State v. Trump, No. 17-35105

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation847 F.3d 1151
Docket NumberNo. 17-35105
Decision Date09 February 2017
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.

847 F.3d 1151

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.

No. 17-35105

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017
Filed February 9, 2017


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

847 F.3d 1156

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 Defendants–Appellants.

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 Plaintiff–Appellee 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 Plaintiff–Appellee State of Minnesota.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

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.

847 F.3d 1157

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

847 F.3d 1158

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 practice notes
  • Covenant v. Barr, Nos. 19-16487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 6, 2020
    ....... Allowing uneven application of nationwide immigration policy flies in the face of these requirements."); Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1166–67 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) ("[A] fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uni......
  • Covenant v. Trump, No. 18-17274
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 7, 2018
    ...In these circumstances, we may treat the district court’s order as an appealable preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir. 2017).B. Standing and Zone of Interests The Government contends that the Organizations do not have Article III standing to sue and......
  • Karnoski v. Trump, No. 18-35347
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 14, 2019
    ...(4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009) ; Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) ; see also City & County of San Francisco v. Trump , 897 F.3d 1225, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018).C. We extend the Supreme Court’......
  • City & Cnty. of S.F. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Case No. 19-cv-04717-PJH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 11, 2019
    ...Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev'd on other grounds and remanded, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1166-67 (9th Cir.), reconsideration en banc denied, 853 F.3d 933 & 858 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2017), and cert. denied sub nom. Golden v. Washingt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
124 cases
  • Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-17168
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 22, 2017
    ...Feb. 3, 2017). The Government filed an emergency motion seeking a stay of the injunction, which we denied. See Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1161–64 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), reh'g en banc denied , 853 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2017). The Government later 878 F.3d 674voluntarily dismiss......
  • Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 18-15068
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 8, 2018
    ...a narrower injunction that would provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, including the entity plaintiffs. Cf. Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[T]he Government has not proposed a workable alternative form of the TRO ... that would protect the proprietary i......
  • Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 1:17-cv-7572 (ALC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 13, 2019
    ...of the INA).3 See Wagafe v. Trump , No. C17-0094-RAJ, 2017 WL 2671254, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2017).4 See Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017).5 Stephen Miller, the president's Senior Advisor stated that E.O. 13780 would have "the same basic policy outcome for the co......
  • Covenant v. Barr, Nos. 19-16487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 6, 2020
    ....... Allowing uneven application of nationwide immigration policy flies in the face of these requirements."); Washington v. Trump , 847 F.3d 1151, 1166–67 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) ("[A] fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requireme......
  • 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