Filed Date: Jan. 31, 2017
Closed Date: May 3, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit, filed on January 31, 2017, challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) that banned non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from being admitted to the U.S. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (in Denver) on behalf of a Libyan citizen who attended university in the U.S.
Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff argued that the threat of being detained or barred from reentry to the U.S. solely pursuant to EO-1 violated Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, federal immigration statutes, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He further alleged that "the unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination against [the plaintiff] and others similarly situated is part of a widespread policy, pattern, and practice infringing on rights of many people traveling after issuance of the EO now subject to suspension, detention and removal." The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to "prevent such unlawful and unconstitutional harms from occurring now and in the future." The complaint named President Trump in his official capacity, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection as defendants. The case was assigned to District Judge R. Brooke Jackson.
The plaintiff lived and attended college in Colorado where he worked and paid taxes. The plaintiff's family lived in Libya and he alleged he was unable to visit them for a family emergency or any other reason due to the risk that EO-1 posed to his ability to re-enter the U.S.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 10, 2017, seeking to designate a class of "all other persons who are nationals of the Designated Countries who currently are, or recently have been, lawfully present in Colorado on student visas and who, but for the January 27, 2017, Executive Order, would be able to travel to the United States or leave and return to the United States." The amended complaint also claimed violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Next, on February 17, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a concurrent motion to expedite the injunction briefing schedule. But on February 21, District Judge Jackson denied that motion, finding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient need for expedited action, given that EO-1 had been suspended by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the Ninth Circuit in Washington & Minnesota v. Trump. However, Judge Jackson stated that he would reconsider expedited action if the Ninth Circuit's order were vacated or if the government released a new EO.
Prompted by developments in Washington v. Trump, on March 6, the President rescinded the January 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780 (EO-2). On the same day, the defendants in this case filed a notice informing the court of the change. The government argued that the case was now moot; the plaintiff, they said, would not be affected by EO-2 because he was in the U.S. on January 27 and because he already held a valid student visa.
But the defendants soon learned that the plaintiff's student visa had expired, and they therefore filed a correction on March 9 to their March 6 notice. In the correction, the defendants made reference to the expiration issue, but claimed that the EO-2 would still not affect the plaintiff as he would be in the U.S. at the time of its implementation on March 16, whereas the revised restrictions on entry only applied to people outside the country on that day. The government noted that the plaintiff planned to travel to Canada from March 17-23, but reiterated that EO-2 would not apply so long as he was in the U.S. on March 16. The plaintiff's ability to re-enter the United States, according to the defendants, would be governed by the INA rather than EO-2.
In light of EO-2, the plaintiff asked the court to withdraw his February 17 motion for preliminary injunction on April 5, 2017. Judge Jackson granted the plaintiff's request for withdrawal the same day. On April 21, the government filed an unopposed motion for a 60-day extension of an April 24 deadline to respond to the plaintiff's first-amended complaint. The defendants again cited the need for additional time to respond in light of the injunctions on the revised EO. Judge Jackson granted this motion on June 13, setting the defendants' response to be due June 23.
However, on June 22, 2017, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hawaii v. Trump and IRAP v. Trump. Judge Jackson granted the motion to stay on June 26. A year later, on June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Hawaii v. Trump.
On May 2, 2019, the plaintiff in this case notified the district court that he was voluntarily dismissing all his claims. The case was then closed on May 3, 2019.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (2/13/2017)
Julie Aust (2/18/2017)
Jamie Kessler (2/21/2017)
Ava Morgenstern (10/25/2017)
Sam Kulhanek (4/10/2020)
Esteban Woo Kee (11/19/2021)
Evan Gamza (5/21/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4578397/parties/hagig-v-trump/
Jackson, Richard Brooke (Colorado)
Carroll, Morgan Lenore (Colorado)
Kennedy, Alan Hamilton (Colorado)
Kennedy-Shaffer, Alan (Colorado)
Go, Samuel P. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4578397/hagig-v-trump/
Last updated Feb. 6, 2025, 4:29 a.m.
State / Territory: Colorado
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 1.0: Travel Ban Challenges
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2017
Closing Date: May 3, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident from Libya affected by Travel Ban executive orders.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues