Intl. Refugee Assistance v. Donald J. Trump

Filing 59

Joint FULL ELECTRONIC APPENDIX and full paper appendix by Appellants Daniel R. Coats, Department of State, Elaine C. Duke, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump and United States Department of Homeland Security in 17-2231, Appellants Elaine C. Duke, Kevin K. McAleenan, James McCament, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Rex Tillerson and Donald J. Trump in 17-2232, Appellants Elaine C. Duke, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Homeland Security and United States Department of State in 17-2233, Appellees Daniel R. Coats, Department of State, Elaine C. Duke, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump and United States Department of Homeland Security in 17-2240. Method of Filing Paper Copies: courier. Date paper copies mailed dispatched or delivered to court: 11/02/2017. [1000185249] [17-2231, 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240] Sharon Swingle [Entered: 11/01/2017 06:59 PM]

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 111 of 119

Exhibit Q

J.R.176

JA 226

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 112 of 119

J.R.177

JA 227

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 113 of 119

J.R.178

JA 228

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 114 of 119

J.R.179

JA 229

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 115 of 119

J.R.180

JA 230

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 116 of 119

J.R.181

JA 231

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 117 of 119

J.R.182

JA 232

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 118 of 119

Exhibit R

J.R.183

JA 233

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-10 Filed 03/11/17 Page 119 of 119

Contact (/contact-cia)

(/)
Library
Library (/library)
Publications (/library/publications)
Center for the Study of Intelligence (/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence)
Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room (/library/foia)
Kent Center Occasional Papers (/library/kent-center-occasional-papers)
Intelligence Literature (/library/intelligence-literature)
Reports (/library/reports)
Related Links (/library/related-links.html)
Video Center (/library/video-center)

Please select a country to view



FIELD LISTING :: RELIGIONS
COUNTRY

RELIGIONS(%)

Afghanistan
Muslim 99.7% (Sunni 84.7 - 89.7%, Shia 10 - 15%), other 0.3% (2009 est.)
(../geos/af.html)
Albania (../geos/al.html) Muslim 56.7%, Roman Catholic 10%, Orthodox 6.8%, atheist 2.5%, Bektashi (a
Sufi order) 2.1%, other 5.7%, unspecified 16.2%
note: all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances
prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing private religious practice
(2011 est.)
Algeria (../geos/ag.html) Muslim (official; predominantly Sunni) 99%, other (includes Christian and
Jewish) <1% (2012 est.)
American Samoa
Christian 98.3%, other 1%, unaffiliated 0.7% (2010 est.)
(../geos/aq.html)
Andorra
Roman Catholic (predominant)
(../geos/an.html)
Angola (../geos/ao.html) Roman Catholic 41.1%, Protestant 38.1%, other 8.6%, none 12.3% (2014 est.)
Anguilla
(../geos/av.html)

Protestant 73.2% (includes Anglican 22.7%, Methodist 19.4%, Pentecostal
10.5%, Seventh Day Adventist 8.3%, Baptist 7.1%, Church of God 4.9%,
Presbytarian 0.2%, Brethren 0.1%), Roman Catholic 6.8%, Jehovah's Witness
1.1%, other Christian 10.9%, other 3.2%, unspecified 0.3%, none 4.5% (2011
est.)

Antigua and Barbuda
(../geos/ac.html)

Protestant 68.3% (Anglican 17.6%, Seventh Day Adventist 12.4%, Pentecostal
12.2%, Moravian 8.3%, Methodist 5.6%, Wesleyan Holiness 4.5%, Church of
God 4.1%, Baptist 3.6%), Roman Catholic 8.2%, other 12.2%, unspecified 5.5%,
none 5.9% (2011 est.)

Argentina
(../geos/ar.html)

nominally Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing), Protestant 2%,
Jewish 2%, other 4%

J.R.184
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 234
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 1 of 119
Armenia
(../geos/am.html)

Armenian Apostolic 92.6%, Evangelical 1%, other 2.4%, none 1.1%, unspecified
2.9% (2011 est.)

Aruba (../geos/aa.html)

Roman Catholic 75.3%, Protestant 4.9% (includes Methodist 0.9%, Adventist
0.9%, Anglican 0.4%, other Protestant 2.7%), Jehovah's Witness 1.7%, other
12%, none 5.5%, unspecified 0.5% (2010 est.)

Australia
(../geos/as.html)

Protestant 30.1% (Anglican 17.1%, Uniting Church 5.0%, Presbyterian and
Reformed 2.8%, Baptist, 1.6%, Lutheran 1.2%, Pentecostal 1.1%, other
Protestant 1.3%), Catholic 25.3% (Roman Catholic 25.1%, other Catholic 0.2%),
other Christian 2.9%, Orthodox 2.8%, Buddhist 2.5%, Muslim 2.2%, Hindu 1.3%,
other 1.3%, none 22.3%, unspecified 9.3% (2011 est.)

Austria (../geos/au.html) Catholic 73.8% (includes Roman Catholic 73.6%, other Catholic 0.2%),
Protestant 4.9%, Muslim 4.2%, Orthodox 2.2%, other 0.8% (includes other
Christian), none 12%, unspecified 2% (2001 est.)
Azerbaijan
(../geos/aj.html)

Muslim 96.9% (predominantly Shia), Christian 3%, other <0.1, unaffiliated <0.1
(2010 est.)
note: religious affiliation is still nominal in Azerbaijan; percentages for actual
practicing adherents are much lower

Bahamas, The
(../geos/bf.html)

Protestant 69.9% (includes Baptist 34.9%, Anglican 13.7%, Pentecostal 8.9%
Seventh Day Adventist 4.4%, Methodist 3.6%, Church of God 1.9%, Brethren
1.6%), Roman Catholic 12%, other Christian 13% (includes Jehovah's Witness
1.1%), other 0.6%, none 1.9%, unspecified 2.6% (2010 est.)

Bahrain (../geos/ba.html) Muslim 70.3%, Christian 14.5%, Hindu 9.8%, Buddhist 2.5%, Jewish 0.6%, folk
religion <.1, unaffiliated 1.9%, other 0.2% (2010 est.)
Bangladesh
(../geos/bg.html)
Barbados
(../geos/bb.html)

Muslim 89.1%, Hindu 10%, other 0.9% (includes Buddhist, Christian) (2013 est.)
Protestant 66.4% (includes Anglican 23.9%, other Pentecostal 19.5%, Adventist
5.9%, Methodist 4.2%, Wesleyan 3.4%, Nazarene 3.2%, Church of God 2.4%,
Baptist 1.8%, Moravian 1.2%, other Protestant 0.9%), Roman Catholic 3.8%,
other Christian 5.4% (includes Jehovah's Witness 2.0%, other 3.4%),
Rastafarian 1%, other 1.5%, none 20.6%, unspecified 1.2% (2010 est.)

Belarus (../geos/bo.html) Orthodox 48.3%, Catholic 7.1%, other 3.5%, non-believers 41.1% (2011 est.)
Belgium
(../geos/be.html)
Belize (../geos/bh.html)

Roman Catholic 75%, other (includes Protestant) 25%
Roman Catholic 40.1%, Protestant 31.5% (includes Pentecostal 8.4%, Seventh
Day Adventist 5.4%, Anglican 4.7%, Mennonite 3.7%, Baptist 3.6%, Methodist
2.9%, Nazarene 2.8%), Jehovah's Witness 1.7%, other 10.5% (includes Baha'i,
Buddhist, Hindu, Morman, Muslim, Rastafarian), unknown 0.6%, none 15.5%
(2010 est.)

Benin (../geos/bn.html)

Muslim 27.7%, Catholic 25.5%, Protestant 13.5% (Celestial 6.7%, Methodist
3.4%, other Protestant 3.4%), Vodoun 11.6%, other Christian 9.5%, other
traditional religions 2.6%, other 2.6%, none 5.8% (2013 est.)

Bermuda
(../geos/bd.html)

Protestant 46.2% (includes Anglican 15.8%, African Methodist Episcopal 8.6%,
Seventh Day Adventist 6.7, Pentecostal 3.5%, Methodist 2.7%, Presbyterian 2.0
%, Church of God 1.6%, Baptist 1.2%, Salvation Army 1.1%, Brethren 1.0%,
other Protestant 2.0%), Roman Catholic 14.5%, Jehovah's Witness 1.3%, other
Christian 9.1%, Muslim 1%, other 3.9%, none 17.8%, unspecified 6.2% (2010
est.)

Bhutan (../geos/bt.html) Lamaistic Buddhist 75.3%, Indian- and Nepalese-influenced Hinduism 22.1%,
other 2.6% (2005 est.)

J.R.185
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 235
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 2 of 119
Bolivia (../geos/bl.html)

Roman Catholic 76.8%, Evangelical and Pentecostal 8.1%, Protestant 7.9%,
other 1.7%, none 5.5% (2012 est.)

Bos nia and Herzegovina
(../geos/bk.html)

Muslim 50.7%, Orthodox 30.7%, Roman Catholic 15.2%, atheist 0.8%, agnostic
0.3%, other 1.2%, undeclared/no answer 1.1% (2013 est.)

Botswana
(../geos/bc.html)

Christian 79.1%, Badimo 4.1%, other 1.4% (includes Baha'i, Hindu, Muslim,
Rastafarian), none 15.2%, unspecified 0.3% (2011 est.)

Brazil (../geos/br.html)

Roman Catholic 64.6%, other Catholic 0.4%, Protestant 22.2% (includes
Adventist 6.5%, Assembly of God 2.0%, Christian Congregation of Brazil 1.2%,
Universal Kingdom of God 1.0%, other Protestant 11.5%), other Christian 0.7%,
Spiritist 2.2%, other 1.4%, none 8%, unspecified 0.4% (2010 est.)

British Virgin Islands
(../geos/vi.html)

Protestant 70.2% (Methodist 17.6%, Church of God 10.4%, Anglican 9.5%,
Seventh Day Adventist 9.0%, Pentecostal 8.2%, Baptist 7.4%, New Testament
Church of God 6.9%, other Protestant 1.2%), Roman Catholic 8.9%, Jehovah's
W itness 2.5%, Hindu 1.9%, other 6.2%, none 7.9%, unspecified 2.4% (2010 est.)

Brunei (../geos/bx.html)

Muslim (official) 78.8%, Christian 8.7%, Buddhist 7.8%, other (includes
indigenous beliefs) 4.7% (2011 est.)

Bulgaria
(../geos/bu.html)

Eastern Orthodox 59.4%, Muslim 7.8%, other (including Catholic, Protestant,
Armenian Apostolic Orthodox, and Jewish) 1.7%, none 3.7%, unspecified 27.4%
(2011 est.)

Burkina Faso
(../geos/uv.html)

Muslim 61.6%, Catholic 23.2%, traditional/animist 7.3%, Protestant 6.7%,
other/no answer 0.2%, none 0.9% (2010 est.)

Burma (../geos/bm.html) Buddhist 87.9%, Christian 6.2%, Muslim 4.3%, Animist 0.8%, Hindu 0.5%, other
0.2%, none 0.1%
note: religion estimate is based on the 2014 national census, including an
estimate for the non-enumerated population of Rakhine State, which is assumed
to mainly affiliate with the Islamic faith (2014 est.)
Burundi (../geos/by.html) Catholic 62.1%, Protestant 23.9% (includes Adventist 2.3% and other Protestant
21.6%), Muslim 2.5%, other 3.6%, unspecified 7.9% (2008 est.)
Cabo Verde
(../geos/cv.html)

Cambodia
(../geos/cb.html)
Cameroon
(../geos/cm.html)

Roman Catholic 77.3%, Protestant 4.6% (includes Church of the Nazarene 1.7%,
Adventist 1.5%, Assembly of God 0.9%, Universal Kingdom of God 0.4%, and
God and Love 0.1%), other Christian 3.4% (includes Christian Rationalism 1.9%,
Jehovah's Witness 1%, and New Apostolic 0.5%), Muslim 1.8%, other 1.3%,
none 10.8%, unspecified 0.7% (2010 est.)
Buddhist (official) 96.9%, Muslim 1.9%, Christian 0.4%, other 0.8% (2008 est.)
Catholic 38.4%, Protestant 26.3%, other Christian 4.5%, Muslim 20.9%, animist
5.6%, other 1%, non-believer 3.2% (2005 est.)

Canada (../geos/ca.html) Catholic 39% (includes Roman Catholic 38.8%, other Catholic .2%), Protestant
20.3% (includes United Church 6.1%, Anglican 5%, Baptist 1.9%, Lutheran
1.5%, Pentecostal 1.5%, Presbyterian 1.4%, other Protestant 2.9%), Orthodox
1.6%, other Christian 6.3%, Muslim 3.2%, Hindu 1.5%, Sikh 1.4%, Buddhist
1.1%, Jewish 1%, other 0.6%, none 23.9% (2011 est.)
Cayman Islands
(../geos/cj.html)

Protestant 67.8% (includes Church of God 22.6%, Seventh Day Adv entist 9.4%,
Presbyterian/United Church 8.6%, Baptist 8.3%,Pentecostal 7.1%, nondenominational 5.3%, Anglican 4.1%, Wesleyan Holiness 2.4%), Roman Catholic
14.1%, Jehovah's Witness 1.1%, other 7%, none 9.3%, unspecified 0.7% (2010
est.)

Central African Republic
(../geos/ct.html)

indigenous beliefs 35%, Protestant 25%, Roman Catholic 25%, Muslim 15%
note: animistic beliefs and practices strongly influence the Christian majority

J.R.186
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 236
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 3 of 119
Chad (../geos/cd.html)

Muslim 58.4%, Catholic 18.5%, Protestant 16.1%, animist 4%, other 0.5%, none
2.4% (2009 est.)

Chile (../geos/ci.html)

Roman Catholic 66.7%, Evangelical or Protestant 16.4%, Jehovah's Witnesses
1%, other 3.4%, none 11.5%, unspecified 1.1% (2012 est.)

China (../geos/ch.html)

Buddhist 18.2%, Christian 5.1%, Muslim 1.8%, folk religion 21.9%, Hindu <
0.1%, Jewish < 0.1%, other 0.7% (includes Daoist (Taoist)), unaffiliated 52.2%
note: officially atheist (2010 est.)

Christmas Island
(../geos/kt.html)

Buddhist 16.9%, Christian 16.4%, Muslim 14.8%, other 1.3%, none 9.2%,
unspecified 41.5% (2011 est.)

Cocos (Keeling) Islands
(../geos/ck.html)
Colombia
(../geos/co.html)
Comoros
(../geos/cn.html)
Congo, Democratic
Republic of the
(../geos/cg.html)
Congo, Republic of the
(../geos/cf.html)

Sunni Muslim 80%, other 20% (2002 est.)
Roman Catholic 90%, other 10%
Sunni Muslim 98%, Roman Catholic 2%
note: Islam is the state religion
Roman Catholic 50%, Protestant 20%, Kimbanguist 10%, Muslim 10%, other
(includes syncretic sects and indigenous beliefs) 10%
Roman Catholic 33.1%, Awakening Churches/Christian Revival 22.3%,
Protestant 19.9%, Salutiste 2.2%, Muslim 1.6%, Kimbanguiste 1.5%, other 8.1%,
none 11.3% (2010 est.)

Cook Islands
(../geos/cw.html)

Protestant 62.8% (Cook Islands Christian Church 49.1%, Seventh Day Adventist
7.9%, Assemblies of God 3.7%, Apostolic Church 2.1%), Roman Catholic 17%,
Mormon 4.4%, other 8%, none 5.6%, no response 2.2% (2011 est.)

Costa Rica
(../geos/cs.html)

Roman Catholic 76.3%, Evangelical 13.7%, Jehovah's W itness 1.3%, other
Protestant 0.7%, other 4.8%, none 3.2%

Cote d'Ivoire
(../geos/iv.html)

Muslim 40.2%, Catholic 19.4%, Evangelical 19.3%, Methodist 2.5% , other
Christian 4.5%, animist or no religion 12.8%, other religion/unspecified 1.4%
(2011-12 est.)
note: the majority of foreign migrant workers are Muslim (72%) and Christian
(18%) (2014 est.)

Croatia (../geos/hr.html) Roman Catholic 86.3%, Orthodox 4.4%, Muslim 1.5%, other 1.5%, unspecified
2.5%, not religious or atheist 3.8% (2011 est.)
Cuba (../geos/cu.html)

nominally Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jewish,
Santeria
note: prior to CASTRO assuming power

Curacao (../geos /cc.html) Roman Catholic 72.8%, Pentecostal 6.6%, Protestant 3.2%, Adventist 3%,
Jehovah's Witness 2%, Evangelical 1.9%, other 3.8%, none 6%, unspecified
0.6% (2011 est.)
Cyprus (../geos/cy.html) Orthodox Christian 89.1%, Roman Catholic 2.9%, Protestant/Anglican 2%,
Muslim 1.8%, Buddhist 1%, other (includes Maronite, Armenian Church, Hindu)
1.4%, unknown 1.1%, none/atheist 0.6%
note: data represent only the government-controlled area of Cyprus (2011 est.)
Czechia (../geos/ez.html) Roman Catholic 10.4%, Protestant (includes Czech Brethren and Hussite) 1.1%,
other and unspecified 54%, none 34.5% (2011 est.)
Denmark
(../geos/da.html)

Evangelical Lutheran (official) 80%, Muslim 4%, other (denominations of less
than 1% each, includes Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Serbian Orthodox
Christian, Jewish, Baptist, and Buddhist) 16% (2012 est.)

Djibouti (../geos/dj.html) Muslim 94%, Christian 6%

J.R.187
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 237
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 4 of 119
Dominica
(../geos/do.html)

Roman Catholic 61.4%, Protestant 28.6% (includes Evangelical 6.7%, Seventh
Day Adventist 6.1%, Pentecostal 5.6%, Baptist 4.1%, Methodist 3.7%, Church of
God 1.2%, other 1.2%), Rastafarian 1.3%, Jehovah's Witness 1.2%, other 0.3%,
none 6.1%, unspecified 1.1% (2001 est.)

Dominican Republic
Roman Catholic 95%, other 5%
(../geos/dr.html)
Ecuador (../geos/ec.html) Roman Catholic 74%, Evangelical 10.4%, Jehovah's Witness 1.2%, other 6.4%
(includes Mormon Buddhist, Jewish, Spiritualist, Muslim, Hindu, indigenous
religions, African American religions, Pentecostal), atheist 7. 9%, agnostic 0.1%
note: data represents persons at least 16 years of age from five Ecuadoran
cities (2012 est.)
Egypt (../geos/eg.html)

Muslim (predominantly Sunni) 90%, Christian (majority Coptic Orthodox, other
Christians include Armenian Apostolic, Catholic, Maronite, Orthodox, and
Anglican) 10% (2012 est.)

El Salvador
(../geos/es.html)

Roman Catholic 57.1%, Protestant 21.2%, Jehovah's W itnesses 1.9%, Mormon
0.7%, other religions 2.3%, none 16.8% (2003 est.)

Equatorial Guinea
(../geos/ek.html)
Eritrea (../geos/er.html)

nominally Christian and predominantly Roman Catholic, pagan practices
Muslim, Coptic Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant

Estonia (../geos/en.html) Lutheran 9.9%, Orthodox 16.2%, other Christian (including Methodist, SeventhDay Adventist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal) 2.2%, other 0.9%, none 54.1%,
unspecified 16.7% (2011 est.)
Ethiopia (../geos/et.html) Ethiopian Orthodox 43.5%, Muslim 33.9%, Protestant 18.5%, traditional 2.7%,
Catholic 0.7%, other 0.6% (2007 est.)
European Union
(../geos/ee.html)
Falkland Islands (Islas
Malvinas)
(../geos/fk.html)
Faroe Islands
(../geos/fo.html)

Roman Catholic 48%, Protestant 12%, Orthodox 8%, other Christian 4%, Muslim
2%, other 1% (includes Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu), atheist 7%, nonbeliever/agnostic 16%, unspecified 2% (2012 est.)
Christian 66%, none 32%, other 2% (2012 est.)
Christian 89.3% (predominantly Evangelical Lutheran), other 0.7%, more than
one religion 0.2%, none 3.8%, unspecified 6% (2011 est.)

Fiji (../geos/fj.html)

Protestant 45% (Methodist 34.6%, Assembly of God 5.7%, Seventh Day
Adventist 3.9%, and Anglican 0.8%), Hindu 27.9%, other Christian 10.4%,
Roman Catholic 9.1%, Muslim 6.3%, Sikh 0.3%, other 0.3%, none 0.8% (2007
est.)

Finland (../geos/fi.html)

Lutheran 73.8%, Orthodox 1.1%, other or none 25.1% (2014 est.)

France (../geos/fr.html)

Christian (overwhelmingly Roman Catholic) 63-66%, Muslim 7-9%, Buddhist
0.5-0.75%, Jewish 0.5-0.75%, other 0.5-1.0%, none 23-28%
note: France maintains a tradition of secularism and has not officially collected
data on religious affiliation since the 1872 national census, which complicates
assessments of France's religious composition; an 1872 law prohibiting state
authorities from collecting data on individuals' ethnicity or r eligious beliefs was
reaffirmed by a 1978 law emphasizing the prohibition of the collection or
exploitation of personal data revealing an individual's race, ethnicity, or
political, philosophical, or religious opinions; a 1905 law codified France's
separation of church and state (2015 est.)

French Polynesia
(../geos/fp.html)

Protestant 54%, Roman Catholic 30%, other 10%, no religion 6%

J.R.188
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 238
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 5 of 119
Gabon (../geos/gb.html)
Gambia, The
(../geos/ga.html)
Gaza Strip
(../geos/gz.html)

Catholic 41.9%, Protestant 13.7%, other Christian 32.4%, Muslim 6.4%, animist
0.3%, other 0.3%, none/no answer 5% (2012 est.)
Muslim 95.7%, Christian 4.2%, none 0.1%, no answer 0.1% (2013 est.)
Muslim 98.0 - 99.0% (predominantly Sunni), Christian <1.0%, other, unaffiliated,
unspecified <1.0%
note: dismantlement of Israeli settlements was completed in September 2005;
Gaza has had no Jewish population since then (2012 est.)

Georgia (../geos/gg.html) Orthodox (official) 83.4%, Muslim 10.7%, Armenian Apostolic 2.9%, other 1.2%
(includes Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Yazidi, Protestant, Jewish), none 0.5%,
unspecified/no answer 1.2% (2014 est.)
Germany
(../geos/gm.html)
Ghana (../geos/gh.html)

Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Muslim 3.7%, unaffiliated or other 28.3%
Christian 71.2% (Pentecostal/Charismatic 28.3%, Protestant 18.4%, Catholic
13.1%, other 11.4%), Muslim 17.6%, traditional 5.2%, other 0.8%, none 5.2%
(2010 est.)

Gibraltar
(../geos/gi.html)

Roman Catholic 78.1%, Church of England 7%, Muslim 4%, other Christian
3.2%, Jewish 2.1%, Hindu 1.8%, other 0.9%, none 2.9% (2001 est.)

Greece (../geos/gr.html)

Greek Orthodox (official) 98%, Muslim 1.3%, other 0.7%

Greenland
Evangelical Lutheran, traditional Inuit spiritual beliefs
(../geos/gl.html)
Grenada (../geos/gj.html) Roman Catholic 44.6%, Protestant 43.5% (includes Anglican 11.5%, Pentecostal
11.3%, Seventh Day Adventist 10.5%, Baptist 2.9%, Church of God 2.6%,
Methodist 1.8%, Evangelical 1.6%, other 1.3%), Jehovah's Witness 1.1%,
Rastafarian 1.1%, other 6.2%, none 3.6%
Guam (../geos/gq.html)
Guatemala
(../geos/gt.html)
Guernsey
(../geos/gk.html)
Guinea-Bissau
(../geos/pu.html)

Roman Catholic 85%, other 15% (1999 est.)
Roman Catholic, Protestant, indigenous Mayan beliefs
Protestant (Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregational, Methodist), Roman
Catholic
Muslim 45.1%, Christian 22.1%, animist 14.9%, none 2%, unspecified 15.9%
(2008 est.)

Guinea (../geos/gv.html) Muslim 86.7%, Christian 8.9%, animist/other/none 4.4% (2012 est.)
Guyana (../geos/gy.html) Protestant 30.5% (Pentecostal 16.9%, Anglican 6.9%, Seventh Day Adventist
5%, Methodist 1.7%), Hindu 28.4%, Roman Catholic 8.1%, Muslim 7.2%,
Jehovah's Witness 1.1%, other Christian 17.7%, other 1.9%, none 4.3%,
unspecified 0.9% (2002 est.)
Haiti (../geos/ha.html)

Holy See (Vatican City)
(../geos/vt.html)
Honduras
(../geos/ho.html)
Hong Kong
(../geos/hk.html)

Roman Catholic (official) 54.7%, Protestant 28.5% (Baptist 15.4%, Pentecostal
7.9%, Adventist 3%, Methodist 1.5%, other 0.7%), voodoo (official) 2.1%, other
4.6%, none 10.2%
note: many Haitians practice elements of voodoo in addition to another religion,
most often Roman Catholicism; voodoo was recognized as an official religion in
2003
Roman Catholic
Roman Catholic 97%, Protestant 3%
eclectic mixture of local religions 90%, Christian 10%

J.R.189
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 239
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 6 of 119
Hungary
(../geos/hu.html)

Roman Catholic 37.2%, Calvinist 11.6%, Lutheran 2.2%, Greek Catholic 1.8%,
other 1.9%, none 18.2%, unspecified 27.2% (2011 est.)

Iceland (../geos/ic.html) Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland (official) 73.8%, Roman Catholic 3.6%,
Reykjavik Free Church 2.9%, Hafnarfjorour Free Church 2%, The Independent
Congregation 1%, other religions 3.9% (includes Pentecostal and Asatru
Association), none 5.6%, other or unspecified 7.2% (2015 est.)
India (../geos/in.html)

Hindu 79.8%, Muslim 14.2%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.7%, other and unspecified
2% (2011 est.)

Indonesia
(../geos/id.html)

Muslim 87.2%, Christian 7%, Roman Catholic 2.9%, Hindu 1.7%, other 0.9%
(includes Buddhist and Confucian), unspecified 0.4% (2010 est.)

Iran (../geos/ir.html)

Muslim (official) 99.4% (Shia 90-95%, Sunni 5-10%), other (includes
Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian) 0.3%, unspecified 0.4% (2011 est.)

Iraq (../geos/iz.html)

Muslim (official) 99% (Shia 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian 0.8%, Hindu
<0.1, Buddhist <0.1, Jewish <0.1, folk religion <0.1, unafilliated 0.1, other <0.1
note: while there has been voluntary relocation of many Christian families to
northern Iraq, recent reporting indicates that the overall Christian population
may have dropped by as much as 50 percent since the fall of the SADDAM
Husayn regime in 2003, with many fleeing to Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (2010
est.)

Ireland (../geos/ei.html) Roman Catholic 84.7%, Church of Ireland 2.7%, other Christian 2.7%, Muslim
1.1%, other 1.7%, unspecified 1.5%, none 5.7% (2011 est.)
Isle of Man
(../geos/im.html)

Protestant (Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Society of Friends),
Roman Catholic

Israel (../geos /is.html)

Jewish 74.8%, Muslim 17.6%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 4% (2015 est.)

Italy (../geos/it.html)

Christian 80% (overwhelmingly Roman Catholic with very small groups of
Jehovah's Witnesses and Protestants), Muslim (about 800,000 to 1 million),
atheist and agnostic 20%

Jamaica
(../geos/jm.html)

Protestant 64.8% (includes Seventh Day Adventist 12.0%, Pentecostal 11.0%,
Other Church of God 9.2%, New Testament Church of God 7.2%, Baptist 6.7%,
Church of God in Jamaica 4.8%, Church of God of Prophecy 4.5%, Anglican
2.8%, United Church 2.1%, Methodist 1.6%, Revived 1.4%, Brethren 0.9%, and
Moravian 0.7%), Roman Catholic 2.2%, Jehovah's Witness 1.9%, Rastafarian
1.1%, other 6.5%, none 21.3%, unspecified 2.3% (2011 est.)

Japan (../geos/ja.html)

Shintoism 79.2%, Buddhism 66.8%, Christianity 1.5%, other 7.1%
note: total adherents exceeds 100% because many people practice both
Shintoism and Buddhism (2012 est.)

Jersey (../geos/je.html)

Protestant (Anglican, Baptist, Congregational New Church, Methodist,
Presbyterian), Roman Catholic

Jordan (../geos/jo.html)

Muslim 97.2% (official; predominantly Sunni), Christian 2.2% (majority Greek
Orthodox, but some Greek and Roman Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic
Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Protestant denominations), Buddhist 0.4%,
Hindu 0.1%, Jewish <0.1, folk religionist <0.1, unaffiliated <0.1, other <0.1
(2010 est.)

Kazakhstan
(../geos/kz.html)

Muslim 70.2%, Christian 26.2% (mainly Russian Orthodox), other 0.2%, atheist
2.8%, unspecified 0.5% (2009 est.)

Kenya (../geos/ke.html)

Christian 83% (Protestant 47.7%, Catholic 23.4%, other Christian 11.9%),
Muslim 11.2%, Traditionalists 1.7%, other 1.6%, none 2.4%, unspecified 0.2%
(2009 est.)

J.R.190
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 240
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 7 of 119
Kiribati (../geos/kr.html) Roman Catholic 55.8%, Kempsville Presbyterian Church 33.5%, Mormon 4.7%,
Baha'i 2.3%, Seventh Day Adventist 2%, other 1.5%, none 0.2%, unspecified
0.05% (2010 est.)
Korea, North
(../geos/kn.html)

traditionally Buddhist and Confucianist, some Christian and syncretic Chondogyo
(Religion of the Heavenly Way)
note: autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; governmentsponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom

Korea, South
(../geos/ks.html)

Christian 31.6% (Protestant 24.0%, Catholic 7.6%), Buddhist 24.2%, other or
unknown 0.9%, none 43.3% (2010 est.)

Kosovo (../geos/kv.html) Muslim 95.6%, Roman Catholic 2.2%, Orthodox 1.5%, other 0.07%, none 0.07%,
unspecified 0.6% (2011 est.)
Kuwait (../geos/ku.html) Muslim (official) 76.7%, Christian 17.3%, other and unspecified 5.9%
note: represents the total population; about 69% of the population consists of
immigrants (2013 est.)
Kyrgyzstan
(../geos/kg.html)
L aos (../geos/la.html)
Latvia (../geos/lg.html)

Muslim 75%, Russian Orthodox 20%, other 5%
Buddhist 66.8%, Christian 1.5%, other 31%, unspecified 0.7% (2005 est.)
Lutheran 19.6%, Orthodox 15.3%, other Christian 1%, other 0.4%, unspecified
63.7% (2006)

Lebanon (../geos/le.html) Muslim 54% (27% Sunni, 27% Shia), Christian 40.5% (includes 21% Maronite
Catholic, 8% Greek Orthodox, 5% Greek Catholic, 6.5% other Christian), Druze
5.6%, very small numbers of Jews, Baha'is, Buddhists, Hindus, and Mormons
note: 18 religious sects recognized (2012 est.)
Lesotho (../geos/lt.html) Christian 80%, indigenous beliefs 20%
Liberia (../geos/li.html)

Christian 85.6%, Muslim 12.2%, Traditional 0.6%, other 0.2%, none 1.4% (2008
Census)

Libya (../geos/ly.html)

Muslim (official; virtually all Sunni) 96.6%, Christian 2.7%, Buddhist 0.3%, Hindu
<0.1, Jewish <0.1, folk religion <0.1, unafilliated 0.2%, other <0.1
note: non-Sunni Muslims include native Ibadhi Muslims (<1% of the population)
and foreign Muslims (2010 est.)

Liechtenstein
(../geos/ls.html)

Roman Catholic (official) 75.9%, Protestant Reformed 6.5%, Muslim 5.4%,
Lutheran 1.3%, other 2.9%, none 5.4%, unspecified 2.6% (2010 est.)

Lithuania
(../geos/lh.html)

Roman Catholic 77.2%, Russian Orthodox 4.1%, Old Believer 0.8%, Evangelical
Lutheran 0.6%, Evangelical Reformist 0.2%, other (including Sunni Muslim,
Jewish, Greek Catholic, and Karaite) 0.8%, none 6.1%, unspecified 10.1% (2011
est.)

Luxembourg
(../geos/lu.html)

Roman Catholic 87%, other (includes Protestant, Jewish, and Mus lim) 13%
(2000)

Macau (../geos/mc.html) Buddhist 50%, Roman Catholic 15%, none or other 35% (1997 est.)
Macedonia
(../geos/mk.html)

Macedonian Orthodox 64.8%, Muslim 33.3%, other Christian 0.4%, other and
unspecified 1.5% (2002 est.)

Madagascar
(../geos/ma.html)

Christian, indigenous believer, Muslim
note: population largely practices Christianity or an indigenous religion; small
share of population is Muslim

Malawi (../geos/mi.html) Christian 82.6%, Muslim 13%, other 1.9%, none 2.5% (2008 est.)

J.R.191
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 241
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 8 of 119
Malaysia
(../geos/my.html)
Maldives
(../geos/mv.html)
Mali (../geos/ml.html)

Muslim (official) 61.3%, Buddhist 19.8%, Christian 9.2%, Hindu 6.3%,
Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 1.3%, other 0.4%,
none 0.8%, unspecified 1% (2010 est.)
Sunni Muslim (official)
Muslim 94.8%, Christian 2.4%, Animist 2%, none 0.5%, unspecified 0.3% (2009
est.)

Malta (../geos/mt.html)

Roman Catholic (official) more than 90% (2011 est.)

Marshall Islands
(../geos/rm.html)

Protestant 54.8%, Assembly of God 25.8%, Roman Catholic 8.4%, B ukot nan
Jesus 2.8%, Mormon 2.1%, other Christian 3.6%, other 1%, none 1.5% (1999
census)

Mauritania
(../geos/mr.html)
Mauritius
(../geos/mp.html)

Muslim (official) 100%
Hindu 48.5%, Roman Catholic 26.3%, Muslim 17.3%, other Christian 6.4%, other
0.6%, none 0.7%, unspecified 0.1% (2011 est.)

Mexico (../geos/mx.html) Roman Catholic 82.7%, Pentecostal 1.6%, Jehovah's Witness 1.4%, other
Evangelical Churches 5%, other 1.9%, none 4.7%, unspecified 2.7% (2010 est.)
Micronesia, Federated
States of
(../geos/fm.html)

Roman Catholic 54.7%, Protestant 41.1% (includes Congregational 38.5%,
Baptist 1.1%, Seventh Day Adventist 0.8%, Assembly of God 0.7%), Mormon
1.5%, other 1.9%, none 0.7%, unspecified 0.1% (2010 est.)

Moldova
(../geos/md.html)

Orthodox 93.3%, Baptist 1%, other Christian 1.2%, other 0.9%, atheist 0.4%,
none 1%, unspecified 2.2% (2004 est.)

Monaco
(../geos/mn.html)
Mongolia
(../geos/mg.html)

Roman Catholic 90% (official), other 10%
Buddhist 53%, Muslim 3%, Christian 2.2%, Shamanist 2.9%, other 0.4%, none
38.6% (2010 est.)

Montenegro
(../geos/mj.html)

Orthodox 72.1%, Muslim 19.1%, Catholic 3.4%, atheist 1.2%, other 1.5%,
unspecified 2.6% (2011 est.)

Montserrat
(../geos/mh.html)

Protestant 67.1% (includes Anglican 21.8%, Methodist 17%, Pentecostal 14.1%,
Seventh Day Adventist 10.5%, and Church of God 3.7%), Roman Catholic
11.6%, Rastafarian 1.4%, other 6.5%, none 2.6%, unspecified 10.8% (2001 est.)

Morocco
(../geos/mo.html)

Muslim 99% (official; virtually all Sunni, <0.1% Shia), other 1% (includes
Christian, Jewish, and Baha'i); note - Jewish about 6,000 (2010 est.)

Mozambique
(../geos/mz.html)

Roman Catholic 28.4%, Muslim 17.9%, Zionist Christian 15.5%, Protestant
12.2% (includes Pentecostal 10.9% and Anglican 1.3%), other 6.7%, none
18.7%, unspecified 0.7% (2007 est.)

Namibia
(../geos/w a.html)
Nauru (../geos/nr.html)

Christian 80% to 90% (at least 50% Lutheran), indigenous beliefs 10% to 20%
Protestant 60.4% (includes Nauru Congregational 35.7%, Assembly of God 13%,
Nauru Independent Church 9.5%, Baptist 1.5%, and Seventh Day Adventist
0.7%), Roman Catholic 33%, other 3.7%, none 1.8%, unspecified 1.1% (2011
est.)

Nepal (../geos/np.html)

Hindu 81.3%, Buddhist 9%, Muslim 4.4%, Kirant 3.1%, Christian 1.4%, other
0.5%, unspecifed 0.2% (2011 est.)

Netherlands
(../geos/nl.html)

Roman Catholic 28%, Protestant 19% (includes Dutch Reformed 9%, Protestant
Church of The Netherlands, 7%, Calvinist 3%), other 11% (includes about 5%
Muslim and fewer numbers of Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, and
Orthodox), none 42% (2009 est.)

J.R.192
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 242
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 9 of 119
New Caledonia
(../geos/nc.html)
New Zealand
(../geos/nz.html)

Nicaragua
(../geos/nu.html)

Roman Catholic 60%, Protestant 30%, other 10%
Christian 44.3% (Catholic 11.6%, Anglican 10.8%, Presbyterian and
Congregational 7.8%, Methodist, 2.4%, Pentecostal 1.8%, other 9.9%), Hindu
2.1%, Buddhist 1.4%, Maori Christian 1.3%, Islam 1.1%, other religion 1.4%
(includes Judaism, Spiritualism and New Age religions, Baha'i, Asian religions
other than Buddhism), no religion 38.5%, not stated or unidentified 8.2%,
objected to answering 4.1%
note: based on the 2013 census of the usually resident population; percentages
add up to more than 100% because people were able to identify more than one
religion (2013 est.)
Roman Catholic 58.5%, Protestant 23.2% (Evangelical 21.6%, Moravian 1.6%),
Jehovah's Witnesses 0.9%, other 1.6%, none 15.7% (2005 est.)

Nigeria (../geos/ni.html) Muslim 50%, Christian 40%, indigenous beliefs 10%
Niger (../geos/ng.html)

Muslim 80%, other (includes indigenous beliefs and Christian) 20%

Niue (../geos/ne.html)

Ekalesia Niue (Congregational Christian Church of Niue - a Protestant church
founded by missionaries from the London Missionary Society) 67%, other
Protestant 3% (includes Seventh Day Adventist 1%, Presbyterian 1%, and
Methodist 1%), Mormon 10%, Roman Catholic 10%, Jehovah's Witnesses 2%,
other 6%, none 2% (2011 est.)

Norfolk Island
(../geos/nf.html)

Protestant 49.6% (Anglican 31.8%, Uniting Church in Australia 10.6%, Seventh
Day Adventist 3.2%), Roman Catholic 11.7%, other 8.6%, none 23.5%,
unspecified 6.6% (2011 est.)

Northern Mariana Islands Christian (Roman Catholic majority, although traditional beliefs and taboos may
(../geos/cq.html)
still be found)
Norway (../geos/no.html) Church of Norway (Evangelical Lutheran - official) 82.1%, other Christian 3.9%,
Muslim 2.3%, Roman Catholic 1.8%, other 2.4%, unspecified 7.5% (2011 est.)
Oman (../geos/mu.html)

Muslim (official; majority are Ibadhi, lesser numbers of Sunni and Shia) 85.9%,
Christian 6.5%, Hindu 5.5%, Buddhist 0.8%, Jewish <0.1%, other 1%,
unaffiliated 0.2% (2010 est.)
note: approximately 75% of Omani citizens, who compose almost 70% of the
country's total population, are Ibadhi Muslims; the Omani government does not
keep statistics on religious affiliation (2013)

Pakistan
(../geos/pk.html)

Muslim (official) 96.4% (Sunni 85-90%, Shia 10-15%), other (includes Christian
and Hindu) 3.6% (2010 est.)

Palau (../geos/ps.html)

Roman Catholic 49.4%, Protestant 30.9% (includes Protestant (general) 23.1%,
Seventh Day Adventist 5.3%, and other Protestant 2.5%), Modekngei 8.7%
(indigenous to Palau), Jehovah's Witnesses 1.1%, other 8.8%, none or
unspecified 1.1% (2005 est.)

Panama
(../geos/pm.html)
Papua New Guinea
(../geos/pp.html)

Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant 15%
Roman Catholic 27%, Protestant 69.4% (Evangelical Lutheran 19.5%, United
Church 11.5%, Seventh-Day Adventist 10%, Pentecostal 8.6%, Evangelical
Alliance 5.2%, Anglican 3.2%, Baptist 2.5%, other Protestant 8.9%), Baha'i
0.3%, indigenous beliefs and other 3.3% (2000 census)

Paraguay
(../geos/pa.html)

Roman Catholic 89.6%, Protestant 6.2%, other Christian 1.1%, other or
unspecified 1.9%, none 1.1% (2002 census)

Peru (../geos/pe.html)

Roman Catholic 81.3%, Evangelical 12.5%, other 3.3%, none 2.9% (2007 est.)

J.R.193
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 243
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 10 of 119
Philippines
(../geos/rp.html)
Pitcairn Is lands
(../geos/pc.html)
Poland (../geos/pl.html)

Portugal
(../geos/po.html)
Puerto Rico
(../geos/rq.html)
Qatar (../geos/qa.html)

Catholic 82.9% (Roman Catholic 80.9%, Aglipayan 2%), Muslim 5%, Evangelical
2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified
0.6%, none 0.1% (2000 census)
Seventh-Day Adventist 100%
Catholic 87.2% (includes Roman Catholic 86.9% and Greek Catholic, Armenian
Catholic, and Byzantine-Slavic Catholic .3%), Orthodox 1.3% (almost all are
Polish Autocephalous Orthodox), Protestant 0.4% (mainly Augsburg Evangelical
and Pentacostal), other 0.4% (includes Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist, Hare
Krishna, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon), unspecified 10.8%
(2012 est.)
Roman Catholic 81%, other Chris tian 3.3%, other (includes Jewish, Muslim,
other) 0.6%, none 6.8%, unspecified 8.3%
note: represents population 15 years of age and older (2011 est.)
Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant and other 15%
Muslim 77.5%, Christian 8.5%, other (includes mainly Hindu and other Indian
religions) 14% (2004 est.)

Romania
(../geos/ro.html)

Eastern Orthodox (including all sub-denominations) 81.9%, Protestant (various
denominations including Reformed and Pentecostal) 6.4%, Roman Catholic
4.3%, other (includes Muslim) 0.9%, none or atheist 0.2%, unspecified 6.3%
(2011 est.)

Russia (../geos/rs.html)

Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.)
note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of
non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of
Soviet rule; Russia officially recognizes Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism ,
and Buddhism as traditional religions

Rw anda (../geos/rw.html) Roman Catholic 49.5%, Protestant 39.4% (includes Adventist 12.2% and other
Protestant 27.2%), other Christian 4.5%, Muslim 1.8%, animist 0.1%, other
0.6%, none 3.6% (2001), unspecified 0.5% (2002 est.)
Saint Barthelemy
(../geos/tb.html)
Saint Helena, Ascension,
and Tristan da Cunha
(../geos/sh.html)

Saint Kitts and Nevis
(../geos/sc.html)
Saint Lucia
(../geos/st.html)

Saint Martin
(../geos/rn.html)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
(../geos/sb.html)
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines
(../geos/vc.html)

Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses
Protestant 75.9% (includes Anglican 68.9, Baptist 2.1%, Seventh Day Adventist
1.8%, Salvation Army 1.7%, New Apostolic 1.4%), Jehovah's Witness 4.1%,
Roman Catholic 1.2%, other 2.5% (includes Baha'i), unspecified 0.8%, none
6.1%, no response 9.4%
note: data represent Saint Helena only (2016 est.)
Anglican, other Protestant, Roman Catholic
Roman Catholic 61.5%, Protestant 25.5% (includes Seventh Day Adventist
10.4%, Pentecostal 8.9%, Baptist 2.2%, Anglican 1.6%, Church of God 1.5%,
other Protestant 0.9%), other Christian 3.4% (includes Evangelical 2.3% and
Jehovah's Witness 1.1%), Rastafarian 1.9%, other 0.4%, none 5.9%, unspecified
1.4% (2010 est.)
Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestant, Hindu
Roman Catholic 99%, other 1%
Protestant 75% (Anglican 47%, Methodist 28%), Roman Catholic 13%, other
(includes Hindu, Seventh-Day Adventist, other Protestant) 12%

J.R.194
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 244
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 11 of 119
Samoa (../geos/w s.html) Protestant 57.4% (Congregationalist 31.8%, Methodist 13.7%, Assembly of God
8%, Seventh-Day Adventist 3.9%), Roman Catholic 19.4%, Mormon 15.2%,
Worship Centre 1.7%, other Christian 5.5%, other 0.7%, none 0.1%, unspecified
0.1% (2011 est.)
San Marino
(../geos/sm.html)
Sao Tome and Principe
(../geos/tp.html)
Saudi Arabia
(../geos/sa.html)

Roman Catholic
Catholic 55.7%, Adventist 4.1%, Assembly of God 3.4%, New Apostolic 2.9%,
Mana 2.3%, Universal Kingdom of God 2%, Jehovah's Witness 1.2%, other 6.2%,
none 21.2%, unspecified 1% (2012 est.)
Muslim (official; citizens are 85-90% Sunni and 10-15% Shia), other (includes
Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and
Sikh) (2012 est.)
note: despite having a large expatriate community of various faiths ( more than
30% of the population), most forms of public religious expression inconsistent
with the government-sanctioned interpretation of Sunni Islam are restricted; nonMuslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship and non-Muslim places of
worship are not permitted (2013)

Senegal (../geos/sg.html) Muslim 95.4% (most adhere to one of the four main Sufi brotherhoods), Christian
4.2% (mostly Roman Catholic), animist 0.4% (2010-11 est.)
Serbia (../geos/ri.html)

Serbian Orthodox 84.6%, Catholic 5%, Muslim 3.1%, Protestant 1%, atheist
1.1%, other 0.8%, undeclared or unknown 4.5% (2011 est.)

Seychelles
(../geos/se.html)

Roman Catholic 76.2%, Protestant 10.6% (Anglican 6.1%, Pentecoastal
Assembly 1.5%, Seventh-Day Adventist 1.2%, other Protestant 1.6), other
Christian 2.4%, Hindu 2.4%, Muslim 1.6%, other non-Christian 1.1%, unspecified
4.8%, none 0.9% (2010 est.)

Sierra Leone
(../geos/sl.html)
Singapore
(../geos/sn.html)
Sint Maarten
(../geos/sk.html)

Muslim 60%, Christian 10%, indigenous beliefs 30%
Buddhist 33.9%, Muslim 14.3%, Taoist 11.3%, Catholic 7.1%, Hindu 5.2%, other
Christian 11%, other 0.7%, none 16.4% (2010 est.)
Protestant 41.9% (Pentecostal 14.7%, Methodist 10.0%, Seventh Day Adventist
6.6%, Baptist 4.7%, Anglican 3.1%, other Protestant 2.8%), Roman Catholic
33.1%, Hindu 5.2%, Christian 4.1%, Jehovah's Witness 1.7%, Evangelical 1.4%,
Muslim/Jewish 1.1%, other 1.3% (includes Buddhist, Sikh, Rastafarian), none
7.9%, no response 2.4% (2011 est.)

Slovakia (../geos/lo.html) Roman Catholic 62%, Protestant 8.2%, Greek Catholic 3.8%, other or
unspecified 12.5%, none 13.4% (2011 est.)
Slovenia (../geos/si.html) Catholic 57.8%, Muslim 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3%, other Christian 0.9%, unaffiliated
3.5%, other or unspecified 23%, none 10.1% (2002 census)
Solomon Islands
(../geos/bp.html)

Protestant 73.4% (Church of Melanesia 31.9%, South Sea Evangelical 17.1%,
Seventh Day Adventist 11.7%, United Church 10.1%, Christian Fellowship
Church 2.5%), Roman Catholic 19.6%, other Christian 2.9%, other 4%, none
0.03%, unspecified 0.1% (2009 est.)

Somalia (../geos/so.html) Sunni Muslim (Islam) (official, according to the Transitional Federal Charter)
South Africa
(../geos/sf.html)

South Sudan
(../geos/od.html)
Spain (../geos /sp.html)

Protestant 36.6% (Zionist Christian 11.1%, Pentecostal/Charismatic 8.2%,
Methodist 6.8%, Dutch Reformed 6.7%, Anglican 3.8%), Catholic 7.1%, Muslim
1.5%, other Christian 36%, other 2.3%, unspecified 1.4%, none 15.1% (2001
census)
animist, Christian
Roman Catholic 94%, other 6%

J.R.195
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 245
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 12 of 119
Sri Lanka
(../geos/ce.html)

Buddhist (official) 70.2%, Hindu 12.6%, Muslim 9.7%, Roman Catholic 6.1%,
other Christian 1.3%, other 0.05% (2012 est.)

Sudan (../geos/su.html)

Sunni Muslim, small Christian minority

Suriname
(../geos/ns.html)

Hindu 27.4%, Protestant 25.2% (predominantly Moravian), Roman Catholic
22.8%, Muslim 19.6%, indigenous beliefs 5%

Swaziland
(../geos/w z.html)

Zionist 40% (a blend of Christianity and indigenous ancestral worship), Roman
Catholic 20%, Muslim 10%, other 30% (includes Anglican, Baha'i, Methodist,
Mormon, Jewish)

Sweden
(../geos/sw .html)

Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim,
Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%

Switzerland
(../geos/sz.html)

Roman Catholic 38.2%, Protestant 26.9%, other Christian 5.6%, Muslim 5%,
other 1.6%, none 21.4%, unspecified 1.3% (2013 est.)

Syria (../geos/sy.html)

Muslim 87% (official; includes Sunni 74% and Alawi, Ismaili, and Shia 13%),
Christian 10% (includes Orthodox, Uniate, and Nestorian), Druze 3%, Jewish
(few remaining in Damascus and Aleppo)

Taiwan (../geos/tw.html) mixture of Buddhist and Taoist 93%, Christian 4.5%, other 2.5%
Tajikistan
(../geos/ti.html)
Tanzania
(../geos/tz.html)

Sunni Muslim 85%, Shia Muslim 5%, other 10% (2003 est.)
Christian 61.4%, Muslim 35.2%, folk religion 1.8%, other 0.2%, unaffiliated 1.4%
note: Zanzibar is almost entirely Muslim (2010 est.)

Thailand
(../geos/th.html)

Buddhist (official) 93.6%, Muslim 4.9%, Christian 1.2%, other 0.2%, none 0.1%
(2010 est.)

Timor-Leste
(../geos/tt.html)

Roman Catholic 96.9%, Protestant/Evangelical 2.2%, Muslim 0.3%, other 0.6%
(2005)

Togo (../geos/to.html)

Christian 29%, Muslim 20%, indigenous beliefs 51%

Tokelau (../geos/tl.html) Congregational Christian Church 58.2%, Roman Catholic 36.6%, Pr esbyterian
1.8%, other Christian 2.8%, Spiritualism and New Age 0.1%, unspecified 0.5%
(2011 est.)
Tonga (../geos/tn.html)

Protestant 64.9% (includes Free Wesleyan Church 37.3%, Free Church of Tonga
11.4%, Church of Tonga 7.2%, Tokaikolo Christian Church 2.6%, Assembly of
God 2.3%, Seventh Day Adventist 2.2%, Constitutional Church of Tonga 0.9%,
Anglican 0.8% and Full Gospel Church 0.2%), Mormon 16.8%, Roman Catholic
15.6%, other 1.1%, none 0.03%, unspecified 1.7% (2006 est.)

Trinidad and Tobago
(../geos/td.html)

Protestant 32.1% (Pentecostal/Evangelical/Full Gospel 12%, Baptist 6.9%,
Anglican 5.7%, Seventh-Day Adventist 4.1%, Presbyterian/Congretational 2.5%,
other Protestant 0.9%), Roman Catholic 21.6%, Hindu 18.2%, Muslim 5%,
Jehovah's Witness 1.5%, other 8.4%, none 2.2%, unspecified 11.1% (2011 est.)

Tunisia (../geos/ts.html) Muslim (official; Sunni) 99.1%, other (includes Christian, Jewish, Shia Muslim,
and Baha'i) 1%
Turkey (../geos/tu.html)
Turkmenistan
(../geos/tx.html)
Turks and Caicos Islands
(../geos/tk.html)
Tuvalu (../geos/tv.html)

Muslim 99.8% (mostly Sunni), other 0.2% (mostly Christians and Jews)
Muslim 89%, Eastern Orthodox 9%, unknown 2%
Protestant 72.8% (Baptist 35.8%, Church of God 11.7%, Anglican 10%,
Methodist 9.3%, Seventh-Day Adventist 6%), Roman Catholic 11.4%, Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.8%, other 14%
Protestant 98.4% (Church of Tuvalu (Congregationalist) 97%, Seventh-Day
Adventist 1.4%), Baha'i 1%, other 0.6%

J.R.196
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 246
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 13 of 119
U ganda (../geos/ug.html) Protestant 45.1% (Anglican 32.0%, Pentecostal/Born Again/Evangelical 11.1%,
Seventh Day Adventist 1.7%, Baptist .3%), Roman Catholic 39.3%, Muslim
13.7%, other 1.6%, none 0.2% (2014 est.)
Ukraine (../geos/up.html) Orthodox (includes Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox (UAOC), Ukrainian
Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow
Patriarchate (UOC-MP), Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant,
Muslim, Jewish
note: Ukraine's population is overwhelmingly Christian; the vast majority - up to
two-thirds - identify themselves as Orthodox, but many do not specify a
particular branch; the UOC-KP and the UOC-MP each represent less than a
quarter of the country's population, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
accounts for 8-10%, and the UAOC accounts for 1-2%; Muslim and Jewish
adherents each compose less than 1% of the total population (2013 est.)
U nited Arab Emirates
(../geos/ae.html)

Muslim (official) 76%, Christian 9%, other (primarily Hindu and Buddhist, less
than 5% of the population consists of Parsi, Baha'i, Druze, Sik h, Ahmadi,
Ismaili, Dawoodi Bohra Muslim, and Jewish) 15%
note: represents the total population; about 85% of the population consists of
noncitizens (2005 est.)

U nited Kingdom
(../geos/uk.html)

Christian (includes Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 59.5%,
Muslim 4.4%, Hindu 1.3%, other 2%, unspecified 7.2%, none 25.7% (2011 est.)

U nited States
(../geos/us.html)

Protestant 46.5%, Roman Catholic 20.8%, Mormon 1.6%, Jehovah's Witness
0.8%, other Christian 0.9%, Jewish 1.9%, Muslim 0.9%, Buddhist 0.7%, Hindu
0.7%, other 1.8%, unaffiliated 22.8%, don't know/refused 0.6% (2014 est.)

Uruguay
(../geos/uy.html)

Roman Catholic 47.1%, non-Catholic Christians 11.1%, nondenominational
23.2%, Jewish 0.3%, atheist or agnostic 17.2%, other 1.1% (2006)

Uzbekistan
(../geos/uz.html)
Vanuatu
(../geos/nh.html)

Venezuela
(../geos/ve.html)
Vietnam
(../geos/vm.html)
Virgin Islands
(../geos/vq.html)
Wallis and Futuna
(../geos/w f.html)
West Bank
(../geos/w e.html)

Western Sahara
(../geos/w i.html)
World (../geos/xx.html)

Muslim 88% (mostly Sunni), Eastern Orthodox 9%, other 3%
Protestant 70% (includes Presbyterian 27.9%, Anglican 15.1%, Seventh Day
Adventist 12.5%, Assemblies of God 4.7%, Church of Christ 4.5%, Neil Thomas
Ministry 3.1%, and Apostolic 2.2%), Roman Catholic 12.4%, customary beliefs
3.7% (including Jon Frum cargo cult), other 12.6%, none 1.1%, unspecified 0.2%
(2009 est.)
nominally Roman Catholic 96%, Protestant 2%, other 2%
Buddhist 7.9%, Catholic 6.6%, Hoa Hao 1.7%, Cao Dai 0.9%, Protestant 0.9%,
Muslim 0.1%, none 81.8% (2009 est.)
Protestant 59% (Baptist 42%, Episcopalian 17%), Roman Catholic 34%, other
7%
Roman Catholic 99%, other 1%
Muslim 80-85% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 12-14%, Christian 1-2.5% (mainly
Greek Orthodox), other, unaffiliated, unspecified <1%
note: the proportion of Christians continues to fall mainly as a result of the
growth of the Muslim population but also because of migration and the declining
birth rate of the Christian population (2012 est.)
Muslim
Christian 31.4%, Muslim 23.2%, Hindu 15%, Buddhist 7.1%, folk religions 5.9%,
Jewish 0.2%, other 0.8%, unaffiliated 16.4% (2010 est.)

J.R.197
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 247
2/16/2017

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 14 of 119
Yemen (../geos/ym.html) Muslim 99.1% (official; virtually all are citizens, an estimated 65% are Sunni and
35% are Shia), other 0.9% (includes Jewish, Baha'i, Hindu, and Christian; many
are refugees or temporary foreign residents) (2010 est.)
Zambia (../geos/za.html) Protestant 75.3%, Roman Catholic 20.2%, other 2.7% (includes Muslim
Buddhist, Hindu, and Baha'i), none 1.8% (2010 est.)
Zimbabwe
(../geos/zi.html)

Protestant 75.9% (includes Apostolic 38%, Pentecostal 21.1%, other 16.8%),
Roman Catholic 8.4%, other Christian 8.4%, other 1.2% (includes traditional,
Muslim), none 6.1% (2011 est.)

Privacy (/about-cia/site-policies/#privacy-notice)

Copyright (/about-cia/site-policies/#copy)

Site Policies (/about-cia/site-policies/)

USA.gov (http://www.usa.gov/)

FOIA (http://www.foia.cia.gov/)

DNI.gov (http://www.dni.gov/)

NoFEAR Act (/about-cia/no-fear-act/)

Inspector General (/offices-of-cia/inspectorgeneral/)

Contact CIA (/contact-cia/)

Site Map (/sitemap.html)

(/open/)

J.R.198
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

JA 248
2/16/2017

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 15 of 119

Exhibit S

J.R.199

JA 249

Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority... Page 9 of 16

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 16 of 119

Watch About/Follow

Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians
Will Be Given Priority As Refugees

blogs
thebrodyfile

Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians
Will Be Given Priority As Refugees
01-27-2017
David Brody
Share

Tweet

Email

+126

In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, President Donald Trump says persecuted
Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States.
“We are going to help them,” President Trump tells CBN News. “They’ve been horribly treated.
Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the
United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they
were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very,
very unfair.”

J.R.200

JA 250

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trum... 2/12/2017

Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Prior... Page 10 of 16

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 17 of 119
The Brody File conducted the interview Friday morning in the Blue Room at The White House.
More newsworthy clips are coming soon. The entire interview can be seen this Sunday at 11pm
on Freeform (cable TV, formerly ABC Family Channel) during our special CBN News show.
This is just the third interview President Trump has done from The White House and it will be the
only interview that will air in its’ entirety this weekend.
MANDATORY VIDEO AND COURTESY: CBN NEWS/THE BRODY FILE
DAVID BRODY: “Persecuted Christians, we’ve talked about this, the refugees overseas. The
refugee program, or the refugee changes you’re looking to make. As it relates to persecuted
Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “Yes.”
DAVID BRODY: “You do?”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in
Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim
you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was
so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of
everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to
help them.”

While you are here...
We'd like to ask for your help. At CBN News, we strive to bring you the most current,
pertinent and reliable news possible. We are able to bring you this important news from a
Christian perspective because of the help of friends like you who know how vital it is to
have an alternative to the news you hear from major media outlets. Would you help ensure
that we can continue to provide this important service to you and our country by considering
a special gift today? Or would you become a monthly partner so we know we can count on
the resources we need to bring you the best news possible?
Thanks for being a part of the dynamic future of CBN News, as well as helping The
Christian Broadcasting Network share the love of Jesus with hurting people everywhere.

Become a Partner

Give a special gift
Share

Tweet

Email

+126

JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Login
Write a comment

126 Comments
Steve

Subscribe RSS
12 days ago

Christian persecution is running at about 100,000 deaths per month. I'm so glad that
our President is cognizant of this and willing to alleviate some of the pain and
suffering of these people.
Like Reply Share
Israel Friend Di

0
13 days ago

Our President Donald Trump is doing his Christian duty by banning terrorists Muslims
and illegals into the USA that want to promote Sharia laws upon us and terrorize this
country. Isis and Hamas chop off the heads of their own people if they are found to
be worshipping the GOD OF ISRAEL, our GOD, KING JESUS. This has to be
stopped before they completely destroy the entire USA and all Christians and Jews,
including ISRAEL. The Muslim religion is a hate religion unlike our Judea,
Christianity. We love all people of every race and don't kill to please our GOD. Our
GOD died, shed HIS innocent blood as the final Lamb of GOD sacrifice and was
resurrected to save us from our sins.
Like Reply Share

0

J.R.201

JA 251

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trum... 2/12/2017

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 18 of 119

Exhibit T

J.R.202

JA 252

Trump signs order limiting refugee entry, says he will prioritize Christian refugees - The ...
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 19 of 119

Acts of Faith

Trump signs order
limiting refugee entry,
says he will prioritize
Christian refugees
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey January 27

President Trump signed an executive order Friday instituting “extreme vetting” of refugees, aimed at keeping
out “radical Islamic terrorists.”
“I’m establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of
America,” Trump said during his signing of the order. “We don’t want them here. We want to make sure we
are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.”
According to drafts of the executive action, the order bars people from the Muslim-majority countries of Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen from entering the United States for 30 days and suspends the
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days. The program will be reinstated “only for nationals of
countries for whom” members are vetted by Trump’s administration.
In an interview Friday with the Christian Broadcast Network, Trump said he plans to help persecuted
Christians.
“Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United
States?” Trump said. “If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were
chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair.”

J.R.203

JA 253

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/27/we-dont-want-them-th... 1/30/2017

Trump signs order limiting refugee entry, says he will prioritize Christian refugees - The ...
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 20 of 119
In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union declared Trump’s action “just a euphemism for
discrimination against Muslims.”
From both legal and historical perspectives, the plan to ban refugees from specific countries is within the
powers granted to the president under current law and historical precedent, according to Charles Haynes,
vice president of the Newseum Institute’s Religious Freedom Center. However, whether the president can
limit the ban to one religious group is another question.
Many Muslims, especially Shiites, are among the religious minorities under attack, Haynes said. This “raises
moral and humanitarian concerns about excluding them from entrance to the U.S. while permitting people of
other faiths,” he said. “Whether this policy rises to the level of a constitutional violation is uncertain and will
be debated by constitutional scholars in the coming weeks.”
Issues related to the Constitution and religion are usually associated with matters of sex, such as
contraceptives and LGBT discrimination, but some observers said they expect Trump’s actions on
immigration to raise new challenges for religious freedom, according to Chelsea Langston Bombino of the
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance at the Center for Public Justice. Several organizations, she noted,
are speaking out against orders that “will hurt the very people that their organizations were established, out
of a religious calling, to serve,” she said.
Trump’s actions have been decried by several religious groups this week. “The expected cutbacks to U.S.
refugee programs and funding will compromise our ability to do this work and the infrastructure needed to
serve refugees in the years to come,” evangelical ministry World Relief said in a statement.

Acts of Faith newsletter

Sign up

Conversations about faith and values.

And in a strongly worded statement, Rabbi Jack Moline, the Interfaith Alliance president, noted that
this decision was announced on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
“For decades, the United States has prided itself as a safe bastion for refugees around the globe escaping war
and persecution,” he said. “President Trump is poised to trample upon that great legacy with a de facto
Muslim ban.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations will on Monday announce a federal lawsuit on behalf of more
than 20 people challenging the constitutionality of the executive order.

J.R.204

JA 254

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/27/we-dont-want-them-th... 1/30/2017

Trump signs order limiting refugee entry, says he will prioritize Christian refugees - The ...
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 21 of 119
“There is no evidence that refugees – the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation – are a
threat to national security,” said CAIR national litigation director Lena F. Masri. “This is an order that is
based on bigotry, not reality.”
This post has been updated.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey is a religion reporter, covering how faith intersects with politics, culture
and...everything. Follow @spulliam

The Post Recommends

An ‘America first’ philosophy? During May’s
visit, it’s more like ‘Trump first.’
The new president’s view of the world seems to revolve around
him and his personal relationships.

Facing criticism, Trump administration has
no regrets about leaving out Jews in
Holocaust statement
What might have been seen as an oversight was confirmed by
White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks to have been an
intentional decision.

Trump orders Pentagon to draft ISIS
strategy, restructuring of security council
New rules concerning lobbying are also among executive orders
signed Saturday.

PAID PROMOTED STORIES

Recommended by

J.R.205

JA 255

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/27/we-dont-want-them-th... 1/30/2017

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 22 of 119

Exhibit U

J.R.206

JA 256

​Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration | Donald J Trump for President

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 23 of 119

- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -

CATEGORIES

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON
PREVENTING MUSLIM
IMMIGRATION

VIEW ALL

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling

ANNOUNCEMENTS

for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United

STATEMENTS

States until our country's representatives can fgure out what is

ENDORSEMENTS

going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great

ADS

hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim
population. Mos recently, a poll from the Center for Security
Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that
violence agains Americans here in the United States is jusifed as
a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that
Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed

ARCHIVE

according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder
agains non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more
unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially

NOVEMBER 2016

women.

OCTOBER 2016

Mr. Trump sated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is

SEPTEMBER 2016

obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where
this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we
are able to determine and undersand this problem and the
dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of
horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have

AUGUST 2016
JULY 2016
JUNE 2016

no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for
President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J.
Trump

MAY 2016
APRIL 2016
MARCH 2016

Next Release: Donald J. Trump Announces State Directors in

J.R.207
​Donald J_ Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration.htm[2/12/2017 5:18:09 PM]

FEBRUARY 2016

JA 257

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 24 of 119

Exhibit V

J.R.208

JA 258

2/15/2017 Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Just put out a very important policy statement on the extraordinary influx of hatred & danger coming into our country. We mu…

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 25 of 119



 Home

Search Twitter

Moments



Have an account? Log in



Donald J. Trump 

  Follow

@realDonaldTrump 



Just put out a very important policy statement 
on the extraordinary influx of hatred & danger 
coming into our country. We must be vigilant!
RETWEETS

LIKES

2,460

5,679

1:47 PM ­ 7 Dec 2015

 

2.0K

 

2.5K

5.7K

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/673982228163072000?lang=en

J.R.209

JA 259

1/1

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 26 of 119

Exhibit W

J.R.210

JA 260

Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims..., 2015 WLNR 36216212

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 27 of 119

12/7/15 WashingtonPost.com (Pg. Unavail. Online)
2015 WLNR 36216212
WashingtonPost.com
Copyright (c) 2015 The Washington Post
December 7, 2015
Section: post-politics
Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States'
"We have no choice. We have no choice," Trump said Monday. "We have no choice."
Jenna Johnson
Updated at 7:43 p.m.
Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until
our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that
a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump
is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are
able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of
horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."
At a rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina on Monday evening, Trump pointed to the statement he released earlier
in the day.
"Should I read you the statement?" he asked.
The crowd enthusiastically agreed that he should.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's
representatives can figure out what the hell is going on," he said, adding the word "hell" for emphasis this time.
Supporters erupted in applause.
"We have no choice. We have no choice," Trump said. "We have no choice."
Earlier in the rally, which was interrupted by protests, Trump said, "I have friends that are Muslims. They are great
people -- but they know we have a problem."

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.211U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 261
1

Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims..., 2015 WLNR 36216212

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 28 of 119

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told the Associated Press that the ban would apply to "everybody,"
including both immigrants and tourists. Soon after the statement was released, Trump tweeted that he had "just put out
a very important policy statement on the extraordinary influx of hatred and danger coming into our country." He added
in the tweet: "We must be vigilant!"
In an interview on Fox News Channel shortly ahead of his campaign rally, Trump was asked whether his policy would
apply to Muslim military personnel stationed overseas who want to come home.
"They will come home. We have to be vigilant," he responded. "We have to take care of the Muslims that are living here.
But we have to be vigilant."
He later added: "Anybody here stays, but we have to be very vigilant... This does not apply to people living in the country
except that we have to be vigilant."
In the past month, particularly following the recent mass shooting in Southern California that is believed to have been
inspired by the Islamic State terrorist group, Trump has called for greater scrutiny of Muslims -- including Muslim
Americans who are legal residents of the country. He has said he would support heavy surveillance of mosques, bar
Syrian refugees of all religions from entering the country and would consider establishing a database to track all Muslims
in the country. But Trump's statement on Monday was his most controversial proposal yet.
Trump typically announces major positions like this in media interviews or at rallies, rarely issuing formal statements.
The statement immediately sparked rounds of questions about how such a policy would work, along with strong criticism.
"Oh, my goodness," said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director at the Council on American-Islamic
Relations. "One has to wonder what Donald Trump will say next as he ramps up his anti-Muslim bigotry. Where is there
left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? Are we talking the final solution to the Muslim question? I feel
like I'm back in the 1930s."
What worried Hooper, he said, was the premeditated nature of Trump's statement.
"He feels perfectly okay saying this," said Hooper. "It's not an open mic moment, where he has to walk something back.
This was a statement from his campaign. They had to believe that this would be well received by his supporters. We've
always had anti-Muslim bigots, but they've always been at the fringes of society. Now they want to lead it. In saner times,
his campaign would be over. In insane times, his campaign can gain support. And that's why he put it out."
David Weigel and Sean Sullivan contributed to this report.

---- Index References ---News Subject: (Civil Rights Law (1CI34); Intellectual Freedoms & Civil Liberties (1IN08); International Terrorism
(1IN37); Legal (1LE33); Minority & Ethnic Groups (1MI43); Race Relations (1RA49); Social Issues (1SO05); Top
World News (1WO62))
Industry: (Celebrities (1CE65); Entertainment (1EN08))
Region: (Americas (1AM92); North America (1NO39))

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.212U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 262
2

Trump calls for 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims..., 2015 WLNR 36216212

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 29 of 119

Language: EN
Other Indexing: (Donald Trump; Ibrahim Hooper; David Weigel; Sean Sullivan; Donald Trump; Corey Lewandowski)
Word Count: 719
End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.213U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 263
3

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 30 of 119

Exhibit X

J.R.214

JA 264

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 31 of 119

MEET THE PRESS JUL 24 2016, 11:47 AM ET

Meet the Press - July 24, 2016
Meet the Press - July 24, 2016
CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday, the Democratic National Convention gets underway here in Philadelphia, after a raucous and unpredictable Republican
convention. That ended with the nomination of Donald Trump.
DONALD TRUMP:
I am with you, I will fight for you, and I will win for you.
CHUCK TODD:
This morning, my sit-down with Donald Trump on his convention speech.
DONALD TRUMP:
The only negative reviews were a little dark.
CHUCK TODD:
On whether he's backing off on his Muslim band.
DONALD TRUMP:
I actually don't think it's a pull-back. In fact, you could say it's an expansion.
CHUCK TODD:
And on Hillary Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine.
DONALD TRUMP:
Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders.
CHUCK TODD:
Plus Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine hit the road in Florida.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Tim Kaine is everything Donald Trump and Mike Pence are not.
CHUCK TODD:
But some Bernie Sanders supporters are criticizing the Kaine pick as a sellout to moderates. I'll talk to Sanders and get his reaction to
that and to the DNC Wikileaks e-mail release. Joining me for insight and analysis are MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, former chairman of
the RNC, Michael Steele, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, and host of Hardball and Philadelphia
hometown boy, Chris Matthews. Trump, Sanders and reactions to the new Democratic ticket. Welcome to Sunday, in a special edition
of Meet the Press at the Democratic National Convention.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. We are at the Wells Fargo Center here in South Philadelphia, home of the NBA 76ers and the NHL Broad
Street Bullies, the Fliers. Democrats have begun to arrive, along with a pretty bad heat wave. And beginning tomorrow, they will gather
to officially nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate.

J.R.215
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 265
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 32 of 119
Yesterday in Miami, Clinton was joined by her new running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, in an upbeat event that was notable
simply by the contrast to the disorganized rollout of Donald Trump's running mate a week earlier, Mike Pence.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Hillary Clinton, she doesn't insult people, she listens to them. What a novel concept, right? She doesn't trash our allies, she respects
them. And she'll always have our backs, that is something I am rock solid sure of.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
We will get to reaction to the new Democratic ticket later in the show, including my interview with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
in a moment. But first, we're going to talk also about Sanders, about those Wikileaks emails and what they may say about DNC
favoritism towards Hillary Clinton. But we begin with the man who has now taken control of the Republican Party. It's nominee Donald
Trump.
I traveled to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, sort of his weekend getaway, last night for a face-to-face interview
since dropping the word "presumptive," it's his first one, from the nominee title. We touched on so much: Tim Kaine, Trump's tax
returns, his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration and why he says he alone can fix the country's problems. But I began by
asking him how it feels to be the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it really feels great. And we really have a very unified party, other than a very small group of people that, frankly, lost. And we
have a very unified party. You saw that the other night with the love in the room, and the enthusiasm in the room. The enthusiasm,
there are people that say they have never seen anything like what was going on in that room, especially Thursday night.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me tell you, you bring up Thursday night, I've got to ask you about your entrance. Before we get serious here. That Monday night
entrance was something else. I know you've gotten a lot of feedback on it. How'd you come up with it?
DONALD TRUMP:
I think I'm a little bit lucky, and a couple of people had that idea and I went along with the idea. And everything just worked right. And it
was so good that they wanted to do it on Thursday night. I said, "Never in a million years, because you'll never get it that way again."
CHUCK TODD:
I don't think I've seen that even on WWE.
DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, I know. Well, Vince is a good friend of mine. He called me, he said, "That was a very, very good entrance." But I didn't want to
do it a second time, because, you know, it never works out the second time.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let's go into the speech. I want to put some meat on the bones. But first, let's talk about, you've seen some of the positive
reviews, some of the negative reviews. Some of the negative has been that it was a little dark-DONALD TRUMP:
That's the only thing that--

J.R.216
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 266
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 33 of 119
CHUCK TODD:
--that there wasn't enough optimism in it. What would you say? It's not Morning in America.
DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
What would you say to that?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think the only negativity, and, you know, the hate, I call them the haters, and that's fine. But the only negative reviews were, "A
little dark." And the following day, they had another attack, and then today you see what happened in Afghanistan with many, many
people killed.
They have no idea how many, so many killed. Yesterday it was Munich. And you know, I know they're saying, "Maybe it wasn't
terrorism. Maybe it was just a crazy guy." But in the meantime he's screaming, "Allahu Akbar," as he's shooting people, so, you know,
we'll see how that turns out. And all of a sudden people are saying, "Maybe it wasn't dark at all." But the only thing that some people
said, "It was a little dark. It was a little bit tough."
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think it was a little dark?
DONALD TRUMP:
No, oh, I thought it was very optimistic. To me, it was an optimistic speech, because-CHUCK TODD:
What makes it optimistic in your view?
DONALD TRUMP:
Because we're going to stop the problems. We're going to stop the problems. In other words, sure, I talk about the problems, but we're
going to solve the problems.
CHUCK TODD:
One of the phrases you used, "I alone can fix it." And to some people, that sounded almost too strong-mannish for them. Do you
understand that criticism and what do you make of it?
DONALD TRUMP:
I'll tell you, part of it was I'm comparing myself to Hillary. And we know Hillary, and we look at her record. Her record has been a
disaster. And I am running against Hillary. It's not like I'm running against the rest of the world. I know people that are very, very
capable that could do a very good job, but they could never get elected.
I can tell you right now. I can give you ten names of people that would do an extraordinary job, but there's no way they could ever get
elected. They wouldn't know where to begin. It wouldn't be for them. But for governing, they would be good. I'm running and, you
know, against one person.
CHUCK TODD:
You said there would be consequences for any company that tried to move a factory out. What-DONALD TRUMP:

J.R.217
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 267
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 34 of 119
Absolutely, so simple-CHUCK TODD:
--what is the consequence? Let's start with, you bring up Carrier a lot.
DONALD TRUMP:
It's so simple-(OVERTALK)
CHUCK TODD:
Right, I understand that. But explain the consequences-DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, here's the consequence-CHUCK TODD:
What would it be?
DONALD TRUMP:
So Carrier comes in, they announce they're moving to Mexico, they fire all their people in Indiana, and they say, "Hi, well, here we are
in Mexico, you know, enjoy your plant, enjoy the rest of your life," and you hire people from Mexico, okay? Now they make their
product and they put it into the United States.
Well, we will have a very strong border, by the way, but they put it into the United States and we don't charge them tax. There will be a
tax to be paid. If they're going to fire all their people, move their plant to Mexico, build air conditioners, and think they're going to sell
those air conditioners to the United States, there's going to be a tax.
CHUCK TODD:
What kind of tax are you thinking?
DONALD TRUMP:
It could be 25 percent. It could be 35 percent. It could be 15 percent. I haven't determined. And it could be different for different
companies. We have been working on trying to stop this government, because we don't know what we're doing. And not only Obama,
they've been trying to stop this from before Obama. But they don't know. You know, they've done, they've tried lower interest loans,
they've tried zero interest loans, these guys-CHUCK TODD:
Well, some of these things aren't going to get through the World Trade Organization. There's-DONALD TRUMP:
It doesn't matter. Then we're going to renegotiate or we're going to pull out. These trade deals are a disaster, Chuck. World Trade
Organization is a disaster.
CHUCK TODD:
You know the concern on some of this-DONALD TRUMP:
NAFTA is a disaster--

J.R.218
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 268
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 35 of 119
CHUCK TODD:
-- is that it would rattle the world economy. Look what Brexit did to the world economy. Investors got rattled.
DONALD TRUMP:
What did it do? What did it do?
CHUCK TODD:
Now you-DONALD TRUMP:
The stock market's higher now than it was when it happened. And by the way, I'm the only one of all of these people at the higher level
of the wonderful world of politics, I'm the only one that said, "Brexit's going to happen." Remember, I was asked the question. I said,
"Yeah, I think they're going to approve it. I think they want independence. I don't think they want people pouring into their country." And
I was-CHUCK TODD:
You're not worried about, you think a fractured Europe is good for America?
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. But we're spending a lot of money on Europe. Don't forget, Europe got together, why, primarily did they get together? So that
they could beat the United States when it comes to making money, in other words, foreign trade-CHUCK TODD:
Economic-DONALD TRUMP:
Okay? And now we talk about Europe like it's so wonderful. Hey, I love Europe, I have property in Europe. I'm just saying, the reason
that it got together was like a consortium so that it could compete with the United States-CHUCK TODD:
So what you're saying is all this stuff is good for America, even if it's not good for Europe?
DONALD TRUMP:
Look, you take a look at Airbus. They make more planes now than Boeing, okay? They got together, all of these countries got together
so that they could beat the United States. Okay, so we're in competition. So you know, we're in competition in one way, we're helping
them in another way. It is so messed up.
CHUCK TODD:
The Muslim ban. I think you've pulled back from it, but you tell me.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting
mechanisms have been put in place.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:

J.R.219
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 269
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 36 of 119
This feels like a slight rollback-DONALD TRUMP:
I don't think that's-CHUCK TODD:
Should it be interpreted-DONALD TRUMP:
I don't think so. I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were
so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm okay with that, because I'm
talking territory instead of Muslim.
But just remember this: Our Constitution is great. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a
religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that's great. And that's the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it
differently.
Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that? But you know what? I live with our Constitution. I love our Constitution. I
cherish our Constitution. We're making it territorial. We have nations and we'll come out, I'm going to be coming out over the next few
weeks with a number of the places. And it's very complex-CHUCK TODD:
Well I was just going to say-DONALD TRUMP:
--we have problems in Germany and we have problems with France-CHUCK TODD:
I was just going to ask that. Will this limitt-DONALD TRUMP:
You know, so it's not just the countries with-CHUCK TODD:
--would this limit immigration from France?
DONALD TRUMP:
What we're going to have is a thing called-CHUCK TODD:
They've been compromised by terrorism.
DONALD TRUMP:
They have totally been. And you know why? It's their own fault. Because they allowed people to come into their territory-CHUCK TODD:
So you would toughen up. You're basically saying, "Hey, if the French want to come over here, you've got to go through an extra
check."

J.R.220
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 270
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 37 of 119
DONALD TRUMP:
It's their own fault, because they've allowed people over years to come into their territory. And that's why Brexit happened, okay?
Because the U.K. is saying, "We're tired of this stuff, what's going on, we're tired of." But listen to this-CHUCK TODD:
You could get to the point where you're not allowing a lot of people to come into this country from a lot of places.
DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe we get to that point. Chuck, look what's happening. Look at what just took place in Afghanistan, where they blow up a whole
shopping center with people, they have no idea how many people were even killed. Happened today. So we have to be smart and we
have to be vigilant and we have to be strong. We can't be the stupid people-CHUCK TODD:
So France, Germany, Spain-DONALD TRUMP:
Here's my plan-CHUCK TODD:
--places that have been compromised?
DONALD TRUMP:
--here is what I want: Extreme vetting. Tough word. Extreme vetting.
CHUCK TODD:
What does that look like?
DONALD TRUMP:
Tough. We're going to have tough standards. And if a person can't prove-CHUCK TODD:
Give me one.
DONALD TRUMP:
--that they're from an area, and if a person can't prove what they have to be able to prove, they're not coming into this country. And I
would stop the Syrian migration and the Syrian from coming into this country in two seconds. Hillary Clinton wants to take 550 percent
more people coming in from that area than Barack Obama. I think she's crazy. I think she's crazy. We have no idea who these people
are for the most part, and you know, because I've seen them on different shows-CHUCK TODD:
All right.
DONALD TRUMP:
--but more importantly, I've read about it. I study it. There is no way that you can vet some of these people. There is no way. Law
enforcement officials, I've had them in my office. I've talked to them.
CHUCK TODD:

J.R.221
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 271
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 38 of 119
You realize some of these folks have nowhere to go? They're truly victims of this civil war, what do you do with them?
DONALD TRUMP:
We will help them and we will build safe havens over in Syria, and we will get Gulf States-CHUCK TODD:
We, the United States are going to build these safe havens?
DONALD TRUMP:
We, the United States, we'll get Gulf States to pay for it, because we right now, we're going to have $21 trillion very soon, trillion, in
debt. We will do safe havens and safe zones in Syria and we will get nations that are so wealthy that are not doing anything. They're
not doing much. They have nothing but money. And you know who I'm talking about, the Gulf States. And we will get them to pay for it.
We would lead it. I don't want to pay because our country is going down the tubes. We owe too much money.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Let me move to something with NATO. Mitch McConnell said this about your NATO remarks in the New York Times. He said
it was a rookie mistake, and that once you, let me finish the comment here. "It's a rookie mistake, and it proves that Trump needs
people like us around to help steer him in the right direction on some basic things."
DONALD TRUMP:
He's 100 percent wrong. Okay? He's 100 percent wrong if he said that. I didn't hear he said that-CHUCK TODD:
He did say it.
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, fine, fine-CHUCK TODD:
New York Times-DONALD TRUMP:
If he said that, he's 100 percent wrong. And frankly it's sad. We have NATO, and we have many countries that aren't paying for what
they're supposed to be paying, which is already too little, but they're not paying anyway. And we're giving them a free ride or giving
them a ride where they owe us tremendous amounts of money. And they have the money. But they're not paying it. You know why?
Because they think we're stupid-CHUCK TODD:
So Estonia is paying, and if they get invaded by Russia, you're there?
DONALD TRUMP:
I feel differently. I feel very differently-CHUCK TODD:
But if a country's not doing -- Britain hasn't done the two percent.
DONALD TRUMP:

J.R.222
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 272
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 39 of 119
We have countries that aren't paying. Now, this goes beyond NATO, because we take care of-- we take care of Japan, we take care of
Germany, we take care of South Korea, we take care of Saudi Arabia, and we lose on everything. We lose on everything. If Mitch
McConnell says that, then he's wrong.
So all I'm saying is they have to pay. Now, a country gets invaded, they haven't paid, everyone says, "Oh, but we have a treaty." Well,
they have a treaty too. They're supposed to be paying. We have countries within NATO that are taking advantage of us. With me, I
believe they're going to pay. And when they pay, I'm a big believer in NATO.
But if they don't pay, we don't have, you know, Chuck, this isn't 40 years ago. This isn't 50 years ago. It's not 30 years ago. We're a
different country today. We're much weaker, our military is depleted, we owe tremendous amounts of money. We have to be
reimbursed. We can no longer be the stupid country.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, what Donald Trump says about David Duke, Bernie Sanders, and whether he really plans to spend millions for
the sole purpose of defeating Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Sanders about Trump and about his reaction to Tim Kaine becoming Hillary
Clinton's running mate. We're in Philadelphia, site of the Democratic National Convention. Stay with us.
***COMMERCIAL BREAK***
CHUCK TODD:
Such a beautiful city here. Welcome back. More now of my interview with Donald Trump at The Trump National Golf Club in
Bedminster, New Jersey. And since we had a limited amount of time, I ended up speeding things up by asking Trump for some quick
reaction to simply some very prominent names in the news.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just going to literally throw out a name and you'll know the question I'm asking. Bernie Sanders.
DONALD TRUMP:
Great respect for what he's done. He is being taken advantage of, and frankly, the system was rigged, and I'm the first one to say it
was rigged against him. And by the way-CHUCK TODD:
You took after him. You took after him. You said for supporting Hillary Clinton, you think he needs to-DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders. But I am a fan of one thing that he talks about: Trade. He is the only one on that side that
understands trade. Now, he can't do anything about it because that's not his thing. But he has been gamed. He has been, it's a rigged
system against him. And what happened with the choice of Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders and everybody. I was
shocked. I love it from my standpoint, I love-CHUCK TODD:
Why do you love the Kaine pick?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, first of all, he took over $160,000 of gifts. And they said, "Well, they weren't really gifts, they were suits and trips and lots of
different things," all for 160-CHUCK TODD:

J.R.223
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 273
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 40 of 119
Legal, legal in the state of Virginia.
DONALD TRUMP:
Bob McDonnell-- I believe it was Bob McDonnell, in the meantime, he had to go to the United States Supreme Court to get out of going
to jail-CHUCK TODD:
Well, they proved to quid pro quo-DONALD TRUMP:
--for taking a fraction of what-CHUCK TODD:
They proved quid pro quo on that one.
DONALD TRUMP:
Excuse me, Bob McDonnell took a fraction of what Kaine took. And I think, to me, it's a big problem. Now, how do you take all these
gifts? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. The other thing about him, he's bought and owned by the banks. And the third thing, he's in
favor of TPP and every other trade deal that he's ever looked at. And that means he wants people not to work.
Now, he's going to change his tune. And I understand he's now going to say, "I'm against TPP." Hillary Clinton was totally in favor of
TPP, which is the job killer, right? So was he. When she watched me on your show and other shows, all of a sudden she changed,
because she knows she can't win that in a debate.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Ted Cruz, I'm going to amend it, are you really going to fund a super PAC to help defeat him-DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it's not the number one thing on my mind. Look, what's on my mind is beating Hillary Clinton. What's on my mind is winning for
the Republican Party. With that being said, yeah, I'll probably do a super PAC, you know, when they run against Kasich, for $10 million
to $20 million, against Ted Cruz. And maybe one other person that I'm thinking about-CHUCK TODD:
Who's that other one person?
DONALD TRUMP:
--but I won't tell you that. I mean, he's actually such a small person, I hate to give him the publicity. But yes, I will probably do that at
the appropriate at time. But I'm not going to do that until-CHUCK TODD:
Oh, give me the small person here.
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, don't worry about it. We'll give it to you another time.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let me ask you about this one. David Duke announced his Senate candidacy claiming your agenda for his own, or essentially
saying, "Glad that you spoke out."

J.R.224
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 274
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 41 of 119
DONALD TRUMP:
Are you ready, before you ask the question?
CHUCK TODD:
Newt Gingrich said, "Every Republican should repudiate this guy no matter what it takes"-DONALD TRUMP:
I did. And I do. Are you ready? I want-CHUCK TODD:
Would you support a Democrat over David Duke if that was what was necessary to defeat him?
DONALD TRUMP:
I guess, depending on who the Democrat, but the answer would be yes. Look, the answer is, as quick as you can say it. In fact, I went
to answer you before you-DONALD TRUMP:
Because last time with another person in your position, I did it very quickly. And they said, "He didn't do it fast enough." Rebuked. Is
that okay? Rebuked, done-CHUCK TODD:
Rebuked, done. Okay. Tax returns. A lot of conspiracy theories are being out there about why-- what's in your tax returns. You would
get rid of all these conspiracy theories tomorrow-DONALD TRUMP:
Let me tell you-CHUCK TODD:
Probably make people look silly-DONALD TRUMP:
Let me tell you. Let me give you a little lesson on tax returns. First of all, you don't learn very much from a tax return. I put in to the
federal elections group 100 and some-odd pages of my financials. It showed, as you know, that I'm much wealthier than anybody even
understood, okay? Tremendous cash, tremendous assets, tremendous all that stuff. Okay, that's it. I'm going through a routine audit.
Just a routine audit, and I've had it for I think 14 years, 13 years-CHUCK TODD:
Why?
DONALD TRUMP:
Every year they audit me. It's routine government. I would never give my tax returns until the audit's finished. But remember this: Mitt
Romney, four years ago, was under tremendous pressure to give his tax returns. And he held it and held it and held it, and he fought it,
and he, you know, he didn't do too well, okay? But he didn't do anything wrong on his taxes. When he gave his tax returns, people
forget, not now. He gave them in September, before the election-CHUCK TODD:
So you still might release them--

J.R.225
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 275
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 42 of 119
DONALD TRUMP:
No, wait a minute, wait a minute. When he did, and his tax returns are a tiny peanut compared to mine, they went through his tax
returns. And they found one little sentence, another little-- there was nothing wrong. And they made him look bad. In fact I think he lost
his election because of that.
CHUCK TODD:
Because of the tax returns?
DONALD TRUMP:
I think he lost. And I'll tell you why: He didn't do anything wrong. Mitt Romney did nothing wrong. But they would take out of, his
weren't too big. Have you ever seen mine with the picture, they're like this high?
CHUCK TODD:
I have seen that picture, yes.
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, so they took his tax return and they found a couple of little things. Nothing wrong, just standard. And they made him look very
bad, very unfair. But with all that said, I'd love to give them, but I'm under audit. When the audit's finished I'll give them.
CHUCK TODD:
Finally, Roger Ailes. Is he helping you? Is he advising you?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don't want to comment. But he's been a friend of mine for a long time, and I can tell you that some of the women that are
complaining, I know how much he's helped them. And even recently, and when they write books that are fairly recently released, and
they say wonderful things about him.
And now all of a sudden they're saying these horrible things about him. It's very sad. Because he's a very good person. I've always
found him to be just a very, very good person. And by the way, a very, very talented person. Look what he's done. So I feel very badly.
But a lot of people are thinking he's going to run my campaign.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, well-DONALD TRUMP:
My campaign's doing pretty well.
CHUCK TODD:
Mr. Trump, until we meet again.
DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much-CHUCK TODD:
Thank you for your time, sir, appreciate it.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:

J.R.226
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 276
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 43 of 119
Up next, the man who had hoped to be the candidate being nominated by Democrats right here in Philadelphia this week, Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont. What does he think of those leaked DNC e-mails? We'll get his first comments since it happened. We're
going to be right back in just a minute.
***COMMERCIAL BREAK***
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Tremendous shots there of a beautiful city. Welcome back. It's not the kind of thing you want happening days before your convention.
This weekend, Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 emails sent and received by members of the Democratic National Committee, some
of which seem to confirm what a lot of people had suspected, that the DNC was playing favorites with Hillary Clinton over Bernie
Sanders.
It appears Wikileaks either stole these emails or got them from a source. Remember, the DNC was hacked a few months ago. Among
the emails was one from the DNC's Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall that was looking ahead to the contests in Kentucky and West
Virginia in early May. While not mentioning Sanders specifically by name, the email appeared to question Sanders' faith.
He wrote this, quote: "Does he believe in a god? I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my
peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist." Well, Sanders has long believed that
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in Clinton's corner the whole campaign. Well, he joins me now. Senator Sanders,
welcome back to Meet the Press.
And I should note that you talked about your belief in God last fall in an interview, I think, with your hometown paper there, so want to
get that out of the way. So let me start with this question questioning your faith. Brad Marshall apologized on Facebook. Has anyone
apologized to you personally? And what is your response to this entire discussion?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, no, nobody has apologized to me. And as you just mentioned, this really does not come as a shock to me or my supporters.
There is no question but the DNC was on Secretary Clinton's side from day one. We all know that. And I think, as I have said a long
time ago, that the time is now for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step aside, not only for these issues.
We need a Democratic Party that is open, that's going to bring young people and working people into it, that is going to stand up and
take on the big money interests and fight for working families. I don't think Debbie has been that type of leader. So I would hope, and I
said this many months ago, that she would-CHUCK TODD:
Right.
BERNIE SANDERS:
--step aside, we would have new leadership.
CHUCK TODD:
And do you think it needs to happen now, today, before the start of the convention?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well-CHUCK TODD:
Would that help calm some of your supporters down?
BERNIE SANDERS:

J.R.227
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 277
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 44 of 119
Well, I think what is already happening is that it's clear she is not going to be speaking to the convention. That is the right thing. I think
right now what we have got to focus on as Democrats is defeating perhaps the worst Republican candidate that I have seen in my
lifetime. Donald Trump would be a disaster for this country. He must be defeated.
We've got to elect Secretary Clinton on every single issue: fighting for the middle class on health care, on climate change, is a far, far
superior candidate to Trump. That's where I think the focus has got to be.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you believe that the DNC's apparent favoritism cost you this race?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think you-- there are a lot of reasons why one loses. We started off 50 points behind Secretary Clinton. We had the opposition
of virtually the entire Democratic leadership in every state in this country. And by the way, in terms of media, we did not get the kind of
media attention that somebody like a Donald Trump got, because media is not necessarily interested in the issues facing the middle
class, more interested in attacks in personality. So I think there were a lot of reasons.
But I will tell you this, Chuck, from the bottom of my heart, I am extraordinarily proud of the campaign that we ran. The issues that we
raised, the fact that we got 13 million Americans to vote for a political revolution. People who know the economy is rigged in favor of
big money, people who know that our middle class continues to decline and we have to go outside of establishment politics and
economics, people who know that we need to reform a broken criminal justice system and we need comprehensive immigration
reform.
The people-- what we did in our campaign is bring people together to say, "You know what? This country, our government, belongs to
all of us and not just a few." So I am very proud of the campaign we ran and the supporters that came on board.
CHUCK TODD:
So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?
BERNIE SANDERS:
No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuck, I know media is
not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of
this country, people who are working longer hours for lower wages, people who do not have health care or are underinsured.
Hillary Clinton and I have worked together on a higher education proposal which will guarantee free tuition in public colleges and
universities for every family in this country making $125,000 a year or less. We're going to fight for paid family and medical leave.
Those are the issues that the American people want to hear discussed, and I'm going to go around the country discussing them and
making sure that Hillary Clinton is elected president.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, The Green Party presumptive nominee, Jill Stein, put out a release yesterday about the emails. And she said this:
"Democratic Party elites have been caught red-handed, sabotaging a grassroots campaign that tried to bring huge numbers of young
people, independents and non-voters into their party. Instead, they have shown exactly why America needs a new major party, a truly
democratic party for the people." Are you going to urge your supporters not to support Jill Stein and try to thwart her efforts to recruit
your supporters?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, you know, let me just say this. As the longest serving Independent in the history of the United States Congress, as somebody
who came into office by defeating an incumbent Democratic mayor in Burlington, Vermont, I know something about third party politics.
And I respect Jill.

J.R.228
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 278
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 45 of 119
But right now, the focus, to my mind, is to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States. I think by
temperament he is unqualified to be president. I think his views-- you have a guy who's running for president who rejects science,
doesn't even believe climate change is real, let alone wants to do something about it, wants to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
breaks to the top two-tenths of one percent.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you-BERNIE SANDERS:
So my job right now is to see that Donald Trump is defeated, Hillary Clinton is elected.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, he makes a big deal out of the fact that you and he agree on one big issue, and that is trade deals, that these trade deals
have been bad for the country. And he basically says that Clinton and Kaine, as a ticket, aren't-- that their opposition, for instance, the
TPP as sort of Johnny-come-lately, that it can't be trusted, and that Sanders supporters should support Trump if they care about trade.
What do you say to that?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think in terms of who can be trusted, I think the evidence is clear that there has been no candidate that I have ever seen who
lies more often than does Donald Trump. I mean and that's just not me saying it, that's what any independent media analysis has
shown. So in terms of trust, you really can't trust a word, I think, that Mr. Trump has to say.
In terms of the TPP, it is no secret. I think our trade policies, for many, many years, have been a disaster. They have benefited
corporate America at the expense of working people. Secretary Clinton has come out in opposition to the TPP, does not want to see itCHUCK TODD:
Right.
BERNIE SANDERS:
--appear in the lame duck Congress. That's my view, as well.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, some of your supporters are disappointed in the pick of Tim Kaine, that he's not progressive enough. I know Tim Kaine
called you after he was picked. Do you consider Tim Kaine a progressive? And are you happy with this pick?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Look, you know, the pick is Secretary Clinton's. I've known Tim Kaine for a number of years. We've served in the Senate together,
obviously. Tim is a very, very smart guy. He's a very nice guy. His political views are not my political views. He is more conservative
than I am. Would I have preferred to see somebody like an Elizabeth Warren selected by Secretary Clinton? Yes, I would have.
CHUCK TODD:
And then finally, do you feel as if, that you, when you got Glass-Steagall, I wanted to ask about this, because it looks like the one thing
that both parties may agree on in their platforms is putting-- is being in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Does this mean we will see
that happen in the next Congress?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I'm going to do everything that I can to make it happen. You know, when we talk about our campaign, one of the things that we
have been able to do, Chuck, is create the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of the Democratic Party, and that
includes breaking up the large Wall Street banks and reestablishing Glass-Steagall.

J.R.229
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 279
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 46 of 119
I think the American people understand that we cannot continue to have a handful of reckless, irresponsible banks often acting
illegally, that something has to happen. They have to be broken up.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Senator Bernie Sanders. The big speech is tomorrow night. We'll be waiting for you here in a very, very hot Philadelphia, over
100 degrees.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Okay.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Sanders, thanks for coming on. Good to see you, sir.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Thank you very much.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, reaction to Hillary Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine as a running mate, who showed why he might have appeal,
unique appeal, to a very important voting bloc.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Aprendilo valores de mi pueblo--faith, familia, y trabajo.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD
And we'll be back in a moment from Philadelphia with this great panel. Rachel Maddow, Michael Steele, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris
Matthews. Stay tuned.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
And we'll be back in a moment from Philadelphia with this great panel, Rachel Maddow, Michael Steele, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris
Matthews. Stay tuned.
***COMMERCIAL TAPE***
CHUCK TODD:
We are back. So much to talk about already. Our panel is here, Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC,
former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, he's sort of the fish out of water here in Philadelphia. Andrea
Mitchell, NBC News, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, host, of course, of Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC. And a Philadelphia
native himself, Mr. Brotherly Love Chris Matthews, host of Hardball-RACHEL MADDOW:
Mr. Brotherly Love?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
And sisterly affection.

J.R.230
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 280
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 47 of 119
CHUCK TODD:
--Sisterly affection here for the Penn grad.
CHUCK TODD:
And-- this morning by the way we have new pictures of Tim Kaine walking into church this morning in Richmond, Virginia. He now
realizes, and now his parish is realizing, what it's like to have Secret Service following around a member of the parish there. All right.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Know what his Secret Service name is going to be yet?
CHUCK TODD:
What do we think the code name should be?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But we're not sure-RACHEL MADDOW:
Well, the big joke was that if you're boring enough, your Secret Service name is Tim Kaine.
CHUCK TODD:
Ooh.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Right? That-CHUCK TODD:
Those are old Johnny Carson and Jay Leno, Al Gore jokes-CHUCK TODD:
All right, you guys are having already too much fun.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Sorry, sorry.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me just throw it out here. We heard what Bernie Sanders said about Tim Kaine. It was, that was tougher than I expected.
RACHEL MADDOW:
"His politics are not my politics."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
That's really -RACHEL MADDOW:
"He does not share my political views." That's an aggressive take from Bernie. I'm not surprised. Bernie's an aggressive politician. And
I think when Senator Sanders speaks at the DNC, I think everybody's going to be on the edge of their seat. I think that he is not going
to pull a Ted Cruz because he's already made an endorsement.

J.R.231
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 281
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 48 of 119
CHUCK TODD:
Well, he said, "I'm for Hillary," and he was tough on Trump.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah. And but he doesn't relish going after Trump. He likes going after the Democratic Party to try to move the Democratic Party.
That's his target, always has been.
MICHAEL STEELE:
It's still obvious, he's not 'Feeling the Bern' for Hillary. And that was very obvious. And when you asked about the trust question, he
didn't say he trusted Hillary Clinton. He said he didn't trust Donald Trump. So the reality of it is there's still some tension there that
Bernie is reflecting among his supporters. And it was evident there. I mean-RACHEL MADDOW:
He's got a mission that's bigger than one election. He always has.
MICHAEL STEELE:
That's true.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And in fact, he could quiet the march that is planned to go from the center of Center City, and Rittenhouse Square all the way down at
Independence Hall. This march is going to disrupt the city today, no matter how peaceful, because this is a city, in 100-degree heat,
that is planning for a convention. And it's going to be a very large outpouring. He also said-CHUCK TODD:
And by the way, the hotter it is, the crankier people will be.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah. And he also says that Tim Kaine doesn't share his politics, not only that, but that he would have preferred Elizabeth Warren. He
made it very clear; Tim Kaine is a nice guy, but he's not endorsing or embracing someone who Hillary Clinton -CHUCK TODD:
There's a painful look in your face, Chris.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
--called Tim Kaine a progressive.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
He didn't get to pick. Hillary Clinton did. And I've watched Hillary Clinton. I've watched a lot of politicians over the years. You can tell
when they're actually happy, not when they fake the laugh or anything else. She looked delighted during his speech yesterday. And I
haven't seen her that delighted in a long time. She had found her guy to be her running mate. I think she loved it.
And I think one thing we're getting all excited about, I understand why the progressives are upset. But one thing historically we all
know is the selection of a vice president is a poor predictor of the direction of that administration.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:

J.R.232
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 282
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 49 of 119
FDR picked John Nance Garner-RACHEL MADDOW:
It's not a policy pick.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Kennedy picked another conservative from the south, Lyndon Johnson, relatively conservative. And then we got the New Deal out of
that and we got the Great Society we got the New Frontier. It's a poor predictor. Now, if this is about spoils, they've got an argument.
They wanted a piece of the action. But there's differences between spoils and direction.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to throw out the one thing that Trump's trying to hit Kaine on, well, two things. But the one big one is the gifts in Virginia.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I only throw it out there is that I heard Ed Rendell ask to defend it. And he struggled, Andrea. He said, "Well, it's illegal in
Pennsylvania."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Virginia-CHUCK TODD:
Okay. And it's legal in Virginia. That wasn't exactly a resounding defense.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah. Virginia has a very strange, let's face it, strange gift law. The difference with Bob McDonnell, who was convicted, and then the
Supreme Court overturned it, is there was no quid pro quo. He declared it. That was the main thing. He declared everything, put it
down, in fact, computed higher numbers to staying in friends' houses. He put everything down. He was meticulous about it.
So they don't think there's a big ethics thing. Just on his progressivity or lack of it, he has this civil rights background. I mean I was in
the room. And what you saw on T.V. yesterday in Miami, in that largely Hispanic campus, that wonderful campus in Miami, it was
extraordinary. The enthusiasm for him and the affection. And having watched her all of these years, you're absolutely right, Chris-CHUCK TODD:
You know-ANDREA MITCHELL:
--she found her guy. She was a happy camper.
RACHEL MADDOW:
He's not a progressive, but they will tell a very progressive story about his history. The party has moved to the left while he sort of
always been a solid liberal.
CHUCK TODD:
Both of them are trying to-ANDREA MITCHELL:

J.R.233
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 283
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 50 of 119
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I feel like both Clinton and Kaine are trying to catch up to the party's movement.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
That's so true.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, on guns he was always there. He was heroic in Virginia on gun laws.
CHUCK TODD:
That they're moving-- and Michael, let me ask you this. The Trump camping says, "We love the Kaine pick." And here's their
reasoning. They love the Kaine pick because it reinforces that they're the political professionals, that here's Tim Kaine, and all he's
done in life, is been in office for the last 25 years.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHUCK TODD:
And the whole point of Trump is Trump's Mr. "I'm the total outsider." If they want to double down on that, fine, go ahead. What do you
say?
RACHEL MADDOW:
Except Mike Pence
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right, right, right.
CHUCK TODD:
They pay no attention to that. I brought that brought to them. I said, "What about Pence?" And they're like, "Well, it's the top of the
ticket."
MICHAEL STEELE:
"Ignore that man behind the curtain."
CHUCK TODD:
What do you say to that? Did they have a point or not?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, they'll have a-- I think the broader point, is an interesting one. Because what he's comparing himself-- he's comparing himself,
Trump, to Kaine-CHUCK TODD:
Right.
MICHAEL STEELE:
--and Clinton. So it's me and against them.

J.R.234
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 284
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 51 of 119
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Pence is not a part of that equation, necessarily.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
So when he's talking about the maverick, the outsider, he's-- he's assuming his ticket is total that.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, Pence wasn't even a part of his own rollout.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
If you remember. And that was-RACHEL MADDOW:
He couldn't get a word in edgewise.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Hillary Clinton spoke about Tim Kaine-MICHAEL STEELE:
I think their strength, Chuck, is gonna be on the argument-- this notion that Tim Kaine is progressive is just not believable. And for a
whole host of reasons. I think that's an opening for a lot of folks on Trump's side.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You can, there are element of his record that are not progressive, but on balance, I would argue that he is.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
I would argue that too.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
But one thing, the guy's two doors from you, if you're president. Look at the structure of the West Wing now. It's not some guy that
goes back to Maine like Lincoln's first vice president. He or she is right with you.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
You want a good person two doors for you, somebody who has values. And it's not just smart politics. I think what Hillary Clinton's
going to love having is a guy who's a true blue good guy. And I think he is a progressive on all the moral issues--

J.R.235
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 285
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 52 of 119
CHUCK TODD:
Let's sneak in a break here. When we come back, I want to get into the DNC e-mail situation. And I also want to get your guys'
reaction to some interesting comments from Donald Trump. Yeah, you know that guy that was at the start of the show. We'll be right
back.
***COMMERCIAL BREAK***
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, panelists here. Before we jump to Trump, the DNC email leaks, Cleveland, we expected rowdiness, Never Trumpsters,
and all that stuff. We expect order here. But I wonder, Rachel, if-- look, I'm hearing from the Bernie bros. I'm in one of the emails just-I'm the complaint department here sometimes at NBC. Somebody was complaining about coverage. And I said, "Okay, let's talk on the
phone," or whatever. But we didn't do anything about it, because I get complaints about coverage every hour, every day.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
But I think Bernie supporters may like this place, at least outside. They may be upset, and they may do something about it.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah. I mean and, you know, there will be that big protest that Andrea was talking about today, to start things off. And there will be a
lot, there will be hundreds of Bernie delegates insides the room. Now honestly, from the top, down, he said, "We've got to elect Hillary
Clinton." He's been unequivocal about that, that's the most important thing.
It'll be interesting to see whether the rules fights and the platform fights end up, in the end, when there's need to get nailed down with
those votes, there is some dissent and chaos there. There might be.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
One thing is-CHUCK TODD:
Do you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to get out now?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Well, look-CHUCK TODD:
Not even gavel it in?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
This is not a mystery story. This isn't Colombo.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
We knew from the beginning, watching the debate schedule, put together by the DNC-CHUCK TODD:

J.R.236
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 286
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 53 of 119
Sure.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
--that they were tilting the scales to Hillary Clinton. Middle of the night debates, Sunday morning -- it was an absurd debate schedule.
And it just said, "We're for Hillary, we don't want the new guy to get all the attention."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And what Bernie said to you is that she's not going to be giving a speech. When does the party chair not give a speech at the
convention? And apparently that is the case.
CHUCK TODD:
And then right now, though, they will gavel in.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Thank god we haven't-- her quitting right now before -- I mean, the DNC's gonna be running a big part of the ground game for the
whole-CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You know, you don't-CHUCK TODD:
But I tell you, this-RACHEL MADDOW:
It would be suicide for the chair to jump out now-CHUCK TODD:
This doesn't help her own fight for reelection, which I still think she's going to be okay.
RACHEL MADDOW:
No, but-CHUCK TODD:
It's a district that she knows very well. But-ANDREA MITCHELL:
But Bernie endorsed her opponent.
RACHEL MADDOW:
But her reelection fight is in her district.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Right.
RACHEL MADDOW:

J.R.237
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 287
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 54 of 119
It's not to be the chair of the DNC, that's next year.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Michael Steele, what'd you hear from Donald Trump? Did it make you feel better or worse about his chances?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, I think Donald Trump did a couple of things he needed to do. One was, and you could see it in the room that night, people began
to say, "Okay, I can get there." The speech that he gave, when you read it, seemed a lot darker and harsher than when he delivered it.
He delivered it in a way-RACHEL MADDOW:
I thought the opposite.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yeah, yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
When reading it, I wasn't freaked out.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
And then, when I saw him give it, I pulled the covers up.
MICHAEL STEELE:
No, for me, it was the reverse. Because the reaction. I'm sitting in the room and I'm getting the reaction from the crowd.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Mmm.
MICHAEL STEELE:
And the reaction from the crowd was, "This guy is going to be a fighter." And I think that's a strong message for him coming out of this
convention.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Rachel, you have never pulled the covers up.
RACHEL MADDOW:Oh no, I meant proverbially
CHUCK TODD:There's a lot of personal information here. Woah, it's Sunday morning, guys.
MICHAEL STEELE:
I thought he did what he needed to do, Chuck. I do.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Standing under those 15-foot-tall letters with Trump, and then his head comes up there. And then he spent 76 minutes screaming, red
faced, about terrorism and death and destruction and "I'm the only one who can fix it"--

J.R.238
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 288
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 55 of 119
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I think that was technical. I don't think he knew how to read a script like that. I don't think he had the ability to-- his daughter knew how
to do it. It's tough to read a script in a conversational manner. So you end up doing this sort of scream thing.
RACHEL MADDOW:
But it takes an ego to turn a 30 minute script into a 78 minute rant.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But he said that he was the person who would fix everything. And they're focusing on that. But, you know, Kaine was focusing on that.
You know, it is the "we" not the I. They're comparing him to a dictator.
MICHAEL STEELE:
But the-ANDREA MITCHELL:
It is the language and the delivery, Michael-MICHAEL STEELE:
Don't lose sight of the fact that a lot of Americans out there are saying it is the "we" who screwed us up to this point.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
It is the we who've gotten us into this mess.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It's a different way of defining democracy, Michael.
MICHAEL STEELE:
So they're looking for the I, someone who's going to step forward as a leader, to get us through this mess. This is the bifurcation of the
of the population, the voting population right now. And it's going to be interesting to see which one of these arguments win-RACHEL MADDOW:
Is this about the hunger for a strong man, is that what you're talking about?
MICHAEL STEELE:Yeah no, there really is Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW:We've seen this around the world, it's not supposed to be us.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I've heard Bernie make your point.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yes!
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
It's that we have to reach outside the establishment to get the solution to these really bad economic problems affecting the working

J.R.239
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 289
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 56 of 119
people of this country.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Same message. Different sides.
MICHAEL STEELE:Same message.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Same message. The question is whether or not one man is supposed to deliver salvation for the country. We're not supposed to be
that kind of country.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to throw one more. He seemed, at least in the interview with me, he goes after Mitch McConnell, goes after Ted Cruz, goes
after John Kasich.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He is fearless in that regard.
CHUCK TODD:He really is.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He is not going to moderate himself.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You didn't even ask about Kasich. And he's bringing it up
CHUCK TODD:
No, exactly. He brought Kasich up himself.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And another player to be named player, who, you know, remain -- could be one of the senators like Jeff Flake. Look, the fact is that he
is not playing by anybody's ground rules except Donald Trump's. What he said about N.A.T.O. was extraordinary because he doubled
down on that. And the whole system of collect your security in Europe, if you're in Poland today, you are not reassured-CHUCK TODD:
What's amazing is the Trump campaign tried to walk it back all last week on the N.A.T.O. stuff. And he's basically saying, "Don't walk it
back."
RACHEL MADDOW:
Even beyond N.A.T.O. to talk about Europe as a threat to America is what's good for Europe is bad for America and we have an
interest in Europe being weak and divided, they only got together to screw us? Like, hold on a second.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah, it'll play in Scranton. It'll play up there in the Eerie, Pennsylvania it'll play.
RACHEL MADDOW:

J.R.240
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 290
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 57 of 119
The European Union-- came out of the way to try to not have World War III.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Because people think we're being shoved around and exploited and he's saying, "I'm going to shove back."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They are our markets-- markets, allies-CHUCK TODD:
You guys great. I'm going to try to get another half hour. But let me sneak in this. We'll be back in a moment with our-- we'll call it
halftime segment. No, it's Endgame Segment. And we'll look at Hillary Clinton's popularity compared to other Democratic nominees on
the eve of their conventions.
***COMMERCIAL BREAK***
CHUCK TODD:
The panel never stops interacting here. Seriously we just went to a commercial break-RACHEL MADDOW:
--wants more with France!
CHUCK TODD:
It's endgame time. Look, I want to show you here very quickly some numbers, because it will help us judge whether this is a successful
convention for Hillary Clinton. These are favorable ratings, personal favorable ratings, whether you're right side up or upside down,
from our NBC Wall Street Journal poll, for every Democrat going back to '92. And as you can see, Hillary Clinton in the worst shape of
any presumptive nominee going into their convention.
Now, let me show you what everybody else came through after their convention. So successful convention for Bill Clinton, successful
one for Al Gore. Flat for John Kerry, successful, Barack Obama. Obviously, we'll find out, for Hillary Clinton, what does she need to-ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, what they are going to do is they're going to have gauzy films, the same kind of films you saw in 1992, the same producers-CHUCK TODD:
And JFK?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to have all of these films, biography, résumé. They know that her résumé is not resonating with millennials. People know
what she did, they don't know-- they know the list of what she was. They don't know what she actually did, what she accomplished.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to do all of that. The balance is going to be very different.
RACHEL MADDOW:
--because T.V. networks don't always take the movies anymore--

J.R.241
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 291
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 58 of 119
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, they're going to have to validators.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to have people on that podium behind it who are going to talk about things she has done for them. And it's going to be
very much all about her and much less about taking down Trump
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I think the magic moment in this convention's going to be Thursday night. And a lot of women, and a lot of men, too, are going to see
Hillary Clinton as the first party nominee, who's probably going to be like the president. She has the advantage right now. And there
are going to be misty eyes all across the country.
And any men at that moment who make a wisecrack are going to be guaranteeing another vote for Hillary Clinton. I think it's a very
emotional moment for people. They've haven't quite got to it because of all is mishegas that's gone on this year. I think it's going to be
magical. And if Hillary Clinton just stands there with a little emotion, this is an amazing historic moment.
CHUCK TODD:
Michael was the Republican convention too anti-Clinton and not enough pro-Trump?
MICHAEL STEELE:
No. The Republican convention had to go anti-Clinton-CHUCK TODD:
Had to do that?
MICHAEL STEELE:
--because of the Trump issues.
CHUCK TODD:
What about this one?
MICHAEL STEELE:
This one? I was thinking, as you guys were talking about Barack Obama and talking about Hillary Clinton being likable enough, this is
going to be a convention in which they're going to showcase her so you can like her. Because people, those numbers show, don't like
her. So it's going to be everything you just said, Chris, plus more. The problem is what happens afterwards. And that's where Hillary
Clinton's going to have to contine .
CHUCK TODD:
Here's an out question for all of you. Besides Hillary Clinton's speech, what will be the other buzziest speech or speaker when we walk
away from this convention?
RACHEL MADDOW:
We're going to have a huge one on night one. Bernie is a big deal.
MICHAEL STEELE:

J.R.242
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 292
2/16/2017

nbcnews.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 59 of 119
Bernie.
RACHEL MADDOW:
The Democratic Party is going through a transformation. Liberals are having their moment. And this convention has to reflect it.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Every Democratic convention I can remember, going back to, God, '64, the best speech was never given by the nominee, whether it's
Bobby Kennedy or it's Jesse Jackson, or it's Mario Cuomo.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
The candidates never have been able to deliver the best speech. So I would bet on Bernie.
RACHEL MADDOW:
It was Trump Jr. last week.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Bernie or President Obama.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Michelle Obama and Barack Obama on day two.
CHUCK TODD:
I think it's Barack Obama on Wednesday night. I think it's going to be to Hillary Clinton what Bill Clinton was to Barack Obama four
years ago. All right. That's all for this Sunday morning.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
We agree.
CHUCK TODD:
I'll be hosting a special edition of Meet the Press Daily tonight at 5:00 Eastern on MSNBC. I know that's what everybody on this table
will be watching. And then, throughout the week, I'll be joined by my colleagues Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie right here at The
Wells Fargo Center for convention coverage on the network beginning at 10:00 Eastern, 7:00 Pacific. If you missed it last week, you
should be regretting it. Watch us this week. And of course we'll be back next Sunday. Because if it is Sunday, Meet the Press.
* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *

J.R.243
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print

JA 293
2/16/2017

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 60 of 119

Exhibit Y

J.R.244

JA 294

Donald Trump on Proposed Muslim Ban: 'You Know My Plans' | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 61 of 119

DONALD TRUMP

Donald Trump on Proposed Muslim Ban: 'You Know My Plans'
Katie Reilly
Dec 21, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday called the recent attacks in Germany and Turkey "terrible" and suggested that he
does not intend to reevaluate his plans to ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, boasting that he had been "proven to
be right."
“You know my plans. All along, I’ve been proven to be right. 100% correct. What’s happening is disgraceful," Trump told
reporters Wednesday when asked whether the recent violence has influenced his proposed Muslim ban.
Politics

Trump described the attack at a Berlin Christmas market as an "attack on humanity."

SEARCH SIGN IN

SUBSCRIBE

"That’s what it is: an attack on humanity," he said. "And it’s got to be stopped."
Trump said he had not spoken with President Obama since the attacks.
"Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday," Trump said in an initial
statement about the attack on Monday. "ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and
places of worship as part of their global jihad."
Zeke Miller contributed to this report.

SPONSORED STORIES
Recommended by

Her Dress At The Emmys After
Party Left The Crowd Speechless
Livingly

J.R.245
http://time.com/4611229/donald-trump-berlin-attack/

JA 295
2/15/2017

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 62 of 119

Exhibit Z

J.R.246

JA 296

Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says — and..., 2017 WLNR 2956241

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 63 of 119

1/29/17 WashingtonPost.com (Pg. Unavail. Online)
2017 WLNR 2956241
WashingtonPost.com
Copyright (c) 2017 The Washington Post
January 29, 2017
Section: the-fix
Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it 'legally'
Giuliani claims Trump asked him how to create a Muslim ban: "He called me
up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it l...
Amy B Wang
Giuliani claims Trump asked him how to create a Muslim ban: "He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together.
Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a "Muslim ban" and requested he assemble
a commission to show him "the right way to do it legally."
Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration,
appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came
together.
Trump signed orders on Friday not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120 days but
also to implement "new vetting measures" to screen out "radical Islamic terrorists." Refugee entry from Syria, however,
would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan
and Yemen — is suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give priority to Christian refugees over those of other
religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim
ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
Giuliani said he assembled a "whole group of other very expert lawyers on this," including former U.S. attorney general
Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).
"And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,"
Giuliani told Pirro. "Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.247U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 297
1

Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says — and..., 2017 WLNR 2956241

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 64 of 119

the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are
sending terrorists into our country."
It was unclear when the phone call Giuliani took place and when the commission began working. An email to the White
House press office was not immediately returned Sunday.
Clips of the exchange between Giuliani and Pirro quickly went viral Saturday night, with some claiming that Giuliani's
statement amounted to admitting Trump's intent had been to institute a ban based on religion.
Others, including Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, have insisted
it is not a ban on Muslims, but rather one based on countries from which travel was already restricted under Barack
Obama's administration.
Priebus appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday morning to say it was possible Trump would expand the list of
countries included in the travel ban.
"You can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others," Priebus told host John
Dickerson. "Perhaps we need to take it further."
Priebus also said there had been weeks of work and "plenty of communication" between the White House, the State
Department and the Department of Homeland Security regarding the ban.
"We didn't just type this thing up in an office and sign up," he told Dickerson.
Later on the same program, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) called out Giuliani's interview with Pirro from the night before.
"They can't deny that this is a Muslim ban," Ellison told Dickerson. "On the campaign trail, [Trump] said he wanted a
Muslim ban. ... Rudolph W. Giuliani who helped him write it said that they started out with the intention of a Muslim
ban and then they sort of 'languaged' it up so to try to avoid that label, but it is a religiously based ban."
Senate Democrats vowed to draft legislation to block the travel ban.
"We're demanding the president reverse these executive orders that go against what we are, everything we have always
stood for," Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a news conference Sunday morning, noting
later that his middle name, Ellis, was originally inspired by Ellis Island.
"It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it will only serve to embolden and
inspire those around the globe those that will do us harm," Schumer added of the ban. "It must be reversed immediately."
Trump's executive order sparked massive protests at airports around the country Friday and Saturday, as reports
surfaced that dozens of travelers from the affected countries, including green-card holders, were being detained.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Saturday morning challenging Trump's order after two Iraqi men
with immigrant visas were barred from entering the United States at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.
As Giuliani was speaking, Fox News simultaneously aired an alert that noted federal judge Ann M. Donnelly had issued
a stay to stop the deportations nationwide.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.248U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 298
2

Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says — and..., 2017 WLNR 2956241

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 65 of 119

Donnelly wrote that there was a strong likelihood the order had violated the petitioners' rights to due process and equal
protection by the Constitution.
"There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees,
visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order," Donnelly wrote.
The ACLU hailed the victory.
"Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this
country," ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. "Our courts today worked as they should
as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered
his first loss in court."
On Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it did not plan to back off enforcing Trump's
orders.
"President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S.
government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety," the statement
read. "President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards
reestablishing control over America's borders and national security."
The department said that less than 1 percent of daily international air travelers to the United States had been
"inconvenienced" on Saturday.
Matthew Kolken, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo said there has been "a systemic bias against individuals from
Muslim countries in the U.S. immigration departments" for years, including under the Obama administration.
"This isn't unprecedented," Kolken told The Washington Post by phone Sunday. "The unfortunate reality is the executive
branch does have vast discretionary authority to determine who they are going to [allow in or not]."
Still, Kolken said, he believes "Trump has gone a step further without a doubt" in including even people who are lawful
permanent residents and suspending all immigration applications from people from the seven countries on the banned
list.
If there was evidence of disparate treatment of individuals from the same country — if there were anecdotal evidence of,
for example, a Syrian family of one religious background allowed to enter over that of another religious background —
then that is where lawsuits could come into play, he said.
"The question becomes whether they're trying to do an end-around by couching the ban as a country-specific ban based
on a security-related issues when in reality it's a religious ban," Kolken said.
Read more:
Fact Checker: What you need to know about terror threat from foreigners and Trump's executive order
'I am heartbroken': Malala criticizes Trump for 'closing the door on children' fleeing violence
A ship full of refugees fleeing the Nazis once begged the U.S. for entry. They were turned back.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.249U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 299
3

Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says — and..., 2017 WLNR 2956241

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 66 of 119

Trump's travel ban could make Rex Tillerson's potential job harder, a former defense secretary says

---- Index References ---News Subject: (Civil Rights Law (1CI34); Government (1GO80); Immigration & Naturalization (1IM88); Intellectual
Freedoms & Civil Liberties (1IN08); Legal (1LE33); Legislation (1LE97); Social Issues (1SO05); U.S. Legislation
(1US12))
Industry: (Homeland Security (1HO11); Security (1SE29))
Region: (Africa (1AF90); Americas (1AM92); Arab States (1AR46); Mediterranean (1ME20); Middle East (1MI23);
New York (1NE72); North America (1NO39); Syria (1SY20); U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region (1MI18); USA (1US73))
Language: EN
Other Indexing: (Donald Trump; Ann Donnelly had; Jeanine Pirro; Rex Tillerson; Christian refugees; Anthony Romero;
Ann Donnelly; Mike McCaul; Matthew Kolken; Kellyanne Conway; Rudolph Giuliani; Rudy Giuliani; Peter King;
Michael Mukasey; John Dickerson; Reince Priebus; Charles Schumer; Keith Ellison)
Word Count: 1325
End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.250U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 300
4

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 67 of 119

Exhibit AA

J.R.251

JA 301

Donald Trump says he is not bothered by comparisons to Hitler, 2015 WLNR 36291622

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 68 of 119

12/8/15 WashingtonPost.com (Pg. Unavail. Online)
2015 WLNR 36291622
WashingtonPost.com
Copyright (c) 2015 The Washington Post
December 8, 2015
Section: post-politics
Donald Trump says he is not bothered by comparisons to Hitler
Jenna Johnson
The comparison between Donald Trump and Hitler is being made more and more frequently -- including on the cover of
Tuesday's Philadelphia Daily News -- but the Republican front-runner said Tuesday that the comparison doesn't bother
him.
"You're increasingly being compared to Hitler," ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said during an interview with
Trump on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. "Does that give you any pause at all?"
"No," Trump responded, "because what I am doing is no different than what FDR -- FDR's solution for Germans,
Italians, Japanese, you know, many years ago."
Stephanopoulos jumped in as Trump kept talking: "So you're for internment camps?"
"This is a president who is highly respected by all," Trump said of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "He did the same thing
-- if you look at what he was doing, it was far worse."
[ Donald Trump calls for 'total' ban on Muslims entering United States ]
Trump's answer was confusing and meandering but he seemed to be making the point that during times of war, more
extreme measures must be used.
"We are now at war," Trump said. "We have a president that doesn't want to say that, but we are now at war."
"I've got to press you on that, sir,"Stephanopoulos said. "So you're praising FDR there, I take it you're praising the
setting up of internment camps for Japanese during World War II?"
"No, I'm not," Trump responded. "No, I'm not. No, I'm not."
Trump then rattled off the numbers of some of the presidential proclamations Roosevelt issued "having to do with alien
Germans, alien Italians, alien Japanese."

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

J.R.252

1
JA 302

Donald Trump says he is not bothered by comparisons to Hitler, 2015 WLNR 36291622

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 69 of 119
"They went through a whole list of things -- they couldn't go five miles from their homes, they weren't allowed to use
radios, flashlights," Trump said. "Take a look at what FDR did many years ago, and he's one of the most highly respected
presidents... They named highways after him."
Stephanopoulos responded: "You want to bring back policies like that?"
After a pause, Trump responded: "No, I don't to bring it back, George. At all. I don't like doing it at all. It's a temporary
measure until our representatives, many of whom are grossly incompetent, until our representatives can figure out what's
going on."

---- Index References ---News Subject: (Islam (1IS02); Judaism (1JU93); Minority & Ethnic Groups (1MI43); Race Relations (1RA49); Religion
(1RE60); Social Issues (1SO05))
Industry: (Celebrities (1CE65); Entertainment (1EN08))
Language: EN
Other Indexing: (Donald Trump; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; George Stephanopoulos; Hitler)
Word Count: 371
End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

J.R.253

2
JA 303

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 70 of 119

Exhibit BB

J.R.254

JA 304

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us' - CNNPolitics.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 71 of 119

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us'
By Theodore Schleifer, CNN
 Updated 5:56 PM ET, Thu March 10, 2016

Story highlights
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's
Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous
hatred" that he said partly defined the religion
Asked if the hated was "in Islam itself," Trump
would only say that was for the media to figure
out

Washington (CNN) — Donald Trump said
Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing
little distinction between the religion and radical
Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson
Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he
said partly defined the religion. He maintained the
war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very
hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because
you don't know who's who."

J.R.255
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

JA 305
2/16/2017

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us' - CNNPolitics.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 72 of 119


Donald Trump CNN interview (part 1) 10:15
READ: Donald Trump: 'It's over' if I win Ohio and Florida
Asked if the hate was "in Islam itself," Trump would only say that was for the media to figure out.
"You're gonna have to figure that out, OK?" he told Cooper. "We have to be very vigilant. We have to be
very careful. And we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United
States."

J.R.256
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

JA 306
2/16/2017

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us' - CNNPolitics.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 73 of 119


Donald Trump CNN interview (part 2) 10:59
Trump made headlines in December when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.,
"until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Despite widespread condemnation
of the remarks, Trump has stood by the proposal.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" Thursday, Trump spokeswoman Katrina
Pierson said the real-estate magnate stood by the sentiment that many Muslims worldwide sympathize
with ISIS, but said Trump should've used "radical Islam."
"It is radical Islamic extremists that do participate in these types of things," Pierson said, calling for a
"broader perspective" of Muslims' ties to terror. "We've allowed this propaganda to spread all through
the country that this is a religion of peace."
In speaking with Cooper, Trump added that "there can be no doctrine" when asked to outline how he
would project power overseas.
Trump also tried to clarify his position on how far he would go in targeting the families of terrorists. He
has said in the past that he is in favor of "expanding the laws" that govern how the U.S. can combat and
deter terrorism, and Trump has called to bring back waterboarding, even vowing the U.S. "should go a
lot further than waterboarding."

J.R.257
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

JA 307
2/16/2017

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us' - CNNPolitics.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 74 of 119


Donald Trump talks about working with Democrats 00:51
READ: Trump: My Muslim friends don't support my immigration ban
But Trump on Wednesday declined to say what specific measures he would support.
"I'll work on it with the generals," he told Cooper. He added, "We have to play the game at a much
tougher level than we're playing it now."

Pence's sphere of
influence questioned in
wake of Flynn fallout
Trump shows his true
hand on LGBTQ rights
Feinstein, Grassley seek
full briefing, transcripts of
Flynn calls

Obama photographer shades Trump
over secure discussions

J.R.258
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

JA 308
2/16/2017

Donald Trump: 'I think Islam hates us' - CNNPolitics.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 75 of 119

J.R.259
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

JA 309
2/16/2017

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 76 of 119

Exhibit CC

J.R.260

JA 310

Trump Responds to Brussels Attacks: 'We're Having Problems..., 2016 WLNR 8849615

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 77 of 119

3/22/16 Mediaite (Blog) (Pg. Unavail. Online)
2016 WLNR 8849615
Mediaite (Blog)
Copyright (c) 2016 Mediaite
March 22, 2016
Trump Responds to Brussels Attacks: 'We're Having Problems With the Muslims'
- Trump on Brussels Attacks: 'We're Having Problems With the Muslims'
Alex Griswold
Mar 22, 2016
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trumpreacted to the Brussels terror attack Tuesday morning, saying bluntly
on Fox Business that "we're having problems with the Muslims."
"You called after the Paris attacks for a pause to stop Muslims from coming into the United States. That got a lot of
criticism, as you know," noted Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Jerry Baker
"And a lot of support, Jerry. It got tremendous support," Trump pushed back.
Please enable Javascript to watch.
"Frankly, look, we're having problems with the Muslims, and we're having problems with Muslims coming into the
country," he said, citing the San Bernardino shooters, one of whom entered the country on a fiance visa.
"You need surveillance, you have to deal with the mosques whether you like it or not," Trump said. "These attacks aren't
done by Swedish people, that I can tell you."
Watch above, via Fox Business.
[Image via screengrab] —— >>Follow Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) on Twitter

---- Index References ---News Subject: (International Terrorism (1IN37); Islam (1IS02); Religion (1RE60); Social Issues (1SO05); Top World
News (1WO62))
Region: (Belgium (1BE51); Europe (1EU83); Eurozone Countries (1EU86); Western Europe (1WE41))

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.261U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 311
1

Trump Responds to Brussels Attacks: 'We're Having Problems..., 2016 WLNR 8849615

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 78 of 119

Language: EN
Other Indexing: (Jerry Baker; Donald Trumpreacted)
Keywords: (brussels attacks); (iowac); (TV); (Jerry Baker); (Donald Trump); (Election 2016); (Fox Business); (Belgium)
Word Count: 162
End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to J.R.262U.S. Government Works.
original

JA 312
2

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 79 of 119

Exhibit DD

J.R.263

JA 313

Case: 17-35105, 02/11/2017,Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 123 of 68
Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR ID: 10316343, DktEntry: 140-3, Page of 5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 80 of 119

J.R.264

JA 314

Case: 17-35105, 02/11/2017,Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 224 of 68
Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR ID: 10316343, DktEntry: 140-3, Page of 5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 81 of 119

J.R.265

JA 315

Case: 17-35105, 02/11/2017,Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 325 of 68
Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR ID: 10316343, DktEntry: 140-3, Page of 5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 82 of 119

J.R.266

JA 316

Case: 17-35105, 02/11/2017,Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 426 of 68
Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR ID: 10316343, DktEntry: 140-3, Page of 5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 83 of 119

J.R.267

JA 317

Case: 17-35105, 02/11/2017,Document 14 Filed 02/06/17 Page 527 of 68
Case 2:17-cv-00135-JLR ID: 10316343, DktEntry: 140-3, Page of 5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 84 of 119

J.R.268

JA 318

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 85 of 119

Exhibit EE

J.R.269

JA 319

Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are Detained Without Lawyers - The New York Times

2/16/17, 9)07 AM

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 86 of 119

https://nyti.ms/2jLMxKS

N.Y. / REGION

Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are
Detained Without Lawyers
By BENJAMIN MUELLER and MATTHEW ROSENBERG

JAN. 29, 2017

Drab airport screening areas and waiting rooms were transformed into chaotic
scenes on Sunday, with lawyers saying that border agents had put pressure on
detainees and created an information blackout that left many struggling to discern
how President Trump’s immigration order was being applied.
In New York, a lawyer said detainees were being moved from one terminal to
another in handcuffs. In Los Angeles, an Iranian graduate student was pushed by
border agents to sign documents allowing them to send her out of the country, her
lawyers said. And in the Washington area, agents told lawyers that officials had
barred detainees from getting legal help, despite a federal judge’s order that legal
permanent residents be given access to lawyers.
Panic gave way to euphoria in some cases as travelers who had been detained
for many hours were released and reunited with relatives. But well into Sunday,
two days after Mr. Trump signed an executive order keeping many foreigners from
entering the country, lawyers were still sweeping airport arrival sections in search
of waiting relatives, often their only source of information about who was being
held.
Some detainees said they had slept on office chairs. In Los Angeles, lawyers
said Customs and Border Protection agents had told them there were cots but had
declined to say how many there were, or how many people were being held.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html?_r=0

J.R.270

Page 1 of 5

JA 320

Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are Detained Without Lawyers - The New York Times

2/16/17, 9)07 AM

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 87 of 119

Detainees were told their phones would be disruptive and had to be taken. Lawyers
and relatives were growing increasingly concerned about older detainees with
medical problems.
Among those with ailments were an Iranian couple who had arrived in Los Angeles
on visitors’ visas. The man, in his late 60s, had been through two open-heart
operations, and he and his wife, in her late 50s, were both diabetic. After arriving
at the airport on Saturday afternoon, they were allowed to call their daughter in the
United States only once, around 1 a.m. on Sunday, said Patricia Corrales, a private
lawyer working on detainees’ cases there. Relatives and lawyers repeatedly asked
whether the couple were receiving proper medical care but learned nothing further
from border agents.
Ms. Corrales, who was an Immigration and Customs Enforcement lawyer for
17 years, said, “I think they don’t necessarily have the resources, the staff and
experience to deal with these large numbers.”
In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said, “We are
committed to ensuring that all individuals affected by the executive orders,
including those affected by the court orders, are being provided all rights afforded
under the law.”
Some detainees were reportedly pressured to sign documents they hardly
understood and then put on flights out of the country. When two brothers from
Yemen, Tareq Aqel Mohammed Aziz, 21, and Ammar, 19, landed on Saturday
morning at Dulles International Airport near Washington with immigrant visas,
they planned to board a connecting flight to Flint, Mich., to join their father.
Instead, they were taken off the plane, put into handcuffs and told they needed to
sign a form or face being barred from the country for five years, said their lawyer,
Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, of the Legal Aid Justice Center in Virginia. They
signed the form and were quickly put on a plane to Ethiopia.
A 24-year-old Iranian woman who is a graduate student in the United States
told relatives of a similar problem at Los Angeles International Airport, where she
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html?_r=0

J.R.271

Page 2 of 5

JA 321

Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are Detained Without Lawyers - The New York Times

2/16/17, 9)07 AM

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 88 of 119

arrived on Saturday after a trip visiting family members in Europe. Border agents
told the woman that her student visa was no longer valid, which lawyers said was
not true, and that if she did not sign a document saying she was leaving voluntarily,
she would be forcibly deported and barred from entry for five years.
The Iranian student signed. She had not been allowed to consult a lawyer and
was permitted only three calls to relatives before her phone was confiscated and
searched, said Ms. Corrales and Judy London, the directing attorney of the
nonprofit Public Counsel’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, both of whom spoke with
the woman’s relatives. On Saturday night, after a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled
the government could not remove travelers who had arrived with valid visas, she
was put on a plane back to Europe, her lawyers said. They declined to share her
name out of concern for her safety.
On Sunday morning, Ms. Corrales spoke to a supervisor from the customs
agency who suggested that the Iranian student was still at the Los Angeles airport.
The supervisor told Ms. Corrales that “they were waiting for orders from higherups in terms of how to enforce the injunction,” Ms. Corrales said, referring to the
Brooklyn judge’s ruling.
Some detainees dealt with the whiplash of plans changing by the hour. A group
of five Iranians detained in New York told family members on Sunday morning
that the government planned to put them on a 1:30 p.m. flight back to Turkey, said
Melanie Zuch, a staff lawyer at the Urban Justice Center. Several hours later, some
of them were told they would be allowed to stay.
Vahideh Rasekhi, a graduate student at Stony Brook University on Long Island
who was also detained at Kennedy Airport, said she and other detainees were also
told they would be put on flights back out of the country, with agents promising
only that if they held out a little longer, they might work out a way to keep them in
the United States. Eventually they did, and shortly after 2:30 p.m., Ms. Rasekhi
walked into Terminal 4 and was immediately surrounded by loved ones, lawyers
and journalists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html?_r=0

J.R.272

Page 3 of 5

JA 322

Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are Detained Without Lawyers - The New York Times

2/16/17, 9)07 AM

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 89 of 119

“I’m just so exhausted,” she said.
She said that detainees had been given meals and water and that agents had
even satisfied one person’s request for a lemon. Others gave accounts of more
difficult conditions; one lawyer, Justin Orr, said some detainees had been given
nothing but chocolate to eat.
Mousa Ahmadi, 30, an Iranian graduate student at the New Jersey Institute of
Technology, gave a long hug to his sister, Dr. Fahimeh Ahmadi, 40, after she was
released from additional screening at Kennedy. The siblings had not seen each
other for over three years.
Dr. Ahmadi, a general practitioner in the Australian city of Gold Coast and a
dual citizen of Australia and Iran, arrived for a long-planned visit without the
siblings’ parents, who hold only Iranian passports and canceled their flights on
Saturday.
“My Mom said, ‘If they don’t let me in the country do you think I can see him
even for a half hour?’” Dr. Ahmadi recalled. “She said, ‘Is there a window where I
can see him?’”
Lawyers at J.F.K. said that about half a dozen detainees were still in custody by
late Sunday afternoon. The Los Angeles Police Department told lawyers there
earlier on Sunday that about 40 people were being held.
A federal judge in Alexandria, Va., on Saturday ordered government officials to
give lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles. But
when lawyers showed border agents there the court order and requested access to
detainees, a supervisor replied, “That’s not going to happen.”
Matt Zeller, who runs No One Left Behind, a group that helps bring over Iraqis
and Afghans who worked for the military, said he was told that there were 40 to 55
people who had been pulled aside by customs officers at Dulles on Sunday evening,
and that at least some were Iraqis, although it was not clear if any had worked for
the military. Detainees who had been released overnight — many of whom had
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html?_r=0

J.R.273

Page 4 of 5

JA 323

Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are Detained Without Lawyers - The New York Times

2/16/17, 9)07 AM

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 90 of 119

green cards — spoke of hours of uncertainty as they waited to find out if they would
be allowed into a country that they called home but that no longer seemed to want
them.
“This is not the America that I have lived in,” said one man who had been
released, Seifollah Moradi, 34, a student from Columbia, Md., who has a green
card. “We used to be treated with respect. This is the land of freedom.”
Mr. Moradi had been held for six hours after returning from Tehran, where he
was visiting his sick father.
Protesters, who were lined up just past the set of one-way doors that separate
the public areas of the Dulles arrival hall from the immigration and baggage claim
areas for international flights, cheered loudly as Mr. Moradi came through the
doors. They chanted, “Welcome to the U.S.A.,” and, “No hate, no fear, refugees are
welcome here.”
Mr. Moradi, his face drawn, hardly seemed to notice.
Reporting was contributed by Ruth Bashinsky, Sheri Fink, Sean Piccoli and Liz Robbins.
A version of this article appears in print on January 30, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the
headline: Confusion and Disorder at Airports as Travelers Are Detained Without Lawyers.

© 2017 The New York Times Company

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/airports-travelers-detained-executive-order-donald-trump.html?_r=0

J.R.274

Page 5 of 5

JA 324

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 91 of 119

Exhibit FF

J.R.275

JA 325

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 92 of 119

J.R.276

JA 326

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 93 of 119

J.R.277

JA 327

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 94 of 119

J.R.278

JA 328

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 95 of 119

Exhibit GG

J.R.279

JA 329

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 96 of 119

J.R.280

JA 330

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 97 of 119

J.R.281

JA 331

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 98 of 119

J.R.282

JA 332

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 99 of 119

J.R.283

JA 333

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 100 of 119

J.R.284

JA 334

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 101 of 119

Exhibit HH

J.R.285

JA 335

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 102 of 119

J.R.286

JA 336

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 103 of 119

J.R.287

JA 337

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 104 of 119

J.R.288

JA 338

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 105 of 119

J.R.289

JA 339

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 106 of 119

J.R.290

JA 340

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 107 of 119

J.R.291

JA 341

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 108 of 119

J.R.292

JA 342

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 109 of 119

J.R.293

JA 343

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 110 of 119

J.R.294

JA 344

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 111 of 119

J.R.295

JA 345

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 112 of 119

J.R.296

JA 346

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 113 of 119

J.R.297

JA 347

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 114 of 119

J.R.298

JA 348

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 115 of 119

J.R.299

JA 349

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 116 of 119

J.R.300

JA 350

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 117 of 119

J.R.301

JA 351

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 118 of 119

J.R.302

JA 352

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-11 Filed 03/11/17 Page 119 of 119

J.R.303

JA 353

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 1 of 117

J.R.304

JA 354

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 2 of 117

J.R.305

JA 355

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 3 of 117

J.R.306

JA 356

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 4 of 117

J.R.307

JA 357

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 5 of 117

J.R.308

JA 358

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 6 of 117

J.R.309

JA 359

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 7 of 117

J.R.310

JA 360

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 8 of 117

J.R.311

JA 361

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 9 of 117

J.R.312

JA 362

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 10 of 117

J.R.313

JA 363

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 11 of 117

J.R.314

JA 364

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 12 of 117

J.R.315

JA 365

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 13 of 117

J.R.316

JA 366

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 14 of 117

Exhibit II

J.R.317

JA 367

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 15 of 117

J.R.318

JA 368

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 16 of 117

J.R.319

JA 369

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 17 of 117

J.R.320

JA 370

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 18 of 117

Exhibit JJ

J.R.321

JA 371

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 19 of 117

J.R.322

JA 372

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 20 of 117

J.R.323

JA 373

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 21 of 117

J.R.324

JA 374

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 22 of 117

J.R.325

JA 375

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 23 of 117

J.R.326

JA 376

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 24 of 117

J.R.327

JA 377

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 25 of 117

J.R.328

JA 378

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 26 of 117

J.R.329

JA 379

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 27 of 117

J.R.330

JA 380

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 28 of 117

J.R.331

JA 381

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 29 of 117

J.R.332

JA 382

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 30 of 117

J.R.333

JA 383

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 31 of 117

J.R.334

JA 384

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 32 of 117

J.R.335

JA 385

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 33 of 117

J.R.336

JA 386

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 34 of 117

J.R.337

JA 387

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 35 of 117

J.R.338

JA 388

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 36 of 117

J.R.339

JA 389

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 37 of 117

J.R.340

JA 390

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 38 of 117

J.R.341

JA 391

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 39 of 117

J.R.342

JA 392

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 40 of 117

J.R.343

JA 393

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 41 of 117

J.R.344

JA 394

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 42 of 117

J.R.345

JA 395

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 43 of 117

J.R.346

JA 396

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 44 of 117

J.R.347

JA 397

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 45 of 117

J.R.348

JA 398

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 46 of 117

J.R.349

JA 399

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 47 of 117

J.R.350

JA 400

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 48 of 117

J.R.351

JA 401

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 49 of 117

Exhibit KK

J.R.352

JA 402

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 50 of 117

J.R.353

JA 403

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 51 of 117

J.R.354

JA 404

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 52 of 117

J.R.355

JA 405

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 53 of 117

J.R.356

JA 406

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 54 of 117

J.R.357

JA 407

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 55 of 117

J.R.358

JA 408

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 56 of 117

Exhibit LL

J.R.359

JA 409

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1469
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 57 of 117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HAMEED KHALID DARWEESH, et al,
Case No. l:17-cv-00480
(Amon, J.)

on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated,
Petitioners,

Date: February 16, 2017

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the
United States, et ah,
Respondents.

BRIEF OF FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Harold Hongju Koh
Hope Metcalf
RULE OF LAW CLINIC
Yale Law School
127 Wall Street, P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520-8215
203-432-4932

Jonathan Freiman
Tahlia Townsend
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06508-1832
203-498-4584

Counsel for Amici Curiae

J.R.360

JA 410

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 1470
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 58 of 117

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE.............................................................................. 1
ARGUMENT..............................................................................................................2
I.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON
NATIONAL SECURITY OR FOREIGN POLICY GROUNDS.................3
A.
B.

II.

There is no national security or foreign policy basis for suspending
entry of aliens from the seven named countries....................................... 5
The suspension of refugee admissions is not justified by national
security or foreign policy concerns.........................................................10

THE ORDER’S OVERBREADTH HARMS OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS................................ 13
A.

The Order is of unprecedented scope..................................................... 13

B.

The Order will do serious damage to our national security and foreign
policy interests........................................................................................16
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

III.

The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field............................16
The Order will disrupt essential counterterrorism, foreign policy,
and national security partnerships....................................................17
The Order will hinder domestic law enforcement efforts................19
The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact.................20
The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and
residents...........................................................................................21

THE ORDER WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, POORLY IMPLEMENTED
AND ILL-EXPLAINED................................................................................. 22

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX: LIST OF AMICI

J.R.361

JA 411

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 1471
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 59 of 117

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Azizv. Trump, No. l:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB, _ F.Supp.3d__, 2017 WL 580855
(E.D. Va. Feb. 13,2017)....................................................................................... 4
Vill. OfArlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).......26
Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, _F.3d_, 2017 WL 526497, slip op. (9th
Cir. Feb. 9, 2017)....................................................................................... 1,4, 14
Statutes
8U.S.C. § 1182...................................................................................................... 23
8U.S.C. § 1187........................................................................................................ 9
Regulations
Exec. Order No. 11,030, 27 Fed. Reg. 5,847 (Jun. 19, 1962)...............................25
Exec. Order No. 12,324, 46 Fed. Reg. 48,109 (Sept. 29, 1981)............................14
Exec. Order No. 12,807, 57Fed. Reg. 23,133 (May 24, 1992).......................14, 15
Exec. Order No. 13,694, 80 Fed. Reg. 18,077 (Apr. 1, 2015)................................ 14
Exec. Order No. 13,726, 81 Fed. Reg. 23,559 (Apr. 19, 2016).............................. 14
Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017)..................................3
Proclamation No. 5517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30,470 (Aug. 26, 1986)............................. 15
Proclamation No. 6958, 61 Fed. Reg. 60,007 (Nov. 22, 1996).............................. 14
Other Authorities
Adams Nager, et al., The Demographics ofInnovation in the United
States, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (Feb. 2016)............21
Alex Nowrasteh, Little National Security Benefit to Trump’s Executive Order
on Immigration, CATO at Liberty (Jan. 25, 2017).....................................4, 5,11

J.R.362

JA 412

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 1472
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 60 of 117
Ill

Alex Nowrasteh, Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis, Cato Institute
(Sept. 13,2016)............................................................................................ 10, 11
Amy Pope, The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States
(Nov. 20,2015)....................................................................................................11
Andorra Bruno, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Programs, Cong.
Research Serv. (2016)............................................................................................8
Andorra Bruno, Syrian Refugee Admissions and Resettlement in the United States:
In Brief Cong. Research Serv. (2006)................................................................12
Br. for Technology Companies and Other Businesses as Amici Curiae in Support
of Appellees, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105,__F.3d__ , 2017 WL
526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017)............................................................................21
Carl J. Bon Tempo, Americans at the Gate: The United States and Refugees
during the Cold War 1 (2008).............................................................................27
Central Intelligence Agency, 11September 2001 Hijackers..................................... 5
Charles R. Babcock, Carter’s Visa Crackdown Won’t Hurt Immediately, Wash.
Post (Apr. 9, 1980)...............................................................................................15
Dan de Luce, Trump’s Immigration Order Gives Ammunition to ISIS, Endangers
US Troops, Foreign Policy (Jan. 29, 2017).......................................................16
David Bier, Trump’s Ban on Immigration from Certain Countries is Illegal,
Cato at Liberty, Dec. 8, 2016..............................................................................15
David Zucchino, Travel Ban Drives Wedge Between Iraqi Soldiers and
Americans, N.Y. Times (Feb. 3,2017)............................................................... 16
Edward Alden, The Closing of the American Border 104-06 (2008)....................23
Evan Perez et ah, Inside the Confusion of the Trump Executive Order and
Travel Ban, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017).................................................................24, 25
Felicia Schwartz & Ben Kesling, Countries Under U.S. Entry Ban Aren’t Main
Sources of Terror Attacks, The Wall St. J. (Jan. 29, 2017)..................................6
Geneva Sands et ah, Officials Aim to Clarify Impact on Dual Nationals From
Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, ABC News (Feb. 1, 2017).............

J.R.363

JA 413

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 1473
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 61 of 117

George Washington University Program on Extremism, ISIS in America: From
Retweets to Raqqa 6 (Dec. 2015)......................................................................... 5
Henry B. Hogue, Cong. Research Serv., RS22979, Presidential Transition Act:
Provisions and Funding (2016).......................................................................... 23
Joby Warrick, Jihadist Groups Hail Trump’s Travel Ban as a Victory, Wash.
Post (Jan. 29 2017)............................................................................................. 20
Jon Finer, Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar
to Your Immigration Ban, Foreign Policy (Jan. 30, 2017).............................7, 23
Jonathan Allen & Brendan O’Brien, How Trump’s Abrupt Immigration Ban
Sowed Confusion at Airports, Agencies, Reuters (Jan. 29, 2017)................24, 25
Justin Jouvenal et al., Justice Dept. Lawyer Says 100,000 Visas Revoked Under
Travel Ban; State Dept. Says about 60,000, Wash. Post (Feb. 3, 2017)............13
Kevin Liptak, Travel Ban Remains Sticking Point in Trump Calls with US
Allies, CUN (Feb. 9, 2017)..................................................................................18
Kristina Cooke & Joseph Ax, U.S. Officials Say American Muslims Do Report
Extremist Threats, Reuters (Jun. 16, 2016)......................................................... 19
Loveday Morris, Iraqi Leader to U.S.: Americans Come to Iraq to Fight With
ISIS, but I Haven’t Banned You, Wash. Post (January 31, 2017).......................18
Marcelo Rochabrun, Trump Order Will Block 500,000 Legal U.S. Residents
from Returning to America from Trips Abroad, ProPublica (Jan. 28, 2017).....13
Maureen Taft-Morales, Cong. Research Serv., Haiti: Efforts to Restore President
Aristide, 1991-1994 14 (1995).............................................................................15
Memorandum from Curtis E. Gannon, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen.
(Jan. 27,2017)..................................................................................................... 25
Memorandum from Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President, to the
Acting Sec’y of State, the Acting Att’y Gen., and the Sec’y of Homeland Sec.
(Feb. 1,2017)...................................................................................................... 26
Memorandum from Sally Yates, Acting Att’y Gen., to the Dep’t of Justice (Jan.
30, 2017)............................................................................................................ 26

J.R.364

JA 414

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 1474
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 62 of 117

Memorandum from Stuart Levey, Assoc. Deputy Att’y Gen., to Dan Levin,
Counsel to the Att’y Gen., & David Ayres, Dep’t of Justice Chief of Staff
(Oct. 3,2001)...................................................................................................... 23
Michael D. Shear & Ron Nixon, How Trump ’s Rush to Enact an Immigration
Ban Unleashed Global Chaos, N.Y. Times (Jan. 29, 2017).........................24, 25
Michael V. Hayden, Former CIA Chief: Trump’s Travel Ban Hurts American
Spies — and America, Wash. Post (Feb. 5, 2017)................................................18
Molly Redden, Trump Powers “Will not be Questioned” on Immigration, Senior
Official Says, The Guardian (Feb. 12, 2007)........................................................6
Muslim Public Affairs Council, Data on Post-9/11 Terrorism in the United
States (Jun. 2012)............................................................................................... 19
Nora Ellingsten, It \s Not Foreigners Who Are Plotting Here: What the Data
Really Show, Lawfare (Feb. 7, 2017).....................................................................6
Oral Argument, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105,__F.3d__ , 2017 WL
526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017).............................................................................. 6
Patrick O’Neill, How Academics Are Helping Cybersecurity Students Overcome
Trump's Immigration Order, Cyberscoop (Jan. 30, 2017).................................21
Peter Bergen et al., Terrorism in America After 9/11, New America Foundation ... 5
Rebecca Kheel, Trump Travel Order Complicates ISIS Fight in Iraq, The Hill
(Feb. 1,2017).......................................................................................................16
Rebecca Savransky, Iraq Parliament Approves Reciprocity Measure ’ In Trump
Immigration Ban’s Wake, The Hill (Jan. 30, 2017)............................................18
Refugee Processing Center, Interactive Reporting, Admissions and Arrivals ... 7, 19
Robert Pear, Visa Restrictions Chiefly Apply to Iranians Outside ofAmerica,
N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 1980)................................................................................. 15
Sabrina Siddiqui, Trump Signs Extreme Vetting’ Executive Order for People
Entering the US, The Guardian (Jan. 27, 2017)...................................................5
Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions, April 7, 1980..........15

J.R.365

JA 415

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 1475
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 63 of 117

Stephanie Ott, What Happens to Iraqis who Worked with the US. military, A1
Jazeera (Feb. 1, 2017)........................................................................................ 17
Ten Years After 9/11: Preventing Terrorist Travel, Hearing Before the United
States S. Comm, on Homeland Sec. and Governmental Affairs, 112th Cong.
522 (2011) (written statements of Rand Beers and Janice L. Jacobs)..................8
The Security ofU.S. Visa Programs: Hearing Before the S. Comm on Homeland
Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2016) (written statements of David
Donahue and Sarah R. Saldana)......................................................................... 7
The White House, Visa Waiver Program Enhancements (Nov. 30, 2015).............8
Thomas R. Eldridge, et. al., 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: A StaffReport of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004)......23
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States(Feb. 2, 2017)........................................... 17
U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions
for the Visa Waiver Program (Feb. 18, 2016)..................................................8, 9
U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(Dec. 3,2015).......................................................................................................12
U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Department of Commerce Releases October Travel
and Tourism Expenditures (Dec. 15, 2016).........................................................21
U.S. Dep’t of Defense & Dep’t of State, Joint Report to Congress: Foreign
Military Training (FY 2015-2016)......................................................................17
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 1980 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (1981)..............................................................................15
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 1987 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (1987)............................................................................ 15
U.S. Dep’t of State et al, Report to the Congress, Proposed Refugee Admissions
for Fiscal Year 2016 (2016).................................................................................17
U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Report of the Visa Office
(2000)...................................................................................................................16

J.R.366

JA 416

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 1476
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 64 of 117
Vll

U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. Refugee Resettlement Processing for Iraqi and Syrian
Beneficiaries of an Approved 1-130 Petition (Mar. 11, 2016)............................12
U.S. Dep’t of State, The Refugee Processing and Screening System................4, 12
U.S. Dep’t of State, US. Refugee Admissions Program FAQs............................. 11
U.S. Dep’t of State, Visa Waiver Program............................................................9
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Resettlement........................................... 13
Urban Justice Center, International Refugee Assistance Project, IRAP Stands
With Iraqi Allies of the United States Affected by Executive Order
(Feb. 1,2017)......................................................................................................17
William Glaberson & Helene Cooper, Obama’s Plan to Close Prison at
Guantanamo May Take Year, N.Y. Times (Jan. 12, 2009)................................23

J.R.367

JA 417

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 1477
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 65 of 117

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici curiae are former national security, foreign policy and intelligence
officials who have worked on pressing national security matters in the U.S.
government. A number of amici have worked at senior levels in administrations of
both political parties. Amici have collectively devoted decades to combatting the
various terrorist threats that the United States faces in an increasingly dangerous
and dynamic world. Amici have all held the highest security clearances. A
significant number were current on active intelligence regarding credible terrorist
threat streams directed against the United States as recently as one week before the
issuance of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”).1
Amici all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist
networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including
the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. Amici are nevertheless not
aware of any specific threat that would justify the broad bans on entry into the
United States established by this Order. In amici’s professional opinion, the Order

1 This amicus brief derives from the sworn Joint Declaration of ten of the
signatories, first submitted in Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105,__F.3d_
2017 WL 526497, slip op. (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017) [hereinafter “Ninth Circuit
Opinion”], and also attached to the Petitioners’ motion.

J.R.368

JA 418

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 1478
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 66 of 117

cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds, and ultimately,
the Order undermines—rather than enhances—the security of the United States.
ARGUMENT
The Order serves no rational national security or foreign policy purpose.
Certainly, it does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from
foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts
thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders who have already
been vetted by standing procedures that Respondents have not shown to be
inadequate.
Left in place, the Order could do long-term damage to our national security
and foreign policy interests. It will endanger troops in the field, and disrupt key
counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid the propaganda
effort of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (“ISIL”) and support its
recruitment message. By feeding the narrative that the United States is at war with
Islam, the Order will impair relationships with the very Muslim communities that
law enforcement professionals rely on to address the threat of terrorism. And it
will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact.
In prior cases, courts have deferred to the “considered judgment” of the
President only after administrative records have revealed that the President’s
decision rested on counsel from expert agencies with broad experience on the

J.R.369

JA 419

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 1479
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 67 of 117

matters presented. Here, there is no evidence that the Order was subjected to an
interagency legal and policy process. Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a
“Muslim Ban” as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States” does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it
necessary, effective or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, and values.
I.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON
NATIONAL SECURITY OR FOREIGN POLICY GROUNDS.
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order

imposing a number of bans on the entry of non-citizens into the United States.2
The President’s stated goals for the Order were to “protect[] the nation from
foreign terrorist entry into the United States” and to “ensure that those approved
for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to
terrorism.”3
As former U.S. officials responsible for the national security and foreign
relations of the United States in multiple presidential administrations, we have
devoted our careers to the same goals. Our first priority has always been the
2 Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8,977 (Jan. 27, 2017). The Order bans
entry into the United States by nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria
and Yemen for 90 days, bans all refugee admissions for 120 days, and indefinitely
bans the entry of all Syrian refugees. The Order exempts diplomats (from the ban
on entry for nationals) and refugees whom on a case-by-case basis are deemed to
be in the national interest (from the ban on all refugee admissions for 120 days).
3 Id.

J.R.370

JA 420

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 1480
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 68 of 117

safety and welfare of the American people. Yet the Order bears no rational
relation to the President’s stated aims. It targets countries whose nationals have
committed no lethal terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the last forty years. It bars
the entry of refugees—the vast majority of whom are vulnerable women and
children4—when in the modem era of screening, no refugee has ever killed a U.S.
citizen in a terrorist attack in the United States.5
Even now, weeks after the signing of the Order, Respondents have supplied
no information that would justify such a categorical ban. They identify no basis
for believing that there is a heightened or particularized threat from these seven
countries. They make no showing that our immigration system has suffered from
inadequate consideration of national origin or religious affiliation, and identify no
flaw in the current individualized vetting procedures—developed by national
security officials across several presidential administrations in response to
particular threats identified by U.S. intelligence.6

4 U.S. Dep’t of State, The Refugee Processing and Screening System,
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/266671 .pdf.
5 Alex Nowrasteh, Little National Security Benefit to Trump’s Executive Order on
Immigration, CATO at Liberty (Jan. 25, 2017) [hereinafter “Nowrasteh 2017”].
6 Ninth Circuit Opinion, supra note 1, at 26 (“Although we agree that the
Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest
order, the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.” (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted)); Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116-LMBTCB, _ F.Supp.3d__at 6, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017)

J.R.371

JA 421

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 1481
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 69 of 117

A.

There is no national security or foreign policy basis for
suspending entry of aliens from the seven named countries.

No rational national security purpose is served by the Order’s blanket ban on
entry into the United States of nationals of Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya,
and Yemen.
First, not a single American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil at the
hands of citizens of these seven nations in the last forty years.7 The Order opens
with a reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and White House officials have
since pointed to those attacks as justification for its restrictions.8 But none of the
September 11 hijackers were citizens of the seven targeted countries.9 In fact, the
overwhelming majority of individuals who were charged with—or who died in the
course of committing—terrorist-related crimes inside the United States since
September 11 have been U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.10

(“Defendants . . . have not offered any evidence to identify the national security
concerns that allegedly prompted this EO, or even described the process by which
the president concluded that this action was necessary.” (citations omitted)).
7 Nowrasteh 2017, supra note 5.
8 Jan. 27 Order §1; Sabrina Siddiqui, Trump Signs ‘Extreme Vetting’ Executive
Order for People Entering the US, The Guardian (Jan. 27, 2017).
9 Central Intelligence Agency, 11 September 2001 Hijackers,
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June
_testimony_new.pdf.
10 See Peter Bergen et ah, Terrorism in America After 9/11, New America
Foundation, www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/; George
Washington University Program on Extremism, ISIS in America: From Retweets to

J.R.372

JA 422

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 1482
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 70 of 117

Second, Respondents have identified no information or basis for believing
that a heightened or particularized future threat has suddenly arisen from the seven
named countries. Those of us who were current on active intelligence concerning
all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the United States as of January
20, 2017 know of no specific threat—-just seven days later—that would justify the
ban of these seven countries. The Order itself points to no such factual basis, and
Respondents have offered none.11
Third, Respondents have identified no flaw in existing procedures that
would justify the bans in the Order. They offer no reason to shift abruptly to
group-based bans, when the United States already has a tested system of
individualized vetting, developed and implemented by national security
professionals across the government. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the
United States has developed a rigorous system of security vetting, leveraging the
Raqqa 6 (Dec. 2015), https://cchs.gwu.edu/isis-in-america; Nora Ellingsten, It’s
Not Foreigners Who Are Plotting Here: What the Data Really Show, Lawfare
(Feb. 7, 2017); see also Felicia Schwartz & Ben Kesling, Countries Under US.
Entry Ban Aren’t Main Sources of Terror Attacks, The Wall St. J. (Jan. 29,
2017). One other set of data, relied on by White House officials, has been widely
criticized for its definition of terrorism-related offenses, among other issues. See,
e.g., Molly Redden, Trump Powers “Will Not be Questioned” on Immigration,
Senior Official Says, The Guardian (Feb. 12, 2007),
https ://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/trump-administrationconsidering-narrower-travel-ban.
11 Oral Argument, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, at 9:30,
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000010885.

J.R.373

JA 423

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 1483
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 71 of 117

full capabilities of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. This vetting
system is applied to travelers not once, but multiple times, and it is continually re­
evaluated to ensure its effectiveness. Successive administrations have strengthened
the vetting process through robust information-sharing and data integration. This
allows the government to identify potential terrorists without resorting to blanket
bans on countries or refugees.12
Finally, the Order cannot be defended as a mere continuation of recent U.S.
counterterrorism policy. Because threat streams constantly evolve, we sought
continually to improve vetting when serving as national security officials. That
effort included reviews in 2011 and 2015-16, when the U.S. government acted in
response to particular threats identified by intelligence sources. In 2011, after
receiving derogatory information regarding two Iraqi nationals who had entered
the United States as refugees, the U.S. government undertook an extensive
interagency review of its vetting system. The flow of refugees from Iraq slowed
during the pendency of the review,13 and upon completion of the review, the U.S.
12 See, e.g., The Security of U.S. Visa Programs: Hearing Before the S. Comm, on
Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2016) (written statements of
David Donahue and Sarah R. Saldana), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/thesecurity-of-us-visa-pro grams.
13 Refugee Processing Center, Interactive Reporting,
http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/InteractiveReporting/EnumType/Report?ItemPath=/rpt_WebArrivalsReports/MX%20%20Arrivals%20by%20Nationality%20and%20Religion; Jon Finer, Sorry, Mr.

J.R.374

JA 424

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 1484
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 72 of 117

government implemented new, stronger security procedures in areas of identified
vulnerability.14
Likewise, in late 2015 and early 2016, in response to the emerging threat
posed by ISIL, the U.S. government took several steps to strengthen the Visa
Waiver Program, which allows citizens from thirty-eight approved countries to
travel to the United States without first obtaining a visa. President Obama
introduced a series of new measures to enhance security screenings and traveler
risk assessments in the program and bolster our relationship with partner
countries.15 Around the same time, President Obama signed into law a statute that
removed from the Visa Waiver Program those nationals of existing Visa Waiver
Program countries who: (1) had been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran or Sudan after

President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration
Ban, Foreign Policy (Jan. 30, 2017).
14 Ten Years After 9/11: Preventing Terrorist Travel, Hearing Before the United
States S. Comm, on Homeland Sec. and Governmental Affairs, 112th Cong. 522
(2011) (written statements of Rand Beers and Janice L. Jacobs),
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/ten-years-after-9/ll-preventing-terroristtravel; Andorra Bruno, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Programs, Cong.
Research Serv., 14 (2016).
15 The White House, Visa Waiver Program Enhancements (Nov. 30, 2015),
https://obarnawhitehouse.archives.gOv/the-press-office/2015/l 1/30/fact-sheet-visawaiver-program-enhancements; U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, DHS Announces
Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program (Feb. 18, 2016),
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictionsvisa-waiver-program.

J.R.375

JA 425

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 1485
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 73 of 117

March 1, 2011, or (2) were dual nationals of one of those four countries.16 Several
months later, the Secretary of Homeland Security—acting under the new statute
and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of
State—expanded the list of four countries to include Yemen, Libya and Somalia.17
Contrary to Respondents’ claims, these previous reforms provide no
justification for a blanket, group-based ban on the entry of nationals from these
seven countries. The enhancement of security in the refugee system allowed for
more searching, individualized vetting of travelers, the opposite of the categorical
ban in this Order. Likewise, the reforms to the Visa Waiver Program did not
automatically bar anyone—including nationals of any country—from travel to the
United States. The affected individuals were simply required to obtain
individually-vetted visas before entering the United States, just as nationals from
the more than 150 other nations not currently part of the Visa Waiver Programs
must do.
To keep our country safe from terrorist threats, the U.S. government must
gather all credible evidence about growing threat streams—including through the
16 8 U.S.C. § 1187; U.S. Dep’t of State, Visa Waiver Program,
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html.
17 The exemptions for Yemen, Libya and Somalia only applied to those who had
traveled to or been present in one of those countries, not dual nationals. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Security, DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa
Waiver Program, supra note 15.

J.R.376

JA 426

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 1486
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 74 of 117

best available intelligence—to thwart those threats before they ripen. Through the
years, national security-based immigration restrictions have: (1) responded to
specific, credible threats based on individualized information, (2) rested on the best
available intelligence, and (3) been subject to thorough interagency legal and
policy review. The present Order does not rest on such tailored grounds, but rather
on (1) generalized bans, (2) that are not supported by any new intelligence that
Respondents have cited or of which we are aware, and (3) were not vetted through
careful interagency legal and policy review.
B.

The suspension of refugee admissions is not justified by national
security or foreign policy concerns.

The Order’s 120-day ban on refugee admissions, and its indefinite ban on
Syrian refugee admissions, serve no national security or foreign policy purpose.
We know of no factual basis for Respondents’ claim that refugees pose a particular
security threat to the United States that would justify the Order’s categorical bans.
From 1975 to the end of 2015, over three million refugees have been
admitted to the United States. According to a recent study, only three have killed
people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.18 All three were Cuban refugees, who
murdered three people in two attacks in the 1970s. Critically, these refugees were
admitted and carried out their crimes before the creation of the modem refugee
18 Alex Nowrasteh, Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis, Cato Institute
(Sept. 13, 2016).

J.R.377

JA 427

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 19 of 41 PageID #: 1487
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 75 of 117

vetting system in 1980.19 No refugee has killed an American in a terrorist attack in
the United States since that system was put in place.20 According to the study,
over that same period, only twenty refugees were convicted of any terrorismrelated crimes on U.S. soil at all.21
In part, this is because refugees already receive the most thorough vetting of
any travelers to the United States.22 Refugee candidates are vetted recurrently
throughout the resettlement process, as “pending applications continue to be
checked against terrorist databases, to ensure new, relevant terrorism information
has not come to light.”23 By the time refugees referred by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) are approved for resettlement in the
United States, they have been reviewed not only by UNHCR but also by the
National Counterterrorism Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of
State and the U.S. intelligence community more broadly.24
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.; see also Nowrasteh 2017, supra note 5.
22 U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. Refugee Admissions Program FAQs,
https://www.state.gOv/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.htm.
23 Amy Pope, The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States
(Nov. 20, 2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/ll/20/
infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states.
24 U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. Refugee Admissions Programs FAQs, supra note 22.

J.R.378

JA 428

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 20 of 41 PageID #: 1488
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 76 of 117

The refugee vetting process is also reviewed and strengthened on an ongoing
basis in response to particular threats.25 For Syrian applicants, the Department of
Homeland Security recently added a layer of enhanced review that involves
collaboration between the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations
Directorate and the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate. Among
other measures, this review provided additional, intelligence-driven support to
refugee adjudicators that U.S. officials could then use to more precisely question
refugees during their security interviews.26 Respondents allege no specific
information about any vetting step omitted by current procedures.
While the United States’ own individualized vetting process is the most
important step, additional considerations make the U.S. refugee system difficult for
terrorists to exploit. Under current vetting procedures, refugees often wait eighteen
to twenty-four months to be cleared for entry into the United States.27 Further, of
all refugees determined by the UNHCR to be eligible for resettlement, less than
25 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(Dec. 3, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/
USCIS/Refugee%2C%20Asylum%2C%20and%20Int%271%200ps/Refugee_Secu
rity_S creening_F act_Sheet.pdf.
26 U.S. Dep't of State, The Refugee Processing and Screening System, supra note 5;
Andorra Bruno, Syrian Refugee Admissions and Resettlement in the United States:
In Brief Cong. Research Serv., 4-5 (2016).
27 U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. Refugee Resettlement Processingfor Iraqi and Syrian
Beneficiaries of an Approved 1-130 Petition (Mar. 11, 2016),
https://www.state.gOv/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2016/254649.htm.

J.R.379

JA 429

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 21 of 41 PageID #: 1489
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 77 of 117

one percent were resettled in any country at all in 2015,28 meaning that a would-be
terrorist posing as a refugee has very little chance of being resettled anywhere.
Finally, the UNHCR resettlement program places refugees in dozens of countries,
and refugees do not decide where they are resettled or which country accepts them,
meaning that the odds of any individual refugee being settled into the United States
in particular are exceedingly low.
II.

THE ORDER’S OVERBREADTH HARMS OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS.
The Order’s overreach will do lasting harm to the national security and

foreign policy interests of the United States.
A.

The Order is of unprecedented scope.

The Order effectively amounts to a bar on entry to the United States of
nationals from any of the seven listed countries. The Order revoked the visas of
anywhere between 60,000 to 100,000 people,29 initially encompassed as many as
500,000 green card holders,30 and creates a forward-looking ban on countless more

28 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Resettlement, http://www.unhcr.org/enus/resettlement.html.
29 Justin Jouvenal et al., Justice Dept. Lawyer Says 100,000 Visas Revoked Under
Travel Ban; State Dept. Says about 60,000, Wash. Post (Feb. 3, 2017).
30 Marcelo Rochabrun, Trump Order Will Block 500,000 Legal US. Residents from
Returning to America from Trips Abroad, ProPublica (Jan. 28, 2017). The Order
could conceivably again encompass green card holders depending upon whether a

J.R.380

JA 430

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 22 of 41 PageID #: 1490
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 78 of 117

individuals. The Order bars doctors and patients, grandmothers and infants,
parents and children, tourists and business travelers, police officers and those
fighting alongside our Service Members abroad, all without regard to individual
threat or circumstance.
This is an order of unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a
president has invoked authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to
suspend admission of such a sweeping class of people. Even after the September
11 attacks, the U.S. government did not invoke the provisions of law cited by the
Administration to broadly bar entrants based on nationality, national origin or
religious affiliation. Across the decades, executive orders under the Immigration
and Nationality Act have generally targeted specific government officials,31
undocumented immigrants32 or individuals whose personalized screenings
indicated that they posed a national security risk.33

White House Counsel opinion is deemed authoritative by the implementing
agencies. See Ninth Circuit Opinion, supra note 2, at 21-22.
31 See, e.g., Proclamation No. 6958, 61 Fed. Reg. 60,007 (Nov. 22, 1996).
32 See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 12,807, 57 Fed. Reg. 23,133 (May 24, 1992); Exec.
Order No. 12,324, 46 Fed. Reg. 48,109 (Sept. 29, 1981).
33 See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13,726, 81 Fed. Reg. 23,559 (Apr. 19, 2016); Exec.
Order No. 13,694, 80 Fed. Reg. 18,077 (Apr. 1, 2015).

J.R.381

JA 431

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 23 of 41 PageID #: 1491
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 79 of 117

Some have claimed that historical examples involving Cuba, Iran, or Haiti
are akin to this Order. But the first two orders included large exceptions,34 and the
third imposed no restrictions on lawful travel by visa holders at all.35 And above

34 In 1980, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Carter invalidated all visas
issued or reissued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the country. Sanctions
Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions, April 7, 1980,
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/7pidA33233. But the White House also carved
out exceptions for humanitarian need, to include those “visiting a sick aunt,” and
students who were in a course of study in the United States. The White House
even encouraged Iranians in the United States whose visas were set to expire to
apply for asylum. One White House official said, “[o]nce in the good old United
States legally, or illegally for the matter, they are cloaked in the mantle of the
constitutional and legal protections we all value.” Charles R. Babcock, Carter’s
Visa Crackdown Won’t Hurt Immediately, Wash. Post (Apr. 9, 1980); Robert Pear,
Visa Restrictions Chiefly Apply to Iranians Outside ofAmerica, N.Y. Times (Apr.
8, 1980); see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 1980 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (1981).
In 1986, in the course of a diplomatic impasse over a migration agreement,
President Reagan issued a presidential proclamation suspending the “[ejntry of
Cuban nationals as immigrants” into the United States. Proclamation No. 5517, 51
Fed. Reg. 30,470 (Aug. 26, 1986). But that proclamation included a major
exception for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Id.', U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
1987 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (1987);
see also David Bier, Trump’s Ban on Immigration from Certain Countries is
Illegal, Cato at Tiberty, Dec. 8, 2016. Both actions were taken to exert pressure
against a particular national government—and in the case of Cuba, to “resume
normal migration”—not to minimize a threat posed by particular people.
35 In 1991, President Bush issued an Executive Order that imposed restrictions on
“undocumented aliens” who were “coming by sea to the United States without
necessary documents.” Exec. Order 12,807, 57 Fed. Reg. 23,133 (June 1, 1992).
However, legal travel and immigration continued from Haiti into the United States
in this period. Even as to those without documents, the Bush Administration
offered those repatriated the option of seeking in-country refugee processing.
Maureen Taft-Morales, Cong. Research Serv., Haiti: Efforts to Restore President

J.R.382

JA 432

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 24 of 41 PageID #: 1492
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 80 of 117

all, no modem example even approaches the unqualified sweep of this Order,
which bans nearly 220 million people from seven separate countries from traveling
to the United States.
B.

The Order will do serious damage to our national security and
foreign policy interests.

The Order will harm the interests of the United States in a number of
respects.
1.

The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field.

Every day, U.S. Service Members work and fight alongside allies from some
of the named countries, who put their lives on the line to protect Americans and
further American interests abroad. Those barred by the Order include individuals
working alongside our men and women in Iraq fighting against ISIL.36 Soldiers
from these countries have already voiced resentment at the Order.37 The Order

Aristide, 1991-1994, 14 (1995); U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
Report of the Visa Office (2000), tables XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX,
https ://travel. state .gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/statistics/annualreports/report-of~the-visa-office-2000.html.
36 Rebecca Kheel, Trump Travel Order Complicates ISIS Fight in Iraq, The Hill
(Feb. 1, 2017); Dan de Luce, Trump’s Immigration Order Gives Ammunition to
ISIS, Endangers US. Troops, Foreign Policy (Jan. 29, 2017).
37 David Zucchino, Travel Ban Drives Wedge Between Iraqi Soldiers and
Americans, N.Y. Times (Feb. 3, 2017).

J.R.383

JA 433

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 25 of 41 PageID #: 1493
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 81 of 117

may also obstruct ongoing training, education, and other security cooperation
programs underway with several of the listed countries.38
Moreover, the Order will affect interpreters and others who have assisted our
troops at great risk to their own lives. The Order initially banned all such
individuals from coming to the United States. Days later, U.S. officials announced
that it would allow “the entry of Iraqi nationals with a Special Immigrant Visa to
the United States.”39 But even that step leaves unaddressed tens of thousands of
others who assisted the United States and who are waiting for admission as
“Priority 2” refugees outside of the now closed Special Immigrant Visa program.40
By discouraging future assistance and cooperation from these and other affected
military allies and partners, the Order will jeopardize the safety and effectiveness
of our troops.
2.

The Order will disrupt essential counterterrorism, foreign
policy, and national security partnerships.

38 U.S. Dep’t of Defense & Dep’t of State, Joint Report to Congress: Foreign
Military Training (FY 2015-2016).
39 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States (Feb. 2, 2017).
40 U.S. Dep’t of State et al., Report to the Congress, Proposed Refugee Admissions
for Fiscal Year 2016, at 57 (2016); Stephanie Ott, What Happens to Iraqis who
Worked with the US. military, Al Jazeera (Feb. 1, 2017); Urban Justice Center,
International Refugee Assistance Project, IRAP Stands With Iraqi Allies of the
United States Affected by Executive Order (Feb. 1, 2017).

J.R.384

JA 434

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 26 of 41 PageID #: 1494
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 82 of 117

The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national
security partnerships that are critical to our country’s efforts to address the threat
posed by terrorist groups such as ISIL. The Order has sparked intense international
criticism and alienated U.S. allies. Partner countries in the Middle East, on whom
we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation, are expressing disapproval and even
threatening reciprocity, jeopardizing years of diplomatic effort.41
The Order will also endanger U.S. intelligence sources in the field. For upto-date information, our intelligence officers often rely on human sources in some
of the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who have
risked much or all to keep Americans safe—and whom our officers had promised
to protect.42 Finally, by suspending visas, this Order halts the collection of
important intelligence that occurs during visa screening processes, information that
can be used to recruit agents and identify regional trends of instability.43

41 Rebecca Savransky, Iraq Parliament Approves ‘Reciprocity Measure ’ In Trump
Immigration Ban’s Wake, The Hill (Jan. 30, 2017); Loveday Morris, Iraqi Leader
to US.: Americans Come to Iraq to Fight With ISIS, but I Haven’t Banned You,
Wash. Post (January 31, 2017); Kevin Liptak, Travel Ban Remains Sticking Point
in Trump Calls with US Allies, CNN (Feb. 9, 2017).
42 Michael V. Hayden, Former CIA Chief: Trump’s Travel Ban Hurts American
Spies ~~ and America, Wash. Post (Feb. 5, 2017).
43 This process is particularly important in countries like Iran and Libya, where
internal conflict or lack of diplomatic ties limit on-the-ground intelligence
collection.

J.R.385

JA 435

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 27 of 41 PageID #: 1495
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 83 of 117

3.

The Order will hinder domestic law enforcement efforts.

Domestic law enforcement relies heavily on partnerships with American
Muslim communities to fight homegrown terrorism.44 One report found that in the
years since September 11, 2001, Muslim communities have helped U.S. security
officials prevent nearly two out of every five Al-Qaeda plots threatening the
United States.45 By alienating Muslim-American communities in the United
States, the Order will harm our efforts to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized
individuals who might launch attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino
and Orlando.
The Order’s disparate impact on Muslim travelers and immigrants feeds
ISIL’s propaganda narrative and sends the wrong message to the Muslim
community at home and abroad: that the U.S. government is at war with them
based on their religion.46 Less than a day after President Trump signed the Order,

44 Kristina Cooke & Joseph Ax, US. Officials Say American Muslims Do Report
Extremist Threats, Reuters (Jun. 16, 2016).
45 Muslim Public Affairs Council, Data on Post-9/11 Terrorism in the United
States (Jun. 2012), http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-Post911 -Terrorism-Data.pdf.
46 Muslim refugees from the seven listed countries made up 82.2 percent of all
Muslim refugee arrivals to the United States from January 1, 2016 to February 11,
2017. Refugee Processing Center, Interactive Reporting, Admissions and Arrivals
http://ireports.wrapsnet.org/InteractiveReporting/EnumType/Report?
ItemPath=/rpt_WebArrivalsReports/MX%2 0%2 0 Arrivals%2 Oby%2 ONationality%
20and%20Religion.

J.R.386

JA 436

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 28 of 41 PageID #: 1496
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 84 of 117

jihadist groups began citing its contents in recruiting messages online.47 The Order
may even endanger Christian communities overseas, by handing ISIL a recruiting
tool and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is
engaged in a religious war.
4.

The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact.

The Order will have an immediate and devastating humanitarian impact.
First and foremost, the Order disrupts the travel of men, women and children who
have been victimized by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of other travelers
today face deep uncertainty about whether they may travel to or from the United
States for reasons including medical treatment, study or scholarly exchange,
funerals or other pressing family reasons. While the Order allows the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security to admit travelers from targeted countries on a caseby-case basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened
agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of affected
individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel. Finally, closing our borders
to refugees who otherwise would have had the opportunity to resettle in the United
States will keep them in dangerous conditions and shift the burden to overstretched
allies who are currently accepting far more than their fair share of refugees.
47 Joby Warrick, Jihadist Groups Hail Trump’s Travel Ban as a Victory, Wash.
Post (Jan. 29 2017).

J.R.387

JA 437

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 29 of 41 PageID #: 1497
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 85 of 117

5.

The Order will cause economic damage to American
citizens and residents.

Finally, the Order will affect many foreign travelers who annually inject
hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, supporting well over a
million U.S. jobs.48 Since the Order was issued, dozens of affected companies
have noted the damaging impact it can be expected to have on strategic economic
sectors including defense, technology, and medicine.49 About a third of U.S.
innovators were born outside the United States, and their scientific and
technological innovations often contribute to making our nation and the world
safe.50 The harm caused by the ban to the economic dynamism of our country will
carry long-term negative and serious consequences for our national security.

48 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Department of Commerce Releases October Travel
and Tourism Expenditures (Dec. 15, 2016), http://trade.gov/press/pressreleases/2016/department-of-commerce-releases-october-travel-tourismexpenditures-121516. asp.
49 See, e.g., Br. for Technology Companies and Other Businesses as Amici Curiae
in Support of Appellees, Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105,__F.3d__ , 2017
WL 526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017).
50 Adams Nager, et al., The Demographics ofInnovation in the United
States, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation 29 (Feb.
2016), http://www2.itif.org/2016-demographics-of~innovation.pdf. Iran’s
universities, for example, have produced an “inordinate amount of intellectual
talent in computer science and cybersecurity.” These scientists are drawn to
universities in the United States, where their research is then used by entities such
as the Office of Naval Research and DARPA. Patrick O’Neill, How Academics
Are Helping Cybersecurity Students Overcome Trump’s Immigration Order,

J.R.388

JA 438

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 30 of 41 PageID #: 1498
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 86 of 117

III. THE ORDER WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, POORLY IMPLEMENTED
AND ILL-EXPLAINED.
Respondents have presented no evidence that the Order was subject to the
thorough interagency policy and legal processes designed to address current
terrorist threats.
In every recent administration, presidents considering a change to
immigration policy have followed an interagency review process that allows
experts and security professionals to ensure that all relevant uncertainties are
addressed by policy and legal experts, appropriate preparations are made for
implementation, and any potential risks are effectively mitigated. Before
recommendations are submitted to the President, the National Security Council
oversees a legal and policy process that typically includes the following important
components: a review by the career professionals in institutions of the U.S.
government charged with implementing an order; a review by the career lawyers in
those institutions to ensure legality and consistency in interpretation; and a senior
policy review across all relevant agencies, including Deputies and Principals at the
cabinet level.

Cyberscoop (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.cyberscoop.com/trump-immigration-bancybersecurity-iran-protests/.

J.R.389

JA 439

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 31 of 41 PageID #: 1499
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 87 of 117

This practice of interagency deliberation has been followed even—and
especially—in times of national emergency in order to set temporary exclusions or
establish criteria for admission to the United States. In the immediate aftermath of
the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the Bush Administration considered whether
the President should invoke 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to bar certain immigrants or take
other actions to secure the border, officials engaged in consultations across the
national security agencies to arrive at a decision.51 The reexamination of the
vetting system in 201152 and the security reforms to the Visa Waiver Program in
2015-1653 reflect similar interagency consultation.
The process that produced this Order departed from decades of standard
practice across administrations of both parties.54 Respondents offer no evidence
that the present Order resulted from experienced intelligence and security
professionals recommending changes in response to identified threats. We know
51 Edward Alden, The Closing of the American Border 104-06 (2008); Thomas R.
Eldridge, et ah, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: A StaffReport of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 151-54 (2004);
Memorandum from Stuart Levey, Assoc. Deputy Att’y Gen., to Dan Levin,
Counsel to the Att’y Gen., & David Ayres, Dep’t of Justice Chief of Staff (Oct. 3,
2001).

52 Jon Finer, supra note 13.
53 See supra notes 15-17 and surrounding text.
54 This is no less true of executive orders issued at the start of a new presidency.
See, e.g., Henry B. Hogue, Cong. Research Serv., Presidential Transition Act:
Provisions and Funding (2016); William Glaberson & Helene Cooper, Obama’s
Plan to Close Prison at Guantanamo May Take Year, N.Y. Times (Jan. 12, 2009).

J.R.390

JA 440

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 32 of 41 PageID #: 1500
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 88 of 117

of no process underway before January 20, 2017 to change current immigration
yetting procedures. According to extensive reporting, since that date, Respondents
followed no such process.55 Nor, apparently, did the White House consult officials
from any of the seven agencies tasked with enforcing immigration laws, much less
the congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee them. Respondents’
repeated need to clarify confusion that ensued in the wake of the Order only
confirms that the Order received little, if any, advance scrutiny by the Departments
of State, Justice, Homeland Security or the intelligence community.56
As telling, this Order was apparently issued without interagency legal
process. In recent history, administrations of both political parties have followed a
protocol of submitting proposed Orders to the Attorney General, the Justice
Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) and all other agency legal offices

55 The Secretary of Homeland Security reportedly received his first lull briefing as
the President signed the Order. Michael D. Shear & Ron Nixon, How Trump’s
Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos, N.Y. Times (Jan. 29,
2017). The Secretary of Defense was neither consulted during the drafting of the
order nor given an opportunity to provide input. Evan Perez et al., Inside the
Confusion of the Trump Executive Order and Travel Ban, CNN (Jan. 30, 2017).
Most State Department officials reportedly first heard of the Order through the
media. Jonathan Allen & Brendan O’Brien, How Trump’s Abrupt Immigration
Ban Sowed Confusion at Airports, Agencies, Reuters (Jan. 29, 2017).
56 Customs and border officials reported that their superiors could not provide clear
guidance about the new policy. Shear & Nixon, supra note 55; see also Allen &
O’Brien, supra note 54 (quoting CBP chief of passenger operations at John F.
Kennedy International Airport declaring, “[w]e are as much in the dark as
everybody else.”).

J.R.391

JA 441

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 33 of 41 PageID #: 1501
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 89 of 117

involved with enforcing the law.57 Legal review by multiple agencies helps to
identify potentially unforeseen legal implications of an order, determines the
lawfulness of the proposed action, and analyzes whether the proposed language has
established legal meaning that can be interpreted consistently with other laws and
regulations governing the field. Here, the White House reportedly never asked the
Department of Homeland Security for legal review in advance of the Order being
promulgated, so “[t]he Department. . . was left making a legal analysis on the
order after [President] Trump signed it.”58 Unsurprisingly, the resulting Order
contains numerous ambiguities and inconsistencies that immediately caused
confusion, forcing implementing agencies to improvise.59
On January 27, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a cursory memorandum
that declared the Order “approved with respect to form and legality.”60 But the
OLC memorandum conspicuously omits any legal analysis or discussion of either
the Order’s impact on permanent U.S. residents or the constitutional provisions
plainly implicated, i.e., the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Establishment and
Free Exercise of Religion Clauses. Soon thereafter, the Acting Attorney General

57 See, e.g, Exec. Order No. 11,030, 27 Fed. Reg. 5,847 (Jun. 19, 1962).
58 Perez et al., supra note 54; Shear & Nixon, supra note 54.
59 Allen & O’Brien, supra note 54.
60 Memorandum from Curtis E. Gannon, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen. (Jan. 27,
2017).

J.R.392

JA 442

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 34 of 41 PageID #: 1502
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 90 of 117

concluded that the Department of Justice would not defend the Order because she
was not “convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.”61
The Department of Homeland Security initially construed the Executive
Order not to apply to people with lawful permanent residence. Overnight, the
White House overruled the Department and instructed the agency to allow lawful
permanent residents entry only on a case-by-case basis. Five days later, the White
House reversed itself and announced that the Order did not apply to either “green
card holders”62 or dual nationals.63
When courts in previous cases have deferred to the “considered judgment”
of the President, they did so on the basis of administrative records showing that the
President’s decision rested on cleared views from expert agencies with broad
experience on the matters presented to him. And as the Supreme Court has noted,
“[departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that
improper purposes are playing a role.”64

61 Memorandum from Sally Yates, Acting Att’y Gen., to the Dep’t of Justice (Jan.
30, 2017).
62 Memorandum from Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President, to the
Acting Sec’y of State, the Acting Att’y Gen., and the Sec’y of Homeland Sec.
(Feb. 1,2017).
63 Geneva Sands et al., Officials Aim to Clarify Impact on Dual Nationals From
Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, ABC News (Feb. 1, 2017).
64 Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267
(1977).

J.R.393

JA 443

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 35 of 41 PageID #: 1503
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 91 of 117

CONCLUSION
Ours is a nation of immigrants, committed to the faith that we are all equal
under the law and that we abhor discrimination, whether based on race, religion,
sex, or national origin. As government officials, we sought diligently to protect
our country, even while maintaining an immigration system free from intentional
discrimination, a system that applies no religious tests and that measures
individuals by their merits, not by stereotypes of countries or groups.
Unjustified blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people are beneath
the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we took oaths to protect. Although
our nation was founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution, the Order
discriminates based on religion. Although our Constitution enshrines the principle
that all are equal under the law, the Order discriminates on the basis of national
origin. And although the United States accepted over four million refugees in the
decades after World War II,65 the Order willfully ignores the greatest refugee crisis
since that time.
Allowing the Order to take effect would wreak havoc on our nation’s
security and deeply held American values and threaten innocent lives. Blocking
the Order while the underlying legal issues are being adjudicated would not

65 Carl J. Bon Tempo, Americans at the Gate: The United States and Refugees
during the Cold War 1 (2008).

J.R.394

JA 444

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 36 of 41 PageID #: 1504
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 92 of 117

jeopardize national security. It would simply preserve the status quo ante, still
subjecting individuals to all the rigorous legal vetting processes that are currently
in place.
For all of these reasons, the January 27, 2017 Executive Order does not
further—but instead harms—sound U.S. national security and foreign policy.

Respectfully Submitted,

Harold Hongju Koh
Hope Metcalf
RULE OF LAW CLINIC
Yale Law School
127 Wall Street, P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520-8215
203-432-4932

Jonathan Freiman
Tahlia Townsend
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06508-1832
203-498-4584

Counsel for Amici Curiae*

* We are grateful to Phil Spector, Danieli Evans, Clare Ryan, and the student
members of the Yale Law School Rule of Law Clinic—Benjamin Alter, Colleen
Culbertson, Idriss Fofana, Alexandra Mahler-Haug, Abigail Olson, Aisha Saad,
Mitzi Steiner, Aleksandr Sverdlik, Beatrice Walton, Emily Wanger, Zoe Weinberg,
Tianyi Xin, and Nathaniel Zelinsky—for their contributions to this submission.
Yale Law School’s Rule of Law Clinic is organized separately from the school’s
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (“LSO”), one of the counsel for
Petitioners. The views expressed by Yale Law School’s legal clinics are not
necessarily those of the Yale Law School.

J.R.395

JA 445

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 37 of 41 PageID #: 1505
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 93 of 117

APPENDIX: LIST OF AMICI
1.
Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to
2001. A refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997. She has also been a
member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 2009
and of the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has received
assessments of threats facing the United States.
2.
Jeremy Bash served as Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of
Defense from 2011 to 2013, and as Chief of Staff at the Central Intelligence
Agency from 2009 to 2011.
3.
Rand Beers served as Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to the
President of the United States from 2014 to 2015.
4.
Daniel Benjamin served as Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism
at the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2012.
5.
Antony Blinken served as Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to
January 20, 2017. He also served as Deputy National Security Advisor to the
President of the United States from 2013 to 2015.
6.
R. Nicholas Bums served as Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs from 2005 to 2008. He previously served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO
and as U.S. Ambassador to Greece.
7.
William J. Bums served as Deputy Secretary of State from 2011 to
2014. He previously served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from
2008 to 2011, as U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008, as Assistant
Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2001 to 2005, and as U.S.
Ambassador to Jordan from 1998 to 2001.
8.
James Clapper served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence from
2010 to January 20, 2017.
9.
David S. Cohen served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence from 2011 to 2015 and as Deputy Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency from 2015 to January 20, 2017.

J.R.396

JA 446

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 38 of 41 PageID #: 1506
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 94 of 117

10. Ryan Crocker served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from 2011
to 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan
from 2004 to 2007, U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 1998 to 2001, U.S.
Ambassador to Kuwait from 1994 to 1997, and U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon from
1990 to 1993.
11. Daniel Feldman served as U.S. Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2014 to 2015, Deputy U.S. Special Representative
for Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009 to 2014, and previously Director for
Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs at the National Security Council.
12. Jonathan Finer served as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State from
2015 until January 20, 2017, and Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S.
State Department from 2016 until January 20, 2017.
13. Robert S. Ford served as U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 2011 to
2014, as Deputy Ambassador to Iraq from 2009 to 2010, and as U.S. Ambassador
to Algeria from 2006 to 2008.
14. Michele Flournoy served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
from 2009 to 2013.
15. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy National Security Advisor to the
President of the United States from 2015 to January 20, 2017. From 2013 to 2015,
she served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
16. General (ret.) Michael V. Hayden, USAF, served as Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009. From 1995 to 2005, he served as
Director of the National Security Agency.
17. Christopher R. Hill served as Assistant Secretary of State for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs from 2005 to 2009. He also served as U.S. Ambassador
to Macedonia, Poland, the Republic of Korea, and Iraq.
18.

John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20,

2017.
19. Marcel Lettre served as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
from 2015 to 2017.

J.R.397

JA 447

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 39 of 41 PageID #: 1507
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 95 of 117

20. John E. McLaughlin served as Deputy Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency from 2000 to 2004 and as Acting Director in 2004. His duties
included briefing President-elect Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.
21. Lisa O. Monaco served as Assistant to the President for Homeland
Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to
January 20, 2017.
22. Michael J. Morell served as Acting Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency in 2011 and from 2012 to 2013; as Deputy Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013; and as a career official from 1980
onward. His duties included briefing Presidents George W. Bush and Barack
Obama.
23. Janet A. Napolitano served as Secretary of Homeland Security from
2009 to 2013.
24. James C. O’Brien served as Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage
Affairs from 2015 to January 20, 2017. He served in the State Department from
1989 to 2001, including as Principal Deputy Director of Policy Planning and as
Special Presidential Envoy for the Balkans.
25. Matthew G. Olsen served as Director of the National Counterterrorism
Center from 2011 to 2014.
26. Leon E. Panetta served as Secretary of Defense from 2011 to 2013.
From 2009 to 2011, he served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
27. Samantha J. Power served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations from 2013 to January 20, 2017. From 2009 to 2013, she served as
Senior Director for Multilateral and Human Rights on the National Security
Council.
28. Susan E. Rice served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United
Nations from 2009 to 2013 and as National Security Advisor from 2013 to January
20, 2017.
29. Anne C. Richard served as Assistant Secretary of State for Population,
Refugees and Migration from 2012 to January 20, 2017.

J.R.398

JA 448

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 40 of 41 PageID #: 1508
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 96 of 117

30. Eric P. Schwartz served as Assistant Secretary of State for Population,
Refugees and Migration from 2009 to 2011. From 1993 to 2001, he was
responsible for refugee and humanitarian issues on the National Security Council,
ultimately serving as Special Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs and Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs.
31. Wendy R. Sherman served as Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs from 2011 to 2015.
32. Vikram Singh served as Deputy Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2010 to 2011 and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Southeast Asia from 2012 to 2014.
33. James B. Steinberg served as Deputy National Security Adviser from
1996 to 2000 and as Deputy Secretary of State from 2009 to 2011.
34. Jake Sullivan served as National Security Adviser to the Vice
President from 2013 to 2014. From 2011 to 2013, he served as Director of the
Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department.
35. Samuel M. Witten served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for Population, Refugees, and Migration from 2007 to 2010. From 2001 to
2007, he served as Deputy Legal Adviser at the State Department.

J.R.399

JA 449

Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 137 Filed 02/16/17 Page 41 of 41 PageID #: 1509
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 97 of 117

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jonathan Freiman, hereby certify that on February 16, 2017, the foregoing
document was filed and served through the CM/ECF system. Parties may access
the filings through the Court’s CM/ECF System.
/s/ Jonathan Freiman
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06508-1832
[phone]

J.R.400

JA 450

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 98 of 117

Exhibit MM

J.R.401

JA 451

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 2 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 99 of 117

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-35105
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the
United States, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JOINT DECLARATION OF
MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT,
AVRIL D. HAINES
MICHAEL V. HAYDEN
JOHN F. KERRY
JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN
LISA O. MONACO
MICHAEL J. MORELL
JANET A. NAPOLITANO
LEON E. PANETTA
SUSAN E. RICE

We, Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E.
McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and
Susan E. Rice declare as follows:
1.
We are former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the
United States Government:
a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. A
refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and has been a
member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since
2009 and the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has
received assessments of threats facing the United States.
b. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
from 2013 to 2015, and as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015 to
January 20, 2017.
c. Michael V. Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency from
1999 to 2005, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to
2009.
d. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017.

J.R.402

JA 452

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 3 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 100 of 117

e. John E. McLaughlin served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency from 2000-2004 and Acting Director of CIA in 2004. His duties
included briefing President-elect Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.
f. Lisa O. Monaco served as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security
and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013 to
January 20, 2017.
g. Michael J. Morell served as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency in 2011 and from 2012 to 2013, Deputy Director from 2010 to 2013,
and as a career official of the CIA from 1980. His duties included briefing
President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, and briefing President
Barack Obama regarding the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden.
h. Janet A. Napolitano served as Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to
2013.
i. Leon E. Panetta served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from
2009-11 and as Secretary of Defense from 2011-13.
j. Susan E. Rice served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
from 2009-13 and as National Security Advisor from 2013 to January 20,
2017.
2.
We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats
that the United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have all held the highest
security clearances. A number of us have worked at senior levels in administrations of both
political parties. Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active
intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as
one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation
from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”).
3.
We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and
must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of
travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would
justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view
the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than
making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security
or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from
foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of
lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures
that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our
national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting
counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and
serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with
Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals
need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the
lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the
Order offends our nation’s laws and values.

2
J.R.403

JA 453

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 4 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 101 of 117

4.
There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the
seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United
States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on
U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The
overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has
identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future
threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the
ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban
remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it
abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized vetting system
developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard
the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective.
5.
In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States
in many respects:
a. The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field. Every day, American
soldiers work and fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who
put their lives on the line to protect Americans. For example, allies who
would be barred by the Order work alongside our men and women in Iraq
fighting against ISIL. To the extent that the Order bans travel by individuals
cooperating against ISIL, we risk placing our military efforts at risk by sending
an insulting message to those citizens and all Muslims.
b. The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national
security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining the necessary
information sharing and collaboration in intelligence, law enforcement,
military, and diplomatic channels to address the threat posed by terrorist
groups such as ISIL. The international criticism of the Order has been intense,
and it has alienated U.S. allies. It will strain our relationships with partner
countries in Europe and the Middle East, on whom we rely for vital
counterterrorism cooperation, undermining years of effort to bring them closer.
By alienating these partners, we could lose access to the intelligence and
resources necessary to fight the root causes of terror or disrupt attacks
launched from abroad, before an attack occurs within our borders.
c. The Order will endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current
information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of
the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who
have risked much or all to keep Americans safe – and whom our officers had
promised always to protect with the full might of our government and our
people.
d. Left in place, the Executive Order will likely feed the recruitment narrative
of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with
Islam. As government officials, we took every step we could to counter
violent extremism. Because of the Order’s disparate impact against Muslim
travelers and immigrants, it feeds ISIL’s narrative and sends the wrong
message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the world: that
3
J.R.404

JA 454

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 5 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 102 of 117

the U.S. government is at war with them based on their religion. The Order
may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a recruiting tool
and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is
engaged in a religious war.
e. The Order will disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating
Muslim-American communities in the United States, it will harm our efforts
to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch
attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino and Orlando.
f. The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact. When the Order
issued, those disrupted included women and children who had been victimized
by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of travelers today face deep uncertainty
about whether they may travel to or from the United States: for medical
treatment, study or scholarly exchange, funerals or other pressing family
reasons. While the Order allows for the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security to agree to admit travelers from these countries on a case-by-case
basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened
agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of
affected individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel.
g. The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and residents.
The Order will affect many foreign travelers, particularly students, who
annually inject hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well
over a million U.S. jobs. Since the Order issued, affected companies have
noted its adverse impacts on many strategic economic sectors, including
defense, technology, medicine, culture and others.
6.
As a national security measure, the Order is unnecessary. National security-based
immigration restrictions have consistently been tailored to respond to: (1) specific, credible
threats based on individualized information, (2) the best available intelligence and (3) thorough
interagency legal and policy review. This Order rests not on such tailored grounds, but rather, on
(1) general bans (2) not supported by any new intelligence that the Administration has claimed,
or of which we are aware, and (3) not vetted through careful interagency legal and policy review.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has developed a rigorous system of security vetting,
leveraging the full capabilities of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. This vetting
is applied to travelers not once, but multiple times. Refugees receive the most thorough vetting of
any traveler to the United States, taking on the average more than a year. Successive
administrations have continually worked to improve this vetting through robust informationsharing and data integration to identify potential terrorists without resorting to a blanket ban on all
aliens and refugees. Because various threat streams are constantly mutating, as government
officials, we sought continually to improve that vetting, as was done in response to particular
threats identified by U.S. intelligence in 2011 and 2015. Placing additional restrictions on
individuals from certain countries in the visa waiver program –as has been done on occasion in
the past – merely allows for more individualized vettings before individuals with particular
passports are permitted to travel to the United States.
7.
In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and
ill-explained. The “considered judgment” of the President in the prior cases where courts have
4
J.R.405

JA 455

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 6 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 103 of 117

deferred was based upon administrative records showing that the President’s decision rested on
cleared views from expert agencies with broad experience on the matters presented to him.
Here, there is little evidence that the Order underwent a thorough interagency legal and policy
processes designed to address current terrorist threats, which would ordinarily include a review
by the career professionals charged with implementing and carrying out the Order, an
interagency legal review, and a careful policy analysis by Deputies and Principals (at the cabinet
level) before policy recommendations are submitted to the President. We know of no
interagency process underway before January 20, 2017 to change current vetting procedures, and
the repeated need for the Administration to clarify confusion after the Order issued suggest that
that Order received little, if any advance scrutiny by the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland
Security or the Intelligence Community. Nor have we seen any evidence that the Order resulted
from experienced intelligence and security professionals recommending changes in response to
identified threats.
8.
The Order is of unprecedented scope. We know of no case where a President has
invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for such a broad class of people. Even after
9/11, the U.S. Government did not invoke the provisions of law cited by the Administration to
broadly bar entrants based on nationality, national origin, or religious affiliation. In past cases,
suspensions were limited to particular individuals or subclasses of nationals who posed a specific,
articulable threat based on their known actions and affiliations. In adopting this Order, the
Administration alleges no specific derogatory factual information about any particular recipient
of a visa or green card or any vetting step omitted by current procedures.
9.
Maintaining the district court’s temporary restraining order while the underlying
legal issues are being adjudicated would not jeopardize national security. It would simply
preserve the status quo ante, still requiring that individuals be subjected to all the rigorous legal
vetting processes that are currently in place. Reinstating the Executive Order would wreak
havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values. Ours is a nation of immigrants,
committed to the faith that we are all equal under the law and abhor discrimination, whether
based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. As government officials, we sought diligently to
protect our country, even while maintaining an immigration system free from intentional
discrimination, that applies no religious tests, and that measures individuals by their merits, not
stereotypes of their countries or groups. Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people are
beneath the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we each took oaths to protect. Rebranding
a proposal first advertised as a “Muslim Ban” as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United States” does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it
necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.

5
J.R.406

JA 456

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 7 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 104 of 117

10.
For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional opinion, the January 27
Executive Order does not further – but instead harms – sound U.S. national security and foreign
policy.
Respectfully submitted,
s/MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT*
s/AVRIL D. HAINES
s/MICHAEL V. HAYDEN
s/JOHN F. KERRY
s/JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN
s/LISA O. MONACO
s/MICHAEL J. MORELL
s/JANET A. NAPOLITANO
s/LEON E. PANETTA
s/SUSAN E. RICE
*All original signatures are on file with Harold Hongju Koh, Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School,
New Haven, CT. 06520-8215 203-432-4932
We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. [Individual signature pages follow]

6
J.R.407

JA 457

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 105 of 117

J.R.408

JA 458

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 106 of 117

J.R.409

JA 459

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 10 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 107 of 117

J.R.410

JA 460

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 11 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 108 of 117

J.R.411

JA 461

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 109 of 117

J.R.412

JA 462

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 13 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 110 of 117

J.R.413

JA 463

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 14 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 111 of 117

J.R.414

JA 464

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 15 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 112 of 117

EXECUTED this 5th day of February, 2017
/s/
JANET A. NAPOLITANO

J.R.415

JA 465

2 !lAX 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 16
_ _
V
P H AND Filed
Case:
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 D LLP 03/11/17 Page 113 of 17
of 117

J.R.416

JA 466

Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302892, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 17 of 17
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 114 of 117

EXECUTED this 5th day of February, 2017
/s/
SUSAN E. RICE

J.R.417

JA 467

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 115 of 117

Exhibit NN

J.R.418

JA 468

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 116 of 117

J.R.419

JA 469

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 95-12 Filed 03/11/17 Page 117 of 117

J.R.420

JA 470

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 201 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the
Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself
and its clients,
HIAS, INC., on behalf of itself and its clients,
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION of
North America, Inc., on behalf of itself and its
members,
MUHAMMED METEAB,
PAUL HARRISON,
IBRAHIM AHMED MOHOMED,
JOHN DOES Nos. 1 & 3, and
JANE DOE No.2,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. TDC-17-0361

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE,
ELAINE C. DUKE, in her official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security,
REX W. TILLERS ON, in his official capacity
as Secretary of State, and
DANIEL R. COATS, in his official capacity as
Director of National Intelligence,
Defendants.

ORDER
For the reasons stated during the October 3, 2017 Case Management Conference, it is
hereby ORDERED that:

JA 471

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 201 Filed 10/04/17 Page 2 of 2

Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction.

The Plaintiffs have informed the Court that they are able to file the

Second Amended Complaint by October 5, 2017. As agreed upon by the parties, Defendants'
deadline to file an Answer or other responsive pleading is suspended pending resolution of the
Motion for a Preliminary

Injunction.

The schedule for the briefing of the Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction is as follows:
Plaintiffs' Motion: October 6, 2017 at 12:00 noon
Defendants' Response: October 12, 2017 at 12:00 noon
Plaintiffs' Reply: October 14, 2017 at 12:00 noon
A hearing on the Motion is scheduled for October 17, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the United
States Courthouse located at 6500 Cherrywood Lane in Greenbelt, Maryland. The specific
courtroom for the hearing will be available the week of the proceeding on the Court's website.

Date: October

-.!t..-, 20 17
THEODORE D. CH
United States District

JA 472

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 77
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
PROJECT, a project of the Urban Justice Center, Inc.,
on behalf of itself and its clients,
40 Rector St, 9th Fl
New York, NY 10006;
HIAS, Inc., on behalf of itself and its clients,
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910;
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION of North
America, Inc., on behalf of itself and its members,
3542 N. Geronimo Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85705;

Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-361-TDC

ARAB-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEW
YORK, on behalf of itself and its clients,
7111 5th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11209;
YEMENI-AMERICAN MERCHANTS
ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members,
33-42 9st
Long Island City, NY 11106;

SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JOHN DOES # 1, 3 through 5;
JANE DOE #2;
MUHAMMED METEAB;
MOHAMAD MASHTA;
GRANNAZ AMIRJAMSHIDI;
FAKHRI ZIAOLHAGH;
SHAPOUR SHIRANI; and
AFSANEH KHAZAELI, 1
1

The individual Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court waive the requirement under
Local Rule 102.2(a) to provide addresses. At least one plaintiff in this case has already received
harassing phone calls because that plaintiff’s address was disclosed in a prior complaint.

JA 473

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 77

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20035;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Serve on: Elaine Duke,
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528;
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Serve on: Rex W. Tillerson,
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520;
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE,
Serve on: Dan Coats,
Director of National
Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20511;
ELAINE DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528;
REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520;
DAN COATS, in his official capacity as Acting
Director of National Intelligence
Washington , D.C. 20511
Defendants.

JA 474

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 77
INTRODUCTION
In January of this year, a President was inaugurated who had repeatedly and explicitly
promised to ban Muslims from entering the United States based on his view that Muslims hate
America and the values it represents. One week later, the President signed an executive order
seeking to fulfill that promise. The ban it imposed inflicted widespread harm on individuals here
and abroad, and the courts swiftly stepped in to stop the Executive from misappropriating powers
that belong to Congress and using them to violate individuals’ rights. Undissuaded, the President
withdrew that order and issued a new one that did essentially the same thing. It, too, was quickly
enjoined.
But just before the Supreme Court was to consider whether that second attempt at a Muslim
ban was properly enjoined, the President issued a third. This new order, like the first two, cannot
be reconciled with the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Constitution, inflicts severe harms
on individuals here and abroad, and proffers essentially the same rationale, albeit with a few more
bureaucratic trimmings. But this time its bans are indefinite.
Plaintiffs—individuals and organizations injured by the President’s attempts to ban
Muslims—therefore return to this Court to enforce our constitutional structure and
guarantees. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this court to enjoin this latest version of the Muslim ban.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over

Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has additional
remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.
2.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) and Local Rule 501.4.a.ii. Defendants are

officers or employees of the United States acting in their official capacities, and agencies of the

1

JA 475

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 77
United States. Plaintiffs HIAS, John Doe #1, Shapour Shirani, and Fakhri Ziaolhagh reside in the
Southern Division of this District. No real property is involved in this action.
PARTIES
3.

The Plaintiffs in this case are both individuals and organizations. The individual

plaintiffs are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents whose efforts to reunite here
with relatives abroad have been delayed or indefinitely thwarted by the President’s executive order
issued on January 27, 2017 (“EO-1”), 2 the executive order issued on March 6, 2017 (“EO-2”), 3
and/or the proclamation issued on September 24, 2017 (“EO-3”) 4 (collectively, “the EOs” or “the
Orders”). Some individual plaintiffs have approved immigrant visa petitions for their relatives
abroad and await the issuance of these visas. Others were forced to endure a prolonged separation
from their loved ones because of the EOs.
4.

The organizational plaintiffs have members and clients who, like the individual

plaintiffs, have relatives abroad who are nationals of a banned country and who are seeking
immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. The organizational plaintiffs assert standing on their own behalf
and well as on behalf of their clients or members.
5.

Plaintiff International Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”), a project of the Urban

Justice Center, Inc., provides and facilitates free legal services for vulnerable populations around

2

Exec. Order 13769, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United
States, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017).
3

Exec. Order 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United
States, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017).
4

Proc. No. 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted
Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161
(Sept. 24, 2017).
2

JA 476

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of 77
the world, including but not limited to refugees, who seek to escape persecution and find safety in
the United States and other Western countries. IRAP has clients in the United States and abroad.
6.

Founded in 2008 as a student organization at Yale Law School, IRAP initially served

Iraqi refugees who were victims of the Iraq War. In 2010, IRAP became part of the Urban Justice
Center and now has offices in New York as well as the Middle East. IRAP has expanded its client
base since its inception to assist displaced persons from Afghanistan, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran,
Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. Through
in-house casework, as well as supervision of 900 students from 29 law schools in the United States
and Canada and pro bono attorneys from over 75 international law firms and multinational
corporations, IRAP directly assists thousands of displaced persons in urgent registration,
protection, and resettlement cases every year.
7.

IRAP lawyers provide legal assistance to refugees and other immigrants to the United

States throughout their resettlement processes.

IRAP lawyers advise their clients on the

resettlement process and other avenues to safety, write legal briefs and compile physical evidence
in advance of clients’ interviews with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”), prepare them for their oral testimony in their interviews, and conduct regular followup with USCIS until the clients are safely resettled.
8.

IRAP clients include many individuals in the United States who need assistance filing

family reunification petitions for family members overseas.
9.

IRAP also assists U.S.-based Iraqi and Syrian citizens and lawful permanent residents

in filing petitions in order to get their family members overseas into the Direct Access Program of
the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).

3

JA 477

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 77
10.

IRAP also assists countless Iraqi and Afghan citizens who have served the United

States government to obtain Special Immigrant Visas, with the support of U.S. citizen veterans of
Iraq and Afghanistan.
11.

Since its inception, IRAP has helped to resettle over 3,200 individuals to 55 countries,

with the majority resettled to the United States. It has provided legal assistance to nearly 20,000
more individuals.
12.

The overwhelming majority of IRAP’s clients, including clients abroad and those

within the United States, identify as Muslim.
13.

As set forth in greater detail below, implementation of the EOs has caused substantial

harm to IRAP and its clients, and will continue to harm them.
14.

IRAP asserts claims on behalf of itself and its clients in the United States and abroad.

The rights of its clients that IRAP seeks to vindicate here are inextricably bound up with its
organizational mission and purpose, and its clients face numerous hurdles to bringing suit in their
own names.
15.

Plaintiff HIAS, the world’s oldest refugee resettlement agency, is a faith-based

organization that aims to rescue people around the world whose lives are in danger. The
organization works toward a world in which displaced people find welcome, safety, and freedom.
16.

Founded in 1881 to assist Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, HIAS

now serves refugees and persecuted people of all faiths and nationalities around the globe. Since
HIAS’s founding, the organization has helped more than 4.5 million refugees start new lives.
17.

HIAS has offices in eleven countries worldwide, including headquarters in Silver

Spring, Maryland, which is its principal place of business, and another domestic office in New
York City.

4

JA 478

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 77
18.

Refugee resettlement lies at the heart of HIAS’s work in the United States. It is one of

nine non-profit organizations designated by the federal government to undertake this humanitarian
work through contracts with the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human
Services.

HIAS also provides resettlement experts in support of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
19.

In 2016, HIAS provided services to more than 350,000 refugees and asylum seekers

globally. HIAS’s client base includes refugees and other persecuted people abroad and in the
United States who are from Syria, Chad, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Ukraine,
Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Burundi,
South Sudan, Uganda, Russia, Belarus, and Burma, among other countries. Many of these clients
are Muslim.
20.

HIAS provides programs and services to refugees, including employment,

psychosocial, and legal services. HIAS has also been approved to refer cases of particularly
vulnerable refugees directly for third-country resettlement to the United States and other countries.
Around the world, HIAS provides legal services to protect the rights of refugees, and to register,
document, and secure the status of refugees.
21.

HIAS is also assigned clients via the State Department’s allocation process, which

determines which refugee clients will be resettled by HIAS. For clients who have newly arrived
in the United States, HIAS either provides direct resettlement services or partners with other
organizations across the country to do so. These services include arranging housing and providing
essential furnishings, food, clothing, initial cash assistance, initial health screening, cultural and
community orientation, and, through case management services, assistance with enrollment in
English language classes and employment services, as well as referrals for health and legal
services.

5

JA 479

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 8 of 77
22.

HIAS, directly and through affiliated agencies, also provides assistance to refugee and

asylee clients in the United States who are seeking to gain entry for family members abroad who
still face persecution. Such assistance includes (but is not limited to) the preparation and filing of
I-130 and I-730 petitions on behalf of its U.S.-based clients seeking to obtain visas permitting their
family members abroad to join them in the United States.
23.

As set forth in greater detail below, implementation of EO-1 and EO-2 has caused

substantial harm to HIAS and its clients, and EO-3 will continue to harm them.
24.

HIAS asserts claims on behalf of itself and its clients. The rights of its clients that

HIAS seeks to vindicate here are inextricably bound up with its organizational mission and
purpose, and its clients face numerous hurdles to bringing this suit in their own names.
25.

Plaintiff Middle East Studies Association (MESA) is a non-profit learned society that

brings together scholars, educators, and those interested in the study of the Middle East from all
over the world. From its inception in 1966 with 51 founding members, MESA has increased its
membership to more than 2,400 and now serves as an umbrella organization for fifty-five
institutional members. MESA’s membership includes both graduate students and faculty working
in the field of Middle East studies, both in the United States and abroad.
26.

As set forth in greater detail below, MESA and its members have been harmed in a

variety of ways by EO-1 and EO-2, and will be harmed by EO-3.
27.

MESA asserts claims on behalf of itself and its members.

28.

Plaintiff Arab-American Association of New York (AAANY) is a social service and

advocacy organization based in Brooklyn, New York.

AAANY was founded in 2001 by

prominent and active members of the Arab-American and Arab immigrant communities to respond
to the needs of low-income Arab immigrants in New York City, and has since become the largest
legal service organization in southwest Brooklyn. Serving over 5,000 people a year, the majority

6

JA 480

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 9 of 77
of whom are women and girls, AAANY works to support and empower the Arab-American and
Arab immigrant community by providing legal services regarding immigration, family, and
housing law matters, among others; mental health care; English as a Second Language (ESOL)
classes; academic tutoring for children; cultural events; youth mentorship programs; voter
registration; and a host of other free services and programs.
29.

As set forth in greater detail below, the implementation of EO-1 and EO-2 has caused

substantial harm to AAANY and its clients, and EO-3 will continue to harm them.
30.

AAANY asserts claims on behalf of itself and its clients. The rights of its clients that

AAANY seeks to vindicate here are inextricably bound up with its organizational mission and
purpose, and its clients face numerous hurdles to bringing this suit in their own names.
31.

Plaintiff Yemeni-American Merchants Association (“YAMA”) is an association of

business owners and activists that was founded in response to EO-1 to protect the YemeniAmerican community from harassment and harm and to help Yemeni-American business owners
navigate immigration and other issues.
32.

YAMA is based in New York and has organized strikes, meetings, educational forums,

and other events to protest against Muslim-targeted travel restrictions and also provide information
and support for Yemeni business owners and other members of the Yemeni community.
33.

YAMA currently has between 200 and 300 members. As set forth in greater detail

below, YAMA and its members have been harmed in a variety of ways by EO-1 and EO-2, and
will be by EO-3.
34.

YAMA asserts claims on behalf of itself and its members.

35.

Plaintiff John Doe #1 is a lawful permanent resident and national of Iran who lives in

Montgomery County, Maryland. He is a scientist. He came to the United States in 2014 on an
exchange visitor visa. In 2016, he obtained his lawful permanent resident status through the

7

JA 481

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 10 of 77
National Interest Waiver program for people with extraordinary abilities. His pioneering scholarly
works are recognized as cutting edge in the sciences. Both John Doe #1 and his wife, who is not
a party, are non-practicing Muslims.
36.

Plaintiff John Doe #3 is a lawful permanent resident and national of Iran who lives in

Anne Arundel County, Maryland. He came to the United States in 2011 through the diversity
(green card) lottery. John Doe #3 worked as a teacher in Iran, and currently works in the
engineering field.
37.

Plaintiff John Doe #4 is a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Georgia. He moved

to the United States in 1977 and became a citizen in 1999. He is a tenured professor with over 80
published scientific articles, which collectively have been cited more than a thousand times. Both
John Doe #4 and his wife, who is not a party, are non-practicing Muslims. He has an approved I130 visa petition for his wife, who is a national of Iran, where she still lives.
38.

John Doe #5 is a U.S. citizen of Yemeni origin who lives in New York City. He

immigrated to the United States in 1994 and now owns a grocery store and several wireless stores.
He has an approved I-130 visa petition for his mother, a Yemeni national who fled from her home
to Jordan after war broke out in Yemen in 2015.
39.

Plaintif Jane Doe #2 is a U.S. citizen of Syrian origin who lives in Mecklenburg

County, North Carolina. She is from a Muslim family and is enrolled in college where she is
studying to become a healthcare technician. She filed a family-based I-130 visa petition for her
sister who is a Syrian refugee currently living in a refugee-designated area in Saudi Arabia with
her husband and two young children. That petition has been approved.
40.

Plaintiff Mohammed Meteab is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who

lives in Springfield, Massachusetts. He came to the United States in 2015 as a refugee along with
his wife and two children. He now has a third child, a U.S. citizen born in the United States.

8

JA 482

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 11 of 77
Plaintiff Meteab is one of five brothers; he, his wife, his two elder children, and all five brothers
are Iraqi. One brother came to the United States as a refugee. The other three brothers have been
approved as refugees by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and remain in Jordan,
awaiting resettlement. Two of the three are approved to come to the United States but do not yet
have travel documents. Mr. Meteab is a Sunni Muslim, as are his brothers.
41.

Plaintiff Mohamad Mashta is a United States lawful permanent resident of Syrian

origin who lives in Celina, Ohio. He came to the United States on a student visa in 2012 and
subsequently applied for and was granted asylum.

He has a Master’s degree in electrical

engineering and works as an engineer. His I-130 visa petition for his wife, a Syrian national who
fled to Sudan with her family, has been approved. Both Mr. Mashta and his wife are practicing
Muslims.
42.

Plaintiff Grannaz Amirjamshidi is a United States citizen of Iranian origin who lives in

Campbell, California. She came to the United States in 2009 as a diversity visa lottery winner and
now works as an engineer manager at a manufacturing company. She has a master’s degree in
Operation Management. Ms. Amirjamshidi’s mother is an Iranian citizen who lives in Canada and
who has been granted twelve tourist visas in seven years to come to the United States to visit Ms.
Amirjamshidi and her family. Her most recent tourist visa application is pending.
43.

Plaintiff Shapour Shirani is U.S. Citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Boyds,

Maryland. He moved to the United States in 1993. Mr. Shirani is a nonpracticing Muslim. He
has an approved I-130 visa petition for his wife, who is a national of and still lives in Iran.
44.

Plaintiff Fakhri Ziaolhagh is a U.S. Citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Gaithersburg,

Maryland. Ms. Ziaolhagh moved to the United States in 2008, on an employer-sponsored visa,
together with her husband and her younger son. She is a practicing Muslim. She has an approved

9

JA 483

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 12 of 77
I-130 visa petition for her older son, who is a national of and still lives in Iran, separated from the
rest of their family.
45.

Plaintiff Afsaneh Khazaeli is a U.S. Citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Illinois. She

came to the United States in 1977 with her husband, who entered on a student visa. Ms. Khazaeli
is the sole proprietor of a sewing store. She has an approved visa application for her sister, an
Iranian national. Ms. Khazaeli and her family are nonpracticing Muslims.
46.

As set forth in greater detail below, implementation of all the EOs has caused and will

continue to cause harm to Plaintiffs John Doe #1, John Does #3 through #5, Jane Doe #2, Mateab,
Mashta, Amirjamshidi, Shirani, Ziaolhagh, and Khazaeli (collectively, the “Individual Plaintiffs”).
47.

Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official

capacity. In that capacity, he issued the EOs.
48.

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet-level

department of the United States federal government. Its components include U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

CBP’s responsibilities include inspecting and admitting

immigrants and nonimmigrants arriving with U.S. visas at international points of entry, including
airports and land borders. USCIS’s responsibilities include adjudicating requests for immigration
benefits for individuals located within the United States. ICE’s responsibilities include enforcing
federal immigration law within the interior of the United States. Both EO-2 and EO-3 assign DHS
a variety of responsibilities regarding their enforcement.
49.

Defendant U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) is a cabinet-level department of the

United States federal government.

DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant and

nonimmigrant visas abroad. Both EO-2 and EO-3 assign DOS a variety of responsibilities
regarding their enforcement.

10

JA 484

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 13 of 77
50.

Defendant Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) is an independent

agency of the United States federal government. The ODNI has specific responsibilities and
obligations with respect to implementation of EO-2 and EO-3.
51.

Defendant Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for overseeing

enforcement and implementation of EO-2 and EO-3 by all DOS staff. He is sued in his official
capacity.
52.

Defendant Elaine Duke is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

Acting

Secretary Duke has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of EO-2 and
EO-3 by all DHS staff. She is sued in her official capacity.
53.

Defendant Dan Coats is the Director of National Intelligence, and has responsibility for

overseeing enforcement and implementation of EO-2 and EO-3 by all ODNI staff. He is sued in
his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
President Trump’s Expressed Intent To Target Muslims and
To Favor Christians Seeking to Enter the Country
54.

President Trump has repeatedly made clear his intent to enact policies that exclude

Muslims from entering the United States and to favor Christians seeking to enter the United States.
55.

On December 7, 2015, then-Presidential candidate Trump issued a statement on his

campaign website. Entitled, “DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM
IMMIGRATION,” the statement declared that “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out
what is going on.”
56.

The statement, which remained on President Trump’s campaign website until it was

selectively removed on May 8, 2017—the day this Court’s preliminary injunction of Section 2(c)
of EO-2 was argued before the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc—invoked stereotypes of Muslims,
11

JA 485

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 14 of 77
falsely suggesting that all Muslims believe in “murder against non-believers who won’t convert”
and “unthinkable acts” against women.
57.

Defending his proposed Muslim ban the next day, candidate Trump told Good Morning

America, “What I’m doing is I’m calling very simply for a shutdown of Muslims entering the
United States—and here’s a key—until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going
on.”
58.

When asked the same day on MSNBC how his Muslim ban would be applied by

customs officials, candidate Trump said, “That would be probably—they would say, are you
Muslim?” A reporter followed up by asking, “And if they said yes, they would not be allowed in
the country[?]” Candidate Trump responded, “That’s correct.”
59.

Candidate Trump repeatedly reiterated his support for targeting Muslims seeking to

enter the United States.
60.

On March 9, 2016, candidate Trump stated, “I think Islam hates us. There’s . . . a

tremendous hatred there . . . . There’s an unbelievable hatred of us . . . . We can’t allow people
coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States . . . and [of] people that are not
Muslim . . . .”
61.

The next day, during a debate, candidate Trump said he would “stick with exactly”

what he had said the night before. When asked if he was referring to all 1.6 billion Muslims
worldwide, he explained, “I mean a lot of them.” Candidate Trump stated later in the same debate,
“There is tremendous hate. There is tremendous hate. Where large portions of a group of people,
Islam, large portions want to use very, very harsh means.”
62.

On March 22, 2016, candidate Trump stated that “we’re having problems with the

Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country,” adding, “You need

12

JA 486

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 15 of 77
surveillance. You have to deal with the mosques whether we like it or not . . . . These attacks
aren’t . . . done by Swedish people. That I can tell you.”
63.

The same day, candidate Trump stated on Twitter that a Democratic candidate for

President, Hillary Clinton, wanted to “let the Muslims flow in.”
64.

On May 11, 2016, candidate Trump announced that he was putting together an

“immigration commission,” to be headed by Rudy Giuliani, that would “look at the ‘Muslim ban,’
or ‘temporary ban’ as we call it.”
65.

As Mr. Giuliani corroborated two days after EO-1 was issued, that commission was

tasked with coming up with a way to “legally” implement a “Muslim ban,” and it recommended
using territory as a proxy for religion.
66.

In the months after announcing creation of the “immigration commission,” candidate

Trump heavily foreshadowed the contours of the EOs to come. He explained, for example, that
he would impose the ban pursuant to the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), and that
it would operate on the basis of geography. When pressed to name the countries that would be
affected, candidate Trump demurred, but stated that his ban would incorporate a pre-existing list
of what he called “terror nations.” This list, as it turned out, was the list of countries exempted
from the Visa Waiver Program, which allows the nationals of participating countries to enter the
United States for certain purposes for 90 days without first obtaining a visa.
67.

Lest there be any doubt about what he was proposing, however, candidate Trump

repeatedly rejected the notion that he was backing away from the promised Muslim ban—which
he continued to defend as a good idea—and instead emphasized that he was using territory as a
proxy for religion.
68.

On June 13, 2016, for example, candidate Trump stated in a major speech on national

security, “I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger. But

13

JA 487

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 16 of 77
now many . . . are saying that I was right to do so.” In the same prepared speech, he promised to
use the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to “suspend immigration from [certain] areas
of the world.”
69.

Later that same day, candidate Trump tweeted: “In my speech on protecting America I

spoke about a temporary ban, which includes suspending immigration from nations tied to Islamic
terror.”
70.

Two days later, on June 15, candidate Trump explained that “it’s a temporary ban, in

particular for certain people coming from certain horrible—where you have tremendous terrorism
in the world. You know what those places are.”
71.

On June 25, 2016, candidate Trump stated that he “do[esn’t] want people coming in

from certain countries.” When asked which countries, candidate Trump explained to one media
outlet that “they’re pretty well decided. All you have to do is look!,” and to another, “I want people
that have bad thoughts out. I would limit specific terrorist countries and we know who those
countries are.”
72.

When pressed once more, two days later, to identify the countries he would target for

his ban, candidate Trump stated that he would focus on “terror nations”: “Look it up. They have
a list of terror nations.”
73.

In an interview aired on 60 Minutes on July 17, 2016, when asked about the proposed

Muslim ban, candidate Trump replied: “Call it whatever you want. We’ll call it territories, ok?”
Asked again whether Muslims would be banned, candidate Trump said that “there’s nothing like”
the Constitution “[b]ut it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country,
okay?” He again reiterated: “Call it whatever you want.”
74.

In a July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press, candidate Trump was asked if a plan

similar to the EOs he eventually signed was a “rollback” from “[t]he Muslim Ban.” Candidate

14

JA 488

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 17 of 77
Trump responded: “I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say
it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories.”
75.

Candidate Trump continued: “People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh,

you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking
territory instead of Muslim.”
76.

When speaking to Sean Hannity of Fox News the next day, candidate Trump again

rejected the idea that he was retreating from his proposed Muslim ban, stating that his “position’s
gotten bigger now” because he is “talking about territories now.” Candidate Trump explained that
“we’re talking about territories” because “[p]eople don’t want me to say Muslim.”
77.

In a major prepared speech on immigration on August 15, 2016, candidate Trump again

invoked false stereotypes of Muslims. He explained that his immigration policy—which he called
“extreme, extreme vetting”—would ensure that those we admit “share our values,” which means
screening out those who support “honor killings,” or “who believe Sharia law should supplant
American law.”
78.

Candidate Trump continued and outlined a plan to ask the Departments of State and

Homeland Security to identify “a list of regions where inadequate screening cannot take place” so
that the United States could “stop processing visas from those areas until such time as it is deemed
safe to resume based on new circumstances or new procedures.” Although he then claimed that
“[t]he size of current immigration flows are too large to perform adequate screening,” the only
“immigration flow” he expressed concern about was that from the Middle East: “We admit about
100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year. Beyond that, we admit hundreds
of thousands of temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. Hundreds of thousands. If
we don’t control the numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.”

15

JA 489

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 18 of 77
79.

In a speech on September 1, 2016, candidate Trump reiterated that he would task

federal agencies with “develop[ing] a list of regions and countries from which immigration must
be suspended until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put in place. I call it extreme
vetting right? Extreme vetting. I want extreme.”
80.

This “extreme vetting,” candidate Trump explained, would include asking immigrant

applicants “their views about honor killings, about respect for women and gays and minorities,”
and their “[a]ttitudes on radical Islam.”
81.

During a nationally-televised presidential debate on October 9, 2016, candidate Trump

was asked again about his proposed Muslim ban. He answered that “[t]he Muslim ban is
something that in some form has morphed into extreme vetting for certain areas of the world.”
When pressed to “please explain whether the Muslim ban still stands,” candidate Trump replied:
“It is called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria.”
82.

On December 21, 2016, president-elect Trump was asked whether he “had cause to

rethink or reevaluate [his] plans to create a Muslim register or ban Muslim immigration to the
United States.” He replied: “You know my plans all along, and I’ve been proven to be right, 100
percent correct.”
The January 27 Order/EO-1
83.

After conducting a campaign in which a ban on Muslim admissions was a key promise,

President Trump took action to carry out that promise by issuing EO-1 on January 27, one week
after being inaugurated.
84.

Statements made by President Trump and his advisors around the time of the signing

of EO-1 confirm President Trump’s intent to discriminate against Muslims. In an interview with
the Christian Broadcasting Network released the same day that he signed EO-1, President Trump
stated that it was designed to give Christians priority when applying for refugee status. “If you

16

JA 490

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 19 of 77
were a Muslim you could come in [to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible,” he said. “[T]hey were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the
Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.”
85.

Consistent with this expressed religious animus towards Muslims and preference for

Christians, EO-1 disfavored Muslims while giving special treatment to non-Muslims.
86.

Section 3 of EO-1, for example, banned any entry for 90 days for individuals from

seven countries, each of which is more than ninety percent Muslim: Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Libya,
Somalia, and Yemen. The combined population of those countries is more than 97% Muslim.
87.

As promised on the campaign trail, EO-1 provided a mechanism for the government to

extend and/or expand the 90-day ban at the end of the 90 day period. Section 3 of EO-1 directed
the Secretary of Homeland Security to “immediately conduct a review to determine the
information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the
INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the
individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat,” and to “submit to the President
a report on the results of the review . . . within 30 days of the date of this order.” At that point, the
“Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to
start providing such information,” and 60 days after that—precisely at the end of the initial 90 day
ban period—EO-1 provided for the President to issue a proclamation indefinitely banning travelers
from a list of countries deemed to be non-compliant “until compliance occurs.”
88.

Although this review provision remained in effect for 48 days, the 30-day review to be

conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to EO-1 was never completed.
89.

Section 5 of EO-1 prohibited refugee admissions for 120 days, except for Syrian

refugees, who were banned indefinitely.

17

JA 491

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 20 of 77
90.

EO-1 discriminated between persons of majority and minority faiths in their country of

origin. Section 5(b) required the government to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on
the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority
religion in the individual’s country of nationality” once the 120-day ban on refugee admissions is
complete.
91.

During those 120 days, moreover, Section 5(e) allowed the admission of certain

refugees on a discretionary case-by-case basis, “only so long as [the Secretaries of State and
Homeland Security] determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national
interest—including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing
religious persecution.”
92.

As the President conceded, these provisions were intended to allow Christian refugees

to enter the United States, even while Muslim refugees from the same countries were prohibited
from doing so. And indeed, Muslims would have been severely disadvantaged under the minorityfaith preferences set forth in Sections 5(b) and 5(e). During the past three fiscal years, only 12%
of Muslim refugees hailed from a country where Islam is a minority faith.
93.

There is no statutory, regulatory, or constitutional basis for favoring refugees from

minority faiths over refugees from majority faiths. There is no basis in the Refugee Act of 1980,
as amended—which governs the admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement
herein—to prioritize refugees fleeing persecution on the basis of religion, as opposed to the other
congressionally-recognized bases. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (defining “refugee”).
94.

