Filed Date: Jan. 29, 2017
Closed Date: Feb. 28, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
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 on January 29, 2017. In a joint petition for a writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, these plaintiffs claimed that upon their arrival to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from a trip to Iran on January 28, they were detained by agents of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This document was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (in Los Angeles). Contemporaneous with their initial filing, the plaintiffs submitted an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order where the plaintiffs requested that the district court compel the federal government to release them from CBP detention and allow them to enter the U.S. The legal basis for these requests to the district court is 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 the plaintiffs’ counsel was that made these filings, but the ACLU of Southern California eventually submitted the first amended habeas petition and complaint described below.
Because of a Minute Orderissued by District Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank on January 30, 2017, it is known that the LPR 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 LPR 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 new entrants as 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 two eldery Iraqi and Iranian citizens traveling to the U.S. on tourist visas to visit their families and one 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 assist individuals denied entry to the U.S. pursuant to EO-1 to LAX on or before January 28.
All three individual plaintiffs arrived at LAX from international travel 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 as soon as they arrived at the Airport and were prohibited from leaving LAX to enter the U.S. The organization 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, the Procedural and Substantive Due Process rights of the Fifth Amendment, 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 undo 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 Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and President Donald Trump in his official capacity were named as defendants.
Along with their amended habeas petition and complaint, the docket shows that the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (Second Ex Parte Application) requesting the district court require the government to permit the individual plaintiffs to enter the U.S. — but the document is not publicly available.
On January 30, 2017, Judge Baker Fairbank referred the case to Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm.
While the document itself is not available on PACER, the docket shows that the plaintiffs filed a new ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (Third Ex Parte Application) on February 1, 2017, that appears to have 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. Third, a
Minute Order by Judge Otero denied the Third Ex Parte Application in light of the plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw and 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 both the plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal of the Third Ex Parte Application and the government’s response to the amended habeas petition and complaint suggested that no individuals remained detained at LAX pursuant to EO-1. In the February 3 minute order, the court explained that a habeas petition would need to be rendered moot after a habeas petitioner’s “release or deportation” as it would no longer constitute a “live controversy.” However, Judge Otero left open the possibility that the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the first amended habeas petition and complaint (declaring certain provisions of EO-1 illegal and enjoining the federal government from enforcing them) could be litigated if the plaintiffs could show that they had standing following the release of the individual plaintiffs from CBP detention at LAX.
The plaintiffs filed the memorandum requested by the district court on February 7, 2017, and the government filed a response the following day. These documents are not publicly available. A status conference was held on February 10, but no orders resulted from it. A week later, the plaintiffs filed a status report and a stipulation to dismiss the case on February 17. The plaintiffs reasons for dismissing their claims are unknown as this document is not publicly available. On February 28, 2017, the court ordered the case be dismissed.
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)
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 12, 2022
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: