Filed Date: Jan. 29, 2017
Closed Date: Feb. 28, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 29,2017, two lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the U.S. initiated this challenge to President Trump's January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) banning non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from being admitted to the U.S. In a joint petition for a writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs claimed that, on January 28, they were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at Los Angeles International Airport upon their return from a trip to Iran. The plaintiffs filed the petition/complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (in Los Angeles). Simultaneously, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to compel CBP to release them from detention and allow them to enter the U.S. The legal bases for these requests to the district court are largely unknown as the original petition/complaint and ex parte application are not available on PACER. Because these documents are not publicly available, it is unknown who were the original plaintiffs’ counsel, but the ACLU of Southern California eventually filed the first amended habeas petition and complaint described below.
Because of a minute order issued by District Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank on January 30, 2017, it is known that the plaintiffs notified the court of their release from detention and entry to the U.S. later on January 29. As a result, the habeas petition and complaint, as well as the ex parte application were dismissed as moot in Judge Baker Fairbank’s January 30 order. Though the original plaintiffs were terminated as parties by the district court, the case did not end there.
The January 30, 2017, minute order describes how, on January 29, as the original LPR plaintiffs were notifying the court of their ability to enter the country, three new individual plaintiffs and five public interest law organizations filed a First Amended Habeas Petition and Complaint. This kept the lawsuit live as the district court added the parties to the lawsuit and classified the first amended habeas petition and complaint as the operative pleading.
Represented by the ACLU of Southern California and private counsel, the individual plaintiffs were an Iraqi citizen and an Iranian citizen traveling to the U.S. on tourist visas to visit their families and a Syrian citizen traveling on a work trip to the U.S. on a business visa. The organizational plaintiffs were Public Counsel, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Asian Asian Americans Advancing Justice – LA, the Iranian American Bar Association, and the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. These organizations claimed that they had sent staff and member attorneys to LAX to assist individuals denied entry to the country on or before January 28 pursuant to EO-1.
All three individual plaintiffs arrived at LAX on January 28, 2017, the day after EO-1 went into effect. The plaintiffs claimed that, despite their valid entry documents, they were detained by CBP agents and prohibited from leaving LAX. The organizational plaintiffs alleged that CBP denied their attorneys access to speak to the individual plaintiffs and other travelers affected by the EO-1. The plaintiffs argued that their continued detention at LAX pursuant to EO-1 and inability to access counsel amounted to violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To remedy these violations, the plaintiffs asked the court for a writ of habeas corpus to end their unlawful detention by the federal government, declaratory and injunctive relief “to prevent such harms from occurring,” and an order directing CBP to allow all individuals detained at LAX pursuant to EO-1 access to counsel. The plaintiffs named the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and President Donald Trump, in his official capacity, as defendants.
Along with their amended habeas petition/complaint, the plaintiffs filed a second ex parte application for a temporary restraining order requesting the district court to require the government to permit the individual plaintiffs to enter the U.S. The document is not publicly available.
On January 30, 2017, Judge Baker Fairbank referred the case to Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm.
On February 1, the plaintiffs filed a third, new ex parte application for a temporary restraining order that sought to enjoin the federal government from targeting the application of EO-1 against Muslims. A series of declarations were also filed in support of the application, but they are also unavailable.
On February 2, 2017, the case was reassigned to District Judge S. James Otero. On February 3, the case saw three important developments. First, the government filed an answer to the plaintiffs first amended habeas petition and complaint. Second, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw their third ex parte application. Lastly, the court denied the third ex parte application in light of the plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw. The court also set a February 7 deadline for the plaintiffs to submit a memorandum explaining: why their claims were not moot, why the organizational plaintiffs would have standing to challenge EO-1 if the individual plaintiffs were dismissed from the action, and whether they intended to file a second amended complaint. The district court’s mootness and standing concerns arose from the fact that the plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal of the third ex parte application and the government’s response to the amended habeas petition/complaint both suggested that no individuals remained in CBP detention at LAX pursuant to EO-1.
In a February 3 minute order, the court considered a habeas petition to be rendered moot after a habeas petitioner’s “release or deportation,” as it would no longer constitute a “live controversy.” However, the court left open the possibility that the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the first amended habeas petition/complaint (declaring certain provisions of EO-1 illegal and enjoining the federal government from enforcing them) could be litigated if the organizational plaintiffs could show that they had standing following the release of the individual plaintiffs from CBP detention at LAX.
The plaintiffs filed the requested memorandum on February 7, 2017, and the government filed a response the following day. These documents are not publicly available. The court then held a status conference on February 10. One week later, on February 17, the parties stipulated to dismissal. The plaintiffs’ reasons for dismissing their claims are unknown because the stipulation is not publicly available. On February 28, 2017, the court dismissed the case.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (2/8/2017)
Jamie Kessler (2/18/2017)
Virginia Weeks (3/1/2017)
Esteban Woo Kee (11/24/2021)
Evan Gamza (5/21/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576203/parties/fatema-farmad-v-donald-trump/
Fairbank, Valerie Baker (California)
Otero, S. James (California)
Standish, Gail J. (California)
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)
Bibring, Peter (California)
Brewer, Megan (California)
Iguina, Carmen G. (California)
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)
Tolchin, Stacy Eva (California)
Wong, Adrienna (California)
Fairbank, Valerie Baker (California)
Otero, S. James (California)
Standish, Gail J. (California)
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)
Bibring, Peter (California)
Brewer, Megan (California)
Iguina, Carmen G. (California)
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)
Tolchin, Stacy Eva (California)
Wong, Adrienna (California)
Ward, Brian Christopher (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576203/fatema-farmad-v-donald-trump/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 29, 2017
Closing Date: Feb. 28, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two lawful permanent residents of the U.S., three individuals with tourism/business visas, and five legal aid organizations all who claimed to be affected by detentions of individuals at Los Angeles International Airport on January 28, 2017.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Office of the President of the U.S. (Washington D.C.), Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Washington D.C.), Federal
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Washington D.C. ), Federal
Office of the Los Angeles Field Director of U.S. CBP (Los Angeles ), Federal
Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Washington D.C.), Federal
Office of the Commissioner of U.S. CBP (Washington D.C.), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Immigration/Border:
National Origin/Ethnicity: