Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2017
Closed Date: Sept. 21, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO-1) barring admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs–visa holders who were detained at JFK airport and threatened with deportation pursuant to EO-1–filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a civil complaint in District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 28, 2017. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of "all individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States, but who have been or will be denied entry to the United States on the basis of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order." Represented by the ACLU and other public interest counsel, the plaintiffs argued that their continued detention based solely on EO-1 violated their Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act and that the Order unconstitutionally discriminated against Muslims . The case was initially assigned to Judge Ann Donnelly on an emergency basis.
On the day the lawsuit was filed, the court heard an emergency motion to stay all removals that would be carried out pursuant to EO-1. At this hearing, the court granted a nationwide stay of removals to all members of the class and required the defendants to provide a list of all individuals detained as a result of the Order.
The next day, on January 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to "immediately clarify that its Jan. 28th Order is nationwide and order Respondents to enforce the stay of removal." They explained that they had received information that members of the class in other states continued to be deported. Later that day, the plaintiffs filed a notice that the defendants had "acknowledge[d] that the Order does in fact apply nationwide." The notice explained, "Petitioners continue to monitor reports of noncompliance and are working with Respondents’ counsel to attempt to resolve them. Petitioners will update the Court as to any issues of noncompliance should further clarification or enforcement be necessary."
The case was permanently assigned to Judge Carol Bagley Amon on January 30. On February 2, Judge Amon extended the TRO to February 21, 2017 for good cause shown.
On February 6, the government filed a notice of supplemental authority that noted a February 3 letter written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services at the Department of State. The letter reversed the provisional revocation of all visas previously issued by the Deputy Assistant Secretary.
The next day, the plaintiffs asked the court to enforce its January 28, 2017 order directing the government to provide the plaintiffs' counsel with a list of all individuals detained pursuant to EO-1 (including individuals previously released or removed).
The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on February 8. The defendants' motion also opposed the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. After the parties requested an expedited hearing on the stay motion and the motion to dismiss, because the government would not consent to an extension of the stay beyond February 21, the court agreed to hold a hearing on February 21, 2017.
From February 13-16, 2017, numerous prominent organizations filed amicus briefs. On February 16, 167 members of Congress filed an amicus brief arguing, among other things, that EO-1 was irreconcilable with Congress's clearly expressed intent in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
On February 16, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs argued that, though the named plaintiffs had been admitted to the U.S., the case was not moot because: 1) the relief that the named plaintiffs received represented only a voluntary cessation of the challenged policy; 2) the case's class claims were inherently transitory; and 3) there were still individuals who, pursuant to the EO, had been unconstitutionally denied entry or admission into the US.
In the meantime, in Washington & Minnesota v. Trump, in the Western District of Washington and then the Ninth Circuit, EO-1 had also been enjoined, and a stay of the preliminary injunction was denied on February 9, 2017. On February 16, the Trump administration announced that rather than continuing to litigate EO-1’s lawfulness, it would soon rescind the Order and replace it with a revised version.
The parties in this case therefore jointly requested on February 17, 2017, that the court stay proceedings related to the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction and the government's motion to dismiss. The parties also requested that the court cancel the February 21, 2017, hearing that was to be set on these motions. The court granted the parties' joint motion, and further determined that the injunction issued in Washington provided sufficient protection so as to not require that the January 28, 2017 injunction be extended beyond February 21, 2017. However, had the Washington injunction been vacated while EO-1 was in effect, the January 28, 2017, injunction would have been reinstated and the court would have scheduled a prompt hearing on extending the January 28, 2017, injunction.
On February 21, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' February 7 motion in part. The court read the January 28 Order as requiring defendants "to provide a single list of putative class members being held pursuant to the EO at any time from the signing of the order and for a reasonable period thereafter, which would include through the following day." The court also interpreted the order’s use of "the term 'detained' "to be in the everyday sense, meaning those being held for questioning pursuant to the terms of the EO, as distinguished from individuals formally placed in removal proceedings." Accordingly, the court ordered defendants to, by February 23, 2017, provide plaintiffs with a list of all individuals with approved refugee applications, valid immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, or other legal authorization to enter the United States, from the seven banned countries, who were held, including being processed, by CBP pursuant to EO-1 from Jan. 28, 2017, at 9:37pm (when the court ordered defendants to produce the list) through Jan. 29, 2017, at 11:59pm.
The government filed two status reports on February 23, 2017. The first status report informed the court that the government had prepared the list as ordered by the court on February 21 and that the parties were working through the last-minute terms of a protective order. The second status report informed the court that the parties had agreed to a protective order covering the list of names of all individuals processed at any time from 9:27 PM on January 28 to 11:59 PM on January 29 pursuant to EO-1, including those previously released or removed, and that the government had provided the list to the plaintiffs. That same day, the parties filed a joint motion for an order protecting the confidentiality of the individuals named in the list, which the court granted.
The parties appeared for oral argument on February 24, 2017. During oral argument, the government stated that it would inform the petitioners as to which individuals on the above list were ultimately admitted into the country. The plaintiffs stated that they would provide the government with the names of individuals who they believed were not included on the list, but who should have been, so that the government may investigate accordingly.
On March 6, 2017, the President rescinded EO-1 and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2). The defendants notified the court that EO-1 had been rescinded and replaced with EO-2. The defendants argued that EO-2 differed substantially from EO-1 and thus would not be affected by the court’s TRO. Specifically, defendants noted that the new EO did not ban Iraqi nationals. Defendants stated that they would, as previously agreed, file a proposed joint scheduling order by March 13.
On March 13, 2017, the parties filed a letter indicating that they were in settlement discussions and requesting a stay. The court granted repeated stays for two or three weeks at a time. On May 1, the parties informed the court that they were unable to reach a settlement, and proceedings continued.
The court held a settlement conference on August 28, 2017, and a follow-up telephone conference the next day. The parties stated that they had reached a settlement in principle. On September 1, 2017, the parties filed the settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal.
According to the settlement agreement, defendants would, within 14 days, notify all persons barred from entering the country under EO-1 who were still outside the U.S. that they could re-apply for a visa. The letter would include a list of free legal services providers. The parties agreed that no applicants would be automatically entitled to a visa just by re-applying. After notifying all qualifying people, defendants would inform plaintiffs of their compliance, and plaintiffs would then file a stipulated dismissal of all claims, relief, damages, and jurisdiction for this matter.
The docket reflects that the court closed this case on Sept. 21, 2017.
Additional information may be available at the ACLU or the Yale Law School Clinic pages for this case.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (1/30/2017)
Julie Aust (2/24/2017)
Ava Morgenstern (9/22/2017)
Jamie Kessler (2/21/2017)
Eva Richardson (5/15/2019)
Evan Gamza (5/21/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576731/parties/darweesh-v-trump/
Amon, Carol Bagley (New York)
Ahmad, Muneer (New York)
Attie, Jessica (New York)
Aikman, Amanda (New York)
Ali, Amir H. (New York)
Brinckerhoff, Matthew D. (New York)
Champion, Anne Marie (New York)
Colyer, Jennifer L. (New York)
Freiman, Jonathan Marc (New York)
Greenberg, Susan P. (New York)
Haker, Oliver Scott (New York)
Lichtman, Jason Louis (New York)
Phillips, C. William (New York)
Platton, Claude Solomon (New York)
Selbin, Jonathan D. (New York)
Synagogue, Beth Emet (New York)
Tabak, Daniel Hershel (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576731/darweesh-v-trump/
Last updated Sept. 9, 2024, 5:59 p.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2017
Closing Date: Sept. 21, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two individuals on behalf of class of all individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States, but who had been or would be denied entry to the United States on the basis of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
National Immigration Law Center
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2017 - 2017
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in detention facilities
Policing: