State v. Trump

Citation847 F.3d 1151
Decision Date09 February 2017
Docket NumberNo. 17-35105,17-35105
Parties State of WASHINGTON; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

August E. Flentje (argued), Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General; Douglas N. Letter, Sharon Swingle, H. Thomas Byron, Lowell V. Sturgill Jr., and Catherine Dorsey, Attorneys, Appellate

Staff; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Noel J. Francisco, Acting Solicitor General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for DefendantsAppellants.

Noah G. Purcell (argued), Solicitor General; Marsha Chien and Patricio A. Marquez, Assistant Attorneys General; Colleen M. Melody, Civil Rights Unit Chief; Anne E. Egeler, Deputy Solicitor General; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Attorney General's Office, Seattle, Washington; for PlaintiffAppellee State of Washington.

Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General; Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General; Lori Swanson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; for PlaintiffAppellee State of Minnesota.

Before: William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges



At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court's temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds.

To rule on the Government's motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

I. Background

On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13769, " Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" (the "Executive Order"). 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977. Citing the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and stating that "numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes" since then, the Executive Order declares that "the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles." Id. It asserts, "Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism." Id.

The Executive Order makes several changes to the policies and procedures by which non-citizens may enter the United States. Three are at issue here. First, section 3(c) of the Executive Order suspends for 90 days the entry of aliens from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 –78 (citing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 217(a)(12), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) ). Second, section 5(a) of the Executive Order suspends for 120 days the United States Refugee Admissions Program. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. Upon resumption of the refugee program, section 5(b) of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to prioritize refugee claims based on religious persecution where a refugee's religion is the minority religion in the country of his or her nationality. Id. Third, section 5(c) of the Executive Order suspends indefinitely the entry of all Syrian refugees. Id. Sections 3(g) and 5(e) of the Executive Order allow the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make case-by-case exceptions to these provisions "when in the national interest." 82 Fed. Reg. 8,978 –80. Section 5(e) states that situations that would be in the national interest include "when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution." 82 Fed. Reg. 8,979. The Executive Order requires the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the United States' visa, admission, and refugee programs during the periods in which entry is suspended. 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 –80.

The impact of the Executive Order was immediate and widespread. It was reported that thousands of visas were immediately canceled, hundreds of travelers with such visas were prevented from boarding airplanes bound for the United States or denied entry on arrival, and some travelers were detained. Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants the President, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the United States (collectively, "the Government"). Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State's economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a "Muslim ban" as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.

Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide. On the same day, Washington filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to enjoin the enforcement of sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order. Two days later, Washington's Complaint was amended to add the State of Minnesota as a plaintiff and to add a claim under the Tenth Amendment. Washington and Minnesota (collectively, "the States") jointly filed an amended motion for a TRO. The Government opposed the motion the next day, and the district court held a hearing the day after that.

That evening, the court entered a written order granting the TRO. Washington v. Trump , No. C17–0141–JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful. Id. at *2. The district court enjoined and restrained the nationwide enforcement of sections 3(c) and 5(a)-(c) in their entirety. Id. It enjoined section 5(e) to the extent that section "purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities," and prohibited the government from "proceeding with any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities." The court also directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the States' request for a preliminary injunction and denied the Government's motion to stay the TRO pending an emergency appeal. Id. at *3.

The Government filed a notice of appeal the next day and sought an emergency stay in this court, including an immediate stay while its emergency stay motion was under consideration. We denied the request for an immediate stay and set deadlines for the filing of responsive and reply briefs on the emergency stay motion over the next two days.1 Washington v. Trump , No. 17–35105, ––– F.3d ––––, 2017 WL 469608 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2017). The motion was submitted after oral argument was conducted by telephone.

II. Appellate Jurisdiction

The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the Government's stay motion because the Government's appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable. See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc. , 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO if it "possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction." Serv. Emps. Int'l Union v. Nat'l Union of Healthcare Workers , 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings before the district court and that it has or will remain in force for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). See, e.g. , id.

We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court's order possesses the qualities of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties vigorously contested the legal basis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
141 cases
  • Mohamed v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • July 20, 2017
    ...its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who [claim they are injured by the visa denial]"); Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th Cir. 2017).In assessing whether the No Fly List is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, the relevant con......
  • Casa De Md., Inc. v. Wolf
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 11, 2020 and policy.’ " Regents of Univ. of California v. DHS , 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) ), aff'd , 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) ; see also Hawaii v. Trump , 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev'd on other gr......
  • Guilford Coll. v. McAleenan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • May 3, 2019
    ...constitutional minimum of standing" to challenge the government's rescission of the DACA program). See also Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir.) (citing Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ) ("At this very preliminary stage of the litigation, the [Plaintiffs] may rely on......
  • Sarsour v. Trump
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • March 24, 2017
    ...defendants' emergency appeal to stay the district court's order, which it construed as a preliminary injunction. Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1165–66 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit found that the defendants had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to the pla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Abusing the Judicial Power: a Geographic Approach to Address Nationwide Injunctions and State Standing
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 70-6, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...that EO-3 will hinder the University from recruiting and retaining a world-class faculty and student body."), and Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[T]he states allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order's ......
  • Bias and Immigration: a New Factors Test to Examine Extrinsic Evidence of Animus in Immigration Cases
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-1, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Ams. for Prosperity v. Grewal, No. 3:19-cv-14228, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170793, at *47-48 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2019).53. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 2017).54. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judici......
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 95 No. 5, May 2020
    • May 1, 2020
    ...(mem.); Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141, 2017 WL 462040, at *2-3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) (temporary restraining order), stay denied, 847 F.3d 1151, 1169 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), superseded by Washington v. Trump, 858 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2017); Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480, 20......
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 3, December 2021
    • December 1, 2021
    ...concurring); id. at 730 (Thomas, J., dissenting). (104.) Washington v. Trump, 858 F.3d 1168, 1168 (9th Cir.), denying reh'g en banc to 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (per (105.) See Exec. Order No. 13,780, 3 C.F.R. 301 (2018); Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2403-04 (2018). The government ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT