issued a Nationwide Injunction.
An injunction should extend no further athan necessary to provide complete
relief to the plaintiffs.a Madsen v. Womenas Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765
(1994). The district courtas order violates this rule by extending beyond any
immediate impact on the Stateas own institutions to include private persons and
indeed all jurisdictions nationwide, including Massachusetts, where a court has
upheld the Order against challenges similar to those presented here, Louhghalam,
Order 18-19.
B. The Balance of Harms Weighs Strongly in Favor of a Stay.
The balance of harms also clearly favors a stay pending this Courtas expedited
consideration of defendantsa appeal.
First, the district courtas order contravenes the considered national security
judgment of the President that the admission of certain classes of aliens at this time
to the United States, under the existing screening and visa-issuance procedures, is
not in the national interest. aa[N]o governmental interest is more compelling than
the security of the Nation.aa Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
(quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)). a[T]he Governmentas interest
in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order.a Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010).

20

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 25 of 125

This is particularly true as to predictive judgments about the potential
national security threat posed by a class of aliens. A reviewing court would not be
well-equipped to ascertain the quantum of risk, or what is a reasonable margin of
error in assessing risk. Cf. Oryszak v. Sullivan, 576 F.3d 522, 525-26 (D.C. Cir.
2009) (aEgan teaches plainly that review of the breadth of [the margin of error
acceptable in assessing the security risk posed by an individual] is outside the
authority of a nonexpert body.a) (alteration in original)). Judicial second-guessing
of the Presidentas national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm
on the federal government and the nation at large.
Second, the injunction imposes irreparable harm by barring enforcement of
the Executive Order in a manner that intrudes heavily on the constitutional
separation of powers. Judicial intrusion on the political branchesa exclusive
authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in
itself constitutes irreparable injury. See, e.g., Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954
(D.C. Cir. 1978) (vacating preliminary injunction that directed action by the
Secretary of State in foreign affairs, which adeeply intrude[d] into the core
concerns of the executive brancha). Stays of injunctions have repeatedly been
granted to prevent a significant breach of inter-branch comity. See, e.g., INS v.
Legalization Assistance Project, 510 U.S. 1301, 1306 (1993) (OaConnor, J., in
chambers) (staying district court injunction interfering with the federal
21

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 26 of 125

governmentas execution of immigration statute, noting that injunction was aan
improper intrusion by a federal court into the workings of a coordinate branch of
the Governmenta); Schweiker v. McClure, 452 U.S. 1301, 1303 (1981) (Rehnquist,
J., in chambers); Committee on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v.
Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Furthermore, an order barring the Executive Branch from enforcing a
Presidential Executive Order inherently imposes harm on the public, by thwarting
the legal effect of the publicas chosen representative. Cf. New Motor Vehicle Bd. v.
Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)
(a[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by
representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.a); see also
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyersa Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 497 (2001)
(recognizing that, in assessing the public interest, a court must heed athe judgment
of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation,a and athe balance that Congress
has strucka).
Finally, enjoining operative provisions of the Order, which would require
the Executive Branch to treat non-resident aliensa visas as valid and potentially
would result in their admission into the United States, could cloud the clear legal
and factual distinction between their present status as inadmissible aliens not

22

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 27 of 125

lawfully present in the United States, and their desired status as aliens who were
lawfully admitted to this country.
In contrast, the State has not shown that it faces irreparable harm during the
temporary suspension of entries pending the national security review contemplated
by the Order. Furthermore, defendantsa appeal could be significantly expedited in
order to minimize any prejudice to the State.
Given the substantial harms posed by the district courtas order, defendants
also respectfully request that this Court enter an immediate administrative stay
pending consideration of the merits of this motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court
enter an immediate administrative stay pending consideration of this motion.
Defendants also request that the Court enter a stay pending appeal of the district
courtas February 3, 2017, injunctive order.

23

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 28 of 125

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General
DOUGLAS N. LETTER
SHARON SWINGLE
H. THOMAS BYRON
LOWELL V. STURGILL JR.
CATHERINE DORSEY
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7241
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

NOEL J. FRANCISCO
/s/ Noel J. Francisco
Acting Solicitor General

24

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 29 of 125

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 4, 2017, I filed the foregoing motion with
the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
by using the appellate CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered
CM/ECF users and will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

s/ Lowell V. Sturgill Jr.
Lowell V. Sturgill Jr.

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 30 of 125

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion complies with the type-volume
limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 27 because it contains 5,074 words. This Motion
complies with the typeface and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 27
because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using
Word 14-point Times New Roman typeface.

s/ Lowell V. Sturgill Jr.
Lowell V. Sturgill Jr.

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 31 of 125

EXHIBIT A
Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States (Jan. 27, 2017)

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
2 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
232
of
2 of
1010
125
#: 22

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
January 27, 2017
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST
ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to
protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign
nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a
crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and
stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no
instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented
consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa
applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on
to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance
process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks
to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these
measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were
admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or
implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001,
including foreign nationals who entered the United States after
receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered
through the United States refugee resettlement program.
Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war,
strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that
terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United
States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
3 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
333
of
3 of
1010
125
#: 23

issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission
do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to
terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must
ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile
attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United
States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support
the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies
over American law. In addition, the United States should not
admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including
"honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the
persecution of those who practice religions different from their
own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender,
or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to
protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit
terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the
admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United
States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other
Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular
Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of
National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to
determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate
any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA
(adjudications) in order to determine that the individual
seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is
not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the
results of the review described in subsection (a) of this
section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's
determination of the information needed for adjudications and a
list of countries that do not provide adequate information,
within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on
relevant agencies during the review period described in
subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
4 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
434
of
4 of
1010
125
#: 24

maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of
foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are
established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or
criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant
entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred
to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would
be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I
hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and
nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this
order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic
visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for
travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in
subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed
for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all
foreign governments that do not supply such information to start
providing such information regarding their nationals within
60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of
this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the
President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a
Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of
foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling
on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas,
C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3,
and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the
information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section
until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in
subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the
names of any additional countries recommended for similar
treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection
(c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation
described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and
when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits
are otherwise blocked.

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
5 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
535
of
5 of
1010
125
#: 25

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall
submit to the President a joint report on the progress in
implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this
order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order,
a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a
fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All
Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the
adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify
individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent
basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of
causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will
include the development of a uniform screening standard and
procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity
documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate
documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended
application forms that include questions aimed at identifying
fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure
that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process
to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively
contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to
make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to
assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit
criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction
with the Secretary of State, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report
on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of
this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this
order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this
order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120
days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall
review the USRAP application and adjudication process to
determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure
that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
6 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
636
of
6 of
1010
125
#: 26

to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall
implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who
are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the
initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the
date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the
Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for
nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National
Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional
procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of
the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary
of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent
permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by
individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution,
provided that the religion of the individual is a minority
religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where
necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would
assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria
as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States
and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have
determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP
to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with
the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000
refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry
until such time as I determine that additional admissions would
be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit
individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case
basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine
that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the
national interest -- including when the person is a religious
minority in his country of nationality facing religious
persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
7 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
737
of
7 of
1010
125
#: 27

States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international
agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying
admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a
risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President
an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection
(b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by
individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within
100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second
report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the
extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local
jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining
the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens
eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To
that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine
existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with
applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater
involvement in the process of determining the placement or
resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall
devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to
the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the
Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority
in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the
terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related
implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit
Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entryexit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as
recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
President periodic reports on the progress of the directive
contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report
shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a
second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of
this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365
days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall
submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is
fully deployed and operational.

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
8 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
838
of
8 of
1010
125
#: 28

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of
State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver
Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a
nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to
specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall
immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by
substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or
making permanent the period of service, and making language
training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows
for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic
ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times
are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State
shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to
ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification,
truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity
period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a
country does not treat United States nationals seeking
nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of
State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or
other treatment to match the treatment of United States
nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To
be more transparent with the American people, and to more
effectively implement policies and practices that serve the
national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with
applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly
available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i)
information regarding the number of foreign
nationals in the United States who have been charged
with terrorism-related offenses while in the United
States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while
in the United States; or removed from the United
States based on terrorism-related activity,
affiliation, or material support to a terrorismrelated organization, or any other national security

Case
Case:
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2
ID: Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 14,
9 of
Page
Page
10
Page
PageID
939
of
9 of
1010
125
#: 29

reasons since the date of this order or the last
reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii)
information regarding the number of foreign
nationals in the United States who have been
radicalized after entry into the United States and
engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have
provided material support to terrorism-related
organizations in countries that pose a threat to the
United States, since the date of this order or the
last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of
acts of gender-based violence against women, including
honor killings, in the United States by foreign
nationals, since the date of this order or the last
reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv)
any other information relevant to public safety
and security as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including
information on the immigration status of foreign
nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the
date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term
costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order
shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)
the authority granted by law to an executive
department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.

Case
Case
Case:
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
17-35105,
2:17-cv-00126
02/04/2017,
Document
Document
Document
2ID:Filed
10302845,
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
DktEntry:
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 10
14,
Page
ofPage
Page
1010
PageID
40
10
ofof
of
10125
10
#: 30

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 27, 2017.

# # #

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 41 of 125

EXHIBIT B
Louhghalam v. Trump, Civ. 17-10154-NMG, Order
(Feb. 3, 2017)

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page42
1 of 125
21

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

Arghavan Louhghalam et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Donald J. Trump, President of
the United States, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
17-10154-NMG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This Court was initially asked 1) to issue a writ of habeas
corpus on behalf of by Arghavan Louhghalam and Mazdak
Pourabdollah Tootkaboni, lawful permanent residents who were
detained at Boston Logan International Airport (aLogana) for
several hours upon arrival from an academic conference outside
the United States and 2) to declare unlawful Executive Order
13,769, promulgated by the President of the United States.
Late in the evening on January 28, 2017, United States
District Judge Allison D. Burroughs and United States Magistrate
Judge Judith G. Dein held a hearing on a motion of Louhghalam
and Tootkaboni for a temporary restraining order.

Following

that hearing, Judge Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Dein entered
a temporary restraining order (aTROa) that, inter alia,
prohibits the detention and/or removal of individuals with

-1-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page43
2 of 125
21

approved refugee applications who would be legally admitted to
the United States in absence of the Executive Order.

That TRO

is set to expire on Sunday, February 5, 2017.
Following entry of the TRO a flurry of activity has
resulted in the filing of an amended complaint wherein five
other Iranian nationals and Oxfam America, Inc. are named as
additional plaintiffs and the allowance of a motion by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the University of
Massachusetts to intervene as plaintiffs.

Now pending before

this session is the informal motion of all of the plaintiffs to
continue in force the subject TRO which defendant opposes.

Oral

argument on that motion was heard earlier today.
I.

Background
A.

The Parties

Habeas petitioners Tootkaboni and Louhghalam are Iranian
nationals, Muslim and lawful permanent residents of the United
States.

Both are currently employed as Associate Professors at

the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

They were each

detained for nearly four hours at Logan Airport on January 28,
2017, without access to counsel, after returning from an
academic conference outside the country.
The five other individual plaintiffs are Iranian nationals
and Muslim.

Three of them, Babak Yaghoubi Moghadam, his sister,

Fatemeh Yaghoubi Moghadam, and Ali Sanie are also lawful

-2-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page44
3 of 125
21

permanent residents.

Plaintiffs Zahrasadat Mirrazi Renani and

Leily Amirsardary are in the United States on valid F-1 student
visas.

Plaintiff Oxfam America Inc. is a subsidiary of a world-

wide non-profit organization that promotes policy reform in the
United States and abroad with respect to global poverty.
Defendants in this case are President of the United States,
Donald J. Trump, United States Customs and Border Protection
(aCBPa), Kevin K. McAleen, the Acting Commissioner of the CBP,
William Mohalley, the Boston Field Director of the CPB, and the
Department of Homeland Security and its Secretary, John Kelly.
Each individual defendant is sued in his official capacity.
B.

The Executive Order

On January 27, 2017, the President of the United States
Donald J. Trump, issued Executive Order No. 13,769 entitled
aProtecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United Statesa (aEOa).

The EO directs changes to the policy and

process of admitting non-citizens into the United States
purportedly to protect national security and to provide a period
of review for relevant agencies to evaluate current procedures
and to propose and implement new procedures.
The changes in immigration procedure relevant to this
action are as follows.

The EO suspends for 90 days entry of

immigrants and non-immigrants from seven countries:

Iraq, Iran,

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Exec. Order 13,769

-3-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page45
4 of 125
21

ASS 3(c).

The EO also suspends, for 120 days, the United States

Refugee Admission Program (aUSRAPa). Id. ASS 5(b).

The order

directs, after the suspension on USRAP ends, that the Secretary
of State prioritize applicants on the basis of religious-based
persecution
provided that the religion of the individual is a minority
religion in the individualas country of nationality.
Id.
On February 1, 2017, White House counsel issued a
clarification to the Acting Secretary of State, the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that Sections
3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to lawful permanent residents.
C.

The Immigration and Nationality Act

The Immigration and Nationality Act (aINAa), 8 U.S.C.
ASS 1101 et seq.,

was originally enacted in 1952 and has been

amended several times, including in 1996 by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (aIIRIRAa).
The INA governs immigration, naturalization, refugee assistance
and removal procedures and defines the circumstances that govern
the admission of aliens into the United States.
The relevant provision of the INA provides that:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens
or of any class of aliens into the United States would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may
by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem
necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of
aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the

-4-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page46
5 of 125
21

entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be
appropriate.
8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f).
D.

Procedural History

As described above, petitioners Tootkaboni and Louhghalam
filed a writ of habeas corpus on January 28, 2017.

In the

middle of a weekend night, following a hearing, Judge Burroughs
and Magistrate Judge Dein, the assigned emergency district and
magistrate judges, respectively, entered a TRO preventing
individuals subject to the EO from being detained or removed
upon arrival at Logan.

The TRO also directed petitioners to

file an amended complaint and scheduled a hearing to occur prior
to the expiration of that order.

The matter was randomly

assigned to this judicial officer who, accordingly, scheduled a
hearing with respect to the continuance of the TRO.
II.

Continuance of the TRO
A.

Legal Standard

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order, the moving party must establish 1) a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the potential
for irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld, 3) a
favorable balance of hardships and 4) the effect on the public
interest. Jean v. Mass. State Police, 492 F.3d 24, 26-27 (1st
Cir. 2007); Quincy Cablesys., Inc. v. Sullyas Bar, Inc., 640 F.

-5-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page47
6 of 125
21

Supp. 1159, 1160 (D. Mass. 1986).

Of these factors, the

likelihood of success on the merits anormally weighs heaviest on
the decisional scales.a Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562
F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2009).
The Court may accept as true awell-pleaded allegations [in
the complaint] and uncontroverted affidavits.a Rohm & Haas Elec.
Materials, LLC v. Elec. Circuits, 759 F. Supp. 2d 110, 114, n.2
(D. Mass. 2010) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 350, n.1
(1976)). The Court may also rely on otherwise inadmissible
evidence, including hearsay. See Asseo v. Pan Am. Grain Co.,
Inc., 805 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1986).

Ultimately, the issuance

of preliminary injunctive relief is aan extraordinary and
drastic remedy that is never awarded as of right.a Peoples Fed.
Sav. Bank v. Peopleas United Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.
2012) (quoting Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News
Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011)).
The Court may extend temporary injunctive relief upon a
showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).
B.

Application
1.

The claims for injunctive relief by the lawful
permanent residents

On February 1, 2017, the White House distributed a
memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security clarifying that

-6-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page48
7 of 125
21

Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the EO do not apply to lawful
permanent residents.
That memorandum comports with the language of the Section
3(c) which temporarily suspends aentrya of aliens from the seven
subject countries.

Upon returning to the United States, lawful

permanent residents do not, however, typically aentera the
country for purposes of the INA.
Although aentrya is no longer defined in the INA, it has
been replaced with the term aadmission,a which is defined as
the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after
inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
8 U.S.C. ASS 1101(a)(13)(A) (emphasis added); see also Vartelas v.
Holder, 556 U.S. 257, 263 (2012) (explaining that Congress made
aadmissiona the akey worda and removed the definition of aentrya
from the statute).
Under the INA, lawful permanent residents are regarded as
seeking admission, i.e. entry, into the United States only if
they fall within six categories, including inter alia, being
absent from the United States for 180 days or more. See id.; 8
U.S.C. ASS 1101(a)(13)(c).
Therefore, the use of the term aentrya in Section 3(c)
indicates that the suspension was not intended to be applied to
lawful permanent residents.

-7-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page49
8 of 125
21

In light of the governmentas clarification that the EO will
not be applied to lawful permanent residents, the claims for
injunctive relief by plaintiffs Louhghalam, Tootkaboni, Sanie,
Fatemeh Moghadam and Babak Moghadam are moot.

With respect to

those individuals, there is ano ongoing conduct to enjoina. Town
of Portsmouth v. Lewis, 813 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2016).

Thus,

any declaration with respect to the lawfulness of the EO would
be strictly advisory. See New Eng. Regal Council of Carpenters
v. Kinton, 284 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (remarking that it
would be apointlessa to declare the constitutionality of a
policy that had been revised during litigation).
Although the claims by the lawful permanent resident
plaintiffs for injunctive relief are moot, the claims for
injunctive relief by plaintiffs Renani and Amirsardary, holders
of F-1 visas, and Oxfam are not covered by that clarification
and thus the Court will address the merits of their claims for
injunctive relief.
2.

The claims for injunctive relief by the
plaintiffs who hold F-1 Visas
a.

Count I:

Equal Protection claim

The Fifth Amendment protects aliens within the United
States from ainvidious discrimination by the Federal
Government.a Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) (quoting
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77); see also Yick Wo v. Hopkins,

-8-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page50
9 of 125
21

118 U.S. 356, 369, (1886) (a[Equal Protection is] universal in
[its] application, to all persons within the territorial
jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of
color, or of nationality.a).

There is a distinction, however,

between the constitutional rights enjoyed by aliens who have
entered the United States and those who are outside of it. See
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).
The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is
a afundamental sovereign attributea realized through the
legislative and executive branches that is alargely immune from
judicial control.a Chi Thon Ngo v. I.N.S., 192 F.3d 390, 395 (3d
Cir. 1999), amended (Dec. 30, 1999) (quoting Shaughnessy v.
United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)).

Federal

classifications based on alien status are evaluated using
rational basis review. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83 (1976)
(considering whether a law that made distinctions based on alien
status was awholly irrationala); Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703
F.3d 483, 486a87 (9th Cir. 2012)(determining that a regulation
that treated immigrant religious workers differently than other
visa applicants would be evaluated using rational basis review);
Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(upholding a regulation issued in response to the Iran hostage
crisis that required non-immigrant alien Iranian students to

-9-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page51
10of
of125
21

provide information to Immigration and Naturalization Services
Offices).
Rational basis review examines whether the aclassification
at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public
purpose.a Plyler, 457 U.S. at 216.

It is anot a license for

courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative
choices.a Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319a20 (1993)
(quoting FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313
(1993)).

Under rational basis review, a classification is

permissible aif there is any reasonably conceivable state of
facts that could provide a rational basis.a Id. (quoting Beach
Communications, 508 U.S. at 313).
Plaintiffs contend that the EO discriminates on the basis
of religion and was designed to exclude Muslims from the United
States.

They further allege that it singles out citizens of

seven different countries.

At oral argument, plaintiffs relied

on aastonishing evidence of intenta from President Trump which,
in their view, demonstrates that EO was asubstantially motivated
by improper animus.a See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 233
(1985) (holding that a provision in the Alabama Constitution
violated equal protection even through it was facially neutral
because it was motivated by animus).

Defendants responded that

the cases examining improper animus involve equal protection
claims against states, which may be reviewed with strict

-10-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page52
11of
of125
21

scrutiny, while the federal government classification of nonresident aliens in this case is subject to rational basis
review.
Because the EO involves federal government categorizations
with respect to non-resident aliens, rational basis review
applies.

According to the EO, its purpose is

to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of
available resources for the screening of foreign nationals,
and to ensure that adequate standards are established to
prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists . . . .
Exec. Order 13,769 ASS 3(c).

The EO specifically asserts that

permitting aliens from the countries identified in section
217(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. ASS 1187(a)(12), to enter awould be
detrimental to the United States.a

The order provides a

reasonably conceivable state of facts [which concerns
national security and] that could provide a rational basis
for the classification. Heller, 509 U.S. at 319a20.
Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the adelicate
policy judgmenta inherent in immigration decisions. Plyler, 457
U.S. at 225.
b.

Count II:

Establishment Clause claim

With respect to Count II, plaintiffs allege that the
Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the United
States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. I (aCongress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .a).
Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the EO disfavors Islam and

-11-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page53
12of
of125
21

favors Christianity.

The Court concludes, however, that the

remaining plaintiffs lack standing to raise an Establishment
Clause challenge.
The purported harmful disparate treatment of those two
faiths arises from Section 5(b) of the EO in which the Secretary
of State is directed, upon reinstatement of USRAP, to
prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis
of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion
of the individual is a minority religion in the
individualas country of nationality (emphasis added).
To have standing, plaintiffs must allege an injury in fact that
is aconcrete and particularizeda. Reddy v. Foster, Docket No.
16-1432, 2017 WL 104825, at *4 (1st Cir. Jan. 11, 2017) (quoting
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341
(2014)).
Plaintiffs are not, however, refugees seeking admission to
the United States and consequently, any future implementation of
Section 5(b) would not personally affect them.

Although

plaintiffs vigorously disagree with such a policy, that sincere
disagreement is insufficient injury to confer standing. See
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of
Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 485-86 (1982) (aThey fail to
identify any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence
of the alleged constitutional error, other than the
psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of

-12-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page54
13of
of125
21

conduct with which one disagrees.

That is not an injury

sufficient to confer standing under Art. III . . . .a (emphasis
removed)).
Moreover, the language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral
with respect to religion.

Plaintiffs submit in their amended

complaint that Section 5 favors Muslims over Christians, in
violation of the Establishment Clause.

The provisions of

Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee
status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately
Christian.

Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that

Christians are preferred to any other group.
c.

Count III: Due Process claim

The power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign
prerogativea and aliens seeking admission to the United States
request a aprivilege.a Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32
(1982).

It is abeyond peradventurea that aunadmitted and non-

resident aliensa have no right to be admitted to the United
States. Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647 (1st Cir. 1990).
There is no constitutionally protected interest in either
obtaining or continuing to possess a visa.

The due process

guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment aattaches only when the
federal government seeks to deny a liberty or property
interest.a Knoetze v. U.S., Dep't of State, 634 F.2d 207, 211
(5th Cir. 1981).

A non-citizen has no ainherent property right

-13-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page55
14of
of125
21

in an immigrant visa.a Azizi v. Thornburgh, 908 F.2d 1130, 1134
(2d Cir. 1990); see also Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum
Seekers v. Dep't of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 104 F.3d
1349, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that aliens amay not assert
a Fifth Amendment right in challenging the procedures for
granting immigrant visasa); Knoetze, 634 F.2d at 212
(concluding that arevocation of an entry visa issued to an alien
already within our country has no effect upon the alien's
liberty or property interestsa); De Avilia v. Civiletti, 643
F.2d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 1981) (determining there is ano vested
right in the issuance of a visaa).

Thus, because an alien does

not enjoy a property right in a visa, he has no due process
right that protects the manner in which a visa is revoked.
Conversely, because the Due Process Clause safeguards all
apersonsa in the United States, once an alien is in this
country, that alien is entitled to Fifth Amendment protection.
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693.

It is awell establisheda that aliens

have cognizable due process interests which must be protected in
deportation hearings. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003)
(quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993)).

At a

minimum, before deportation, aliens are entitled to anotice of
the nature of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be
heard.a Choeum v. I.N.S., 129 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1997).

-14-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page56
15of
of125
21

The plaintiffs who hold F-1 Visas, Ms. Renani and Ms.
Amirsardary (athe F-1 plaintiffsa), contend that the EO violates
their due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment
because it prevents individuals from the targeted countries from
coming into the United States without any procedural safeguards.
Moreover, they submit that they fear leaving the country because
of concerns about being unable to return.

Defendants respond

that such fears are premature because neither of the F-1
plaintiffs has specific travel plans within the next month.
The F-1 plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are
likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim.

It

is not clear whether the F-1 visas of aliens in the United
States at the time of the EO have been revoked, although
defendantsa counsel stated at the hearing that he thought they
had been.

Assuming their visas have been revoked, the F-1

plaintiffs have no property or liberty interest in those visas
and thus no due process claim with respect to the supposed
revocation. Knoetze, 634 F.2d at 212.
Although the F-1 plaintiffs certainly would be protected by
the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment if deportation
proceedings were initiated against them, Demore, 538 U.S. at
523, there is no indication that such proceedings are
forthcoming.

Furthermore, while this Court is sympathetic to

the difficult personal circumstances in which these plaintiffs

-15-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page57
16of
of125
21

find themselves, if they choose to leave the country, as nonresident aliens, they have no right to re-enter. Landon, 459
U.S. at 32.

In sum, because due process protections do not

apply to visas and the F-1 plaintiffs are not currently subject
to deportation proceedings, they have not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits of a due process claim at
this time.
d.

Count IV:
claim

Administrative Procedure Act

The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown a
likelihood of success on the merits with respect to Count IV, in
which plaintiffs allege that the EO violates the Administrative
Procedure Act (aAPAa), 5 U.S.C. ASS 706.
In Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992),
the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Presidency is
not an aagencya as defined in the APA, ASS 701(b)(1), and thus
actions by the President are not subject to the APA.

Courts

have interpreted Franklin to prohibit review under the APA of
actions by the President when he is exercising discretionary
authority. See, e.g., Detroit Intal Bridge Co. v. Govat of
Canada, 189 F. Supp. 3d 85, 104 (D.D.C. 2016).
Here, Congress has granted the President authority to
suspend entry for any class of aliens if such entry would be
adetrimental to the interests of the United States.a 8 U.S.C.

-16-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page58
17of
of125
21

1182(f).

Pursuant to, and without exceeding, that grant of

discretionary authority, the President issued EO 13,769 and
suspended entry of aliens from the seven subject countries.

The

Presidentas action is thus unreviewable under the APA. See
Detroit Intal Bridge, 189 F. Supp. 3d at 104-05 (concluding that
the Presidentas decision to allow a permit for an international
bridge was not subject to the APA because he had the authority
to do so under the International Bridge Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C.
ASS 535 et seq.).
Because the likelihood of success element is aessentiala to
the issuance of an injunction, New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v.
SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2002), the Court
will not continue to impose injunctive relief pursuant to Count
IV.
e.

Count V:

First Amendment claim

Finally, in Count V, Oxfam claims that the EO has violated
its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association and
petition by barring entry of aliens, including visa holders,
into the United States.
The United States Supreme Court, in Kleindienst v. Mandel,
408 U.S. 753, 764, 770 (1972), explained that a denial of a visa
to an alien could, under some circumstances, violate a United
States citizenas First Amendment right ato receive informationa.
The Court dismissed plaintiffsa First Amendment claim, however,

-17-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page59
18of
of125
21

because the Attorney General provided a afacially legitimate and
bona fide reasona for denying the alienas visa request.

In such

case, the Court continued, lower courts should not
look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by
balancing its justification against the First Amendment
interests of those who seek personal communication with the
applicant.
Id. at 770.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals (aFirst Circuita) has
considered the bounds of Kleindienst on two occasions:

in

Allende v. Shultz, 845 F.2d 1111 (1st Cir. 1988), and in Adams
v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643 (1st Cir. 1990).

That Court concluded in

Allende that plaintiffs adequately raised a First Amendment
claim. 845 F.2d at 1116.

Conversely, in Adams, it held that

plaintiffsa did not assert a valid First Amendment challenge.
909 F.2d at 649-50.

In both cases, however, the First Circuit

undertook an analysis to determine whether the conduct of the
individual who had been denied a visa fit within the statutory
authority relied upon for those denials.
Here, the President has exercised his broad authority under
8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f) to suspend entry of certain aliens
purportedly in order to ensure that resources are available to
review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in
place to protect against terrorist attacks. Exec. Order 13,769
ASS 3(c).

Such a justification is afacially legitimate and bona

-18-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page60
19of
of125
21

fidea and therefore Oxfamas First Amendment rights are not
implicated. See Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 770 (concluding that
the First Amendment rights of American scholars and students
were not violated when a Belgian scholar whom they invited to
speak was denied entry into the United States).
Although at oral argument plaintiffs directed this Court to
American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115, 137
(2nd Cir. 2009), which held that a awell supported allegation of
bad faitha could render a decision not bona fide, that is not
the standard in the First Circuit.

Therefore, in light of the

aplenary congressional power to make policies and rules for
exclusion of aliens,a Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 769, which
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ASS 1182(f), has been delegated to the
President, the Court concludes that the governmentas reasons, as
provided in the EO, are facially legitimate and bona fide.
Consequently, Oxfam has not shown a likelihood of success
with respect to its claim in Count V. See Kleindienst, 408 U.S.
at 770; Adams, 909 F.2d at 650.
f.

Other preliminary injunction factors

Moving on to the other three factors considered for a
temporary restraining order, Jean v. Mass. State Police, 492
F.3d 24, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2007), the potential for irreparable
harm weighs in favor of plaintiffs.

The harm of being forced to

choose between visiting loved ones, participating in a

-19-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page61
20of
of125
21

prestigious doctoral program or founding a business, on the one
hand, and staying in this country out of fear of being denied
re-entry is painful to contemplate.

Oxfam faces some less life-

size challenges but they are important nevertheless.
There are considerations on both sides with respect to a
balancing of the hardships.

On the one hand, implementing an

effective immigration regime that ensures the safety of all
Americans is undoubtedly difficult.

On the other hand, the

hardship to the professional and personal lives of the
individual plaintiffs and to the operation of the Oxfam worldwide organization is palpable.
Finally, there are public interest considerations on both
sides.

The rich immigrant history of the United States has long

been a source of strength and pride in this country.

The

individual plaintiffs in this case provide particularly
compelling examples of the value that immigrants add to our
society.

Conversely, the public interest in safety and security

in this ever-more dangerous world is strong as well.
When the four factors that the Court must consider before
imposing injunctive relief are considered collectively,
likelihood of success on the merits weighs most heavily in the
decision. Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, 66
(1st Cir. 2009).

Therefore, because plaintiffs have not

demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of

-20-

Case
Case:1:17-cv-10154-NMG
17-35105, 02/04/2017,
Document
ID: 10302845,
69 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page62
21of
of125
21

any of their claims, an extension of the restraining order at
the present time is not warranted.

ORDER
For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any
injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining
order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6).

So ordered.

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton_____
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated February 3, 2017

-21-

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 63 of 125

EXHIBIT C
Temporary Restraining Order (Feb. 3, 2017)

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page64
1 of 125
7

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page65
2 of 125
7

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page66
3 of 125
7

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page67
4 of 125
7

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page68
5 of 125
7

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page69
6 of 125
7

Case:
Case17-35105,
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
02/04/2017,Document
ID: 10302845,
52 Filed
DktEntry:
02/03/17
14, Page
Page70
7 of 125
7

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 71 of 125

EXHIBIT D
Feb. 1, 2017 Memorandum

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 72 of 125

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

February 1, 2017
MEMORANDUM TO THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FROM:

Donald F. McGahn II a Counsel to the President

SUBJECT: Authoritative Guidance on Executive Order Entitled aProtecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United Statesa (Jan. 27, 2017)
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order entitled aProtecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United Statesa (Jan. 27, 2017) suspends for 90 days the entry into the United States
of certain aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Section 3(e) of the order directs the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to the President a list of countries
recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of certain
foreign nationals from countries that do not provide information needed to adjudicate visas,
admissions, or other benefits under the INA.
I understand that there has been reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions
apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States. Accordingly, to remove any confusion,
I now clarify that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to such individuals. Please immediately
convey this interpretive guidance to all individuals responsible for the administration and
implementation of the Executive Order.

1

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 73 of 125

EXHIBIT E
Transcript of Hearing before Judge Robart
(Feb. 3, 2017)

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 74 of 125
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

3
4
5

_____________________________________________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON and
STATE OF MINNESOTA,

6

Plaintiffs,

7

v.

8

DONALD TRUMP, in his
official capacity as
President of the United
States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F.
KELLY, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland
Security; TOM SHANNON, in
his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of State;
and the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C17-00141-JLR
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
February 3, 2017
MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

16

_____________________________________________________________

17

VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________

18
19
20
21

APPEARANCES:

22
23
24
25

For the Plaintiffs:

Noah Purcell
Colleen Melody
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

1

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 75 of 125
1

Jacob Campion
Assistant Attorney General of
Minnesota
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, MN 55101

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

For the Defendants:

Michelle Bennett
John Tyler
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

2

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 76 of 125
1

THE CLERK:

Case No. C17-141, State of Washington

2

versus Donald J. Trump.

3

appearances for the record.

4
5

MR. PURCELL:

Counsel, please make your

Noah Purcell for the State of

Washington, Your Honor.

6

MS. MELODY:

7

MR. CAMPION:

8

3

I'm Colleen Melody, also for the state.
I'm Jacob Campion, I'm an Assistant

Attorney General for the State of Minnesota.

9

THE COURT:

10

MS. BENNETT:

Welcome.
Good afternoon, Your Honor, Michelle

11

Bennett from the Department of Justice for the defendants.

12

And with me is my colleague, also from the Department of

13

Justice, John Tyler.

14
15

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Counsel, welcome.

A couple of housekeeping matters to attend to.

We are

16

scheduled to conduct this hearing between 2:30 and 4 o'clock.

17

I'm going to have some very brief housekeeping matters at the

18

start, of which I've already used eight of my ten allotted

19

minutes.

20

given, in effect, 30 minutes to each side.

21

wishes, they can reserve some of their time for rebuttal.

22

They're going first.

23

The state will go next.

I will tell you that I've
If the state

The federal government is going second.

Your prepared remarks, which I'm sure are all very

24

thoughtful and quite helpful, are going to get swallowed by

25

questions, because I have questions that are essential to our

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 77 of 125

4

1

resolution of this case and I need to get those answered.

2

be prepared for pretty much an interruption from the start.

3

So

And at around 3:45, having followed the direct

4

presentations, and rebuttal if the state has time left,

5

you're going to hear from the court.

6

orally rule from the bench but in very conclusory terms.

7

we will get a written order to follow, so that if you want to

8

have the Ninth Circuit grade my homework, you'll have

9

something that you can get on file there promptly.

10
11
12

It's my intention to

So, that will be the order of the day.

And I'm going to

hear from the state first, please.
Mr. Purcell, why don't we do one other item.

Technically

13

the motion that's before me started off as Docket 3, which

14

was exclusively the State of Washington, and is now Docket

15

19, which is both the states of Washington and Minnesota.

16

We've also had a series of requests to file amicus briefs,

17

and I intend to grant those.

18

ACLU; Docket 42, the Service Employees Union; Docket 45,

19

amicus filed by the Amicus Law Professors.

20

Three Amigos.

21

the Washington State Labor Council.

22

which is the amicus, Americans United For Separation of

23

Church and State.

24
25

And

So I'm granting Docket 26, the

Sounds like the

Let's see, Docket 46, I may have mentioned, is
And, finally, Docket 48,

Those motions are granted.

Please note that it's not a motion for intervention, it's
simply authorization to file the amicus brief in this

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 78 of 125
1

particular question.

2

Mr. Purcell.

3
4

MR. PURCELL:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Good afternoon.

In the weeks since President Trump signed the Executive

5

Order at issue here, six federal judges around the country

6

have enjoined or stayed parts of it in response to action by

7

particular plaintiffs, finding a likelihood of success on the

8

merits of the challenges.

9

Minnesota are asking you to do the same here today and to

10
11

The states of Washington and

enjoin the parts of the order that we challenge.
The order is illegal and is causing serious immediate

12

harms to our states, to our state institutions, and to our

13

people, and enjoining the order is overwhelmingly in the

14

public interest.

15

standard for a temporary restraining order, I won't waste

16

your time.

So, you're familiar, of course, with the

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. PURCELL:

You can dispense with that.
I want to first address the likelihood

19

of success on the merits, including the threshold issues that

20

the government has raised, including standing, deference to

21

national security interests, and the facial versus as-applied

22

nature of the challenge.

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. PURCELL:

25

THE COURT:

5

Well, let me try and derail you here.
Sure.
I'd like to take this in terms of equal

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 79 of 125
1

protection first.

2

MR. PURCELL:

3

THE COURT:

Okay.
And, in particular, how does the equal

4

protection claim apply to all of the order, which is the

5

120-day-part found in paragraph or Section 5A.

6

ban discriminate in any way, or violate equal protection,

7

when it's an across-the-board ban?

8
9

MR. PURCELL:

How does this

You're talking about as to refugees?

So, our claim about refugees is primarily that it is

10

religiously motivated discrimination, and that the order is,

11

in large part, motivated by religious animus.

12

doesn't require us to show that everyone harmed by the order

13

is of a particular faith, it just requires us to show that

14

part of the motivation for issuing the order was religious

15

discrimination.

16

THE COURT:

So that

Then I'm going to try to put words in

17

your mouth.

18

making an equal protection challenge to the refugee ban?

19

Are you telling me, then, that you are not

MR. PURCELL:

I would say, Your Honor, that we have a

20

-- I would say the focus there is on the religious

21

discrimination aspect.

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. PURCELL:

24
25

6

We're going to get there next.
Okay.

Would you like me to address

that further?
THE COURT:

No.

Let's move on to my second question

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 80 of 125
1

on equal protection, then.

2

MR. PURCELL:

3

THE COURT:

Okay.
Do refugees or visa holders that have

4

never physically entered the country have equal protection

5

rights under the constitution?

6

MR. PURCELL:

Your Honor, that is not the focus of

7

our claim.

I think the answer is probably no.

But they do

8

have rights to some constitutional protections.

9

certainly their friends and family who are here -- and we're

And

10

just talking about refugees now, not aliens, for example, who

11

might have been sponsored by a university or something like

12

that to come here.

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. PURCELL:

Right.
Our claim is that -- our claim is

15

primarily focused on the people who are here or have been

16

here and left, their families, their employers and the

17

institutions here.

18

THE COURT:

All right.

Has any court ever set aside

19

an immigration law or regulation on equal protection grounds

20

based on rational review?

21

centerpiece, but you've pled it and so you're going to get

22

questioned about it.

23

MR. PURCELL:

I understand it's not the

We did plead it, and that's just fine,

24

Your Honor.

I was planning to start this morning with due

25

process -- or this afternoon -- but equal protection is just

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

7

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 81 of 125
1
2

8

fine.
I am not aware of an immigration order being set aside on

3

equal protection grounds.

On the other hand, I'm not aware

4

of any Executive Order quite like this one, that there's so

5

much evidence, before there's even been any discovery, that

6

it was motivated by animus, religiously targeted, and just

7

utterly divorced from the stated purposes of the order.

8

I'm happy to talk about that more in terms of -- the

9

government is asking for an extraordinary level of deference

And

10

here, essentially saying that you can't really look at what

11

were the real motives for the order; you can't test its

12

legality.

13

factually.

And we just think that's wrong, legally and

14

And if you'll spare me for just a minute, indulge me for

15

just a minute and let me -- there's three -- there's a legal

16

point and a factual point.

17

review executive action that has to do with national security

18

for constitutional violations.

19

Hamdi, Hamdan, Boumediene, the Supreme Court routinely

20

reviews -- you know, those were cases involving enemy

21

combatants being held offshore.

22

largely involves people who have been here, long-time

23

residents who still live here and have lost rights.

24

we're asking the court to review that claim.

25

The legal point is courts often

If you look at cases like

Here we have a case that

And

They also suggest, Your Honor, at page 21 to 22 of their

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 82 of 125
1

brief, based on a case called Kleindienst and Kerry v. Din,

2

that you can't sort of look behind the stated purposes of the

3

order.

4

legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding an alien, the

5

court will not look behind that reason.

6

They say that if the President gives a facially

But there's two fundamental problems with that argument,

7

Your Honor.

First of all, those cases dealt with the

8

President's power to exclude aliens who were not here, had

9

not been here, and had no right to come back.

That is not

10

this case, where we have a case involving people who have

11

been here, have rights to remain here and rights to return.

12

And in Justice Kennedy and Alito's concurring opinion in

13

that Kerry v. Din case, which is a controlling opinion, they

14

held that they would look behind stated motives, even for

15

exclusion of someone who had never been here, if the

16

plaintiff plausibly alleged with sufficient particularity an

17

affirmative showing of bad faith.

18

Din opinion.

19

the Cardenas opinion, 826 F.3d, 1164.

20
21

And that's at 2141 of the

And the Ninth Circuit endorsed that standard in

THE COURT:

Well, let me stop because we'll keep in

this area.

22

MR. PURCELL:

23

THE COURT:

Okay.
Do you not see some distinction between

24

election campaign statements and then subsequently an

25

election and then an Executive Order which is issued with

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

9

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 83 of 125

10

1

comment at the time the Executive Order is issued?

2

to me that it's a bit of a reach to say:

3

clearly anti-Muslim or anti-Islam, based on what he said in

4

New Hampshire in June.

5

MR. PURCELL:

It seems

The President is

Well, Your Honor, it might go to the

6

weight to give the evidence, I suppose.

7

it's sort of off the table, especially given that we're only

8

a week into -- well, two weeks now, I suppose, but the order

9

was issued a week after the campaign -- well, after the

10

But I don't think

President took office.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. PURCELL:

Inauguration.
After the inauguration, I'm sorry.

So

13

it's not as though those are completely irrelevant.

14

moreover -- and, again, this is before any discovery -- we

15

have the President's advisor saying on national television

16

that, you know, the President asked him to come up with a

17

Muslim ban -- this was after the election -- asked him to

18

come up with a Muslim ban in a way that would make it legal.

19

And that that's what they did.

20
21

THE COURT:

Does the Executive Order mention the word

"Islamic" or "Muslim?"

22

MR. PURCELL:

And

Let's stay on religious grounds.
No, it does not, Your Honor.

It does

23

not.

But when we're arguing about religiously motivated

24

targeting, again, the burden is not to prove that it affects

25

every single person of the Islamic faith.

The burden is to

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 84 of 125

11

1

prove that a desire to discriminate based on religion was one

2

motivating factor in the adoption of the order.

3

And, again, we're at the pleading stage, four days after

4

having filed our complaint, no discovery, and there's already

5

an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that that's the

6

case, that it was, at least in part, motivated by religion.

7

Going back briefly just to the national security.

Part of

8

the evidence of that, Your Honor, is that the tie to the

9

stated purpose of national security is so tenuous here.

I

10

mean, the President apparently had not decided whether the

11

order applied to lawful permanent residents before it was

12

issued.

13

permanent residents from these seven listed countries in the

14

United States.

15

our safety or they're not.

16

about that five times since Friday.

17

said that it did apply to them, and many of those people were

18

excluded from returning to the country.

19

of Homeland Security reiterated that it applied to them.

20

Then the Secretary said that it didn't.

21

all in our complaint, by the way -- and then the White House

22

spokesperson said it did not.

23

counsel has now issued authoritative guidance, whatever that

24

means, that although there could have been reasonable

25

confusion about what the order meant, it wasn't meant to

And there's 500,000, roughly 500,000 lawful

Either those people are an enormous threat to
And they've changed their mind
You know, first they

Then the Department

And then -- this is

And then the White House

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 85 of 125
1
2

12

cover those people.
So the point is, if they were an enormous security risk,

3

you would think that they would have made up their mind about

4

that before issuing the order.

5

And the second point, Your Honor --

6

THE COURT:

7

MR. PURCELL:

8

THE COURT:

9

Well, before we leave that one.
Yeah.
What do you say to the argument that the

seven countries that were designated -- and I'll quote the

10

language -- have been designated as, "Countries the

11

government of which has repeatedly provided support for acts

12

of international terrorism under 8 U.S.C. 1187."

13

that provide a rational basis for the Executive Order?

14

MR. PURCELL:

Wouldn't

Your Honor, that would provide a cover,

15

in our view, for -- that was maybe one motivating factor.

16

But when you look at the standard of proving a religious

17

discrimination claim, again, you can't just accept at face

18

value the stated purposes.

19

there's even been any discovery, there's so much evidence

20

that it was not targeted at the concerns stated.

21

order applies to infants, it applies to senior citizens, it

22

applies to students and faculty at our state universities who

23

have never been accused of any wrongdoing.

24
25

Especially where again, before

I mean, the

The main point I guess I'm getting at here is that the
idea that you just can't review, can't review the real

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 86 of 125
1

reasons for this order, or even ask whether there are real

2

reasons beyond what is stated, is just not supported by the

3

case law.

4

government is saying you cannot look behind the stated

5

reasons, and we're saying that you can.

6

support that argument that they're making.

7
8
9

So we're asking you to -- the main point is, the

THE COURT:

The case law doesn't

Would you agree with me that it is only

Section 5 that mentions religion?
MR. PURCELL:

It's only Section 5 that mentions

10

religion.

11

part, motivated by religion.

12

THE COURT:

We would say it's not only Section 5 that is, in

And the part of that is this resumption

13

of the refugee program after, I think it's 90 days for that

14

provision.

15

minority religion in a country."

16

clause cause of action then extend beyond Section 5?

17

13

Then it says, minority -- "Practicers of a

MR. PURCELL:

Does your establishment

I think our establishment clause claim

18

is focused on that section.

But I think that both three and

19

five are motivated in part, our allegation is, by preferring

20

one religious view over another.

21

cited in our brief makes clear that you don't need to have a

22

distinction between named religions on the face of the order

23

for it to be an establishment clause violation.

24

it didn't name any religions.

25

different religious groups would qualify for a tax exemption.

The Larson case that's

In that case

It just set standards for how

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 87 of 125

14

1

And the court said that, combined with the effects on the

2

religious groups, was enough.

3
4

Your Honor, I want to spend some time on our due process
claim.

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. PURCELL:

7

THE COURT:

8

MR. PURCELL:

9
10
11

Okay.

Excellent.

Trust me.
Okay.

And also standing.

But if I

could turn to the due process claim.
THE COURT:

Well, before you go there, let's finish

establishment.

12

MR. PURCELL:

13

THE COURT:

14

We're going to get there.

Okay.
5(b) isn't implemented for, I think it's

100 days.

15

MR. PURCELL:

16

THE COURT:

Um-hum.
Why should I take this up at this time,

17

as opposed to, if you're coming back on a motion for

18

preliminary injunction, deal with it when it's somewhat more

19

concrete?

20

MR. PURCELL:

Well, Your Honor, we're asking you to

21

temporarily restrain what we thought was a narrow subset of

22

the categories that we thought were motivated by these

23

unconstitutional -- that violated the constitution.

24

want to have further thought about whether -- so we're

25

suggesting that the action itself of banning the refugees,

If you

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 88 of 125

15

1

and the Syrian refugees indefinitely, and the selection of

2

the countries, was partially religiously motivated.

3

want to wait to rule on whether 5(b) itself, and that

4

favoritism approach going forward is a constitutional

5

violation, I suppose that would be fine.

6

does not necessarily require immediate injunction.

7

is evidence, I think that provision is evidence, of the

8

religious underpinnings of the order.

9
10
11

THE COURT:

All right.

If you

We're not -- that
But that

Why don't you move on to due

process, since I've used up a fair chunk of your time.
MR. PURCELL:

So I think the most obvious way in

12

which the order violates the constitution is its violation of

13

the due process clause.

14

everyone in this country, including immigrants.

15

of cases make that clear.

16

THE COURT:

The due process clause protects
And a number

So is it your position that refugees and

17

other aliens who are presently outside the country are

18

covered by due process?

19

MR. PURCELL:

Your Honor, the Supreme Court has said

20

that aliens who are not in the country and have never been

21

here, the only process they're entitled to is what Congress

22

provides.

23

our claim.

24

here and have, overnight, lost the right to travel, lost the

25

right to visit their families, lost the right to go perform

So we're not -- again, they're not the focus of
The focus of our claim is on people who have been

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 89 of 125
1

research, lost the right to go speak at conferences around

2

the world.

3

time and happened to be overseas at the time of this order,

4

which came with no warning whatsoever, and suddenly lost the

5

right to return to the United States.

6

16

And also people who had lived here for a long

So there's a series of cases, and we cited some of these

7

in our brief, Your Honor, but I'd like to -- given that

8

there's only been a short time since the government's filing,

9

I direct you to cases like Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21.

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. PURCELL:

You might want to slow down a little bit.
Sorry.

Landon, 459 U.S. 21, Rosenberg,

12

374 U.S. 449, that make very clear that people who have lived

13

here legally for some period of time and then leave

14

temporarily, are protected by the due process clause in

15

attempting to return, and cannot have their right to return

16

taken away without some sort of process.

17

And that's effectively what happened here to thousands of

18

people in Washington, including hundreds of students at our

19

state universities, and faculty.

20

no process whatsoever, lost these important rights that they

21

had.

22
23

They just overnight, with

Now, the federal government -THE COURT:

A case from your list of cases is

24

Katzenbach, which the government cites extensively for the

25

proposition that you've lost that argument.

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 90 of 125
1

MR. PURCELL:

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. PURCELL:

17

Right.
How do you respond to that?
Well, they're wrong, Your Honor, for a

4

number of reasons.

5

that case because we're a state.

6

state as state, as we made clear in our standing brief, our

7

claim is the state as proprietor and the state as parens

8

patriae on behalf of the people of the state.

9

as a proprietor, I think is the obvious way that that

10
11

First of all, so they say we can't cite
But our claim is not the

So the state

argument of theirs is incorrect, Your Honor.
We are asserting the due process rights on behalf of the

12

people of the state who are harmed, and on behalf of the

13

state institutions that they attend.

14

University of Washington and Washington State University, as

15

well as our community colleges, are arms of the state.

16

very clear under state law they're arms of the state.

17

on their behalf.

18

denied due process rights pursuant to this order.

19

So, for example, the

It's
We sue

And their students and faculty are being

And if you look at cases like Pierce v. Society of

20

Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and the cases cited in footnote three

21

of our standing brief, it's very clear that schools and

22

universities have standing to bring challenges based on harms

23

to their students.

24

standing to bring a due process claim.

25

So that's the first way in which we have

Second, Katzenbach, of course, is before Massachusetts v.

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 91 of 125

18

1

EPA and before the significant change in parens patriae

2

standing that that case announced, as detailed in the amicus

3

brief of the law professors and as explained in

4

Massachusetts v. EPA itself.

5

out of Puerto Rico cited in our briefing, makes it very clear

6

that states can bring parens patriae claims asserting

7

discrimination sort of causes of action.

8

Massachusetts v. EPA makes it very clear that the sort of

9

Katzenbach-Mellon limitations on state standing have been

10
11
12
13

So the Snapp decision, the case

And then

scaled back, if not eliminated altogether.
THE COURT:

What's your view of the Fifth Circuit

opinion in United States v. Texas?
MR. PURCELL:

Well, it is a strong basis for standing

14

here as well.

15

Act claim.

16

claim here.

17

temporary restraining order motion.

18

a number of claims actually, in our complaint, that we think

19

we're likely to prevail on, that we just didn't have time or

20

space to brief in the 48 hours and 24 pages of the temporary

21

restraining order motion.

22

That was primarily an Administrative Procedure

And we do have an Administrative Procedure Act
We didn't have space or time to brief it in our
And I should say there's

And that's one of them, Your Honor.

And that case makes

23

very clear that the harms to the state that we're suffering

24

here are sufficient to generate standing in a proprietary

25

capacity.

There the state was arguing, essentially, added

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 92 of 125
1

driver's license costs that were sort of unspecified, the

2

exact amount.

3

tax revenue, harms to our state universities in terms of

4

wasted money that was spent sponsoring people to come here

5

and teach and perform research, wasted money that was spent

6

buying tickets for people who will no longer be able to go

7

and speak or research at conferences, a wide range of

8

proprietary harms, Your Honor, that do suffice under U.S. v.

9

Texas to show standing.

10

And here we have claimed, very clearly, lost

THE COURT:

Let's go to the INA claim, and then leave

11

you some time to actually talk to me.

12

of action under Section 8 U.S.C. 1152 (a)(1)(A)?

13

19

MR. PURCELL:

Do states have a right

Your Honor, I'm sorry, I honestly do

14

not have a good answer to that question.

I think we can

15

assert -- we should be allowed to assert the rights of our

16

people here as parens patriae who are harmed by

17

discrimination, the nationality discrimination embodied in

18

this order.

19

primarily supplements our other claims by showing that this

20

action, the President's action here, is not endorsed by

21

Congress.

22

It's actually contrary to what Congress has said about how

23

these sorts of decisions are supposed to be made, which

24

further undermines the federal government's argument to

25

deference to the President's decisionmaking in this context.

But the INA -- I think I would say our INA claim

It's not consistent with congressional directives.

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 93 of 125
1
2

THE COURT:

All right.

I

won't ask you any more questions.

3

MR. PURCELL:

4

you ask me questions.

5

You've got ten minutes.

20

Your Honor, I'm perfectly happy to have

So I guess, first of all, I want to overall emphasize that

6

we have two distinct bases for standing here in terms of our

7

proprietary interests, the harms to the University of

8

Washington, Washington State University, our other state

9

colleges and universities, and then our parens patriae claim.

10
11

Those are real harms in both senses.
The federal government really has offered no meaningful

12

response to our claims of proprietary harm to the

13

universities.

14

insufficient, in some of their pleading, but all the cases

15

they cite predate Massachusetts v. EPA, and they're

16

inconsistent with, for example, the Fifth Circuit's approach

17

in U.S. v. Texas.

18

licenses is sufficient to generate standing, there's no

19

reason why the lost revenue of losing visitors who would come

20

here and spend money should be insufficient to generate

21

standing.

22

of the same coin.

I know they've claimed that tax harms are

If the added cost of issuing driver's

More revenue versus less revenue, it's two sides

23

And as to the universities, the federal government claims

24

that these harms are "illusory" because most of the people we

25

allege who will be affected actually won't be.

But there's

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 94 of 125
1

just no evidence to support that.

2

their position has changed five times.

3

ill intent towards counsel.

4

control over this.

5

about what the Executive Order means has changed repeatedly

6

since the order was issued.

7

long-term lawful permanent residents or doesn't apply to

8

them.

9

event, we have hundreds of students and faculty at our

21

So they say now -- again,
And I don't mean any

I know they don't have any

But the federal government's position

And so now they say it protects

But that wasn't their initial position.

And in any

10

universities who are here on visas who -- again, overnight --

11

lost the right to travel for any number of purposes or to

12

return to the country.

13

The only other point I'd make, Your Honor, they make much

14

of the idea that this is a facial challenge, we can't show

15

that it's illegal in all applications.

16

Your Honor.

17

-- in analyzing whether something is a facial or as-applied

18

challenge, you look at whether it's a challenge to the

19

entirety of the action or to parts of it.

20

like Hoye v. Oakland, 653 F.3d 835.

And that's incorrect,

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that when

And that's cases

21

Here we're challenging only parts of the Executive Order.

22

It's very clear that this is an as-applied challenge to parts

23

of the order.

24

every application.

25

Your Honor, in oral argument.

We don't need to show it's unconstitutional in
I apologize for citing so many cases,
I don't normally do that.

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 95 of 125

22

1

It's just that, of course, we had no opportunity to file a

2

response in only a short period of time from when they filed.

3

And the last thing I'd say, Your Honor, for now -- and

4

then I'd just like to reserve the remainder of my time -- is

5

that the establishment clause.

6

of the original purposes of it was to protect the states

7

against the federal government choosing a national religion

8

and imposing it on the states.

9

would not have standing to challenge a national government --

The establishment clause, one

So the idea that the state

10

well, the President, anyway, expressing a preference is just

11

-- it makes no sense.

12

And, again, you know, I can't cite you to a case where a

13

state sued the federal government over an establishment cause

14

violation, but I also can't cite you to an Executive Order

15

ever before quite like this one or the circumstances that we

16

are facing today.

17

So I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time and just

18

conclude by saying, the question is likelihood of success,

19

irreparable harm, and the balance of equities.

20

shown a strong likelihood of success, as the other courts

21

have ruled.

22

temporarily.

We feel we've

And we'd ask you to enjoin this order
Thank you, Your Honor.

23

THE COURT:

24

MS. BENNETT:

25

THE COURT:

Ms. Bennett, are you arguing?
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you for coming.

I thought your

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 96 of 125
1

brief was extremely well done.

2

MS. BENNETT:

3

23

It was helpful.

Thank you, Your Honor.

May it please the court.

Your Honor, for some of the

4

reasons we mentioned we think we have very good reasons why

5

the state is not likely to prevail on the merits.

6

like to start with standing, which I think distinguishes this

7

case from some of the other cases that have been filed around

8

the country.

9

THE COURT:

But I'd

Well, let's concentrate on standing.

10

Tell me why you think that the Fifth Circuit is wrong, in

11

what seemed to be fairly marginal circumstances, and they

12

strongly come out, without hesitation or doubt, to find

13

standing?

14

MS. BENNETT:

15

the Fifth Circuit's decision.

16

case would be distinguishable.

17

because we do think it has to be a particularized impact on

18

the state.

19

the state itself had injury.

20

parens patriae capacity.

21

Well, Your Honor, we do disagree with
Of course we also think that
We disagree with the decision

In United States v. Texas, the court found that

THE COURT:

It wasn't an injury in its

And it was basically that the --

Let me stop you.

In the State of

22

Washington, and I can't speak to Minnesota, but both the

23

University of Washington and Washington State are considered

24

parts of the state government.

25

direct consequences, damages to them.

And they've cited a litany of
That's compared to,

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 97 of 125
1

24

what, the $13.40 in Texas for issuing a driver's license?

2

MS. BENNETT:

Well, Your Honor, in Texas it was a

3

monetary injury, right?

4

talks about to its universities, in particular, are

5

reputational harm or that students won't come there, that it

6

will undermine their diversity.

7

that define lack of diversity at a university, or something

8

like that, even assuming they could prove that as an injury.

9

THE COURT:

Here the injuries that the state

They don't cite any cases

I don't think that's their argument.

10

think they're talking about direct financial harm in their

11

declarations.

12

MS. BENNETT:

I

I mean, I don't read them that way,

13

Your Honor.

I didn't see any sort of calculations of

14

financial harm like there were in Texas.

15

faculty members that might not be able to teach; although

16

most of those were lawful permanent residents that actually

17

were not affected by the order.

18

possibility of some students that might not be able to

19

travel.

20

the only place that I saw numbers of monetary losses was in

21

their allegations about lost tax revenue.

22

explained in our brief, those are -- lots of courts have

23

recognized that sort of generalized grievances like that are

24

not cognizable injuries, analogizing it to the

25

taxpayer-standing context.

They talked about

They talked about the

Most of it was very speculative.

I didn't see --

And as we

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 98 of 125
1

THE COURT:

25

If I have a student who is admitted to

2

one of those two universities, who is in a country who is now

3

unable to come to the United States, enroll and pay tuition,

4

is that not a direct financial harm?

5

MS. BENNETT:

Your Honor, we don't think it's a

6

direct financial harm to the state.

7

perhaps given the circumstances, and it would depends on the

8

circumstances, could be a harm to the individual.

9

THE COURT:

We think it's -- I mean,

But the --

No, they're benefitting, they're not

10

paying that outrageous tuition.

11

University of Washington, part of the State of Washington, or

12

Washington State, part of the State of Washington, who are

13

not receiving these dollars from this student who, under the

14

Executive Order, can't get into the United States.

15

MS. BENNETT:

You know, it's the

Well, Your Honor, I mean, first of all,

16

I'll point out that I'm not sure they make those allegations

17

of a specific student.

18

that injury is too far down the chain of causation.

19

it's an incidental impact.

20

standing in that circumstance, it's hard to imagine a federal

21

law or a federal action that wouldn't in some way down the

22

line have effect on states, which would essentially allow

23

states to sue to challenge any federal law if they could

24

point to a way in which some individual was affected by the

25

law because it applied to them, and then that individual, the

But I would also say that we think
That

And if Your Honor were to find

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 99 of 125
1

effect on that individual had some effect on the state.

2

we think that that's too expansive of a definition of

3

standing.

4

THE COURT:

26

And

Well, the odd couple of the Fifth Circuit

5

in their opinion in United States v. Texas, that seems to me

6

to, you know, basically follow the lines of what you just

7

said is improper.

8

MS. BENNETT:

Well, Your Honor, as I said, we

9

respectfully disagree with the Fifth Circuit's decision and

10

note, of course, as Your Honor knows, that you're not bound

11

by that decision.

12

Plaintiffs haven't cited anything in the Ninth Circuit

13

that relies on that sort of injury.

14

briefs, some of the cases they cited, I believe the one

15

school case that they cite involved a bank that had

16

terminated its loan guarantee program with the school.

17

that was a more direct effect on the school.

18

the government is not regulating in any way the school.

19

government's interactions are with individuals.

20

are, perhaps, down-the-line consequences on the state,

21

although we think many of those, if not all of them, are

22

speculative.

23

THE COURT:

As we explained in the

So

Whereas here
The

And they

Let me move you off of standing, if you

24

would.

Given the breadth of authority of the Executive in

25

the area of immigration, do you acknowledge any limitation on

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 100 of 125
1

his or her power?

2
3

MS. BENNETT:

Your Honor, I don't think Your Honor

needs to answer that question to decide on this case.

4

THE COURT:

5

MS. BENNETT:

No, but it seemed like a good question.
I don't think it would be wise to sort

6

of opine on what the extent of the Executive's power is.

7

Here we have specific circumstances where the President has

8

issued this Executive Order.

9

that Congress gave him in Section 212(f) of the INA that

It was pursuant to authority

10

specifically allows him to suspend the entry of certain

11

aliens or class of aliens when he finds that it would be

12

detrimental to the interests of the United States to allow

13

them in.

14

So here we have the President acting pursuant to power

15

that Congress gave him, which means, under the Youngstown

16

Steel seizure cases, he's acting at the apex of his power.

17

And the Executive Order, as Your Honor mentioned, is

18

tied -- the countries that it applies to -- is tied to

19

countries that Congress previously, for two of them,

20

explicitly designated as countries of concern, and that

21

Congress designated authority to the President to -- or,

22

sorry, to federal agencies, to designate other countries.

23

27

And under the prior administration, the remaining five

24

countries were designated as areas of concern.

And so we

25

think in the context of, certainly in the context of this

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 101 of 125
1

case, the President is acting well within his -- the

2

authority that Congress has given him.

3

not opine on what he may or may not be able to do beyond

4

that.

5

28

And Your Honor need

Your Honor, with respect to the plaintiffs' argument that

6

the President's authority is somehow limited by Section

7

1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA, as we explained in our briefing, we

8

don't read that as a limitation on the President's expansive

9

power under 212(f).

As we noted in our briefs, there have

10

been other presidents that have exercised the power in 212(f)

11

in ways that distinguish between nationalities, as the

12

President has done here.

13

We also mentioned that these distinctions between

14

nationalities were made explicitly by Congress in 8 U.S.C.

15

1187.

16

to here.

17

limitation on the President's power.

18

That's what the President has tied the Executive Order
And so we don't understand 1152(a) as imposing a

If it did, as we pointed out in our brief, you can imagine

19

a situation where basically that provision would prevent the

20

President from suspending the entry of aliens from countries

21

that the United States has to be at war with.

22

think that's a fair reading of the statute.

23

212(f) applies in situations where the President has made the

24

determination that the entry of certain aliens would be

25

detrimental to the United States, and situations where

And we don't
So we think that

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 102 of 125

29

1

that -- when that determination has not been made, then the

2

other provision in 1152 applies to prevent these

3

discrimination -- to bar certain types of discrimination in

4

the issuance of immigrant visas.

5

THE COURT:

I'd like to move you along to equal

6

protection if we can.

7

MS. BENNETT:

8

THE COURT:

9
10
11

doesn't apply.

Sure.
You strongly urge that strict scrutiny

Can it ever apply in the immigration context,

in the government's view?
MS. BENNETT:

Your Honor, again, I hesitate to opine

12

on whether it can ever apply as opposed to whether it applies

13

under the circumstances of this case.

14

clear that distinctions based on nationality, which is what

15

this Executive Order does, in the immigration context, are

16

completely valid and legitimate and do not violate the

17

Constitution.

18

equal protection violation.

19

The courts have made

And so in the context of this case, there's no

With respect to the argument of religious discrimination.

20

Again, it's a little bit confusing whether the -- exactly

21

what the state's religious discrimination claim is.

22

understand it to be limited to Section 5 of the Executive

23

Order, which is about refugees.

24

reasons Your Honor mentioned, we think the claim is unripe.

25

But it also -- that provision doesn't discriminate against

We

And in that context, for

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 103 of 125
1

30

religion.

2

THE COURT:

3

it favors one over another.

4

MS. BENNETT:

Well, no.

It may not discriminate, but

It doesn't, Your Honor.

It sets up a

5

system -- it doesn't even set up a system.

It says, 120 days

6

from now, once the suspension of the refugee program is back

7

on track, that the executive branch, the Secretary of

8

Homeland Security and Secretary of State, are to make changes

9

to the extent permitted by law to the prioritized refugee

10

claims based on religious-based persecution where the

11

religion is a minority religion in that individual's country

12

of nationality.

13

And, Your Honor, that provision doesn't just apply to the

14

seven countries that are designated in Section 3 of the

15

order.

16

that, while it might be true that the seven countries are

17

majority of Muslims, there are other countries where Islam

18

would not be the majority religion.

19

the minority religion might be Islam.

20

It applies to all countries.

THE COURT:

So you can imagine

And in those contexts

But under the establishment cases, I

21

think you're arguing against your own position, aren't you?

22

What you're saying is, in any particular country we're going

23

to reward someone for belonging to a particular faith or

24

practicing a particular faith.

25

MS. BENNETT:

Well, Your Honor, I don't think we're

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 104 of 125

31

1

saying that.

2

permitted asylum claims or other types of claims in the

3

immigration context based on religious persecution.

4

government is not doing anything different than what it's

5

already done.

6

essentially accommodating religion, which the government has

7

always done.

8
9

The government has long prioritized or

So the

It's not about the particular religion, it's

But as Your Honor -- as we said before, this is something
that the President has directed executive agencies to look

10

into this matter going forward.

11

until 120 days passes, but we think even beyond that, because

12

until it's actually implemented we don't know what it's going

13

to look like, that there's no establishment-cause problem.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

And so until -- certainly

I think I understand your

15

argument.

16

same thing, trying to leave you some time to just talk as

17

opposed to being interrupted.

18

Let's talk about Section 3.

I'm going to do the

The rationale for Section 3 is invoking 9/11.

And my

19

question to you is:

Have there been terrorist attacks in the

20

United States by refugees or other immigrants from the seven

21

countries listed, since 9/11?

22

MS. BENNETT:

Your Honor, I don't know the specific

23

details of attacks or planned attacks.

I think -- I will

24

point out, first of all, that the rationale for the order was

25

not only 9/11, it was to protect the United States from the

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 105 of 125
1

32

potential for terrorism.

2

I will also note that the seven countries that are listed

3

in the Executive Order are the same seven countries that were

4

already subject to other restrictions in obtaining visas that

5

Congress put in place, both by naming countries, Syria and

6

Iraq, and that the prior administration put in place by

7

designating them as places where terrorism is likely to

8

occur, or -- the specific factors are whether the presence in

9

a particular country increases the likelihood that an alien

10

is a credible threat to U.S. security or an area that is a

11

safe haven for terrorists.

12
13

THE COURT:

Well, let me walk you back, then.

You're

from the Department of Justice, if I understand correctly?

14

MS. BENNETT:

15

THE COURT:

Yes.
So you're aware of law enforcement.

How

16

many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those

17

seven countries since 9/11?

18

MS. BENNETT:

19

information.

20

me off the hook.

21

Your Honor, I don't have that

I'm from the civil division if that helps get

THE COURT:

Let me tell you.

The answer to that is

22

none, as best I can tell.

So, I mean, you're here arguing on

23

behalf of someone that says:

24

States from these individuals coming from these countries,

25

and there's no support for that.

We have to protect the United

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 106 of 125
1

MS. BENNETT:

33

Your Honor, I think the point is that

2

because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this

3

is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the

4

President to make these determinations, it's the President

5

that gets to make the determinations.

6

have authority to look behind those determinations.

7

essentially like determinations that are committed to agency

8

discretion.

9

And the court doesn't
They're

And we do think that -- despite plaintiffs' claim -- that

10

Kleindienst v. Mandel is directly on point.

11

corners of the Executive Order offer a facially legitimate

12

and bona fide reason for it, which they do here, that the

13

court can't look behind that.

14

THE COURT:

And if the four

Well, counsel, I understand that from

15

your papers, and you very forcefully presented that argument.

16

But I'm also asked to look and determine if the Executive

17

Order is rationally based.

18

implies that to some extent I have to find it grounded in

19

facts as opposed to fiction.

20

MS. BENNETT:

And rationally based to me

Well, Your Honor, we actually don't

21

think you are supposed to look at whether it's rationally

22

based.

23

legitimate, and that there are some cases that say the court

24

would have to find it wholly irrational.

25

Honor, I would point to the fact that Congress itself has

We think that the standard is, again, facially

And again, Your

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 107 of 125
1

specifically designated two of these countries as areas of

2

concern with respect to terrorism.

3

Administration, the executive branch, designated the

4

remaining five.

5

is, in that regard, saying anything new about these being

6

countries of concern as it regards terrorism.

7

And the Obama

And so it's not that this Executive Order

THE COURT:

Well, let's go back to something you were

8

starting to get around to when I interrupted you.

9

going to argue Katzenbach.

10
11
12
13
14

MS. BENNETT:

You were

Isn't that just classic dicta?

Your Honor, I think to the extent

you're talking about that states -THE COURT:

I'm talking about the language you quote

in your brief.
MS. BENNETT:

Well, I mean, we also, I think, cited

15

that case for the idea that states don't have parens patriae

16

standing.

17

process rights, we cite other cases in our brief.

18

that it's a well-established -- the Fifth Amendment applies

19

to persons, and cases established that the state is not a

20

person in that regard.

21

process rights to assert.

22

But for the idea that states don't have due

THE COURT:

Massachusetts v. EPA?

24

MS. BENNETT:
was a standing case.

I think

And so the state doesn't have due

Well then how do I reconcile that with

23

25

34

Your Honor, Massachusetts v. EPA, which
Right?

So there the facts were very

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 108 of 125

35

1

specific.

There you had two factors that the court found

2

relevant.

One, you had an actual injury to the territorial

3

sovereignty of Massachusetts.

4

global warming actually affected the territory of

5

Massachusetts, its coastline, an area that was owned by the

6

state.

7

explicitly given states and other parties a procedural right,

8

when someone petitioned the EPA to look into global warming

9

and the EPA denied that petition, then Congress created a

The court talked about how

And the second factor was that Congress had

10

procedural mechanism for that person to challenge that

11

decision.

12

So the court said, in an area where the state has an

13

injury-in-fact, it's an injury to its territorial sovereignty

14

and these explicit procedural rights, that there's standing.

15

And neither one of those circumstances are present here.

16

Washington, of course, doesn't allege any injury to its

17

territorial sovereignty.

18

alleged injuries are sort of incidental.

19
20
21

THE COURT:

It doesn't -- you know, its other

Explain to me what you mean by the term

"territorial sovereignty."
MS. BENNETT:

Injury to its territory.

So it's

22

pollution of its rivers, for example, pollution of its

23

coastline, pollution of its land.

24
25

THE COURT:

So the federal government can do whatever

it wanted to people who live here, and as long as the land is

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 109 of 125
1
2

36

not damaged, there's no harm or there's no cause of action?
MS. BENNETT:

Well, Your Honor, I mean, I wouldn't

3

make a statement that broad.

4

would make here is that when the federal government regulates

5

individuals, and there are sort of speculative downstream

6

effects that might affect the state in terms of lost revenue

7

and stuff like that, cases have said no, that that's not

8

sufficient.

9

Massachusetts.

10

I think that the statement I

That it's not sufficiently direct as it was in

THE COURT:

All right.

Before I run out of all your

11

time also, what limits does 1152(a)(1)(A) place on the

12

Executive?

13

MS. BENNETT:

Your Honor, we think -- so, in terms of

14

when, as I was trying to explain before, in terms of when the

15

President has made a determination under Section 212(f) of

16

the INA, that entry of certain aliens should be suspended

17

because it would be detrimental to the United States

18

otherwise, we think that that trumps the 1152(a).

19

THE COURT:

Well, let's concentrate on that.

You

20

argue this in your brief that the Executive can classify

21

aliens by origin of birth or nationality.

22

a statute that says the classic anti-discrimination language.

23

How do I reconcile those two concepts?

24
25

MS. BENNETT:

And then there is

Your Honor, so we think that the

1152(a) only applies when the President has not made that

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 110 of 125
1

designation.

2

more --

3

37

And I will -- to sort of play this out a little

THE COURT:

Stop there.

Tell me what the authority

4

is for that argument.

5

don't give me any authority for it there; you just sort of

6

make the statement that, yes, that's our position.

7

understand where it comes from.

8
9

MS. BENNETT:

You make it in your briefing and you

Help me

I think the first principle would be

that the court is supposed to attempt to reconcile competing

10

provisions of a statute.

11

constitutional avoidance point.

12

in an area of his Article II powers in foreign affairs.

13

if the court were to find some sort of conflict between the

14

two, the court might run up against the constitutional

15

question of whether the President had authority to make

16

distinctions based on nationality.

17
18
19

THE COURT:

I think there's also, Your Honor, a
Here the President is acting
And

Or that the Executive is running up

against the law that Congress has passed.
MS. BENNETT:

Well, Your Honor, to the extent that

20

you're concerned about that, I would just note that Congress

21

itself, in the INA, makes those very same distinctions based

22

on nationality.

23

relying on here 11 -- 8 U.S.C. 1187, where it says that

24

different rules in terms of applying for visas apply to, and

25

it names two countries, Iraq and Syria, and then allows the

In the provision that the President is

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 111 of 125
1
2

38

President to designate others.
We think that a reading that says that 1152 applies, no

3

matter what, would trump that provision or would suggest that

4

that provision was invalid.

5

THE COURT:

I don't get a lot of chance to do

6

statutory interpretation.

7

a moment.

8

1182(f).

9
10
11

As I understand it, 1152(a) was promulgated after
Do you agree with that?

MS. BENNETT:
THE COURT:

MS. BENNETT:

13

THE COURT:

15

Yes, Your Honor.
And didn't Congress then have to, by

statutory construction, Congress had to be aware of 1182(f)?

12

14

But let's concentrate on that for

Yes, Your Honor.

That's right.

And in that particular provision it makes

a number of exceptions, but it does not except to 52.
MS. BENNETT:

Because we don't think Congress thought

16

it applied.

Again, this is a -- the 1152(a) is in a narrower

17

section of the statute that talks about creating a uniform

18

quota system for immigrant visas, for which people are going

19

to be allowed to come into this country.

20

that that's a narrower section of the statute and that the

21

President's broader authority -- again, Your Honor, I

22

hesitate to repeat this, but I think it's a good example.

23

mean, Your Honor, if this provision of 1152 trumped 212(f),

24

then the President would essentially be prohibited from

25

restricting the entry of aliens to a country at which the

And we just think

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

I

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 112 of 125
1

United States was at war.

2

Congress could have meant that.

3

THE COURT:

4

as you can get out of them.

5

And we just don't think that

You've shaken those bones about as much

Why shouldn't the court assume that Congress did not want

6

to except 1182(f) from the operation of 1151?

7

Justice Scalia has not been with us for a year, but it seems

8

that what you're running to now is, oh, all I have to do is

9

look at the legislative history and that must have been what

10
11

I mean,

they meant.
MS. BENNETT:

Well, I don't think Your Honor needs to

12

look at the legislative history.

13

text and the structure of the statute, that this broader

14

power authorizing the President to suspend the entry of any

15

aliens, or any class of aliens, supersedes this other

16

provision that otherwise would apply in the absence of that.

17

I think you can look at the

I would also note, Your Honor, that we also make

18

additional arguments in our brief about the procedural

19

exemption to 1152(a) and its narrowness as well.

20

think 212(f) trumps that provision.

21
22
23
24
25

39

THE COURT:

All right.

But we

You've got about six minutes

left, so I won't interrupt you either for a bit here.
MS. BENNETT:

Okay, Your Honor.

I'll just make a few more points.
largely what I wanted to cover.

Thank you.

I think I covered

But with respect to the

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 113 of 125
1

remaining two preliminary injunction factors, I would just

2

say that the state, we don't think they've established

3

standing and injury.

4

disagrees, they haven't shown irreparable harm.

5

process has sort of shown, the Executive Order sets up a

6

case-by-case -- or sets up a system where there can be

7

case-by-case waivers of specific exemptions.

8
9

40

But certainly even if Your Honor
As this

And so the idea that a state can come in and sort of sue
on behalf of all of its citizens without really sort of

10

playing out specific circumstances where it's been applied

11

unlawfully, we think that's not the proper avenue for a TRO.

12

Again, that certainly, perhaps, some of these individuals

13

could bring their own case and we'd have to look at the facts

14

of those cases.

15

Honor to enjoin this restraining order, or frankly even parts

16

of it, even provisions of it, we think that's a facial

17

challenge and that Your Honor can't do that in light of the

18

fact that it is lawful in some of its applications.

19

But as for this facial challenge, for Your

And then we would just point to the balance of the

20

equities, Your Honor, and note again that in this regard the

21

President was acting pursuant to congressional authority, at

22

the height of his power, in the area of national security,

23

foreign affairs and immigration.

24
25

So we'd ask that Your Honor deny the TR0.
THE COURT:

Thank you.

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 114 of 125
1

MS. BENNETT:

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. PURCELL:

4

Thank you.
Mr. Purcell, you have about six minutes.
Thank you, Your Honor.

Just a few points.

First, the federal government has

5

argued that the harms to UW and WSU and their students and

6

faculty are abstract.

7

case.

8

stranded overseas, as they've stated in the declarations.

9

They have sponsored visas for people that are wasted because

That just couldn't be further from the

They have students and faculty who are literally

10

they are not going to be able to come.

11

time and expense to do that.

12

They went to great

This harm is much more direct and immediate than what was

13

happening in either Massachusetts v. EPA or Texas v. United

14

States.

15

that was challenged hadn't even taken effect yet.

16

even qualified for if yet.

17

road.

18

injunction.

19

can't get back to their universities.

20
21

41

In Texas v. United States the immigration program
No one had

The harm was a ways down the

And the court there still granted a preliminary
Here there's literally people stuck overseas who

THE COURT:

But the causes of action belong to them.

The state can't be exercising them on their behalf.

22

MR. PURCELL:

The universities and their students are

23

harmed by those harms, Your Honor.

It's the university that

24

spent the money to bring the people here who can no longer

25

come.

It's the university that went to the time and trouble

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 115 of 125
1

of sponsoring those scholars to come.

2

immediately.

3

stranded overseas may have their own claim, but that doesn't

4

mean that the state has no claim.

5

that clear, Your Honor.

6

And they're harmed

So perhaps, yes, certainly, the people who are

Massachusetts v. EPA makes

The federal government also talked about a Ninth Circuit

7

case not saying anything remotely like Texas v. United

8

States.

9

our standing brief, where the court found standing based on

We cited the City of Sausalito case on page two of

10

aesthetic harms to a local government that were not

11

quantified in any sort of monetary way.

12

You also asked me, Your Honor, if the court had ever

13

blocked part of an immigration order based on the equal

14

protection clause and due process clause, and my co-counsel

15

very helpfully pointed out that, in fact, two courts have

16

blocked parts of this order based on the equal protection

17

clause and due process clause.

18

orders.

19

42

And I can give you those

It's the Darweesh case out of the United States District,

20

Eastern District of New York.

21

January 28th -- sorry, that order was entered on January,

22

yes, 28th.

23

Tootkaboni case, out of the District of Massachusetts, issued

24

on January 29th.

25

That order was entered on

And the -- I'm going to butcher this name --

And both of those cases found that the petitioners had a

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 116 of 125

43

1

strong likelihood of success in establishing the violations

2

of the due process and the equal protection clause of the

3

United States Constitution.

4

me, but at least those two have found it on this order.

5

The next thing I'd say, Your Honor, is that the

I don't have all the orders with

6

religious-based claims, the federal government is trying to

7

limit those only to the refugee portions of the order.

8

position is broader than that, Your Honor.

9

three and part five were motivated, in part, by desire to

Our

We're saying part

10

target a particular, unpopular religious group, Muslims, and

11

that that undermines the basis for both of those sections.

12

Your Honor helpfully pointed out that the Katzenbach

13

language is dicta.

14

absolutely right.

15

position about the standard of review here is frightening.

16

mean, they're basically saying that you can't review anything

17

about what the President does or says, as long as he says

18

it's for national security reasons.

19

the law.

20

I'm sorry I didn't say that, but you're
And, frankly, the federal government's
I

And that just can't be

And the last thing I'd say, Your Honor, is that we are

21

asking here for nationwide relief.

We do have now two states

22

that are part of this case that are obviously some distance

23

apart.

24

all over the world, through various places, and we believe

25

that nationwide relief is appropriate here for the same

We also have people trying to come to Washington from

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 117 of 125
1
2

reasons that it was in United States v. Texas.
So, Your Honor, in sum, the state is grievously harmed

3

here, both in its proprietary capacity and in its parens

4

patriae capacity.

5

briefing, the descriptions of people who have been harmed in

6

the amicus briefs, are heartbreaking.

7

to people who are trying to come here who have never been

8

here.

9

of our claim is the harm to people who have been here, in

The declarations that are attached to our

And it's not just harm

Again, that is not the focus of our claim.

The focus

10

many cases for many years, following the law, and you know,

11

traveled overseas without warning that this was going to

12

happen, or could no longer travel, and have lost fundamental

13

rights without any process at all in an order that was

14

motivated largely by religious animus.

15
16

So we're asking you to enter the temporary restraining
order that we're seeking here.

17
18
19

44

THE COURT:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, counsel.

I think argument was

helpful.
The following oral opinion will constitute the informal

20

opinion of the court.

It is a formal opinion for purposes of

21

ruling on this motion.

22

to do a formal written order.

23

that on file over the weekend, so that by the time the Ninth

24

Circuit opens on Monday you'll be in a position to be able to

25

seek review of it.

But as I indicated to you, I intend
And hopefully we will have

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 118 of 125
1

Before the court is plaintiffs State of Washington and

2

State of Minnesota's emergency motion for a temporary

3

restraining order.

4

to those as TROs.

5

see.

6

45

For the audience out there, lawyers refer
And that's not initials that we like to

The court has reviewed the motion, the complaint, the

7

amended complaint, the submissions of the parties, the

8

submissions of the amici, the relevant portions of the

9

record, and most importantly, the applicable law.

And I do

10

very much appreciate the fact that counsel have come for oral

11

argument today on a very expedited basis; and have done a

12

nice job of submitting written materials to the court, which

13

are helpful, and also participating in oral argument.

14

I'm going to digress for a moment and remind people who

15

see this opinion and wonder what's going on.

16

the work of this court is a recognition that it is only one

17

of three branches, three equal branches of our government.

18

The role assigned to the court is not to create policy, and

19

it's not to judge the wisdom of any particular policy

20

promoted by the other two branches.

21

legislative and executive branches and the citizens who

22

ultimately, by exercising their rights to vote, exercise

23

democratic control over those branches.

24
25

Fundamental to

That is the work of the

The work of the judiciary is limited to ensuring that the
actions taken by those two branches comport with our laws,

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 119 of 125
1
2

46

and most importantly, our constitution.
There is a very narrow question before the court today

3

that is asked to be considered and that is whether it is

4

appropriate to enter a TRO against certain actions taken by

5

the Executive that are enumerated in this specific lawsuit.

6

Although that question is narrow, the court is mindful of the

7

considerable impact that its order may have on the parties

8

before it, the executive branch of our government, and the

9

country's citizens and residents.

10

I will not repeat the procedural background of this case.

11

It will be in the written order.

12

the motion was filed and that the federal defendants opposed

13

the state's motion.

14

I would instead note that

Any question regarding lawsuits in federal court starts

15

with the issue of:

Does the court have jurisdiction over the

16

federal defendants and the subject matter of the lawsuit?

17

terms of notice to the federal defendants, that was certainly

18

accomplished, and indeed, the federal defendants have

19

appeared and argued before the court and defended their

20

position in this action.

21

on the constitution and federal law, I find that I do have

22

subject matter jurisdiction.

In

And since this is an attack based

23

The standard for issuing a restraining order in this

24

circuit is the same as for issuing a preliminary injunction.

25

A temporary restraining order is, as the government has

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 120 of 125
1

noted, an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon

2

a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such

3

relief.

4

to the lawyers.

5

47

A citation to the Winter case, which is well known

The legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief, and

6

hence for a temporary restraining order, is that the

7

plaintiff must be likely to succeed on the merits, that it

8

will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

9

relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and

10
11

finally, that the injunction is in the public interest.
The Ninth Circuit has an alternative test which it's used

12

from time to time and is well known to the parties and will

13

be in the written order.

14

It is an interesting question in regards to the standing

15

of the states to bring this action.

16

that all counsel would agree on is that the standing law is a

17

little murky.

18

standing in regards to this matter, and therefore they are

19

properly here.

20

finding that, which have to do with direct, immediate harm

21

going to the states, as institutions, in addition to harm to

22

their citizens, which they are not able to represent as

23

directly.

24
25

I'm sure the one item

I find, however, that the state does have

And I probed with both counsel my reasons for

Therefore, turning to the merits.

The court finds that

for purposes of the entry of the temporary restraining order,

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 121 of 125
1

that the state has met its burden of demonstrating that it

2

faces immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the

3

signing and implementation of the Executive Order.

4

I find that the state has satisfied the test that it is

5

likely to succeed on the merits of the claim, which would

6

entitle them to relief.

7

favor the states.

8

restraining order is in the public interest.

9

I find that the balance of equities

And lastly, I find that a temporary

If I were to apply the Ninth Circuit's alternative test, I

10

would find that the states have established a question, a

11

serious question going to the merits, and the balance of

12

equities tips sharply in their favor.

13

the court should and will grant the temporary restraining

14

order.

15

As such, I find that

The scope of that order is as follows:

Federal defendants

16

and all their respective officers, agents, servants,

17

employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or

18

participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained

19

from:

20

(A)

Enforcing Section 3(c) of the Executive Order;

21

(B)

Enjoined and restrained from enforcing section 5(a)

22
23

48

of the Executive Order;
(C)

Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Section 5(b)

24

of the Executive Order, or proceeding with any action that

25

prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 122 of 125
1

minorities;

2

(D)

3
4

49

Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Section 5(c)

of the Executive Order, and lastly;
(E)

Enjoined and restrained from enforcing Section 5(e)

5

of the Executive Order, to the extent Section 5(e) purports

6

to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities.

7

This TRO is granted on a nationwide basis and prohibits

8

enforcement of Sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(e) of

9

the Executive Order at all United States borders and ports of

10
11

entry pending further orders from this court.
I considered the question of the government's request that

12

the order should be limited to Minnesota and Washington, but

13

I find that such partial implementation of the Executive

14

Order would undermine the constitutional imperative of a

15

uniform rule of naturalization and Congress's instruction

16

that immigration laws of the United States should be enforced

17

vigorously and uniformly.

18

United States, 809 F.3d, 134, 155, 5th Circuit 2015.

19

That's language is from Texas v.

I find that no security bond is required under the Federal

20

Rules of Civil Procedure 65(c), and I direct that the parties

21

confer and get back to the court promptly -- today wouldn't

22

be too late, but by next week -- regarding a date for the

23

preliminary injunction hearing, the time for the motion for

24

the preliminary injunction, the time for the federal

25

defendants to file their opposition and for the states to

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 123 of 125
1
2

50

file their reply.
Once we know that, we'll promptly schedule a hearing on

3

the motion for preliminary injunction after we are in receipt

4

of the parties' briefing.

5

The court concludes that the circumstances that brought it

6

here today are such that we must intervene to fulfill the

7

judiciary's constitutional role in our tri-part government.

8

Therefore, the court concludes that entry of the

9

above-described TRO is necessary and the state's motion is

10
11

hereby granted.
Counsel, anything further at this time?

12

MR. PURCELL:

13

THE COURT:

14

MS. BENNETT:

Mr. Purcell?

No, Your Honor.
Ms. Bennett?
One more thing, Your Honor, as a

15

procedural matter the government would move Your Honor to

16

stay the TRO, for the same purposes that we opposed the TRO,

17

pending a decision of the ASG of whether to appeal, whether

18

to file an appeal.

19

THE COURT:

20

MS. BENNETT:

I'm sorry, pending a decision by the...
I'm sorry, the Acting Solicitor

21

General; I'm sorry, Your Honor, we use lots of acronyms.

22

the Acting Solicitor General.

23
24
25

THE COURT:

I understand the motion and I am going to

deny it.
MS. BENNETT:

By

Thank you, Your Honor.

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 124 of 125
1

THE COURT:

I will do everything I can to get you

2

prompt appellate review, which I think is the appropriate

3

case to take.

4

MS. BENNETT:

5

THE COURT:

6
7

Thank you, Your Honor.
We will be in recess.

Thank you,

counsel.
(The proceedings recessed.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

51

Case: 17-35105, 02/04/2017, ID: 10302845, DktEntry: 14, Page 125 of 125
C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Debbie K. Zurn, RMR, CRR, Court Reporter for
the United States District Court in the Western District of
Washington at Seattle, do hereby certify that I was present
in court during the foregoing matter and reported said
proceedings stenographically.
I further certify that thereafter, I have caused
said stenographic notes to be transcribed under my direction
and that the foregoing pages are a true and accurate
transcription to the best of my ability.

/s/ Debbie Zurn
DEBBIE ZURN
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

Debbie Zurn - RMR, CRR - Federal Court Reporter - 700 Stewart Street - Suite 17205 - Seattle WA 98101

52