Section 5(d) of EO-1 reduced, by more than half, the annual refugee admissions

allotment that was set prior to the current fiscal year by President Obama (from 110,000 to 50,000).
95.

As of February 2017, approximately 41,000 refugees had already been resettled in the

United States, and there were tens of thousands more refugees in the USRAP pipeline.

18

JA 492

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 21 of 77
96.

Shortly after EO-1 was signed, USCIS cancelled nearly all refugee processing

interviews abroad.
97.

Additionally, DOS suspended security checks for refugees, a process that typically

takes between 18-24 months.
98.

Section 5(d)’s reduction in the annual refugee admissions allotment essentially halted

the United States’ refugee resettlement process.
99.

Section 5(g) of EO-1, meanwhile, sought to expand the limited role State and local

governments have in the refugee resettlement process in order to facilitate the recently-stated
desire and intent of some states and localities to discriminate against refugees on the basis of their
nationality and/or religion. See, e.g., Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 838 F.3d 902
(7th Cir. 2016) (affirming preliminary injunction on equal protection grounds of state executive
order issued by then-Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, that sought to prevent the resettlement in
the State of refugees from Syria).
100.

In addition to Sections 3 and 5, other sections of EO-1 reinforced stereotypes about

Muslims and discriminated against them. Multiple sections, for example, associated Muslims with
violence, bigotry, and hatred, inflicting stigmatic and dignitary harms, among other types of injury.
These included Sections 1 and 2, which portrayed EO-1 as protecting citizens from foreign
nationals “who would place violent ideologies over American law” and “who intend to commit
terrorist attacks in the United States”; and Section 10, which required the Secretary of Homeland
Security to periodically publish information about the number of “foreign nationals” involved in,
among other things, terrorism-related activities, radicalization, and “gender-based violence against
women, including honor killings”—direct echoes of candidate Trump’s broad statements
denigrating Islam and Muslims.

19

JA 493

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 22 of 77
101.

Further, on information and belief, since EO-1 was signed, CBP has questioned foreign

nationals entering from certain countries about their religious beliefs to determine whether or not
they are Muslim, and has subjected Muslim travelers from countries other than the seven
designation nations to disproportionate and unwarranted scrutiny and interrogation.
102.

There is no sound basis for concluding that Muslims generally, or Muslims from

particular countries, are more likely to commit violent acts of terror.
103.

A previous program to track certain foreign nationals predominantly from Muslim-

majority countries, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (“NSEERS”), did not
lead to the conviction or even identification of a single terrorist, even though it subjected tens of
thousands of people to additional screening and investigation.
104.

EO-1 remained in effect until March 16, 2017, when EO-2, signed on March 6, became

effective and rescinded and replaced EO-1.
The Chaotic and Irregular Implementation of EO-1
105.

The preparation and implementation of EO-1 were extremely unusual and chaotic, at

least in part because President Trump issued it without consulting the federal agencies tasked with
protecting the national security.
106.

The White House bypassed regular channels for input and cooperation with other

components of the Executive Branch, including the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense,
and State, as well as the Department of Justice.
107.

Moreover, CBP was not given clear operational guidance during critical times in the

implementation of EO-1.
108.

EO-1 was signed without final review or legal analysis from DHS, which—along with

the DOS—was principally charged with implementing it.

20

JA 494

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 23 of 77
109.

Then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly was reportedly in the midst of a

conference call to discuss EO-1 when someone on the call learned from watching television that
the order they were discussing had already been signed.
110.

Similarly, Secretary of Defense Mattis, who had publicly criticized President Trump’s

proposal to ban Muslims from the United States, reportedly did not see a final version of EO-1
until the day it was signed, and was not consulted during its preparation.
111.

EO-1 did not arise out of the usual process of consulting with the relevant cabinet-level

officials and agencies before issuing an executive order. Instead, EO-1 was primarily drafted by
a small team of Presidential aides, overseen by then-chief White House strategist Stephen K.
Bannon.
112.

Mr. Bannon has previously made anti-Muslim comments. He criticized former

President George W. Bush for referring to Islam as “a religion of peace,” calling President Bush
“one of the dumbest presidents in the history of these United States.”
113.

Congressional staff who worked on EO-1 reportedly were required to sign

nondisclosure agreements, and not even the members of Congress they served were allowed to
know of their work on EO-1. On information and belief, this arrangement was also highly unusual.
114.

During the days leading up to and following the signing of EO-1, its scope and

provisions were changed without any rational relationship to its purported justifications.
115.

For example, the night after EO-1 was signed, DHS issued guidance interpreting § 3(c)

as not applying to lawful permanent residents. Overnight, the White House overruled that
guidance, applying EO-1 to lawful permanent residents subject to a case-by-case exception
process, in a decision closely associated with Mr. Bannon.
116.

After the detention at airports of many individuals, including lawful permanent

residents, led to chaos nationwide, then-DHS Secretary Kelly issued a statement “deem[ing] the

21

JA 495

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 24 of 77
entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.” Secretary Kelly’s statement
was made pursuant to Section 3(g) of the order, which requires such a decision to be made “on a
case-by-case basis.”
117.

Finally, on February 1, the Counsel to the President purported to interpret EO-1 as

exempting lawful permanent residents from the ban entirely.
118.

Similarly, initial guidance from DOS indicated that individuals with dual citizenship,

with one country of citizenship subject to the ban, would be banned from entering the United
States. Word of a change in that policy spread irregularly, with notice being given to airlines and
foreign nations but contradicted in official U.S. government communications.
119.

Finally, CBP announced a changed policy, explaining, in response to the question

“Does ‘from one of the seven countries’ mean citizen, national or born in?” that “Travelers are
being treated according to the travel document they present.” According to this policy the same
individual both was and was not subject to the travel ban depending only on the travel document
she presented.
120.

The government also reversed itself on its policy toward holders of Special Immigrant

Visas from Iraq. Holders of these visas were clearly banned under the terms of EO-1, and they
were refused entry when it went into effect. However, on February 2, 2017, they were granted a
categorical waiver allowing them to enter the United States notwithstanding the ban.
121.

Nationals of the seven banned countries who had immigrated to (but were not yet

citizens of) Canada, meanwhile, were inexplicably allowed to enter the United States, even without
a waiver—unless they had emigrated to Canada as refugees, in which case they remained banned.
122.

Still other aspects of EO-1 and its implementation demonstrated utter disregard for the

individuals affected by it. For example, the Administration knew that EO-1 would bar the entry
of individuals who were literally mid-air when the order was issued. Nonetheless, and absent any

22

JA 496

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 25 of 77
exigency that would justify it, the order was signed late on a Friday afternoon. That decision had
a number of predictable consequences, including: making it more difficult for the federal
employees tasked with enforcing the order to obtain instruction on how to interpret and enforce
the order’s sloppily-written provisions; causing prolonged detentions at airports and land borders,
and leading many to be wrongfully deported; and increasing the difficulty advocates had in
accessing their clients and the courts.
123.

In a tweet on January 30, 2017, President Trump appeared to justify the rushed

implementation of EO-1 by claiming that “[i]f the ban were announced with a one week notice,
the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out there!”
124.

In another tweet the same day, and again in seeming response to criticism about the

rollout of EO-1 President Trump stated that, “This was a big part of my campaign.”
125.

Even once advocates were able to access the courts and obtain temporary injunctive

relief against aspects of EO-1, DHS officials frequently refused or otherwise failed to comply with
the court orders, undermining bedrock constitutional principles and inflicting further unlawful
injury on the affected individuals.
126.

Other actions taken by DHS and DOS to enforce EO-1 exhibited a zealous desire to go

beyond even the draconian measures the order actually required.
127.

Notwithstanding that Section 3 of EO-1 only barred “entry into the United States of

aliens from” one of the aforementioned seven Muslim-majority countries, DHS interpreted it to
prohibit the granting of any immigration-related benefit to anyone from those countries—including
to individuals who are already in the United States. That decision would have had wide-ranging
consequences, including: delaying naturalization of lawful permanent residents from those
countries who wish to become U.S. citizens; rendering asylees from those countries unable to be
lawfully employed once their Employment Authorization Documents expire; and either expelling

23

JA 497

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 26 of 77
or making undocumented any individuals here on nonimmigrant visas (including student,
employment, and tourist) that otherwise would have been renewed.
128.

DOS, at the request of DHS, issued a letter purporting to provisionally revoke all

immigrant and nonimmigrant visas of nationals of the seven designated countries on a categorical
basis—affecting at least 60,000 people—including of all such individuals already in the United
States. The letter is dated January 27, 2017, but only came to light on January 31, 2017, when
Department of Justice lawyers filed it in pending litigation. DOS has stated that this action was
taken to “implement[]” EO-1.
129.

Upon information and belief, DOS has never before revoked a broad swath of valid

visas in this manner.
130.

Nor, on information and belief, is visa revocation ordinarily undertaken in secret, with

no notice to the visa holder and no individualized consideration of whether any particular visa
should be revoked.
131.

Still further evidence of discriminatory intent and effect is reflected in the statements

by President Trump and his Administration seeking to defend and justify EO-1 after it was issued.
132.

President Trump, for example, falsely stated that only 109 people were detained over

the weekend following the issuance of EO-1, even though he knew or should have known that the
number was far higher.
133.

Indeed, the federal government has since revealed that at least 2,000 people were

detained at airports and land borders while the ban portions of EO-1 were in effect.
134.

These chaotic, irregular, and irrational policies, policy changes, and statements indicate

that the purported justifications for EO-1 were pretextual and that it was at least substantially
motivated by an intent to discriminate against Muslims.

24

JA 498

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 27 of 77
The Nationwide Preliminary Injunction of EO-1
135.

A February 3, 2017 order issued by the District Court for the Western District of

Washington prohibited the government from enforcing §§ 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), and 5(e) of EO-1. Upon
issuance of that injunction, the government appealed to the Ninth Circuit and sought a stay pending
appeal.
136.

After hearing oral argument, the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the injunction, noting

that “although courts owe considerable deference with respect to immigration and national
security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate
constitutional challenges to executive action.” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1164 (9th
Cir. 2017).
137.

In reaching its holding, the Court noted that “[t]he government has pointed to no

evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist
attack in the United States.” Id. at 1168.
138.

The Court also acknowledged “evidence of numerous statements by the President about

his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’” and observed that “[i]t is well established that evidence
of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment
and Equal Protection Clause claims.” Id. at 1167.
139.

Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s opinion issued, President Trump tweeted, “SEE YOU

IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He subsequently denounced
the opinion as “a political decision” and stated, “[W]e’re going to see them in court, and I look
forward to doing that. It’s a decision that we’ll win, in my opinion, very easily.”
140.

On March 7, 2017, the government withdrew its appeal of the preliminary injunction

of EO-1.

25

JA 499

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 28 of 77
The March 6 Order/EO-2
141.

In the weeks preceding the issuance of EO-2, the President and his closest advisors

assured the public that the executive order to come would achieve the same goals as the original,
and would have only minor differences.
142.

At a press conference on February 16, President Trump defended EO-1 as a “lawful”

and “decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of country,” but nonetheless promised a
new order would be issued the following week, “tailored to what [he] considered to be a very bad
decision” from the Ninth Circuit. President Trump explained that “we can tailor the order [to the
Ninth Circuit] decision and get just about everything, in some ways, more.”
143.

In explaining why he was pressing on with a new travel ban, President Trump

explained: “I got elected on defense of our country. I keep my campaign promises, and our citizens
will be very happy when they see the result.”
144.

In the days that followed, senior White House officials reiterated the President’s view

that EO-1 was fully lawful, and that the new order would be “tailored” to address “minor” and
“very technical issues” they claimed troubled the courts with regard to EO-1. Press Secretary Sean
Spicer affirmed that “[t]he principles of the executive order remain the same.” Stephen Miller, a
senior advisor to President Trump, explained that EO-2 would constitute “the same, basic policy
outcome for the country.”
145.

Consistent with these statements, EO-2, explicitly referring to the Ninth Circuit’s

ruling, exempts from the ban certain categories of noncitizens that “prompted judicial concerns,”
and alters the original order’s “approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens” so
as “to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation” over the constitutionality of EO-1.
146.

Indeed, notwithstanding an expanded “Policy and Purpose” section and certain other

changes discussed more fully below, EO-2 is extremely similar to EO-1 in most material respects.

26

JA 500

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 29 of 77
147.

Like its predecessor, EO-2 banned entry for a new 90 day period for individuals from

the six of the same seven predominantly Muslim countries identified in EO-1: Syria, Sudan, Iran,
Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. EO-2 § 2(c).
148.

Like EO-1, and as promised on the campaign, EO-2 also provided a mechanism for the

government to extend and/or expand the 90-day ban at the end of the 90 day period. Section 2 of
EO-2 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to “conduct a worldwide review to identify
whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to
adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under
the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety
threat.”
149.

In addition, EO-2 explicitly provided that the review need not be conducted in a

consistent matter between countries: “The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that
certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.”
Again, the order provides for the submission of a report on this review within 30 days of the date
of the order, a period (50 days rather than 60) for countries to respond to the order, and a provision
for the President to thereafter issue a proclamation indefinitely banning travelers from a list of
countries deemed to be non-compliant.
150.

EO-2 states that “Iraq presents a special case” because of the “close cooperative

relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government” and
because the latter “has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information
sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.” EO-2 § 4.
151.

With this justification, EO-2 exempts foreign nationals of Iraq from the categorical ban

on entry applicable to other countries originally targeted by EO-1. Instead, Iraqis are subject to

27

JA 501

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 30 of 77
“thorough review” and “consideration of whether the applicant has connections with ISIS or other
terrorist organizations.”
152.

Like EO-1, EO-2 allows for waivers to this ban on a discretionary case-by-case basis.

EO-2§ 3(c). In contrast to EO-1, which simply stated that visas and other immigration benefits
may be issued “when in the national interest,” EO-2 provides nine examples of situations in which
a waiver would be appropriate, such as when “the foreign national is an infant, a young child or
adoptee” or “an individual needing urgent medical care.” EO-2 § 3(c)(i)-(ix).
153.

These and other similar circumstances enumerated in EO-2 reflect specific examples

of individuals whose denial of entry pursuant to EO-1 resulted in the filing of lawsuits and
widespread public outcry.
154.

EO-2 also contains exceptions to this ban for, among others, lawful permanent residents

and dual nationals traveling on passports issued by a non-designated country. EO-2 § 3(b).
155.

Like EO-1, EO-2 cut the number of refugees who could be admitted to the United States

for fiscal year 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000, and prohibits refugee admissions for 120 days, with
an exception for discretionary case-by-case admissions. EO-2 §§ 6(a), 6(b). EO-2 also expressly
suspended decisions on applications for refugee status for 120 days. EO-2 § 6(a).
156.

After EO-2 was issued, but before it went into effect, Defendants began enforcing its

provisions regarding refugee resettlement, notwithstanding the fact that the corresponding sections
of EO-1 remained enjoined.
157.

In addition to the provisions discussed above, EO-2 contains near-verbatim

reproductions of all the other substantive provisions of EO-1, including:
•

Former Section 4(a), now Section 5(a), which requires the Secretaries of State and
Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to
implement uniform screening standards to identify individuals “who seek to enter the

28

JA 502

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 31 of 77
United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of
violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present
a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry.”
•

Former Section 5(g), now Section 6(d), which seeks to expand the limited role State
and local governments have in the refugee resettlement process, potentially facilitating
the stated desire and intent of some states and localities in the United States to
discriminate against lawfully-admitted refugees on the basis of their nationality and/or
religion. See, e.g., Exodus Refugee Immigration, 838 F.3d 902.

•

Former Section 6, now Section 7, which directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security to consider rescinding certain waivers of terrorism-related inadmissibility
grounds (“TRIG waivers”) authorized by previous administrations. TRIG waivers
have historically been used to facilitate the admission to the United States of certain
individuals or groups of individuals—often refugees fleeing persecution—who have
been forced to give aid to terrorist organizations under duress.

•

Former Section 8, now Section 9, which suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program.

•

Former Section 10, now Section 11, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to periodically publish information about the number of “foreign nationals” involved
in, among other things, terrorism-related activities, radicalization, and “gender-based
violence against women, including so-called ‘honor killings.’”

158.

The signing and implementation of EO-2 was reportedly delayed because of the

positive media reviews President Trump received after his address to a joint session of Congress
on February 28, 2017. Although the Trump Administration had previously intended on releasing
the revised executive order the following day, on March 1, 2017, White House officials stated that

29

JA 503

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 32 of 77
they delayed the release of the revised Executive Order so that President Trump’s speech could
continue to receive positive press attention.
159.

The delay following President Trump’s congressional address marked the third time

the administration put off the issuance of the revised Executive Order.
160.

After EO-1 was enjoined but before EO-2 was issued, President Trump ordered the

Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to produce an intelligence report
to demonstrate that the seven Muslim-majority countries originally identified in EO-1 present a
substantial security threat and have exported terrorism to the United States.
161.

Such an attempt to reverse-engineer a national security justification for an executive

action is not common practice.
162.

In response, analysts at DHS prepared a draft report, released to the press on February

24, 2017, indicating that there was insufficient evidence that nationals of the seven Muslimmajority countries included in EO-1 pose a terror threat to the United States.
163.

The draft report found that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats to

the United States, and that few people from the countries identified in EO-1 have carried out
attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the United States since Syria’s civil war
started in 2011.
164.

A second DHS report, dated March 1, 2017, found that of the limited number of the

foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists, most become radicalized after living in the U.S. for a
number of years.
165.

EO-2 does not acknowledge or rely on either of these recent, specific security

appraisals from DHS.
166.

Instead, EO-2 relies on the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism

describing conditions in 2015 (and published in June 2016).

30

JA 504

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 33 of 77
167.

In relying on those reports, however, EO-2 disregards other countries that the State

Department describes as safe havens for terrorists, and that pose a similar if not larger threat.
168.

For example, the State Department noted in its 2015 chapter on Terrorist Safe Havens

that Venezuela has become a haven for terrorist groups, explaining that the country’s “porous
border with Colombia has made [it] attractive to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
and the National Liberation Army.”
169.

Similarly, the State Department concluded that “[t]here are ungoverned, under-

governed, and ill-governed areas of Mali that terrorist groups have used to organize, plan, raise
funds, communicate, recruit, train and operative in relative security.”
170.

The same day EO-2 was signed, then-Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said

in an interview that many other countries not banned in EO-2 raise similar security concerns.
“There’s probably thirteen or fourteen other countries—not all of them Muslim countries, not all
of them in the Middle East—that have very questionable vetting procedures that we can rely on.”
171.

Secretary Kelly’s statements were similar to those of then-White House Chief of Staff

Reince Priebus, who stated in January that “[y]ou can point to other countries that have similar
problems” as those banned by EO-1.
172.

EO-2 also states that “more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees

are currently subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
EO-2 does not note that very few F.B.I. initial assessments of terrorism threats become intensive
investigations: for example, in the four months from December 2008 to March 2009, the F.B.I.
began 11,667 “assessments” related to terrorism, only 427 of which—less than 4%—led to more
intensive investigations.
173.

Approximately one million individuals have been admitted to the United States as

refugees since 2001.

31

JA 505

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 34 of 77
174.

EO-2 was motivated by the same anti-Muslim purpose that motivated EO-1. In

replicating much of the substance of EO-1, EO-2 seeks to prevent the entry of Muslims into the
United States and reinforces stereotypes about Muslims by associating them with terrorism,
violence, bigotry, and hatred.
The Nationwide Preliminary Injunctions of EO-2
175.

On March 16, 2017, this Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary

injunction and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction of § 2(c) of EO-2, the 90-day nationality
ban.
176.

This Court held that “[i]n this highly unique case,” the record establishes that any

national security justification for EO-2, even if legitimate, is secondary to its primary religious
purpose. Accordingly, this Court held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that § 2(c)
of EO-2 violates the Establishment Clause.
177.

Sitting en banc, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in relevant part by a 10-3 vote. The

majority opinion, joined in full by seven judges and in substantial part by two more, applied the
“facially legitimate and bona fide” standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972),
as refined by Justice Kennedy’s controlling concurrence (joined by Justice Alito) in Kerry v. Din,
135 S. Ct. 2128, 2141 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment).
178.

The majority held that, “in this highly unique set of circumstances,” Plaintiffs had

presented “ample evidence” that the “the ‘facially legitimate’ reason proffered by the government
is not ‘bona fide.’” It therefore “no longer defer[red] to that reason and instead . . . ‘look[ed]
behind’” EO-2 by examining it under the Establishment Clause.
179.

In a parallel proceeding, on March 15, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of

Hawai’i issued a nationwide preliminary injunction of §§ 2 and 6 of EO-2, which, in addition to
the 90-day nationality ban, included the 120-day refugee ban, the cut in refugee admissions from

32

JA 506

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 35 of 77
110,000 to 50,000 for fiscal year 2018, and various reporting requirements. The District Court of
Hawai’i held that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that these sections violate the
Establishment Clause.
180.

On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Hawai’i district court’s preliminary

injunction as to § 2(c) and the refugee-related provisions of §6. The Ninth Circuit held, in relevant
part, that §2(c) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); the panel did not reach the
plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The Ninth Circuit vacated portions of the Hawai’i preliminary
injunction that had halted the review procedures set forth in other parts of §§ 2 and 6 of EO-2.
181.

The government petitioned for certiorari in both cases and moved for a stay of the

preliminary injunctions.
182.

After Plaintiffs pointed out in their opposition to certiorari that the appeal would be

moot on June 14—90 days from the “effective date” of the order, EO-2 § 14—President Trump
signed a memorandum to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of National Intelligence in which he “declare[d]” that “the effective date
of each enjoined provision” of EO-2 would “be the date and time at which the referenced
injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.”

82 Fed. Reg. 27965. The

memorandum provided further that, “[t]o the extent it is necessary,” it “should be construed to
amend” EO-2. Id.
183.

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in both this and the Hawai’i

case, consolidated them, and partially stayed both preliminary injunctions. The Court held that
the injunctions appropriately “covered not just respondents, but parties similarly situated to them,”
and stayed the injunctions only to the extent they applied to “foreign nationals abroad who have
no connection to the United States at all.” Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct.
2080, 2087-88 (2017).

33

JA 507

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 36 of 77
184.

Pursuant to President Trump’s June 14 memorandum, see 82 Fed. Reg. at 27966, the

government began implementing § 2(c)’s nationality ban 72 hours later. The 90-day period
expired on September 24, 2017.
The September 24 Presidential Proclamation/EO-3
185.

In the months preceding the issuance of EO-3, President Trump has repeatedly made

clear that he considers EO-2 to be a “watered down” and “politically correct” version of EO-1 that
he only reluctantly signed at the best of “the lawyers” who told him to “tailor it,” and that his ideal
travel ban would be far harsher.
186.

Indeed, at a rally on the same day this Court issued its injunction of § 2(c), President

Trump claimed that EO-2 was a “new order [that] was tailored to the dictates of the Ninth Circuit,
in my opinion, flawed ruling,” and as such “was a watered down version of the first order that . . .
should have never been blocked to start with.”
187.

President Trump emphasized that “[t]he best way to keep foreign terrorists or, as some

people would say in certain instances, radical Islamic terrorists from attacking our country is to
stop them from entering our country in the first place.” Accordingly, he claimed that he agreed to
“tailor” EO-2 to resist legal challenge at the urging of his lawyers, but that he thought “we ought
to go back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I wanted to do in the first place.”
188.

President Trump repeated these sentiments on June 3, two days after the government

filed its petition for certiorari of this Court’s preliminary injunction. “We need to be smart,
vigilant, and tough,” he tweeted. “We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the
Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”
189.

President Trump subsequently issued multiple tweets criticizing EO-2 and the litigation

surrounding it, and calling for a return to his original “Travel Ban.”

34

JA 508

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 37 of 77
190.

On June 5, in a series of tweets, he said, “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it

whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN! / The Justice
Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct
version they submitted to S.C. / The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the
watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek [a] much tougher version!”
191.

After the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the Hawai’i district court’s injunction of § 2 and

6 on June 12, President Trump criticized the court for “[r]ul[ing] against the TRAVEL BAN at
such a dangerous time in the history of our country.”
192.

This statement echoed a criticism President Trump had leveled against the district judge

that enjoined parts of EO-1 in Washington v. Trump: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which
essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
193.

Other subsequent tweets reiterate the same anti-Muslim animus that President Trump

has expressed since he first proposed a Muslim ban.
194.

On August 17, following a terrorist attack in Barcelona, President Trump tweeted,

“Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no
more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!”
195.

This statement refers to the apocryphal story of General Pershing executing 49 out of

50 terrorists with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood, leaving the fiftieth person alive to tell the tale.
While this is not the first time President Trump has referred to this story, it has been routinely
debunked by historians and the press.
196.

The next day, President Trump declared that “Radical Islamic Terrorism must be

stopped by whatever means necessary! The courts must give us back our protective rights. Have
to be tough!”

35

JA 509

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 38 of 77
197.

President Trump issued EO-3 on Sunday, September 24, 2017, the day the 90-day

nationality ban of EO-2 expired.
198.

EO-3 achieves largely the same policy outcomes as both EO-2 and EO-1.

199.

Like its predecessors, EO-3’s bans are based on nationality. EO-3 applies to five of

the same seven predominantly Muslim countries identified in EO-1—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria,
and Yemen—and bans most, if not all, of their nationals indefinitely.
200.

Syrian nationals, for example, are categorically banned, regardless of whether they seek

to enter as immigrants or nonimmigrants.
201.

For the other four countries, all immigrants are banned, while the permitted entry of

nonimmigrants varies based on the type of visa, and will be subjected to “additional scrutiny” or
“enhanced screening and vetting requirements.”
202.

For Iran, Libya, and Yemen, EO-3 bans entry based on visitor and business visas (B-1,

B-2, or B-1/B-2 visas)—by far the most commonly used nonimmigrant visa for nationals from
these countries.
203.

EO-3 also requires “additional scrutiny” for Iraqi nationals and adds bans for the

nationals of Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. The severity and impact of the bans placed on
each of these countries, however, varies significantly.
204.

EO-3 bans only certain Venezuelan government officials and their immediate relatives

who seek to enter the United States on non-immigrant visitor and business visas. All other
Venezuelan nationals remain free to travel and emigrate to the United States. Estimates suggest
that at most a few hundred Venezuelans will be affected by EO-3 each year.
205.

EO-3 categorically bans all nationals of North Korea from entering the United States,

either as immigrants or nonimmigrants. But the number of entries to the United States by North

36

JA 510

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 39 of 77
Koreans has been so low historically that fewer than 100 North Koreans on average will be affected
by EO-3 per year.
206.

In contrast, EO-3 bans all nationals of Chad, a Muslim-majority country, who seek to

enter either as immigrants or as nonimmigrants on visitor or business visas. EO-3 effectively
blocks travel for most nationals from Chad.
207.

The following table summarizes and compares the impact of EO-1, EO-2, and EO-3 on

non-refugee populations:
Non-refugee populations banned by EO-1, EO-2 and EO-3
EO-3
EO-1 § 3(c) EO-2 § 2(c)
Immigrants
Nonimmigrants
None, but
None, but subject
None, but subject to
All for 90
subject to
to additional
days
additional scrutiny
additional
scrutiny
scrutiny
All for 90
All for 90
None
None
days
days
All types of visas
All for 90
All for 90
All indefinitely
indefinitely, except for F,
days
days
M, and J visas
All for 90
All for 90
All B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2
All indefinitely
days
days
visas indefinitely
All for 90
All for 90
None, but subject to
All indefinitely
days
days
additional scrutiny
All for 90
All for 90
All indefinitely
All indefinitely
days
days
All for 90
All for 90
All B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2
All indefinitely
days
days
visas indefinitely
All B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2
None
None
All indefinitely
visas indefinitely

Iraq

Sudan
Iran
Libya
Somalia
Syria
Yemen
Chad
North
Korea

None

Venezuela

208.

None

None

All indefinitely

All indefinitely

None

B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2
visas for certain
government officials
indefinitely

None

Like EO-1 and EO-2, EO-3 allows for waivers to its entry bans on a discretionary case-

by-case basis. EO-3 § 3(c). EO-3’s waiver provision is nearly identical to that of EO-2. It requires
37

JA 511

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 40 of 77
applicants to establish that their exclusion would impose “undue hardship” and not be in the
“national interest,” in addition to satisfying the statutory requirement to show that they are not
inadmissible for any security reasons. The waiver provision also provides nine examples of
situations in which a waiver might be appropriate, such as when “the foreign national is an infant,
a young child or adoptee” or “an individual needing urgent medical care.” EO-3 § 3(c)(iv)(A)-(J).
209.

These and other similar circumstances enumerated in EO-2, now replicated in EO-3,

reflect specific examples of individuals whose denial of entry pursuant to EO-1 resulted in the
filing of lawsuits and widespread public outcry.
210.

Like EO-2, EO-3 also contains exceptions to its bans for, among others, lawful

permanent residents and dual nationals traveling on passports issued by a non-designated country.
EO-3 § 3(b). These exceptions also reflect specific examples of individuals whose denial of entry
pursuant to EO-1 resulted in legal challenges and public condemnation.
211.

EO-3 went into effect immediately for individuals already banned from entering the

United States by EO-2, as narrowed in the Supreme Court’s stay order. EO-3 § 7(a). It will go
into effect in full, even for individuals who can claim a bona fide relationship with an individual
or entity in the United States, on October 18, 2017. EO-3 §7(b).
212.

Like EO-2, EO-3 makes no mention of the DHS reports issued earlier this year, which

found that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats to the United States, and that
of the limited number of the foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists, most become radicalized
after living in the U.S. for a number of years.
213.

Like its predecessors, EO-3 does not identify any visa vetting failures or otherwise

explain how the President concluded that existing vetting procedures were or might be inadequate.
214.

To support its nation-based bans on the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas,

EO-3 states that it is based on a country-by-country review performed by DHS, as ordered by EO-

38

JA 512

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 41 of 77
2, to assess whether DHS requires additional information from other countries “to determine that
[an] individual is not a security or public-safety threat.” EO-2 §2(a). In performing this review,
DHS adopted “baseline criteria,” §1(c), that closely match the statutory requirements for
participating in the congressionally established Visa Waiver Program, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(3),
(c)(2)(B)-(G), (c)(5)(B).
215.

EO-3 claims that “out of nearly 200 evaluated” countries, 16 countries were deemed to

be “‘inadequate’ based on an analysis of their identity-management protocols, information-sharing
practices, and risk factors.” EO-3 §1(e).
216.

Thirty-one other countries were deemed to be “‘at risk’ of becoming ‘inadequate.’” Id.

217.

EO-3 does not identify which countries were classified as “inadequate” or “at risk.”

218.

EO-3 further asserts that, as required by the reporting requirement of EO-2 §2(e), the

Secretary of DHS submitted a report to President Trump on September 15, 2017, recommending
certain “inadequate” countries to be included in a new presidential proclamation that would impose
new travel and visa restrictions.
219.

EO-3 does not explain why, among the 16 “inadequate” countries and the 31 “at risk

countries,” only Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen are
singled out for new or renewed travel and visa restrictions.
220.

EO-3 does not assert that it is impossible to verify the identity or assess the risk of all—

or even most—visa applicants from “inadequate” or “at risk” countries.
221.

EO-3 acknowledges that information is available from sources other than home-

country governments that can facilitate such assessments. EO-3 § 2(f)(i).
222.

The government routinely requires and collects such non-governmental vetting

information for use in its vetting processes. To take just one example, visa applicants’ identity
and relation to family sponsors in the United States can be proven with a DNA or blood test, as

39

JA 513

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 42 of 77
provided for by regulation, and which a consular officer may suggest at any time. See 8 C.F.R.
§204.2(d)(2)(v).
223.

Nor does EO-3 explain why other countries who refuse to share identity and other visa

screening information with the United States, like Belgium, are not included in EO-3’s travel and
visa restrictions.
224.

Indeed, a report issued by the General Accounting Office in May 2016 noted that at

that time, more than a third of countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program—which enables
the nationals of the 38 participating countries to enter the United States for business or tourist
purposes for up to 90 days without a visa—refused to share terrorist identity or criminal history
information. None of these countries, which are predominantly European, Western, and nonMuslim-majority, are included in EO-3.
225.

EO-3 likewise does not explain why different categories of non-immigrant visas are

banned for different countries.
226.

Nor does EO-3 explain why individuals seeking to enter on the banned categories of

non-immigrant visas present a greater security threat than any other individual entering on a nonbanned category of non-immigrant visa.
227.

EO-3 will have a disproportionate and disparate impact on Muslims. The affected

populations from Venezuela and North Korea, the only non-Muslim-majority countries targeted
by EO-3, are so small as to be relatively negligible, especially when compared to the affected
populations from the Muslim-majority countries targeted by EO-3.
228.

The same anti-Muslim purpose that motivated EO-1 and EO-2 animates EO-3. In

replicating, extending, and expanding its predecessor bans, EO-3 seeks to prevent the entry of
Muslims into the United States and reinforces stereotypes about Muslims by associating them with
terrorism, violence, and threats to public safety.

40

JA 514

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 43 of 77
The Grave Harm to Plaintiffs and Their Clients & Members
229.

Implementation and enforcement of both EO-1 and EO-2 has already caused Plaintiffs

and their members and clients substantial, concrete, and particularized injury. Implementation of
EO-3 threatens them with continued irreparable harm if not permanently enjoined.
230.

Both EO-1 and EO-2 suspended refugee resettlement, barred entry of non-refugees

from designated countries, and intentionally discriminated against Muslims. Both EO-1 and EO2 have therefore frustrated IRAP’s mission and imposed a significant burden on IRAP’s work. As
a direct result of the imposition and enforcement of EO-1 and EO-2, IRAP and its clients have
suffered substantial, concrete injuries, and those will continue under EO-3.
231.

IRAP serves displaced persons of all faiths, but the vast majority of its clients, both in

the United States and abroad, are Muslim.
232.

IRAP counsels persecuted individuals on various legal avenues to safe countries and

represents them throughout these processes, with a majority of its clients resettling in the United
States.
233.

IRAP has clients in the United States who seek to be reunited with family members

who remain abroad. IRAP assists those clients in filing visa petitions or other family reunification
applications.
234.

EO-1 severely restricted IRAP’s ability to carry out its work and mission. In the ten

days immediately following the issuance of EO-1, IRAP provided assistance to more than forty
individuals from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen who, despite being vetted
and given permission to enter the United States, had been prevented by EO-1 from doing so.
235.

IRAP has existing and prospective clients who will be harmed by EO-3.

236.

IRAP represents U.S.-based clients who have filed I-130 petitions to be reunited with

family members abroad who are nationals of the countries banned by EO-3.

41

JA 515

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 44 of 77
237.

IRAP represents thousands more individuals seeking resettlement through USRAP.

238.

IRAP has already used a significant portion of its financial resources and time to

represent its clients through legal adjudications and to provide counseling through the demanding
vetting process. Restricting issuance of visas and refugee resettlement wastes that investment of
resources and time.
239.

The EOs have restricted IRAP’s ability to carry out its work and mission. The reduction

in refugee admissions and the entry bans, for example, have delayed the processing of many of
IRAP’s clients’ cases, which forces IRAP to exhaust more of its resources, as the average lifespan
of a case now grows significantly.
240.

IRAP attorneys are now providing only limited representation in certain new cases,

which, prior to the orders, would have received full representation, as a result of the exorbitant
delays the orders have caused and will continue to cause.
241.

IRAP relies on volunteers from its law school chapters and pro bono firms to meet the

needs of its vast client base. With the increased demands of its caseload resulting from the EOs,
IRAP now has very limited capacity to open new law school chapters or begin new relationships
with law firms to place cases for direct representation.
242.

During EO-2’s partially implemented suspension of USRAP, IRAP placed

significantly fewer new cases with law firms and student chapters due to EO-2’s delays and impact
on refugee cases as well as the increased demands on IRAP’s staff due to the EOs. Under a full
freeze, IRAP risks losing hundreds of volunteers, and relationships with numerous law firms,
because they are unable to provide them with a way to partner with them on cases.
243.

IRAP’s law firm partners also provide financial support to IRAP. If IRAP no longer

has cases to place at law firms, and thus have to decrease our number of law firm partners, it will
significantly cut into the corporate funding IRAP receives.

42

JA 516

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 45 of 77
244.

IRAP’s Resettlement Deployment Scheme with UNHCR, which allowed IRAP

resettlement experts since early 2016 to be deployed to UNHCR for assisting with their
resettlement operations, has been terminated due at least in part to the EOs. This has lead to a
significant revenue loss to IRAP.
245.

Delays caused by the EOs endangers the lives of IRAP’s clients abroad, because the

longer it takes for their cases to be decided, the longer they are in life-threatening environments.
246.

In addition, some of the IRAP clients abroad have family ties to IRAP clients already

in the United States, and those U.S. clients are suffering harm as a result of the ongoing delay in
reunification with their family members, as well as the risk that their family members may suffer
persecution or death in the meantime.
247.

The EOs, moreover, have marginalized IRAP’s Muslim clients, subjected them to

suspicion, scrutiny, and social isolation on the basis of religion and national origin, and inflicted
stigmatic and dignitary injuries.
248.

IRAP clients who are already inside the U.S. are afraid and fear they are not welcome.

249.

Since EO-1’s issuance, IRAP clients have been subjected to harassment by law

enforcement agencies conducting new security checks. Others have been detained at airports, or
rejected from flights multiple times even though they are presenting valid visas.
250.

Both EO-1 and EO-2, furthermore, have forced IRAP to devote substantial resources

to addressing the order’s effects on IRAP’s clients and those similarly situated, and the same will
be true of EO-3.
251.

For example, following the signing of EO-1 on January 27, 2017 at 4:42 P.M. EST,

two IRAP clients, Mr. Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Mr. Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi,
were detained at John F. Kennedy Airport (“JFK”) despite having valid entry documents. As a
result, IRAP attorneys were present at JFK from 2 am to 6:30 pm on January 28, 2017 attempting

43

JA 517

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 46 of 77
to secure their lawful release. Together with co-counsel, IRAP filed a habeas petition on behalf of
those two clients, together with a motion for class certification (Darweesh et al. v. Trump et al.,
No. 1:17-cv-480 (E.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 28, 2017)). That litigation recently settled.
252.

These actions are not in the scope of normal IRAP legal assistance, as previous IRAP

clients were allowed to enter at U.S. ports of entry after receiving final approval to travel.
253.

The EOs have further caused IRAP to divert its resources, as IRAP has become the

focal point organization for volunteer attorneys all across the country who have sought information
on how to assist in responding to the orders.
254.

In addition to being the first organization to put out a call to volunteer attorneys, IRAP

created and maintains a unique hotline email address ([e-mail]) to advise
attorneys and affected individuals. Since the creation of this email address on January 28, 2017,
IRAP has received and responded to over a thousand email messages.
255.

IRAP has also developed templates and informational materials for attorneys, affected

family members in the United States, and individuals overseas who have been or could be denied
travel pursuant to any of the three orders.
256.

IRAP also secures and pays for safe housing for clients whose lives are in immediate

danger while they await the outcomes of USRAP and other efforts to get them to safety. Clients
in urgent situations who face additional delays on their applications will require IRAP to expend
significant funding to ensure continued safe housing.
257.

IRAP also has at least one current employee who is a national of a country banned by

the EOs. EO-3 will prevent this employee from traveling to the United States for IRAP’s annual
staff retreat, where the organization provides training for its employees and engages in strategic
planning for the following year. This employee’s absence from the retreat advsersely affects
IRAP’s mission.

44

JA 518

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 47 of 77
258.

HIAS and its clients have likewise been significantly harmed by EO-1 and EO-2, and

will be by EO-3.
259.

HIAS’s humanitarian work is grounded in, and an expression of, the organization’s

sincere Jewish beliefs. The Torah, Judaism’s central and most holy text, commands followers to
welcome, love, and protect the stranger. The Jewish obligation to the stranger is repeated
throughout the Torah, more than any other teaching or commandment. HIAS believes that this
religious commandment demands concern for and protection of persecuted people of all faiths.
The Torah also teaches that the Jewish people are to welcome, protect, and love the stranger
because “we were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34). Throughout their history,
violence and persecution have made the Jewish people a refugee people. Thus, both history and
values lead HIAS to welcome displaced people in need of protection. A refusal to aid persecuted
people of any one faith, because of stigma attached to that faith, violates HIAS’s deeply held
religious convictions.
260.

Like EO-1, EO-2 has severely impeded HIAS’s religious mission and work by

intentionally discriminating against Muslims and prohibiting the entry of all refugees into the
United States for 120 days and nationals of the designated countries for 90 days.
261.

Before EO-1 was signed, arrangements had been made for many of HIAS’s refugee

clients to arrive in the United State in January, February, and the months to follow. Despite having
been previously vetted and granted refugee status, however, clients from Iran, Sudan, Somalia,
Ukraine, Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Tanzania, Ethiopia,
Uganda, Russia, Belarus, and Burma were delayed in or prevented from entering the country
because of EO-1.
262.

The partial impelentation of EO-2 has inflicted significant injuries on HIAS and its

clients.

45

JA 519

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 48 of 77
263.

At the time of EO-2’s issuance, HIAS had approximtely 1,400 clients worldwide who

were allocated through the Department of State process, had been vetted, and had been approved
for refugee status. These refugees had already been allocated and assured to one of HIAS’s
resettlement sites.
264.

A significant number of HIAS’s clients who have been vetted and approved as refugees

were prevented from entering the United States during fiscal year 2017 because of the first two
EOs.
265.

Because security and medical clearances have expiration dates, it is likely that many of

HIAS’ clients lost their readiness for travel because of delays in resettlement caused by EO-1 and
EO-2. These medical and security checks now must be repeated, which can take months to years.
266.

Of the approximately 1,400 HIAS clients worldwide who, at the time EO-2 was issued,

had been allocated through the Department of State process, vetted, and approved for refugee
status, some 500 were nationals of one of the six countries banned by EO-2. The overwhelmingly
majority of these individuals are Muslim.
267.

Every day that HIAS clients’ entry is delayed, they remain in precarious situations.

268.

Many of HIAS’s clients abroad, including clients from the six countries banned by EO-

2, have family members in the United States, also HIAS clients, who will suffer as a result of the
delay in reuniting with their family members. Some of these U.S. ties are, in fact, individuals who
petitioned (often through HIAS) to be reunited with their family members, be it through an I-130
immediate relative visa petition, an I-730 petition for a follow-to-join visa, or some other
application.
269.

In addition, at the time of EO-2’s issuance more than 1,300 refugee applications

initiated through HIAS by family members residing in the United States were pending for HIAS

46

JA 520

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 49 of 77
clients abroad. The adjudication of these applications has been substantially delayed because of
EO-2.
270.

In fact, since EO-1 was signed, consideration of most refugee applicant cases in need

of security checks has been suspended. This means that, for many refugees in the pipeline, security
checks that typically lasted 18-24 months will now be paused and restarted, potentially adding
years to their wait for stable resettlement.
271.

The delay in processing of these applications will subject these clients to further risk

of persecution and abuse in their current situations, and their family members who petitioned for
them to come to the United States will remain in limbo as to whether they will ever be reunited.
272.

All three EOs convey an official message of disapproval and hostility toward HIAS’s

Muslim clients, making clear that the government deems them outsiders, and not full members of
the political community.
273.

HIAS’s Muslim clients in the United States have been marginalized as a result of this

anti-Muslim message, have been subjected to baseless suspicion, scrutiny, and social and political
isolation on the basis of religion and national origin, and have suffered other dignitary and
stigmatic injuries.
274.

Additionally, as a result of EO-1, at least one of HIAS’s Muslim clients in the United

States was detained at an airport for an extended period, handcuffed and separated from his family,
and many other clients have otherwise had their travel significantly delayed.
275.

Because HIAS is a non-profit resettlement organization that has a cooperative

agreement with the federal government on a per-capita basis for each refugee served, and because
the Department of State asked HIAS to increase its capacity from the 3,884 refugees resettled in
federal fiscal year (“FFY”) 2016 to 4,794 refugees in FFY 2017, HIAS was denied crucial funding
as a result of EO-2.

47

JA 521

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 50 of 77
276.

After EO-1 was issued, the U.S. State Department notified HIAS that its resettlement

obligation for FY 2017 would be slashed from nearly 4,800 to just over 2,900 refugees, epresenting
potentially crippling financial losees, especially for many of HIAS’s affiliates, which are heavily
dependent on funding that flows through HIAS.
277.

Losses of this nature translate to irreparable harm to HIAS, its affiliates, and its clients

because they will cause (and have already caused) a substantial reduction in program services and
closure of resettlement sites. When this happens, the local expertise, relationships, and good
will—developed by affiliate staff, often over years and years—are lost entirely or substantially
diminished.
278.

Building a new resettlement site can take months or years of relationship-building,

including cooperation with local government and elected officials, businesses who would be
potential employers, landlords, volunteers, and the refugee communities themselves. In addition,
fewer resettlement sites may limit the type of specialized assistance and services (e.g., for LGBT
refugees) that clients can receive.
279.

The EOs will also result in the waste of HIAS resources. For example, in the past year,

HIAS has devoted substantial private resources to developing a program with several
congregations in Westchester, New York, to welcome Syrian refugee families. Because of the
bans, as well as the unexpected and dramatic lowering of the refugee admissions level, the EOs
have put those resources to waste. Congregations and family members of HIAS clients have
extended resources to prepare for anticipated refugees, by renting apartments and purchasing
furnishings. In addition, some refugees who were anticipating resettlement through HIAS left jobs
or travelled through other countries and now face precarious situations as a direct result of the
EOs.

48

JA 522

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 51 of 77
280.

In the weeks and months prior to EO-1, HIAS concluded a formal plan with the

Department of State to increase HIAS’s national resettlement capacity by 23.4% from 3,884
refugees in FFY 2016 to 4,794 refugees in FFY 2017. This plan caused HIAS to invest substantial
resources into expanding existing resettlement sites and opening new refugee resettlement sites in
Wisconsin, Delaware, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts, as approved by the Department of
State. These resources have been and will continue be wasted, at least in part, because of EO-1
and EO-2.
281.

In addition, HIAS has been forced to divert substantial resources, and will continue to

to do so, to dealing with the fallout from all three executive orders and their effect on HIAS’s
clients, including devoting staff time to working with clients in the United States and abroad.
282.

Plaintiff MESA and its members have also been harmed by EO-1 and EO-2 and will

be harmed by EO-3.
283.

MESA has members from the countries banned by all three EOs who are outside the

United States and lack U.S. visas.
284.

MESA also has members who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents

petitioning for visas for family members abroad.
285.

Because of EO-2, MESA’s members were not be able to travel to the United States to

attend academic conferences or to engage in other collobarative work with MESA members and
others in the United States.
286.

MESA’s members will be similarly affected by EO-3.

287.

MESA’s members will be prohibited or prevented by EO-3 from attending an annual

conference sponsored by MESA. Participation in academic conferences is crucial to the
professional success of graduate students and professors, and to their ability to fully engage with

49

JA 523

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 52 of 77
the ideas and scholarship of the broader Middle Eastern studies community. Many important
conferences, including the MESA annual meeting, take place in the United States.
288.

Graduate students who are MESA members or are studying under MESA members in

the United States, often leave the country to complete field work for advanced degrees. Because
of the EOs, many such students from the six designated countries fear exclusion from the United
States if they leave the country. The inability to leave the United States with an assurance they
will be permitted to reenter will impair their ability to engage in research and participate in
academic conferences.
289.

Such students will also lose their ability to visit family and friends abroad with an

assurance they will be permitted to reenter. For example, Iranian students affiliated with MESA
cancelled plans to return home for Persian New Year, an important holiday that occurred on March
21, 2017, because of EO-1 and EO-2.
290.

MESA members who are U.S.-based faculty have been impacted by EO-1 and EO-2

and will be impacted by EO-3 because potential students from the designated countries have been
or will be unable to obtain visas to study with them in the United States.
291.

Similarly, MESA’s current U.S.-based students from the banned countries will not be

able to travel abroad for field work with an assurance they will be permitted to reenter, impacting
faculty members’ ability to facilitate quality research and educational opportunities.
292.

Likewise, U.S.-based MESA faculty members will forego opportunities to travel

abroad for research and academic conferences for fear that they will not be readmitted, or will be
subjected to harassment or discrimination upon application for reentry to the United States.
293.

MESA members will also be precluded from traveling to the designated countries for

research or academic conferences when those countries institute reciprocal actions in response to
the executive orders, as Iran has done.

50

JA 524

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 53 of 77
294.

A large number of MESA members are Muslim or are institutional members whose

officers, employees, or members are Muslim.
295.

All three EOs convey an official message of disapproval and hostility toward these

Muslim members, making clear that the government deems them outsiders, not full members of
the political community. This marginalizes them, subjects them to suspicion, scrutiny, and social
and political isolation on the basis of religion and national origin, and inflicts other stigmatic and
dignitary injuries.
296.

MESA itself has been and will be harmed by the EOs. As part of its goal to advance

learning, facilitate communication, and promote cooperation, MESA sponsors an annual meeting
that is a leading international forum for scholarship, intellectual exchange, and pedagogical
innovation. Approximately thirty percent of MESA members are based outside of the United
States and must travel to the United States to attend MESA’s annual conference. MESA expects
that a substantial number of scholars will be unable to attend this year’s meeting because of the
restrictions imposed by EO-2 and EO-3. They will be similarly prevented from attending meetings
in future years because of EO-3.
297.

Moreover, in part because of the stigmatic message of the EOs, many members based

in Europe and the Middle East are likely to heed international calls to boycott academic
conferences in the United States in protest of the orders, including the MESA annual conference.
The absence of these scholars, attributable to the Orders, will have a substantial negative effect on
the meeting.
298.

These and other impacts of the all three EOs will negatively impact MESA’s mission

of fostering the study and public understanding of the Middle East.
299.

In addition, EO-2 has caused and EO-3 will cause serious financial harms to MESA.

A large portion of MESA’s annual budget is funded through annual membership dues and

51

JA 525

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 54 of 77
registration fees to attend the annual meeting. For each individual who cannot or will not attend
the annual meeting, MESA will lose $90-250 in registration fees.
300.

MESA will also suffer other financial injuries related to its annual meeting as a result

of the executive order. Some individuals who cannot or will not attend the meeting will allow
their MESA membership to lapse as a result. For each such lapsed membership, MESA will lose
$25-300 in membership dues.
301.

Plaintiff AAANY has likewise suffered harm due to EO-1 and EO-2 and will continue

to be harmed by EO-3.
302.

AAANY’s mission is to support and empower the Arab-American and Arab immigrant

community by providing the tools its members need to achieve independence, productivity, and
stability. This includes providing immigration services—which amount to one-third of AAANY’s
annual budget—ranging from assistance with asylum applications to preparation for the
naturalization exam. EO-2 and EO-3 undermine AAANY’s mission of helping its clients reunite
with their families and build independent and stable lives in the United States.
303.

Approximately 20% of AAANY’s immigration clients in 2017 are from countries

affected by EO-2 and EO-3. Many of AAANY’s clients have friends and relatives who have been
unable to travel to the United States this year.
304.

More critically, EO-2 and now EO-3 threaten the visa petitions of multiple AAANY

clients who have relatives abroad in difficult or life-threatening situations. At least 20 AAANY
clients have pending visa petitions and therefore will be immediately injured by EO-3, and many
more will be affected as their friends and more distant relatives are unable to come to this country.
305.

These cases, in which AAANY has spent significant resources helping clients petition

for visas for family members, are now in limbo because of EO-3’s indefinite bans.

52

JA 526

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 55 of 77
306.

In addition, AAANY’s clients and staff understand the EOs as official decisions to

impugn Islam. This message has a frightening effect for AAANY’s clients and staff: anti-Muslim
hate crimes have increased and affected many AAANY clients.
307.

Indeed, over the past year, AAANY and its Arab and Muslim clients have had to adapt

to respond to increasingly mainstream Islamophobia. Hate crimes against Muslims in New York
City, particularly against women, have become significantly more common since the federal
government has attempted to ban Muslims and suggested that Muslims are a national problem and
existential threat.
308.

EO-3 will cause serious financial harm to AAANY. The indefinite bans of EO-3 mean

that AAANY will either no longer be able to provide assistance with immigration petitions for
clients from the banned countries (and thus will no longer receive grant support for those legal
service activities), or must expend more resources in each case to file a separate request for a
waiver of the ban.
309.

EO-3 thus puts at risk the DOJ Accredited navigators whom AAANY employs to assist

its clients in filing immigration applications, and who refer clients with complex cases to
immigration attorneys for consultation and further aid.
310.

YAMA and its members have likewise been significantly harmed by EO-1 and EO-2,

and will be by EO-3.
311.

YAMA members experienced harassment following candidate Trump’s anti-Muslim

statements. The harassment and become worse after EO-1 was issued and many members reported
being victims of almost daily anti-Islamic slurs and comments.
312.

YAMA members were also separated from close family members because of EO-1 and

EO-2. Now, as a result of EO-3, some YAMA members who have filed visa petitions and are
awaiting the arrival of close family members will now have to wait indefinitely.

53

JA 527

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 56 of 77
313.

Many YAMA members fear that their close family members are in danger—and will

be in indefinite danger if they are barred from reuniting with family the U.S.—because Yemen is
presently in the midst of war.
314.

YAMA’s mission of helping Yemeni-American business owners with immigration-

related issues will also be harmed by a ban that prevents its members from pursuing visa petitions
to reunite with family members.
315.

Plaintiff John Doe #1, a lawful permanent resident, has suffered and will continue to

suffer harm because of the EOs. In August 2016, while John Doe #1’s application to become a
lawful permanent resident was pending, he married an Iranian national who lives in Iran. He
applied for a visa on her behalf, and her application was approved on November 3, 2016. At the
time EO-1 went into effect, John Doe #1 expected his wife’s interview to be scheduled within no
more than six weeks based on information published by the National Visa Center. It took until
June for John Doe #1’s wife to receive her visa; she traveled to the United States to reunite with
John Doe #1 in July.
316.

EO-1 and EO-2 created significant fear, anxiety and insecurity for John Doe #1 and his

wife regarding their future. John Doe #1 felt like he was being forced to choose between his career
and being together with his wife, who was banned from entering the country.
317.

EO-3 likewise demonizes John Doe #1 and his family for coming from a Muslim

country. EO-3 makes John Doe #1 feel unwelcome and sends a clear message that the U.S.
government does not want him here.
318.

Plaintiff John Doe #3, a lawful permanent resident, has suffered and will continue to

suffer harm because of the EOs. John Doe #3 recently applied to become a naturalized citizen,
and that petition remains pending with USCIS.

54

JA 528

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 57 of 77
319.

In the summer of 2014, John Doe #3 married a national of Iran. In October 2014, John

Doe #3 applied for an immigration visa on her behalf. Approximately 19 months later, in May
2016, she had her interview at the U.S. Embassy. At that time, she was informed that her
documentation was complete and she needed to wait for administrative processing, but that she
should be able to join her husband in two to three months. Because of the issuance of EO-1 and
EO-2, she did not receive her visa until May 2017. John Doe #3’s wife has since moved to the
United States to join him, and they have not traveled since because they are afraid, in light of the
EOs, that if they leave the country, they might not be let back in.
320.

EO-2 and EO-3 make John Doe #3 feel like the U.S. government does not welcome

Muslims in this country (or people President Trump thinks are Muslim) under the assumption that
everyone who comes from Iran is an Islamic terrorist.
321.

Because of EO-3, if he and his wife start a family, none of his family members, like his

parents, who are Iranian citizens, will be able to travel here to visit and see the new life John Doe
#3 is making here in the United State.
322.

All three orders contribute to his fear of attacks like the shooting in Kansas, where two

Indian immigrants were shot and one was killed by a white man motivated by hate.
323.

John Doe #4, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because of

the EOs. In December 2015, John Doe married an Iranian citizen. He filed an I-130 petition on
her behalf in March 2016, and in May 2017, she had her visa interview at the U.S. Embassy. At
the interview, the consular officer assured that everything was fine and that she should check a
specific website in about a month for her case number. It has now been months since her interview
date, her case number has not appeared on the website, and her visa has not been issued.
324.

John Doe #4 does not know what he will do once his wife is subject to EO-3. Being

apart from his wife is excruciatingly difficult for him and and affects his ability to focus and

55

JA 529

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 58 of 77
concentrate for his job. He and his wife want to start a family, and he feels like the government is
forcing him to choose between the United States, where he has built his entire life, and his wife
and the family they would like to have.
325.

John Doe #4 thought he had escaped government sponsorship of religion once he left

Iran. He felt insulted by EO-1, which he understood as an attempt to ban Muslims. Ever since
EO-1 was issued, he has noticed that he gets more suspicious looks from people and he has been
labeled as a Muslim more often.
326.

John Doe #4 continues to feel demeaned by EO-3, the latest version of the

government’s Muslim ban, because it is still about keeping people out of the United States because
of their religion.
327.

John Doe #5, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because of

all three orders. When war broke out in Yemen in 2015, his mother and grandmother, who has
Alzheimer’s Disease, fled from Yemen to Jordan. Shortly thereafter, John Doe #5 filed an I-130
petition on his mother’s behalf, and his uncle, who is also a U.S. citizen, did the same for John
Doe #5’s grandmother. Both I-130 petitions for John Doe #5’s mother and grandmother are
approved and they are waiting for interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan.
328.

When EO-1 issued, John Doe #5 was reminded of what he had left behind in Yemen.

He came to the United States to search for freedom, justice, and opportunity, but the EOs violate
those principles.
329.

Since EO-1 was issued, John Doe #5 has heard anti-Islamic comments more frequently,

and he or someone he knows is exposed to anti-Islamic harassment almost weekly. He feels that
EO-3 exacerbates this problem because it normalizes Islamophobia and legitimizes the bad things
that people say about Muslims, as well as anti-Muslim violence, and even encourages such

56

JA 530

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 59 of 77
statements and acts. He considers EO-3 to be even worse than EO-1 because it has no end date
and he has no way of knowing when the government will stop targeting him and his family.
330.

Plaintif Jane Doe #2, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm

because of the orders. Her family-based visa petition for her sister, who is a Syrian refugee
currently living on the Saudi Arabia-Yemen border, has been approved, meaning that Jane Doe
#2’s sister can either wait for a visa to become available or seek resettlement through the U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
331.

If EO-3 goes fully into effect, Jane Doe #2’s sister will be barred from obtaining a visa.

As Syrian refugees, Jane Doe #2’s sister and her family are eligible and qualify for the Priority-2
Direct Access Program for Iraqi and Syrian Beneficiaries of Form I-130 Petition for Alien
Relatives. But she will have little chance of traveling to the United States as a refugee given EO2’s suspension of USRAP and the high likelihood that Syrian refugees will continued to be barred
from entry to the United States.
332.

Jane Doe #2’s sister, who is Muslim, was internally displaced within Syria in 2012,

when continuous bombing of her neighborhood forced her and her family to move to her parentin-laws with nothing more than their passports and the clothes on their backs. They subsequently
fled to Yemen after learning that the Syrian government’s selective service would be expanded to
include men over the age of 30, which would include her husband.
333.

As a result of the war in Yemen, Jane Doe #2’s sister and her family had to flee again,

this time to Saudi Arabia, where they now live in a refugee hotel close to the border of Yemen.
Because the hotel is infested with bugs and human refuse from the bathroom in the unit above
theirs leaks into their room, Jane Doe #2’s sister and her family are constantly sick and her children
regularly vomit. Jane Doe #2’s brother-in-law is often away trying to find work and earn money
because, as a refugee, he is often cheated out of benefits or wages and he has no recourse. While

57

JA 531

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 60 of 77
he is gone, Jane Doe #2’s sister is unable to leave the apartment where they are staying in the
daytime. As a result, her children did not believe that the sun rose and set in Saudi Arabia because
the room that they are staying in does not have any windows and they only leave the room at night
on the few occasions when their father is home. They remain under constant threat from nearby
rocket file and military conflict; they hear shelling every day.
334.

Jane Doe #2’s sister is running out of options if she is indefinitely banned from the

United States by EO-3. The Saudi Arabian government regularly turns off the power to the
building there they live with other refugees in order to make life so intolerable that they will leave.
Jane Doe #2’s sister constantly fears that the government will evict the refugees in her building,
as they have done elsewhere, or else so increase the visa fees charged to refugees that she will need
to lose her legal status. If she is evicted or loses her status and remains banned from the United
States by EO-3, her only option is to go to Mecca and become homeless with her children.
335.

Given the terrible living conditions in which her sister’s family lives, Jane Doe #2 was

devastated when she learned about EO-3. She understands all three EOs as fulfilling the promises
President Trump made when he was a candidate to condemn her religion. Ever since the first ban
was issued, she has been bullied because of her hijab and she continually doubts that she and her
family will have equal opportunities because of their religion. The bans remind her of things the
Syrian government would do when they wanted to strip away your rights; these kinds of actions
are why she fled Syria. She and her husband question whether they should remain in the United
States or pursue other options because they do not want their children to be discriminated against
or to think that they are wrong because of the way everyone looks at them.
336.

Plaintiff Meteab, a lawful permanent resident, has also suffered and will continue to

suffer harm because of the EOs. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mr. Meteab and his four
brothers all cooperated with the U.S. military in helping to establish the transitional government,

58

JA 532

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 61 of 77
in the wake of the conflict in Najaf, Iraq. Because of their cooperation with the U.S. government,
they were targeted and threatened by armed militia groups in Iraq.
337.

Mr. Meteab is a Sunni Muslim, as are his brothers. In Iraq, they lived together in a

Shi’a neighborhood.

In 2013, Mr. Meteab and his family were warned by neighbors and

community members that if they failed to leave the area, their family would be killed. In 2013,
Mr. Meteab’s nephew Mosad was shot in the leg. After this, on December 25, 2013, Mr. Meteab’s
older brother fled to Jordan with his children and two of his nephews, including Mosad. Mr.
Meteab and his wife and children joined them in Jordan on January 5, 2014. Mr. Meteab’s three
other brothers also fled to Jordan in 2014. All of them applied for and received recognition as
refugees from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
338.

In August 2015, after being approved as a refugee, Mr. Meteab came to the United

States with his wife and children. His three other brothers, Ali, Abdulateef, and Ahmed, have been
approved as refugees but remain in Jordan awaiting resettlement. Abdulateef was approved for
resettlement in Canada but is awaiting final clearance. Mr. Meteab’s brothers Ali and Ahmed,
were approved for resettlement in the United States.
339.

In November 2016, Mr. Meteab’s brothers Ali and Ahmed were told by the

International Organization for Migration that while their refugee applications had been approved,
they still did not have travel documents to come to the United States. Jewish Family Services
notified Plaintiff Meteab’s family of this update at the same time. When Mr. Meteab’s brothers
learned about EO-1, they realized it would prevent them from joining him in the United States.
340.

Since EO-1 was issued, Mr. Meteab and his family have felt afraid because they are

Muslim and feel like the EOs have encouraged other people to discriminate against Muslims. His
wife, who wears a hijab, does not like to go out in public alone, and his children’s teachers have
expressed concern for how his children are treated at school because they are Muslim. Mr. Meteab

59

JA 533

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 62 of 77
has noticed that he and his family get more suspicious looks from people in public since EO-1 was
issued, and his wife has been harassed so many times taking their children to school that he is
considering moving his family to another area.
341.

Mr. Meteab feels that EO-3, like its predecessor orders, is a tool for discrimination

against Muslims, and he continues to feel personally targeted in this way.
342.

Plaintiff Mashta, a United States lawful permanent resident, has also suffered and will

continue to suffer harm because of the EOs. Although the immigrant visa petition he filed on
behalf of his Syrian wife has been approved and she completed her interview in July this year, she
has not yet received her visa. According to the State Department’s monthly visa bulletin, a visa is
currently available for her, but Mr. Mashta fears she is being unfairly processed because she is a
practicing Muslim, as is he. Now she is indefinitely banned from entering the country to reunite
with him by EO-3.
343.

Being separated from his wife is depressing and painful for Mr. Mashta. He has

struggled during the two years that they have been apart, and sometimes he loses hope that they
will ever be together. He feels like the ban is making him choose between the country that is his
home and being with his wife.
344.

The announcement of EO-1 in January devastated Mr. Mashta. He could not sleep and

could not work. Now he will always remember the date EO-3 was signed, September 24, because
it was so painful to learn that his wife will be banned indefinitely. He continues to have trouble
sleeping because of EO-3 and has had to take time off work. He constantly worries about what
will happen to him and his wife, and the ban has left him feeling scared, depressed, and anxious.
He fears his wife may never get her visa.
345.

To Mr. Mashta, the President’s bans say that Muslims are not welcome in the country,

and that the government does not want Muslims here. He feels like he and his wife are being

60

JA 534

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 63 of 77
accused of being terrorists for no reason, and that Muslims like him cannot get along with other
people in America. These accusations are wrong and hurtful. This message of the ban—that
Muslims like Mr. Mashta are bad people unless proven otherwise—affects conversations he has
all the time. He feels a lot of pressure to defend himself and other Muslims, to prove to people
that he is not bad. He never felt that way before EO-1 was issued.
346.

Plaintiff Amirjamshidi, a United States citizen, has also suffered and will continue to

suffer harm because of the EOs. For the past seven years, her mother has been able to apply for
and receive twelve visitor visas to come to the United States from Canada to visit Ms.
Amirjamshidi’s family. The most recent visa petition, however, has been pending for over a year.
Now, if EO-3 goes into effect, it will indefinitely ban Ms. Amirjamshidi’s mother from coming to
the United States to see her family.
347.

Although Ms. Amirjamshidi and her family speak with her mother on the phone every

day, that is no substitute for being in the same place and spending time together, especially not for
Ms. Amirjamshidi’s young son. Ms. Amirjamshidi thinks it is unfair and cruel to keep a child and
his grandmother apart like this.
348.

In addition, Ms. Amirjamshidi is now pregnant with her second child, which makes the

separation from her mother even worse. She cannot stand the idea of her mother not being able to
visit while she is pregnant, for the birth, or to meet her new grandchild. Nor will she be able to
rely on support and help from her mother after the new baby comes, like so many new mothers do.
Every day Ms. Amirjamshidi and her mother are kept apart is painful and unfair.
349.

In addition, the EOs make Ms. Amirjamshidi feel singled and condemned just because

of who she is. She understands the EOs as an attempt to put in place at least part of the Muslim
ban he promised when he was a candidate. The EOs send the message that Muslims like Ms.
Amirjamshidi are not welcome in this country and that Muslim communities are bad or dangerous.

61

JA 535

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 64 of 77
EO-3 means the same thing to her as the earlier orders: it is another attempt to make sure that
Muslims such as she are viewed as different from other Americans, and sends the message that
Muslims should be singled out for worse treatment.
350.

Mr. Shirani, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because of the

EOs.
351.

In 2004, Mr. Shirani moved back to Iran to marry and live with his wife, an Iranian

national. In 2016, Mr. Shirani became more sick following complications from a tumor in his
inner ear and moved back to the United States to seek medical treatment. Mr. Shirani filed an I130 petition for his wife to join him here. The petition was approved, and his wife had her visa
interview in February 2017. Mr. Shirani knows of no reason why his wife would not be eligible
for a visa. Her visa application is currently in administrative processing.
352.

Mr. Shirani suffers severe emotional injury as a result of the forced separation from his

wife of over 13 years. He is seriously ill and needs her to care for him. He is also sad and frustrated
to be apart from her while dealing with his medical condition.
353.

Mr. Shirni believes he has been treated with more suspicion and discriminated against

as a Muslim because of the EOs. EO-3 makes him feel even worse because the travel ban is now
indefinite.
354.

Ms. Ziaolhagh, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because of

the EOs. Ms. Ziaolhagh moved from Iran to the U.S. in 2008 on an employer-sponsored visa with
her husband and younger son. She was unable to bring her older sons to the U.S. at the time
because they were over 21. One of her sons later came to the United States on a visa, but the older
one has remained alone in Iran. She filed an I-130 petition for him in 2009.
355.

Ms. Ziaolhagh’s I-130 petition was approved, but she and her family knew there would

be a long wait for his priority date to become current. The family decided it was worth the wait,

62

JA 536

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 65 of 77
and during the waiting period, Ms. Ziaolhagh’s older son decided not to get married and not to
travel because the family feared that it could delay or hurt his visa application.
356.

Ms. Ziaolhagh’s older son’s priority date became current in December 2016, and he

had his visa interview in May 2017. His visa is now in administrative processing. Ms. Ziaolhagh
knows of no reason why his visa should not be issued, and she expects it to issue soon if EO-3
does not go into effect.
357.

The continued, and now potentially indefinite separation, from her son is devastating

for Ms. Ziaolhagh. Her older son now lives alone in Iran. All of his immediate family members
are in the United States. As a mother, Ms. Ziaolhagh constantly thinks of her son, and the pain of
separation is especially unbearable at holidays when the entire family should be together.
358.

Ms. Ziaolhagh is also injured by the EOs’ message to Muslims. She wears a head scarf

and notices that people have given her more looks since EO-1; she feels that EO-3 sends the same
message, but is even worse because it imposes an indefinite ban.
359.

Ms. Khazaeli, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because of

the EOs. Ms. Khazaeli moved to the United States in 1977 with her husband, who entered on a
student visa. In 2014, Ms. Khazaeli’s husband was diagnosed with liposarcoma, a rare form of
cancer. In December 2016, Ms. Khazaeli received the devastating news that her husband’s
prognosis was terminal.
360.

Ms. Khazaeli’s sister, an Iranian national, had previously vistited the United States. In

January 2017, Ms. Khazaeli’s sister’s visa application to visit the United States for a second time
was approved. Because of EO-1, Ms. Khazaeli’s sister was not able to secure a visa appointment
at an embassy. Since EO-1 went into effect, the availability of visa interview slots has virtually
disappeared. Ms Khazaeli’s sister has made active efforts to secure a visa appointment, including
by hiring a travel agent to go to embassies in different countries to apply for a new visa on her

63

JA 537

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 66 of 77
behalf. These efforts have been unsuccessful, and now because of EO-3, it is unlikely that Ms.
Khazaeli’s sister will be able to obtain a visa.
361.

Without a visa, Ms. Khazaeli’s sister will be unable to say goodbye to her brother-in-

law or see him before he dies. Ms. Khazaeli will also be deprived of her sister’s support and
assistance as she deals with her husband’s terminal illness.
362.

Ms. Khazaeli feels like a second-class citizen as a result of the EOs. Her family has

done everything it can to support the United States. Ms. Khazaeli’s son has served for over a
decade as a federal counter-terrorism prosecutor, holding positions with both the Department of
Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Ms. Khazaeli’s daughter currently serves as a
state prosecutor, prosecuting felony cases with child victims. Ms. Khazaeli’s husband has been a
professor for over 30 years at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. In 2017, her husband
was awarded the Martin Luther King Jr. Faculty Humanitarian award. Ms. Khazaeli believes her
family has been betrayed by the EOs, which have effectively legalized discrimination against
Muslims.
363.

Ms. Khazaeli has owned a sewing store for 30 years. She was accosted by a customer

because of her religion for the first time after EO-1 was issued.
364.

The EOs conveys an official

message of disapproval and hostility toward the

Individual Plaintiffs and their families, making clear that the government deems them outsiders or
second-class citizens who are not full members of the political community. This marginalizes
them, subjects them to suspicion, scrutiny, and social and political isolation on the basis of religion
and national origin, and inflicts other stigmatic and dignitary injuries.
Class Allegations
365.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b) (1) and (b) (2), on behalf of themselves and all other persons in the United States for whom

64

JA 538

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 67 of 77
EO-2 or EO-3 either interferes with family reunification or the ability to travel internationally and
return to the United States. This class includes:
a. Individuals in the United States who currently have an approved or pending petition to
the United States government to be reunited with family members who are nationals of
banned countries, or who will soon file such petition;
b. Refugees in the United States who have currently pending, or will soon file, a petition
to the United States government to be reunited with family members; and
c. Nationals of banned countries who reside in the United States and who wish to travel
abroad and return to United States or who, prior to issuance of EO-3, did travel abroad
with the intent to return and are currently abroad.
366.

Separate Subclasses may be appropriate for the Class defined in the preceding

paragraph for individuals affected by EO-2 and EO-3.
367.

The Plaintiff Class, including potential Subclasses, is so numerous that joinder is

impracticable.
368.

According to the Annual Report of the Visa Office, in 2015, the last year for which

data are available, the United States issued approximately 80,000 immigrant and non-immigrant
visas to nationals from the six countries banned by EO-2.
369.

The U.S. government previously estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 people

were affected by Section 3(c) of EO-1 while it was in effect.
370.

The claims of the Plaintiff Class and Subclass members share common issues of law,

including but not limited to whether the EOs violate their associational, religious exercise and due
process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

65

JA 539

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 68 of 77
371.

The claims of the Plaintiff Class and Subclass members share common issues of fact,

including but not limited to whether the EOs are being or will be enforced so as to prevent them
or their family members from entering the United States from abroad or from re-entering the
United States should they choose to leave the United States briefly, even though they would
otherwise be admissible.
372.

The claims or defenses of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of

members of the Plaintiff Class and Subclasses.
373.

The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff

Class and Subclasses. The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may be potentially
antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiff Class and Subclasses. The attorneys representing the
named Plaintiffs include experienced civil rights attorneys who are considered able practitioners
in federal constitutional litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
374.

Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally

applicable to the Plaintiff Class and Subclasses, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory
relief appropriate to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class and potential Subclasses may
therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
375.

Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class and

Subclasses would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish
incompatible standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff
Class and Subclasses may therefore be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Establishment Clause, First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
376.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
66

JA 540

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 69 of 77
377.

Both EO-2 and EO-3 violate the Establishment Clause by singling out Muslims for

disfavored treatment. Both orders have the purpose and effect of inhibiting religion, and neither
is justified by, nor closely fitted to, any compelling governmental interest.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
378.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

379.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that

“No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The
Clause contains an equal protection component.
380.

EO-2 and EO-3 discriminate on the basis of religion, national origin, and race—each a

suspect classification—and are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,
and thereby violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.
381.

Additionally, EO-2 and EO-3 were substantially motivated by an intent to discriminate

against Muslims, on whom the orders have a disparate effect, in further violation of the equal
protection component of the Due Process Clause.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Procedural Due Process, Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
382.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
383.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides

that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
384.

Congress has created statutory rights related to the petitioning for and issuance of visas

and other immigration benefits.
385.

Federal agencies have created regulatory rights related to the petitioning for and

issuance of visas and other immigration benefits.

67

JA 541

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 70 of 77
386.

Individuals must be given due process prior to any deprivation of these statutory and

regulatory rights.
387.

Additionally, United States citizens and lawful permanent residents have cognizable

liberty interests in family reunification and in the ability of their family members to travel to the
United States.
388.

Individuals must be given due process prior to any deprivation of these liberty

interests.
389.

EO-2 and EO-3 deprive affected individuals, including Plaintiffs and their members

or clients, of the aforementioned statutory and regulatory rights, and of the aforementioned liberty
interests, and without due process.
390.

EO-2 and EO-3 thus violate the procedural due process guarantee of the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Immigration and Nationality Act & Administrative Procedure Act)
391.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
392.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides, with certain exceptions not applicable

here, that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the
issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place
of residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
393.

EO-2 and EO-3 on their face purport to delay and/or deny entry and/or visas to the

family members of Individual Plaintiffs and the members, clients, and employees of the
organizational Plaintiffs because of their nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence, in
violation of § 1152(a)(1)(A).

68

JA 542

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 71 of 77
394.

EO-2 and EO-3 on their face purport to deny or delay applications because Plaintiffs’

family members’ nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence, in violation of §
1152(a)(1)(A).
395.

EO-2 and EO-3 on their face mandate discrimination against those who apply for

and/or hold immigrant visas on the basis of their nationality, place of birth, and/or place of
residence, in violation of § 1152(a)(1)(A).
396.

The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, constitute final agency action and are

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Immigration and Nationality Act & Administrative Procedure Act)
397.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
398.

The Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth a comprehensive, Congressionally

enacted scheme for immigration and admission to the United States. Among other things, it
establishes criteria for the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and it specifies the
grounds on which an alien may be found ineligible for a visa or admission.
399.

The INA also allows the President to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of

aliens, “for such period” as deemed necessary, whenever the President “finds that the entry of any
aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the
United States.” 8 U.S.C. §1182(f).
400.

EO-2 and EO-3 exceed the Executive’s authority under the INA, including under 8

U.S.C. § 1182(f).
69

JA 543

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 72 of 77
401.

The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, constitute final agency action and are

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.)
402.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
403.

EO-2 and EO-3 have had and/or will have the effect of imposing a special disability

on the basis of religious views or religious status, by denying or impeding Muslim Plaintiffs, on
account of their religion, from accessing benefits relating to their own or their family members’
immigration status.
404.

In doing so, EO-2 and EO-3 place a substantial burden on Muslims’ exercise of

religion in a way that is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental
interest.
405.

This substantial burden is not imposed in furtherance of a compelling governmental

interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, in
violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Refugee Act & Administrative Procedure Act)

70

JA 544

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 73 of 77
406.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
407.

EO-2 purported to limit the number of refugees who could be admitted in fiscal year

2017 to 50,000, despite an earlier proclamation setting a limit of 110,000, in violation of the
Refugee Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(2).
408.

President Trump did not engage in “appropriate consultation” prior to altering the

number and allocation of refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017, in violation of the Refugee Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1157.
409.

EO-2 made other alterations to the refugee admission process that were not authorized

by the Refugee Act and are in violation of the Refugee Act.
410.

EO-3 could similarly ban the entry of refugees from the affected countries.

411.

The actions of Defendants that have been undertaken pursuant to Section 6 of EO-2,

as set forth above, constitute final agency action and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Administrative Procedure Act)
412.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
413.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by EO-2 and EO-3, as set

forth above, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

71

JA 545

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 74 of 77
414.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by EO-2 and EO-3, as set

forth above, are contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, including rights
protected by the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).
415.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by EO-2 and EO-3, as set

forth above, are in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory
right, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
416.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by EO-2 and EO-3, as set

forth above, were without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officials, agents,

employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from implementing
or enforcing any portion of EO-2 or EO-3;
B.

A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that EO-2 and EO-3 are, in their entirety,

unlawful and invalid;
C.

An order awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses

pursuant to any applicable law;
D.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Esther Sung
Karen C. Tumlin†
Nicholas Espíritu†
Melissa S. Keaney†

Dated: October 5, 2017

Omar C. Jadwat†
Lee Gelernt†
Hina Shamsi†
72

JA 546

Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 203 Filed 10/05/17 Page 75 of 77
Esther Sung†
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Justin B. Cox (Bar No. 17550)
National Immigration Law Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Hugh Handeyside†
Sarah L. Mehta†
David Hausman††
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Cecillia D. Wang†
Cody H. Wofsy†
Spencer E. Amdur†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Cole†
Daniel Mach†
Heather L. Weaver†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Rocah (Bar No. 27315)
Deborah A. Jeon (Bar No. 06905)
Sonia Kumar (Bar No. 07196)
Nicholas Taichi Steiner (Bar
No.19670)
American Civil Liberties Union
73

JA 547

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 1, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
Joint Appendix with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users, and service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF
system.
/s/ Sharon Swingle
Sharon Swingle