Filed Date: Feb. 7, 2017
Closed Date: Aug. 31, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 7, 2017, five immigrant advocacy organizations and fifteen individual immigrants filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (in Greenbelt). Represented by the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, the plaintiffs challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017, executive order (EO). The order restricted admission to the U.S. for nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries and suspended the U.S. refugee program. The plaintiffs alleged that the order violated the First and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Refugee Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They sought a declaration that the EO was unlawful; they also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants (the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) from implementing the order. The complaint focused on the order’s disproportionate impact on Muslims, arguing that its chaotic and irregular policy changes indicated that it was intended to discriminate against members of the religious group.
The plaintiff organizations were:
In addition, the plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of all persons “in the United States for whom the EO either interferes with family reunification or the ability to travel internationally and return to the United States.”
The case was assigned to District Judge Theodore Chuang.
On February 22, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the government from enforcing Section 5(d) of the Executive Order (which reduced the number of refugees who could be admitted to the United States in 2017 by more than fifty percent). The plaintiffs argued that without the injunction, “no additional refugees [could] be approved and admitted for resettlement” during fiscal year 2017, and that thousands of refugees already approved for admission would not be allowed to enter the United States.
On March 6, 2017, prompted by developments in a similar case in the Ninth Circuit, the President rescinded his January 27 Executive Order and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. The same day, the government filed notice in this case of the new EO.
After the updated EO was signed by the President, plaintiffs moved forward with their preliminary injunction motion because, they claimed, the new EO would still substantially reduce refugee admission. They also filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that the March 6 order was motivated by the same anti-Muslim animus that had motivated the January 27 order. The plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, and moved to expedite discovery “so that the Court may have the benefit of additional evidence bearing on the central question of the March 6 Order’s discriminatory intent.”
On March 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order. The government responded two days later, arguing that no emergency existed. The government also filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery. On March 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a response in support of the temporary restraining order motion. They argued that they had standing because the revised EO directly harmed organizations that serve refugees. The EO, plaintiffs argued, had forced the plaintiff organizations to divert substantial resources away from their core missions of providing free legal services to refugees as well as scale back the number of new clients they could take on. Additionally, they argued that they met the requirements for asserting third-party legal standing on behalf of the thousands of refugee clients they were currently serving.
On March 15, the court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against the travel ban portion of the second EO. 241 F. Supp. 3d 539.
The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and moved for an expedited hearing, citing national security concerns; the court agreed to an expedited schedule. The government also filed a motion for a stay pending the appeal. All parties agreed that an initial en banc hearing was appropriate (a hearing before the entire court, rather than the typical three-judge panel).
The district court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ outstanding motions for relief, due to the pending appeal and the nationwide injunction that had been issued in Hawaii v. Trump.
The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments on May 8, 2017. On May 25, it upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction (however, it held that President Trump could not be personally enjoined). 857 F.3d 554. (The court of appeals noted that presidential action remained unreviewable in lawsuits against the officers assigned to enforce the President’s directives: “Even though the President is not ‘directly bound’ by the injunction, we ‘assume it is substantially likely that the President . . . would abide by an authoritative interpretation’ of Section 2(c) of the Second Executive Order.”)
On June 1, 2017, the government sought Supreme Court review with expedited briefing so that the case could be argued in October. It also sought a stay of the preliminary injunction, pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. On June 26, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case and Hawaii v. Trump.
Like the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court declined to stay the preliminary injunction; however, it did reverse the injunction’s application to “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” For example, foreign nationals who did not have a close family tie or a formal, documented relationship with an entity (such as a school or employer), were subject to §2(c). Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, writing that the preliminary injunction should be held invalid in its entirety. 137 S.Ct. 2080
On July 27, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Section 5 of the order (the refugee admission cap).
The Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for October 10, 2017, but the second Executive Order was set to expire before that date. On September 24—the same day the ninety-day ban of the second Executive Order was set to expire—the President issued a proclamation indefinitely restricting travel from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Supreme Court canceled the October 10 hearing and asked the parties to file new briefs in light of the government's new order.
On October 4, the government filed a brief arguing that the case was moot because the March 6 order had expired. The plaintiffs’ reply argued that the case was not moot despite the new proclamation (referred to as EO-3). Instead, plaintiffs argued, the religious discrimination that was apparent in the earlier orders was present in EO-3, which continued to discriminate against Muslims. They asked the Supreme Court to again schedule oral arguments. They also filed a third amended complaint, and a new motion for a preliminary injunction, in the district court.
Despite the plaintiffs’ insistence that the case was not moot, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s May 25 ruling on October 11, 2017. 583 U.S. 912. Given the lapse of the travel ban, the Supreme Court found that the case no longer presented a “live case in controversy.” As such, it remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the challenge as moot.
On October 17, 2017, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their third amended complaint and granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against parts of EO-3. Specifically, the injunction prohibited the government from enforcing EO-3 Section 2, which suspended the entry of nationals from eight specified countries. However, the injunction only applied to individuals who had a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The government appealed to the Fourth Circuit on October 20, sought an emergency stay of the new injunction, and moved to expedite the merits briefing, arguing that there was still a possibility that the Supreme Court could review the case during the current term. The plaintiffs, along with the plaintiffs from Iranian Alliances Across Border v. Trump and Zakzok v. Trump, cross-appealed on October 23. The Fourth Circuit on November 6 granted initial hearing en banc.
Meanwhile, in Hawaii v. Trump, the government asked the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. The Court granted that stay in a 7-2 decision on December 4, 2017. That order lifted all of the injunctions that the lower courts had put on EO-3, pending appellate litigation. Also on December 4, the plaintiffs, in this case, moved to have the Fourth Circuit take note of a series of videos that President Trump tweeted in early December. The videos were first posted by a far-right British party that expressly opposed Islam. The plaintiffs argued that they proved the President held an animus against Muslims. See here for more details on the videos.
On February 15, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction against EO-3. In its nearly 300-page opinion (including concurrences and dissents), the court found that the plaintiffs had standing and that they were likely to succeed on the merits of at least some of their claims including those based in the Establishment Clause. In particular, the court found that plaintiffs offered “undisputed evidence” that EO-3 was driven by anti-Muslim bias. That undisputed evidence included “President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; [and] his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States.” The court went on to write that EO-3 “denies the possibility of a complete, intact family to tens of thousands of Americans…and second-guesses our nation’s dedication to religious freedom and tolerance.” Although the court found primarily in favor of the plaintiffs, it also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the injunction to individuals with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States. Several judges dissented on the grounds that plaintiffs did not have standing.
On February 23, following the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to have the case heard consolidated with Hawaii v. Trump. They argued that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship with the United States, and asserted that granting review would “ensure that the Court has before it the best vehicle for resolving the [underlying] Establishment Clause question.”
On April 24, 2018, the district court granted the government’s motion to stay this case, Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump, and Zakzok v. Trump, pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Hawaii v. Trump.
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court in Hawaii v. Trump reversed the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against EO-3. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts endorsed a broad view of presidential power, holding that under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the President has “broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,” and that here the President “lawfully exercised that discretion.” The majority dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the President must explain his findings, calling that argument “questionable” and writing that “the 12-page Proclamation—which thoroughly describes the process, agency evaluations, and recommendations underlying the President’s chosen restrictions—is more detailed than any prior order a President has issued under §1182(f).” As for the plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause argument, the Court first noted that EO-3’s facially neutral policy towards religion forced the Court to take the extra step of probing “the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office.” Applying a rational basis test, the Court found that “the Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion.” Notably, however, the Court did use the opinion to officially repudiate Korematsu v. United States, writing that the decision “was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”
On October 2, 2018, the Fourth Circuit remanded this case back to the district court for disposition in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The following day, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their Immigration and Nationality Act claims (foreclosed by Hawaii v. Trump), as well as claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Refugee Act. They then filed an amended complaint that included constitutional claims and statutory claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The government filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on February 12, 2019.
On May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims but denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment claims. The court reasoned that Hawaii v. Trump did not establish that EO-3 had a rational basis, and found that the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficed at the motion to dismiss stage to show that EO-3 was motivated “only by an illegitimate hostility to Muslims.” 373 F. Supp. 3d 650.
On June 20, 2019, the government moved to appeal the denial of its motion to dismiss the constitutional claims and to stay discovery. On August 20, 2019, the district court issued an opinion granting the motion for interlocutory appeal and denying the motion to stay discovery. 404 F. Supp. 3d 946.
Oral arguments were held before the Fourth Circuit on January 28, 2020. On June 8, 2020, the court of appeals issued an order reversing the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanding the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice. Stating that “the district court misunderstood the import of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hawaii v. Trump and the legal principles it applied,” the court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, in this case, lacked the plausibility necessary to survive the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 961 F.3d 635.
The court of appeals denied a motion by the plaintiffs for an en banc rehearing of the motion to dismiss on August 21, 2020. Ten days later on August 31, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Jamie Kessler (6/20/2018)
Virginia Weeks (12/4/2018)
Ava Morgenstern (2/15/2017)
Nora Baty (10/9/2019)
Bogyung Lim (7/22/2020)
Esteban Woo Kee (7/10/2021)
Washington & Minnesota v. Trump, Western District of Washington (2017)
Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump, Eastern District of Michigan (2017)
Hawaii v. Trump, District of Hawaii (2017)
Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump, District of Maryland (2017)
Zakzok v. Trump, District of Maryland (2017)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4581930/parties/international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump/
Amdur, Spencer E (Maryland)
Attorney, Anne Murphy,
Aikman, Amanda
Ali, Amir H (Maryland)
Ardalan, Sabrineh
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4581930/international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump/
Last updated Feb. 6, 2025, 4:36 a.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
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: Feb. 7, 2017
Closing Date: Aug. 31, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The organizational plaintiffs were refugee advocacy and resettlement organizations. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all “persons in the United States for whom the Executive Order either interferes with family reunification or the ability to travel internationally and return to the United States.”
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
National Immigration Law Center
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
President Donald Trump, Federal
United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal
United States Department of State, Federal
United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2017 - 2017
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border: