Filed Date: April 9, 2018
Closed Date: Sept. 16, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
This suit, filed on April 9, 2018, challenged a report created and issued by defendants the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States required this report, known as the Initial Section 11 Report. Muslim Advocates—a nonprofit organization—filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that the report was biased and misleading against Muslims and the threat they pose to the United States. The plaintiff claimed this further stigmatized Muslims in the US while stoking anti-Muslim sentiments and filed the complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for violations of the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, the plaintiff sought a retraction and correction of the report to bring it in compliance with the IQA. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
The IQA and its implementing guidelines required that when federal agencies publish information to the public, the information meet threshold levels of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity. Executive Order 13780 ("the EO"), which President Trump signed on March 6, 2017, significantly restricted individuals from six Muslim-majority countries from being able to enter the US. Further, Section 11 of the EO required DHS, in consultation with the DOJ, to collect and publish information regarding foreign nationals and terrorism. This requirement included information on: foreign nationals who have participated in terrorism-related activities in the US, foreign nationals who have become radicalized since entering the US, honor killings, and "any other information relevant to public safety and security." According to the complaint, the report misled the public in several ways: (1) by focusing on international terrorism thereby artificially inflating the proportion of terrorist incidents committed by foreign nationals relative to native born citizens, (2) by including individuals who committed acts of terror abroad but had minimal ties to the US, and (3) by counting foreign-born individuals rather than foreign nationals in its figures. The plaintiff argued that such misleading information perpetuated the Trump administration's discrimination against Muslims as well as general anti-Muslim stereotypes and sentiments. As such, the plaintiff argued that the report was harmful to Muslim communities.
On April 10, 2018, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
On August 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing and did not have a right of action under the IQA. On August 22, the government requested the court to stay the case because their IQA guidelines allow petitioners to submit an administrative appeal of IQA responses. On August 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge Corley ordered the matter stayed until November 28, 2018.
On November 29, 2018, Magistrate Judge Corley ordered the matter further stayed pending the plaintiff's administrative appeal and a joint status report.
The parties stipulated that the stay would expire on February 19, 2019. The defendants issued its final response in the plaintiff's administrative appeal in the week of February 18, 2019.
On April 1, 2019, the plaintiff filed its first amended complaint to include a summary of the administrative appeal. The plaintiff asserted that in its final response in the administrative appeal, defendants admitted that "the information quality concerns raised by plaintiff have merit" and that “information in the Report could be criticized by some readers, consistent with some of the concerns" raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that despite these concessions, defendants declined to retract or correct the report and continue to disseminate it, in violation of the IQA.
On April 29, 2019, the government filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively for failure to state a claim. The defendants asserted that every court to have considered a claim alleging a violation of the IQA has rejected it, reasoning that third-parties have no basis to enforce legal rights under the IQA. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff lacked standing, as the plaintiff was unable to establish an injury in fact that is traceable to the report and that the plaintiff's claim was unlikely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The defendants last argued that its responses to the plaintiff's administrative appeal do not constitute "final agency action" and are thus not reviewable under the APA.
On July 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Corley issued an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Corley held that the plaintiff did not adequately state a claim because its claim, premised on alleged violations of the IQA, was not subject to judicial review under the APA. Judge Corley was inclined to order that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, as there was nothing to suggest that the plaintiff could amend its complaint to correct the deficiencies noted by defendants. However, Judge Corley granted the plaintiff 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. 2019 WL 3254230.
On September 16, 2019, Judge Corley entered final judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff after plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the August 19, 2019 deadline.
Plaintiff has not filed an appeal of the district court's final judgment and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (5/22/2018)
Dawn Lui (10/15/2018)
Aaron Gurley (2/16/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6997699/parties/muslim-advocates-v-us-department-of-justice/
Corley, Jacqueline Scott (California)
Callahan, Matthew W. (District of Columbia)
Olsen, Aaron Michael (California)
Cormier, Claire T. (California)
Lo, Michelle (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6997699/muslim-advocates-v-us-department-of-justice/
Last updated April 9, 2025, 3:29 p.m.
State / Territory: California
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: April 9, 2018
Closing Date: Sept. 16, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Muslim Advocates is a civil rights organization that has a particular focus on issues impacting Muslim communities and immigrants. The organization seeks to educate the public as well as prevent discrimination and the spread of inaccurate information regarding Muslims.
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
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border: