Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2017
Closed Date: Dec. 7, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 28, 2017, a lawyer filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Proceeding under California "Private Attorney General" statutes, the action purported to be by the "People of the United States of America and the State of California" "for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights and for their vindication pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988." The lawsuit challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order (EO-1) banning nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States. The complaint contended that EO-1 violated the separation of powers doctrine without statutory exception and that it violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The complaint additionally alleged that §217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), referenced by the Order, "[did] not appear to exist." The case was filed as a civil complaint and sought to immediately enjoin the implementation of EO-1 "until its validity and constitutionality [were] adjudicated." On January 30, the case was assigned to District Judge James Donato.
Several procedural updates occurred next. On January 31, the plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On February 1, Judge Donato dismissed the complaint for failing to establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and subsequently denied the IFP as moot. Judge Donato's order gave the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint by February 15. On February 4, the plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration, which the court denied two days later. On February 13, the plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline for reconsideration until March 10 in order to file an amended complaint in the event that President Trump re-drafted the ban. The court granted this motion on February 14, noting that no further extensions would be granted and reminding the filing attorney that any amended complaint must conform to the Court's dismissal order.
The plaintiff filed statements of support for the repeal and recession of EO-1 from seven of the individuals represented in the lawsuit on February 19.
On March 6, 2017, the President rescinded EO-1 and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2).
The plaintiff responded on March 10 with an amended complaint. In it, the plaintiff noted that President Trump did a "commendable job" in revising the ban. The plaintiff narrowed his challenge to just §3 of the revised order.
On April 4, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On May 1, the court concluded that the defendants’ motion to dismiss could be decided without oral arguments and vacated a hearing that had been set for May 11. On December 7, Judge Donato granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice citing the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Julie Aust (2/18/2017)
Jamie Kessler (1/7/2018)
Virginia Weeks (4/24/2017)
Taylor Brook (3/21/2018)
Evan Gamza (5/21/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576141/parties/people-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-trump/
Donato, James (California)
Shalaby, Andrew W. (California)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Robinson, Stuart Justin (California)
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
Donato, James (California)
Shalaby, Andrew W. (California)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Robinson, Stuart Justin (California)
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576141/people-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-trump/
Last updated May 1, 2023, 3:15 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2017
Closing Date: Dec. 7, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Attorney Andrew Shelby filing on behalf of "the people of the United States of America"
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Immigration/Border:
National Origin/Ethnicity: