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]
Nos. 17-2231 (L), 17-2232, 17-2233, 17-2240 (Consolidated)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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; JOHN DOES # 1 & 3; JANE
DOE #2; MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., on behalf of itself
and its members; MUHAMMED METEAB; PAUL HARRISON; IBRAHIM AHMED MOHOMED;
ARAB AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, on behalf of itself and its clients,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and
ALLAN HAKKY; SAMANEH TAKALOO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF STATE; OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; ELAINE DUKE in her official capacity as Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security; REX TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State;
DANIEL R. COATS, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence,
Defendants – Appellants.
No. 17-2231 (L)
(8:17-cv-00361-TDC)
[Caption continued on inside cover]
JOINT APPENDIX – VOLUME 2
NOEL J. FRANCISCO
Solicitor General
JEFFREY B. WALL
EDWIN S. KNEEDLER
Deputy Solicitors General
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
STEPHEN M. SCHENNING
Acting United States Attorney
HASHIM M. MOOPPAN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
DOUGLAS N. LETTER
SHARON SWINGLE
H. THOMAS BYRON III
LOWELL V. STURGILL JR.
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7241
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 353-2689
IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS BORDERS; JANE DOE #1; JANE DOE #2; JANE DOE #3; JANE
DOE #4; JANE DOE #5; JANE #6,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; ELAINE C. DUKE, in
her official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official
capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; JAMES MCCAMENT, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; REX TILLERSON;
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States,
Defendants – Appellants.
No. 17-2232
(8:17-cv-02921-TDC)
EBLAL ZAKZOK; SUMAYA HAMADMAD; FAHED MUQBIL; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2;
JOHN DOE #3,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
ELAINE C. DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; REX
TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State,
Defendants – Appellants.
No. 17-2233
(1:17-cv-02969-TDC)
_________________________
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; JOHN DOES #1 AND 3;
JANE DOE #2; MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., on behalf of
itself and its members; MUHAMMED METEAB; ARAB AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEW
YORK, on behalf of itself and its clients,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and PAUL HARRISON; IBRAHIM AHMED MOHOMED; ALLAN HAKKY; SAMANEH TAKALOO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; 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 TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State;
DANIEL R. COATS, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence,
Defendants – Appellees.
_________________________
No. 17-2240
(8:17-cv-00361-TDC)
_________________________
JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
Page(s)
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,
No. 8:17-cv-00361, D. Md.:
Docket entries, No. 8:17-cv-00361 ...................................................................... JA 1
Exhibits to Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
or Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 95, March 11, 2017):
2d Decl. of Rebecca Heller,
(Dkt. No 95-1) .............................................................................................. JA 51
Decl. of Mark Hetfield
(Dkt. No. 95-2) ............................................................................................. JA 61
Decl. of Beth Baron,
(Dkt. No. 95-3) ............................................................................................. JA 86
Decl. of John Doe #1,
(Dkt. No. 95-4) ............................................................................................. JA 93
Decl. of John Doe #3,
(Dkt. No. 95-5) ............................................................................................. JA 97
Decl. of Mohammed Meteab,
(Dkt. No. 95-6) ........................................................................................... JA 101
Decl. of Jane Doe #2,
(Dkt. No. 95-7) ........................................................................................... JA 105
Decl. of Ibrahim Admed Mohomed,
(Dkt. No. 95-8) ........................................................................................... JA 110
Decl. of Paul Harrison,
(Dkt. No. 95-9) ........................................................................................... JA 112
Decl. of David Hausman, with Exhibits
(Dkt. No. 95-10 – 95-12) ........................................................................... JA 116
Order Granting Leave to File Second Am. Compl.
(Dkt. No. 201, Oct. 4, 2017) ......................................................................... JA 471
Second Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 203, Oct. 5, 2017) .......................................... JA 473
VOLUME 2
IRAP Exhibits to Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(Dkt. No. 205-1, Oct. 6, 2017):
Decl. of Grannaz Amirjamshidi, .................................................................. JA 548
Supp. Decl. of Beth Baron ........................................................................... JA 555
Decl. of Rama Issa-Ibrahim .......................................................................... JA 562
2d Decl. of John Doe #1 ............................................................................... JA 571
Decl. of John Doe #5 .................................................................................... JA 573
3d Decl. of Rebecca Heller .......................................................................... JA 576
2d Decl. of Jane Doe #2 ............................................................................... JA 581
2d Decl. of John Doe #3 ............................................................................... JA 585
Decl. of John Doe #4 .................................................................................... JA 587
Decl. of Afsaneh Khazaeli ............................................................................ JA 590
Decl. of Mohamad Mashta ........................................................................... JA 594
Decl. of Mohammed Meteab ........................................................................ JA 599
Decl. of Shapour Shirani .............................................................................. JA 602
Decl. of Fakhri Ziaolhagh............................................................................. JA 605
Decl. of Abdul Mubarez ............................................................................... JA 608
Supp. Decl. of David Hausman,
with Exhibit List and Exhibits ...................................................................... JA 614
Joint Decl. of Former National Security Officials
(Dkt. No. 211-1, Oct. 11, 2017) ................................................................... JA 892
Tr. of Prelim. Inj. Hearing (Oct. 16, 2017) ...................................................... JA 904
Mem. Op. (Dkt. No. 219, Oct. 17, 2017) ......................................................... JA 993
Order (Dkt. No. 220, Oct. 17, 2017) .............................................................. JA 1084
Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 223, Oct. 20, 2017)............................................ JA 1087
Notice of Cross-Appeal (Dkt. No. 229, Oct.. 23, 2017) ................................ JA 1090
ii
VOLUME 3
Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump,
No. 8:17-cv-02921 D. Md.:
Docket entries, No. 8:17-cv-02921 ................................................................ JA 1095
Amend. Compl. (Dkt. No. 37, Oct. 12, 2017) ............................................... JA 1112
Exhibits to Attchmt. 2, Suppl. Mem. in Supp. of Mot for Prelim. Inj.
(Dkt. No. 26-2, Oct. 6, 2017):
Ex. 1, Decl. of Mana Kharrazi
(Dkt. No. 26-3) ...................................................................................... JA 1150
Ex. 2, Decl. of Jane Doe #1,
(Dkt. No. 26-4) ..................................................................................... JA 1157
Ex. 3, Decl. of Jane Doe #2,
(Dkt. No. 26-5) ..................................................................................... JA 1162
Ex. 4, Decl. of Jane Doe #3,
(Dkt. No. 26-6) .................................................................................... JA 1165
Ex. 5, Decl. of Jane Doe #5,
(Dkt. No. 26-7) .................................................................................... JA 1170
Ex. 6, Decl. of John Doe #6,
(Dkt. No. 26-8) .................................................................................... JA 1174
Attachments to Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to File Two
Additional Decls. (Dkt. No. 38-2, Oct. 13, 2017):
Ex. A, Decl. of Naseem Pashai,
(Dkt. No. 38-3) ...................................................................................... JA 1178
Ex. B, Decl. of Wallace Loh,
(Dkt. No. 38-4) ..................................................................................... JA 1184
Ex. C, email exchange among counsel,
(Dkt. No. 38-5) ..................................................................................... JA 1196
Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 50, Oct. 20, 2017).............................................. JA 1198
iii
Zakzok v. Trump,
No. 8:17-cv-02969 D. Md.:
Docket entries, No. 8:17-cv-02969, D. Md. .................................................. JA 1201
Compl. (Dkt. No. 1, Oct 6, 2017) .................................................................. JA 1214
Attachments to Mem. in Support of Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(Dkt. No. 6, Oct 10, 2017):
Decl. of Fahed Muqbil,
(Dkt. No. 6-1) ....................................................................................... JA 1244
Decl. of Eblal Zakzok,
(Dkt. No. 6-2) ...................................................................................... JA 1249
Decl. of Sumaya Hamadmad,
(Dkt. No. 6-3) ...................................................................................... JA 1254
Decl. of John Doe #1,
(Dkt. No. 6-4) ...................................................................................... JA 1259
Decl. of Jane Doe #2,
(Dkt. No. 6-5) ...................................................................................... JA 1263
Decl. of Jane Doe #3,
(Dkt. No. 6-6) ...................................................................................... JA 1268
Decl. of Stephen Herzog, with Exhibit List, and Exhibits 1-14
(Dkt. No. 33-1 – 33-15, Oct. 14, 2017) ................................................ JA 1270
Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 40, Oct. 20, 2017).............................................. JA 1494
iv
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DECLARATION OF GRANNAZ
AMIRJAMSHIDI
DONALD TRUMP, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
DECLARATION OF GRANNAZ AMIRJAMSHIDI
I, Grannaz Ami1jamshidi, npon my personal knowledge, hereby snbmit this declaration
pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin.
2.
I submitted a prior declaration dated September 7, 2017, in snpport of a motion to
add plaintiffs filed in this case in the U.S. Supreme Court. That declaration, attached as Exhibit
A, is incorporated herein by reference.
3.
The new Proclamation signed on September 24 means the same thing to me as the
earlier orders. I see the ban as the same message that Muslims should be singled out for worse
treatment, and another attempt to make sure we are viewed as different from other Americans.
I
J.R. 421
JA 548
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 2 of 344
4.
The new ban is even worse because there is no end date, which means that my
mother could indefinitely be banned from visiting us. This is even harder to imagine. Not being
able to have my mother here to help take care of our toddler while we are in the hospital will be
very hard on me and my husband. This is absolutely not fair and not cotTect.
I declare under penalty of pe1jury and under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
*
is tme and co!Tect. Executed in --'/=-"~fi-'--.,·_,,·!""r.J""f;'1"'·i~::_ on October _J_ , 2017
L.
1 .
(
/'
Gfannaz Arilirj amshidi
2
J.R. 422
JA 549
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 3 of 344
EXHIBIT A
J.R. 423
JA 550
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 4 of 344
DECLARATION OF GRANNAZ AMIRJAMSHTDI
I. Grannaz Amirjamshidi, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
l.
lam a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin, and I live in Campbell, California with my
husband and 20-month-old son, who are both U.S. citizens.
2.
I work in San Jose, California, as an engineer manager at a manufacturing
company. I have a Master' s degree in Operations Management
3.
I came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2009 as part of the
annual diversity visa lottery. At that time my husband and I were Iranian citizens living in
Sweden, where I was studying.
r applied to naruralize as soon as I was allowed to.
4.
My mother is an Iranian citizen.
5.
My mother lives in Toronto, Canada. From the time I moved to the United States
up until last year, she would regularly travel to the United States to visit me. She applied for and
received tourist visas 12 times during seven years. Her applications were always granted until
last year. Sometimes her applications would be granted quickly, in a matter of days. But more
recent applications took months to process and grant.
6.
My mother' s most recent visa application was in 2016. She attended her
interview oo July 1•, 2016, and was told that her application had been accepted and she should
wait to be proc.essed. We have regularly contacted the embassy for updates, and have been told
the case is being processed. Most recently, in April 2017, the embassy told my mother that her
application ''remains pending." We do not know of any reason why she would be denied a
tourist visa, which she has applied for and received many times before. Her visits would always
be from a couple of days to a couple of weeks, never to exceed her visa expiration date.
J.R. 424
JA 551
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 5 of 344
7.
My mother comes to the United States primarily to visit me and my family. We
are very close, and we talk on the phone at least once a day. But that kind of communication is
just not the same as being in the same place and spending time together. I miss her and it is
painful not to be able to see her.
8.
Even worse is the separation of my mother and my son. I want her to see him
grow up and to spend lime with him, and for him to get to know his grandmother. But phone
calls and internet video cannot take the place of being together, especially for ayouog child like
my son. I think it is unfair, cmel, and unacceptable to keep a child and his grandmother apart
like this.
9.
Having my mocher come to '~sit is also very important as a support to my
husband and me in raising our son. We do not have family in the area we live. When my mother
is here, she can help with childcare, giving my husband and me a break and allo'>'~ng us to save
money on expensive child care. Without her visits, we are on our own.
10.
Tt is extremely difficult for us to visit my mother, especially for any significant
period of time. My husband and I both have demanding work schedules, making it next to
impossible to travel for more than a long weekend. ft is very bard to travel with my young son,
especially to go such a long distance and for such a short period of time. Because of these
difficulties, my mother has seen my son ooly once in the last year, when we travelled to Canada.
The long Aight and time-zone change were very hard on my son, so we are very hesitant to make
lite trip again.
I I.
TI1e separation from ruy mother has recently gotten even worse. J am pregnant
with our second child. This will make it even harder to travel . I cannot stand the idea of my
mother not being able to visit while 1 am pregnant, for the birth, or to meet her new grandchild.
2
J.R. 425
JA 552
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 6 of 344
And the pregnancy and having a second young child will make not being able to lean on help and
support from my mother even more difficult.
12.
We have been waiting for my mother' s visa for a Jong time, but every day we are
kept apart is painful and unfair. If the ban on lranians challenged in this case is allowed to be
enforced, we will be faced with 90 more days of separation. If an officer denies her visa outright
because oftbc ban, we would need 10 start over, and way face another extended period of
processing-which has taken over a year already for her current application- before she is
granted a visa.
13.
1run a DOD-practicing Muslim.
14.
I have followed the news about the President's statements about Muslims and the
two orders be signed banning people from Iran and other Muslim countries. I understand those
orders as an attempt to put in place at least part of the ban on Muslims he promised. The orders
send the message that Muslims like me are not welcome in this country, that Muslim
communities are bad or dangerous. This makes me feel singled out and condemned just because
of who lam.
3
J.R. 426
JA 553
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 7 of 344
15.
l have noticed the overall atmosphere towards Muslims change in the last year.
People ask me whether I am a Muslim more than they used to, in ways that make me feel
uncomfortable and singled out. I see people who are conspicuously Muslim. for example
wearing bead scarves, being stared at and drawing more seemingly suspicious attention. The
hostility l sense is usually subtle here, but I think it is probably more blatant and C)(jllicit in other
parts of the country. J believe these changes are at least in part because of what the President has
said about Muslims and the orders he signed.
1 declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of I.he United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed in
°"f be-1 lCalifornia
-,_
September _r. 20 l 7
4
J.R. 427
JA 554
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 8 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No. : 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
BETH BARON, PRESIDENT OF MIDDLE
EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION, IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BETH BARON, PRESIDENT OF MIDDLE
EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION
I, Beth Baron, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows:
1.
I am the President of the Middle East Studies Association ("MESA"), a Plaintiff in
the above-captioned case. I previously submitted a declaration in this case dated March I 0,
2017, which I incorporate herein by reference.
2.
The Proclamation signed on September 24, 2017 ("E0-3 "), imposing an indefinite
ban on nationals of eight countries, will harm MESA and its members in the same ways as I
described in my prior declaration.
3.
For the reasons I previously explained, E0-3 will, among other things, hinder U.S.-
based members' ability to collaborate with colleagues from the banned countries in the United
States and to recruit students from the banned countries to study in the United States.
4.
As I previously explained, a large number of MESA members are Muslims.
Approximately 73% of MESA ' s membership is U.S.-based. Just as with the March Order, I
1
J.R. 428
JA 555
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 9 of 344
have heard from U.S.-based Muslim members that they understand E0-3 to be a continued attack
on Islam. For example, one Muslim member explained that she understands E0-3 as "antiMuslim given the broader political context of hate and xenophobia toward Muslims within which
it was issued."
These members, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents,
experience E0-3 as an official condemnation oflslam and of themselves.
5.
U.S.-based Muslim MESA members will also be separated from family because of
E0-3. MESA has at least 150 U.S.-based members who are from the five predominantly Muslim
countries banned by the March Order and E0-3 (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen).
Dozens, if not more, of those individuals are seeking to bring family members, nationals of the
banned countries, to visit or live in the United States.
6.
For example, I am aware of a MESA member of Syrian decent seeking to bring his
mother-in-law, a Syrian national, to the United States. He and his wife both recently became
U.S. citizens and will be filing an immediate relative immigrant visa petition for his mother-inlaw within the next several days. The member, who is a non-practicing Muslim and tenured
professor, and his Muslim wife have experienced extreme stress because of the President's antiMuslim statements and the bans he has implemented. People have made anti-Muslim statements
to the member because of the atmosphere created by the January ban. The member has lived in
this country for 11 years and has raised his children here, but has expressed that the various
versions of the ban make him feel unwelcome, even more so now that he is a citizen.
7.
U.S.-based MESA members will also be harmed because students and colleagues will
be unable to travel to the United States to study, collaborate, and exchange ideas with U.S.-based
MESA members.
2
J.R. 429
JA 556
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 10 of 344
8.
For example, I am aware of a U.S. citizen MESA member of Iranian decent whose
ability to collaborate with other scholars has been and will be impeded by the ban. One such
scholar, an Iranian feminist, had planned to attend this year's MESA meeting to present a paper.
The chaos and uncertainty created by the January ban resulted in her not being able to attend.
The member had planned to collaborate with the scholar while she was here. The member also
hopes to facilitate the feminist scholar's, and two other collaborators' , attendance at a planned
Iranian Studies conference next year.
This kind of in-person collaboration is particularly
important because it is much more practical and safe than remote communication, which
frequently creates security and confidentiality concerns with countries like Iran. The scholar has
expressed that the inability to meet with these and other colleagues in person at U.S. conferences
impoverishes his scholarship and hinders his ability to engage with others ' ideas.
Their
collaborative work includes publishing co-authored scholarly articles and books, which require
holding in-person meetings. In addition, he also planned to organize public talks outside these
conferences for the visiting scholars, to allow them to share their work with wider University and
interested public audiences. The member, who is a non-practicing Muslim, has also expressed
that he experiences the ban, including this most recent version, as an anti-Muslim statement that
makes him feel singled out and insecure.
9.
Many of our U.S.-based members are concerned about sharing the details of their
situations publicly, for fear that it could impact their immigration status or applications, or those
of their relatives.
10.
For the same reasons I previously explained, MESA itself will also be harmed by E0-
3. Among other things, barring scholars from the designated countries will prevent them from
attending MESA's annual meeting, impacting both our mission of fostering study and public
3
J.R. 430
JA 557
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 11 of 344
w1derstanding of the Middle East, and significantly reducing MESA's annual income, nearly half
of which comes from the annual meeting.
11 .
E0-3 will have a severe impact on our annual meeting regardless of whether it goes
into effect in full on October 18 or at some later date. A ban imposed at nearly any part of the
calendar year will lead to less participation in our annual meeting, by creating uncertainty and
deterring initial applications; by barring or delaying the issuance of visas for those planning to
attend; and by casting doubt on the availability of a visa, leading to other logistical barriers to
scholars' participation.
12.
It is logistically very complicated for scholars to arrange to visit the United States for
MESA 's meeting and other conferences. Applications to participate in our annual meeting are
due in February, and scholars typically work on proposed papers and collaborations from the
close of the previous November meeting up until the February deadline. A ban in effect between
November and February will cause scholars to forego the opportunity to apply, impacting
attendance at that year's meeting even if the ban ends up not being in place during the actual
meeting in November.
13.
MESA sends out decisions on acceptance of proposals in April. Visa applications are
typically submitted around that time, as obtaining a visa can take anywhere from weeks to
months and is very unpredictable. A ban in place during the middle months of the year will lead
to the denial or delay of the issuance of visas. Moreover, scholars must arrange not only a visa,
but also the logistics of panels and papers they intend to present, and funding for the trip. The
denial or delay of visas would complicate and hamper all these other arrangements, again leading
to fewer scholars participating in the meeting even if the ban ends up not being in place during
the meeting in November.
4
J.R. 431
JA 558
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 12 of 344
14.
I understand that some prospective meeting participants might be admitted pursuant
to E0-3 's waiver provision. But imposing the ban, even with a waiver, will lead to lower
attendance at our meeting. Members have expressed to me that they do not want to go through
these special procedures, that they consider it humiliating and demeaning to be treated as
suspect, and that the special process sends the anti-Muslim message that they are not welcome,
even if a waiver is granted. Also, applying for visas involves paying a fee and often expending
other money to travel to an interview. Some members, like students, may have to find their own
source for those funds, while others may be paid by their university. But either way, funding is
limited, and members and other potential participants will choose to attend meetings in other
countries instead of risking their funds on the chance of a waiver.
15.
Finally, a ban in the months leading up to and including November, when our
meeting is held, will bar scholars who have not yet obtained visas.
Even if a visa can be
obtained on short notice pursuant to E0-3's waiver provision, a delay or uncertainty with regard
to visas can often throw preparations for panels as well as funding into doubt. A ban during
those months will thus also impact the overall attendance and participation in our meeting.
16.
For example, I am aware of an Iranian individual who is currently registered to attend
this year' s MESA meeting in November. He does not yet have a visa, and because of the cost
and uncertainty created by the new ban, now plans not to attend. Because his cancellation is
through no fault of his own, MESA's policy is to refund the registration fee if he cannot attend.
However, if the ban is enjoined by late October, he may still have time to apply for and obtain a
visa, and to attend the meeting.
17.
Much of the information I have access to is about individuals who are already our
MESA members. But non-members also attend our meetings, including individuals without
5
J.R. 432
JA 559
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 13 of 344
contact with MESA prior to registering for the meeting. The effects I have described, including
being barred from obtaining a visa and being deterred from applying by the ban, will also keep
these non-members from attending our conference. And each prospective participant who does
not attend harms MESA financially and undermines our organizational mission.
18.
E0-3 is indefinite in duration. MESA therefore must face these impacts not only for
the 2017 meeting and 2018 meeting, but potentially 2019 and beyond. E0-3 is a long-term
threat to our funding and our organizational goals.
19.
The indefinite nature forces MESA to make costly choices now. For example, we
should currently be negotiating contracts, including for hotel room blocks and conference room
space, for our 2021 and 2022 meetings. The earlier those contracts are negotiated, the lower the
prices will be for both MESA itself and our members and meeting participants. All of the
available options impose costs on MESA: We can book more space, and pay for unused rooms if
the ban leads to lower participation; we can book less space, and impose extra costs on members
who will need to seek out rooms elsewhere if our reserved blocks are insufficient, likely leading
prospective participants to forego the meeting; or we can wait to see what happens with the ban,
leading to more expensive contractual rates overall.
20.
E0-3 will also require MESA to divert its resources to address the needs of its
members. Since the original ban Order in January, we have fielded dozens of inquiries from
MESA members seeking information, advice, and advocacy to avoid the harmful effects of the
three ban orders. We have also prepared memos about the ban for our membership, prepared
statements on the bans, given talks regarding the bans, and developed a new task force on civil
and human rights in part to address the ban. We expect to need to continue and increase these
kinds of activities for our members if E0-3 ' s indefinite ban goes into effect.
6
J.R. 433
JA 560
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 14 of 344
21 .
Because of these activities in response to the ban, we have been unable and will
continue to be unable to pursue other organizational goals and initiatives to the degree we would
like. For example, we have identified a need to establish a program to assist colleagues in
countries where they face particular threats to their academic freedom , like Turkey, where
universities have been closed and professors imprisoned. We would like to raise awareness of
this issue, establish a network of scholars to help with career development for those threatened
colleagues, and to fundraise.
But our institutional resources are limited, and our work
responding to the ban will at least delay work on this project, and other initiatives, and may make
progress impossible indefinitely.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Beth Baron
Executed this f:ft....day of October, 2017
7
J.R. 434
JA 561
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 15 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al. ,
DECLARATION OF RAMA
ISSAIBRAIDM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION
FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF RAMA ISSA-IBRAIDM
I, Rama Issa-Ibrahim, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am the Executive Director of the Arab-American Association of New York
("AAANY'').
2.
The AAANY is a social service and advocacy agency based in Bay Ridge,
Brooklyn. AAANY was founded in 2001 by prominent and active members of the ArabAmerican and Arab immigrant communities to respond to the needs of low-income Arab
immigrants in New York City.
3.
Our 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. To that end, AAANY serves over S,000 people a year, the vast majority of them women
and girls. It provides direct services for immediate relief while simultaneously organizing and
1
J.R. 435
JA 562
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 16 of 344
building community capacity to address the long-term issues affecting the Arab and Muslim
communities in New York.
4.
AAANY is a trusted, community-based social service and advocacy agency, with
a national platform and a growing base. Our aim is for families to achieve the ultimate goals of
independence, productivity, and stability. With our full-time staff of twenty-seven employees,
we serve well over 5,000 people per year, and we continue to grow. Around 95% of our clients
are Arab. We also serve members of the Latino and Asian communities who reside in
neighboring Sunset Park or Bensonhurst Approximately 70% of our clients are women, and of
those women, 65% are mothers with two or more children. Many of these mothers are recent
immigrants from the Middle East; many are English language learners, and most are
unemployed. Approximately 85% of our clients report their income as at or below the poverty
line, and many are employed part-time, often in groceries, delis, food service, and transportation.
5.
We are located on the ground floor of a busy, commercial avenue in the middle of
the largest Arab community in the city. Thus, our lobby is constantly bustling with new and
returning clients. We provide a one-stop shop for Arab families-a place where members of our
community can talk to a lawyer about their immigration case, take an ESOL class, make an
appointment with a mental health provider, and enroll their child in SAT tutoring all in the same
day. All of our programs are free. In addition to hosting cultural events celebrating Arab heritage
throughout the year, we offer the following services:
•
Immigration services by Arabic, Spanish, French, and English speaking DOI-accredited
representatives and attorneys.
•
Intensive ESOL courses at six different levels.
•
One-on-one citizenship test preparation for those taking the naturalization exam.
2
J.R. 436
JA 563
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 17 of 344
crimina~
•
Legal consultations with Arabic speaking attorneys in family,
and housing law.
•
Comprehensive casework services including assistance with public benefits applications.
•
Supportive counseling and referrals for victims of domestic violence.
•
Mentorship programs for youth.
•
Voter registration and ongoing civic engagement efforts.
•
Advocacy on behalf of our community's most pressing issues: immigration, police
accountability, and racial justice.
•
Leadership development and political education for adult women.
•
On-site healthcare enrollment.
•
Screenings for mental health and onsite mental health services.
•
Supportive programming for young women.
6.
Due to increasing demand for immigration assistance and other services, we have
grown in the past three years from a staff of 8 to a staff of 27. We gained full-time attorneys and
received recognition and accreditation from the Department of Justice, becoming the largest
legal service organization in Southwest Brooklyn.
7.
Since 2001, AAANY has supported New York City's Arab and Muslim
communities to access critical services. Over the past year, AAANY's Arab and Muslim clients
have needed to adapt to respond to increasingly mainstream Islamophobia. Hate crimes against
Muslims in New York City- particularly against women-have become significantly more
common. In Bay Ridge alone, there have been dozens of reported attacks against Muslim
women, and hundreds more throughout the city. As a result, our clients' anxieties, stress levels,
depression, and reported mental health issues have skyrocketed. For recent immigrants from
Syria and Yemen, these issues are compounded by the trauma of coming from war-tom
3
J.R. 437
JA 564
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 18 of 344
countries, dealing with migration, and losing family members in war. This discrimination and
hostility has hit new heights in 2017 with the federal government's attempt to ban Muslims and
the continued implication that Muslims are a national problem and an existential threat The
results of this rhetoric have been tangible and significant in Bay Ridge, where clients and
community members have been attacked or harassed on the streets by their neighbors.
8.
In 2016, thirty-two percent of our organizational budget was allocated to the
provision of immigration services. Six of our fourteen full-time employees in 2016 focused
solely on immigration legal services. In 2018, we anticipate over $150,000 of in-kind support for
our immigration services and have allocated at least $360,000 to our immigration program. We
partner with legal services organizations and law firms in the New York area to place cases with
pro bono attorneys and provide a variety of direct services. In 2018, we will host two DOJ
Accredited navigators through the Immigrant Justice Corps, as well as employ three DOJ
Accredited navigators ourselves.
9.
•
Our services include:
Case management and application assistance for N-400 applications, Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA), adjustment of status, Family Petitions (I-130), Permanent
Resident Card renewals and replacements, Certificate of Citizenship, Removal of
Conditions, Freedom of Information Act, Arrival-Departure Documents, and Temporary
Protected Status (TPS).
•
Legal assistance on applications for asylum, relief under the Violence Against Women
Act, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and U and T Visas
•
One-on-one tutoring and classroom instruction on civics and preparation for the
Naturalization exam
4
J.R. 438
JA 565
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 19 of 344
•
Outreach and education on immigration legislation, especially when it affects the Arab
community.
10.
Our navigators, who are not themselves attorneys, provide several services. First,
they conduct an intake interview for our clients and assess their immigration (and other) legal
needs. Second, they help directly with the filing of 1-130 petitions for alien relatives, N-400
applications, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Adjustment of Status, ,Permanent
Resident Card renewals and replacements, Certificate of Citizenship, Removal of Conditions,
Freedom of Information Act, Arrival-Departure Documents, and Temporary Protected Status
(TPS) immigration applications. Third, they work with in-house counsel provided by the New
York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) in removal proceedings, Asylum, Special Immigrant
Juvenile Status ("SilS"), U and T visas and Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA'') cases, or
refer such clients to outside counsel at Catholic Migration Services, the Urban Justice Center and
the Legal Aid Society.
11.
From January 2016 to July 2017, we filed approximately 1763 immigrant
applications. This included approximately 326 applications from clients whose country of origin
is one of the countries singled out by the Proclamation ("E0-3"). Therefore, approximately 19°/o
of our clients are originally from one of the affected countries. In 2018, we anticipate these
numbers will continue to grow, as our organization has acquired an additional in-kind Navigator
from the Immigrant Justice Corps and is planning to hire a part-time immigration attorney
specifically to support our community's demand for assistance with filing petition for Petition
for Alien Relative.
5
J.R. 439
JA 566
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 20 of 344
12.
The first two versions of the ban caused immediate harm to our clients. During
the first ban, many had friends and relatives who were unable to travel to the United States
because of the ban, and the second ban threatened our clients' visa petitions.
13.
The bans were also painful to our clients- and our staff-because of the message
that they conveyed. Our clients, our staff, and I personally understood them as official attempts
to impugn the religion of the vast majority of our clients, Islam. That message also seemed to
have a frightening effect: an increase in hate crimes against Muslims affected many of our
clients.
14.
The ban also immediately harmed our organization. The cases in which we had
spent significant resources helping clients petition for visas for family members were
immediately put on hold. The duties of our immigration navigators were put at risk, as was one
of the central missions of our organization- to help Arab-American immigrants navigate the
immigration system.
15.
The new September 24 proclamation has exactly the same effect. Our staff and
clients understand its ban as a clear statement that our government regards us as a problem, and
wishes to keep our families and countrymen out of the United States. The harmful message of
the proclamation is exactly the same one as the message of the first Executive Order-that
Muslims are not welcome here.
16.
The proclamation will cause serious financial harm to our organization. If
AAANY is no longer able to provide assistance with immigration petitions for our clients
seeking to be reunited with loved ones from the banned countries, it will no longer be able to
obtain grant support for those activities, and our immigration navigators' positions will be at risk
Our efforts to secure a part-time attorney specifically to work on family-based petitions will be
6
J.R. 440
JA 567
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 21 of 344
lost and our ability to provide one of the services most in demand from our community will be
permanently put on hold.
17.
Perhaps even more seriously, the proclamation will undermine AAANY's mission
of helping its clients reunite with their families and build lives in the United States.
18.
The proclamation also harms many of our clients directly by preventing them
from reuniting with their families. We help many individuals navigate the visa petition process,
and those clients' cases-along with the life plans being made around them-are now about to
be put on hold indefinitely. For example:1
19.
Mary, a Muslim U.S. citizen who immigrated from Yemen, resides in New York.
Her husband, a national of Yemen, is currently living and working in Saudi Arabia She recently
gave birth to his child, and she does not have the means to visit him in Saudi Arabia. She
submitted an I-130 petition on her husband' s behalf to allow him to join her. Since he is the
spouse of the U.S. citizen, an immigrant visa would be immediately available once his
application is approved Nonetheless, the petition has been pending with USCIS for 8 months.
After the announcement of the proclamation, Mary sought advice from AAANY and asked
whether her husband could at least seek a visitor visa to see his baby for the first time. We
explained that the ban will likely prevent him from obtaining either an immigrant or a visitor
visa.
20.
Samira, a Muslim U.S. citizen who immigrated from Yemen, lives in New York
City. She filed an 1-130 on behalf of her parents, who remain in Yem.en Since she is over 21 , an
immigrant visa would be immediately available for her parents once their applications are
approved They are currently waiting for their interview to be scheduled; to attend, they will
1
Each of these examples employs a pseudonym to protect the confidentiality of our clients'
information.
7
J.R. 441
JA 568
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 22 of 344
need to undertake a dangerous journey by boat to Djibouti. Samira's father's health is precarious.
The new ban will likely prevent her parents from obtaining their immigrant visas, thereby
keeping the family separating and preventing Samira' s father from obtaining needed medical
care.
21.
Nadia, a Muslim U.S. citizen who immigrated from Yemen, lives in New York
City. She filed an I-130 on behalf of her mother, who remains in Yemen. Her father has passed
away, leaving her mother alone and without support in war-torn Yemen. Since Nadia is over 21,
an immigrant visa would be immediately available for her mother once her application is
approved. The I-130 petition remains pending, and the ban will likely prevent her mother from
obtaining a visa, thereby preventing Nadia from providing a home and support for her mother,
who is aging alone and without any assistance in a deteriorating war zone in Yemen.
22.
Nadeen, a U.S. citizen originally from Syria, is petitioning for visas for her
parents, who live in Syria. She filed an I-130 on their behalf; it is dangerous for them remain in
Syria, and their daughter and grandchildren are here in the United States. Since she is over 21, an
immigrant visa would be immediately available for her parents once their applications were
approved The new ban will prevent them from obtaining their immigrant visas.
23.
Mohammed, a Muslim U.S. citizen originally from Yemen, is petitioning for his
two sons, aged 23 and 16. The I-130 petition remains pending. Mohammed's wife died when his
younger son was only two years old, and both father and son have found life apart very difficult
Since the younger son is a minor child of a U.S. citizen, a visa would be immediately available
for him if his application is approved, absent the ban. The ban will likely prevent Mohammad
from being reunited with his son.
8
J.R. 442
JA 569
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 23 of 344
24.
These are a few examples of how AAANY' s clients will be harmed by the new
ban. AAANY currently has more than twenty clients with pending visa petitions on behalf of
loved ones from one of the countries banned by E0-3. It has many more who will be affected in
other ways-for example, as their friends and more distant relatives become unable to come to
this country.
25.
Many of our clients are first generation immigrants and are unable to navigate the
legal system on their own due to language and culture barriers: the U.S. legal system can be
intimidating and confusing even to practicing attorneys . Moreover, in many of their countries of
origin, dissent is not permitted and filing suit against their government under any circumstances
is prohibited and cause for retaliation. Our clients are therefore usually fearful about filing suit
individually.
26.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct Executed at
October &
1312-0D K/ ~
, New York City, on
2017.
Rama Issa-Ibrahim
9
J.R. 443
JA 570
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 24 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
SECOND DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE
# 1 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION
FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SECOND DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE #1
I, John Doe #1, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am still a Lawful Permanent Resident of Iranian origin, and I continue to
live in Montgomery County, Maryland.
2.
Since my declaration dated February 6, 2017, my wife was interviewed for
processing at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia, and she received her visa to enter the United States
in June, 2017. On July 3, 2017, my wife arrived at Dulles International Airport, and has lived
with me in our home in Montgomery County, Maryland. On September 15, 2017, my wife’s
green card arrived in the mail.
3.
The proclamation that Donald Trump issued on September 24, 2017 added
a couple countries to the original list of banned countries, but the intent of the order is the same:
to ban people from Muslim-majority countries. I do not feel that the addition of countries like
1
J.R. 444
JA 571
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 25 of 344
Venezuela or North Korea makes any difference: the Order still demonizes me for coming from
a Muslim country, even though we are non-practicing Muslims.
4.
The President’s orders are meant to make international travel difficult, if
not impossible, for people like my wife, and the reality of the ban affects individual people, not
the governments whose policies the U.S. may disagree with. The Order makes me feel
unwelcome and sends a clear message that the U.S. government does not want me here.
5.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Montgomery County, Maryland, on October
5, 2017.
___________________________
John Doe #1
2
J.R. 445
JA 572
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 26 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
v.
DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE # 5 IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE #5
I, John Doe #5, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a U.S. citizen of Yemeni origin, and I live in New York City. I have
three brothers and one sister who are U.S. citizens, as was my father, who died recently. My wife
and four children are all U.S. citizens as well.
2.
I, along with my family, am Muslim.
3.
I immigrated to the United States in 1994. Like many Yemeni-Americans,
I initially went into the grocery business, but I later decided to move into the wireless industry. I
now own a grocery store and several wireless stores, and I have investments in other stores as
well.
4.
Although my brothers and I now live in the United States, my mother and
maternal grandmother are in Jordan. When the war broke out in Yemen in 2015, my mother and
grandmother fled from Yemen to Jordan. They now live together in Irbid, Jordan, where they
1
J.R. 446
JA 573
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 27 of 344
have no friends or family, except for my sister, who has moved there temporarily to take care of
them. My mother and my sister take care of my grandmother, who has Alzheimer’s Disease. I’m
worried for both of them, and I’m hoping they will be able to come to the United States as soon
as possible, where they will be safe, and get good medical care, and we can be reunited. My
mother has never met my daughter.
5.
Soon after my mother and grandmother fled to Jordan, I filed an I-130
petition on my mother’s behalf. My uncle, who is a U.S. citizen, did the same for my
grandmother. My I-130 was approved, as was my uncle’s and my mother and grandmother are
waiting for interviews at the U.S. embassy in Amman, Jordan. I don’t know of any reason why
they would not be eligible for a visa.
6.
When President Trump was still a candidate and said he wanted to impose
a Muslim Ban, I thought that that could never happen in America. When it did happen, in
January of this year, I felt like I was in a different country—in fact, this reminded me of what we
left behind in Yemen. I came to the United States to search for freedom, justice and opportunity,
and the ban goes against all of that.
7.
Since the ban, I have heard anti-Islamic comments more frequently.
Almost every week, I or someone I know is exposed to anti-Islamic harassment. For example, in
the days after the ban, a man came into my grocery store and said that I make this country worse,
and that he was happy with the ban.
8.
This latest ban is very disappointing because after the protests and
litigation, we thought it was unthinkable that there would still be a Muslim ban. The new ban
normalizes Islamophobia. Before the bans, I felt that the government was always on our side, but
now I feel that the government is legitimizing the bad things that people say about Muslims (and
2
J.R. 447
JA 574
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 28 of 344
the harm they s01111.:t1111cs do to them) and is
C:\
en encouraging them. TlllS latest ban 1:s worse than
1hc firsl one because 11 ha-; no end date. so J don'11.:nO\\ \\hen the government will stop doing
thi-. 10 me and Ill) family.
9.
I .1111 afraid ro re\. cal my naml.' in this lawsuit I am ""arc 1ha1 Muslim:> in
the United States a11.· at risk ol harassment for their rdig1ou~ and political bchcfa. and f have
experienced that h.irussmcnt firsthand. I am afraid that 1fl reveal my name in th1!-. lawsuit. 1
~ould
become a targcl.
IO.
I declare under penalty of pc~jury nnd under the la\\ of the United States
that rhe forl!going b In.ti! and correct. Executed at
- · 2017.
J.R. 448
JA 575
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 29 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
DECLARATION OF REBECCA HELLER,
DIRECTOR OF IRAP, IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants.
THIRD DECLARATION OF REBECCA HELLER
I, Rebecca Heller, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows:
1.
I am the Director and co-Founder of the International Refugee Assistance Project
(“IRAP”), a project of the Urban Justice Center, Inc., a plaintiff in this case.
2.
I previously submitted two declarations in this case, Dkt. Nos. 64-1 & 91-1, which I
incorporate herein by reference.
3.
The new Proclamation (“EO-3”) will directly harm IRAP and its clients.
4.
During the first Executive Order (“EO-1”), IRAP became the focal point organization
for volunteer attorneys across the country who went to airports to attempt to secure the release of
individuals detained pursuant to EO-1.
5.
IRAP continues to serve as a resource for attorneys and affected individuals to obtain
legal information or assistance about all three executive orders (“EOs”), through outreach to
legal aid organizations, dissemination of information to our volunteer attorney and student
network, and through an email hotline created to respond to inquiries from attorneys and affected
individuals in the United States and abroad.
1
J.R. 449
JA 576
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 30 of 344
6.
Following EO-3, and in response to demand from our staff, clients, and partners,
IRAP developed new informational material for attorneys, clients and affected family members
in the United States, and clients and other individuals overseas.
7.
We translated the new material into three languages and disseminated it publicly as
well.
8.
We also distributed these new materials, along with additional information about the
impact of EO-3 on IRAP clients in particular, to over 700 IRAP-affiliated attorneys and 29 IRAP
law school chapters with over 900 active student volunteers because of the deleterious effects
EO-3 may have on their work with their clients.
9.
In addition to time spent creating, translating, and distributing material to explicate
the extensive harms of EO-3 to affected communities and individuals, IRAP has devoted staff
resources to directly advise or assist those potentially adversely impacted by it.
10.
IRAP staff and IRAP-affiliated attorneys and law students will also have to counsel
current clients about the impact of EO-3 and its indefinite entry ban on the prospects of reuniting
with certain family members in the future.
11.
For example, 60 Syrian, Somali, Iranian, and Yemeni individuals who are current
IRAP clients or have contacted IRAP for assistance since EO-1 was issued will require
counseling about the ways in which future family-based immigration options for certain family
members have been affected or limited due to the indefinite ban in EO-3.
12.
None of the aforementioned actions are in the normal scope of IRAP’s work, and
have diverted significant resources away from IRAP’s core mission, which is to help individuals
fleeing violence and persecution find avenues to safety.
2
J.R. 450
JA 577
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 31 of 344
13.
I anticipate that this work will continue indefinitely for IRAP under EO-3, since its
bans are indefinite.
14.
All three EOs have caused and continue to cause fear and distress for our clients and
their family members in the U.S. and abroad.
15.
In addition to the uncertainty and additional hurdles to finding safety and reuniting
with family members that the EOs have injected into their lives, our clients feel that the EOs,
including EO-3, condemn and stigmatize them as Muslims because of their faith.
16.
One client, for example, was devastated by the issuance of EO-3, which indefinitely
bans her family members (for whom she has an approved I-130 petition) who are living in
dangerous conditions abroad. Since EO-1 was issued, this client (who lives in the United States)
has been fearful because she has been bullied for wearing hijab. She has begun to doubt whether
she or her children will ever receive equal treatment and opportunities in this country. She
worries whether, as Muslims, they will ever truly be safe in the United States. She is considering
moving away from the United States because the EOs make her feel unwelcome in this country
because of her faith, and she does not want her children to have to live in an environment where
their religion makes them targets for discrimination.
17.
Our staff and operations have been directly adversely affected by the first two EOs,
and these injuries will continue under EO-3.
18.
Each year, IRAP brings overseas staff to its headquarters in New York for a week-
long retreat to engage in staff trainings, organizational planning for the coming year, and teambuilding activities. This retreat is critical to our mission, which depends on open feedback
between our field-staff and our U.S.-based staff to understand the conditions facing displaced
3
J.R. 451
JA 578
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 32 of 344
persons on the ground in the Middle East, and how we can best advocate for them in the U.S. It
is also crucial for the training of overseas staff to carry out our mission on the ground.
19.
IRAP overseas staff who are nationals of the affected country, including a Syrian
national currently employed in a position critical to our operations, are barred entry under EO-3.
20.
The absence of one or more important staff members from these annual training,
strategic planning, and team-building efforts will have a significant negative impact on IRAP’s
operations and mission.
21.
IRAP has existing and prospective clients, both in the United States and abroad, who
will be adversely affected by EO-3.
22.
IRAP has several current clients who are in the United States and have pending or
approved I-130 petitions to be reunited with loved ones who are nationals of one of the countries
banned by EO-3.
23.
One such case involves an IRAP client of Syrian descent who is now a lawful
permanent resident of the United States. IRAP is assisting him in his efforts to be reunited with
his wife, who is of Syrian nationality. His wife was seriously injured in an explosion and has
serious medical needs. Her husband has filed an I-130 family-based immigration petition with
her as the beneficiary. That petition has been granted and the couple is currently waiting for the
priority date to become current to apply for the visa. But since she is a Syrian national, she is
indefinitely barred entry by EO-3.
24.
This client, who is Muslim, has told us that EO-3 has devastated him and has made
him feel both helpless and hopeless. As he has said, he has done everything that he was
supposed to do—he followed all the procedures and filed all the right paperwork—and yet the
government is still saying he cannot be reunited with his wife, and, to him, for no reason but the
4
J.R. 452
JA 579
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 33 of 344
desire to keep Muslims out of the U.S. He has not yet had the heart to tell his wife about EO-3,
because he thinks it will make her lose all hope. The EOs, including EO-3, make him feel
unwelcome here because of his faith. He also feels that the government of the United States
believes that Muslims are less human than people of other religions, and that he is pre-judged to
be a bad person because he is Muslim. As he told us: “The legal saying is ‘innocent until proven
guilty.’ But me, I’m not considered innocent anymore.”
25.
EO-3 provides that case-by-case waivers may be granted to those who demonstrate
that denying entry would cause them “undue hardship,” would not “pose a threat to the national
security or public safety of the United States,” and whose entry would be in the “national
interest.” It further indicates that the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security
shall adopt further guidance regarding waivers, and that waivers cannot be granted categorically.
26.
Because there are no categorical waivers, and no clear guidance, there is tremendous
uncertainty that impacts IRAP clients here and abroad.
27.
IRAP is currently devoting extensive resources to a project that involves outreach,
education, and assistance to IRAP’s clients and impacted communities to provide assistance with
obtaining waivers to help impacted family members from affected countries reunite with loved
ones.
These efforts are diverting resources away from the work our organization would
otherwise be doing helping some of the world’s most vulnerable people obtain legal entry to safe
countries.
_________________________
Rebecca Heller
Executed this 5th day of October, 2017
5
J.R. 453
JA 580
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 34 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
SECOND DECLARATION OF JANE DOE
#2 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants.
SECOND DECLARATION OF JANE DOE #2
I, Jane Doe #2, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am still a United States Citizen of Syrian origin, and I continue to live in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2.
I am still enrolled in college and studying to become a healthcare technician. I am
a practicing Muslim and I wear a hijab.
3.
Since my declaration dated March 10, 2017, my I-130 visa petition to bring my
sister and her family to the United States has been approved. She is now able to access the U.S.
Refugee Admission Program (“USRAP”) through the Priority-2 Direct Access Program for Iraqi
and Syrian Beneficiaries of Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relatives. Her admission to the United
States, however, is now barred by the President’s ban announced in September.
4.
I have not had the courage to tell her about the President’s newly announced ban.
Because the new proclamation will ban my sister and her family indefinitely from entering the
1
J.R. 454
JA 581
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 35 of 344
United States to join me and our parents, she faces a terrible set of options. My sister’s family is
still living in a refugee hotel on the Saudi Arabia-Yemen border and living in terrible, lifethreatening conditions. The Saudi government has announced that before the end of they year
they will begin requiring all refugees to pay monthly fees for each person in their family. My
sister cannot afford the fees, which are so high that they would consume most of the monthly
income any Syrian refugee is able to earn in Saudi Arabia.
5.
In addition, just before Ramadan this year, the Saudi government issued eviction
notices to the refugees living in my sister’s building. While the evictions have not happened yet,
they have happened in many other buildings in the area. The Saudi government has given
evicted refugees the option to go back to Syria or Yemen. Because those options are so bad,
some refugees go on their own to Egypt and cross over illegally. However, crossing illegally
into Egypt requires a two-day trek in the desert. My brother barely survived the trip himself and
has warned my sister against taking the route, especially with children.
6.
If she is evicted from her building before she can come to the United States, my
sister’s plan is to go to Mecca and be homeless with her children. As a holy city where many
people travel on pilgrimages, there are places where people, even those without money, can sit
and access showers. She says that it is the only place where she would feel safe.
7.
Because of all of this, I felt crazy after the President’s latest ban was announced in
late-September, which barred my sister and her family from entering. I felt like my mind
stopped working; I was devastated. I have not even been able to talk about it with my parents or
my sister yet. We have been living on hope and I do not want to talk to them about it until I can
present another option that offers them some hope.
2
J.R. 455
JA 582
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 36 of 344
8.
The anti-Muslim comments that President Trump has made, first as a candidate
and then as President, have also negatively affected me and my family. When the President says
things about how Muslims should be kicked out of the country or that we are barbarians, I feel
unsafe. I understand the travel bans he has issued, from the first one in January to the latest in
September, as fulfilling the promises he made as a candidate to condemn my religion.
9.
After President Trump’s comments, I considered whether I should stop wearing
my hijab. In May, a woman I had never met before approached me and asked me why I was
wearing a hijab. She asked if I wanted everyone to know that I was Muslim and told me that I
needed to remove my hijab out of respect for this country. When I told her no one was making
me wear the hijab and it was my freedom to wear it, she said I was stubborn and it was going to
bring me more problems. Incidents like this make me feel fearful. At school, I avoid getting
into conversations about politics or religion to avoid having problems with my peers.
10.
Since the first ban was issued, I continually doubt that my family and I will have
equal opportunities in this country because of our religion. The bans remind me of things the
Syrian government would do when they wanted to strip away your rights. When I became a U.S.
citizen, I was told that no one was above the Constitution, no matter who they were, even the
President. But President Trump is violating the Constitution. The most recent ban made me
really depressed because I feel like these kinds of actions – where the President is above the law
– are what we fled from in Syria. My husband and I question whether we should remain in the
United States or pursue other options because I do not want my children to be discriminated
against or think that they are wrong because of the way that everyone looks at them.
3
J.R. 456
JA 583
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 37 of 344
l I.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is tmc and correct. Executed at Mecklenburg County. North Carolina. on October
. 2017.
Jane Doc #2
4
J.R. 457
JA 584
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 38 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al. ,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
V.
DONALD TRUMP, et al. ,
SECOND DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE
# 3 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION
FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants.
SECOND DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE #3
I, John Doe #3, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am still a Lawful Permanent Resident of Iranian origin, and I continue to
live in Linthicum, Maryland, and I am still waiting to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
2.
Since my last declaration, my wife received her visa and was able to travel
to the U.S. in May, 2017 and join me here. We have since remained here, since we are scared to
leave the country out of the possibility of not being let back in.
3.
The proclamation that Donald Trump issued on September 24, 2017
continues to make me feel like the U.S. government does not welcome Muslims in this country
(or those he thinks are Muslim) under the assumption that everyone who comes from Iran is an
Islamic terrorist. Even though new countries were added to the list, I do not feel any less vilified.
4.
This proclamation and the other Orders that ban travel from certain
Muslim-majority countries contribute to my fear of attacks like the shooting in Kansas, where
J.R. 458
JA 585
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 39 of 344
two Indian immigrants were shot and one killed by a white man motivated by hate, who
mistakenly thought the two individuals were Iranian.
5.
Although my wife was able to receive her visa and travel to the U.S. to
join me here, the new ban could prevent other fam ily members, like my parents, from being able
to travel here. We want to start a family soon. and this Order wi ll prevent my parents from being
able lo visit because they are citizens of Iran. They wi ll not be able to come to the U.S. to meet
their grandch ildren, nor will they see our new life here in the U.S.
6.
l declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States
that the foregotng is true and correct. Executed at Linthicum, Maryland. on October ~. 2017.
John Doe #3
2
J.R. 459
JA 586
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 40 of 344
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
V.
DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE #4 IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE #4
I, John Doe #4, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a U.S. citizen oflranian origin, and I live in Georgia.
2.
I moved to the United States in 1977, and I have lived here ever since. I
became a U.S. citizen in 1999. I have obtained two doctorates, one in Basic Medical Sciences
and one in a clinical field . I am a tenured professor at a university; I have published over 80
scientific articles, which collectively have been cited about 1,300 times. I am proud to be an
American citizen, and I regularly vote.
3.
In early 2015 , I met my wife, who lives in Iran. We got married in
December 2015 . Both she and I are nonpracticing Muslims.
4.
In March 2016, I filed an 1-130 petition for her to join me in the United
States. That petition was approved in July 2016. In May 2017, my wife had her visa interview.
At the interview, the officer told her that everything was fine, that she should check a website in
J.R. 460
JA 587
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 41 of 344
about a month, and that once her case number appeared there, she should send her passport to the
consular office for the issuance of her visa.
5.
Over 4 months after her interview date, her case number still has not
appeared on the website and thus her visa has not been issued . I fear that her application is being
delayed because the government is delaying the applications of Iranians and Muslims. Given
that she will soon be subject to the new ban, I am at a loss for what to do.
6.
Being apart from my wife is excruciatingly difficult for me and is
adversely affecting my professional life, which requires the ability to focus and concentrate. Due
to time differences, we can only communicate 2-3 hours daily on WhatsApp, and that is no
substitute for being together. When she arrives here, we plan to start a family. I cannot help but
feel that my life is incomplete without her. For example, I sometimes skip professional and
social events because people ask where my wife is.
7.
I cannot imagine leaving the United States, where I have built my whole
life, but I also cannot imagine remaining separate from my wife. 1 do not understand why the
government would ask me to make this choice. How could I possibly choose between my
country and my wife?
8.
My wife is suffering from the separation as well , and her suffering causes
me pain. She is a clinical psychologist, but she quit her job after I petitioned for her to join me in
the United States: she is concentrating on taking English courses so that she is ready to assimilate
in the community and the culture when she joins me here. Her friends often ask her why she is
not living with her husband.
9.
When the first ban was announced in January, I was not only immediately
afraid that my wife ' s visa application would be at risk, but I also felt insulted by the ban, which I
2
J.R. 461
JA 588
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 42 of 344
understood as an attempt to ban Muslims. lt felt like collective punishment. and it was made
worse by the fact that I thought that I had escaped government sponsorship of religion in staying
outside Iran. Until the January ban, I had felt completely assimilated here, but since then I've
noticed that I get more suspicious looks from people, and I feel that I am being labeled as a
Muslim more often.
10.
The latest version of the ban has made me feel th is more strongly. l can
see through the simple tactic of putting North Korea and a few Venezuelan officials on the list:
this is still about keeping people out on the basis of their religion. The ban still affects the same
people. and I continue to feel demeaned by lhe ban myself.
l l.
My wife and I are afraid to reveal our names in this lawsuit. I am
concerned on my wife's behalf that she could be targeted by the government oflran based on
information that I am providing in this declaration: in Iran. it is not safe to admit to being a
nonpracticing Muslim.
12.
Jam also aware that Muslims in the United States are at risk ofharnssment
for their religious and political beliefs, and I am afraid that if I reveal my name in this lawsuit, I
could become a target
13.
I declare under penally of pe1jury and under the laws of the United States
that lhe foregoing is true and correct. Executed at _
__,_ ===---• Georgia,
,=
on October
~ 2017.
John Doe #4
3
J.R. 462
JA 589
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 43 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
DECLARATION
OF
AFSANEH
KHAZAELI
IN
SUPPORT
OF
PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION
FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DECLARATION OF AFSANEH KHAZAELI
I, Afsaneh Khazaeli, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. I was born in Iran and currently reside in
Edwardsville, Illinois.
2.
I am the sole proprietor of Afsaneh’s Alteration, a sewing store in
Edwardsville that I opened in 1987.
3.
I came to the United States in 1977 with my husband, Sadegh Khazaeli.
Sadegh entered the United States as an F-1 student to obtain his PhD in Chemistry at Michigan
State University. My son, Javad Mohammed Khazaeli, and I entered the United States as F-2
derivatives. In 1981, I gave birth to my son, Nima Hussein Khazaeli. He is a natural born U.S.
citizen.
4.
Upon receiving his Doctorate, Sadegh began to work as a professor at
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, in 1982. In 1985, Sadegh, Javad, and I were granted
1
J.R. 463
JA 590
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 44 of 344
permanent residence. In 1988, I gave birth to my daughter, Samira Zohreh Khazaeli. She is a
natural born U.S. citizen. In 1997, I was granted my citizenship.
5.
In 2008, my sister Arezoo Karbassi visited me in the United States. We
traveled across and America and had a great time. She left before her visa expired.
6.
In June 2014, my husband was diagnosed liposarcoma, a rare cancer of the
connective tissue. He immediately had emergency surgery and began aggressive chemotherapy
with the hope that the surgery and chemo would stop the cancer before it spread to the rest of his
body.
7.
On April 23, 2016, my sister Arezoo applied for another visitor visa to
attend my daughter’s wedding. She was interviewed on May 10, 2016 and was told that she had
been approved pending additional background checks.
8.
In December of 2016, we received the devastating news that my husband’s
cancer had returned and that his prognosis was terminal. I was holding out hope that my sister
would be able to come and help me for even a month or two as the stress of taking care of my
husband has been very difficult.
9.
In late January of 2017, we received the exciting news that Arezoo’s visa
had been approved; she just needed to send her passport to Ankara to have the visa placed into
the passport. She sent in her visa, and it was received by the embassy.
10.
Unfortunately, one or two days later, the President issued Executive Order
13769, revoking all visas for Iranian nationals. Although revoked visas were later restored
pursuant to the court orders enjoining that Order, visas that had not been printed in passports
were not automatically restored. My sister was only offered one possible day to return to the
2
J.R. 464
JA 591
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 45 of 344
Embassy in Ankara to have a follow-up appointment, and she was unable to make that day. The
Embassy refused to allow her to come on any other day.
11.
Since the first ban went into effect, the availability of visa interview slots
has virtually disappeared, and these appointments are now almost impossible to get. My sister is
actively working to secure a visa appointment, both by going to the website on her own and by
hiring travel agent to go to embassies in different countries on her behalf, to apply for a new visa,
but because of EO-3, she will likely be unable to obtain that visa.
12.
My sister will likely never see my husband again, and I will be deprived of
her assistance as I deal with this terrible illness.
13.
This has made me feel like a second-class citizen. My family has always
done everything it can to support the United States.
14.
My son Javad served for almost a decade as a federal counter-terrorism
prosecutor in both the Bush and Obama administrations, serving with distinction first with the
U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, National Security Unit
(Joint Terrorism Task Force) and then with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National Security Law Division.
15.
My daughter currently serves as a state prosecutor litigating felony cases
with child victims, including: physical abuse, sexual abuse, child pornography, and child deaths.
16.
In January 2017, my husband was awarded the Martin Luther King Jr.
Faculty Humanitarian award by Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.
17.
These acts of service have not protected us from this discriminatory
Proclamation or its predecessors. My family and I are nonpracticing Muslims, and people
3
J.R. 465
JA 592
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 46 of 344
identify our family as Muslim because of where we came from and our names, especially
because I have son with the middle name Mohammed.
18.
The Executive Order has taken the discrimination that my family has
previously endured because people have seen us as Muslims and made it into law.
19.
For the first time in the more than 30 years that I have had my business, I
was accosted by a customer about my religion. That incident occurred after the first Muslim ban.
20.
These Orders have deprived me of the ability to freely associate with my
family and have made my family the target of abuse and discrimination.
21.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Edwardsville, Illinois on October 5, 2017.
___________________________
Afsaneh Khazaeli
4
J.R. 466
JA 593
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 47 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL. ,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 8 :17-CV-00361-TDC
PLAINTIFFS,
V.
DECLARATION OF MOHAMAD
MASHTA
DONALD TRUMP, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
DECLARATION OF MOHAMAD MASHTA
I, Mohamad Mashta, upon my personal knowledge, hereby subm it this declaration
pursu ant 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a U.S. lawful pennanent resident and a Syrian c itizen.
2.
I submitted a prior declaration dated September 22, 2017, in support of a motion
to add plaintiffs filed in this case in the U. S. Supreme Court. That declaration, attached as
Exhibit A, is incorporated herein by reference.
3.
I see the Proclamation the President signed on September 24 as another attempt to
follow tlu·ough on the promises he made to ban Muslims . The changes between the three
versions of the ban seem like they are intended to get h is ban through the courts, but the antiMuslim message remains the same. I no longer feel at home in this country.
4.
I will always remember the date the Proclamation was signed, September 24,
because it was so painful. Now my w ife will b e banned without an end date. I feel that the ban
is making me choose between this country, which has been my home, and being with my w ife. I
J.R. 467
JA 594
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 48 of 344
have again been unable to sleep because of the new ban, and have again had to take vacation
time. I constantly worry about what the situation is and what will happen. I fear my wife may
never get her visa.
I declare under penalty of pe1jury and under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and coJTect. Executed in (~ e
/ fr1a,
() /--f on October
J±, 2017
i/1/j_J1Q HTA
~
Mohamad Mashta
J.R. 468
JA 595
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 49 of 344
EXHIBIT A
J.R. 469
JA 596
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 50 of 344
DECLARATION OF MOHAMAD MASHTA
I, Mohamad Mashta, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pmsuant 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a U.S. lawful permanent resident and a Syrian citizen.
2.
I came to the United States in 2012 on a stndent visa. I applied for and was
granted asylum and later became a lawful permanent resident. I believe in the "American
Dream."
3.
I have a Master's degree in electrical engineering and work as an engineer.
4.
My wife is also a Syrian citizen. She left Syria in 2012 because the civil war
made the country tmsafe. She has lived in Sudan since then with her family. We married in
2015.
5.
I applied for an immigrant visa for my wife in 2015, shortly after we married. My
petition was granted about four months later. I submitted her visa application in J1me 2016. We
waited a long time, but she was finally scheduled for an interview in Sudan in July 2017. At the
interview, the officer asked for some additional information, which she provided. Her case has
been in administrative processing since then. According to the monthly visa bulletin from the
Department of State, a visa is currently available for her. I do not believe there is any legitimate
reason for my wife's application to be delayed or denied. I fear that she is being tmfairly
processed because she is Muslim.
6.
Being separated from my wife is depressing and painful. We have now been
living apart for two years, and every day we spend apart hurts. I have struggled during this time,
and sometimes lose hope that we will ever be able to be together. When I can, I take vacations to
visit her in Sudan. But that is no replacement for really being together.
J.R. 470
JA 597
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 51 of 344
7.
I am a practicing Muslim, as is my wife.
8.
I am familiar with the President's promises for a "Muslim Ban" and with the two
executive orders he signed banning people from Syria and other countries. I see those orders as
an attempt to follow through on the President's promise of a ban on Muslims.
9.
When the first ban was announced in Januaiy, I was devastated. I could not sleep
and could not work, and had to take a week of vacation time. I still have trouble sleeping
because of the ban, which has left me feeling scared, depressed, and anxious about what wi ll
happen next. To me, the President's ban says that as Muslims we are not welcome in this
country. It tells me the govenunent does not want us here. It feels like an accusation for no
reason that my wife and I are te1rn1ists, and that we as Muslims cannot get along with other
people in America. Those accusations are totally wrong and hmtful.
10.
I have felt my interactions w ith Americans change since the first ban. The
message of the ban, that Muslims like me are bad people unless proven othe1wise, affects
conversations I have all the time. I feel a lot of pressure to defend myself and other Musi irns, to
prove to people that I am not bad. I never felt that way before the first ban.
I declare under penalty of pe1jmy and under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and COITect. Executed in
Ce.li'V>.a , 0 H on September n ,2017
"'1H.µ,()~tiTA
Mohamad Mashta
J.R. 471
JA 598
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 52 of 344
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Civil Action No.: 8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED
METEAB IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED METEAB
I, Mohammed Meteab, upon my personal knowledge, hereby submit this declaration
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and declare as follows:
1.
I am a lawful permanent resident of Iraqi origin, and I live in Springfield, Massachusetts.
I am a plaintiff in International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al.
2.
I am one of five brothers. We lived together with our families in Iraq. During and after
the 2003 invasion of Iraq, my brothers and I all cooperated with the U.S. military, helping to
establish the transitional government in the wake of the conflict in Najaf, Iraq. Because of our
cooperation with the U.S. government, we received threats and were shot at by armed militia
groups in Iraq.
3.
In December 2013, one of my brothers fled to Jordan with all of his children and two of
his children. The rest of my brothers and I also fled to Jordan with our wives and the rest of the
children in early 2014. After being approved as a refugee, I came to the United States with my
wife and children in 2015. Two of my brothers, Ahmed and Ali, have also been approved to
1
J.R. 472
JA 599
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 53 of 344
come to the United States as refugees but are still waiting in Jordan. Until the January ban, we
had all expected that they would be here in early 2017.
4.
In Iraq, my brothers and I lived together with our families, and we helped each other as
one family. This separation is painful for all of us.
5.
Although my brothers and I helped the United States government in Iraq, the January
Executive Order stopped them from coming to here as refugees. My brothers and I are hurt that
after cooperating with the U.S. military in Iraq and facing threats for our help, my brothers are
being treated as if they are a threat to the United States.
6.
When the first ban was announced in January, I was not only afraid that my brothers and
their families would be delayed in coming to the United States, but I also felt personally affected
by the ban, which I (and everyone else) understood as an attempt to ban Muslims. Since the first
ban went into effect, my family has felt afraid. My wife, who wears a hijab, does not like to go
out alone. My niece has been harassed on the street and in school, and even the teachers have
said they were concerned for how my children may be treated. Until the January ban, I felt
worried about my family stuck in Jordan but we felt safe and lucky to be here in the United
States. When I first arrived in the US I didn’t feel discriminated against at all. I loved how people
were so friendly and welcoming here. But now I’ve noticed that my family gets more suspicious
looks from people since the first ban went into place. This ban has made discrimination into
official policy, and I think encourages people to act in this harmful way towards Muslims.
7.
Because of the harassment she has faced wearing a hijab, my wife goes out less and less.
Since our kids have returned to school this fall, my wife has faced more harassment when she
takes the kids to school and picks them up in the afternoon. When she walks down the street,
some young men stand on the sidewalk, yell in an intimidating way, “Allah Hu Akbar,” act out
2
J.R. 473
JA 600
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 54 of 344
detonating a bomb, and then laugh at her. This has happened multiple times and makes my wife
feel scared. As a result, I am thinking about moving our family to another area but I’m not sure if
we won’t face the same problem in another area. And we shouldn’t have to move to another area
to avoid this harassment.
8.
The latest version of the ban has made me feel this more strongly. Even though the new
ban adds people from other religions and who are from North Korea plus some Venezuelans on
the list, this ban is still targeted at Muslims. This ban is a tool for discrimination, and the new
and old bans impact how I feel as a Muslim living in the United States. Everyone can see that
the ban is still targeting Muslims, and I continue to feel personally targeted in this way.
9.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Springfield, Massachusetts on October _5_, 2017.
___________________________
Mohammed Meteab
3
J.R. 474
JA 601
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 55 of 344
IN THE U ' ITED STATES DlSTlUC f COURT
FOH Tll E OISTIUCT OF i\1.s nnd fo r scvcrul year.> opl·r.11cd 111) '""" businc~~ In 2001.
I ~
'-alllc .1 l.1111tcd S1a1 cll 11.c11. 011 onc ol' my tnps b.1ck lo Iran. I met my l't1 m ·m 1\l fc a11J w..:
,-,
were mamcJ m Iran m 2004 Because ot nw medical cond1t1on, I decided to rcmn111 in IrJn. M)
w11C
i~
u national of lmn, and still lives thc1c
2.
J have had a history of Vc,t1b111:lr Sd1wannom3, "h:d1 is a tumor
cln clo1 frum lhc b.1l.111(·c und hcuring 11crvcs supplying lhr i1111cr "ar. I hud
1cd
th~
tumor rcmu\ cd
many years ago, but I have had multiple r~co11~L111 c1 ion s urgcri ~s and rnnny complicutions
~ ss11c1 at cd
~nd
wuh the pro,·cdurcs As rny mcd1c:1l condition dc1
criorntcd ov~r thr years, my wife
l llec1detl 1h:ll i1 would be hcM tor mt lu return 10 the US ond pctillon for her and our
J.R. 475
JA 602
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 56 of 344
ndoptcd daughter so that they can join me in the U.S. I returned co the U.S in Fcbrnary of20 lo
<1nd 1cc,tahli,hed my domicile in l3oyds. MD. Returning to the U.S.
hJ~
allo,.cd me to receive
mcdit-.tl care at the John l lopkins Communi1y Phvsirians Prnrticc. It has also allowed me to live
d 0'~
to my cousin, broth~r-in-bw, and nephew who all live in th<· U.S. (as caizcns or lawful
permanent residents) :uid who bnvc always helped me emotionally and financiall y.
.\ .
Alier I moved back to the United States, I tiled an 1-1 30 petition !Or my
witC, lo Join me. Thal petition was approved, and my wife had her visa in1crvicw at the U.S.
Emba>>Y in Ankara. Turk..,y, on Fcbrn:iry 22, 201 7.
4.
:-lothing went wrong at the interview, and l knuw of no reason why my
wife would not be eligible for a visa. lier visa is in administrative pr0<·es,ing.
5.
13cing ap;irt from my wife and daughter in the United States is extremely
difticult for me, c~pt•cinlly in light of my mcdi(al condition. I have chronic weakness, unstable
gait and vi:-. i\m imp~irmcnt, which have prcvcntl!d me from working. ~1y \.\•ifc 's admission to the
l .S would not only allow her co help care for me, and she will also be able to W())'k nnd hrlp
\\iih our hc>u;cbdd\ finan cial net·d'>. It makes me very sJd and
li11 ~ 1ra1ed
tlw1 I haw to be
nµ~11
hum her
()
11\)
I .un a nonprat:ticing I\.hhlim. ;mt.1 the fact that th(.· polic) keeping me from
w1k 1 ~ aimed al Muslim> makes my . 1Jua11on even more painful. Sin.:c the fir;t trav,•I han, 111
Janu:uy of this ycnr. l liavc no1iccd a difference in how I r.m treated. I now fed chat l am
sniminated against for being Muslim. J notice tlrn, for example, 11 hen I fim arrive back home
d1
nnU >fk'ak \\'tlh the custom'i agcnl"', who seem more suspicious now.
7.
The new travel bun makes me feel
C\Cll
1,1,.·orsc, bc~~m~c th is time it is
111deli111tt' :ind m1gln nut end :1 1\er 90 clays. I wony that this d1~cri minatiu11
ag~1i 1J> l M11~li 1m
J.R. 476
cuuld
JA 603
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 57 of 344
pt:L'Si'\t
now and \vould interfrre
8.
\V1 th
my righ1
'
a~
a U.S. citizen to live \Vi th my wife of O\ er l l
l am vitiili11g my family in Jr;rn temporarily now; I will rdurn home lo the
l 'ni1nl S1a1 lalt·r in October.
cs
I tkdarc under penalty of perjury nnd under 1 laws of the United St:1tC> that th~ fore going ts
hc
t111c ~nd correct. Executed
111
E2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
J.R. 4934790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 620
45162
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 74 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to
certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim
the following:
Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States
to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats.
Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing
that policy. They enhance our ability to detect foreign nationals who may
commit, aid, or support acts of terrorism, or otherwise pose a safety threat,
and they aid our efforts to prevent such individuals from entering the
United States.
(b) Information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices
of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness of the screening
and vetting protocols and procedures of the United States. Governments
manage the identity and travel documents of their nationals and residents.
They also control the circumstances under which they provide information
about their nationals to other governments, including information about
known or suspected terrorists and criminal-history information. It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to take all necessary and appropriate
steps to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing
and identity-management protocols and practices and to regularly share
identity and threat information with our immigration screening and vetting
systems.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(c) Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13780 directed 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 publicsafety threat.’’ That review culminated in a report submitted to the President
by the Secretary of Homeland Security on July 9, 2017. In that review,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Director of National Intelligence, developed a baseline for
the kinds of information required from foreign governments to support the
United States Government’s ability to confirm the identity of individuals
seeking entry into the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants,
as well as individuals applying for any other benefit under the immigration
laws, and to assess whether they are a security or public-safety threat.
That baseline incorporates three categories of criteria:
(i) Identity-management information. The United States expects foreign
governments to provide the information needed to determine whether
individuals seeking benefits under the immigration laws are who they
claim to be. The identity-management information category focuses on
the integrity of documents required for travel to the United States. The
criteria assessed in this category include whether the country issues electronic passports embedded with data to enable confirmation of identity,
reports lost and stolen passports to appropriate entities, and makes available upon request identity-related information not included in its passports.
(ii) National security and public-safety information. The United States
expects foreign governments to provide information about whether persons
who seek entry to this country pose national security or public-safety
risks. The criteria assessed in this category include whether the country
makes available, directly or indirectly, known or suspected terrorist and
criminal-history information upon request, whether the country provides
passport and national-identity document exemplars, and whether the country impedes the United States Government’s receipt of information about
passengers and crew traveling to the United States.
(iii) National security and public-safety risk assessment. The national security and public-safety risk assessment category focuses on national security
risk indicators. The criteria assessed in this category include whether
the country is a known or potential terrorist safe haven, whether it is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
J.R. 4944790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 621
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 75 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
45163
a participant in the Visa Waiver Program established under section 217
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187, that meets all of its requirements, and whether
it regularly fails to receive its nationals subject to final orders of removal
from the United States.
(d) The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of State, collected data on the performance of all foreign governments
and assessed each country against the baseline described in subsection (c)
of this section. The assessment focused, in particular, on identity management, security and public-safety threats, and national security risks. Through
this assessment, the agencies measured each country’s performance with
respect to issuing reliable travel documents and implementing adequate
identity-management and information-sharing protocols and procedures, and
evaluated terrorism-related and public-safety risks associated with foreign
nationals seeking entry into the United States from each country.
(e) The Department of Homeland Security evaluated each country against
the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section. The Secretary of
Homeland Security identified 16 countries as being ‘‘inadequate’’ based on
an analysis of their identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors. Thirty-one additional countries were classified ‘‘at
risk’’ of becoming ‘‘inadequate’’ based on those criteria.
(f) As required by section 2(d) of Executive Order 13780, the Department
of State conducted a 50-day engagement period to encourage all foreign
governments, not just the 47 identified as either ‘‘inadequate’’ or ‘‘at risk,’’
to improve their performance with respect to the baseline described in
subsection (c) of this section. Those engagements yielded significant improvements in many countries. Twenty-nine countries, for example, provided
travel document exemplars for use by Department of Homeland Security
officials to combat fraud. Eleven countries agreed to share information on
known or suspected terrorists.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(g) The Secretary of Homeland Security assesses that the following countries continue to have ‘‘inadequate’’ identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors, with respect to the baseline described
in subsection (c) of this section, such that entry restrictions and limitations
are recommended: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and
Yemen. The Secretary of Homeland Security also assesses that Iraq did
not meet the baseline, but that entry restrictions and limitations under
a Presidential proclamation are not warranted. The Secretary of Homeland
Security recommends, however, that nationals of Iraq who seek to enter
the United States be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they
pose risks to the national security or public safety of the United States.
In reaching these conclusions, the Secretary of Homeland Security considered
the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the strong United States diplomatic
presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq,
and Iraq’s commitment to combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS).
(h) Section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to ‘‘submit to the President a list of countries recommended
for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry
of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not
provided the information requested until they do so or until the Secretary
of Homeland Security certifies that the country has an adequate plan to
do so, or has adequately shared information through other means.’’ On
September 15, 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security submitted a report
to me recommending entry restrictions and limitations on certain nationals
of 7 countries determined to be ‘‘inadequate’’ in providing such information
and in light of other factors discussed in the report. According to the
report, the recommended restrictions would help address the threats that
the countries’ identity-management protocols, information-sharing inadequacies, and other risk factors pose to the security and welfare of the United
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
J.R. 4954790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 622
45164
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 76 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
States. The restrictions also encourage the countries to work with the United
States to address those inadequacies and risks so that the restrictions and
limitations imposed by this proclamation may be relaxed or removed as
soon as possible.
(i) In evaluating the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security and in determining what restrictions to impose for each country,
I consulted with appropriate Assistants to the President and members
of the Cabinet, including the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland
Security, and the Attorney General. I considered several factors, including
each country’s capacity, ability, and willingness to cooperate with our
identity-management and information-sharing policies and each country’s
risk factors, such as whether it has a significant terrorist presence within
its territory. I also considered foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals. I reviewed these factors and assessed these goals, with
a particular focus on crafting those country-specific restrictions that would
be most likely to encourage cooperation given each country’s distinct
circumstances, and that would, at the same time, protect the United States
until such time as improvements occur. The restrictions and limitations
imposed by this proclamation are, in my judgment, necessary to prevent
the entry of those foreign nationals about whom the United States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the
United States. These restrictions and limitations are also needed to elicit
improved identity-management and information-sharing protocols and
practices from foreign governments; and to advance foreign policy, national
security, and counterterrorism objectives.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(ii) After reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security’s report of September 15, 2017, and accounting for the foreign policy, national security,
and counterterrorism objectives of the United States, I have determined
to restrict and limit the entry of nationals of 7 countries found to be
‘‘inadequate’’ with respect to the baseline described in subsection (c)
of this section: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and
Yemen. These restrictions distinguish between the entry of immigrants
and nonimmigrants. Persons admitted on immigrant visas become lawful
permanent residents of the United States. Such persons may present national security or public-safety concerns that may be distinct from those
admitted as nonimmigrants. The United States affords lawful permanent
residents more enduring rights than it does to nonimmigrants. Lawful
permanent residents are more difficult to remove than nonimmigrants
even after national security concerns arise, which heightens the costs
and dangers of errors associated with admitting such individuals. And
although immigrants generally receive more extensive vetting than nonimmigrants, such vetting is less reliable when the country from which
someone seeks to emigrate exhibits significant gaps in its identity-management or information-sharing policies, or presents risks to the national
security of the United States. For all but one of those 7 countries, therefore,
I am restricting the entry of all immigrants.
(iii) I am adopting a more tailored approach with respect to nonimmigrants,
in accordance with the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland
Security. For some countries found to be ‘‘inadequate’’ with respect to
the baseline described in subsection (c) of this section, I am restricting
the entry of all nonimmigrants. For countries with certain mitigating factors, such as a willingness to cooperate or play a substantial role in
combatting terrorism, I am restricting the entry only of certain categories
of nonimmigrants, which will mitigate the security threats presented by
their entry into the United States. In those cases in which future cooperation seems reasonably likely, and accounting for foreign policy, national
security, and counterterrorism objectives, I have tailored the restrictions
to encourage such improvements.
(i) Section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780 also provided that the ‘‘Secretary
of State, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security may
also submit to the President the names of additional countries for which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
J.R. 4964790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 623
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 77 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
45165
any of them recommends other lawful restrictions or limitations deemed
necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.’’ The Secretary
of Homeland Security determined that Somalia generally satisfies the information-sharing requirements of the baseline described in subsection (c) of
this section, but its government’s inability to effectively and consistently
cooperate, combined with the terrorist threat that emanates from its territory,
present special circumstances that warrant restrictions and limitations on
the entry of its nationals into the United States. Somalia’s identity-management deficiencies and the significant terrorist presence within its territory
make it a source of particular risks to the national security and public
safety of the United States. Based on the considerations mentioned above,
and as described further in section 2(h) of this proclamation, I have determined that entry restrictions, limitations, and other measures designed to
ensure proper screening and vetting for nationals of Somalia are necessary
for the security and welfare of the United States.
(j) Section 2 of this proclamation describes some of the inadequacies
that led me to impose restrictions on the specified countries. Describing
all of those reasons publicly, however, would cause serious damage to
the national security of the United States, and many such descriptions
are classified.
Sec. 2. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern.
The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries
is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to categorical exceptions
and case-by-case waivers, as described in sections 3 and 6 of this proclamation:
(a) Chad.
(i) The government of Chad is an important and valuable counterterrorism
partner of the United States, and the United States Government looks
forward to expanding that cooperation, including in the areas of immigration and border management. Chad has shown a clear willingness to
improve in these areas. Nonetheless, Chad does not adequately share
public-safety and terrorism-related information and fails to satisfy at least
one key risk criterion. Additionally, several terrorist groups are active
within Chad or in the surrounding region, including elements of Boko
Haram, ISIS-West Africa, and al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb. At this
time, additional information sharing to identify those foreign nationals
applying for visas or seeking entry into the United States who represent
national security and public-safety threats is necessary given the significant
terrorism-related risk from this country.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad, as immigrants,
and as nonimmigrants on business (B–1), tourist (B–2), and business/
tourist (B–1/B–2) visas, is hereby suspended.
(b) Iran.
(i) Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government
in identifying security risks, fails to satisfy at least one key risk criterion,
is the source of significant terrorist threats, and fails to receive its nationals
subject to final orders of removal from the United States. The Department
of State has also designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants
and as nonimmigrants is hereby suspended, except that entry by such
nationals under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas
is not suspended, although such individuals should be subject to enhanced
screening and vetting requirements.
(c) Libya.
(i) The government of Libya is an important and valuable counterterrorism
partner of the United States, and the United States Government looks
forward to expanding on that cooperation, including in the areas of immigration and border management. Libya, nonetheless, faces significant challenges in sharing several types of information, including public-safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
J.R. 4974790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 624
45166
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 78 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
and terrorism-related information necessary for the protection of the national security and public safety of the United States. Libya also has
significant inadequacies in its identity-management protocols. Further,
Libya fails to satisfy at least one key risk criterion and has been assessed
to be not fully cooperative with respect to receiving its nationals subject
to final orders of removal from the United States. The substantial terrorist
presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry
into the United States of its nationals.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Libya, as immigrants,
and as nonimmigrants on business (B–1), tourist (B–2), and business/
tourist (B–1/B–2) visas, is hereby suspended.
(d) North Korea.
(i) North Korea does not cooperate with the United States Government
in any respect and fails to satisfy all information-sharing requirements.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of North Korea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.
(e) Syria.
(i) Syria regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government
in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorist threats,
and has been designated by the Department of State as a state sponsor
of terrorism. Syria has significant inadequacies in identity-management
protocols, fails to share public-safety and terrorism information, and fails
to satisfy at least one key risk criterion.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Syria as immigrants
and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.
(f) Venezuela.
(i) Venezuela has adopted many of the baseline standards identified by
the Secretary of Homeland Security and in section 1 of this proclamation,
but its government is uncooperative in verifying whether its citizens pose
national security or public-safety threats. Venezuela’s government fails
to share public-safety and terrorism-related information adequately, fails
to satisfy at least one key risk criterion, and has been assessed to be
not fully cooperative with respect to receiving its nationals subject to
final orders of removal from the United States. There are, however, alternative sources for obtaining information to verify the citizenship and
identity of nationals from Venezuela. As a result, the restrictions imposed
by this proclamation focus on government officials of Venezuela who
are responsible for the identified inadequacies.
(ii) Notwithstanding section 3(b)(v) of this proclamation, the entry into
the United States of officials of government agencies of Venezuela involved
in screening and vetting procedures—including the Ministry of the Popular
Power for Interior, Justice and Peace; the Administrative Service of Identification, Migration and Immigration; the Scientific, Penal and Criminal
Investigation Service Corps; the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service;
and the Ministry of the Popular Power for Foreign Relations—and their
immediate family members, as nonimmigrants on business (B–1), tourist
(B–2), and business/tourist (B–1/B–2) visas, is hereby suspended. Further,
nationals of Venezuela who are visa holders should be subject to appropriate additional measures to ensure traveler information remains current.
(g) Yemen.
(i) The government of Yemen is an important and valuable counterterrorism
partner, and the United States Government looks forward to expanding
that cooperation, including in the areas of immigration and border management. Yemen, nonetheless, faces significant identity-management challenges, which are amplified by the notable terrorist presence within its
territory. The government of Yemen fails to satisfy critical identity-management requirements, does not share public-safety and terrorism-related information adequately, and fails to satisfy at least one key risk criterion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
J.R. 4984790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 625
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 79 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
45167
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants,
and as nonimmigrants on business (B–1), tourist (B–2), and business/
tourist (B–1/B–2) visas, is hereby suspended.
(h) Somalia.
(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security’s report of September 15, 2017,
determined that Somalia satisfies the information-sharing requirements
of the baseline described in section 1(c) of this proclamation. But several
other considerations support imposing entry restrictions and limitations
on Somalia. Somalia has significant identity-management deficiencies. For
example, while Somalia issues an electronic passport, the United States
and many other countries do not recognize it. A persistent terrorist threat
also emanates from Somalia’s territory. The United States Government
has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Somalia stands apart
from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command
and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its
national capabilities in a variety of respects. Terrorists use under-governed
areas in northern, central, and southern Somalia as safe havens from
which to plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups
that threaten the national security of the United States. The State Department’s 2016 Country Reports on Terrorism observed that Somalia has
not sufficiently degraded the ability of terrorist groups to plan and mount
attacks from its territory. Further, despite having made significant progress
toward formally federating its member states, and its willingness to fight
terrorism, Somalia continues to struggle to provide the governance needed
to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement, access to resources, and capacity
to operate. The government of Somalia’s lack of territorial control also
compromises Somalia’s ability, already limited because of poor recordkeeping, to share information about its nationals who pose criminal or
terrorist risks. As a result of these and other factors, Somalia presents
special concerns that distinguish it from other countries.
(ii) The entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants
is hereby suspended. Additionally, visa adjudications for nationals of Somalia and decisions regarding their entry as nonimmigrants should be
subject to additional scrutiny to determine if applicants are connected
to terrorist organizations or otherwise pose a threat to the national security
or public safety of the United States.
Sec. 3. Scope and Implementation of Suspensions and Limitations. (a) Scope.
Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and
any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspensions of and
limitations on entry pursuant to section 2 of this proclamation shall apply
only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:
(i) are outside the United States on the applicable effective date under
section 7 of this proclamation;
(ii) do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date under section
7 of this proclamation; and
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(iii) do not qualify for a visa or other valid travel document under section
6(d) of this proclamation.
(b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this
proclamation shall not apply to:
(i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States;
(ii) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United
States on or after the applicable effective date under section 7 of this
proclamation;
(iii) any foreign national who has a document other than a visa—such
as a transportation letter, an appropriate boarding foil, or an advance
parole document—valid on the applicable effective date under section
7 of this proclamation or issued on any date thereafter, that permits
him or her to travel to the United States and seek entry or admission;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
J.R. 4994790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 626
45168
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 80 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
(iv) any dual national of a country designated under section 2 of this
proclamation when the individual is traveling on a passport issued by
a non-designated country;
(v) any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C–2 visa for travel to the United
Nations, or G–1, G–2, G–3, or G–4 visa; or
(vi) any foreign national who has been granted asylum by the United
States; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States;
or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance
parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
(c) Waivers. Notwithstanding the suspensions of and limitations on entry
set forth in section 2 of this proclamation, a consular officer, or the Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner’s designee, as appropriate, may, in their discretion, grant waivers
on a case-by-case basis to permit the entry of foreign nationals for whom
entry is otherwise suspended or limited if such foreign nationals demonstrate
that waivers would be appropriate and consistent with subsections (i) through
(iv) of this subsection. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall coordinate to adopt guidance addressing the circumstances
in which waivers may be appropriate for foreign nationals seeking entry
as immigrants or nonimmigrants.
(i) A waiver may be granted only if a foreign national demonstrates to
the consular officer’s or CBP official’s satisfaction that:
(A) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship;
(B) entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public
safety of the United States; and
(C) entry would be in the national interest.
(ii) The guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Homeland Security under this subsection shall address the standards,
policies, and procedures for:
(A) determining whether the entry of a foreign national would not
pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United
States;
(B) determining whether the entry of a foreign national would be in
the national interest;
(C) addressing and managing the risks of making such a determination
in light of the inadequacies in information sharing, identity management,
and other potential dangers posed by the nationals of individual countries
subject to the restrictions and limitations imposed by this proclamation;
(D) assessing whether the United States has access, at the time of the
waiver determination, to sufficient information about the foreign national
to determine whether entry would satisfy the requirements of subsection
(i) of this subsection; and
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(E) determining the special circumstances that would justify granting
a waiver under subsection (iv)(E) of this subsection.
(iii) Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
any waiver issued by a consular officer as part of the visa adjudication
process will be effective both for the issuance of a visa and for any
subsequent entry on that visa, but will leave unchanged all other requirements for admission or entry.
(iv) Case-by-case waivers may not be granted categorically, but may be
appropriate, subject to the limitations, conditions, and requirements set
forth under subsection (i) of this subsection and the guidance issued
under subsection (ii) of this subsection, in individual circumstances such
as the following:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
J.R. 5004790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 627
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 81 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
45169
(A) the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United
States for a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity,
is outside the United States on the applicable effective date under section
7 of this proclamation, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that
activity, and the denial of reentry would impair that activity;
(B) the foreign national has previously established significant contacts
with the United States but is outside the United States on the applicable
effective date under section 7 of this proclamation for work, study, or
other lawful activity;
(C) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for significant
business or professional obligations and the denial of entry would impair
those obligations;
(D) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or
reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who
is a United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully
admitted on a valid nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry would
cause the foreign national undue hardship;
(E) the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an
individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case;
(F) the foreign national has been employed by, or on behalf of, the
United States Government (or is an eligible dependent of such an employee), and the foreign national can document that he or she has provided
faithful and valuable service to the United States Government;
(G) the foreign national is traveling for purposes related to an international organization designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq., traveling for purposes of
conducting meetings or business with the United States Government, or
traveling to conduct business on behalf of an international organization
not designated under the IOIA;
(H) the foreign national is a Canadian permanent resident who applies
for a visa at a location within Canada;
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(I) the foreign national is traveling as a United States Government–
sponsored exchange visitor; or
(J) the foreign national is traveling to the United States, at the request
of a United States Government department or agency, for legitimate law
enforcement, foreign policy, or national security purposes.
Sec. 4. Adjustments to and Removal of Suspensions and Limitations. (a)
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, devise a process to assess whether any suspensions and limitations
imposed by section 2 of this proclamation should be continued, terminated,
modified, or supplemented. The process shall account for whether countries
have improved their identity-management and information-sharing protocols
and procedures based on the criteria set forth in section 1 of this proclamation
and the Secretary of Homeland Security’s report of September 15, 2017.
Within 180 days of the date of this proclamation, and every 180 days
thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence,
and other appropriate heads of agencies, shall submit a report with recommendations to the President, through appropriate Assistants to the President, regarding the following:
(i) the interests of the United States, if any, that continue to require
the suspension of, or limitations on, the entry on certain classes of nationals
of countries identified in section 2 of this proclamation and whether
the restrictions and limitations imposed by section 2 of this proclamation
should be continued, modified, terminated, or supplemented; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
J.R. 5014790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 628
45170
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 82 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
(ii) the interests of the United States, if any, that require the suspension
of, or limitations on, the entry of certain classes of nationals of countries
not identified in this proclamation.
(b) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of
National Intelligence, and the head of any other executive department or
agency (agency) that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, shall engage
the countries listed in section 2 of this proclamation, and any other countries
that have information-sharing, identity-management, or risk-factor deficiencies as practicable, appropriate, and consistent with the foreign policy,
national security, and public-safety objectives of the United States.
(c) Notwithstanding the process described above, and consistent with the
process described in section 2(f) of Executive Order 13780, if the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, determines, at any
time, that a country meets the standards of the baseline described in section
1(c) of this proclamation, that a country has an adequate plan to provide
such information, or that one or more of the restrictions or limitations
imposed on the entry of a country’s nationals are no longer necessary for
the security or welfare of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland
Security may recommend to the President the removal or modification of
any or all such restrictions and limitations. The Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General may also, as provided
for in Executive Order 13780, submit to the President the names of additional
countries for which any of them recommends any lawful restrictions or
limitations deemed necessary for the security or welfare of the United States.
Sec. 5. Reports on Screening and Vetting Procedures. (a) The Secretary
of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and other appropriate
heads of agencies shall submit periodic reports to the President, through
appropriate Assistants to the President, that:
(i) describe the steps the United States Government has taken to improve
vetting for nationals of all foreign countries, including through improved
collection of biometric and biographic data;
(ii) describe the scope and magnitude of fraud, errors, false information,
and unverifiable claims, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland
Security on the basis of a validation study, made in applications for
immigration benefits under the immigration laws; and
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(iii) evaluate the procedures related to screening and vetting established
by the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs in order to enhance
the safety and security of the United States and to ensure sufficient review
of applications for immigration benefits.
(b) The initial report required under subsection (a) of this section shall
be submitted within 180 days of the date of this proclamation; the second
report shall be submitted within 270 days of the first report; and reports
shall be submitted annually thereafter.
(c) The agency heads identified in subsection (a) of this section shall
coordinate any policy developments associated with the reports described
in subsection (a) of this section through the appropriate Assistants to the
President.
Sec. 6. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall consult with appropriate domestic and international partners,
including countries and organizations, to ensure efficient, effective, and
appropriate implementation of this proclamation.
(b) In implementing this proclamation, the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations, including those that provide an opportunity for individuals
to enter the United States on the basis of a credible claim of fear of persecution or torture.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
J.R. 5024790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 629
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 83 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
45171
(c) No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant
to this proclamation.
(d) Any individual whose visa was marked revoked or marked canceled
as a result of Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017 (Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States), shall be entitled
to a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel
to the United States and seek entry under the terms and conditions of
the visa marked revoked or marked canceled. Any prior cancellation or
revocation of a visa that was solely pursuant to Executive Order 13769
shall not be the basis of inadmissibility for any future determination about
entry or admissibility.
(e) This proclamation shall not apply to an individual who has been
granted asylum by the United States, to a refugee who has already been
admitted to the United States, or to an individual granted withholding
of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nothing
in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual
to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under
the Convention Against Torture, consistent with the laws of the United
States.
Sec. 7. Effective Dates. Executive Order 13780 ordered a temporary pause
on the entry of foreign nationals from certain foreign countries. In two
cases, however, Federal courts have enjoined those restrictions. The Supreme
Court has stayed those injunctions as to foreign nationals who lack a credible
claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United
States, pending its review of the decisions of the lower courts.
(a) The restrictions and limitations established in section 2 of this proclamation are effective at 3:30 p.m. eastern daylight time on September 24, 2017,
for foreign nationals who:
(i) were subject to entry restrictions under section 2 of Executive Order
13780, or would have been subject to the restrictions but for section
3 of that Executive Order, and
(ii) lack a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or
entity in the United States.
(b) The restrictions and limitations established in section 2 of this proclamation are effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on October 18,
2017, for all other persons subject to this proclamation, including nationals
of:
(i) Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia who have a credible claim
of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States;
and
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
(ii) Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela.
Sec. 8. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this
proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the national security, foreign policy, and counterterrorism interests of the United States.
Accordingly:
(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision
to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of
this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and
(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision
to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the lack
of certain procedural requirements, the relevant executive branch officials
shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing
law and with any applicable court orders.
Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed
to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency,
or the head thereof; or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
J.R. 5034790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 630
45172
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 84 of 344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Presidential Documents
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable
law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities,
its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth
day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred
and forty-second.
[FR Doc. 2017–20899
Filed 9–26–17; 11:15 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:47 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
J.R. 5044790
Sfmt
Fmt 4790
E:\FR\FM\27SED1.SGM
27SED1
JA 631
Trump.EPS
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with D0
Billing code 3295–F7–P
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 85 of 344
Exhibit B
J.R. 505
JA 632
10/5/2017
travel.state.gov
Important Announcement
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Visa Intercountry Adoption Filed 10/06/17 Page Contact Us344
Document 205-1 International Parental
86 of
Students Abroad U.S.
U.S. Passports &
International Travel
Child Abduction
|
Find U.S. Embassies
& Consulates
travel.state.gov > Visas > Immigrate > Important Announcement
Print
Email
Important Announcement
Presidential Proclamation on Visas
On September 24, 2017, the President issued a Presidential Proclamation titled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for
Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats.” Per Section 2 of Executive Order
13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States), a global review was
conducted to determine what additional information is needed from each foreign country to assess whether foreign nationals who
seek to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. As part of that review, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) developed a comprehensive set of criteria to evaluate the information-sharing practices, policies, and capabilities of foreign
governments on a worldwide basis. At the end of that review, which included a 50-day period of engagement with foreign
governments aimed at improving their information sharing practices, there were seven countries whose information sharing
practices were classified as “inadequate” and for which the President deemed it necessary to impose certain restrictions on the
entry of nonimmigrants and immigrants who are nationals of these countries. The President also deemed it necessary to impose
restrictions on one country due to the "special concerns" it presented. These restrictions are considered important to addressing
the threat these existing information-sharing deficiencies, among other things, present to the security and welfare of the United
States and pressuring host governments to remedy these deficiencies.
Nationals of the eight countries are subject to various travel restrictions per the following table as outlined in the P.P.
Country
Nonimmigrant Visas
Immigrant and Diversity Visas
Chad
No B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas
No immigrant or diversity visas
Iran
No nonimmigrant visas except F, M, and
No immigrant or diversity visas
J student visas
Libya
No B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas
No immigrant or diversity visas
North Korea
No nonimmigrant visas
No immigrant or diversity visas
Syria
No nonimmigrant visas
No immigrant or diversity visas
Venezuela
No B-1, B-2 or B-1/B-2 visas of any kind No restrictions
for officials of the following government
agencies Ministry of Interior, Justice, and
J.R. 506
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/Immigrate-Announcement.html
JA 633
1/4
10/5/2017
Important Announcement
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 87 of 344
Peace; the Administrative Service of
Identification, Migration, and
Immigration; the Corps of Scientific
Investigations, Judicial and Criminal; the
Bolivarian Intelligence Service; and the
People’s Power Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, and their immediate family
members.
Yemen
No B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas
Somalia
No immigrant or diversity visas
No immigrant or diversity visas
The implementation of the Presidential Proclamation (P.P.) at our embassies and consulates abroad pursuant to the proclamation
is as follows:
Phase 1: From 3:30 p.m. EDT on Sunday, September 24, 2017 until 12:01 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, October 18, 2017:
a) Nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. Nationals of these five countries will generally remain under
suspension of travel except for those individuals who have a credible claim of a "bona fide relationship” with a close family
member or entity in the United States. “Close family” is defined as a parent, including parent-in-law, spouse, fiancé, child, adult
son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
nephew, and first-cousin. For all relationships, half or step status is included (e.g., “half-brother” or “step-sister”). “Close family”
does not include any other “extended” family members. A credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a “U.S. entity” must be
formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course rather than for the purpose of evading suspension of entry under the P.P.
If the national does not qualify for this exemption, they may be eligible for other exceptions or waivers listed in the P. P.
b) Nationals of Sudan. As of 3:30 p.m. EDT on Sunday, September 24, 2017, Sudanese nationals are no longer subject to
travel restrictions.
Phase 2: Beginning 12:01 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, October 18, 2017:
c) Nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia: The exceptions and waivers
listed in the P.P. are applicable for qualified applicants, but the bona fide relationship exception is no longer applicable.
We do not plan to cancel previously scheduled visa application appointments. In accordance with all applicable court orders,
executive orders, and proclamations, for nationals of the eight designated countries, a consular officer will make a determination
in the course of the interview whether an applicant otherwise eligible for a visa is exempt from the P.P. or, if not, will consider
whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver under the P.P., and may be issued a visa.
The P.P. provides specifically that no visas issued before its effective date will be revoked pursuant to the P.P., and it does not
apply to nationals of affected countries who have valid visas on the date it becomes effective.
The National Visa Center (NVC) will continue to work on in-process cases for these applicants. You should continue to pay fees,
complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa applications, and submit your financial and civil supporting documents to NVC. NVC
will review your case file and schedule a visa interview appointment if no additional paperwork is required. During the interview, a
consular officer will carefully review the case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the P.P. and, if so, whether the
case qualifies for an exemption during phase 1 of implementation or a waiver during Phase 2 of implementation.The National Visa
Center (NVC) will continue to work on in-process cases for these applicants. You should continue to pay fees, complete your Form
DS-260 immigrant visa applications, and submit your financial and civil supporting documents to NVC. NVC will review your case
file and schedule a visa interview appointment if no additional paperwork is required. During the interview, a consular officer will
carefully review the case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the P.P. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an
exemption during phase 1 of implementation or a waiver during Phase 2 of implementation.
We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a
professional, organized, and timely way.
Frequently Asked Questions
I received my immigrant visa but I haven’t yet entered the United States. Can I still travel there using my immigrant
visa?
J.R. 507
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/Immigrate-Announcement.html
JA 634
2/4
10/5/2017
Important Announcement
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 88 of 344
The P.P. provides specifically that no visas issued before the effective date of the P.P. will be revoked pursuant to the P.P., and it
does not apply to nationals of affected countries who have valid visas on the date it becomes effective.
I recently had my immigrant visa interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate overseas, but my case is still being
considered. What will happen now?
If your visa application was refused under Section 221(g) pending updated supporting documents or administrative processing,
you should proceed to submit your documentation. After receiving any required missing documentation or completion of any
administrative processing, the U.S. embassy or consulate where you were interviewed will contact you with more information.
I am currently working on my case with NVC. Can I continue?
Yes. You should continue to pay fees, complete your Form DS-260 immigrant visa applications, and submit your financial and civil
supporting documents to NVC. NVC will continue reviewing cases and scheduling visa interviews overseas. During the interview, a
consular officer will carefully review the case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the P.P. and, if so, whether the
case qualifies for an exception or may qualify for a waiver.
What immigrant visa classes are subject to the Executive Order?
During Phase 1 of implementation: Qualified applicants from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia in the immediate-relative
and family-based immigrant visa categories are generally eligible for the bona fide close familial relationship exception since it is
inherent in the requirements for the visa. Likewise, qualified employment-based immigrant visa applicants generally are eligible
for the exception from the P.P., since they have a bona fide formal, documented relationship with a U.S. entity formed in the
ordinary course. Unlike other employment-based immigrant visa applicants, certain self-petitioning employment-based first
preference applicants with no job offer in the United States and special immigrant visas under INA section 101(a)(27)) would
need to demonstrate that they have a bona fide relationship with an entity in the United States or otherwise qualify for a different
exception or waiver. Diversity visa applicants will need to demonstrate a qualifying relationship or qualify for a waiver since a
relationship with a person or entity in the United States is not required for such visas.
An individual who wishes to apply for an immigrant visa should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any
information that might demonstrate that he or she qualifies for an exception or waiver. A consular officer will carefully review
each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the P.P. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an exception or
waiver.
During Phase 2 of implementation: All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria,
Yemen, and Somalia are subject to the P.P. and restricted. All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Venezuela are
unrestricted. The bona fide relationship exception is no longer applicable. An individual who wishes to apply for an immigrant visa
should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview any information that might demonstrate that he or she is eligible for
an exception or waiver per the P.P. A consular officer will carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is
affected by the P.P. and, if so, whether the case qualifies for an exception or a waiver.
I sponsored my family member for an immigrant visa, and his interview appointment is after the effective date of
the P.P.. Will he still be able to receive a visa?
During Phase 1 of implementation: Qualified applicants from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia in the immediate-relative
and family-based immigrant visa categories are generally eligible for the bona fide close familial relationship exception since it is
inherent in the requirements for the visa. Likewise, qualified employment-based immigrant visa applicants generally are eligible
for the exception from the P.P., since they have a bona fide formal, documented relationship with a U.S. entity formed in the
ordinary course. Unlike other employment-based immigrant visa applicants, certain self-petitioning employment-based first
preference applicants with no job offer in the United States and special immigrant visas under INA section 101(a)(27)) would
need to demonstrate that they have a bona fide relationship with an entity in the United States or otherwise qualify for a different
exception or waiver.
During Phase 2 of implementation: All immigrant visa classifications for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria,
Yemen, and Somalia are subject to the Presidential Proclamation and suspended. The bona fide relationship exception is no longer
applicable. An individual who wishes to apply for an immigrant visa should apply for a visa and disclose during the visa interview
any information that might demonstrate that he or she is eligible for an exception or waiver per the P.P. A consular officer will
carefully review each case to determine whether the applicant is affected by the P.P. and, if so, whether the applicant qualifies for
an exception or a waiver.
I am applying for a K (fiancé) visa. My approved I-129 petition is only valid for four months. Can you expedite my
case?
J.R. 508
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/Immigrate-Announcement.html
JA 635
3/4
10/5/2017
Important Announcement
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 89 of 344
The National Visa Center already expedites all Form I-129F petitions to embassies and consulates overseas. Upon receipt of the
petition and case file, the embassy or consulate will contact you with instructions on scheduling your interview appointment.
Español
More Information
A-Z Index
Latest News
What is a U.S. Visa?
Diversity Visa Program
Visa Waiver Program
Fraud Warning
Find a U.S. Embassy or Consulate
Straight Facts on U.S. Visas
In the United States
VisitTheUSA
FAQs: About Visas The Basics
A Guide for New
Immigrants
About Us
Visa Newsroom
Facebook
Youtube
Consular Notification and Access
U.S. Passports &
International Travel
Copyright & Disclaimer
@travelgov
Careers
Law and Policy
Privacy
Dipnote Blog
Flickr
RSS
Contact Us
Reports and Statistics
travel.state.gov
STAY CONNECTED
Find a U.S. Embassy or
Consulate
Students Abroad
FOIA
No FEAR Act Data
U.S. Visa
Office of the Inspector General
Intercountry Adoption
USA.gov
International Parental
Child Abduction
GobiernoUSA.gov
This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
J.R. 509
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/Immigrate-Announcement.html
JA 636
4/4
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 90 of 344
Exhibit C
J.R. 510
JA 637
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 91 of 344
Shows
Home
Video
Politics
U.S.
Opinion
Business
Entertainment
Tech
Science
Health
Travel
Lifestyle
World
On Air
OTR INTERVIEWS
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are
'meaningless'
Published May 11, 2016
Fox News
NOW PLAYING
Trump: Goal of meeting with Paul Ryan is 'unity'
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," May 11, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Right now, Donald Trump, today, he talked about working with the GOP.
Tomorrow he has a meeting with Speaker Paul Ryan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL RYAN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This election is too important to go into election at half strength. That means
we need a real unification of our party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: So what does Donald Trump think about that? Well, he also drops a few clues about picking his V.P.
nominee. And there is more. He has some surprises in store for the Republican convention.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VAN SUSTEREN: Donald, nice to see you.
DONALD TRUMP, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Congratulations on your wins last night.
TRUMP: Yes. It was a great evening.
VAN SUSTEREN: Always more fun to win, isn't it?
TRUMP: It's much better. We've had it both ways. Much better.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right.
J.R. 511
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 638
1/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 92 of 344
Republican party, who is the leader of the Republican Party today. You are the presumptive nominee, not the nominee yet.
And we've got the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
So who is the leader?
TRUMP: Well, I would say Paul Ryan. I mean, I would really think that. I'm doing very well. I'm leading in every category,
and I think I'm going to have a record number of votes. I already have a record number of votes, come to think of it and
millions of votes more than they had four years ago. Many millions of votes more.
And I think I set the all-time record for votes gotten by a Republican candidate. But, I would say Paul for the time being and
maybe for a long time.
VAN SUSTEREN: Tomorrow you're going to meet with Paul Ryan and with Reince Priebus.
What's the goal?
TRUMP: I think just unity. And, you know, we will see how it goes. And I think it will go well.
Paul is a good person. I don't know Paul well. And I think that's part of the meeting. We have to get to know. And don't
forget he knew everybody else because they are governors, they are senators. I am a businessman.
And I think we want to get to know each other. I think we want to see if we have the same ideas because I represent a
large group of people with very strong ideas and foundations. And I think we want to see a little bit about that.
And, you know, hopefully, it will work out. We're going to have a very successful campaign. The polls have been, you know,
through the roof. In fact, I guess over the last three days, they have gone up amazingly. I'm now winning in Ohio and
winning in a lot of places. So it's been, it's been a very interesting week.
VAN SUSTEREN: Can you have unity with Speaker Ryan when you have differences on immigration and entitlements
which are very important topics to the Republican Party and the rest of the nation. And I think probably he thinks you
should probably tone it down a bit on your language.
TRUMP: I think you can. I mean, you know, we always have differences. No matter what you have, you're going to have
differences. If you agree on 70 percent, that's always a lot.
But we will have, you know, I'm a strong border person, and so are millions of people, obviously, because that's one of the
reasons I'm here. That's one of the reasons you're interviewing me instead of one of the people that you no longer can
interview, you know. It wouldn't make sense.
So I think you can, actually, Greta. I think you can.
VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned those other people. Some of them signed a pledge and aren't going to endorse you or
said they haven't. You're thought on that.
TRUMP: Well, they are dishonorable people. I mean, anybody that signs the pledge, I can think of Jeb Bush signed the
pledge. And he is not going to honor it. So that's a dishonorable person.
Now, I would imagine he will ultimately honor it because, you know, they wanted me to sign the pledge. Everybody wanted
me. I was the big one that everybody wanted me to sign.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you held off at first.
TRUMP: You remember with the raising of your hand and the whole thing. So I ended up signing the pledge. And then
these people, they don't honor it.
I think that somebody like Lindsey Graham will end up signing the pledge, because I actually think he is an honorable
person. And I think he will sign the pledge.
I think that, Jeb, I don't know what he is going to do.
VAN SUSTEREN: Going back to immigration and Speaker Ryan.
Now I heard today that you had at least discussed a possible immigration commission, is that right?
J.R. 512
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 639
2/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 93 of 344
TRUMP: I'm looking at it very strongly with Rudy Giuliani heading it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Has he said he would?
TRUMP: I have spoken to him a little while ago. We are going to put together a group of probably five or six people. Very,
very highly thought of people. And I think Rudy will head it up. And we'll look at the Muslim ban or temporary ban as we
call it. And we'll look at some other things on immigration and I have a lot of confidence in Rudy Giuliani.
VAN SUSTEREN: Have you decided whether you will back off on the ban. I realize it was a ban -- it was a temporary ban,
but with unlimited temporary period, it could go on forever that way it -TRUMP: No. It was never meant to be. That's why it was temporary. Sure, I would back off on it. I would like to back off as
soon as possible. Because, frankly, I would like to see something happen. But we have to be vigilant.
There is a radical Islamic terrorism problem that, you know, our president doesn't even want to talk about. All you have to
do is take a look at the World Trade Center. Take a look at San Bernardino or Paris. What a disaster that was. And so
many other locations.
Just last night in Germany, look what happened on the train. And it's a big problem. People -- we're going to have to solve
the problem
But I think by putting together a commission, a group of people that are highly respected in this field like Rudy and others, I
think that could lead to something pretty good.
VAN SUSTEREN: The ban, the way it's described, even as a temporary ban would have, for instance, barred Amir
Hekmati the marine who is over in Iran held prisoner, he wouldn't be able to come back. And the Muslims sort of serving in
our military overseas, they wouldn't come back.
TRUMP: No, they would all comeback. I mean we have exceptions. And, again, it's temporary and ultimately it's my aim to
have it lifted.
Now right now, there is no ban. But I would like to see -- there has to be an idea. There has to be something. Because
there is some pretty bad things going on.
And I have Muslim friends. Great Muslim friends who are telling me you are so right. It's -- there is something going on that
we have to get to the bottom of it. So we'll see what happens
But I think by putting five, six, or seven people together that have expertise in the field, I think that would be good. And
Rudy is a smart guy. He's a tough guy. He gets it. He understands the problem and he is willing to talk about the problem.
And he will head it up and he has agreed to do so.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. I don't want to beat a dead horse. But it's a ban on Muslims with exceptions and it would be
temporary.
TRUMP: And, of course, you have to have exceptions.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Well, the way that everybody read it. It was across the table.
TRUMP: Well, you have exceptions. But -- and ideally, you won't have a ban very long. I mean, we just have to find out
what's happening.
I mean, you take a look what's happening -- I'm not just talking to him. I'm talking about all over the world.
You look at Germany. It's a mess. You look at Sweden, where they have a section that they just started. It's a total mess. I
mean, something has to happen.
VAN SUSTEREN: I guess it's a constitutional implication that's, you know, certainly is why I'm pressing you on this.
TRUMP: Well, we'll take a look. As far as the Syrians coming in, you know, the thousands and thousands of Syrians
coming in from immigration, we have to build a safe zone. We have to do something. I'll get, frankly, the Gulf States to put
up money and they will be willing to put it up. I guarantee you they will put it up because they haven't put up much right
now.
J.R. 513
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 640
3/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 94 of 344
And I don't want to spend the money on it because our country doesn't have any money. We are $19 trillion in the hole. We
are going to be 21 trillion very, very soon because of the budgets that were recently passed. The omnibus budget, et
cetera.
And we are really a nation that doesn't have the money. We have to pay off debt. Not create more debt. So we will get a
safe zone some place in Syria, or numerous safe zones and we will build and we'll use other people's money, meaning
other country's money. The Gulf States in particular and we will do something very good.
But I am absolutely against having more people flowing into this country -- no documentation, no papers, no nothing.
Nobody knows where they come from. And this is what Obama is taking them, tens of thousands.
Hillary Clinton wants to double and triple the efforts. She wants to do it even more so. And we will have problems like you
have never seen before if we do that.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, tax returns. You said that you don't intend to release your tax returns.
TRUMP: No, no, I didn't say that. I said I am being audited. I'm being audited.
VAN SUSTEREN: But what about the returns that are not being audited.
TRUMP: No, no, here's a link, but it goes way back.
VAN SUSTEREN: How far back are you being audited?
TRUMP: I don't know. I would have to ask. Quite -- long enough that it would matter. And there is a link between that and
other things. And as soon as the audit is finished, I'd love to -VAN SUSTEREN: Length of what?
TRUMP: It's just a very relatively simple audit. I will tell you what's unfair. Every year for many years, I have been audited.
And I have friends that are very rich that don't get audited. They never get audited. I get audited every single year. And I
think it's actually very unfair.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think it's deliberate, intentional, being (INAUDIBLE)?
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I don't know. That I have friends that are very wealthy people. I say how often do you get audited? They didn't
even know what I meant. They're never audited. I'm audited every single year. I think it's very unfair.
VAN SUSTEREN: If the audit goes back seven years, would you release the eighth year back? Would you be willing to do
that?
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: No. Number one, it would be meaningless. I would have to find out how far back it goes.
But number one, when you go back eight years, that's pretty -(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: I know. But people are suspicious.
TRUMP: And I'll tell you something -VAN SUSTEREN: But people are suspicious that you are not releasing because in January of 2012, you said to me that
Mitt Romney was making a big mistake by not releasing his. So naturally that's become -(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I don't know, but he wasn't under audit. I'm under audit. No lawyer would say release it when you're under audit.
And these are very simple orders.
J.R. 514
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 641
4/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 95 of 344
VAN SUSTEREN: I agree. I'm a lawyer. I wouldn't have someone, but -TRUMP: You represented me, and I'm under audit.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: I would tell you not to release. I agree. If I were your lawyer.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: So the answer is don't release. Hopefully, before the election, I will release and I would like to release.
By the way, you learn very little from a tax return. You know, I have released my financials and my financials show
tremendous numbers. Very little debt. All of that. You don't learn very much from a tax return.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think part of the things that they are releasing though is it dispels that argument that there's something
going on, that you are not doing it. It takes the mystery off.
TRUMP: You don't learn anything. A tax return you learn very, very little. I mean, I have released highly complex, detailed
financials in line with the federal elections commission. We put them in, I think it's 99 pages or close to 100 pages of detail
saying what a great company I built.
You know, I built a company with very little debt. All of this stuff has certified numbers. Very, very little debt. Tremendous
cash flow. Tremendous value. Great assets. I mean, that's something. And people go over that and they are very
impressed.
You learn very little from a tax return.
But here's the thing, Greta, when you are under audit and you just said it, as a lawyer -(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: And I totally agree. If you were my client and you are under audited, I would say don't release them. But
I just think there are some years outside the audit that might (INAUDIBLE)
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: First of all, if there are, they are meaningless. OK? It doesn't matter because they are so far back. But at the right
time, I will release them. I hope to release them. I would like to release them. But when I'm under audit, I can't do that.
VAN SUSTEREN: Terrible situation in Baghdad today. Three bombs went off. There are about 100 people killed, probably
more die from their injuries within a short time.
If you are president today, and you get the news, you get awakened, what do you do?
TRUMP: Well, look, the war in Iraq is a disaster. I was against it from the beginning. We should have never been there.
I always have to preface that by saying that that was bad judgment. Hillary Clinton had bad judgements. She raised her
hand, a bad judgment. On email. She's got bad judgment on everything. We should have never been there.
(CROSSTALK)
OK. Now we're there. We have a crooked government. We have a government that's dishonest as hell. The money is
being squandered and stolen. And the oil is being stolen and everything is a mess. And now they have probably ISIS going
in and bombing the hell out of the place with these horrible bombs that kill lots of innocent people. It is a hell hole. It's a
mess. It's something we should have never been involved in. Now we're involved.
What are you going to do? You have to be very tough. You have to be very stringent. But you have a government there
that's totally corrupt. You have a bunch of corrupt people in that government and the whole thing is a shame.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. That's the problem. What do we do? We've got 5,000 troops there now
I mean, if you are president, do you do more? Do you do less? What do you do?
J.R. 515
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 642
5/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 96 of 344
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: We're going to get rid of ISIS. But when it's not ISIS, it will be somebody else.
I mean, look, we have been over there for so many years. We have spent probably now it's up to $5 trillion in the Middle
East. $5 trillion in the Middle East.
At some point, we have to get the hell out. You know that, ISIS, you will knock them out. It will be somebody else. It's going
to continue to form. It's a mess. And we have to get rid of ISIS. You know, they chop off the heads and they drown the
people in cages and we have to do it. And they blow up people. Probably this was ISIS or ISIS-related that took place in
Baghdad.
But at some point, we have to get back to our country. Our country, our infrastructure is falling apart. Our highways, our
roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our airports, they are falling apart. We are like a third world country. $5 trillion, we could
have rebuilt our country and had plenty of money left over.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Sponsored Stories You May Like
Ad Content by
San Francisco, California: This Brilliant Company
Is Disrupting…
These Insanely Big Animals Are Unbelievable
[Gallery]
Bollinger Motors claims 10,000 reservations for its
electric SUV
EverQuote
Teastart
Fox News
These 99 Retirement Tips May Surprise You
The All-New 2018 Cadillac CTS Will Make Your
Heart Race
Woman's detailed shopping list for husband goes
viral
Yahoo! Search
Fox News
Fisher Investments
Sponsored Stories
More from Fox News
Two-Ton Backyard Discovery Leaves Police Puzzled
[Gallery]
Woman, 20, critically injured by blaze in 'glamping pod'
during…
Nocartridge
Fox News World
25 Awesome SUVs That Will Fit Any Budget
Crooked highway stripes irritating Alaska drivers
Edmunds
Fox News Travel
25 Most Desirable Luxury Cars
Elon Musk’s space rocket plans: London to NY in 29
minutes
Edmunds
Fox News Science - Video
Father of Two Disappears. Cops Find Him 23 Years
Later
True Activist
Iowa Businessman Shames Beggars With Sign After
They Refuse His Job…
Fox Nation
Bill Gates' Prediction Will Give You Goosebumps
The Motley Fool
NRA calls for ATF review of bump stocks, new
regulations after Las…
James Arness Kept This Hidden Throughout the
Filming of 'Gunsmoke…
Fox News Politics
J.R. 516
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 643
6/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Football League declares they stand for the 344
Standard News
Lingerie Filed 10/06/17 Page 97 of
national anthem
Fox News Entertainment
Ad Content by
Watch Now...
FEMA official: San Juan
mayor has not been
participating
Gingrich: GDP growth a
sign of things to come
'What Happened'?: Jesse
Watters asks Hillary Clinton
fans
Conversation
Be the rst to comment...
Terms · Privacy
Add Spot.IM to your site ·
Site Index
This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News
Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data
delayed 20 minutes.
J.R. 517
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 644
7/8
10/5/2017
Trump: You learn very little from tax returns, they are 'meaningless' | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 98 of 344
J.R. 518
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/11/trump-learn-very-little-from-tax-returns-are-meaningless.html
JA 645
8/8
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 99 of 344
Exhibit D
J.R. 519
JA 646
10/5/2017
Donald J. Trump - DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT REGARDING... | Facebook
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 100 of 344
Email or Phone
Password
Log In
Sign Up
Forgot account?
Donald J. Trump
English (US) · Español · Português (Brasil) ·
Français (France) · Deutsch
June 12, 2016 ·
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT REGARDING TRAGIC TERRORIST
ATTACK IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the
worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6
months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the
wounded, and their families.
Privacy · Terms · Advertising · Ad Choices
Cookies · More
Facebook © 2017
·
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the
words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary
Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she
should get out of this race for the Presidency.
If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a
country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to
happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and
prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct
anymore.
The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from
Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban
and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of
people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each
year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been
implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle
East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we
will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second
generation from radicalizing.
We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from
Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant
society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians
and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am
going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America
safe again and great again for everyone.
- Donald J. Trump
566K Likes 44K Comments 324K Shares
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10157160462435725
J.R. 520
JA 647
1/1
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 101 of 344
Exhibit E
J.R. 521
JA 648
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 102 of 344
.31 enuJ no .H.N
,retsehcnaM ni scitiloP fo etutitsnI erihspmaH weN egelloC mlednA tniaS eht ta skaeps pmurT .J dlanoD
hceeps ytiruces lanoitan s'pmur
T dlanoD :tpircsnar
T
TDE MP 60:30 6102/31/60
As posted on his website, this is the transcript of Donald Trump's June 13 speech on national
security and terrorism in the wake of the Orlando massacre. Underlined segments are the author's.
Thank you for joining me today.
This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in
these times of Radical Islamic Terrorism, she would be.
J.R. 522
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 649
1/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 103 of 344
Even her former Secret Service Agent, who has seen her under pressure and in times of
stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be president.
There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I
will deliver that speech soon.
But today there is only one thing to discuss: the growing threat of terrorism inside of our
borders.
The attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was the worst terrorist strike on our
soil since September 11th, and the worst mass shooting in our country’s history.
ADVERTISING
So many people dead, so many people gravely injured, so much carnage, such a disgrace.
The horror is beyond description.
The families of these wonderful people are totally devastated. Likewise, our whole nation,
and indeed the whole world, is devastated.
We express our deepest sympathies to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
We mourn, as one people, for our nation’s loss – and pledge our support to any and all who
need it.
I would like to ask now that we all observe a moment of silence for the victims of the attack.
J.R. 523
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 650
2/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 104 of 344
[SILENCE]
Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America’s history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill
Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual
orientation.
It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and
express their identity.
'tcerroc yllacitilop' eb ot stsirorret gnitcetorp amabO ,notnilC :pmur
T
NOSLEN SIUOL yB
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own
country.
We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose
and determination.
But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and think and act
clearly.
If we don't get tough, and we don't get smart – and fast – we're not going to have a country
anymore -- there will be nothing left.
The killer, whose name I will not use, or ever say, was born to Afghan parents who
immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a
regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was
running for President of that country.
The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was
because we allowed his family to come here.
That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about.
J.R. 524
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 651
3/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 105 of 344
We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let
into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.
We have an incompetent administration, and if I am not elected President, that will not
change over the next four years -- but it must change, and it must change now.
With fifty people dead, and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to talk around the
issue anymore -- we have to address it head on.
I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger but now,
many are saying I was right to do so -- and although the pause is temporary, we must find
out what is going on. The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly
and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.
The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry
into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the
interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate.
I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend
immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the
United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.
After a full, impartial and long overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible
immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.
We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country,
many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer.
Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and
institutions.
Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.
I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish
people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by Radical Islamic preachers of hate
and violence.
'dnim ni esle gnihtemos tog s'eH' :amabO skcatta pmur
T
SSAG KCIN yB
It’s not just a national security issue. It is a quality of life issue.
J.R. 525
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 652
4/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 106 of 344
If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans – women and children, gay and
straight, Jews and Christians and all people – then we need to tell the truth about Radical
Islam.
We need to tell the truth, also, about how Radical Islam is coming to our shores.
We are importing Radical Islamic Terrorism into the West through a failed immigration
system -- and through an intelligence community held back by our president.
Even our own FBI Director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds
of the people we are letting into America.
All of the September 11th hijackers were issued visas.
Large numbers of Somali refugees in Minnesota have tried to join ISIS.
The Boston Bombers came here through political asylum.
The male shooter in San Bernardino – again, whose name I won't mention -- was the child
of immigrants from Pakistan, and he brought his wife – the other terrorist - from Saudi
Arabia, through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.
Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five-fold in just
one year. According to Pew Research, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive
Sharia Law.
We admit many more from other countries in the region who share these same oppressive
views.
If we want to remain a free and open society, then we have to control our borders.
Yet, Hillary Clinton – for months and despite so many attacks – repeatedly refused to even
say the words “radical Islam,” until I challenged her yesterday to say the words or leave the
race.
However, Hillary Clinton – who has been forced to say the words today after policies she
supports have caused us so much damage – still has no clue what Radical Islam is, and
won’t speak honestly about what it is.
She is in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts
weakness across the world.
J.R. 526
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 653
5/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 107 of 344
In fact, just a few weeks before the San Bernardino slaughter, Hillary Clinton explained her
refusal to say the words Radical Islam. Here is what she said: “Muslims are peaceful and
tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
Hillary Clinton says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France, which has among
the toughest gun laws in the world, and 130 were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in
cold blood. Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolishing the 2nd amendment,
and leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. She wants to take away Americans’
guns, then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.
I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a
Presidential race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect
themselves in this age of terror.
The bottom line is that Hillary supports the policies that bring the threat of Radical Islam
into America, and allow it to grow overseas.
In fact, Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more Radical
Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our security but our way of life.
When it comes to Radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss – it's deadly.
The Obama Administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also
damaged our security by restraining our intelligence-gathering and failing to support law
enforcement. They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety,
and above all else.
I refuse to be politically correct.
I will do the right thing--I want to straighten things out and to Make America Great Again.
The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon.
As President I will give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools
they need to prevent terrorist attacks.
We need an intelligence-gathering system second to none. That includes better
cooperation between state, local and federal officials – and with our allies.
I will have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Secretary of
Defense who will know how to fight the war on Radical Islamic Terrorism – and who will
J.R. 527
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 654
6/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 108 of 344
have the support they require to get the job done.
We also must ensure the American people are provided the information they need to
understand the threat.
The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration has already identified hundreds of immigrants
charged with terrorist activities inside the United States since September 11th.
Nearly a year ago, the Senate Subcommittee asked President Obama's Departments of
Justice, State and Homeland Security to provide the immigration history of all terrorists
inside the United States.
These Departments refused to comply.
President Obama must release the full and complete immigration histories of all
individuals implicated in terrorist activity of any kind since 9/11.
The public has a right to know how these people got here.
We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with, or support, radical
groups and beliefs.
'msirorret cimalsI lacidar no thgir gnieb' rof tiderc sekat pmur
T
TSAE NETSIRK dna LLIKSACCM .D NALON yB
We have to control the amount of future immigration into this country to prevent large
pockets of radicalization from forming inside America.
Even a single individual can be devastating, just look at what happened in Orlando. Can you
imagine large groups?
Truly, our President doesn't know what he is doing. He has failed us, and failed us badly,
and under his leadership, this situation will not get any better -- it will only get worse.
Each year, the United States permanently admits more than 100,000 immigrants from the
Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside the Middle East. Our
government has been admitting ever-growing numbers, year after year, without any
effective plan for our security.
In fact, Clinton's State Department was in charge of the admissions process for people
applying to enter from overseas.
J.R. 528
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 655
7/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 109 of 344
Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans to massively increase
admissions without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.
This could be a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.
We can't let this happen.
Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you'd be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees
from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their
children.
The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these
dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are
bringing in.
The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country
who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans.
The burden is also on Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it. Her plan will cost
Americans hundreds of billions of dollars long-term.
Wouldn't this money be better spent on rebuilding America for our current population,
including the many poor people already living here?
We have to stop the tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United States – we don't
know who they are, they have no documentation, and we don't know what they're
planning.
What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes
American values.
That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy
designed to benefit America, or Hillary Clinton's radical immigration policy designed to
benefit politically-correct special interests.
We've got to get smart, and tough, and vigilant, and we've got to do it now, because later is
too late.
The media talks about “homegrown,” terrorism, but Islamic radicalism, and the networks
that nurture it, are imports from overseas.
J.R. 529
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 656
8/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 110 of 344
Yes, there are many radicalized people already inside our country as a result of the poor
policies of the past. But the whole point is that it will be much, much easier to deal with our
current problem if we don’t keep on bringing in people who add to the problem.
For instance, the controversial Mosque attended by the Boston Bombers had as its founder
an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot.
This shooter in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the
most repressive regimes on Earth. Why would we admit people who support violent
hatred?
Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she
continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country who
suppress women, gays and anyone who doesn’t share their views.
She can’t have it both ways. She can’t claim to be supportive of these communities while
trying to increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress them.
How does this kind of immigration make our life better? How does this kind of
immigration make our country better?
Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people here—in vast numbers—who reject our
values?
Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump
with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? Clinton wants to allow Radical Islamic
terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.
I don’t want them in our country.
Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t
support our communities – all of our communities.
America has already admitted four times more immigrants than any country on earth, and
we continue to admit millions more with no real checks or scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven’t budged in many years.
So whether it’s matter of national security, or financial security, we can’t afford to keep on
going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options.
J.R. 530
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 657
9/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 111 of 344
All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of
offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.
skcatta amabO rof pmur
T 'llams' nwod skcams esuoH etihW
SSAG KCIN yB
I want us all to work together, including in partnership with our Muslim communities. But
Muslim communities must cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who
they know are bad – and they do know where they are.
I want to fix our schools, roads, bridges and job market. I want every American to succeed.
Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that
include individuals who preach hate against our own citizens.
I want to protect our citizens – all of our citizens.
The terrorist attack on the Pulse Night Club demands a full and complete investigation into
every aspect of the assault.
In San Bernardino, as an example, people knew what was going on, but they used the
excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it.
We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and
associates.
We need to know if he was affiliated with any radical Mosques or radical activists and what,
if any, is their immigration status.
We need to know if he travelled anywhere, and who he travelled with.
We need to make sure every single last person involved in this plan – including anyone who
knew something but didn't tell us – is brought to justice.
If it can be proven that somebody had information about any attack, and did not give this
information to authorities, they must serve prison time .
America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are
potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.
It also means we must change our foreign policy.
J.R. 531
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 658
10/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 112 of 344
The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the
regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for
ISIS to expand and grow.
These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in
partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.
That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism, not nation-building.
For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That mission
helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.
skramer s'pmur
T sserdda t'nseod ' malsI lacidar' sklat eitsirhC
,
NAMDEIRF TTAM yB
I've said NATO needs to change its focus to stopping terrorism. Since I've raised that
criticism, NATO has since announced a new initiative focused on just that.
America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism, just
like we did against communism in the Cold War.
We've tried it President Obama's way. He gave the world his apology tour, we got ISIS, and
many other problems, in return.
I'd like to conclude my remarks today by again expressing our solidarity with the people of
Orlando who have come under attack.
When I am President, I pledge to protect and defend all Americans who live inside of our
borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were born, all Americans living here
and following our laws will be protected.
America will be a tolerant and open society.
America will also be a safe society.
We will protect our borders at home.
We will defeat ISIS overseas.
We will ensure every parent can raise their children in peace and safety.
J.R. 532
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 659
11/12
10/5/2017
Transcript: Donald Trump's national security speech - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 113 of 344
We will make America rich again.
We will make America safe again.
We will make American Great Again.
Thank you.
J.R. 533
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-donald-trump-national-security-speech-224273
JA 660
12/12
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 114 of 344
Exhibit F
J.R. 534
JA 661
10/5/2017
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 115 of 344
SECTIONS
advertisement
POLITICS 2016 ELECTION
CONGRESS
WHITE HOUSE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NATIONAL SECURITY
FIRST READ
POLITICS JUN 27 2016, 4:58 PM ET
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim
Ban, Deportations
by ALI VITALI
SHARE
During his two-day Scottish property tour, Donald Trump spurred headlines
and questions surrounding his controversial temporary Muslim ban and plans
to deport undocumented immigrants in the United States.
On Saturday, during gaggles held on four holes of his Aberdeen golf course,
Trump told reporters it “wouldn’t bother” him if a Scottish Muslim came into the
United States under his proposed policy plan. The response poked a glaring
hole in Trump’s initial blanket ban of all Muslims entering the United States and
prompted multiple – and still unanswered -- questions about what this meant
for Trump’s most controversial policy going into the general election.
A few hours after the gaggle, in an interview with Bloomberg, Trump was
confronted with his plans for immigration – the very hot button issue that
launched Trump’s candidacy in a cloud of controversy. On his plans to deport
the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, Trump
said that he “would not call it mass deportation” and later tweeted that he did
not like that terminology. He did not, however, clarify if deportations were still a
central theme of his plan – though this was very clearly established point
during the primaries.
Here he is in his own words, on both of these issues:
The Muslim Ban
December 7, 2015
Just a few hours before a rally in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, Donald Trump
released a policy proposal online which called for a “total and complete
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's
representatives can figure out what is going on.” The 2015 policy proposed a
blanket ban on Muslims based on what Trump called “hatred” of the West
innate in Islam.
In the days that followed, Trump pointed to what he considered historical
precedent to defend his singling out of the Muslim religion with his ban. He
used FDR’s Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527, which applied to Japanese,
Italian, and German Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor as examples.
Those proclamations authorized the U.S. to “detain allegedly potentially
dangerous enemy aliens” and led to the internment of many of these
individuals.
December 8, 2015
J.R. 535
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901
JA 662
1/6
10/5/2017
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 116 of 344
Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Trump said “take a look at [FDR’s]
presidential proclamations back a long time ago, 2525, 2526, 2527. What he
was doing with Germans, Italians, and Japanese because he had to do it.”
Trump also pushed back on the premise that he was ordering internment
camps but said “we have to get a hand around a very serious problem.” When
asked directly about the U.S. internment of Japanese Americans during World
War II, Trump said “we’re not talking about internment; this is a whole different
thing.”
October 29, 2015
On Fox Business’ Varney and Company, Trump advocated for the first time
monitoring mosques as a way to deal with radical Islamic terror. Asked if he’d
consider closing some mosques, Trump said “absolutely, I think it’s great.”
Moments later, when pressed on if he could actually close mosques, Trump
was less certain. “Well, I don't know. I haven't heard about the closing of the
mosque. It depends if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don't know.
You're going to have to certainly look at it.”
June 13, 2016
One day after the Pulse Nightclub terror attack that left 49 dead in Orlando,
Florida, Trump spoke about the need to suspend immigration, this time not
explicitly mentioning his proposed Muslim ban. Trump promised to “suspend
immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of
terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we fully
understand how to end these threats.” These new calls for tightened
immigration rules read by many as an expansion of his already strict
immigration policy.
The position became further clouded in a tweet after the speech, with Trump
including a new specification: “suspending immigration from nations tied to
Islamic terror.” The tweet seemed to narrow the Muslim ban’s focus to states
with Islamic terror ties but marked a departure from Trump’s previous blanket
policy prescriptions.
June 15, 2016
In Atlanta, Georgia, Trump once again reiterated his support for a Muslim ban,
saying that the ban applied “in particular” to people “coming from certain
horrible” parts of the world with terror ties, but not calling for an end to a
blanket ban on Muslims.
“We have to stop, on a temporary basis, at least but we have to stop people
from pouring into our country. … 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. But we have to put a stop to it. We
have to put a stop to it, until such time as we can figure out what is going on.
Because right now, we don't have a clue what's going on, folks. We don't have
a clue.”
At that same rally, Trump also continued to push for monitoring mosques. “We
have to go and we have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques, and we
have to check other places because this is a problem that, if we don't solve it,
it's going to eat our country alive. OK? It's going to eat our country alive.”
June 22, 2016
Trump’s tone on Muslims shifted during a Clinton-focused speech just before
his Scotland trip. Trump’s usual rhetoric on radical Islamic terror was replaced
by comments about “peaceful Muslims.” On Wednesday, in a large room at his
Trump SoHo Hotel, the GOP nominee discussed ISIS as an entity separate
from Islam as a whole and distinguished them from “peaceful Muslims.” He
J.R. 536
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901
JA 663
2/6
10/5/2017
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Documentpeaceful Muslims across the MiddlePage 117 of 344
205-1 Filed 10/06/17 East,
said at the time: "ISIS also threatens
and peaceful Muslims across the world, who have been terribly victimized by
horrible brutality – and who only want to raise their kids in peace and safety.”
June 25, 2016
Traveling on business in Scotland, Trump responded to a question during his
third gaggle of the day about whether he would be OK with a Scottish or British
Muslim coming into the United States, in light of his ban. Trump replied:
“doesn’t bother me, doesn’t bother me.”
After another Q&A session, this one on the course’s 18th green, Trump told the
Daily Mail: “I don’t want people coming in – I don’t want people coming in from
certain countries. I don’t want people coming in from the terror countries. You
have terror countries! I don’t want them, unless they’re very, very strongly
vetted.”
When asked which countries constitute the “terror countries,” Trump said,
“they’re pretty well decided. All you have to do is look!"
Walking with several reporters off the golf course, Trump spokeswoman Hope
Hicks said that the candidate’s just-articulated policy wasn’t a change from his
explicitly proposed plans. National finance chairman Steven Mnuchin
articulated a terror and country-focus to Trump’s plan, saying “it is about
terrorism and not about religion. It’s about Muslims from countries that support
terrorism.”
A few hours later on Saturday, eating lunch in his clubhouse, Trump told
Bloomberg News “I want terrorists out. I want people that have bad thoughts
out. I would limit specific terrorist countries and we know who those countries
are.”
June 27, 2016
Questions on Trump's confusing comments followed him back across the
pond. In a brief phone call with NBC, Trump said his Muslim ban would apply
"in particular [to] the terrorist states." It's still unclear if this extra vetting
subsumes his blanket ban or if this is an extra layer of focus within the existing
ban.
Trump did however open up the ban to include all people, of all religions who
come from Trump-designated terror states. When pressed by NBC's Hallie
Jackson on whether his ban would apply to other religions other than Islam, for
example Christians in Syria, Trump allowed that : "Christians are going to be
vetted very, very seriously, if you're a Christian and you try to get in from
Syria."
Trump then added that he thinks "Christians from Syria have been treated
unbelievably badly by this country," further confusing the parameters of his
ban.
When asked which "terror nations" Trump would focus on, he did not give
much by way of criteria for designation these countries. "Terror nations," Trump
repeated. "Look it up. They have a list of terror nations."
Trump was, however, unequivocal about immigrants from Syria, telling NBC
that he "would stop that entirely" and again pushing for safe zones in Syria.
"We'll work with other people to put up the money" for that, Trump said,
echoing what he's said on the campaign trail that he'd ask Gulf Nations to pay
for said safe zone. Trump has previously promised that all refugees in the US
from Syria will be sent back if he is elected.
Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants
J.R. 537
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901
JA 664
3/6
10/5/2017
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC in his original policy plan that he wants to deport allPage 118 of 344
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17
Trump does not state
undocumented immigrants. He outlines the need to deport “all illegal aliens in
gangs” as well as “all criminal aliens,” and advocates “criminal penalties” for
those individuals who overstay or refuse to leave after their visas expire.
Absent from this plan are the words “mass deportation” – but that doesn’t
mean it’s not implied in the policy prescription.
On the trail, Trump’s hawkish tone on immigration has been on display from
the start – saying clearly that he will seek to deport the estimated 11 million
undocumented immigrants in the United States if he is elected. The refrain that
“they have to come in legally” is one of Trump’s more consistent policy tenets.
August 16, 2015
Trump tells NBC’s Chuck Todd that he would “keep the families together…but
they have to go.” He notes that they could come back through a legal process.
November 12, 2015
Trump’s Fort Dodge, Iowa rally was dominated by coverage of his remarks
about Ben Carson being “pathological” and comparing his former rival to a
child molester. But during that rally Trump asserted his deportation stance
clearly: “I’m tougher on illegal immigration than anybody. That’s what I’m
saying we have to take people that are here illegally and we have to move
them out and you know what, it’s going to be done, it’s going to be done, it’s
going to work and now even the other candidates are saying, ‘you know what, I
think he’s right.’ They don’t know, we have to do it.”
That same day, however, Trump denounced Mitt Romney’s self-deportation
plan, calling it “mean spirited” and saying that his own, similar plan is anything
but during an interview with Fox’s Bret Baier. Trump said Romney’s plan “was
crazy, because it doesn’t work. [Romney] was talking about people are just
going to walk out of the country.”
But as Trump outlined how his own plan would work, the differences seemed
scarce. Trump described his plans as wanting “people to go out and to have to
come in through the legal process.” The main difference, Trump maintained
then and in other interviews at the time, was that Trump’s plan would allow
people to re-enter legally and that the deportation process, while not detailed,
would be humane. “There will be deportation,” Trump said. “And hopefully
they’ll be able to come back into the country.”
April 28, 2016
Asked by NBC’s Matt Lauer if he’s backing off talk of the wall along the
Southern border and deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants, Trump
replied: “no, not at all.” He doubled down then saying that “when I'm talking
about immigration…I'm talking about that and more in the form of immigration,
the wall, undocumented immigrants being -- having to be brought out of the
country. And we will do that. It has never been a worse situation than we have
right now.”
June 25, 2016
Trump tells Bloomberg News that he would have a “heart” with his immigration
policies, attacking President Obama for deporting “vast numbers of people.”
“I think people are going to find that I have not only the best policies, but I will
have the biggest heart of anybody,” Trump said in the interview. When asked
about if he would issue “mass deportations” Trump responded, “no, I would not
call it mass deportations.” He did not elaborate on if his prior calls for exactly
that were no longer on the table.
ALI VITALI
J.R. 538
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901
JA 665
4/6
10/5/2017
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 119 of 344
TOPICS POLITICS, DONALD TRUMP, FIRST READ, 2016 ELECTION
FIRST PUBLISHED JUN 27 2016, 4:58 PM ET
NEXT STORY Bernie Sanders on Some Supporters Not Voting for Clinton: 'No Kidding!'
More to Explore
Sponsored Links by Taboola
Shoppers Are Getting Unbelievable Deals With This Little-Known Site
Tophatter
Every Car Owner In US Should Have This
Uberfix
Lori Greiner's Essential Tips for Aspiring Entrepreneurs
Mediaplanet
5 Questions Every Attorney Should Ask When Hunting for Hidden Assets
FTI Journal
Best & Worst Home Solar Companies Finally Ranked.
BestCompany
The U.S. military brought this battleship back from the dead for one more war...
CNET
SPONSORED CONTENT
MORE FROM NBC NEWS
Here Are The Best Cell Phone Plans
For Seniors Yahoo Search
Simple, Cool Tracking Device - Selling
Like Hotcakes thetrackr.com
How Did 6,223 Sharks End Up on
Ship With No Fishing Equipm…
caixinglobal.com
This Is What A Family Legacy Looks
Like Sage
Hezbollah threatens to 'surprise Israel'
in next war MFA IL
Lyle Menendez speaks to Megyn
Kelly about spending after his parents’
mu…
Las Vegas Shooter Seen Falling in
Casino Security Footage in 2011
Suspect Arrested in Connection to
Fremont Crash Killing Teen KNTV
Megyn Kelly: 'Must every show
everywhere be the Trump show?'
Las Vegas shooting: What drove
Stephen Paddock to kill 59 people?
Promoted Links by Taboola
POLITICS SEP 17 2017, 12:26 PM ET
J.R. 539
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901
JA 666
5/6
10/5/2017
In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, Deportations - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 120 of 344
Bernie Sanders on Some Supporters Not
Voting for Clinton: ‘No Kidding!’
by KAILANI KOENIG
SHARE
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday chalked up the fact that
some of his supporters during 2016’s Democratic primaries eventually voted
for Donald Trump in the general election to “the nature of politics.”
“People say not everybody who voted for Bernie ended up voting for Hillary, no
kidding!" Sanders said on "Meet The Press."
He added, "That's what happens in politics," specifically pointing to some
samples that have showed as many as a quarter of Clinton's primary voters in
2008 ended up voting for John McCain in the general election.
"That's the nature of politics," he said. "Most people, you know, are not rigidly
Democrats or Republicans. They vote where they want. I worked as hard as I
could to see that Hillary Clinton would be elected president."
The Vermont senator was responding to criticism that Clinton leveled at him in
her new book and in recent media appearances that he didn’t do enough to
bring his supporters to her side after their contentious Democratic primary for
president last year.
A recent survey of 50,000 people from the Cooperative Congressional Election
Study estimated that as many as 12 percent of people who voted for Sanders
in a primary ended up voting for Trump in the general.
"After endorsing Hillary Clinton, I went all over this country," Sanders said
Sunday.
But he didn’t hold back from criticizing the Democratic Party. A long-time
Independent, he did not indicate that he had any plans to run as a Democrat in
Vermont’s Senate election next year.
"The current model of the Democratic Party obviously is not working," he said.
"Republicans control the House, the Senate. They control the White House.
They control two thirds of the governor's offices throughout this country. In my
view Chuck, what we need to do is to reach out to independents."
Sanders on Sunday was also promoting his "Medicare For All" bill proposal
that he unveiled this week. At least 15 Democrats have so far signed on to
supporting it — signaling a fast shift among the Democratic ranks for a singlepayer health care system.
"In my view, a Medicare for all, single-payer program will address those issues
and guarantee health care to all people in a cost-effective way," Sanders said.
But he wasn't under any illusion that it will be passed any time soon under
Republican control of Congress and the White House.
"It's not going to happen tomorrow," Sanders added. "I fully admit that. But we
need to put the benchmark down there and go forward."
KAILANI KOENIG
TOPICS POLITICS, 2016 ELECTION, FIRST READ, POLITICS NEWS
FIRST PUBLISHED SEP 17 2017, 10:22 AM ET
NEXT STORY In New Book, Hillary Clinton Says 'My Skin Crawled' During Debate With Trump
J.R. 540
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/his-words-donald-trump-muslim-ban-deportations-n599901
JA 667
6/6
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 121 of 344
Exhibit G
J.R. 541
JA 668
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 122 of 344
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump
addresses Radical Islamic Terr
BY THE HILL STAFF - 08/15/16 04:01 PM EDT
627
SHARES
SHARE
TWEET
PLU
Just In...
NRA CEO slams push for
gun control after Las
Vegas shooting
FULL: Donald Trump Radical Islamic Terrorism speech - Youngstown, OH
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM — 37S AGO
Mercers, Bannon back
Morrisey in West
Virginia Senate race
CAMPAIGN — 29M 35S AGO
Lieu: Trump has no
strategy on North Korea
HOUSE — 30M 16S AGO
Obama Army chief
criticizes Trump's move
on transgender military
ban suit
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM
— 50M 32S AGO
Trump accuses Dem
gubernatorial candidate
of ' ighting for' MS-13
gang
CAMPAIGN — 56M 32S AGO
Thank you. It is great to be with you this afternoon.
Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.
In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and
Communism.
Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic Terrorism.
This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war
zones of the Middle East every 84 hours.
Facebook took out
Russia references in
election meddling
paper: report
Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.
TECHNOLOGY — 1H 9M AGO
The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people,
Price's $51K check to
HHS for private lights
processed
and ultimately left ive dead – including 2 police o icers.
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM
— 1H 11M AGO
Tyler Perry predicts
Oprah, Michelle Obama
will never run for o ice
IN THE KNOW — 1H 40M AGO
13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood.
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, ive unarmed marines were shot and killed at
a military recruiting center.
Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an o ice
party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured.
In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando,
and another 53 were injured. It was the worst mass shooting in our history,
and the worst attack on the LGTBQ community in our history.
J.R. 542
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 669
1/10
10/5/2017
VIEW ALL
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC we have seen the same carnage10/06/17 Page 123upon
Document 205-1 Filed and bloodshed in licted of 344
In Europe,
our closest allies.
In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was
attacked for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve were
killed, including two police o icers, and 11 were wounded. Two days later,
four were murdered in a Jewish Deli.
Related News
by
In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris that
slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. France is suffering
gravely, and the tourism industry is being massively affected in a most
negative way.
In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels airport,
killing 32 and injuring 340.
Limbaugh: GOP
establishment 'can't…
This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck into
an instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men, women
and children – and wounding another 308. Among the dead were 2
Americans – a Texas father, and his 11-year-old son.
A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded ive
people in a gruesome train attack.
Miley Cyrus mocks
previous pledge to…
Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy
France, forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat before
his congregation.
Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another.
Obama: Dropping Malia
off at college was like…
Children slaughtered, girls sold into slavery, men and women burned
alive. Cruci ixions, beheadings and drownings. Ethnic minorities targeted
for mass execution. Holy sites desecrated.
Christians driven from their homes and hunted for extermination. ISIS
rounding-up what it calls the “nation of the cross” in a campaign of
genocide.
We cannot let this evil continue.
NBC: Trump 'furious'
after report on Tillerson
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of
women, gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread
within our own countries.
We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every
threat we have faced in every age before.
But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.
Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not it to lead this country.
Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of
Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.
The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President
Obama and Secretary Clinton.
Let’s look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before
the Obama-Clinton Administration took over.
Libya was stable.
Syria was under control.
J.R. 543
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 670
2/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC ruled by a secular President and10/06/17thePage 124 of 344
Document 205-1 Filed an ally of
Egypt was
United States.
Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence. The group that would
become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished.
Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.
Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton
produced?
Libya is in ruins, our ambassador and three other brave Americans are
dead, and ISIS has gained a new base of operations.
Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. ISIS controls large portions of
territory. A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States.
In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the
Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world.
Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose.
ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS
was operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18
countries with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 – and many
believe it is even more than that. The situation is likely worse than the
public knows: a new Congressional report reveals that the Administration
has downplayed the growth of ISIS, with 40% of surveyed analysts saying
they had experienced efforts to manipulate their indings.
At the same time, ISIS is trying to in iltrate refugee lows into Europe and
the United States.
Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now lush with
$150 billion in cash released by the United States – plus another $400
million in ransom. Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one
state sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons.
In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS,
destabilized the Middle East, and put the nation of Iran – which chants
‘Death to America’ – in a dominant position of regional power and, in fact,
aspiring to be a dominant world power.
It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama’s
global ‘Apology Tour.’
In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as
“arrogant,” “dismissive” “derisive” and a “colonial power.” He informed
other countries that he would be speaking up about America’s “past
errors.” He pledged that we would no longer be a “senior partner,” that
“sought to dictate our terms.” He lectured CIA o icers of the need to
acknowledge their mistakes, and described Guantanamo Bay as a “rallying
cry for our enemies.”
Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obama’s speech
to the Muslim World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009.
In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted the
superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil
Empire.
J.R. 544
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 671
3/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDCPresident Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such moral
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 125 of 344
Yet, when
courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of
women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of
human rights, or the inancing of global terrorism, President Obama tried
to draw an equivalency between our human rights record and theirs.
His naïve words were followed by even more naïve actions.
The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and the
election-driven timetable for withdrawal, surrendered our gains in that
country and led directly to the rise of ISIS.
The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clinton’s disaster in Libya.
President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst mistake.
According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the invasion of
Libya was nearly a split decision, but Hillary Clinton’s forceful advocacy
for the intervention was the deciding factor.
With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clinton’s policies
launched ISIS onto the world.
Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out
well for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income while
she was Secretary of State.
Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the
judgement, the temperament and the moral character to lead this nation.
Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on
ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face – not only in terrorism, but in
trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn this country
around.
It is time for a new approach.
Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven
failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and
thrive.
I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning – a major difference
between me and my opponent.
Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such matters
was not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private doubts about
the invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in an interview with
Neil Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a speedy recovery, that
“perhaps [we] shouldn't be doing it yet,” and that “the economy is a much
bigger problem.”
In August of 2004, very early in the con lict, I made a detailed statement
to Esquire magazine. Here is the quote in full:
"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have
handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a
wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting
box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step
up to lead the country? C'mon.
Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the
meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll
have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.
J.R. 545
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 672
4/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC the purpose of 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 and hundreds of 344
Document this whole thing? Hundreds Page 126 of
"What was
young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no
arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've
been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war
were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing."
So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in. But I
have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake Hillary
Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in which they
pulled out.
After we had made those hard-fought sacri ices and gains, we should
never have made such a sudden withdrawal – on a timetable advertised to
our enemies. Al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated, and Obama and
Clinton gave it new life and allowed it to spread across the world.
By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never
have attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, to push for immediate
regime change in Syria, or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt.
One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the oil
in Iraq – another area where my judgement has been proven correct.
According to CNN, ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales in 2014
alone, fueling and funding its reign of terror. If we had controlled the oil,
we could have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq – both by cutting off a
major source of funding, and through the presence of U.S. forces
necessary to safeguard the oil and other vital infrastructure. I was saying
this constantly and to whoever would listen: keep the oil, keep the oil,
keep the oil, I said – don’t let someone else get it.
If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic bene its
of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the wounded soldiers
and families of those who died – and thousands of lives would have been
saved.
This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to guard
our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the
spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq – and our adventures in the Middle
East – was death, destruction and tremendous inancial loss.
But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new
course.
If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our new
approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies
overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread
of Radical Islam.
All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which
shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends, but
we can never fail to recognize our enemies.
As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this
goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East,
including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of
Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this
ideology of death that must be extinguished.
We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had previously
said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal adequately with
J.R. 546
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 673
5/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDCsince my comments they Filedchanged their Page and now 344
Document 205-1 have 10/06/17 policy 127 of
terrorism;
have a new division focused on terror threats.
I also believe that we could ind common ground with Russia in the ight
against ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria, and
have had their own battles with Islamic terrorism.
My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military
operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut- off
their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt
and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet
to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we
must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must
do so immediately.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless
handling of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph
exact military plans to the enemy. I have often said that General
MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were
alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to
recklessly announce their every move before it happens – like they did in
Iraq – so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.
The ight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we will
seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We can use
existing UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.
Military, cyber and inancial warfare will all be essential in dismantling
Islamic terrorism.
But we must use ideological warfare as well.
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism
and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of
Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations
from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or
death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women,
gays and people of different faith.
Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the
Middle East, and will amplify their voices.
This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings,
where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or
acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings.
Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor killings
by their relatives each year. Recently, a prominent Pakistani social media
star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge of dishonoring
the family. In his confession, the brother took pride in the murder and
said: “Girls are born to stay home and follow traditions.”
Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.
One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34 years
in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become “too
Westernized.”
J.R. 547
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 674
6/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDCIslamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a 344
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 128 of
To defeat
hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and
terrorism to grow.
A new immigration policy is needed as well.
The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have
recently occurred on our soil – 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Boston
Bombing, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando attack – is that they
have involved immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Clearly, new screening procedures are needed.
A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identi ied 380
foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorism- related
offenses between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.
We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the
country – as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in
Minnesota.
Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have
brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them.
In Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve, we have seen the reports of
sexual violence and assault. Pew polling shows that in many of the
countries from which we draw large numbers of immigrants, extreme
views about religion – such as the death penalty for those who leave the
faith – are commonplace.
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all
decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this
country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue
to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist
groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards
our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should
supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and
hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to lourish in our country – and to embrace a
tolerant American society – should be issued immigrant visas.
To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily
suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile
regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.
As soon as I take o ice, I will ask the State Department and the
Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where
adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas from
those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based on new
circumstances or new procedures.
The size of current immigration lows are simply too large to perform
adequate screening.
J.R. 548
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 675
7/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDCabout 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East 344
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 129 of
We admit
every year. Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary
workers and visitors from the same regions. If we don’t control the
numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.
By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the low of Syrian refugees by
550% percent.
The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that
Hillary Clinton’s plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all
current refugee-sending nations in her irst term, assuming no cuts to
other refugee programs. This would be additional to all other non- refugee
immigration.
The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of
roughly $400 billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare,
housing, schooling, and all other entitlement bene its that are excluded
from the State Department’s placement igures.
In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel, and you
know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany and
the people of Germany – crime has risen to levels that no one thought
would they would ever see. We have enough problems in our country, we
don’t need another one.
Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security procedures.
Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our
soil is that warning signs were ignored.
The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications. The Russians
warned us about the Boston Bombers, here on political asylum, and the
attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.
The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a iancé visa from Saudi
Arabia, wrote of her support for Jihad online. A neighbor saw suspicious
behavior but didn’t warn authorities, because said they didn’t want to be
accused of racially pro iling – now many are dead and gravely wounded.
The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after 9/11.
He too was interviewed by the FBI. His father, a native of Afghanistan,
supported the oppressive Taliban regime, and expressed anti-American
views – and by the way, was just seen sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a
big smile on his face all the way through her speech. He obviously liked
what she had to say.
The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental
health experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red lag after
another. He even proclaimed that “we love death more than you love life!”
These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has
replaced common sense in our society
That is why one of my irst acts as President will be to establish a
Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the
Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build
bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American
public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the
J.R. 549
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 676
8/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Pageour society
130 of 344
warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in
that support radicalization.
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police
o icers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.
We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed emphasis
on human intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our strategy, but
we will also seek to capture high-value targets to gain needed information
to dismantle their organizations. Foreign combatants will be tried in
military commissions.
Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against
anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to
take down the ma ia, this will be the understood mission of every federal
investigator and prosecutor in the country.
To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for
Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.
Immigration o icers will also have their powers restored: those who are
guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return
home.
To make America safe again, we must work together again.
Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international
consensus. That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.
But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that
communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical
Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.
This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own
way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.
Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by
parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.
Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.
Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the
world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.
This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as
a country.
Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our
country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what
pulls us apart.
This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your
greatest champion. I will ight to ensure that every American is treated
equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and
oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common
culture and values as one American people.
Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again – For
Everyone.
Thank you.
J.R. 550
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 677
9/10
10/5/2017
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump addresses Radical Islamic Terrorism | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1SYRIA IRAN 10/06/17 Page 131 of 344
Filed 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
TAGS YOUNGSTOWN UNITED STATES IRAQ
REPUBLICAN PARTY ISIS HILLARY CLINTON OHIO FOREIGN POLICY RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM
SHARE
TWEET
PLUS ONE
THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE ©2017 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
J.R. 551
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291498-full-transcript-donald-trump-addresses-radical
JA 678
10/10
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 132 of 344
Exhibit H
J.R. 552
JA 679
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 133 of 344
https://nyti.ms/2cc9a86
tenibaC s’pmurT
slloP tixE
stluseR lluF
ELECTION 2016
Transcript of Donald Trump’s
Immigration Speech
SEPT. 1, 2016
Following is a transcript of the remarks by Donald J. Trump on immigration in
Phoenix on Wednesday, as transcribed by the Federal News Service.
TRUMP: Wow. Thank you. That’s a lot of people, Phoenix, that’s a lot of
people.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Phoenix. I am so glad to be back in Arizona.
(APPLAUSE)
The state that has a very, very special place in my heart. I love people of Arizona
and together we are going to win the White House in November.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 553
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 680
1/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 134 of 344
Now, you know this is where it all began for me. Remember that massive crowd
also? So, I said let’s go and have some fun tonight. We’re going to Arizona, O.K.?
This will be a little bit different. This won’t be a rally speech, per se. Instead, I’m
going to deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our
country today, illegal immigration.
(APPLAUSE)
I’ve just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with
the president of Mexico, a man I like and respect very much. And a man who truly
loves his country, Mexico.
And, by the way, just like I am a man who loves my country, the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
We agree on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns, and
people across our border, and to put the cartels out of business.
(APPLAUSE)
We also discussed the great contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our
two countries, my love for the people of Mexico, and the leadership and friendship
between Mexico and the United States. It was a thoughtful and substantive
conversation and it will go on for awhile. And, in the end we’re all going to win. Both
countries, we’re all going to win.
This is the first of what I expect will be many, many conversations. And in a
Trump administration we’re going to go about creating a new relationship between
our two countries, but it’s going to be a fair relationship. We want fairness.
(APPLAUSE)
But to fix our immigration system, we must change our leadership in
Washington and we must change it quickly. Sadly, sadly there is no other way. The
truth is our immigration system is worse than anybody ever realized. But the facts
aren’t known because the media won’t report on them. The politicians won’t talk
J.R. 554
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 681
2/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 135 of 344
about them and the special interests spend a lot of money trying to cover them up
because they are making an absolute fortune. That’s the way it is.
Today, on a very complicated and very difficult subject, you will get the truth.
The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country is that it
serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful, powerful
politicians. It’s all you can do. Thank you. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me tell you who it does not serve. It does not serve you the American people.
Doesn’t serve you. When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually
mean the following: amnesty, open borders, lower wages. Immigration reform
should mean something else entirely. It should mean improvements to our laws and
policies to make life better for American citizens.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. But if we’re going to make our immigration system work, then we
have to be prepared to talk honestly and without fear about these important and very
sensitive issues. For instance, we have to listen to the concerns that working people,
our forgotten working people, have over the record pace of immigration and it’s
impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills and general living conditions.
These are valid concerns expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all
backgrounds, all over. We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone
who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. Sometimes it’s
just not going to work out. It’s our right, as a sovereign nation, to chose immigrants
that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.
(APPLAUSE)
Then there is the issue of security. Countless innocent American lives have been
stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and
enforce our laws like they have to be enforced. I have met with many of the great
parents who lost their children to sanctuary cities and open borders. So many
J.R. 555
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 682
3/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 136 of 344
people, so many, many people. So sad. They will be joining me on this stage in a little
while and I look forward to introducing, these are amazing, amazing people.
Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not
for the open border policies of this administration and the administration that
causes this horrible, horrible thought process, called Hillary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
This includes incredible Americans like 21-year-old Sarah Root. The man who
killed her arrived at the border, entered federal custody and then was released into
the U.S., think of it, into the U.S. community under the policies of the White House
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weak, weak policies. Weak and foolish policies.
He was released again after the crime, and now he’s out there at large. Sarah
had graduated from college with a 4.0, top student in her class one day before her
death.
Also among the victims of the Obama-Clinton open-border policy was Grant
Ronnebeck, a 21-year-old convenience store clerk and a really good guy from Mesa,
Arizona. A lot of you have known about Grant.
He was murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member previously convicted of
burglary, who had also been released from federal custody, and they knew it was
going to happen again.
Another victim is Kate Steinle. Gunned down in the sanctuary city of San
Francisco, by an illegal immigrant, deported five previous times. And they knew he
was no good.
Then there is the case of 90-year-old Earl Olander, who was brutally beaten and
left to bleed to death in his home, 90 years old and defenseless. The perpetrators
were illegal immigrants with criminal records a mile long, who did not meet Obama
administration standards for removal. And they knew it was going to happen.
In California, a 64-year-old Air Force veteran, a great woman, according to
everybody that knew her, Marilyn Pharis, was sexually assaulted and beaten to death
J.R. 556
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 683
4/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 137 of 344
with a hammer. Her killer had been arrested on multiple occasions but was never,
ever deported, despite the fact that everybody wanted him out.
A 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office found that illegal
immigrants and other non-citizens, in our prisons and jails together, had around
25,000 homicide arrests to their names, 25,000.
On top of that, illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a
year. And this is what we get. For the money we are going to spend on illegal
immigration over the next 10 years, we could provide one million at-risk students
with a school voucher, which so many people are wanting.
While there are many illegal immigrants in our country who are good people,
many, many, this doesn’t change the fact that most illegal immigrants are lower
skilled workers with less education, who compete directly against vulnerable
American workers, and that these illegal workers draw much more out from the
system than they can ever possibly pay back.
And they’re hurting a lot of our people that cannot get jobs under any
circumstances.
But these facts are never reported. Instead, the media and my opponent discuss
one thing and only one thing, the needs of people living here illegally. In many cases,
by the way, they’re treated better than our vets.
Not going to happen anymore, folks. November 8th. Not going to happen
anymore.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: Trump! Trump! Trump!
The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal
immigrants or however many there may be — and honestly we’ve been hearing that
number for years. It’s always 11 million. Our government has no idea. It could be
three million. It could be 30 million. They have no idea what the number is.
J.R. 557
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 684
5/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 138 of 344
Frankly our government has no idea what they’re doing on many, many fronts,
folks.
(APPLAUSE)
But whatever the number, that’s never really been the central issue. It will never
be a central issue. It doesn’t matter from that standpoint. Anyone who tells you that
the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much
time in Washington.
(APPLAUSE)
Only the out of touch media elites think the biggest problems facing America —
you know this, this is what they talk about, facing American society today is that
there are 11 million illegal immigrants who don’t have legal status. And, they also
think the biggest thing, and you know this, it’s not nuclear, and it’s not ISIS, it’s not
Russia, it’s not China, it’s global warming.
To all the politicians, donors, and special interests, hear these words from me
and all of you today. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that
issue is the well being of the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
Nothing even comes a close second. Hillary Clinton, for instance, talks
constantly about her fears that families will be separated, but she’s not talking about
the American families who have been permanently separated from their loved ones
because of a preventable homicide, because of a preventable death, because of
murder.
No, she’s only talking about families who come here in violation of the law. We
will treat everyone living or residing in our country with great dignity. So important.
We will be fair, just, and compassionate to all, but our greatest compassion must
be for our American citizens.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 558
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 685
6/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 139 of 344
Thank you.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty
by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders, and you know it
better than anybody right here in Arizona. You know it.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton support sanctuary cities. They support
catch and release on the border. They support visa overstays. They support the
release of dangerous, dangerous, dangerous, criminals from detention. And they
support unconstitutional executive amnesty.
Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will
provide Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare for illegal immigrants, breaking
the federal budget.
On top of that she promises uncontrolled, low-skilled immigration that
continues to reduce jobs and wages for American workers, and especially for AfricanAmerican and Hispanic workers within our country. Our citizens.
Most incredibly, because to me this is unbelievable, we have no idea who these
people are, where they come from. I always say Trojan horse. Watch what’s going to
happen, folks. It’s not going to be pretty.
This includes her plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees from Syria and that
region over a short period of time. And even yesterday, when you were watching the
news, you saw thousands and thousands of people coming in from Syria. What is
wrong with our politicians, our leaders if we can call them that. What the hell are we
doing?
(APPLAUSE)
Hard to believe. Hard to believe. Now that you’ve heard about Hillary Clinton’s
plan, about which she has not answered a single question, let me tell you about my
plan. And do you notice...
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 559
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 686
7/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 140 of 344
And do you notice all the time for weeks and weeks of debating my plan,
debating, talking about it, what about this, what about that. They never even
mentioned her plan on immigration because she doesn’t want to get into the
quagmire. It’s a tough one, she doesn’t know what she’s doing except open borders
and let everybody come in and destroy our country by the way.
(APPLAUSE)
While Hillary Clinton meets only with donors and lobbyists, my plan was crafted
with the input from Federal Immigration offices, very great people. Among the top
immigration experts anywhere in this country, who represent workers, not
corporations, very important to us.
I also worked with lawmakers, who’ve led on this issue on behalf of American
citizens for many years. And most importantly I’ve met with the people directly
impacted by these policies. So important.
Number one, are you ready? Are you ready?
(APPLAUSE)
We will build a great wall along the southern border.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: Build the wall! Build the wall! Build the wall!
And Mexico will pay for the wall.
(APPLAUSE)
One hundred percent. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it. And
they’re great people and great leaders but they’re going to pay for the wall.
On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, power,
beautiful southern border wall.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 560
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 687
8/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 141 of 344
We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors
that’s the tunnels. Remember that, above and below.
(APPLAUSE)
Above and below ground sensors. Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to
supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels and
Mexico you know that, will work with us. I really believe it. Mexico will work with us.
I absolutely believe it. And especially after meeting with their wonderful, wonderful
president today. I really believe they want to solve this problem along with us, and
I’m sure they will.
(APPLAUSE)
Number two, we are going to end catch and release. We catch them, oh go
ahead. We catch them, go ahead.
(APPLAUSE)
Under my administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be
detained until they are removed out of our country and back to the country from
which they came.
(APPLAUSE)
And they’ll be brought great distances. We’re not dropping them right across.
They learned that. President Eisenhower. They’d drop them across, right across, and
they’d come back. And across.
Then when they flew them to a long distance, all of a sudden that was the end.
We will take them great distances. But we will take them to the country where they
came from, O.K.?
Number three. Number three, this is the one, I think it’s so great. It’s hard to
believe, people don’t even talk about it. Zero tolerance for criminal aliens. Zero. Zero.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 561
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 688
9/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 142 of 344
Zero. They don’t come in here. They don’t come in here.
According to federal data, there are at least two million, two million, think of it,
criminal aliens now inside of our country, two million people criminal aliens. We will
begin moving them out day one. As soon as I take office. Day one. In joint operation
with local, state, and federal law enforcement.
Now, just so you understand, the police, who we all respect — say hello to the
police. Boy, they don’t get the credit they deserve. I can tell you. They’re great
people. But the police and law enforcement, they know who these people are.
They live with these people. They get mocked by these people. They can’t do
anything about these people, and they want to. They know who these people are. Day
one, my first hour in office, those people are gone.
(APPLAUSE)
And you can call it deported if you want. The press doesn’t like that term. You
can call it whatever the hell you want. They’re gone.
Beyond the two million, and there are vast numbers of additional criminal
illegal immigrants who have fled, but their days have run out in this country. The
crime will stop. They’re going to be gone. It will be over.
(APPLAUSE)
They’re going out. They’re going out fast.
Moving forward. We will issue detainers for illegal immigrants who are arrested
for any crime whatsoever, and they will be placed into immediate removal
proceedings if we even have to do that.
We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, and it is deadly, nonenforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our
streets, walk around, do whatever they want to do, crime all over the place.
That’s over. That’s over, folks. That’s over.
J.R. 562
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 689
10/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 143 of 344
Since 2013 alone, the Obama administration has allowed 300,000 criminal
aliens to return back into United States communities. These are individuals
encountered or identified by ICE, but who were not detained or processed for
deportation because it wouldn’t have been politically correct.
My plan also includes cooperating closely with local jurisdictions to remove
criminal aliens immediately. We will restore the highly successful Secure
Communities Program. Good program. We will expand and revitalize the popular
287(g) partnerships, which will help to identify hundreds of thousands of deportable
aliens in local jails that we don’t even know about.
Both of these programs have been recklessly gutted by this administration. And
those were programs that worked.
This is yet one more area where we are headed in a totally opposite direction.
There’s no common sense, there’s no brain power in our administration by our
leader, or our leaders. None, none, none.
On my first day in office I am also going to ask Congress to pass Kate’s Law,
named for Kate Steinle...
(APPLAUSE)
... to ensure that criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry receive strong
mandatory minimum sentences. Strong.
(APPLAUSE)
And then we get them out.
Another reform I’m proposing is the passage of legislation named for Detective
Michael Davis and Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, two law enforcement officers
recently killed by a previously deported illegal immigrant.
The Davis-Oliver bill will enhance cooperation with state and local authorities to
ensure that criminal immigrants and terrorists are swiftly, really swiftly, identified
and removed. And they will go face, believe me. They’re going to go.
J.R. 563
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 690
11/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 144 of 344
We’re going to triple the number of ICE deportation officers.
(APPLAUSE)
Within ICE I am going to create a new special deportation task force focused on
identifying and quickly removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in
America who have evaded justice just like Hillary Clinton has evaded justice, O.K.?
(APPLAUSE)
Maybe they’ll be able to deport her.
(APPLAUSE)
The local police who know every one of these criminals, and they know each and
every one by name, by crime, where they live, they will work so fast. And our local
police will be so happy that they don’t have to be abused by these thugs anymore.
There’s no great mystery to it, they’ve put up with it for years, and now finally
we will turn the tables and law enforcement and our police will be allowed to clear up
this dangerous and threatening mess.
We’re also going to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents.
(APPLAUSE)
Who gave me their endorsement, 16,500 gave me their endorsement.
And put more of them on the border instead of behind desks which is good. We
will expand the number of border patrol stations significantly.
I’ve had a chance to spend time with these incredible law enforcement officers,
and I want to take a moment to thank them. What they do is incredible.
(APPLAUSE)
And getting their endorsement means so much to me. More to me really than I
can say. Means so much. First time they’ve ever endorsed a presidential candidate.
J.R. 564
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 691
12/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 145 of 344
Number four, block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more
funds.
(APPLAUSE)
We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths.
Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer
dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those
jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities. Number five, cancel unconstitutional
executive orders and enforce all immigration laws.
(APPLAUSE)
We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive
amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to
approximately five million illegal immigrants, five million.
(BOOING)
And how about all the millions that are waiting on line, going through the
process legally? So unfair.
Hillary Clinton has pledged to keep both of these illegal amnesty programs,
including the 2014 amnesty which has been blocked by the United States Supreme
Court. Great.
Clinton has also pledged to add a third executive amnesty. And by the way,
folks, she will be a disaster for our country, a disaster in so many other ways.
And don’t forget the Supreme Court of the United States. Don’t forget that when
you go to vote on November 8. And don’t forget your Second Amendment. And don’t
forget the repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
(APPLAUSE)
And don’t forget building up our depleted military. And don’t forget taking care
of our vets. Don’t forget our vets. They have been forgotten.
J.R. 565
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 692
13/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 146 of 344
(APPLAUSE)
Clinton’s plan would trigger a constitutional crisis unlike almost anything we
have ever seen before. In effect, she would be abolishing the lawmaking powers of
Congress in order to write her own laws from the Oval Office. And you see what bad
judgment she has. She has seriously bad judgment.
(BOOING)
Can you imagine? In a Trump administration all immigration laws will be
enforced, will be enforced. As with any law enforcement activity, we will set
priorities. But unlike this administration, no one will be immune or exempt from
enforcement. And ICE and Border Patrol officers will be allowed to do their jobs the
way their jobs are supposed to be done.
(APPLAUSE)
Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation.
That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. Otherwise we don’t have a
country.
Our enforcement priorities will include removing criminals, gang members,
security threats, visa overstays, public charges. That is those relying on public
welfare or straining the safety net along with millions of recent illegal arrivals and
overstays who’ve come here under this current corrupt administration.
(APPLAUSE)
Number six, we are going to suspend the issuance of visas to any place where
adequate screening cannot occur.
(APPLAUSE)
According to data provided by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and
the national interest between 9/11 and the end of 2014, at least 380 foreign born
individuals were convicted in terror cases inside the United States. And even right
J.R. 566
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 693
14/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 147 of 344
now the largest number of people are under investigation for exactly this that we’ve
ever had in the history of our country.
Our country is a mess. We don’t even know what to look for anymore, folks. Our
country has to straighten out. And we have to straighten out fast.
The number is likely higher. But the administration refuses to provide this
information, even to Congress. As soon as I enter office I am going to ask the
Department of State, which has been brutalized by Hillary Clinton, brutalized.
(BOOING)
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive
review of these cases in order to develop 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. It’s going to be
so tough, and if somebody comes in that’s fine but they’re going to be good. It’s
extreme.
And if people don’t like it, we’ve got have a country folks. Got to have a country.
Countries in which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria
and Libya. And we are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from
Syria. We have no idea who they are, where they come from. There’s no
documentation. There’s no paperwork. It’s going to end badly folks. It’s going to end
very, very badly.
For the price of resettling one refugee in the United States, 12 could be resettled
in a safe zone in their home region. Which I agree with 100 percent. We have to build
safe zones and we’ll get the money from Gulf states. We don’t want to put up the
money. We owe almost $20 trillion. Doubled since Obama took office, our national
debt.
But we will get the money from Gulf states and others. We’ll supervise it. We’ll
build safe zones which is something that I think all of us want to see.
J.R. 567
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 694
15/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 148 of 344
Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include, and
this is so important, especially if you get the right people. And we will get the right
people. An ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our
country share our values and love our people.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. We’re very proud of our country. Aren’t we? Really? With all it’s
going through, we’re very proud of our country. For instance, in the last five years,
we’ve admitted nearly 100,000 immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan. And these
two countries according to Pew Research, a majority of residents say that the
barbaric practice of honor killings against women are often or sometimes justified.
That’s what they say.
(APPLAUSE)
That’s what they say. They’re justified. Right? And we’re admitting them to our
country. Applicants will be asked their views about honor killings, about respect for
women and gays and minorities. Attitudes on radical Islam, which our president
refuses to say and many other topics as part of this vetting procedure. And if we have
the right people doing it, believe me, very, very few will slip through the cracks.
Hopefully, none.
(APPLAUSE)
Number seven, we will insure that other countries take their people back when
they order them deported.
(APPLAUSE)
There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve
been ordered to leave the United States. Including large numbers of violent
criminals, they won’t take them back. So we say, O.K., we’ll keep them. Not going to
happen with me, not going to happen with me.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 568
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 695
16/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 149 of 344
Due to a Supreme Court decision, if these violent offenders cannot be sent
home, our law enforcement officers have to release them into your communities.
(APPLAUSE)
And by the way, the results are horrific, horrific. There are often terrible
consequences, such as Casey Chadwick’s tragic death in Connecticut just last year.
Yet despite the existence of a law that commands the secretary of state to stop
issuing visas to these countries.
Secretary Hillary Clinton ignored this law and refused to use this powerful tool
to bring nations into compliance. And, they would comply if we would act properly.
In other words, if we had leaders that knew what they were doing, which we
don’t.
The result of her misconduct was the release of thousands and thousands of
dangerous criminal aliens who should have been sent home to their countries.
Instead we have them all over the place. Probably a couple in this room as a matter
of fact, but I hope not.
According to a report for the Boston Globe from the year 2008 to 2014 nearly
13,000 criminal aliens were released back into U.S. communities because their home
countries would not, under any circumstances, take them back. Hard to believe with
the power we have. Hard to believe.
We’re like the big bully that keeps getting beat up. You ever see that? The big
bully that keeps getting beat up.
These 13,000 releases occurred on Hillary Clinton’s watch. She had the power
and the duty to stop it cold, and she decided she would not do it.
(BOOING)
And Arizona knows better than most exactly what I’m talking about.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 569
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 696
17/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 150 of 344
Those released include individuals convicted of killings, sexual assaults, and
some of the most heinous crimes imaginable.
The Boston Globe writes that a Globe review of 323 criminals released in New
England from 2008 to 2012 found that as many as 30 percent committed new
offenses, including rape, attempted murder, and child molestation. We take them,
we take them.
(BOOING)
Number eight, we will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking
system which we need desperately.
(APPLAUSE)
For years Congress has required biometric entry-exit visa tracking systems, but
it has never been completed. The politicians are all talk, no action, never happens.
Never happens.
Hillary Clinton, all talk. Unfortunately when there is action it’s always the wrong
decision. You ever notice?
In my administration we will ensure that this system is in place. And, I will tell
you, it will be on land, it will be on sea, it will be in air. We will have a proper
tracking system.
Approximately half of new illegal immigrants came on temporary visas and then
never, ever left. Why should they? Nobody’s telling them to leave. Stay as long as you
want, we’ll take care of you.
Beyond violating our laws, visa overstays pose — and they really are a big
problem — pose a substantial threat to national security. The 9/11 Commission said
that this tracking system should be a high priority and would have assisted law
enforcement and intelligence officials in August and September 2001 in conducting a
search for two of the 9/11 hijackers that were in the United States on expired visas.
J.R. 570
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 697
18/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 151 of 344
And you know what that would have meant, what that could have meant.
Wouldn’t that have been wonderful, right? What that could have meant.
Last year alone nearly half a million individuals overstayed their temporary
visas. Removing these overstays will be a top priority of my administration.
(APPLAUSE)
If people around the world believe they can just come on a temporary visa and
never, ever leave, the Obama-Clinton policy, that’s what it is, then we have a
completely open border, and we no longer have a country.
We must send a message that visa expiration dates will be strongly enforced.
Number nine, we will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.
(APPLAUSE)
We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing
law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the
country.
Immigration law doesn’t exist for the purpose of keeping criminals out. It exists
to protect all aspects of American life. The work site, the welfare office, the education
system, and everything else.
That is why immigration limits are established in the first place. If we only
enforced the laws against crime, then we have an open border to the entire world.
We will enforce all of our immigration laws.
(APPLAUSE)
And the same goes for government benefits. The Center for Immigration Studies
estimates that 62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants use some form
of cash or non-cash welfare programs like food stamps or housing assistance.
Tremendous costs, by the way, to our country. Tremendous costs. This directly
violates the federal public charge law designed to protect the United States Treasury.
J.R. 571
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 698
19/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 152 of 344
Those who abuse our welfare system will be priorities for immediate removal.
(APPLAUSE)
Number 10, we will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of
America and its workers, the forgotten people. Workers. We’re going to take care of
our workers.
And by the way, and by the way, we’re going to make great trade deals. We’re
going to renegotiate trade deals. We’re going to bring our jobs back home. We’re
going to bring our jobs back home.
We have the most incompetently worked trade deals ever negotiated probably in
the history of the world, and that starts with Nafta. And now they want to go TPP,
one of the great disasters.
We’re going to bring our jobs back home. And if companies want to leave
Arizona and if they want to leave other states, there’s going to be a lot of trouble for
them. It’s not going to be so easy. There will be consequence. Remember that. There
will be consequence. They’re not going to be leaving, go to another country, make the
product, sell it into the United States, and all we end up with is no taxes and total
unemployment. It’s not going to happen. There will be consequences.
(APPLAUSE)
We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and
2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now
have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we
are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.
We’ve had some big waves. And tremendously positive things have happened.
Incredible things have happened. To ensure assimilation we want to ensure that it
works. Assimilation, an important word. Integration and upward mobility.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 572
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 699
20/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 153 of 344
Within just a few years immigration as a share of national population is set to
break all historical records. The time has come for a new immigration commission to
develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the
following goals.
To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical
norms. To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and
their ability to be financially self- sufficient.
(APPLAUSE)
We take anybody. Come on in, anybody. Just come on in. Not anymore.
You know, folks, it’s called a two-way street. It is a two-way street, right? We
need a system that serves our needs, not the needs of others. Remember, under a
Trump administration it’s called America first. Remember that.
(APPLAUSE)
To choose immigrants based on merit. Merit, skill, and proficiency. Doesn’t that
sound nice? And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure
that open jobs are offered to American workers first. And that in particular AfricanAmerican and Latino workers who are being shut out in this process so unfairly.
(APPLAUSE)
And Hillary Clinton is going to do nothing for the African-American worker, the
Latino worker. She’s going to do nothing. Give me your vote, she says, on November
8th. And then she’ll say, so long, see you in four years. That’s what it is.
She is going to do nothing. And just look at the past. She’s done nothing. She’s
been there for 35 years. She’s done nothing. And I say what do you have to lose?
Choose me. Watch how good we’re going to do together. Watch.
(APPLAUSE)
You watch. We want people to come into our country, but they have to come
into our country legally and properly vetted, and in a manner that serves the national
J.R. 573
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 700
21/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 154 of 344
interest. We’ve been living under outdated immigration rules from decades ago.
They’re decades and decades old.
To avoid this happening in the future, I believe we should sunset our visa laws
so that Congress is forced to periodically revise and revisit them to bring them up to
date. They’re archaic. They’re ancient. We wouldn’t put our entire federal budget on
auto pilot for decades, so why should we do the same for the very, very complex
subject of immigration?
So let’s now talk about the big picture. These 10 steps, if rigorously followed and
enforced, will accomplish more in a matter of months than our politicians have
accomplished on this issue in the last 50 years. It’s going to happen, folks. Because I
am proudly not a politician, because I am not behold to any special interest, I’ve
spent a lot of money on my campaign, I’ll tell you. I write those checks. Nobody owns
Trump.
I will get this done for you and for your family. We’ll do it right. You’ll be proud
of our country again. We’ll do it right. We will accomplish all of the steps outlined
above. And, when we do, peace and law and justice and prosperity will prevail. Crime
will go down. Border crossings will plummet. Gangs will disappear.
And the gangs are all over the place. And welfare use will decrease. We will have
a peace dividend to spend on rebuilding America, beginning with our American
inner cities. We’re going to rebuild them, for once and for all.
For those here illegally today, who are seeking legal status, they will have one
route and one route only. To return home and apply for reentry like everybody else,
under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above.
Those who have left to seek entry —
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Those who have left to seek entry under this new system
— and it will be an efficient system — will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have
to apply for entry under the immigration caps or limits that will be established in the
J.R. 574
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 701
22/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 155 of 344
future.TRUMP: We will break the cycle of amnesty and illegal immigration. We will
break the cycle. There will be no amnesty.
(APPLAUSE)
Our message to the world will be this. You cannot obtain legal status or become
a citizen of the United States by illegally entering our country. Can’t do it.
(APPLAUSE)
This declaration alone will help stop the crisis of illegal crossings and illegal
overstays, very importantly. People will know that you can’t just smuggle in, hunker
down and wait to be legalized. It’s not going to work that way. Those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)
Importantly, in several years when we have accomplished all of our enforcement
and deportation goals and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the
construction of a great wall, which we will have built in record time. And at a
reasonable cost, which you never hear from the government.
(APPLAUSE)
And the establishment of our new lawful immigration system then and only
then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those
individuals who remain.
That discussion can take place only in an atmosphere in which illegal
immigration is a memory of the past, no longer with us, allowing us to weigh the
different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.
(APPLAUSE)
Right now, however, we’re in the middle of a jobs crisis, a border crisis and a
terrorism crisis like never before. All energies of the federal government and the
legislative process must now be focused on immigration security. That is the only
conversation we should be having at this time, immigration security. Cut it off.
J.R. 575
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 702
23/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 156 of 344
Whether it’s dangerous materials being smuggled across the border, terrorists
entering on visas or Americans losing their jobs to foreign workers, these are the
problems we must now focus on fixing. And the media needs to begin demanding to
hear Hillary Clinton’s answer on how her policies will affect Americans and their
security.
(APPLAUSE)
These are matters of life and death for our country and its people, and we
deserve answers from Hillary Clinton. And do you notice, she doesn’t answer.
She didn’t go to Louisiana. She didn’t go to Mexico. She was invited.
She doesn’t have the strength or the stamina to make America great again.
Believe me.
(APPLAUSE)
What we do know, despite the lack of media curiosity, is that Hillary Clinton
promises a radical amnesty combined with a radical reduction in immigration
enforcement. Just ask the Border Patrol about Hillary Clinton. You won’t like what
you’re hearing.
The result will be millions more illegal immigrants; thousands of more violent,
horrible crimes; and total chaos and lawlessness. That’s what’s going to happen, as
sure as you’re standing there.
This election, and I believe this, is our last chance to secure the border, stop
illegal immigration and reform our laws to make your life better. I really believe this
is it. This is our last time. November 8. November 8. You got to get out and vote on
November 8.
(APPLAUSE)
It’s our last chance. It’s our last chance. And that includes Supreme Court
justices and Second Amendment. Remember that. So I want to remind everyone
what we’re fighting for and who we are fighting for.
J.R. 576
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 703
24/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 157 of 344
I am going to ask — these are really special people that I’ve gotten to know. I’m
going to ask all of the “Angel Moms” to come join me on the stage right now.
These are amazing women.
(APPLAUSE)
These are amazing people.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
I’ve become friends with so many. But Jamiel Shaw, incredible guy, lost his son
so violently. Say just a few words about your child.
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): My son Ronald da Silva (ph) was murdered April 27,
2002 by an illegal alien who had been previously deported. And what so — makes me
so outrageous is that we came here legally.
Thank you, Mr. Trump. I totally support you. You have my vote.
TRUMP: Thank you, thank you.
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): God bless you.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: You know what? Name your child and come right by. Go ahead.
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): Laura Wilkerson. And my son was Joshua Wilkerson.
He was murdered by an illegal in 2010. And I personally support Mr. Trump for our
next president.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): My name is Ruth Johnston Martin (ph). My husband
was shot by an illegal alien. He fought the good fight but he took his last breath in
J.R. 577
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 704
25/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 158 of 344
2002. And I support this man who’s going to change this country for the better. God
bless you.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): My name Maureen Maloney (ph), and our son
Matthew Denise (ph) was 23 years old when he was dragged a quarter of a mile to his
death by an illegal alien, while horrified witnesses were banging on the truck trying
to stop him.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): Our son Matthew Denise, if Donald Trump were
president in 2011, our son Matthew Denise and other Americans would be alive
today.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): Thank you. My name is Kathy Woods (ph). My son
Steve (ph), a high school senior, 17 years old, went to the beach after a high school
football game. A local gang came along, nine members. The cars were battered to —
like war in Beirut. And all I can say is they murdered him and if Mr. Trump had been
in office then the border would have been secure and our children would not be dead
today.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): Hi. My name is Brenda Sparks (ph), and my son is
named Eric Zapeda (ph). He was raised by a legal immigrant from Honduras only to
be murdered by an illegal in 2011. His murderer never did a second in handcuffs or
jail. Got away with killing an American. So I’m voting for trump. And by the way, so
is my mother.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): My name is Dee Angle (ph). My cousin Rebecca Ann
Johnston (ph), known as Becky, was murdered on January the 1st, 1989 in North
J.R. 578
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 705
26/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 159 of 344
Little Rock, Arkansas. Thank you. And if you don’t vote Trump, we won’t have a
country. Trump all the way.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): I’m Shannon Estes (ph). And my daughter Shaley
Estes (ph), 22 years old, was murdered here in Phoenix last July 24 by a Russian
who overstayed his visa. And vote Trump.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): I’m Mary Ann Mendoza, the mother of Sergeant
Brandon Mendoza, who was killed in a violent head-on collision in Mesa.
Thank you.
I want to thank Phoenix for the support you’ve always given me, and I want to
tell you what. I’m supporting the man who will — who is the only man who is going
to save our country, and what we our going to be leaving our children.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): I’m Steve Ronnebeck, father of Grant Ronnebeck, 21
years old. Killed January 22, 2015 by an illegal immigrant who shot him in the face. I
truly believe that Mr. Trump is going to change things. He’s going to fight for my
family, and he’s going to fight for America.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: These are amazing people, and I am not asking for their
endorsement, believe me that. I just think I’ve gotten to know so many of them, and
many more, from our group. But they are incredible people and what they’re going
through is incredible, and there’s just no reason for it. Let’s give them a really
tremendous hand.
(APPLAUSE)
That’s tough stuff, I will tell you. That is tough stuff. Incredible people.
J.R. 579
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 706
27/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 160 of 344
So, now is the time for these voices to be heard. Now is the time for the media to
begin asking questions on their behalf. Now is the time for all of us as one country,
Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative to band together to deliver justice, and
safety, and security for all Americans.
Let’s fix this horrible, horrible, problem. It can be fixed quickly. Let’s our secure
our border.
(APPLAUSE)
Let’s stop the drugs and the crime from pouring into our country. Let’s protect
our social security and Medicare. Let’s get unemployed Americans off the welfare
and back to work in their own country.
This has been an incredible evening. We’re going to remember this evening.
November 8, we have to get everybody. This is such an important state. November 8
we have to get everybody to go out and vote.
We’re going to bring — thank you, thank you. We’re going to take our country
back, folks. This is a movement. We’re going to take our country back.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
This is an incredible movement. The world is talking about it. The world is
talking about it and by the way, if you haven’t been looking to what’s been happening
at the polls over the last three or four days I think you should start looking. You
should start looking.
(APPLAUSE)
Together we can save American lives, American jobs, and American futures.
Together we can save America itself. Join me in this mission, we’re going to make
America great again.
J.R. 580
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 707
28/29
10/5/2017
Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 161 of 344
Thank you. I love you. God bless you, everybody. God bless you. God bless you,
thank you.
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get
politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
© 2017 The New York Times Company
J.R. 581
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-speech.html
JA 708
29/29
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 162 of 344
Exhibit I
J.R. 582
JA 709
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 163 of 344
Like 13K
Tweet
Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
October 9, 2016
PARTICIPANTS:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) and
Businessman Donald Trump (R)
MODERATORS:
Anderson Cooper (CNN) and
Martha Raddatz (ABC News)
Location:
RADDATZ: Ladies and gentlemen the Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, and
the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. [applause]
Document Archive
• Public Papers of the Presidents
• State of the Union
Addresses & Messages
• Inaugural Addresses
• Farewell Addresses
• Weekly Addresses
• Fireside Chats
• News Conferences
• Executive Orders
• Proclamations
• Signing Statements
• Press Briefings
• Statements of
Administration Policy
• Economic Report of the President
• Debates
• Convention Speeches
• Party Platforms
• 2016 Election Documents
• 2012 Election Documents
• 2008 Election Documents
• 2004 Election Documents
• 1996 Election Documents
• 1968 Election Documents
• 1960 Election Documents
• 2017 Transition
• 2009 Transition
• 2001 Transition
• White House Media Pool Reports
Data Archive
Data Index
Media Archive
Audio/Video Index
Elections
Election Index
Florida 2000
Links
Presidential Libraries
View Public Papers by
Month and Year
Month
Year
INCLUDE documents
from the Office of the Press
Secretary
INCLUDE election
campaign documents, vice
presidential documents, first
lady, and other executive
branch officals
View PPPUS
COOPER: Thank you very much for being here. We're going to begin with a question from one of
the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question.
Secretary Clinton, you won the coin toss, so you'll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice
Brock. Patrice?
QUESTION: Thank you, and good evening. The last debate could have been rated as MA, mature
audiences, per TV parental guidelines. Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential
debates as students' homework, do you feel you're modeling appropriate and positive behavior for
today's youth?
United States
Missouri
Font Size:
Share
The American
Presidency Project
CLINTON: Well, thank you. Are you a teacher? Yes, I think that that's a very good question,
because I've heard from lots of teachers and parents about some of their concerns about some of the
things that are being said and done in this campaign.
And I think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great
because we're good. And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. We are going to be
looking for ways to celebrate our diversity, and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl,
as well as every adult, to bring them in to working on behalf of our country.
Promote Your Page Too
I have a very positive and optimistic view about what we can do together. That's why the slogan of
my campaign is "Stronger Together," because I think if we work together, if we overcome the divisiveness that sometimes
sets Americans against one another, and instead we make some big goals—and I've set forth some big goals, getting the
economy to work for everyone, not just those at the top, making sure that we have the best education system from
preschool through college and making it affordable, and so much else.
If we set those goals and we go together to try to achieve them, there's nothing in my opinion that America can't do. So
that's why I hope that we will come together in this campaign. Obviously, I'm hoping to earn your vote, I'm hoping to be
elected in November, and I can promise you, I will work with every American.
I want to be the president for all Americans, regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like,
your religion. I want us to heal our country and bring it together because that's, I think, the best way for us to get the
future that our children and our grandchildren deserve.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.
TRUMP: Well, I actually agree with that. I agree with everything she said. I began this campaign because I was so tired of
seeing such foolish things happen to our country. This is a great country. This is a great land. I've gotten to know the
people of the country over the last year-and-a-half that I've been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I'm saying that
about myself, but I guess I have been a politician.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 583
JA 710
1/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case And my whole concept was Document great again. When watch the deals being made, when I watch
Search the Entire 8:17-cv-00361-TDC to make America 205-1 Filed I10/06/17 Page 164 of 344 what's
Document Archive
Enter keyword:
AND
OR
NOT
Limit by Year
From: 1789
To : 2017
Limit results per page
30
INCLUDE documents from
the Office of the Press
Secretary
INCLUDE election
campaign documents, vice
presidential documents, first
lady, and other executive
branch officals
Search
Instructions
You can search the Public
Papers in two ways:
1. Search by Keyword and
Year
You can search by keyword
and choose the range of years
within your search by filling
out the boxes under Search
the Public Papers.
2. View by Month and/or
Year
Select the month and/or year
you would like information
about and press View Public
Papers. Then choose a Public
Paper and the page will load
for you.
Search Engine provided by the
Harry S. Truman Library. Our
thanks to
Jim Borwick and Dr. Rafee Che
Kassim at Project Whistlestop
for critical assistance in the
implementation of the search
function, and to Scott Roley at
the Truman Library for facilitating
this collaboration.
happening with some horrible things like Obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by
numbers that are astronomical, 68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent, when I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for
us, it's a one-sided transaction where we're giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state, really, the number one terror state,
we've made them a strong country from really a very weak country just three years ago.
When I look at all of the things that I see and all of the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential,
whether it's in business and trade, where we're doing so badly. Last year, we had almost $800 billion trade deficit. In
other words, trading with other countries. We had an $800 billion deficit. It's hard to believe. Inconceivable.
You say who's making these deals? We're going the make great deals. We're going to have a strong border. We're going to
bring back law and order. Just today, policemen was shot, two killed. And this is happening on a weekly basis. We have to
bring back respect to law enforcement. At the same time, we have to take care of people on all sides. We need justice.
But I want to do things that haven't been done, including fixing and making our inner cities better for the AfricanAmerican citizens that are so great, and for the Latinos, Hispanics, and I look forward to doing it. It's called make America
great again.
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. The question from Patrice was about are you both modeling positive and appropriate
behavior for today's youth? We received a lot of questions online, Mr. Trump, about the tape that was released on Friday,
as you can imagine. You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing
their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?
TRUMP: No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was—this was locker room talk. I'm not proud of
it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it. But this is locker room talk.
You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have—and, frankly, drowning
people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things
happening, this is like medieval times. We haven't seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world.
And they look and they see. Can you imagine the people that are, frankly, doing so well against us with ISIS? And they
look at our country and they see what's going on.
Yes, I'm very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But it's locker room talk, and it's one of those things. I will knock the hell out of
ISIS. We're going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment.
And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.
COOPER: So, Mr. Trump...
TRUMP: And we should get on to much more important things and much bigger things.
COOPER: Just for the record, though, are you saying that what you said on that bus 11 years ago that you did not actually
kiss women without consent or grope women without consent?
TRUMP: I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do.
COOPER: So, for the record, you're saying you never did that?
TRUMP: I've said things that, frankly, you hear these things I said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous
respect for women.
COOPER: Have you ever done those things?
TRUMP: And women have respect for me. And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I'm going to make
our country safe. We're going to have borders in our country, which we don't have now. People are pouring into our
country, and they're coming in from the Middle East and other places.
We're going to make America safe again. We're going to make America great again, but we're going to make America safe
again. And we're going to make America wealthy again, because if you don't do that, it just—it sounds harsh to say, but we
have to build up the wealth of our nation.
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Right now, other nations are taking our jobs and they're taking our wealth.
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 584
JA 711
2/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC I want to talk about.
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 165 of 344
TRUMP: And that's what
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?
CLINTON: Well, like everyone else, I've spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw.
You know, with prior Republican nominees for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles, but I
never questioned their fitness to serve.
Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief. And
many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking
about women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn't represent who
he is.
But I think it's clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we've seen this throughout the
campaign. We have seen him insult women. We've seen him rate women on their appearance, ranking them from one to
ten. We've seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week
denigrating a former Miss Universe in the harshest, most personal terms.
So, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. But it's not only women, and it's not only this video that raises questions about his
fitness to be our president, because he has also targeted immigrants, African- Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities,
POWs, Muslims, and so many others.
So this is who Donald Trump is. And the question for us, the question our country must answer is that this is not who we
are. That's why—to go back to your question—I want to send a message—we all should—to every boy and girl and, indeed,
to the entire world that America already is great, but we are great because we are good, and we will respect one another,
and we will work with one another, and we will celebrate our diversity.
These are very important values to me, because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight
that this is the America that I will serve if I'm so fortunate enough to become your president.
RADDATZ: And we want to get to some questions from online...
TRUMP: Am I allowed to respond to that? I assume I am.
RADDATZ: Yes, you can respond to that.
TRUMP: It's just words, folks. It's just words. Those words, I've been hearing them for many years. I heard them when
they were running for the Senate in New York, where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she
failed.
I've heard them where Hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster educationwise, jobwise, safety-wise, in every way possible. I'm going to help the African-Americans. I'm going to help the Latinos,
Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.
She's done a terrible job for the African-Americans. She wants their vote, and she does nothing, and then she comes back
four years later. We saw that firsthand when she was United States senator. She campaigned where the primary part of
her campaign...
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump—I want to get to audience questions and online questions.
TRUMP: So, she's allowed to do that, but I'm not allowed to respond?
RADDATZ: You're going to have—you're going to get to respond right now.
TRUMP: Sounds fair.
RADDATZ: This tape is generating intense interest. In just 48 hours, it's become the single most talked about story of
the entire 2016 election on Facebook, with millions and millions of people discussing it on the social network. As we said a
moment ago, we do want to bring in questions from voters around country via social media, and our first stays on this
topic. Jeff from Ohio asks on Facebook, "Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?" So, Mr.
Trump, let me add to that. When you walked off that bus at age 59, were you a different man or did that behavior continue
until just recently? And you have two minutes for this.
TRUMP: It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I am a person who has
great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, I'm not proud of it. But that was
something that happened.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 585
JA 712
3/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC farDocument 205-1and his was10/06/17wasPage 166 of women. There's never
Filed action. His what he's done to 344
If you look at Bill Clinton,
worse. Mine are words,
been anybody in the history politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to
say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.
Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women,
who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she's seen
laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us
tonight.
So don't tell me about words. I am absolutely—I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what
President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the
women. Paula Jones, who's also here tonight.
And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think
it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. [applause]
RADDATZ: Can we please hold the applause? Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, first, let me start by saying that so much of what he's just said is not right, but he gets to run his
campaign any way he chooses. He gets to decide what he wants to talk about. Instead of answering people's questions,
talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country, that's
his choice.
When I hear something like that, I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: When they go low,
you go high. [applause]
And, look, if this were just about one video, maybe what he's saying tonight would be understandable, but everyone can
draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects
women. But he never apologizes for anything to anyone.
He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the Gold Star family whose son, Captain Khan, died in the line of duty in Iraq.
And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion.
He never apologized to the distinguished federal judge who was born in Indiana, but Donald said he couldn't be trusted to
be a judge because his parents were, quote, "Mexican."
He never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television and our children were watching.
And he never apologized for the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the United States of America. He owes the
president an apology, he owes our country an apology, and he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words.
TRUMP: Well, you owe the president an apology, because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal—
he's another real winner that you have—and he's the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager, and
they were on television just two weeks ago, she was, saying exactly that. So you really owe him an apology. You're the one
that sent the pictures around your campaign, sent the pictures around with President Obama in a certain garb. That was
long before I was ever involved, so you actually owe an apology.
Number two, Michelle Obama. I've gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I've gotten to see some of the
most vicious commercials I've ever seen of Michelle Obama talking about you, Hillary.
So, you talk about friend? Go back and take a look at those commercials, a race where you lost fair and square, unlike the
Bernie Sanders race, where you won, but not fair and square, in my opinion. And all you have to do is take a look at
WikiLeaks and just see what they say about Bernie Sanders and see what Deborah Wasserman Schultz had in mind,
because Bernie Sanders, between super-delegates and Deborah Wasserman Schultz, he never had a chance. And I was so
surprised to see him sign on with the devil.
But when you talk about apology, I think the one that you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be
apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted, and that you acid washed, and then the two boxes of e-mails and
other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing.
And I'll tell you what. I didn't think I'd say this, but I'm going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to
instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many
lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we're going to have a special prosecutor.
When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been longterm workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails—and you get a subpoena, you
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 586
JA 713
4/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDCgetting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them,
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 167 of 344
get a subpoena, and after
as you would say, very expensive process.
So we're going to get a special prosecutor, and we're going to look into it, because you know what? People have been—
their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done. And it's a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be
ashamed of yourself.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on that.
[crosstalk]
RADDATZ: I'm going to let you talk about e-mails.
CLINTON: ... because everything he just said is absolutely false, but I'm not surprised.
TRUMP: Oh, really?
CLINTON: In the first debate...[laughter]
RADDATZ: And really, the audience needs to calm down here.
CLINTON: ... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about
anything I want to do and how we're going to really make lives better for people.
So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump—you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the
first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we'll have millions more fact checking, because, you
know, it is—it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our
country.
TRUMP: Because you'd be in jail. [applause]
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton...
COOPER: We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You're just wasting time.
RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on e- mails. You've said your handing of your e-mails was a
mistake. You disagreed with FBI Director James Comey, calling your handling of classified information, quote, "extremely
careless." The FBI said that there were 110 classified e-mails that were exchanged, eight of which were top secret, and that
it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those e-mails. You don't call that extremely careless?
CLINTON: Well, Martha, first, let me say—and I've said before, but I'll repeat it, because I want everyone to hear it—that
was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal e-mail account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I
would not. I'm not making any excuses. It was a mistake. And I am very sorry about that.
But I think it's also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. After a
year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and there is no evidence that
anyone can point to at all—anyone who says otherwise has no basis—that any classified material ended up in the wrong
hands.
I take classified materials very seriously and always have. When I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was
privy to a lot of classified material. Obviously, as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we
possess, such as going after bin Laden. So I am very committed to taking classified information seriously. And as I said,
there is no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands.
RADDATZ: OK, we're going to move on.
TRUMP: And yet she didn't know the word—the letter C on a document. Right? She didn't even know what that word—
what that letter meant.
You know, it's amazing. I'm watching Hillary go over facts. And she's going after fact after fact, and she's lying again,
because she said she—you know, what she did with the e-mail was fine. You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I
don't think so.
She said the 33,000 e-mails had to do with her daughter's wedding, number one, and a yoga class. Well, maybe we'll give
three or three or four or five or something. 33,000 e-mails deleted, and now she's saying there wasn't anything wrong.
And more importantly, that was after getting a subpoena. That wasn't before. That was after. She got it from the United
States Congress. And I'll be honest, I am so disappointed in congressmen, including Republicans, for allowing this to
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 587
JA 714
5/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 168 of 344
happen.
Our Justice Department, where our husband goes on to the back of a airplane for 39 minutes, talks to the attorney general
days before a ruling is going to be made on her case. But for you to say that there was nothing wrong with you deleting
39,000 e-mails, again, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you did—and this is after getting a subpoena from the
United States Congress.
COOPER: We have to move on.
TRUMP: You did that. Wait a minute. One second.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond, and then we got to move on.
RADDATZ: We want to give the audience a chance.
TRUMP: If you did that in the private sector, you'd be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United
States Congress.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond. Then we have to move on to an audience question.
CLINTON: Look, it's just not true. And so please, go to...
TRUMP: Oh, you didn't delete them?
COOPER: Allow her to respond, please.
CLINTON: It was personal e-mails, not official.
TRUMP: Oh, 33,000? Yeah.
CLINTON: Not—well, we turned over 35,000, so...
TRUMP: Oh, yeah. What about the other 15,000?
COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn't talk while you talked.
CLINTON: Yes, that's true, I didn't.
TRUMP: Because you have nothing to say.
CLINTON: I didn't in the first debate, and I'm going to try not to in this debate, because I'd like to get to the questions
that the people have brought here tonight to talk to us about.
TRUMP: Get off this question.
CLINTON: OK, Donald. I know you're into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the
way it's exploding and the way Republicans are leaving you. But let's at least focus...
TRUMP: Let's see what happens...[crosstalk]
COOPER: Allow her to respond.
CLINTON: ... on some of the issues that people care about tonight. Let's get to their questions.
COOPER: We have a question here from Ken Karpowicz. He has a question about health care. Ken?
TRUMP: I'd like to know, Anderson, why aren't you bringing up the e-mails? I'd like to know. Why aren't you bringing...
COOPER: We brought up the e-mails.
TRUMP: No, it hasn't. It hasn't. And it hasn't been finished at all.
COOPER: Ken Karpowicz has a question.
TRUMP: It's nice to—one on three.
QUESTION: Thank you. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, it is not affordable. Premiums have gone up.
Deductibles have gone up. Copays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up. And the coverage has gone down. What will
you do to bring the cost down and make coverage better?
COOPER: That first one goes to Secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 588
JA 715
6/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC start, he can start.205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 169 of 344
Document No, go ahead, Donald.
CLINTON: If he wants to
TRUMP: No, I'm a gentlemen, Hillary. Go ahead. [laughter]
COOPER: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I think Donald was about to say he's going to solve it by repealing it and getting rid of the Affordable
Care Act. And I'm going to fix it, because I agree with you. Premiums have gotten too high. Copays, deductibles,
prescription drug costs, and I've laid out a series of actions that we can take to try to get those costs down.
But here's what I don't want people to forget when we're talking about reining in the costs, which has to be the highest
priority of the next president, when the Affordable Care Act passed, it wasn't just that 20 million got insurance who didn't
have it before. But that in and of itself was a good thing. I meet these people all the time, and they tell me what a
difference having that insurance meant to them and their families.
But everybody else, the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employees got big benefits. Number one,
insurance companies can't deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Number two, no lifetime limits, which is
a big deal if you have serious health problems.
Number three, women can't be charged more than men for our health insurance, which is the way it used to be before the
Affordable Care Act. Number four, if you're under 26, and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the
age of 26, something that didn't happen before.
So I want very much to save what works and is good about the Affordable Care Act. But we've got to get costs down. We've
got to provide additional help to small businesses so that they can afford to provide health insurance. But if we repeal it,
as Donald has proposed, and start over again, all of those benefits I just mentioned are lost to everybody, not just people
who get their health insurance on the exchange. And then we would have to start all over again.
Right now, we are at 90 percent health insurance coverage. That's the highest we've ever been in our country.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your time is up.
CLINTON: So I want us to get to 100 percent, but get costs down and keep quality up.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.
TRUMP: It is such a great question and it's maybe the question I get almost more than anything else, outside of defense.
Obamacare is a disaster. You know it. We all know it. It's going up at numbers that nobody's ever seen worldwide.
Nobody's ever seen numbers like this for health care.
It's only getting worse. In '17, it implodes by itself. Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more
money, more and more money. We have right now almost $20 trillion in debt.
Obamacare will never work. It's very bad, very bad health insurance. Far too expensive. And not only expensive for the
person that has it, unbelievably expensive for our country. It's going to be one of the biggest line items very shortly.
We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive and something that works, where your
plan can actually be tailored. We have to get rid of the lines around the state, artificial lines, where we stop insurance
companies from coming in and competing, because they want—and President Obama and whoever was working on it—
they want to leave those lines, because that gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition.
You will have the finest health care plan there is. She wants to go to a single-payer plan, which would be a disaster,
somewhat similar to Canada. And if you haven't noticed the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something
happens, they come into the United States in many cases because their system is so slow. It's catastrophic in certain ways.
But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything. Hillary Clinton has been after
this for years. Obamacare was the first step. Obamacare is a total disaster. And not only are your rates going up by
numbers that nobody's ever believed, but your deductibles are going up, so that unless you get hit by a truck, you're never
going to be able to use it.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, your time...
TRUMP: It is a disastrous plan, and it has to be repealed and replaced.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, let me follow up with you. Your husband called Obamacare, quote, "the craziest thing in the
world," saying that small-business owners are getting killed as premiums double, coverage is cut in half. Was he mistaken
or was the mistake simply telling the truth?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 589
JA 716
7/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDChe clarified what he 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 wePage situation in our country where if
Document meant. And it's very clear. Look, are in a 170 of 344
CLINTON: No, I mean,
we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That's
where the vast majority of people get their health care.
And the Affordable Care Act was meant to try to fill the gap between people who were too poor and couldn't put together
any resources to afford health care, namely people on Medicaid. Obviously, Medicare, which is a single-payer system,
which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, by the way, and then all of the people who were employed,
but people who were working but didn't have the money to afford insurance and didn't have anybody, an employer or
anybody else, to help them.
That was the slot that the Obamacare approach was to take. And like I say, 20 million people now have health insurance.
So if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald's not telling you is we just turn it back to the insurance companies
the way it used to be, and that means the insurance companies...
COOPER: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: ... get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, look, I'm sorry, you've got diabetes, you had
cancer, your child has asthma...
COOPER: Your time is up.
CLINTON: ... you may not be able to have insurance because you can't afford it. So let's fix what's broken about it, but
let's not throw it away and give it all back to the insurance companies and the drug companies. That's not going to work.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up on this.
TRUMP: Well, I just want—just one thing. First of all, Hillary, everything's broken about it. Everything. Number two,
Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton has very bad judgment. This is a perfect example of it, trying to save Obamacare,
which is a disaster.
COOPER: You've said you want to end Obamacare...
TRUMP: By the way...
COOPER: You've said you want to end Obamacare. You've also said you want to make coverage accessible for people
with pre-existing conditions. How do you force insurance companies to do that if you're no longer mandating that every
American get insurance?
TRUMP: We're going to be able to. You're going to have plans...
COOPER: What does that mean?
TRUMP: Well, I'll tell you what it means. You're going to have plans that are so good, because we're going to have so
much competition in the insurance industry. Once we break out—once we break out the lines and allow the competition to
come...
COOPER: Are you going—are you going to have a mandate that Americans have to have health insurance?
TRUMP: President Obama—Anderson, excuse me. President Obama, by keeping those lines, the boundary lines around
each state, it was almost gone until just very toward the end of the passage of Obamacare, which, by the way, was a fraud.
You know that, because Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, was said—he said it was a great lie, it was a big lie.
President Obama said you keep your doctor, you keep your plan. The whole thing was a fraud, and it doesn't work.
But when we get rid of those lines, you will have competition, and we will be able to keep pre-existing, we'll also be able to
help people that can't get—don't have money because we are going to have people protected.
And Republicans feel this way, believe it or not, and strongly this way. We're going to block grant into the states. We're
going to block grant into Medicaid into the states...
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: ... so that we will be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves.
COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
RADDATZ: We now go to Gorbah Hamed with a question for both candidates.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 590
JA 717
8/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I'm one of them. You've mentioned working
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 171 of 344
QUESTION: Hi. There are
with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of
being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, you're first.
TRUMP: Well, you're right about Islamophobia, and that's a shame. But one thing we have to do is we have to make sure
that—because there is a problem. I mean, whether we like it or not, and we could be very politically correct, but whether
we like it or not, there is a problem. And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something
going on. When they see hatred going on, they have to report it.
As an example, in San Bernardino, many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and
wounded many, many people. Horribly wounded. They'll never be the same. Muslims have to report the problems when
they see them.
And, you know, there's always a reason for everything. If they don't do that, it's a very difficult situation for our country,
because you look at Orlando and you look at San Bernardino and you look at the World Trade Center. Go outside. Look at
Paris. Look at that horrible—these are radical Islamic terrorists.
And she won't even mention the word and nor will President Obama. He won't use the term "radical Islamic terrorism."
Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name. She won't say the name
and President Obama won't say the name. But the name is there. It's radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you
have to say the name.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, thank you for asking your question. And I've heard this question from a lot of Muslim-Americans across
our country, because, unfortunately, there's been a lot of very divisive, dark things said about Muslims. And even someone
like Captain Khan, the young man who sacrificed himself defending our country in the United States Army, has been
subject to attack by Donald.
I want to say just a couple of things. First, we've had Muslims in America since George Washington. And we've had many
successful Muslims. We just lost a particular well-known one with Muhammad Ali.
My vision of America is an America where everyone has a place, if you're willing to work hard, you do your part, you
contribute to the community. That's what America is. That's what we want America to be for our children and our
grandchildren.
It's also very short-sighted and even dangerous to be engaging in the kind of demagogic rhetoric that Donald has about
Muslims. We need American Muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lines. I've worked with a lot of different
Muslim groups around America. I've met with a lot of them, and I've heard how important it is for them to feel that they
are wanted and included and part of our country, part of our homeland security, and that's what I want to see.
It's also important I intend to defeat ISIS, to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations. Right now, a lot of those
nations are hearing what Donald says and wondering, why should we cooperate with the Americans? And this is a gift to
ISIS and the terrorists, violent jihadist terrorists.
We are not at war with Islam. And it is a mistake and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to act as though we are. So I
want a country where citizens like you and your family are just as welcome as anyone else.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.
Mr. Trump, in December, you said this. "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. We have no choice.
We have no choice." Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position. Is that correct?
And if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?
TRUMP: First of all, Captain Khan is an American hero, and if I were president at that time, he would be alive today,
because unlike her, who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing, I would not have had our people in Iraq.
Iraq was disaster. So he would have been alive today.
The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.
Hillary Clinton wants to allow hundreds of thousands—excuse me. Excuse me..
RADDATZ: And why did it morph into that? No, did you—no, answer the question. Do you still believe...
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 591
JA 718
9/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDCinterrupt her? You interrupt me all the 10/06/17 Page 172 of 344
Document 205-1 Filed time.
TRUMP: Why don't you
RADDATZ: I do.
TRUMP: Why don't you interrupt her?
RADDATZ: Would you please explain whether or not the Muslim ban still stands?
TRUMP: It's called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria where they're coming in by the tens of thousands
because of Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550 percent increase over Obama. People are coming into
our country like we have no idea who they are, where they are from, what their feelings about our country is, and she
wants 550 percent more. This is going to be the great Trojan horse of all time.
We have enough problems in this country. I believe in building safe zones. I believe in having other people pay for them,
as an example, the Gulf states, who are not carrying their weight, but they have nothing but money, and take care of
people. But I don't want to have, with all the problems this country has and all of the problems that you see going on,
hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them. We know nothing about their
values and we know nothing about their love for our country.
RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about that, because you have asked for an increase from 10,000 to
65,000 Syrian refugees. We know you want tougher vetting. That's not a perfect system. So why take the risk of having
those refugees come into the country?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us. But there are a lot of
refugees, women and children—think of that picture we all saw of that 4-year-old boy with the blood on his forehead
because he'd been bombed by the Russian and Syrian air forces.
There are children suffering in this catastrophic war, largely, I believe, because of Russian aggression. And we need to do
our part. We by no means are carrying anywhere near the load that Europe and others are. But we will have vetting that is
as tough as it needs to be from our professionals, our intelligence experts and others.
But it is important for us as a policy, you know, not to say, as Donald has said, we're going to ban people based on a
religion. How do you do that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what he has
advocated without causing great distress within our own county? Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into
our country? And how do we expect to be able to implement those?
So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous. And indeed, you can look at the propaganda on
a lot of the terrorists sites, and what Donald Trump says about Muslims is used to recruit fighters, because they want to
create a war between us.
And the final thing I would say, this is the 10th or 12th time that he's denied being for the war in Iraq. We have it on tape.
The entire press corps has looked at it. It's been debunked, but it never stops him from saying whatever he wants to say.
TRUMP: That's not been debunked.
CLINTON: So, please...
TRUMP: That has not been debunked.
CLINTON: ... go to HillaryClinton.com and you can see it.
TRUMP: I was against—I was against the war in Iraq. Has not been debunked. And you voted for it. And you shouldn't
have. Well, I just want to say...
RADDATZ: There's been lots of fact-checking on that. I'd like to move on to an online question...
TRUMP: Excuse me. She just went about 25 seconds over her time.
RADDATZ: She did not.
TRUMP: Could I just respond to this, please?
RADDATZ: Very quickly, please.
TRUMP: Hillary Clinton, in terms of having people come into our country, we have many criminal illegal aliens. When
we want to send them back to their country, their country says we don't want them. In some cases, they're murderers,
drug lords, drug problems. And they don't want them.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 592
JA 719
10/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC she was secretary of state, said that's OK, we can't force it into their country. Let me tell you,
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 173 of 344
And Hillary Clinton, when
I'm going to force them right back into their country. They're murderers and some very bad people.
And I will tell you very strongly, when Bernie Sanders said she had bad judgment, she has really bad judgment, because
we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you've never seen. We're also
letting drugs pour through our southern border at a record clip. At a record clip. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
ICE just endorsed me. They've never endorsed a presidential candidate. The Border Patrol agents, 16,500, just recently
endorsed me, and they endorsed me because I understand the border. She doesn't. She wants amnesty for everybody.
Come right in. Come right over. It's a horrible thing she's doing. She's got bad judgment, and honestly, so bad that she
should never be president of the United States. That I can tell you.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Mr. Trump. I want to move on. This next question from the public through the Bipartisan Open
Debate Coalition's online forum, where Americans submitted questions that generated millions of votes. This question
involves WikiLeaks release of purported excerpts of Secretary Clinton's paid speeches, which she has refused to release,
and one line in particular, in which you, Secretary Clinton, purportedly say you need both a public and private position on
certain issues. So, Tu, from Virginia asks, is it OK for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a
private stance on issues? Secretary Clinton, your two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful
Steven Spielberg movie called "Lincoln." It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the
13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.
And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep
working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other
people, he used other arguments. That was a great—I thought a great display of presidential leadership.
But, you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and
said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the
hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the
Russians hack information, we don't even know if it's accurate information, and then they put it out.
We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to
influence the outcome of the election. And believe me, they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to
influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now, maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe
because he wants to do business in Moscow, I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand
that Donald release all of his tax returns so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships
that he has...
RADDATZ: We're going to get to that later. Secretary Clinton, you're out of time.
CLINTON: ... with the Russians and other foreign powers.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Well, I think I should respond, because—so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming—she got caught in a total lie.
Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things—WikiLeaks
that just came out. And she lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't...
[laughter]
OK, Honest Abe, Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and
you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with
Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don't know Putin.
But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are—she doesn't know if it's the Russians
doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because
they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know—I know about Russia, but I
know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from
Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United
JA 720
States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the Old Post Office,
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 593
11/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC and Congress, chose me to do Filed Post Office. OnePage 174 area344 in fact,
Document 205-1 the Old 10/06/17 of the primary of things,
between the White House
perhaps the primary thing was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States
government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well in order to get that
development I had to have.
Now, the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have—first of all, I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many
of her friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a
massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money that she can do many more commercials than me
gave her—took massive deductions.
I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. But—but as soon as my routine audit is finished, I'll release my returns. I'll
be very proud to. They're actually quite great.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Mr. Trump.
COOPER: We want to turn, actually, to the topic of taxes. We have a question from Spencer Maass. Spencer?
QUESTION: Good evening. My question is, what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest
Americans pay their fair share in taxes?
COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes.
TRUMP: Well, one thing I'd do is get rid of carried interest. One of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be
honest with you, I give up a lot when I run, because I knock out the tax code. And she could have done this years ago, by
the way. She's a United States—she was a United States senator.
She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well, why didn't she change it? Why didn't you change
it when you were a senator? The reason you didn't is that all your friends take the same advantage that I do. And I do. You
have provisions in the tax code that, frankly, we could change. But you wouldn't change it, because all of these people gave
you the money so you can take negative ads on Donald Trump.
But—and I say that about a lot of things. You know, I've heard Hillary complaining about so many different things over
the years. "I wish you would have done this." But she's been there for 30 years she's been doing this stuff. She never
changed. And she never will change. She never will change.
We're getting rid of carried interest provisions. I'm lowering taxes actually, because I think it's so important for
corporations, because we have corporations leaving—massive corporations and little ones, little ones can't form. We're
getting rid of regulations which goes hand in hand with the lowering of the taxes.
But we're bringing the tax rate down from 35 percent to 15 percent. We're cutting taxes for the middle class. And I will tell
you, we are cutting them big league for the middle class.
And I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks. You can look at me. She's raising your taxes really high. And
what that's going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising your taxes and I'm lowering your taxes. That in itself
is a big difference. We are going to be thriving again. We have no growth in this country. There's no growth. If China has a
GDP of 7 percent, it's like a national catastrophe. We're down at 1 percent. And that's, like, no growth. And we're going
lower, in my opinion. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high, just about the highest in the world.
And I'm bringing them down to one of the lower in the world. And I think it's so important—one of the most important
things we can do. But she is raising everybody's taxes massively.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. The question was, what specific tax provisions will you change to
ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes?
CLINTON: Well, everything you've heard just now from Donald is not true. I'm sorry I have to keep saying this, but he
lives in an alternative reality. And it is sort of amusing to hear somebody who hasn't paid federal income taxes in maybe
20 years talking about what he's going to do.
But I'll tell you what he's going to do. His plan will give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they've ever had,
more than the Bush tax cuts by at least a factor of two. Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald, and
this would be a massive gift. And, indeed, the way that he talks about his tax cuts would end up raising taxes on middleclass families, millions of middle-class families.
Now, here's what I want to do. I have said nobody who makes less than $250,000 a year—and that's the vast majority of
Americans as you know—will have their taxes raised, because I think we've got to go where the money is. And the money
is with people who have taken advantage of every single break in the tax code.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 594
JA 721
12/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document close corporate loopholes. I voted toPage think, one of the loopholes he
205-1 Filed 10/06/17 close, I 175 of 344
And, yes, when I was a senator, I did vote to
took advantage of when he claimed a billion-dollar loss that enabled him to avoid paying taxes.
I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars. It's called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one
who's gone out and said somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a
surcharge on incomes above $5 million.
We have to make up for lost times, because I want to invest in you. I want to invest in hard-working families. And I think
it's been unfortunate, but it's happened, that since the Great Recession, the gains have all gone to the top. And we need to
reverse that.
People like Donald, who paid zero in taxes, zero for our vets, zero for our military, zero for health and education, that is
wrong.
COOPER: Thank you, Secretary.
CLINTON: And we're going to make sure that nobody, no corporation, and no individual can get away without paying his
fair share to support our country.
COOPER: Thank you. I want to give you—Mr. Trump, I want to give you the chance to respond. I just wanted to tell our
viewers what she's referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number-one issue on Facebook for the first time in the
campaign. The New York Times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns. They show you claimed a $916 million
loss, which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You've said you pay state taxes,
employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered, though, a simple question. Did you use that
$916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?
TRUMP: Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors, or most of her donors. I know many of her donors.
Her donors took massive tax write-offs.
COOPER: So have you paid personal federal income tax?
TRUMP: A lot of my—excuse me, Anderson—a lot of my write- off was depreciation and other things that Hillary as a
senator allowed. And she'll always allow it, because the people that give her all this money, they want it. That's why.
See, I understand the tax code better than anybody that's ever run for president. Hillary Clinton—and it's extremely
complex—Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including they want the carried interest provision,
which is very important to Wall Street people. But they really want the carried interest provision, which I believe Hillary's
leaving. Very interesting why she's leaving carried interest.
But I will tell you that, number one, I pay tremendous numbers of taxes. I absolutely used it. And so did Warren Buffett
and so did George Soros and so did many of the other people that Hillary is getting money from. Now, I won't mention
their names, because they're rich, but they're not famous. So we won't make them famous.
COOPER: So can you—can you say how many years you have avoided paying personal federal income taxes?
TRUMP: No, but I pay tax, and I pay federal tax, too. But I have a write-off, a lot of it's depreciation, which is a wonderful
charge. I love depreciation. You know, she's given it to us.
Hey, if she had a problem—for 30 years she's been doing this, Anderson. I say it all the time. She talks about health care.
Why didn't she do something about it? She talks about taxes. Why didn't she do something about it? She doesn't do
anything about anything other than talk. With her, it's all talk and no action.
COOPER: In the past...
TRUMP: And, again, Bernie Sanders, it's really bad judgment. She has made bad judgment not only on taxes. She's made
bad judgments on Libya, on Syria, on Iraq. I mean, her and Obama, whether you like it or not, the way they got out of
Iraq, the vacuum they've left, that's why ISIS formed in the first place. They started from that little area, and now they're
in 32 different nations, Hillary. Congratulations. Great job.
COOPER: Secretary—I want you to be able to respond, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, here we go again. I've been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years, starting when I was a
senator from New York. But that's not the point here.
TRUMP: Why didn't you do it? Why didn't you do it?
COOPER: Allow her to respond.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 595
JA 722
13/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC aDocumentRepublican president.
205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 176 of 344
CLINTON: Because I was senator with a
TRUMP: Oh, really?
CLINTON: I will be the president and we will get it done. That's exactly right.
TRUMP: You could have done it, if you were an effective—if you were an effective senator, you could have done it. If you
were an effective senator, you could have done it. But you were not an effective senator.
COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn't interrupt you.
CLINTON: You know, under our Constitution, presidents have something called veto power. Look, he has now said
repeatedly, "30 years this and 30 years that." So let me talk about my 30 years in public service. I'm very glad to do so.
Eight million kids every year have health insurance, because when I was first lady I worked with Democrats and
Republicans to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. Hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be
adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care system. After 9/11, I went to work with Republican
mayor, governor and president to rebuild New York and to get health care for our first responders who were suffering
because they had run toward danger and gotten sickened by it. Hundreds of thousands of National Guard and Reserve
members have health care because of work that I did, and children have safer medicines because I was able to pass a law
that required the dosing to be more carefully done.
When I was secretary of state, I went around the world advocating for our country, but also advocating for women's rights,
to make sure that women had a decent chance to have a better life and negotiated a treaty with Russia to lower nuclear
weapons. Four hundred pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or cosponsor when I was a senator for eight
years.
I worked very hard and was very proud to be re-elected in New York by an even bigger margin than I had been elected the
first time. And as president, I will take that work, that bipartisan work, that finding common ground, because you have to
be able to get along with people to get things done in Washington.
COOPER: Thank you, secretary.
CLINTON: I've proven that I can, and for 30 years, I've produced results for people.
COOPER: Thank you, secretary.
RADDATZ: We're going to move on to Syria. Both of you have mentioned that.
TRUMP: She said a lot of things that were false. I mean, I think we should be allowed to maybe...
RADDATZ: No, we can—no, Mr. Trump, we're going to go on. This is about the audience.
TRUMP: Excuse me. Because she has been a disaster as a senator. A disaster.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, we're going to move on. The heart-breaking video of a 5-year-old Syrian boy named Omran
sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the rubble after an air strike in Aleppo focused the world's attention on the
horrors of the war in Syria, with 136 million views on Facebook alone.
But there are much worse images coming out of Aleppo every day now, where in the past few weeks alone, 400 people
have been killed, at least 100 of them children. Just days ago, the State Department called for a war crimes investigation
of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its ally, Russia, for their bombardment of Aleppo.
So this next question comes through social media through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asks, if you were president,
what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? Isn't it a lot like the Holocaust when the U.S.
waited too long before we helped? Secretary Clinton, we will begin with your two minutes.
CLINTON: Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by
Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air, bombarding places, in particular Aleppo,
where there are hundreds of thousands of people, probably about 250,000 still left. And there is a determined effort by
the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against
the Assad regime.
Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state,
advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are
not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them. And we
have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 596
JA 723
14/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 ambitions and the aggressiveness177 of 344 has decided
Filed 10/06/17 Page of Russia. Russia
But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the
that it's all in, in Syria. And they've also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it's
not me. I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president.
I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that's fine. And I did as secretary of state. That's how we got a treaty
reducing nuclear weapons. It's how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without
firing a single shot. So I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now. But I do support the
effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which...
CLINTON: No, I wasn't. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point...
TRUMP: OK. But you were in contact—excuse me. You were...
CLINTON: At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.
TRUMP: You were in total contact with the White House, and perhaps, sadly, Obama probably still listened to you. I
don't think he would be listening to you very much anymore.
Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened.
Now, with that being said, she talks tough against Russia. But our nuclear program has fallen way behind, and they've
gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn't have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in
terms of nuclear. We are old. We're tired. We're exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing.
Now, she talks tough, she talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn't
even know who the rebels are. You know, every time we take rebels, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else, we're arming
people. And you know what happens? They end up being worse than the people.
Look at what she did in Libya with Gadhafi. Gadhafi's out. It's a mess. And, by the way, ISIS has a good chunk of their oil.
I'm sure you probably have heard that. It was a disaster. Because the fact is, almost everything she's done in foreign policy
has been a mistake and it's been a disaster.
But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia, and look at what they did this week, where I agree, she wasn't there,
but possibly she's consulted. We sign a peace treaty. Everyone's all excited. Well, what Russia did with Assad and, by the
way, with Iran, who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I've ever seen in the history of deal-making,
the Iran deal, with the $150 billion, with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough to fill up this room.
But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us. So she wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There's
only one problem. You don't even know who the rebels are. So what's the purpose?
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: And one thing I have to say.
RADDATZ: Your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: I don't like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three
have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president...[laughter]...what would you do about Syria
and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by
Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the
Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the
military targets of the Assad regime.
TRUMP: OK. He and I haven't spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.
RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?
TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at
the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it's Iran, who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made
into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 597
JA 724
15/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1ISIS before10/06/17 much more involved. She had a chance to
Filed we can get too Page 178 of 344
I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about
do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn't.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?
TRUMP: I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if it falls?
TRUMP: I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It basically has fallen. Let me tell you something. You take a look at
Mosul. The biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have Mosul. They think a lot of the ISIS
leaders are in Mosul. So we have announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq, we will be attacking
Mosul in three weeks or four weeks.
Well, all of these bad leaders from ISIS are leaving Mosul. Why can't they do it quietly? Why can't they do the attack, make
it a sneak attack, and after the attack is made, inform the American public that we've knocked out the leaders, we've had a
tremendous success? People leave. Why do they have to say we're going to be attacking Mosul within the next four to six
weeks, which is what they're saying? How stupid is our country?
RADDATZ: There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological warfare.
TRUMP: I can't think of any. I can't think of any. And I'm pretty good at it.
RADDATZ: It might be to help get civilians out.
TRUMP: And we have General Flynn. And we have—look, I have 200 generals and admirals who endorsed me. I have 21
Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who endorsed me. We talk about it all the time. They understand, why can't they
do something secretively, where they go in and they knock out the leadership? How—why would these people stay there?
I've been reading now...
RADDATZ: Tell me what your strategy is.
TRUMP: ... for weeks—I've been reading now for weeks about Mosul, that it's the harbor of where—you know, between
Raqqa and Mosul, this is where they think the ISIS leaders are. Why would they be saying—they're not staying there
anymore. They're gone. Because everybody's talking about how Iraq, which is us with our leadership, goes in to fight
Mosul.
Now, with these 200 admirals and generals, they can't believe it. All I say is this. General George Patton, General Douglas
MacArthur are spinning in their grave at the stupidity of what we're doing in the Middle East.
RADDATZ: I'm going to go to Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, you want Assad to go. You advocated arming rebels,
but it looks like that may be too late for Aleppo. You talk about diplomatic efforts. Those have failed. Cease-fires have
failed. Would you introduce the threat of U.S. military force beyond a no-fly zone against the Assad regime to back up
diplomacy?
CLINTON: I would not use American ground forces in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don't think
American troops should be holding territory, which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. I don't think that
is a smart strategy.
I do think the use of special forces, which we're using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some
positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening, but let me just...
RADDATZ: But what would you do differently than President Obama is doing?
CLINTON: Well, Martha, I hope that by the time I—if I'm fortunate...
TRUMP: Everything.
CLINTON: I hope by the time I am president that we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. I do think that there is a good
chance that we can take Mosul. And, you know, Donald says he knows more about ISIS than the generals. No, he doesn't.
There are a lot of very important planning going on, and some of it is to signal to the Sunnis in the area, as well as Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters, that we all need to be in this. And that takes a lot of planning and preparation.
I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi, because I think our targeting of Al Qaida leaders—and I
was involved in a lot of those operations, highly classified ones—made a difference. So I think that could help.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 598
JA 725
16/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 in Syria, as well ofIraq. And I know
Page 179 as 344
I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners
there's a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that Kurdish
and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq.
RADDATZ: Thank you very much. We're going to move on...
TRUMP: You know what's funny? She went over a minute over, and you don't stop her. When I go one second over, it's
like a big deal.
RADDATZ: You had many answers.
TRUMP: It's really—it's really very interesting.
COOPER: We've got a question over here from James Carter. Mr. Carter?
QUESTION: My question is, do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States?
COOPER: That question begins for Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Absolutely. I mean, she calls our people deplorable, a large group, and irredeemable. I will be a president for all
of our people. And I'll be a president that will turn our inner cities around and will give strength to people and will give
economics to people and will bring jobs back.
Because NAFTA, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world. Not in this
country. It stripped us of manufacturing jobs. We lost our jobs. We lost our money. We lost our plants. It is a disaster. And
now she wants to sign TPP, even though she says now she's for it. She called it the gold standard. And by the way, at the
last debate, she lied, because it turned out that she did say the gold standard and she said she didn't say it. They actually
said that she lied. OK? And she lied. But she's lied about a lot of things.
I would be a president for all of the people, African-Americans, the inner cities. Devastating what's happening to our inner
cities. She's been talking about it for years. As usual, she talks about it, nothing happens. She doesn't get it done.
Same with the Latino Americans, the Hispanic Americans. The same exact thing. They talk, they don't get it done. You go
into the inner cities and—you see it's 45 percent poverty. African- Americans now 45 percent poverty in the inner cities.
The education is a disaster. Jobs are essentially nonexistent.
I mean, it's—you know, and I've been saying at big speeches where I have 20,000 and 30,000 people, what do you have to
lose? It can't get any worse. And she's been talking about the inner cities for 25 years. Nothing's going to ever happen.
Let me tell you, if she's president of the United States, nothing's going to happen. It's just going to be talk. And all of her
friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She's not doing any me favors. But by doing all
the others' favors, she's doing me favors.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, thank you.
TRUMP: But I will tell you, she's all talk. It doesn't get done. All you have to do is take a look at her Senate run. Take a
look at upstate New York.
COOPER: Your two minutes is up. Secretary Clinton, two minutes?
TRUMP: It turned out to be a disaster.
COOPER: You have two minutes, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, 67 percent of the people voted to re-elect me when I ran for my second term, and I was very proud and
very humbled by that.
Mr. Carter, I have tried my entire life to do what I can to support children and families. You know, right out of law school,
I went to work for the Children's Defense Fund. And Donald talks a lot about, you know, the 30 years I've been in public
service. I'm proud of that. You know, I started off as a young lawyer working against discrimination against AfricanAmerican children in schools and in the criminal justice system. I worked to make sure that kids with disabilities could get
a public education, something that I care very much about. I have worked with Latinos—one of my first jobs in politics
was down in south Texas registering Latino citizens to be able to vote. So I have a deep devotion, to use your absolutely
correct word, to making sure that an every American feels like he or she has a place in our country.
And I think when you look at the letters that I get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn't have a place in
Donald Trump's America. They write me, and one woman wrote me about her son, Felix. She adopted him from Ethiopia
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 599
JA 726
17/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC 10 years old now. This is theFiled 10/06/17 ever known. And of listens to Donald on
Document 205-1 only one country he's Page 180 he 344
when he was a toddler. He's
TV and he said to his mother one day, will he send me back to Ethiopia if he gets elected?
You know, children listen to what is being said. To go back to the very, very first question. And there's a lot of fear—in fact,
teachers and parents are calling it the Trump effect. Bullying is up. A lot of people are feeling, you know, uneasy. A lot of
kids are expressing their concerns.
So, first and foremost, I will do everything I can to reach out to everybody.
COOPER: Your time, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Democrats, Republicans, independents, people across our country. If you don't vote for me, I still want to be
your president.
COOPER: Your two minutes is up.
CLINTON: I want to be the best president I can be for every American.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your two minutes is up. I want to follow up on something that Donald Trump actually said
to you, a comment you made last month. You said that half of Donald Trump's supporters are, quote, "deplorables, racist,
sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." You later said you regretted saying half. You didn't express regret for
using the term "deplorables." To Mr. Carter's question, how can you unite a country if you've written off tens of millions of
Americans?
CLINTON: Well, within hours I said that I was sorry about the way I talked about that, because my argument is not with
his supporters. It's with him and with the hateful and divisive campaign that he has run, and the inciting of violence at his
rallies, and the very brutal kinds of comments about not just women, but all Americans, all kinds of Americans.
And what he has said about African-Americans and Latinos, about Muslims, about POWs, about immigrants, about
people with disabilities, he's never apologized for. And so I do think that a lot of the tone and tenor that he has said—I'm
proud of the campaign that Bernie Sanders and I ran. We ran a campaign based on issues, not insults. And he is
supporting me 100 percent.
COOPER: Thank you.
CLINTON: Because we talked about what we wanted to do. We might have had some differences, and we had a lot of
debates...
COOPER: Thank you, Secretary.
TRUMP: ... but we believed that we could make the country better. And I was proud of that.
COOPER: I want to give you a minute to respond.
TRUMP: We have a divided nation. We have a very divided nation. You look at Charlotte. You look at Baltimore. You
look at the violence that's taking place in the inner cities, Chicago, you take a look at Washington, D.C.
We have an increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years. We have a divided nation, because people like her
—and believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart. And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said
irredeemable, they're irredeemable, you didn't mention that, but when she said they're irredeemable, to me that might
have been even worse.
COOPER: She said some of them are irredeemable.
TRUMP: She's got tremendous—she's got tremendous hatred. And this country cannot take another four years of Barack
Obama, and that's what you're getting with her.
COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up with you. In 2008, you wrote in one of your books that the most important
characteristic of a good leader is discipline. You said, if a leader doesn't have it, quote, "he or she won't be one for very
long." In the days after the first debate, you sent out a series of tweets from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m., including one that told people
to check out a sex tape. Is that the discipline of a good leader?
TRUMP: No, there wasn't check out a sex tape. It was just take a look at the person that she built up to be this wonderful
Girl Scout who was no Girl Scout.
COOPER: You mentioned sex tape.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 600
JA 727
18/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC soDocument 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 181 of 344
TRUMP: By the way, just you understand, when she said 3 o'clock in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said
who is going to answer the call at 3 o'clock in the morning? Guess what? She didn't answer it, because when Ambassador
Stevens...
COOPER: The question is, is that the discipline of a good leader?
TRUMP: ... 600—wait a minute, Anderson, 600 times. Well, she said she was awake at 3 o'clock in the morning, and she
also sent a tweet out at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I won't even mention that. But she said she'll be awake. Who's going
—the famous thing, we're going to answer our call at 3 o'clock in the morning. Guess what happened? Ambassador
Stevens—Ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help. And the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal, who's
her friend and not a good guy, by the way. So, you know, she shouldn't be talking about that.
Now, tweeting happens to be a modern day form of communication. I mean, you can like it or not like it. I have, between
Facebook and Twitter, I have almost 25 million people. It's a very effective way of communication. So you can put it down,
but it is a very effective form of communication. I'm not un-proud of it, to be honest with you.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader?
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: I'm shocked to hear that. [laughter]
CLINTON: Well, it's not only my opinion. It's the opinion of many others, national security experts, Republicans, former
Republican members of Congress. But it's in part because those of us who have had the great privilege of seeing this job
up close and know how difficult it is, and it's not just because I watched my husband take a $300 billion deficit and turn it
into a $200 billion surplus, and 23 million new jobs were created, and incomes went up for everybody. Everybody.
African-American incomes went up 33 percent.
And it's not just because I worked with George W. Bush after 9/11, and I was very proud that when I told him what the city
needed, what we needed to recover, he said you've got it, and he never wavered. He stuck with me.
And I have worked and I admire President Obama. He inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That
was a terrible time for our country.
COOPER: We have to move along.
CLINTON: Nine million people lost their jobs.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we have to...
CLINTON: Five million homes were lost.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we're moving.
CLINTON: And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out. We are back on the right track. He would send us back into
recession with his tax plans that benefit the wealthiest of Americans.
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, we are moving to an audience question. We're almost out of time. We have another...
TRUMP: We have the slowest growth since 1929.
RADDATZ: We're moving to an audience question.
TRUMP: It is—our country has the slowest growth and jobs are a disaster.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, we want to get to the audience. Thank you very much both of you. [laughter]
We have another audience question. Beth Miller has a question for both candidates.
QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would
you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?
RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: Thank you. Well, you're right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint
Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just
been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some
more cases, they actually understand what people are up against.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 601
JA 728
19/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC court has gone in205-1 direction. And so I would want to182 of 344 Court reverse
Document the wrong Filed 10/06/17 Page see the Supreme
Because I think the current
Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn't agree with that.
I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that
we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able
to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, and I
want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.
Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested
are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and
would take us backwards.
I want a Supreme Court that doesn't always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands
because you're wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn't mean you have any more rights or should have
any more rights than anybody else.
So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret
deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a
highly qualified person, they've not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court
justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty.
I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move
to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. You're out of time. Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently. And we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in
the mold of Justice Scalia. I'm looking for judges—and I've actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly
respected, highly thought of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody.
But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important. Also, the Second
Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton. They'll respect the Second Amendment and what
it stands for, what it represents. So important to me.
Now, Hillary mentioned something about contributions just so you understand. So I will have in my race more than $100
million put in—of my money, meaning I'm not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like
she's doing. What I ask is this.
So I'm putting in more than—by the time it's finished, I'll have more than $100 million invested. Pretty much self-funding
money. We're raising money for the Republican Party, and we're doing tremendously on the small donations, $61 average
or so.
I ask Hillary, why doesn't—she made $250 million by being in office. She used the power of her office to make a lot of
money. Why isn't she funding, not for $100 million, but why don't you put $10 million or $20 million or $25 million or
$30 million into your own campaign?
It's $30 million less for special interests that will tell you exactly what to do and it would really, I think, be a nice sign to
the American public. Why aren't you putting some money in? You have a lot of it. You've made a lot of it because of the
fact that you've been in office. Made a lot of it while you were secretary of state, actually. So why aren't you putting money
into your own campaign? I'm just curious.
CLINTON: Well...[crosstalk]
RADDATZ: Thank you very much. We're going to get on to one more question.
CLINTON: The question was about the Supreme Court. And I just want to quickly say, I respect the Second Amendment.
But I believe there should be comprehensive background checks, and we should close the gun show loophole, and close
the online loophole.
COOPER: Thank you.
RADDATZ: We have—we have one more question, Mrs. Clinton.
CLINTON: We have to save as many lives as we possibly can.
COOPER: We have one more question from Ken Bone about energy policy. Ken?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 602
JA 729
20/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC will your energy policy take to Filed 10/06/17 while at the same time remaining
Document 205-1 meet our energy needs, Page 183 of 344
QUESTION: What steps
environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?
COOPER: Mr. Trump, two minutes?
TRUMP: Absolutely. I think it's such a great question, because energy is under siege by the Obama administration.
Under absolutely siege. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing these energy companies. And foreign
companies are now coming in buying our—buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that
they can take care of their oil.
We are killing—absolutely killing our energy business in this country. Now, I'm all for alternative forms of energy,
including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.
And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal.
Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology.
We have unbelievable—we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet.
So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.
I will bring our energy companies back. They'll be able to compete. They'll make money. They'll pay off our national debt.
They'll pay off our tremendous budget deficits, which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of
business. We have to bring back our workers.
You take a look at what's happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the
United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and our steel companies. We have to guard our energy
companies. We have to make it possible.
The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. And all you have to do is go to a great
place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they're
doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It's a disgrace.
COOPER: Your time is up. Thank you.
TRUMP: It's an absolute disgrace.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, two minutes.
CLINTON: And actually—well, that was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States
and Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings, putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business.
That's something that I fought against as a senator and that I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don't get
taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else.
You know, because it sounds like you're in the business or you're aware of people in the business—you know that we are
now for the first time ever energy-independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East. But the Middle East still
controls a lot of the prices. So the price of oil has been way down. And that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil
companies, right? We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. And I
think that's an important transition.
We've got to remain energy-independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes
on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.
So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a
serious problem. And I support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can
be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses.
But I also want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That's why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of
this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country, because those coal miners and their fathers and their
grandfathers, they dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and
they powered their factories. I don't want to walk away from them. So we've got to do something for them.
COOPER: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: But the price of coal is down worldwide. So we have to look at this comprehensively.
COOPER: Your time is up.
CLINTON: And that's exactly what I have proposed. I hope you will go to HillaryClinton.com and look at my entire
policy.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 603
JA 730
21/22
10/5/2017
Presidential Candidates Debates: Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC have time for one205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 184 of 344
Document more...
COOPER: Time is up. We
RADDATZ: We have...
COOPER: One more audience question.
RADDATZ: We've sneaked in one more question, and it comes from Karl Becker.
QUESTION: Good evening. My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name
one positive thing that you respect in one another? [applause]
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, would you like to go first?
CLINTON: Well, I certainly will, because I think that's a very fair and important question. Look, I respect his children.
His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald. I don't agree with nearly anything
else he says or does, but I do respect that. And I think that is something that as a mother and a grandmother is very
important to me.
So I believe that this election has become in part so—so conflict-oriented, so intense because there's a lot at stake. This is
not an ordinary time, and this is not an ordinary election. We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for
not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the
world, from the Supreme Court to energy and so much else, and so there is a lot at stake. It's one of the most
consequential elections that we've had.
And that's why I've tried to put forth specific policies and plans, trying to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it
is I want to do as president. And that's why I hope people will check on that for themselves so that they can see that, yes,
I've spent 30 years, actually maybe a little more, working to help kids and families. And I want to take all that experience
to the White House and do that every single day.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don't know if it was meant to
be a compliment, but it is a great—I'm very proud of my children. And they've done a wonderful job, and they've been
wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment.
I will say this about Hillary. She doesn't quit. She doesn't give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She's a fighter. I disagree
with much of what she's fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases. But she does fight hard, and she
doesn't quit, and she doesn't give up. And I consider that to be a very good trait.
RADDATZ: Thanks to both of you.
COOPER: We want to thank both the candidates. We want to thank the university here. This concludes the town hall
meeting. Our thanks to the candidates, the commission, Washington University, and to everybody who watched.
RADDATZ: Please tune in on October 19th for the final presidential debate that will take place at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. Good night, everyone.
Citation: Presidential Candidates Debates: "Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri," October 9, 2016. Online by
Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=119038.
Home
Contact
© 1999-2017 - Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley - The American Presidency Project ™
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=119038
J.R. 604
JA 731
22/22
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 185 of 344
Exhibit J
J.R. 605
JA 732
10/5/2017
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 186 of 344
https://nyti.ms/2jLMK0Q
POLITICS
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an
Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and RON NIXON JAN. 29, 2017
WASHINGTON — As President Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Friday,
shutting the borders to refugees and others from seven largely Muslim countries, the
secretary of homeland security was on a White House conference call getting his first
full briefing on the global shift in policy.
Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a
Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other
top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his
department for a legal review of the order.
Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his
office. “The president is signing the executive order that we’re discussing,” the
official said, stunned.
The global confusion that has since erupted is the story of a White House that
rushed to enact, with little regard for basic governing, a core campaign promise that
Mr. Trump made to his most fervent supporters. In his first week in office, Mr.
Trump signed other executive actions with little or no legal review, but his order
barring refugees has had the most explosive implications.
Passengers were barred from flights to the United States, customs and border
control officials got instructions at 3 a.m. Saturday and some arrived at their posts
later that morning still not knowing how to carry out the president’s orders.
J.R. 606
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
JA 733
1/6
10/5/2017
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 187 of 344
“The details of it were not thought through,” said Stephen Heifetz, who served in the
Justice and Homeland Security Departments, as well as the C.I.A., under the
previous three presidents. “It is not surprising there was mass confusion, and I
expect the confusion and chaos will continue for some time.”
Stephen K. Bannon, the chief White House strategist, oversaw the writing of the
order, which was done by a small White House team, including Stephen Miller, Mr.
Trump’s policy chief. But it was first imagined more than a year ago, when Mr.
Trump, then a candidate for the Republican nomination, reacted to terrorist attacks
in San Bernardino, Calif., by calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States.”
In the months that followed, Mr. Trump’s campaign tried to back away from the
proposal, which was seen by Democrats as over-the-top campaign rhetoric that
would never be reality. Mr. Trump offered few details as the campaign progressed,
and as president-elect he promised to protect the country from terrorists with only
vague promises of “extreme vetting.”
But Mr. Bannon, who believes in highly restrictive immigration policies and saw
barring refugees as vital to shoring up Mr. Trump’s political base, was determined to
make it happen. He and a small group made up of the president’s closest advisers
began working on the order during the transition so that Mr. Trump could sign it
soon after taking office.
A senior administration official said that the order was drafted in cooperation
with some immigration experts on Capitol Hill and members of the “beachhead
teams” — small groups of political appointees sent by the new White House to be
liaisons and begin work at the agencies.
James Jay Carafano, a vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation
and a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team, said that little of that work was
shared with career officials at the Homeland Security Department, the State
Department or other agencies.
There was “a firewall between the old administration and the incoming one,”
Mr. Carafano said.
J.R. 607
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
JA 734
2/6
10/5/2017
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 188 of 344
One reason, he said, is that when the Trump transition team asked pointed
questions suggesting new policies to the career officials, those questions were swiftly
leaked to the news media, generating negative stories. So the Trump team began to
limit the information they discussed with officials from the previous administration.
“Why share it with them?” Mr. Carafano said.
R. Gil Kerlikowske, who served as commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection under former President Barack Obama, said that his staff had little
communication with Mr. Trump’s transition team, who made no mention of a bar on
entry for people from certain countries.
White House officials in the meantime insisted to reporters at a briefing that
Mr. Trump’s advisers had been in contact with officials at the State and Homeland
Security Departments for “many weeks.”
One official added, “Everyone who needed to know was informed.”
But that apparently did not include members of the president’s own cabinet.
Jim Mattis, the new secretary of defense, did not see a final version of the order
until Friday morning, only hours before Mr. Trump arrived to sign it at the
Pentagon.
Mr. Mattis, according to administration officials familiar with the deliberations,
was not consulted by the White House during the preparation of the order and was
not given an opportunity to provide input while the order was being drafted. Last
summer, Mr. Mattis sharply criticized Mr. Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim
immigration as a move that was “causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending
shock waves through the international system.”
Customs and Border Protection officers were also caught unaware.
They contacted several airlines late Friday that were likely to be carrying
passengers from the seven countries and “instructed the airlines to offload any
passport holders from those countries,” said a state government official who has
been briefed on the agency’s actions.
J.R. 608
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
JA 735
3/6
10/5/2017
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 189 of 344
It was not until 3 a.m. on Saturday that customs and border officials received
limited written instructions about what to do at airports and border crossings. They
also struggled with how to exercise the waiver authority that was included in the
executive order, which allowed the homeland security secretary to let some
individuals under the ban enter the country case by case.
One customs officer, who declined to be quoted by name, said he was given a
limited briefing about what to do as he went to his post on Saturday morning, but
even managers seemed unclear. People at the agency were blindsided, he said, and
are still trying to figure things out, even as people are being stopped from coming
into the United States.
“If the secretary doesn’t know anything, how could we possibly know anything
at this level?” the officer said, referring to Mr. Kelly.
At the Citizenship and Immigration Service, staff members were told that the
agency should stop work on any application filed by a person from any of the
countries listed in the ban. Employees were told that applicants should be
interviewed, but that their cases for citizenship, green cards or other immigration
documents should be put on pause, pending further guidance.
The timing of the executive order and the lack of advance warning had
homeland security officials “flying by the seat of their pants,” to try to put policies in
place, one official said.
By Saturday, as the order stranded travelers around the world and its full impact
became clear, Reince Priebus, the chief of staff, became increasingly upset about how
the program had been rolled out and communicated to the public.
By Sunday morning, Mr. Priebus had to defend the immigration ban on NBC’s
“Meet the Press,” where he insisted that the executive order was rolled out smoothly.
He also backpedaled on the policy and said that the executive order’s restrictions on
entry to the United States would not apply to legal permanent residents “going
forward.”
J.R. 609
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
JA 736
4/6
10/5/2017
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 190 of 344
As White House officials also insisted on Sunday that the order had gone
through the usual process of scrutiny and approval by the Office of Legal Counsel,
the continuing confusion forced Mr. Kelly to clarify the waiver situation. He issued a
statement making clear that lawful permanent residents — those who hold valid
green cards — would be granted a waiver to enter the United States unless
information suggested that they were a security threat.
But senior White House officials insisted on Sunday night that the executive
order would remain in force despite the change, and that they were proud of taking
actions that they said would help protect Americans against threats from potential
terrorists.
That assertion is likely to do little to calm the public furor, which showed no
signs of waning at the beginning of Mr. Trump’s second full week in the Oval Office.
Mr. Carafano said he believed that the substance of Mr. Trump’s executive order
was neither radical nor unreasonable. But he said that Mr. Trump’s team could have
delayed signing the order until they had better prepared the bureaucracy to carry it
out.
He also said the president and his team had not done a good job of
communicating to the public the purpose of the executive order.
“If there is a criticism of the administration, and I think there is, I think they
have done a rotten job of telling their story,” he said. “It is not like they did not know
they were going to do this. To not have a cadre of people out there defending the
administration — I mean, really guys, they should have done this.”
Reporting was contributed by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Charlie Savage from
Washington, and Joseph Goldstein from New York.
Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and
Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on January 30, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the
headline: How a Rushed Order Ignited Global Confusion.
J.R. 610
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
JA 737
5/6
10/5/2017
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos - The New York Times
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 191 of 344
© 2017 The New York Times Company
J.R. 611
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
JA 738
6/6
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 192 of 344
Exhibit K
J.R. 612
JA 739
10/5/2017
Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 193 of 344
SSERGNOC
redro noitargimmi s'pmur
T no dekrow ylterces sreffats lliH
.sredael nacilbupeR gnillet tuohtiw
evitcerid laisrevortnoc eht tfarc depleh sedia eettimmoC yraiciduJ esuoH lareveS
TSE MP 11:11 7102/03/10
detadpU | TSE MP 62:80 7102/03/10 | YESWAD HSOJ dna NAMREHS EKAJ ,EDAB LEAHCAR yB
OCITILOP/elknihS nhoJ |
.smelborp laitnetop rof redro evitucexe eht tev ot ecnahc eht nevig reven erew slenap ytiruceS dnalemoH
esuoH eht dna sredael lliH ,krow rieht tuoba sredael nacilbupeR mrofni ton did sreffats eht ecniS
Senior staffers on the House Judiciary Committee helped Donald Trump's top aides draft
the executive order curbing immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations, but the
Republican committee chairman and party leadership were not informed, according to
multiple sources involved in the process.
J.R. 613
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
JA 740
1/5
10/5/2017
Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 194 of 344
The news of their involvement helps unlock the mystery of whether the White House
consulted Capitol Hill about the executive order, one of many questions raised in the days
after it was unveiled on Friday. It confirms that the small group of staffers were among the
only people on Capitol Hill who knew of the looming controversial policy.
Kathryn Rexrode, the House Judiciary Committee’s communications director, declined to
comment about the aides’ work. A Judiciary Committee aide said Judiciary Committee
Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) was not "consulted by the administration on the executive
order."
"Like other congressional committees, some staff of the House Judiciary Committee were
permitted to offer their policy expertise to the Trump transition team about immigration
law," a House Judiciary Committee aide said in a statement. "However, the Trump
Administration is responsible for the final policy decisions contained in the executive
order and its subsequent roll-out and implementation.”
The work of the committee aides began during the transition period after the election and
before Donald Trump was sworn in. The staffers signed nondisclosure agreements,
according to two sources familiar with the matter. Trump's transition operation forced its
staff to sign these agreements, but it would be unusual to extend that requirement to
congressional employees. Rexrode declined to comment on the nondisclosure pacts.
It’s extremely rare for administration officials to circumvent Republican leadership and
work directly with congressional committee aides. But the House Judiciary Committee has
some of the most experienced staffers when it comes to immigration policy.
ADVERTISING
J.R. 614
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
JA 741
2/5
10/5/2017
Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 195 of 344
redro noitargimmi s'pmur
T tsniaga yllar starcomeD
ROHCS ANALE dna ELGYAC REHTAEH yB
GOP leaders received no advance warning or briefings from the White House or Judiciary
staff on what the executive order would do or how it would be implemented — briefings
they still had not received as of Sunday night. Leaders including Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only saw the final language when reporters
received it Friday night, according to multiple Hill sources.
Rather, Republicans on the Hill spent the entire weekend scrambling to find out what was
going on, who was involved and how it was that they were caught so flat-footed.
"Their coordination with the Hill was terrible," said one senior GOP source on the Hill, who
seemed flabbergasted that congressional Republicans didn’t receive talking points from the
White House on the executive order until late Saturday night, about 24 hours after
President Donald Trump signed it. “We didn't see the final language until it was actually
out.”
The fumbled roll-out serves as a cautionary tale to Trump officials who decide to go it alone
in enacting controversial policies without help from Congress. Indeed, the lack of
consultation has set off a wave of resentment on Capitol Hill. GOP insiders believe that the
White House and Goodlatte staffers could have avoided the drama that unfolded over the
weekend had they looped in relevant lawmakers on the front end.
The episode also has instilled a wariness among GOP aides about the White House.
“These executive orders were very rushed and drafted by a very tight-knit group of
individuals who did not run it by the people who have to execute the policy. And because
that’s the case, they probably didn’t think of or care about how this would be executed in
the real world,” said another congressional source familiar with the situation. “No one was
given a heads-up and no one had a chance to weigh in on it.”
Insiders told POLITICO that the botched roll-out of the immigration executive order was
coordinated for the most part by White House policy director Stephen Miller, a former
Sessions staffer, and Trump senior strategist Stephen Bannon.
J.R. 615
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
JA 742
3/5
10/5/2017
Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 196 of 344
It was intentionally kept quiet. Even key administration officials had not seen it until "just
before it was going out," according to one White House source.
Since the staffers did not inform Republican leaders about their work, Hill leaders and the
House Homeland Security panels were never given the chance to vet the order for potential
problems — such as the issue with green card holders that caused authorized U.S.
immigrants to be threatened with deportation at airports.
Even supporters of the administration believe the administration erred in its lack of
communication. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally,
speculated that the administration could have given "people a heads up a week or so out
and get them on the same page.” But he cautioned that the administration is “understaffed
and Trump is impatient,” and the White House has a natural learning curve.
“They could have waited a couple days, and they would have done better,” Gingirich said. "I
think some of this stuff is they're learning how to roller skate. They can't understand in
advance, they have to do it for the first time.”
When the order first came down Friday, and reports of problems started to surface,
lawmakers frantically called leadership offices and committees staff to ask how to respond.
That’s when GOP leadership staffers moved to do damage control — even as the
administration ignored their requests for briefings and more information. Frustrated by
the administration’s lack of communication to reporters on what the executive order did
and didn’t do, they tried to pick up the slack by emphasizing that the ban was not a
prohibition on Muslims.
redro noitargimmi pmur
T no gnikrow ffats sih sdnefed namriahc lenap POG
EDAB LEAHCAR yB
“We were trying to clean up their damage," a senior Republican source said. "The thing was
getting totally mischaracterized. The way it was implemented was screwing over a lot of
people."
The White House has now dispatched aides to speak with Capitol Hill staffers before they
make policy moves, a person familiar with the matter said. Boris Epshteyn, a senior aide,
attended such a meeting Monday.
Homeland Security Director John Kelly is expected to visit Capitol Hill on Tuesday and has
told others he was "kept totally out of the loop," one person familiar with his comments
J.R. 616
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
JA 743
4/5
10/5/2017
Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 197 of 344
said.
Hill Republicans on Monday were privately simmering that administration officials didn’t
seek out their expertise. Most Trump officials lack policy chops and Washington knowhow, they argued, and Republicans said they could have been helpful.
One senior GOP aide said that they generally understood Trump's goals to limit
immigration, “but we're getting tired of all the chaos.”
J.R. 617
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
JA 744
5/5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 198 of 344
Exhibit L
J.R. 618
JA 745
10/5/2017
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous a…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 199 of 344
Home
Moments
Notifications
Messages
Search Twitter
Donald J. Trump
Follow
@realDonaldTrump
Tweet
The opinion of this so-called judge, which
essentially takes law-enforcement away from
our country, is ridiculous and will be
overturned!
5:12 AM - 4 Feb 2017
33,247 Retweets 157,578 Likes
70K
33K
158K
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump Tweet your reply
© 2017 Twitter
About Help Center
Terms Privacy policy
Cookies Ads info
45th President of the United
States of America DIANE Gwin @DIANEGwin1 · Feb 10
Washington, DC
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
..you rock!!
Joined March 2009
3
2
11
DIANE Gwin @DIANEGwin1 · Feb 20
. you know your on the right path when the devil keeps attacking.. your making
USA great Thank you.. GOD Bless you Mr Trump
3
2
14
Tweet unavailable
DIANE Gwin @DIANEGwin1 · Mar 15
Replying to @DIANEGwin1
..Heads up. Mr. Trump, Obama suppose to be born in Hawaii..smells fishy with
federal judge banning your new ban.. Go Trump!
1
9
DIANE Gwin @DIANEGwin1 · Mar 22
. you packed it out in Louisville. USA rock!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/827867311054974976
4
J.R. 619
JA 746
1/1
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 200 of 344
Exhibit M
J.R. 620
JA 747
10/5/2017
Trump team plans a new executive order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 201 of 344
ESUOH ETIHW
redro evitucexe wen a snalp maet pmur
T
.esac raeher dluoc truoc slaeppa fo lenap regraL
TSE MP 62:70 7102/01/20 detadpU | TSE MP 60:10 7102/01/20 | NIETSREG HSOJ yB
ytteG | .ti tfarder dna
redro tnerruc sih wardhtiw ot pmurT dlanoD tnediserP gnigaruocne era strepxe lagel tnenimorp lareveS
Licking their wounds after a stinging appeals court defeat, President Donald Trump’s aides
went into triage mode Friday as they considered options for salvaging his contested travel
ban for citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.
In two different venues Friday afternoon, Trump suggested that the White House is trying
to redraft the order to strengthen it against legal challenges, which he expects the
administration to continue to fight in court.
J.R. 621
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902
JA 748
1/6
10/5/2017
Trump team plans a new executive order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 202 of 344
“We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our
country,” Trump said during a White House news conference with Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe. “You'll be seeing that sometime in the next week. In addition, we will continue
to go through the court process and, ultimately, I have no doubt that we’ll win that
particular case.”
Later in the day, as he flew to Florida for the weekend along with the Japanese leader,
Trump spoke again of the legal fight and acknowledged that a new executive order aimed at
protecting Americans from terrorism is a live possibility.
"We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will
win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order,"
Trump said during an exchange with pool reporters on board Air Force One.
Asked whether such an order would be forthcoming, the president said: "It very well could
be. We need speed for reasons of security, so it very well could be." The new directive could
come Monday or Tuesday, Trump added.
“We will be extreme vetting,” Trump vowed during his White House news conference. “We
will not allow people into our country who are looking to do harm to our people.”
ADVERTISING
yas secruos ,ngiapmac eht gnirud smsicitirc sih revo smarbA depmud pmur
T
NOSNHOJ ANAILE yB
J.R. 622
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902
JA 749
2/6
10/5/2017
Trump team plans a new executive order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 203 of 344
Trump could ask the Supreme Court to step in and do what a three-judge panel of the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to do Thursday: allow him to reinstate his original
executive order. However, the president said nothing publicly Friday about taking the issue
to the justices.
The appeals court added its own twist to the legal saga Friday afternoon, announcing that
one of its judges requested a vote of the full bench on whether the order issued Thursday
turning down Trump's request should be reconsidered by an 11-judge panel.
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas ordered lawyers for the two sides in the case — the Justice
Department and the states of Washington and Minnesota — to file briefs by Thursday
indicating whether they support such a rehearing.
To win a rehearing, the Trump administration will need a majority of the active judges
voting. In that group, Democratic appointees outnumber GOP judicial picks, 18-7.
However, even a denial of further review would allow other 9th Circuit judges the chance to
publicly opine on the court's order issued Thursday, potentially bolstering Trump's public
arguments that his order is legal.
A White House official who asked not to be named said officials were keeping all their
options on the table.
“We are reviewing every single option in the court system, including a Supreme Court
appeal on the temporary restraining order, and are confident we will prevail on the merits
of the case. Additionally, we are actively pursuing other Executive Orders that will keep our
country safe from terrorism. These Executive Orders will be signed very soon,” the official
said.
ESUOH ETIHW
tnemnrevog fo elacs ,segnellahc yb dexev pmur
T
YESWAD HSOJ dna LEGOV .P HTENNEK ,TDATSNESI XELA yB
Another top White House official said the administration would keep pursuing the matter
"aggressively" in court, but didn't offer further specifics.
Trump’s controversial executive order, signed Jan. 27, banned travel to the U.S. by citizens of
seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending the admission of refugees from across
the globe. It was put on ice last week by a federal judge in Seattle, a ruling that the 9th
Circuit upheld on Thursday.
J.R. 623
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902
JA 750
3/6
10/5/2017
Trump team plans a new executive order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 204 of 344
During a hearing Friday morning in federal court in Virginia on one of more than 20
lawsuits attacking Trump's order, a federal government lawyer said no decision had been
made about how to respond to the unanimous ruling from the three-judge appeals court
panel.
“We may appeal. We may not. We may take other action,” Justice Department attorney Erez
Reuveni said. “All options are being considered.”
The Virginia hearing was another vivid illustration of the difficulties the Trump
administration has encountered in court as it seeks to defend the president’s travel ban
order, which sought to halt travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen,
among other steps. The president has repeatedly said the directive was intended to prevent
any possibility of terrorist acts from such travelers, as well as refugees, even though such
episodes are exceedingly rare.
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema pleaded with federal government lawyers to
provide some factual evidence to support the order or explain how it addressed a real
threat.
“The courts have been begging you to give some information supporting a rational
justification [that the targeted countries pose] a unique threat,” the judge said. “You haven’t
given us any evidence whatsoever.”
Justice Department attorneys have argued that the national security issues involved in
Trump’s decision should not be the province of the courts, but Brinkema — who handled
the trial of Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui — dismissed that contention.
SSERGNOC
sretsetorp eracamabO-orp demat namssergnoc POG eno woH
EDAB LEAHCAR yB
“We have national security matters presented to us all the time. The courts are cleared” to
handle them, the judge said. “I don't have a scintilla of evidence from the government.”
At Friday’s hearing, Reuveni took a more nuanced position than in other cases, arguing that
the courts could entertain constitutional challenges from specific travelers but should not
delve into the president’s broad national security judgments. Doing that would risk a
“constitutional conflict between the branches of the highest order,” he warned.
J.R. 624
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902
JA 751
4/6
10/5/2017
Trump team plans a new executive order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 205 of 344
But Brinkema said giving no scrutiny at all to the president’s conclusions would preclude
the courts from reviewing even the most bizarre edicts. “What would happen if the
president decided red-headed people pose a threat to the United States?” she asked.
Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael gave an even more jarring example, suggesting
that the federal government’s approach would allow the president to order that certain
foreigners in the U.S. wear a “yellow Star of David or crescent on their clothes.”
Raphael urged Brinkema to implement her own nationwide preliminary injunction against
Trump’s order. He said it was obvious the measure was intended to follow through on
Trump’s campaign-trail promises to block Muslims from the U.S.
“The evidence is overwhelming that this is the way the president effected the Muslim ban,”
the top Virginia state lawyer said.
Brinkema sounded inclined to issue some sort of injunction, although she did not tip her
hand about whether it would cover foreigners across the U.S. or be limited to those with
Virginia ties. She said she would rule “soon, but not overnight.”
Trump rarely backs down from a fight, but even before Thursday’s appeals court ruling
there were signs that the White House might not proceed as originally expected with an
emergency application to the Supreme Court. Legal experts said it was doubtful Trump
could muster what he’d need to get immediate relief there: the votes of five justices on the
high court, which remains shorthanded with only eight justices. A 4-4 deadlock would
leave in place the ruling suspending enforcement of Trump’s ban.
DLROW EHT DNA NOTGNIHSAW
ydduB redaeL dlroW a sdeeN pmur
T
REKLAW .W AUHSOJ yB
In comments immediately after Thursday’s ruling, Trump and his aides refrained from any
talk of taking the case to the Supreme Court. Instead, they painted the 9th Circuit ruling as
a procedural ruling and said they looked forward to having the case for the executive order
heard on “the merits” in lower courts.
Several prominent legal experts are encouraging Trump to withdraw his current order and
redraft it. That might alleviate some of the legal pressure, but it would not simply do away
with the raft of lawsuits pending in federal courts from Boston to Los Angeles.
J.R. 625
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902
JA 752
5/6
10/5/2017
Trump team plans a new executive order - POLITICO
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 206 of 344
“I think there would some confusion in the lower courts about what to do with these cases,”
said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
Lawyers pressing the cases have repeatedly said they would not regard a suspension in
enforcement of parts of the order as mooting the litigation seeking relief. Long-established
court doctrines say someone engaged in wrongful conduct cannot shut down a case just by
pledging to refrain from the activity in question.
After the order led to travel disruption, delays and detentions for hundreds of green-card
holders, the White House sought to resolve that problem through a series of moves that did
not involve Trump modifying his order. The latest move on that front was a memo from
White House counsel Don McGahn purporting to offer “authoritative guidance” that
Trump’s directive does not appeal to green-card holders.
The White House said that should eliminate all doubt about the order affecting permanent
U.S. residents, but the appeals court said in its ruling Thursday that McGahn’s statement
was entitled to no legal weight.
“There’s no clean way out of this at this point,” Vladeck said.
Annie Karni contributed to this report from West Palm Beach, Fla.
J.R. 626
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902
JA 753
6/6
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 207 of 344
Exhibit N
J.R. 627
JA 754
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 208 of 344
Shows
Home
Video
Politics
U.S.
Opinion
Business
Entertainment
Tech
Science
Health
Travel
Lifestyle
World
On Air
F I R S T 1 0 0 D AY S
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling;
Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start
Published February 21, 2017
Fox News
This is a rush transcript from "The First 100 Days," February 21, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be
updated.
MARTHA MCCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Breaking tonight, we are live in Jacksonville, Florida for a special
immigration town hall, on the same day that President Trump's Department of Homeland Security issued two very
important memos designed to crack down on illegal immigrants on our southern border. Welcome to day 33 everybody of
"The First 100." I'm Martha MacCallum and this was President Trump just days here in Jacksonville before the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The border crisis is the worst it's ever been. It's a national emergency. They get
caught again, they go to jail for five years, guess what's going to happen? They're not coming back, folks. Now, our
people don't want to do it. Our weak, weak politicians don't want to do it.
A Trump administration will cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities. We will end illegal immigration. We are going to
stop drugs from pouring into your communities and poisoning our youths and everybody else. And we will deport all
criminal aliens, quickly from our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCCALLUM: States like Florida, cities like Jacksonville, part of a movement behind the president's victory, drawn to him
by a host of issues, not the least of which was talk like that just days before the November election when, as you
remember, nobody thought he was going to win, but those ideas resonated in a big way and we are here tonight to speak
to people who helped to elect Mr. Trump and we'll ask them how they think it's going so far in the first 100 days and their
expectations that were set on immigration policy, its impact on jobs, on safety, on terrorism, and on the culture of the
communities that we all live in across this country.
The November exit polling from Florida helps to tell the story of why we are here tonight. Among 10 percent who said
immigration was the most important issue for them on Election Day, 69 percent of those voted for Donald Trump. Among
the 23 percent who said that most important issue to them was illegal immigrants working in the U.S. have to be deported
to their home country, 92 percent of those individuals voted for Donald Trump. We're going to get to all of that in moments
with a town hall meeting that includes lawmakers, law enforcement, and lots of average voters who've gathered here
tonight to have their voices heard.
But, first, we go to the White House and Senior Advisor to the President, Stephen Miller, who helped to craft the president's
controversial executive order calling for more rigorous vetting of immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries. Mr.
Miller, welcome. Good to have you here tonight.
STEPHEN MILLER, ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Hey, it's great to be here. Thank you.
MCCALLUM: So, everybody is anticipating the next rollout of the next executive order, which is supposed to clarify some
of the issues that were perhaps wrong with the first one and then got too caught up in the courts. So how is it going to be
different this time?
MILLER: Well, nothing was wrong with the first executive order. However, there was a flawed judicial ruling that was
erroneous. The president recently read to the statute from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which clearly states, he
has the power as president to impose any restrictions he deems necessary when it's in the national interest.
J.R. 628
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 755
1/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 209 of 344
However, because of the exigency of the situation and the need to protect our country, and to protect our citizens, the
president is going to be issuing a new executive action based off of the judicial ruling, flawed though it may be, to protect
our country and to keep our people safe, and that is going to be coming very soon.
MCCALLUM: All right. (Inaudible) is 18-year-old, but he wants to know specifically how the second-order is going to be
different.
MILLER: Well, one of the big differences that you're going to see in the executive order is that it's going to be responsive
to the judicial ruling, which didn't exist previously. And so these are mostly minor technical differences. Fundamentally,
you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very
technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country,
those basic policies are still going to be in effect.
I want to try and broaden the conversation here and not get lost in all this technical minutia. Here's the reality. The United
States admits more people than any other country on the face of the earth. We've got a serious problem in our country of
terrorism, radicalization, and serious problems of people joining ISIS, joining terror groups, joining Al-Qaeda, and
committing or attempting to commit acts of crime and terror against our nation. We have seen a huge synapses between
this -MCCALLUM: Let me jump in on you there for a moment.
MILLER: Yeah.
MCCALLUM: Let me note that -- because here's one of the problems. Now, I know that you think the order was fine the
way it was issued initially. But courts disagree. In fact, 48 courts took issued with it and that's why it's halted right now as a
result of that process that happens in this country.
So, now you're about to issue another order and one of the things that would need to be addressed, it sounds like, is
proving that the seven countries that you have targeted are indeed the right ones to target and that you have merit and
reason for targeting those specific ones, rather than, let say, Saudi Arabia, right?
MILLER: Well, the reality is these seven countries were designated by President Obama and by Congress in 2015 and
2016. The reality is that the seven countries -- look at Yemen, look at Libya, look Syria, look at the conditions in these
countries. This is an assessment based on the threat that these countries pose today and going into the future. We've
had dozens and dozens of terrorism cases from these seven countries, case after case after case.
But more fundamentally, it's the position of our intelligence community that these countries today pose a threat to our
country moving forward and the president is acting decisively to protect our country from these threats. And the rulings
from those courts were flawed, erroneous, and false. The president's actions were clearly legal and constitutional and
consistent with the long-standing traditions of presidents in the past to exercise the authority in the Immigration and
Nationality Act to suspend immigration when it poses a threat to our security. And that's what the president will do. In the
next few days, we will roll out the details of what that action will be.
MCCALLUM: And we understand -- I'm sorry. I think we have a little bit of a delay, so I don't mean to be stepping on you.
But I do understand that that's your perspective and that's the White House's argument and we'll see how that next
(inaudible).
One more question to you from one of our viewers for tonight if you will. Jack Capra who is a veteran in our audience this
evening, says how far is the administration willing to go to secure the southern border? Will the administration deploy the
U.S. military to do so?
MILLER: Well, right now we have 20,000 fantastic border patrol agents who are doing a great job. But, Martha, I really
want to try and broaden this conversation and get to the core of the issues here.
Whether we're talking about the new executive action and in the next few days we will be able to share the details what
that will be and how it's responsive to the court's ruling. Whether we're talking about the southern border, whether we're
talking about our guest worker programs, here's the core issue. It is the job of the president and the job of our government
to protect the hard-working people of this country, to protect their jobs, to protect their wages, to protect their communities,
to keep them safe from terrorism, and crime, and drugs, and wage depression.
J.R. 629
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 756
2/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 210 of 344
Uncontrolled migration over many years has undermined wages, working prospects for people of all backgrounds, and all
walks of life and it's made us less safe. Proper controls will raise wages, improve employment, help migrant workers enter
the middle-class who are already living here, and keep us safe from threats of terror. And this president, and this
administration is fully committed to doing what is necessary, lawful, just, decent, and right, to take care of and to defend
hard-working, patriotic citizens and their communities.
MCCALLUM: All right. Well, we look very much forward to that second executive order and we'll watch the path and see if
it makes it through the courts and that, you know, the executive branch, the judicial branch, can find their way to put this
together. Thank you very much, Stephen Miller, for joining us from the White House tonight.
MILLER: Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thanks.
MCCALLUM: Good to have you with us. Thank you.
So let's bring in Jacksonville native and Florida congressman Ron DeSantis who is one of the first to stand by President
Trump's original order. Good to have you here tonight, Congressman.
REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLORIDA: Thanks for coming down to Florida.
MCCALLUM: It's great to be here. Thank you for having us. So, one of the interesting comments from General Kelly
when he spoke about this the other day was that, you know, he wanted the second executive order to take place in a way
that we would not find people backed up in our airports. So he was acknowledging that there was some issue in this
rollout. What are your thoughts on that?
DESANTIS: Well, I think that's right. I mean, you have examples of, like a grandmother who is a green card holder
coming back from one of these countries, that's not where the threat is. The threats are with people who are unvetted.
These are countries that are either state sponsors of terrorism, or overrun in large degree by terrorist groups. And if you
look-- since 9/11, the biggest change in the terrorist threat has been how much it's expanded in different countries. You
have Somalia, other parts of Africa -MCCALLUM: So you think more than those seven should be on the list?
DESANTIS: Well, I think that -- if you read the executive order, that's a 90-day period. They are also going to be talking
with other countries. So people mentioned Saudi Arabia, so maybe Saudi Arabia doesn't have procedures that were -- that
are acceptable but -- so maybe there will be changes there. But I think we have to err on the side of caution. And my view
is we have immigration system, but that immigration system shouldn't make the American people assume risk for their
safety by us bringing in people we don't know.
MCCALLUM: Let's bring in some of our great audience that we have with us tonight. Let me start by going to Jack Capra,
who is with us tonight. You know, you listened to this conversation, Jack, and you're a veteran, so we thank you for your
service.
JACK CAPRA, WOUNDED VETERAN AND FLORIDA RESIDENT: Thank you. I actually used to work with
Congressman. Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCALLUM: -- so you're paying attention.
CAPRA: Yeah. I used to work with the congressman in Guantanamo few years ago. We both had duty there, so.
MCCALLUM: Well, welcome. It's great to have the two of you here together tonight and good to talk to you about these
serious issues. You listen to Stephen Miller from the White House. What did you think about what he had to say?
CAPRA: Well, I think his main argument was right on point and I agree with that. I think this is, you know, securing our
borders as a national security issue. It's not just -- of course, it's also about economics, but it is a national security issue
and it's the federal government's job to keep our people safe, keep our citizens safe from external and internal threats.
And so I think immigration is a big contributor to that.
MCCALLUM: Yeah. You know, obviously, the rollout of it didn't go quite as planned. You know, it brings me sort of a
general question that I want to put to all of you as we get going tonight. As you look at so far the first 100 days, we're on
day 33 right now. So I'm going to ask you to raise your hand for three different answers, OK.
J.R. 630
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 757
3/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 211 of 344
So the first one would be, so far, are you, A -- no, you don't raise your hand yet because I want you to know all the options.
You can either be, A, thrilled. I'm really happy with how it's going. Or, B, you know, it's OK, but I think there's room for
improvement. And, C, I am a little disappointed. OK.
So raise your hand if you would say that you are thrilled with how it's going so far. Wow, that's a lot of folks. Look at that.
OK, what about choice B, which is I'm glad, but, you know, I'd like to see a little bit of improvement around the edges. OK.
So how many of you are disappointed, not happy with how it is going so far? A couple up here, one in the back there, one
back there. OK, all right. We're going to get around to you and hear some of your reasons for all of that. You know, what
do you think about that?
DESANTIS: Well, look, I think that Congress is -MCCALLUM: Which category do you fit in, first of all?
DESANTIS: Well, I think Congress has gotten off to a slow start.
MCCALLUM: Yeah.
DESANTIS: I think the president has done much better than we have. He's following through with what he said he would
do and we are kind of -MCCALLUM: Wow.
DESANTIS: We in the Congress were kind of getting to what we said we do, but we haven't quite gotten of it. I think we
will, but I think they've done a better start. It's also important to say, they're not confirming his nominees. He doesn't have
guy -- he's got like a fraction of a government in place because the Democrats in the Senate are basically trying to stall as
many people as possible.
MCCALLUM: So, let me go to somebody over here. Kris Koproski, who is the mother of three and you think that we need
to put a pause on emigration. So, are you -- how do you feel about the president so far and do you think Congress -- do
you agree with Congressman DeSantis that they're not pulling their weight?
KRIS KOPROSKI, FLORIDA RESIDENT: I am thrilled with what President Trump is doing. Congress, you know, they
need to get on board and specifically, the Democrats. He needs his cabinet, his full cabinet. And they're just seemed to be
stopping him at every turn. There's got to be a discussion open. They've got to be willing to give a little bit.
MCCALLUM: So you're nodding your head there. Who -- is anybody in particular in Congress that you're, you know,
disappointed in so far? And, you know, would you like to give them a message tonight?
CLAIRE FRANK, FLORIDA RESIDENT: How much time do you have?
MCCALLUM: I got about 48 minutes. Go ahead.
FRANK: I would say we finally have someone in office who is doing something probably not even -- the last president I
can think has done anything like this was Abraham Lincoln, who is trying to reunite the country. And that's what we voted
for him to do. And that's what he is doing.
Congress isn't getting behind us. I say, term limits. That way you can clean house, just like he's doing draining the
swamp. There's too many in there right now that, you know, are not doing their job. Stop voting -- McCain is a pain.
DESANTIS: I am the leader of the term limits movement in the House, so we do need to do that.
MCCALLUM: All right. So you're on your third term. So how many terms should he get? How many terms?
DESANTIS: Well, our amendment is three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate.
MCCALLUM: OK.
DESANTIS: The same on Trump endorsed during the campaign. So, let's get a vote and let see what we can do.
MCCALLUM: All right. We're just getting rolling here. Great job opening this conversation up here. So, coming to the
next moment, just today, the Trump administration ordered more border agents, 5,000 more, also, 10,000 more ICE agents
J.R. 631
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 758
4/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 212 of 344
and plans to move ahead with the controversial wall plan on our southern border, so the fallout and the debate from the
floor here coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MCCALLUM: Breaking tonight, just hours before the doors opened on our town hall meeting here in Jacksonville, Florida,
the Department of Homeland Security announced the brand-new priorities when it comes to their plan to deport illegal
immigrants.
The two memos from DHS Secretary John Kelly today say impart that his agency is going to use public safety to guide
their decisions, while the White House made a point of saying that there will be no longer special exceptions to the rules.
Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: For so long, the people at ICE and CBP had their handcuffed
behind them when they were going to deal with the mission of their job. The last administration had so many carve outs for
who could be and who couldn't be adjudicated that it made it very difficult for the customs and enforcement people to do
their job and enforce the laws of this country. But, right now, what we've done is to make sure that they have the ability
and the guidance and the resources to do what they -- what their mission is. And that's it, plain and simple.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCCALLUM: Joining me now, Sarah Saldana. She was the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE,
director under President Obama. And Francisco Hernandez is an Immigration Attorney. Welcome. It's great to have both
of you with us tonight.
SARAH SALDANA, FORMER ICE DIRECTOR, 2014-2017: Thank you.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Thank you for having me.
MCCALLUM: Sarah, he was calling you out a bit there.
SALDANA: Yes. I guess he was. But let me tell you something that is maybe not clearly known. I have been a law
enforcement officer. I was a prosecutor in Dallas. I was the United States Attorney in Dallas. And I think -- significantly, I
think that's one of the reasons that I was selected to be the director of ICE, because I believe in law enforcement. I believe
in rational law enforcement. So, that is my focus while I was director and I think we went about it in a good way, given the
fact that we had resources that were not unlimited.
MCCALLUM: All right. So, he's -- Sean Spicer was saying that under your direction and others, border enforcement
officials under the Obama administration that people weren't allowed to do their jobs. That the agents felt that they were
handcuffed, that they couldn't deport, that they couldn't detain to the extent that they wanted to. Is that fair?
SALDANA: The law is the law. So, with respect to detention and all of those things, we were guided by the law. We were
not guided by people's emotions or feelings or thoughts. We were guided by the law. We had priorities, just like this
executive order has priorities. We didn't exempt people. I guess one could look at it that way, but one could say that about
the executive order, as well.
We focused on serious criminals. And, in fact, our numbers went substantially up with respect to the portion of people that
we were removing or putting in removal proceedings, being convicted criminals or people who are not in the country legally
and there's a reason to remove them. Again, I am weighing as a manager, resources versus the threat to public safety.
MCCALLUM: So when you say resources, would you love to have had the 10,000 additional agents that John Kelly is now
going to get?
SALDANA: It would have been -- we certainly could have responded to Congressman DeSantis, wherever he is, when he
drove me on the hill about why we weren't departing more people. It certainly would have helped in that regard.
The important thing to me is not volume. Ask any law enforcement officer, the important thing to me is substance. Are we
protecting the American public by focusing on people who have no business being here, committing additional crimes, and
working against the interest of the American people?
J.R. 632
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 759
5/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 213 of 344
MCCALLUM: Francisco, today, you know, just going through the headlines and looking at different web sites, you know,
the administration -- Trump administration cracks down. Illegal immigrants are scared. They're nervous about what they're
hearing today and yet he also said that DACA would stay in place. That children who came here with their parents at a
young age would not be affected by this. So what's your reaction to these two memos today?
HERNANDEZ: Well, first of all, I can't argue with Ms. Saldana on qualifications. I feel like a thorn between two roses, OK.
But, quite frankly, President Trump has written a blank check that he can't cash. Just like the congressman said, he's
going to have to get the money from somewhere. You can't just say we're going to hire 20,000 agents (inaudible) Ms.
Saldana. You got to have the people.
No one is going to argue about whether you should deport people that commit repeated felonies, you're just barking up the
wrong tree. But quite frankly, you've got to do something to get that money and we don't have the money. So we do have
to focus, as Director Saldana said on the important things.
The deferred actions, yes, dreamers, Gob bless. Let's go and give them a green card, something to work towards,
something to earn that were brought into no fault of their own, no one can argue about that. So they're in limbo, but you
know what, we have -MCCALLUM: But he didn't pay them about (ph). He said that's off the table.
HERNANDEZ: That's off the table -MCCALLUM: Unless they have a criminal record.
HERNANDEZ: And the interesting thing is, you know, if President Trump argued that President Obama did not have the
executive or constitutional power to issue that executive order, well then, neither does he have the executive. So what's
good for the goose is good for the gander. So, that's our fear. If we're going to go with those executive orders for
President Trump, we've got to fund them. It costs money.
MCCALLUM: Let's get some questions from our group here. Hatice Iaconangelo. I'm sure I got that wrong. So what do
you think about what you're hearing here tonight?
HATICE IANCONANGELO, FLORIDA RESIDENT: I am horrified. I'm horrified. This is not the country I emigrated to.
Sure, when I first emigrated 26 years ago -MCCALLUM: From?
IANCONANGELO: From Germany. I am a native Berliner. I grew up with a wall. I know what the wall does to families. I
witnessed people getting shot crossing over the wall. And I see us as a nation going towards that again. It's horrifying.
Little by little, we are getting there. Berlin didn't start out just with a wall coming up instantly, the Russians shooting,
everybody. It starts gradually. And it gets worse and worse.
I want us to come together as a nation and have compassion for people. Don't just shut yourself off from that what you
don't understand, what you don't know. Why don't each one of you who are against immigration may be get to know a
refugee? Get to know an immigrant and see where they have come from and what they have gone through in life.
MCCALLUM: All right. Let me get a response from Bill Korach who is -- you're shaking your head pretty hard there, sir.
Why?
BILL KORACH, ST. JOHNS COUNTY COP CHAIRMAN: I was in Berlin when the wall was up. And the wall was meant to
keep people in, because the communist system was so horrible. This wall is being designed to protect our borders. We're
a sovereign nation. We should have sovereign borders. We are a nation of laws. If we don't have the rule of law, we don't
have sovereignty.
IANCONANGELO: I am not against protecting the people here, absolutely not. But you don't realize, America is already so
safe. This is the safest place I feel on earth. I travel overseas every year. The law enforcement does a great job. The
customs office -MCCALLUM: Let me get an answer from Elvira and then we're going to go, so quickly
ELVIRA SALAZAR, MEGA T.V. ANCHOR: Good to see you. I think the greatness of a nation is measured not by the size
of its guns, but how we treat the most vulnerable members of society, and in this case, illegals or the undocumented. I
J.R. 633
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 760
6/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 214 of 344
think that maybe we should take a look at immigration issue in a different way.
We should go to the root of the problem. And the root of the problem is very simple. It's called Honduras, El Salvador, and
Guatemala. President Trump has an outstanding opportunity. He is a businessman. He knows how to build coalitions.
He knows cultural sensitivities from other countries. He can go to those three countries that are exporting the majority of
the people that are knocking on our borders and help them put their house in order.
Then, we could avoid or save the money that we're going to be investing on the 20 million -- $20 billion that will cost to
build a wall along the Mexican border. And we could earmark those $280 million that we're giving to those three countries.
Earmarked that for what Nicaragua did. No one really talks about why Nicaraguans are not coming and knocking on our
border, because the -- and I'm not a friends of the Nicaraguan government, but they knew how to do it. And they could
help us solve the problem. That's another angle.
MCCALLUM: All right, thank you very much. So, officials in Miami-Dade, Florida got national attention when they decided
to stand against becoming a so-called sanctuary city. We will speak to the man behind that very controversial decision
here in Florida coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTHA MACCALLUM, THE FIRST 100 DAYS HOST: So a point of hot contention in the immigration debate involves
so-called sanctuary cities scattered throughout the country. These are cities and towns which offer protections to illegal
immigrants by limiting cooperation with federal authorities. I want to start with our audience panel, and I'll ask you all a
question first which is a broad question in terms of priorities. It goes to what we're talking about earlier. So I will give you
three options and I want you to pick the one that you think should be the GOP priority right now, or the government's
priority, or for the whole country priority, regardless of your background. So choice number one will be immigration and the
wall, choice number two would be tax reform, and choice number three would be Obamacare repeal and replace. So this
goes to what we're talking about over here before in terms of what they're doing first. So if you want them to address
immigration and the wall first, raise your hand. Maybe a third, maybe less. Tax reform. Maybe half. All right, Obamacare,
repeal and replace. So, I'd say, closer to a third of third but I would say tax reform was the winner. So you want tax reform
to be a priority for the folks on Capitol Hill. So maybe they're listening to what you're saying here tonight. So, in terms of
immigration, I want to bring our guest, Diane Scheriff, and her daughter, Savannah. You were originally from San
Francisco, you live in this area now, right?
DIANE SCHERIFF: Right.
MACCALLUM: But you believe that it's not true that the jobs that are being done by illegal immigrants are jobs that
Americans don't want to do.
SCHERIFF: Yes and no. I mean, I think when I lived in California, I had a nanny at first that didn't have a green card. I
didn't know that. She was a very hard worker. But, there again, I think there are jobs that are open-- that would be open to
Americans, that are taken by illegal immigrants. And I just feel strongly that that is a huge deal in our country, especially
Florida, since we have such an influx of illegal immigrants.
MACCALLUM: Savannah, what about the issues of sanctuary cities?
SAVANNAH SCHRIFF: Well, you know.
MACCALLUM: Having grown up in San Francisco, you know, I know you lived in a city that is a sanctuary city. Don't be
nervous. Particularly understandable, I scared you. Put that mic in front of your face. It's quite all right. I know the
feeling.
SCHERIFF: Sanctuary cities, you know, maybe I'll sound like a bad person here, but I'm frustrated that we even have
them. Because, I mean, honestly.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: That's what Savannah was going to say.
SCHERIFF: It doesn't make sense to me. And the fact that they're growing now, not going away come. And again, I'm a
Californian, I live there. But San Francisco, L.A., Oakland, it doesn't make any sense to not work with local law
J.R. 634
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 761
7/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 215 of 344
enforcement when it comes to immigrants and criminals.
MACCALLUM: Thank you very much. I'm joined now by the mayor of Miami- Dade, Mayor Gimenez, and Laura
Wilkenson. We've spoken before Laura. And Laura has a tough personal story. You lost your son to a person who was
here illegally. And I know you have stood next to President Trump many times as he has talked about Angel Moms. So
you took a tough stance and said we are not going to be a sanctuary city anymore in Miami. Has there been a backlash
against that in your area?
CARLOS GIMENEZ, MAYOR MIAMI-DADE: Yes, there has been. And we have very vocal opposition to what we did.
But, you know, what I say to people that tell me that, hey, I really like what you did, I tell them that, you know, I really did a
lot less than what you thought I did. And the people that are vocally against it, I say, you know, I did a lot less than what
you thought I did. Really, all we did is we labeled a sanctuary city by the Obama administration and the justice department
because we were requesting reimbursement from the federal government for detainer requests. And what I did is I said,
we know longer need to have that voucher from the federal government saying that they're going to pay us for our costs for
detaining these people of interest to immigration. That's all we did. And by doing that, it basically took us off the list of
being a sanctuary city. Miami- Dade County has never thought of itself as a sanctuary city. Even when we pass that
resolution back in 2014, we didn't think that that would place us as a sanctuary city. So, basically, taking that off, basically
now -- and now my.
MACCALLUM: The financial decision.
GIMENEZ: Yes, obviously, because we were being threatened with millions of dollars in federal funding that we need to
provide services for the 2.7 million people of Miami-Dade County.
MACCALLUM: Laura, the president said that he is not going -- he is going to respect DACA. How did you feel about that?
LAURA WILKENSON: Well, I believe there is going to be a process no matter how you do it. Somebody is going to be
inconvenienced. This law -- I mean, without the immigration laws being enforced, this country has run amok. At any way
that he doesn't, there is going to be an inconvenience to people. But, for myself, I think if you're not bearing your child in
the ground and turning around and walking away, it is not an inconvenience that you can't deal with.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: In terms of your son and your situation, that young man was brought here by his parents.
WILKENSON: Yes. He was a dreamer, brought here when he was ten from Belize. He had been charged with the crime
of harassment but not convicted. And then, he murdered Joshua while he was out on bond for that. He should never have
gotten a bond at the very least. They're a flight risk. And you don't want to wait until they murder your kid, until you say,
OK, time-out, now you are in trouble. It's ridiculous. Nobody gets sanctuary from the law. There is nothing I could do and
be given sanctuary from it, and there is no reason for anybody else to have that, as well.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that you're getting somewhere with your cause?
WILKENSON: Absolutely, yes. Mr. Trump had said he would put a crime victim in -- a program in place. It's called Voice, I
believe. And it's to help victims like myself, the real victims. And this gentleman earlier talked about getting some of the
money, you know, if you can defund sanctuary cities, there comes the money. He can also take the money away from the
325 agencies in this country that help illegal aliens -- I mean, help them navigate the system. There is not one place or
one program in place to help myself.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: Thank you, Laura. Good to have you both here tonight. So we're coming to you tonight from a state
where there are many jobs that go to legal and illegal immigrants. And when we come back, we are going to hear from our
audience about the president's pledge to put America first. How do they think that's going? We'll ask them right after this.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: So when President Trump campaigned on the slogan of America first, a lot of that message was about
bringing jobs back to American workers. But are they prepared to take the low wage jobs taken by illegal and legal
J.R. 635
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 762
8/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 216 of 344
immigrants? Joining us now, Javier Palomerez, he's president of the U.S.-Hispanic chamber of commerce, and on
President Trump's diversity coalition. Although, he was a Hillary Clinton fan at the beginning, and Cindy Nava, a dreamer
and Democratic national committee fellow. Welcome to both of you. Good to have you here today. So, Javier, first of all,
you're a Hillary Clinton supporter. What made you change your tune?
JAVIER PALOMAREZ, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.-HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Well, you know, the reality of
it is that -- back then, when we were convinced that our side was going to win, we asked of Donald Trump that he honored
the will of the people and that he respect the results of this election. The reality of it is, he won, he is now the 45th
president of the United States of America, and I'm going to do everything I can to live up to the exact same thing we asked
of him. I'm going to honor the will of the people. I'm going to honor the results of this election.
(APPLAUSE)
PALOMAREZ: And me and my association, a 4.1 million Hispanic-owned firms in this country that contribute over $668
billion to the American economy are going to do everything we can to help this administration move our country forward.
At a time that I think we need to collaborate to move in the right direction.
MACCALLUM: Cindy, you're a dreamer.
CINDY NAVA, DREAMER: I am.
MACCALLUM: So, what do you think about what happened today, and the exemption for DACA children, like yourself?
And do you believe that there is -- you're talking about common ground. Is there common ground? And do you think that
this administration wants to find it? And do you think the resistors and the never Trumpers also want to?
NAVA: You know, Martha, I really think that this is a first step towards what really needs to happen, which is to address
comprehensive immigration reform. And this is truly surprising I think for many of us that President Trump decided to keep
DACA intact. And that's great and that's good. But, right now, there's a lot to fear out in the communities. There's actually
some dreamers that have been targeted. And we have families. So what's happening to our families, you know, that's
always a concern. So just because we may be feeling a little bit sick here, does not mean that the community is throughout
the country are. And DACA comes with many benefits such as a ban on parole, which many people are not familiar with.
But advance parole is something that we can request through humanitarian clause, educational, or other -- you know,
there's three clauses, and I was able to get that because my grandmother was ill in Mexico, and she was dying. And I was
able to spend the five last days of her life with her.
MACCALLUM: I want to get a couple of our friends up here. And, again, Earline Shipper, so she's talking about families
and keeping people together, what do you say?
EARLINE SHIPPER, FLORIDA RESIDENT: I think it's a wonderful idea that we keep families together. I'm happy that this
particular decision was made. But I still think that immigration is a very serious situation that has to be controlled and we
have to take care of illegals coming into the country that are going to cause harm and we should send them back.
MACCALLUM: Eric, what do you think?
(APPLAUSE)
ERIC WEST, FLORIDA RESIDENT: The amount of people that have come into the country that are taking welfare and
other government benefits is way too much. We don't need any more welfare recipients in this country. We need people
that are going to bring jobs and doctors and things to this country to help our economy. When 91 percent of the Syrian
refugees or refugees that comes to this country get welfare, something is wrong. We're committing financial suicide.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: Pablo Manriquez.
PABLO MANRIQUEZ, FORMER DNC OFFICIAL: Well, I think the thing to keep in mind here is that Donald Trump did
inherit a mess when it comes to immigration. I was one of the people who raised my hand earlier that I am disgusted with
how this presidency is going. But I was disgusted with how President Obama's presidency went on this topic, as well. I
knocked on thousands of Hispanic doors in particular in 2008, telling people that President Obama was going to offer -Senator Obama at the time was going to offer them some form of relief. He betrayed us. He betrayed us to the tune of 2.8
million deportations. And the reality is that the communities that Cindy is talking about right now do live in fear. And that
J.R. 636
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 763
9/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 217 of 344
fear keeps them from working with the police. For example, if a wife is being battered and she is worried that by going to
the police she is going to be detained for her immigration status, that's just going to create more battered women. So.
(BOOS)
MANRIQUEZ: It's true. It's true. I think the point here is that immigrants have already been betrayed by one presidency.
And what Donald Trump did today by offering DACA kids hope was a good thing, a very good thing. And I applaud him for
it.
MACCALLUM: I mean, the people that they're targeting are either criminals or they have final deportation orders, which
means that they were notified sometimes ago. And they have been told for quite some time in many cases. They have left
and come back against those orders. So those are the people who are being targeted first by the directive that we've got
today. So we've got more to come back to after this quick break. So stay with us. But coming up, how do those who have
come to America from abroad feel about the moves that have been taken by this administration? We're going to talk to two
people from this community touched personally by this issue when we come back. Stay with us live in Jacksonville,
Florida.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: So as we wait, President Trump's revised order calling for more vigorous vetting of immigrants from seven
Middle Eastern countries. We wanted to talk to a couple of local residents in the Jacksonville area for whom this is a large
issue, very near and dear to their hearts. Joanne Farhire is an immigration attorney and legal immigrants and now a
citizen of the United States. And Hajdary Mohammad is a recent immigrant to Jacksonville from Afghanistan. He spent
nine years helping our U.S. troops in his home country. And we thank you for that.
(APPLAUSE)
MACCALLUM: That is a special category of people that I know you -- I would assume feel in the initial order really got
short thrift. Tell me.
HAJDARY MOHAMMAD, REFUGEE FROM AFGHANISTAN: What was the.
MACCALLUM: In terms of people who helped our troops, like you did. In the initial executive order, they were very
concerned about their families that they wouldn't be able to get the men, and feel that you have given a great deal to this
country, right?
MOHAMMAD: Yeah. Actually, I worked like nine years with the U.S. army in Afghanistan. So like four years for the U.S.
army, and five years with the U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan. So, I mean, because of my work, and my face, and my
name, will become known. I am one of those people that they tried to kill. And so, you know, I applied for immigration to
come to the United States. I wanted to restart my life, basically from zero to the United States. And I still got some more
friends that are there right now working with the special ops in Afghanistan. And they are hoping to come to the United
States for a better life.
MACCALLUM: OK. Joanne, tell us what you think about this new directive and whether or not you're optimistic about
them, and whether or not people like Hajdary and the other colleagues who he works with will be protected.
JOANNE FARHIRE, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: You know I am optimistic. I am hoping that President Trump does
realize that there is an issue with immigration, that the immigration system needs to be worked on. But, you know, the way
he implemented the executive order before, it did impact victims, you know, the refugees that were coming in, these are
people who have already been victimized. They're fleeing their countries because they've been persecuted where they
have a well-founded fear of persecution.
I understand and I totally support the need for strong borders and security of United States. You know, I am a Republican.
I supported the Republican president. However, I don't support the weight that this immigration ban was handled. You
have to understand that these are people that are fleeing and they are in fear of their life. So to bring them into this
country, they land in an airport, and then they're detained again where they spent.
MACCALLUM: And they're going to try to get that right this time. I want to get a quick thought from Ron Stafford, pastor.
You're listening to all of this. We're talking about compassion and we're talking about security. What do you think?
J.R. 637
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 764
10/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 218 of 344
RON STAFFORD, PASTOR AND FLORIDA RESIDENT: I think the compassion comes with the security. The president,
he's working very hard to secure our borders. But yet, those who have green cards and have already been vetted, I think
the compassion comes in when you can allow those people to come in.
And if they need anything else that needs to be done, then they can finish the investigation. But you must have some
compassion for those who put their lives on the line for our country. Those who are here and working, we must begin to
work to help them to become citizens.
MACCALLUM: Thank you, pastor. A quick break, we will be right back live from Jacksonville.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: That has been a very eye-opening conversation here tonight in Jacksonville, Florida. I want to thank all of
our guests and our panelist for taking the time to discuss these hot button issues that are very much in all of our minds
right now, dealing with immigration in America. We would love to hear from you at home, too. Go to
facebook.com/marthamaccallum, you can leave me a message or send me a tweet @marthamaccallum, #first100.
Thanks for watching it, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow night. Thank you.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll
Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or
remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Sponsored Stories You May Like
This Hawk And Cuckoo Bird Fight Is
Too Much…
Ad Content by
San Francisco, California: This…
Teastart
Sponsored Stories
The Future Of Chevy Trucks is Here.
See…
James Arness Kept This Hidden
Throughout…
Yahoo! Search
EverQuote
Standard News
More from Fox News
15 Actors Who Kept Their Wives Away From the
Spotlight
Woman loses both hands, legs after sepsis battle
Fox News Health
Standard News
Woman removed from Southwest flight didn’t give
officers ‘another…
Do You Remember These 15 Defunct Restaurant
Chains?
Fox News Travel
Definition
Katherine R. Gonzalez was sentenced Thursday for
having sexual…
Humvees Take a Back Seat to Oshkosh’s Joint Light
Tactical Vehicles…
Fox News US
Digital Trends Cars
These Insanely Big Animals Are Unbelievable [Gallery]
Shocking 'blue hole' discovered in the Great Barrier
Reef
Teastart
Fox News Science
San Francisco, California: Drivers With No Tickets In 3
Years Wish…
Woman, 20, critically injured by blaze in 'glamping pod'
during…
EverQuote
Fox News World
How To Fix Aging Skin (Do This Every Day)
ISIS releases alleged al-Baghdadi tape, as shadowy
leader appears to…
Health Headlines
Fox News World
Ad Content by
Watch Now...
J.R. 638
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 765
11/12
10/5/2017
Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis: Congress has gotten off to a slow start | Fox News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 219 of 344
Todd Piro asks football fans
about anthem protests
'What Happened'?: Jesse
Watters asks Hillary Clinton
fans
US economy picking up the
pace
Site Index
This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News
Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data
delayed 20 minutes.
J.R. 639
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/02/21/miller-new-order-will-be-responsive-to-judicial-ruling-rep-ron-desantis.html
JA 766
12/12
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 220 of 344
Exhibit O
J.R. 640
JA 767
10/5/2017
WH request for report to back travel ban prompts dissent, concern among some intel officials - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 221 of 344
White House eort to justify travel ban
causes growing concern for some intelligence
officials
By Jake Tapper and Pamela Brown, CNN
Updated 5:51 AM ET, Sat February 25, 2017
Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump has assigned the Department of Homeland Security, working with the
Justice Department, to help build the legal case for its temporary travel ban on individuals from seven countries, a
senior White House o cial tells CNN.
Other Trump administration sources tell CNN that this is an assignment that has caused concern among some
administration intelligence o cials, who see the White House charge as the politicization of intelligence -- the
notion of a conclusion in search of evidence to support it after being blocked by the courts. Still others in the
intelligence community disagree with the conclusion and are finding their work disparaged by their own
department.
"DHS and DOJ are working on an intelligence report that will demonstrate that the security threat for these seven
countries is substantial and that these seven countries have all been exporters of terrorism into the United States,"
the senior White House o cial told CNN. "The situation has gotten more dangerous in recent years, and more
broadly, the refugee program has been a major incubator for terrorism."
The report was requested in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' conclusion that the Trump administration "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." The seven counties are Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The senior White House o cial said the desire to bolster the
legal and public case that these seven countries pose a threat
is a work in progress and as of now, it's not clear if DHS and
DOJ will o er separate reports or a joint report.
Related Article: Full text: 9th Circuit rules
against reinstating travel ban
One of the ways the White House hopes to make its case is by
using a more expansive definition of terrorist activity than has
been used by other government agencies in the past. The
senior White House o cial said he expects the report about
the threat from individuals the seven countries to include not
just those terrorist attacks that have been carried out causing loss of innocent American life, but also those that
have resulted in injuries, as well as investigations into and convictions for the crimes of a host of terrorism-related
actions, including attempting to join or provide support for a terrorist organization.
The White House did not o er an on-the-record comment for this story despite numerous requests. The
Department of Homeland Security, however, issued a statement Friday afternoon saying the seven countries were
identified by the Obama administration as being of "great concern for terrorism."
By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
Dissension and concern
J.R. 641
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-effort-to-justify-travel-ban-causes-growing-concern-for-some-intel-officials/
JA 768
1/4
10/5/2017
WH request for report to back travel ban prompts dissent, concern among some intel officials - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 222 of 344
The White House expectation of what the report will show has some intelligence o cials within the administration
taking issue with this intelligence review, sources told CNN.
First, some intelligence o cials disagree with the conclusion that immigration from these countries should be
temporarily banned in the name of making the US safer. CNN has learned that the Department of Homeland
Security's in-house intelligence agency, the I&A o ered a report that is at odds with the Trump administration's
view that blocking immigration from these seven countries strategically makes sense.
It's not clear if this was the conclusion of the I&A report but many DHS o cials have said they do not think
nationality is the best indicator of potential terrorist inclinations.
A Department of Homeland Security source who asked for anonymity since he was not authorized to speak on the
record said the report from the I&A o cials did not meet the standards of the agency since it relied upon open
source material and did not utilize necessary data from the intelligence community, specifically the FBI.
Others in DHS disagree with that assessment of the I&A report and a senior o cial in the Department of Homeland
Security told CNN that some DHS o cials are concerned that the new I&A director -- Acting Undersecretary for
Intelligence David Glawe -- may be politicizing intelligence. One source familiar with the department told CNN that
Glawe came into I&A "like a bull in a china shop."
A DHS o cial says the intention was to put together a comprehensive report with multiple sources and other
agencies but the individuals in I&A did not do that to the standard that was required by their leadership, so Glawe
said the report wasn't su cient to go forward."
DHS spokeswoman Gillian M. Christensen said the report was "commentary from open source reporting versus an
o cial, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing. The (O ce of Intelligence and Analysis) report does
not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is clear on its face that it is an incomplete product
that fails to find evidence of terrorism by simply refusing to look at all the available evidence."
"Any suggestion by opponents of the President's policies that senior DHS intelligence o cials would politicize this
process or a report's final conclusions is absurd and not factually accurate. The dispute with this product was over
sources and quality, not politics," Christensen added.
The seven countries were originally designated by DHS in the Obama administration for tighter immigration
scrutiny -- removing them from the visa waiver program -- but not for a temporary suspension of immigration, as
the Trump administration has attempted.
A second issue for many in the intelligence community is the notion of the Trump White House seeking an
intelligence report to fit the policy instead of the other way around, sources tell CNN.
A senior government o cial told CNN that the normal
procedure would be for the O ce of the Director of National
Intelligence to be tasked with creating such an intelligence
report, working with all relevant agencies and providing
dissenting views. Theoretically, this would be done before the
policy was formulated.
Related Article: Trump's travel ban
wouldn't have stopped these deadly
terrorists
The senior White House o cial told CNN that it's possible that
the National Counterterrorism Center, via the O ce of the
Director of National Intelligence, and perhaps the National
Security Council might also provide reports on the same
subject.
A senior government o cial told CNN that the National
Counterterrorism Center, via the O ce of the Director of
National Intelligence, has already been tasked with such a
By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of DOJ. This has prompted
report, separately from DHS and
some in government to wonder whether the White House is
Service.
shopping around among agencies for the report that best bolsters their policy and legal support for it.
J.R. 642
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-effort-to-justify-travel-ban-causes-growing-concern-for-some-intel-officials/
JA 769
2/4
10/5/2017
WH request for report to back travel ban prompts dissent, concern among some intel officials - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 223 of 344
Other intelligence o cials told CNN that such discussions among agencies about di ering interpretations of the
existing intelligence are not unusual and do not necessarily reflect an e ort to "shop around" for intelligence to
support a particular policy.
White House to make its case
The White House is determined to prove that the Ninth Circuit argument is wrong, as are Democrats and those in
the media, that terror attacks do not predominantly originate from the seven countries targeted by Trump's order.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler said on CNN late last month that "the various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist
acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the
President's executive order."
The senior White House o cial told CNN that the Ninth Circuit's language that no one from those seven countries
has "perpetrated a terrorist attack" or Nadler's comment that none had "committed terrorist acts" is false.
"It's using the most narrow definition of the term you can use,"
the o cial said -- referring only to those who had successful
killed an innocent civilian. That definition does not include
those who wounded Americans, or those who plotted but
failed in their attacks, or those who tried to join or provide
material support to a terrorist group. Information will soon be
presented to the public that makes this stronger case using
the broader definition.
Related Article: Ohio State University
attack investigation: FBI asks public for
help
A case in point: Somali-born Abdul Razak Ali Artan attempted
to run over and stab 13 innocent people at Ohio State
University last November. He and his family left Somalia in
2007 and moved to Pakistan, arriving in the US in 2014. He
was a legal permanent resident. His attack would not count
using the more narrow definition.
"In most cases, the American people don't hear about these
cases," the senior White House o cial said, "but these cases
have required thousands of man-hours by law enforcement in any number of plots to commit terrorism against this
country. The threat is very jarring."
The White House o cial said the Obama administration tried to downplay the threat while the Trump
administration believes in a culture of "very robust disclosure."
Asked about the report Thursday on "The Lead," Rep. Dan Donovan, R-New York, emphasized that the intelligence
community be nonpartisan.
"They should take data, take information, shouldn't interpret it in a political way and provide the President the
information he needs to make decisions to protect our country," he said.
Also commenting on the report was Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who
acknowledged that he hadn't seen the specifics but "it looks wrong to me."
"We ought to be doing the intel first, then set the policy and in large part based upon the intelligence," Haass said.
"If these reports are true, it's yet another example where this administration is having real trouble forging a
functional relationship with the intelligence community."
UPDATE: This story has been updated to reflect new information from the Department of Homeland Security.
By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
CNN's Jim Sciutto contributed to this report.
J.R. 643
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-effort-to-justify-travel-ban-causes-growing-concern-for-some-intel-officials/
JA 770
3/4
10/5/2017
WH request for report to back travel ban prompts dissent, concern among some intel officials - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 224 of 344
14 of Europe's best hilltop towns
Exclusive: Mueller's team met with Russia dossier author
On guns, Trump is very much a normal Republican
Televangelist Pat Robertson links Las Vegas attack to 'disrespect' for…
By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
J.R. 644
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-effort-to-justify-travel-ban-causes-growing-concern-for-some-intel-officials/
JA 771
4/4
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 225 of 344
Exhibit P
J.R. 645
JA 772
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 226 of 344
President Donald Trump speaks at a rally on March 15, 2017 in Nashville, Tennessee. Andrea Morales/Getty Images
WHITE HOUSE
Read President Trump’s Response to the Travel Ban
Ruling: It ‘Makes Us Look Weak’
Katie Reilly
Mar 16, 2017
President Donald Trump on Wednesday spoke at a rally in Nashville, Tenn., where he
responded to a new ruling by a federal judge in Hawaii placing a nationwide restraining
order on his revised travel ban.
Trump criticized the ruling as "an unprecedented judicial overreach."
"You don't think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you? No," he said to
applause. "This ruling makes us look weak, which, by the way, we no longer are. Believe
me."
Read Trump's full remarks from the rally, where he also spoke about the Republican health
care plan:
TRUMP: Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
J.R. 646
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 773
1/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 227 of 344
(APPLAUSE)
So, we're just going to let the other folks come in, ll it up. This is some crowd. You have to see what's
outside. You wouldn't even believe it.
(APPLAUSE)
Unbelievable.
(APPLAUSE)
So, I'm thrilled to be here in Nashville, Tennessee, the home...
(APPLAUSE)
... of country music, southern hospitality, and the great President Andrew Jackson.
(APPLAUSE)
I just came from a tour of Andrew Jackson's home to mark the 250th anniversary of his birth.
(APPLAUSE)
Jackson's life was devoted to one -- a very crucial principle. He understood that real leadership means
putting America rst.
(APPLAUSE)
Before becoming president, Andrew Jackson served your state in the House of Representatives and in the
United States Senate. And he also served as commander of the Tennessee Militia.
(APPLAUSE)
Tough cookies. Tough cookies.
So, let's begin tonight by thanking all of the incredible men and women of the United States military and all
of our wonderful veterans. The veterans.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
TRUMP: Crazy. Amazing.
There's no place I'd rather be than with all of you here tonight, with the wonderful, hardworking citizens of
our country.
(APPLAUSE)
I would much rather spend time with you than any of the pundits, consultants or special interests, certainly
or reporters from Washington D.C. (APPLAUSE)
It's patriotic Americans like you who make this country run and run well. You pay your taxes, follow our laws,
support your communities, raise your children, love your country, and send your bravest to ght in our wars.
(APPLAUSE)
All you want is a government that shows you the same loyalty in return.
(APPLAUSE)
It's time that Washington heard your voice and, believe me, on November 8th they heard your voice.
(APPLAUSE)
The forgotten men and women of our country will never be forgotten again. Believe me.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank so many of your state leaders; State Party Chairman Scott Golden, Congressman Scott
DesJarlais...
(APPLAUSE)
... Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn...
(APPLAUSE)
... Congresswoman Diane Black...
J.R. 647
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 774
2/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 228 of 344
(APPLAUSE)
... Congressman Jimmy Duncan, right from the beginning...
(APPLAUSE)
... Governor Bill Haslam...
(APPLAUSE)
... a great friend of mine, Senator Bob Corker...
(APPLAUSE)
... an incredible guy, respected by all, Senator Lamar Alexander...
(APPLAUSE)
... and so many more. Thank you all for being here. We're going to be working closely together -- thank you;
to deliver for you, the citizens of Tennessee, like you've never been delivered for before.
Thank you. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
We are going to reduce your taxes.
(APPLAUSE)
Big league. Big. Big. And I want to start that process so quickly. Got to get the health care got done. We got
to start the tax reductions.
(APPLAUSE)
We are going to enforce our trade rules and bring back our jobs, which are scattered all over the world.
They're coming back to our country.
(APPLAUSE)
We're going to support the amazing, absolutely amazing men and women of law enforcement.
(APPLAUSE)
Protect your freedoms and defend the Second Amendment.
(APPLAUSE)
And we are going to restore respect for our country and for its great and very beautiful ag.
(APPLAUSE)
It's been a little over 50 days since my inauguration and we've been putting our America First agenda very
much into action. You see what's happened (ph).
We're keeping our promises. In fact, they have signs, he's kept his promise. They're all over the place. I have.
We have done far more, I think maybe more than anybody's done in this of ce in 50 days. That I can tell you.
(APPLAUSE)
And we have just gotten started. Wait till you see what's coming, folks.
(APPLAUSE)
We've appointed a Supreme Court Justice to replace the late, great Antonin Scalia. His name is Judge Neil
Gorsuch.
(APPLAUSE)
He will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
We are proposing a budget that will shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy -- and I mean bloated; while
protecting our national security. You see what we're doing with our military; bigger, better, stronger than
ever before. You see what's happening.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 648
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 775
3/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 229 of 344
And you're already seeing the results.
Our budget calls for one of the single largest increases in defense spending history in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
We believe, especially the people in Tennessee -- I know you people so well...
(APPLAUSE)
... in peace through strength. It's what we're going to have.
(APPLAUSE)
And we are taking steps to make sure that our allies pay their fair share. They have to pay.
(APPLAUSE)
We've begun a dramatic effort to eliminate job-killing federal regulations like nobody has ever seen before.
Slash, slash. We're going to protect the environment. We're going to protect people's safeties, but let me tell
you, the regulation business has become a terrible business and we're going to bring it down to where it
should be.
(APPLAUSE)
(BOOING)
(APPLAUSE)
OK, let's go.
One person, and they'll be the story tomorrow. Did you hear there was a protester?
(APPLAUSE)
We're going to put our miners back to work. We're going to put our auto industry back to work.
(APPLAUSE)
Already, because of this new business climate, we are creating jobs that are starting to pour back into our
country like we haven't seen in many, many decades.
(APPLAUSE)
In the rst two job reports since I took the oath of of ce, we've already added nearly half a million new jobs.
And believe me, it's just beginning.
(APPLAUSE)
I've already authorized the construction of the long-stalled and delayed Keystone and Dakota access
pipeline.
(APPLAUSE)
A lot of jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
I've also directed that new pipelines must be constructed with American steel.
(APPLAUSE)
They want to build them here, they use our steel.
We believe in two simple rules. Buy American and hire American.
(APPLAUSE)
On trade, I've kept my promise to the American people and withdrawn from the Trans-Paci c Partnership
disaster.
(APPLAUSE)
Tennessee has lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs since the institution of NAFTA, one of the worst trade
deals ever in history.
(BOOING)
J.R. 649
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 776
4/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 230 of 344
Our nation has lost over 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization; 60,000. Think of
that. More than that.
We're not going to let it happen anymore. From now on, we are going to defend the American worker and our
great American companies.
(APPLAUSE)
And if America does what it says and if your president does what I've been telling you, there is nobody
anywhere in the world that can even come close to us, folks. Not even close. (APPLAUSE)
If a company wants to leave America, re their works, and then ship their new products back into our
country, there will be consequences.
(APPLAUSE)
That's what we have borders for. And by the way, aren't our borders getting extremely strong?
(APPLAUSE)
Very strong.
(APPLAUSE)
Don't even think about it. We will build the wall. Don't even think about it.
(APPLAUSE)
In fact, as you've probably read, we went out to bid. We had hundreds of bidders. Everybody wants to build
our wall.
(APPLAUSE)
Usually, that means we're going to get a good price. We're going to get a good price; believe me. We're going
to build a wall.
Some of the fake news said, I don't think Donald Trump wants to build the wall. Can you imagine if I said
we're not going to build a wall? Fake news.
(BOOING)
Fake, fake news.
(BOOING)
Fake news, folks. A lot of fake.
(BOOING)
No, the wall is way ahead of schedule in terms of where we are. It's under design and you're going to see
some very good things happening. But the border by itself right now is doing very well. It's becoming very
strong.
(APPLAUSE)
General Kelly has done a great job. General Kelly.
(APPLAUSE)
My administration is also following through on our promise to secure, protect, and defend that border within
our United States. Our southern border will be protected always. It will have the wall. Drugs will stop
pouring in and poisoning our youth.
(APPLAUSE)
And that will happen very, very soon. You're already seeing what's going on. The drugs are pouring in to our
country folks. They are poisoning our youth and plenty of others and we're going to stop it. We're not going
to be playing games. Not going to be playing games.
(APPLAUSE)
Following my executive action -- and don't forget, we've only been here for like, what, 50 days? We've already
experienced an unprecedented 40 percent reduction in illegal immigration on our southern border, 61
J.R. 650
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 777
5/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 231 of 344
percent -- 61 percent since inauguration day. Sixty-one percent; think about it.
(APPLAUSE)
And now people are saying we're not going to go there anymore 'cause we can't get in, so it's going to get
better and better. We got to stop those drugs, though. We got to stop those drugs.
During the campaign, as I traveled all across this country, I met with many American families whose loved
ones were viciously and violently killed by illegal immigrants because our government refused to enforce our
already existing laws.
These American victims were ignored by the media. They were ignored by Washington. But they were not
ignored by me and they're not ignored by you and they never will be ignored, certainly any longer. Not going
to happen.
(APPLAUSE)
As we speak, we are nding the drug dealers, the robbers, thieves, gang members, killers, and criminals
preying on our citizens. One by one -- you're reading about it, right?
(APPLAUSE)
They're being thrown out of our country, they're being thrown into prisons, and we will not let them back in.
(APPLAUSE)
We're also working night and day to keep our nation safe from terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
We have seen the devastation from 9/11 to Boston to San Bernardino; hundreds upon hundreds of people
from outside our country have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses. In the United States courts,
right now we have investigations going on all over. Hundreds of refugees are under federal investigation for
terrorism and related reasons.
We have entire regions of the world destabilized by terrorism and ISIS. For this reason, I issued an executive
order to temporarily suspend immigration from places where it cannot safely occur.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
TRUMP: But let me give you the bad news. We don't like bad news, right? I don't want to hear an alternative
to good. But let me give you the bad, the sad news.
Moments ago, I learned that a district judge in Hawaii...
(BOOING)
... part of the much overturned 9th Circuit Court...
(BOOING)
... and I have to be nice. Otherwise I'll get criticized for...
(APPLAUSE)
... for speaking poorly about our courts. I'll be -- I'll be criticized by these people, among the most dishonest
people in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
I will be criticized...
(BOOING)
(APPLAUSE)
I'll be criticized by them for speaking harshly about our courts. I would never want to do that.
A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain
countries.
(BOOING)
J.R. 651
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 778
6/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 232 of 344
The order he blocked was a watered down version of the rst order that was also blocked by another judge
and should have never been blocked to start with.
(APPLAUSE)
This new order was tailored to the dictates of the 9th Circuit, in my opinion, awed ruling.
(APPLAUSE)
This is the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach.
(APPLAUSE)
The law and the Constitution give the President the power to suspend immigration when he deems -- or she
-- or she -- fortunately it will not be Hillary-she.
(APPLAUSE)
When he or she deems it to be in the national interest of our country.
AUDIENCE: Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!
TRUMP: So we have a lot of lawyers here. We also have a lot of smart people here. Let me read to you,
directly from the federal statute, 212(f) of the immigration, and you know what I'm talking about, right? Can
I read this to you? Listen to this.
Now, we're all smart people, we're all good students, were all everything. Some are bad students, but even if
you're a bad student, this is a real easy one, let me tell you. Ready?
So here's the statute, when they don't even want to quote when they overrule it. And it was put here for the
security of our country. And this goes beyond me, because there'll be other presidents and we need this. And
sometimes we need it very badly for security -- security of our country.
It says -- now listen to easy -- how easy this is. Whenever the president nds that the entry of any aliens or
any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation and
for such period as he -- see, it wasn't politically correct, 'cause they should have said he or she. You know,
today they'd say that.
(LAUGHTER)
That's (inaudible)
(LAUGHTER)
Actually, that's the only mistake they made -- as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or
any class of aliens, as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he
may deem to be appropriate.
In other words, if he thinks there's danger out there, he or she, whoever is president can say, I'm sorry, folks,
not now, please. We got enough problems.
(APPLAUSE)
We're talking about the safety of our nation, the safety and security of our people.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know you people aren't skeptical people, 'cause nobody would be that way in Tennessee. Nope,
nobody. Not Tennessee.
You don't think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you? No.
(APPLAUSE)
This ruling makes us look weak, which, by the way, we no longer are. Believe me.
(APPLAUSE)
Just look at our borders.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 652
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 779
7/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 233 of 344
We're going to ght this terrible ruling. We're going to take our case as far as it needs to go, including all the
way up to the Supreme Court.
(APPLAUSE)
We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe. And regardless, we're going to keep our citizens
safe. Believe me.
(APPLAUSE)
Even liberal democratic lawyer, Alan Dershowitz -- good lawyer; just said that we would win this case before
the Supreme Court of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Remember this. I wasn't thrilled, but the lawyers all said, oh, let's tailor it. This is a watered down version of
the rst one. This is a watered down version.
And let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the rst one and go all the way, which is what I
wanted to do in the rst place.
(APPLAUSE)
The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear. I was elected to change our
broken and dangerous system and thinking in government that has weakened and endangered our country
and left our people defenseless.
(APPLAUSE)
And I will not stop ghting for the safety of you and your families. Believe me. Not today, not ever. We're
going to win it. We're going to win it.
(APPLAUSE)
We're going to apply common sense. We're going to apply intelligence. And we're never quitting and we're
never going away and we're never, ever giving up.
The 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 rst place.
(APPLAUSE)
We'll take it, but these are the problems we have. People are screaming break up the 9th Circuit and I'll tell
you what. That 9th Circuit -- you have to see. Take a look at how many times they have been overturned with
their terrible decisions. Take a look. And this is what we have to live with.
Finally, I want to get to taxes. I want to cut the hell out of taxes, but...
(APPLAUSE)
... but...
(APPLAUSE)
... before I can do that -- I would have loved to have put it rst. I'll be honest. There is one more very
important thing that we have to do and we are going to repeal and replace horrible, disastrous Obamacare.
(APPLAUSE)
If we leave Obamacare in place, millions and millions of people will be forced off their plans and your
senators just told me that in your state you're down to practically no insurers. You're going to have nobody.
You're going to have nobody. And this is true all over. The insurers are eeing. The insurers are eeing. It's a
catastrophic situation.
And there's nothing to compare anything to because Obamacare won't be around for a year or two. It's -- it's
gone. So it's not like, oh gee, they this -- Obamacare is gone.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 653
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 780
8/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 234 of 344
Premiums will continue to soar, double digits and even triple digits in many cases. It will drain our budget
and destroy our jobs. Remember all of the broken promises? You can keep your doctor. You can keep your
plan. Remember the wise guy?
(BOOING) Remember the wise guy that essentially said the American people -- the so-called architect; the
American people are stupid because they approved it? We're going to show them. Those in Congress who
made these promises have no credibility whatsoever on health care.
And remember this; remember this. If we took -- because there's such divisiveness. And I'm not just talking
now, with me. There was Obama, there was with Bush, the level of hatred and divisiveness with the
politicians.
I remember years ago, I'd go to Washington. I was always very politically active. And Republicans and
Democrats, they'd ght during the day and they'd go to dinner at night. Today, there's a level that nobody's
seen before.
Just remember this. If we submitted, the Democrats' plan, drawn everything perfect for the Democrats, we
wouldn't get one vote from the Democrats. That's the way it is. That's how much divisiveness and other
things there are, so it's a problem. But we're going to get it by.
So I've met with so many victims of Obamacare, the people who've been so horribly hurt by this horrible
legislation. At the very core of Obamacare was a fatal aw. The government forcing people to buy a
government-approved product.
(BOOING)
There are very few people. Very few people.
(BOOING)
And by the way, watch what happens. Now you just booed Obamacare. They will say Trump got booed when
he mentioned...
(LAUGHTER)
They're bad people, folks. They're bad people.
(BOOING)
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight I'll go home. I'll turn on. I'll say, listen, I'll turn on that television. My wife will say, darling, it's too
bad you got booed. I said I didn't be booed. This was (inaudible). I said no, no. They were booing Obamacare.
Watch, a couple of them will actually do it, almost guaranteed. But when we call them out it makes it harder
for them to do it, so we'll see.
(APPLAUSE)
It's the fake, fake media. We want Americans to be able to purchase the health insurance plans they want,
not the plans forced on them by our government.
(APPLAUSE)
The House has put forward a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, based on the principles I outlined in my
joint address, but let me tell you. We're going to arbitrate. We're going to all get together. We're going to get
something done.
Remember this. If we didn't do it the way we're doing it, we need 60 votes, so we'd have to get the Democrats
involved. They won't vote. No matter what we do they're not going to vote. So we're doing it a different way,
a complex way, it's ne.
The end result is when you're at phase one, phase two, phase three; it's going to be great. It's going to be
great.
(APPLAUSE)
J.R. 654
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 781
9/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 235 of 344
And then, we get on to tax reductions, which I like.
(APPLAUSE)
The House legislation does so much for you. It gives the states Medicaid exibility and some of the states
will take over their health care. Governor Rick Scott in Florida said, just send me the money. They run a great
plan. We have states that are doing great. It gives great exibility.
Thank you, folks. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
It repeals hundreds of billions of dollars in Obamacare taxes. It provides tax credits to people to purchase
the care that is rightfully theirs. The bill that I will ultimately sign, and that will be a bill where everybody's
going to get into the room and we're going to get it done. We'll get rid of Obamacare and make health care
better for you and for your family.
(APPLAUSE)
And once this is done, and a step further, we are going to try and put it in phase three. I'm going to work on
bringing down the cost of medicine by having a fair and competitive bidding process.
(APPLAUSE)
We welcome this health care debate and its negotiation and we're going to carry it out and have been
carrying it out in the full light of day, unlike the way Obamacare was passed.
(APPLAUSE) Remember, folks, if we don't do anything, Obamacare is gone. It's not like, oh gee, it's going to
be wonderful in three years. It's gone. It's gone. It's gone. Not working. It's gone.
(APPLAUSE)
What we cannot do is to be intimidated by the dishonest attacks from Democratic leaders in Congress who
broke the system in the rst place and who don't believe you should be able to make your own health care
decisions.
(APPLAUSE)
I am very con dent that if we empower the American people, we'll accomplish incredible things for our
country, not just on health care, but all across our government. We will unlock new frontiers in science and
in medicine.
We will give our children the right to attend the school of their choice, one where they will be taught to love
this country and its values.
(APPLAUSE)
We will create millions and millions of new jobs by lowering taxes on our businesses and, very importantly,
for our workers. We're going to lower taxes.
(APPLAUSE)
Big (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
And we will ght for the right of every American child to grow up in a safe neighborhood, attend a great
school, and to graduate with access to a high-paying job that they love doing.
(APPLAUSE)
No matter background (ph), no matter our income, no matter our geography, we all share the same home.
We all salute the same ag. And we all are made by the same God.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
J.R. 655
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 782
10/11
10/5/2017
Donald Trump Responds to Travel Ban Ruling: Full Transcript | Time.com
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 236 of 344
TRUMP: It's time to embrace our glorious American destiny. Anything we can dream for our country, we can
achieve for our country. All we have to do is tap into that American pride that is swelling our hearts and
stirring our souls and we found that out very recently in our last election. A lot of pride.
(APPLAUSE) We are all Americans and the future truly belongs to us. The future belongs to all of you. This is
your moment. This is your time. This is the hour when history is made. All we have to do is put our own
citizens rst and, together, we will make America strong again.
(APPLAUSE)
We will make America wealthy again.
(APPLAUSE)
We will make America proud again.
(APPLAUSE)
We will make America safe again.
(APPLAUSE)
And we will make America great again.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. God bless you. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
God bless you, everybody.
J.R. 656
http://time.com/4703622/president-trump-speech-transcript-travel-ban-ruling/
JA 783
11/11
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 237 of 344
Exhibit Q
J.R. 657
JA 784
10/5/2017
Sally Yates explains why she won't defend travel ban - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 238 of 344
Yates on Trump's travel ban: 'Arguments
have to be based on truth'
By Eli Watkins, CNN
Updated 8:10 PM ET, Mon May 8, 2017
Cruz hints that Yates acted on partisanship 02:00
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Sally Yates was fired after directing the
DOJ not to enforce Trump's executive
order
The former acting attorney general said
she determined the order was unlawful
Washington (CNN) — Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates
on Monday defended her decision earlier this year not to
enforce President Donald Trump's first ban on travel from
several majority-Muslim nations, calling the order "unlawful."
"All arguments have to be based on truth," Yates said during
testimony before a Senate panel. "We're not just a law firm.
We're the Department of Justice."
In response to questions from two Texas Republicans at a
Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Yates painted a
picture of a White House that kept the Department of Justice
out of the loop ahead of the executive order's release.
Sen. John Cornyn said her actions with regard to the executive order were "enormously disappointing" and
accused her of undermining the powers of the President because she disagreed with Trump's order "as a policy
matter." By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
J.R. 658
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html
JA 785
1/3
10/5/2017
Sally Yates explains why she won't defend travel ban - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 239 of 344
Yates told Cornyn that her actions were not done "purely as a policy matter" and cited her confirmation hearing,
where she was asked about enforcing actions she viewed as against the law.
"I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful," Yates said. "I also thought that it was inconsistent with
the principles of the Department of Justice, and I said 'no.' And that's what I promised you I would do, and that's
what I did."
Later on in the hearing, Yates and Sen. Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth over her disagreement with a decision
by the department's O ce of Lega Counsel that defended the order.
Legal
RELATED: Trump administration defends travel ban in appeals court
Yates said that although the o ce concluded the order was lawful, the o ce's focus was "narrow" and ignored
contextual factors that she said undermined the legality of the order.
"In this particular instance, particularly where we were talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom -not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom -- it was appropriate for us to look at the intent
behind the President's actions," Yates said.
Cruz asked, "In the over 200 years of the Department of Justice history, are you aware of any instance in which the
Department of Justice has formally approved the legality of a policy, and three days later the attorney general has
directed the department not to follow that policy and to defy that policy?"
"I'm not," Yates responded. "But I'm also not aware of a situation where the o ce of lega counsel was advised not
legal
to tell the attorney general about it until after it was over."
"I would note that might be the case if there's reason to suspect partisanship," Cruz said.
On CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront," Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse criticized Cruz for his comments alleging
that Yates was motivated by partisanship.
"I think it's not only wrong," Whitehouse said. "I think it's really low. This is a woman who has worked in the
Department of Justice under Republican and Democratic administrations without blemish for 27 years."
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Yates said she did not know about the travel ban before it
was issued.
"I learned about this from media reports," Yates said.
During his campaign, Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until
our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Although the White House has denied Trump's two
attempts to issue travel bans were in fact Muslim bans, many have pointed to his campaign rhetoric to argue the
orders were just that.
Shortly after Trump issued his first travel ban, Yates directed the Justice Department not to enforce it. Trump
promptly fired her and appointed US Attorney Dana Boente to take her place until the Senate confirmed Je
Sessions to be attorney general.
Yates was an Obama appointee whom Trump asked to stay on as the temporary head of the Justice Department.
She also emerged as a major figure in the controversy surrounding retired Gen. Michael Flynn's short time as
national security adviser, and appeared before the subcommittee on Monday to testify about alleged Russian
attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.
RELATED: The many paths from Trump to Russia
By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
J.R. 659
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html
JA 786
2/3
10/5/2017
Sally Yates explains why she won't defend travel ban - CNNPolitics
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 240 of 344
20 top Middle Eastern foods
Joe Morton talks 'Scandal' and politics: Trump is 'trampling' the…
CIA: Kim Jong Un isn't crazy
The NRA's strategic ploy on bump stocks
By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of
Service.
J.R. 660
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html
JA 787
3/3
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 241 of 344
Exhibit R
J.R. 661
JA 788
10/5/2017
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban a…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 242 of 344
Home
Moments
Notifications
Messages
Search Twitter
Donald J. Trump
Follow
@realDonaldTrump
Tweet
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We
need the courts to give us back our rights.
We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of
safety!
4:17 PM - 3 Jun 2017
53,302 Retweets 177,385 Likes
55K
53K
177K
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump Tweet your reply
© 2017 Twitter
About Help Center
Terms Privacy policy
Cookies Ads info
45th President of the United
States of America Posse Comitatus @Texas_Megaphone · Sep 25
Washington, DC
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Smart, Vigilant & Tough..STRIIIIIKKKEEE 3 YOUR OUT WAIT.. Now lets see you did
Joined March 2009 a prize after all, Outback Trip. 6 Weeks in Ballarat Vic.
win
Teresa @femmechengineer · Sep 22
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
#TravelBanNOW
Tom Rivet @TomRivet1 · Sep 15
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
OUR rights? YOU have lost NO rights! And you work to remove other people's
rights all the time.
Tom Rivet @TomRivet1 · Sep 15
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Travel ban would NOT have made ANY difference! You have no idea how things
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/871143765473406976
J.R. 662
JA 789
1/1
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 243 of 344
Exhibit S
J.R. 663
JA 790
10/5/2017
from:realdonaldtrump since:2017-06-05 until:2017-06-06 - Twitter Search
Home
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 244 of 344
Moments
Notifications
Messages
from:realdonaldtrump since:2017
Tweet
from:realdonaldtrump since:2017-06-05 until:2017-06-06
Top
Latest
People
Photos
Videos
News
Broadcasts
People
Search filters · Hide
View all
From anyone
Anywhere
All languages
Follow
Follow
Donald J. Trump
45th President of the United States of
America, @realDonaldTrump. Tweets
archived: wh.gov/privacy
@POTUS
@realDonaldTrump
Who to follow · Refresh · View all
http://
President Trump
45th President of the United States of
America
Advanced search
CC @ChristiChat
Followed by Preet Bharara and 17 others
Followed by Cecillia Wang and 14 others
Follow
Ben Wizner @benwizner
Follow
Brad Parscale @parscale
Follow
Find people you know
Trends for you · Change
#Sonos
The Smart Speaker for Music Lovers
Promoted by Sonos
Harvey Weinstein
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
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!
16K
89K
22K
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
.@foxandfriends Dems are taking forever to approve my people, including
Ambassadors. They are nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Want approvals.
32K
80K
21K
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered
down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
11K
71K
15K
9,751 Tweets
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel
Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!
Blue Angels
Jose Altuve
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his "no
reason to be alarmed" statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!
139K Tweets
#NEvsTB
The Blue Angels are taking over the skies in San
Francisco
25.3K Tweets
#ALDS2017
5,437 Tweets
#FleetWeek
#WorldTeachersDay
People are celebrating the teachers that
changed their lives
9.0K
70K
66K
15K
95K
29K
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
.@SecShulkin's decision is one of the biggest wins for our VETERANS in decades.
Our HEROES deserve the best!
45.wh.gov/tnGqdu
http://
#InappropriateTimeForAHigh5
5,022 Tweets
Milo
J.R. 664
https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Arealdonaldtrump%20since%3A2017-06-05%20until%3A2017-06-06&src=typd
JA 791
1/2
10/5/2017
Milo
from:realdonaldtrump since:2017-06-05 until:2017-06-06 - Twitter Search
56.4K Tweets
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 245 of 344
© 2017 Twitter About Help Center Terms
Privacy policy Cookies Ads info
from:realdonaldtrump since:2017-06-05 until:2017-06-06
Top
Latest
People
Photos
Videos
News
Broadcasts
2:25
4.5K
9.6K
43K
Preet Bharara and 17 others follow
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
Today, I announced an Air Traffic Control Initiative to take American air travel into
the future - finally!
45.wh.gov/pmRJsy
http://
Watch President Trump's Announcement of Air Traffic Control Initiative
It’s time to join the future. That is why I’m proposing new principles to Congress
for air traffic control reform making flights quicker, safer and more reliable!
10K
13K
59K
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jun 5
In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to
help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!
22K
20K
89K
Back to top ↑
J.R. 665
https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Arealdonaldtrump%20since%3A2017-06-05%20until%3A2017-06-06&src=typd
JA 792
2/2
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 246 of 344
Exhibit T
J.R. 666
JA 793
10/5/2017
Trump's Tweets 'Official Statements,' Spicer Says - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 247 of 344
SECTIONS
advertisement
POLITICS WHITE HOUSE
CONGRESS
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NATIONAL SECURITY
FIRST READ
POLITICS JUN 6 2017, 5:02 PM ET
Trump’s Tweets ‘Official Statements,’ Spicer
Says
by ALI VITALI
SHARE
WASHINGTON — It's official — the president's tweets, that is.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Trump's tweets
should be taken as official statements, contradicting other White House
officials who have tamped down on the official nature of the tweets in recent
days.
"The president is president of the United States," Spicer said, "so they are
considered official statements by the president of the United States."
As it was during his candidacy, Trump's Twitter usage has been a cornerstone
of his presidency — often offering a window into his thinking, sometimes at the
expense of his administration's own messaging. Despite bipartisan complaints
about his continued 140-character habit, Trump has persisted in making his
views known on social media.
The president often respond to major global events on Twitter. In the
immediate aftermath of the recent London terror attack, Trump used the
platform to pick a fight with London Mayor Sadiq Khan while also posting
support for the U.K. after the attack.
The White House even blasts the tweets to other social media platforms,
posting graphics of the tweets on Instagram or even celebrating longer tweet
storms in videos uploaded to Trump's Facebook page.
But while Spicer flaunted Trump's millions of followers, other White House
officials have sought to delineate the difference between the tweets and official
forms of presidential correspondence.
White House national security advisor Sebastian Gorka told CNN one day
earlier that there's a difference between tweets and policy and
@realDonaldTrump's feed is the former, not the latter.
“It’s not policy, it’s social media,” Gorka said in a tense back and forth during
which he accused the media of over-obsessing Trump’s tweets. "It's not policy,
it's not an executive order, it's social media. Please understand the difference.”
Spicer's counterpart Sarah Huckabee Sanders also lamented the media
obsession with the tweets and celebrated them as a way for Trump to speak
directly and unfiltered to his followers, but regretting that the media obsesses
“over every period, dot.”
"I think it's just the obsession over every detail of the president's tweets,” she
said.
J.R. 667
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931
JA 794
1/4
10/5/2017
Trump's Tweets 'Official Statements,' Spicer Says - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC covering everything he says Filed 10/06/17 what
Document 205-1 on Twitter and little of Page 248 of 344
“The obsession with
he does as president” irked Kellyanne Conway during an interview NBC’s
Today Monday. When faced with the platform as Trump’s preferred method of
communication, Conway said “that’s not true.”
Tuesday, Spicer called Trump's penchant for tweeting an example of his
messaging prowess. "The president is the most effective messenger on his
agenda and I think his use of social media ... gives him an opportunity to speak
straight to the American people, which has proved to be a very, very effective
tool."
That messaging efficiency will soon be tested, on issues like the controversial
travel ban executive order as well as the FBI probe of alleged collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia led by special counsel Robert
Mueller.
Sanders told reporters she’s not aware of the tweets being vetted by a lawyer.
ALI VITALI
TOPICS POLITICS, WHITE HOUSE
FIRST PUBLISHED JUN 6 2017, 5:02 PM ET
NEXT STORY Tillerson Summoned to White House Amid Presidential Fury
More to Explore
Sponsored Links by Taboola
Shoppers Are Getting Unbelievable Deals With This Little-Known Site
Tophatter
Best & Worst Home Solar Companies Finally Ranked.
BestCompany
Lori Greiner's Essential Tips for Aspiring Entrepreneurs
Mediaplanet
5 Questions Every Attorney Should Ask When Hunting for Hidden Assets
FTI Journal
The U.S. military brought this battleship back from the dead for one more war...
CNET
This one could save the world ... or end the world.
CNET
SPONSORED CONTENT
MORE FROM NBC NEWS
Here Are The Best Cell Phone Plans
For Seniors Yahoo Search
Simple, Cool Tracking Device - Selling
Like Hotcakes thetrackr.com
How Did 6,223 Sharks End Up on
Ship With No Fishing Equipm…
caixinglobal.com
This Is What A Family Legacy Looks
Like Sage
J.R. 668
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931
JA 795
2/4
10/5/2017
Trump's Tweets 'Official Statements,' Spicer Says - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC toDocument 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 249 of 344
Hezbollah threatens 'surprise Israel'
in next war MFA IL
Las Vegas shooting witness: ‘I saw
guys plugging bullet holes with their
…
First Image Of Stephen Paddock Has
Been Released
Predicting Trump Tax Plan's Effect on
Massachusetts
Coldplay Blows Past Levi's Stadium
Weeknight Curfew KNTV
Dad lets leaf blower push his
daughter around park while he
relaxes
Promoted Links by Taboola
EXCLUSIVE POLITICS OCT 5 2017, 7:10 PM ET
Tillerson Summoned to White House Amid
Presidential Fury
by CAROL E. LEE, KRISTEN WELKER, COURTNEY KUBE and ANDREA MITCHELL
SHARE
WASHINGTON — John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly
scrapped plans to travel with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he
could try to contain his boss’s fury and manage the fallout from new revelations
about tensions between the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,
according to six senior administration officials.
Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to
the White House, where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward,
according to three administration officials. The White House downplayed
Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so to manage day-to-day
operations.
Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was
traveling, seven officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone
before the secretary’s public appearance on Wednesday morning.
Related: Tillerson's Fury at Trump Required an Intervention from Pence
Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson’s top
spokesman had said he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C.
Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had asked Tillerson in a
meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson, is
helpful or harmful to the administration.
NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a
series of clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations
among his colleagues by calling the president a "moron," according to multiple
senior administration officials who were aware of the matter at the time.
Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that
Tillerson had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the
Pentagon. Trump vented to Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap
plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas to meet with victims and first
responders in Sunday’s mass shooting.
Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published
shortly before 6 a.m. Wednesday.
J.R. 669
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931
JA 796
3/4
10/5/2017
Trump's Tweets 'Official Statements,' Spicer Says - NBC News
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1theFiled 10/06/17 Page 250 of 344
For
next two hours the president
fumed inside the White House,
venting to Kelly, officials said.
He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8
a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule.
Vice President Mike Pence, right, and Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson speak during the inaugural
meeting of the National Space Council at the
National Air and Space Museum on Oct. 5, 2017 in
Chantilly, Virginia. Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Tillerson scrambled to pull together a
statement, while his spokesman
publicly apologized for his comments
about Pence and Haley, saying he
“spoke out of line about
conversations I wasn’t privy to.”
Tillerson delivered a statement
praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning, but it’s what he
didn’t say that further enraged Trump, officials said.
The secretary’s refusal to deny that he had called the president a “moron” in
his opening statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked
Trump’s anger and widened the rift between the two men, officials said.
After watching the secretary’s response Wednesday, one White House official
said, “When Tillerson didn’t deny it, I assumed it was true.”
Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence’s office, as
untrustworthy, officials said. It’s unclear if he will remain in his post, according
to three administration officials.
Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said,
particularly in private meetings," one White House official said.
On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State
Department officials to make it clear that Hammond’s comment was “false” and
needed to be corrected.
The revelations followed Trump’s frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson
said the U.S. would talk to North Korea.
State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft
during his flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn’t reach him, sources
said. The secretary and his team didn’t want to issue a clarification, further
stoking tensions with the White House, on administration official said.
Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate
with the North Korean regime.
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama.
CAROL E. LEE
KRISTEN WELKER
COURTNEY KUBE
ANDREA MITCHELL
TOPICS POLITICS, DONALD TRUMP, U.S. NEWS, WORLD, WHITE HOUSE
FIRST PUBLISHED OCT 5 2017, 7:10 PM ET
NEXT STORY After Las Vegas Shooting, Trump Says America 'A Nation In Mourning'
J.R. 670
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931
JA 797
4/4
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 251 of 344
Exhibit U
J.R. 671
JA 798
10/5/2017 Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again - Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the his…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 252 of 344
Home
Moments
Notifications
Messages
Search Twitter
Donald J. Trump
Tweet
Follow
@realDonaldTrump
Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again
- Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a
dangerous time in the history of our country.
S.C.
3:44 AM - 13 Jun 2017
16,857 Retweets 66,037 Likes
25K
17K
Donald J. Trump
66K
© 2017 Twitter
About Help Center
@realDonaldTrump Tweet your reply
Terms Privacy policy
45th President of the United
States of America
Cookies Ads info
Trends for you
Washington, DC
#Sonos Promoted by Sonos
#Scandal
Joined March 2009
Romo
#BladeRunner2049
#GoKingsGo
#BlueAngels
Nick Folk
Milo
#ALDS
Tony
#HarvestMoon
© 2017 Twitter About Help Center Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/874578159676665857
J.R. 672
JA 799
1/1
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 253 of 344
Exhibit V
J.R. 673
JA 800
10/5/2017
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Int…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 254 of 344
the WHITE HOUSE
From the Press O ice
Speeches & Remarks
Press Briefings
Statements & Releases
Nominations & Appointments
Presidential Actions
Executive Orders
Presidential Memoranda
Proclamations
Legislation
Disclosures
The White House
O ice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 14, 2017
Presidential Memorandum for the
Secretary of State, the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of
National Intelligence
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
J.R. 674
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/14/presidential-memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary
JA 801
1/4
10/5/2017
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Int…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 255 of 344
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
SUBJECT: E ective Date in Executive Order 13780
This memorandum provides guidance for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence in light of two
preliminary injunctions that bar enforcement of certain provisions of Executive Order 13780,
"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Mar. 6, 2017).
The preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, and a irmed in substantial part by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, bars enforcement of section 2(c) of the Executive Order. The portions of the
preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
that were a irmed by the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit bar enforcement of certain provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order.
Various provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order (as well as sections 3 and 12(c),
which delineate the scope of the suspension contained in section 2(c)), refer to the Order's
e ective date. Section 14 of the Executive Order provides that the Order was e ective at
12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017. Sections 2 and 6, however, were
enjoined before that e ective date, and the courts of appeals have a irmed the injunctions
with respect to certain provisions of sections 2 and 6. As a result, under the terms of the
Executive Order, the e ective date of the enjoined provisions (as well as related provisions of
sections 3 and 12(c)) is delayed or tolled until those injunctions are li ed or stayed.
In light of questions in litigation about the e ective date of the enjoined provisions and in
the interest of clarity, I hereby declare the e ective date of each enjoined provision to be the
date and time at which the referenced injunctions are li ed or stayed with respect to that
provision. To the extent it is necessary, this memorandum should be construed to amend
the Executive Order.
Because the injunctions have delayed the e ective date of section 12(c), no immigrant or
nonimmigrant visa issued before the e ective date of section 2(c) shall be revoked pursuant
to the Executive Order.
I hereby direct the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly begin implementation of each
relevant provision of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order 72 hours a er all applicable
injunctions are li ed or stayed with respect to that provision, to ensure an orderly and
proper implementation of those provisions. Prior to that time, consular o icers may issue
valid visas to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may admit, otherwise eligible aliens
without regard to sections 2 and 6. If not otherwise revoked, visas and other travel
J.R. 675
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/14/presidential-memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary
JA 802
2/4
10/5/2017
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Int…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 256 of 344
documents issued during this period remain valid for travel as if they were issued prior to
the e ective date.
DONALD J. TRUMP
HOME
BRIEFING ROOM
ISSUES
THE ADMINISTRATION
USA.gov
Privacy Policy
J.R. 676
PARTICIPATE
1600 PENN
Copyright Policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/14/presidential-memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary
JA 803
3/4
10/5/2017
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Int…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 257 of 344
J.R. 677
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/14/presidential-memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary
JA 804
4/4
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 258 of 344
Exhibit W
J.R. 678
JA 805
10/5/2017
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islami…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 259 of 344
Home
Moments
Notifications
Messages
Search Twitter
Donald J. Trump
Follow
@realDonaldTrump
Tweet
Study what General Pershing of the United
States did to terrorists when caught. There
was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35
years!
11:45 AM - 17 Aug 2017
30,389 Retweets 109,872 Likes
72K
30K
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump Tweet your reply
45th President of the United
States of America DCResisterBee
Washington, DC
110K
© 2017 Twitter
About Help Center
Terms Privacy policy
Cookies Ads info
@DC_Resister_Bee · Aug 19
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Trump knee jerk reaction on Barcelona
Joined March 2009
Repeat an internet hoax
to justify atrocities
Unfit
Fox:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/898254409511129088
J.R. 679
JA 806
1/1
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 260 of 344
Exhibit X
J.R. 680
JA 807
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 261 of 344
YTREBIL TA OTAC
AUGUST 14, 2017 12:06PM
naB milsuM a htiw naB levarT sih
detauqE pmurT semiT nezoD A
R E I B D I VA D
By
Last week, the Trump administration filed its merits brief in the Supreme Court
case over his executive order suspending all travel and immigration from six
African and Middle Eastern countries. On Twitter, President Trump has been
insistent that the executive order is a “travel ban,” not some “politically correct
term.” The statement shows that, while he is often difficult to understand, the
president is actually very interested in how he brands his proposal. This fact
matters because the constitutional case against the ban depends, in part, on
Trump’s statements about it—specifically, the fact that he has repeatedly
equated his current policy with his original proposal for a “Muslim ban.”
Beyond the lawsuit, however, it matters why the president has chosen to carry
out certain proposals. If the president believes his travel ban will improve
security by reducing Muslim immigration, then this is an important
consideration for voters or anyone interested in influencing his policies in the
future.
Trump’s Statements Equating the Muslim and Travel Bans
J.R. 681
JA 808
I reviewed the president’s comments about theFiled 10/06/17 which262 of 344
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 ban—a list of Page you can find
below with fuller context—and found at least 12 statements where Donald
Trump equated his plan to suspend immigration from certain countries with his
original plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. I say at least
because I have not watched all of his many rallies and have no access to his
private correspondence. On another occasion, when asked after the election
whether his plans to ban Muslims had changed, he reiterated that his plans on
that subject were known. These dozen cases collectively demonstrate that
President Trump understood his travel ban as a version of his Muslim ban.
Trump’s 12 statements occurred over a period of seven months from May 2016
to December 2016. They include nine separate situations and six direct denials
to direct questions about whether the travel ban had changed his plans to ban
Muslims. These statements occurred in various contexts, including private
phone calls, written speeches, improvised speeches, interviews, and a debate.
During this time, he described the travel ban as an “expansion” of the Muslim
ban, a “bigger” version of the Muslim ban, and a “morphed” version of the
Muslim ban.
Moreover, in these statements, President Trump explained exactly why his
method of carrying out the ban changed. He specifically cited two reasons: the
negative reaction to the outright Muslim ban and the constitutional concerns
that others had expressed. However, he stated that for his part, he believed that
the “Constitution does not give us the right to commit suicide,” a phrase used to
express that although it may violate the Constitution, we should permit the
violation to avoid a collapse of the entire society. Nonetheless, he said he was
willing to acquiesce to others’ concerns.
The Evolution of the Ban
This list reveals the concept’s evolution. After defending the outright Muslim
ban for six months, Trump called Rudy Giuliani in early May 2016 [1] to, as
Trump himself put it, “look at the Muslim ban.” Giuliani explained that Trump
told him, “Show me the right way to do it legally.” This indicates that Trump
wanted Giuliani to come up with a version of the Muslim ban that would satisfy
legal concerns. (Note that at this point, there is no other proposal for the “it” to
J.R. 682
JA 809
be, Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Documentphrase “Muslim ban,” and grammatically,
Trump confirmed that he used the 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 263 of 344
the antecedent to “it” is “Muslim ban” in Giuliani’s comments.) With these
marching orders, Giuliani and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman
Michael McCaul—with help from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey
and Rep. Peter King—then sent a memo to the Trump team that explained why
the outright ban could be unconstitutional and urged the adoption of a
territorial-based ban.
No matter what these men thought about banning Muslims, Trump clearly saw
this change as a reform to, not a rejection of, his Muslim ban. In June 2016,
Trump detailed this new plan for the first time publicly [2]. He claimed that he
was right to call for “a ban after San Bernardino” in December 2015—i.e. the
Muslim ban—and that immigration laws give him the power to “suspend entry
into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental”
and that he would use this power to “suspend immigration from areas of the
world when there is a proven history of terrorism… until we understand these
threats.”
Thus, the very first time he brought up the idea, the president both tied the two
bans together and detailed—in a rare prepared, written speech—the exact legal
strategy that he has used to implement them. Incredibly, the administration’s
brief in the Supreme Court case actually cites this speech as proving that he did
not want to ban Muslims. In a speech [3] and an interview [4] afterward, Trump
explained that the “Muslim ban” or “temporary ban”—as he said he preferred
to call the Muslim ban—would now apply to “in particular the terrorist states.”
It’s worth mentioning that this new territorial version of the Muslim ban
actually resolves an important practical consideration that people, including
Michael Mukasey, who was part of the Giuliani committee, had raised with
Trump about the outright Muslim ban: it’s impossible to enforce a belief-based
ban. Trump had previously claimed that the ban would only apply to those who
responded “yes” to the question, “Are you a Muslim?” This is obviously a
practical absurdity, but a ban on certain nationalities would be easy to enforce.
J.R. 683
JA 810
In aCase 8:17-cv-00361-TDC CBS [5][6], NBC [7][8], and Fox [9] that followed, he
series of interviews on Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 264 of 344
repeatedly denied that the territorial ban was a rejection of the Muslim ban in
response to five direct questions, while insisting that his plans would now focus
on “territory, not religion.” But he emphasized that he considered this “not a
rollback,” but an “expansion” of the original Muslim ban [8] or a “bigger”
version of the Muslim ban [9]. It was during this time that the president’s
advisors drafted the executive order itself.
Then in another prepared speech in August, Trump explained that he would
implement the new ban as part of “extreme vetting” where he would suspend
entries from certain countries until he created a new vetting system for
Muslims to screen out those “who believe that Sharia law should supplant
American law.” During the presidential debate [10], when the moderator asked
whether he had changed his position on the Muslim ban, he denied it again,
saying that the “Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into
extreme vetting for certain areas of the world.” She asked him again whether
the “Muslim ban” still stands, and again, he flatly declared, “It is called extreme
vetting” [11]. He continues to use this phrase “extreme vetting” to describe his
Executive Order.
After the election, he reiterated his plan to suspend immigration from certain
countries on “Day 1.” In December 2016 [12] a reporter directly asked him
whether he had rethought his plan to “ban Muslim immigration” —yet again
giving him the opportunity to say “yes, that plan is irrelevant to my current
plans”—but instead, he said, “You know my plans all along. I’ve proven right.”
His plans “all along” have been a Muslim ban with revisions to how it would be
enforced. I could find no statement during this period where he denied that the
travel ban was a version of the Muslim ban.
The Benefit of the Doubt
While some people may find ambiguity in one or two of these statements, their
collective force matters more than any individual statement. Trump clearly
wanted people to understand the travel ban as a version of the Muslim ban.
Although Trump often shoots from the hip, he has carefully guarded the
J.R. 684
JA 811
branding8:17-cv-00361-TDC from the beginning. He’s made many otherof 344
Case of the Muslim ban Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 265
statements telling journalists how to frame this issue as well, as his Twitter
comments show.
While Trump has since said that the travel ban is “not about religion—it’s about
terror,” Trump repeatedly said the exact same thing about his outright Muslim
ban, saying “it’s not about religion. It’s about security.” This means that to
Trump, even a ban of an entire religion is not actually a ban about that religion.
There is no doubt that the president believes that his travel ban would actually
improve security. The question is whether he believes it for the same reason
that he believed his Muslim ban would improve security—that it would lead to
fewer Muslims entering the United States. His earlier statements directly
indicate that this is the reason.
If Americans are to ignore the 12 statements, the president’s comments about
Muslims in other contexts should provide some obvious evidence for the belief
that he would not actually have favored a ban on Muslims (even if he said he
did). But the evidence is almost entirely the other way. Trump has demonstrated
repeatedly that his fears of Muslims lead him to believe even the most
outlandish lies about them and suggest policies that specifically target them as a
group.
In defense of the ban, Trump stated, “I think Islam hates us.” He repeatedly
praised the idea of murdering Muslim prisoners of war with bullets dipped in
pigs’ blood purely because it would be scary to other Muslims. He repeatedly
and falsely claimed that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in the United
States cheered on 9/11. He said that the U.S. government should “shut down”
mosques.
Even after his switch to the “territory ban,” he described Muslim immigration as
“suicide” for the United States on at least two occasions. He called for
indiscriminate surveillance of U.S. mosques and ethnic profiling of Muslims
based on their religion. Without evidence, he described Muslim refugees to the
United States as “people who believe that women should be enslaved and gays
put to death.” He falsely said that Muslim assimilation is virtually nonexistent.
He repeated the false claim about Muslims dancing on 9/11 even after it was
J.R. 685
JA 812
debunked. He incorrectly said “the Muslim community” does Page 266 of 344
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 not report
terrorists. He falsely said that the wife of a speaker at the DNC Convention may
have not been “allowed to speak” by her husband simply because they were
Muslims.
On numerous occasions, Trump repeated a falsehood about how “many people”
in the “Muslim community” refused to turn in the San Bernardino shooters
despite seeing “bombs all over their floor.” He has used this point constantly to
defend the Muslim ban, travel ban, and extreme vetting, including during a
presidential debate. Yet in fact, it was a non-Muslim man working in the area
who witnessed the delivery of “numerous packages” and was suspicious but
didn’t say anything.
The fact is that there is every reason to believe that Trump wanted to morph the
Muslim ban into the travel ban to avoid potential legal problems and no reason
not to.
*****************************************************************************
The initial quotes about the outright Muslim ban provide context about how
Trump discussed that ban. Note that Trump has said he preferred to use the
phrase “temporary ban” to refer to the Muslim ban.
Statements on the Outright Muslim Ban
December 7, 2015: In a statement shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist
attack:
J.R. 686
JA 813
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 267 of 344
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. According to Pew Research, among others, there is
great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim
population… . Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling
data, it is 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 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. If I win the election for
President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
December 8, 2015: On MSNBC:
Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?
Trump: That would be probably—they would say, “Are you Muslim?”
Geist: And if they said, “Yes,” they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: That’s correct.
December 12, 2015: On Fox News:
It’s a temporary ban, not on everyone, but on many… . We’re not insulting. This
is about security. It’s not about religion. This is about security. We can’t allow
people to come into this country that have horrible thoughts in their mind.
March 9, 2016: On CNN:
J.R. 687
JA 814
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 268 of 344
I think Islam hates us. There is something – there is something there that
is a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to
get to the bottom of it. 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 who are not Muslim.
May 11, 2016: On Fox News Radio (at 7:30):
We have a serious problem, it’s a temporary ban, it hasn’t been called
for yet, nobody’s done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what’s
going on.
The Twelve Instances of Trump Equating the Muslim Ban and the Travel
Ban
[1] 1. May 11, 2016: On Fox News:
I’m looking at it very strongly with Rudy Giuliani heading it. I’ve spoken
to him a little while ago. We’re going to put together a group of five or
six people. Very, very highly thought of people, and I think Rudy will
head it up, and we’ll look at the Muslim ban or the ‘temporary ban’ as
we call it … He will head it up and he’s agreed to do so.
January 29, 2017: On Fox News:
J.R. 688
JA 815
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 269 of 344
Jeanine Pirro: I want to ask you about this ban [the territory ban
Executive Order] and the protests. Does the ban [the territory ban] have
anything to do with religion? How did the president decide the seven
countries? I understand the permanent ban on the refugees. Talk to me.
Rudy Giuliani: I will tell you the whole history of it [the Executive
Order]. When he first announced it [the Executive Order], he said,
‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together.
Show me the right way to do it [the Muslim ban] legally.’ I put a
commission together with Judge Mukasey, with Congressman McCaul,
[Congressman] Pete King, whole group of other very expert lawyers on
this. And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger—
the areas of the world that create danger for us, which is factual basis,
not a religious basis. Perfectly legal.
[2] 2. June 13, 2016: In a speech:
I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn
and anger but now, many are saying I was right to do so – and although
the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on. The ban will
be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly
screen those people coming into our country. The immigration laws of
the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the
country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to
the interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate. I
will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected,
I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a
proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our
allies, until we understand how to end these threats.
[3] 3. June 15, 2016: In a speech:
J.R. 689
JA 816
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 270 of 344
We have to stop on a temporary basis at least, but we have to stop
people from pouring into this country until we find out what the hell is
going on… . We don’t want to have these problems, and we’ve already
got ’em. Look at this weekend. We don’t want to have these problems. So
what I’m saying is 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. But we have
to put a stop to it. We have to put a stop to it until such time as we can
figure out what is going on.
[4] 4. June 27, 2016: In an NBC phone interview:
Trump said his Muslim ban would apply “in particular [to] the
terrorist states.”
[5] 5, 6. July 17, 2016: On CBS (at 13:52),
Lesley Stahl: In December, [Mike Pence tweeted], “Calls to ban Muslims
from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.”
Trump: So you call it territories. OK? We’re gonna do territories. We’re
gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they
are. Hillary Clinton wants 550 percent more people to come in than
Obama who doesn’t know what he’s—
J.R. 690
JA 817
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 271 of 344
[6]Stahl: So you’re changing your position.
Trump: No. Call it whatever you want. We’ll call it territories, OK?
Stahl: So not Muslims?
Trump: You know, the Constitution, there’s nothing like it. But it doesn’t
necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I’ll
tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are
territories and terror states and terror nations that we’re not gonna
allow the people to come into our country. And we’re gonna have a thing
called “Extreme vetting.” And if people wanna come in, there’s gonna be
extreme vetting. We’re gonna have extreme vetting. They’re gonna come
in and we’re gonna know where they came from and who they are.
[7] 7, 8. July 24, 2016: On NBC:
Chuck Todd: The Muslim ban. I think you’ve pulled back from it, but you
tell me. You said, “Lastly and very importantly,” this is from your speech
on Thursday night, “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.” This feels like a
slight rollback.
Trump: I don’t think it’s a rollback
J.R. 691
JA 818
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 272 of 344
[8] Todd: Should it be interpreted as that?
Todd: 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.
[9] 9. On July 25, 2016: On Fox News:
Hannity: What is your position? Because you were trying to explain
yesterday [on NBC] that your position has not changed that you either
vet them or they can’t get in.
Trump: No. I think my position’s gotten bigger now. I’m talking about
territories now. People don’t want me to say Muslim. I guess I prefer not
saying it, frankly, myself. So we’re talking about territories.
[10] 10, 11. August 15, 2016: In a speech:
J.R. 692
JA 819
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 273 of 344
I call it extreme, extreme vetting. …In addition to screening out all
members of the sympathizers of the terrorist groups, we must also
screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its
principles or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American
law. …To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily
suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile
regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.
On October 9, 2016: In a debate:
Moderator: Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no
longer your position, and if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?
Trump: …The Muslim ban is something that in some form has
morphed into extreme vetting for certain areas of the world.
[11] Moderator: Why did it morph into that? Answer the question.
Would you please explain whether the Muslim ban still stands?
Trump: It is called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria.
[12] 12. December 21, 2016: In an interview:
Reporter: Have you had cause to rethink or reevaluate your plans to
create a Muslim register or ban Muslim immigration to the United
States?
Trump: You know my plans all along, and I’ve proven to be right, 100
percent correct.
Topics: International Economics, Development & Immigration, Law and Civil Liberties
J.R. 693
JA 820
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 274 of 344
Exhibit Y
J.R. 694
JA 821
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 275 of 344
YTREBIL TA OTAC
AUGUST 31, 2017 10:39AM
11/9 ecniS stsirorreT fo seruliaF
gnitteV noitargimmI weF yreV
R E I B D I VA D
By
President Trump’s executive order attempted to temporarily ban all refugees
and all travelers or immigrants from six African and Middle Eastern countries
due to a concern over widespread vetting failures. The purpose of the
temporary ban was to give the administration time to “improve the screening
and vetting protocols and procedures.” The order grounded this concern in one
fact:
Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United
States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our
national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have
been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States.
These statements contain four clear implications: 1) that these “hundreds of
persons born abroad” committed acts of terrorism in the United States; 2) that
they came to the United States “through our immigration system,” 3) that they
entered since 2001, 4) that better “screening and vetting protocols” could have
prevented their entry, and 5) these offenders pose a significant threat to
Americans. Each one of these implications is false. Here are the facts:
J.R. 695
JA 822
1) Not8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 the United States:
Case “hundreds of persons” committing terrorism in Page 276 of 344
Only 55 percent of people convicted of “terrorism-related” offenses according to
the federal government are, in fact, convicted of involvement in terrorism.
2) Not “hundreds” through our immigration system: Less than 200
foreigners convicted of or killed during terrorism offenses since 9/11 entered
“through our immigration system.”
3) Not “hundreds” entering since 9/11: Only 34 foreigners convicted of or
killed during terrorism offenses since 9/11 entered “through our immigration
system” since 2001.
4) Not “hundreds” slipping through “screening” since 9/11: Only 18 likely
radicalized prior to entry—just six refugees and only four from six banned
countries.
5) Not a significant threat: No refugee nor any national of the banned
countries has successfully carried out a deadly terrorist attack in over four
decades.
In the aftermath of the world’s worst terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the
U.S. government rapidly responded with much stricter vetting for foreign
visitors, immigrants, and refugees. It created new terrorist watch lists, required
biometric verification of identities, instituted mandatory visa interviews, hired
thousands of new consular officers, improved inter-agency intelligence sharing,
and much else. America’s pre-9/11 visa vetting system has almost nothing in
common with today’s system. For this reason, it is appropriate to begin the
analysis of immigration vetting failures with 9/11.
The government’s terrorism-“related” definition inflates the number of
terrorism convictions
The executive order does not reveal the source for the claim that “hundreds of
persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes,” but the
National Security Division (NSD) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
published a list of 627 unsealed “terrorism-related convictions” from October
2001 to December 2015. Of this list, however, nearly half—45 percent—were not
convicted of a terrorism offense. NSD includes them because the prosecution
J.R. 696
JA 823
began with terrorism investigation, even if it did not end withPage 277 of 344
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 a terrorism
conviction. Non-terrorism convictions include mainly false statements to
investigators, ID fraud, immigration violations, and drug offenses. Other
“terrorism-related” offenses include child pornography, social security fraud,
and stealing truckloads of cereal.
Because the NSD list is both overbroad, incomplete, and not fully up-to-date, I
also reviewed all terrorism offenders whose convictions were publicized on the
DOJ website since 2015 as well as those included in George Washington
University’s Program on Extremism (GW) or in New America Foundation’s
International Security Program (NAF). NAF includes offenders who lived in the
United States for a period before being killed both in the United States and
abroad. I created a combined list of NSD, DOJ, GW, and NAF that includes only
those convicted of or killed during terrorism offenses. I used court filings and
news reports to identify the dates and places of birth and the years of entry for
each of them. In two cases, I was unable to nail down exact entry years, but the
fact that these individuals naturalized or were in the process of naturalization
allows us to know that they had to have been in the country with legal
permanent residency for at least five years.
Many foreign-born terrorism offenders did not go “through the
immigration system”
Of the actual terrorism offenders, nearly 60 percent were either born in the
United States or brought into the country by U.S. law enforcement for
prosecution or arrest, leaving 195 other foreign-born terrorism offenders who
entered “through the immigration system” at some point, not the “hundreds”
claimed in the executive order. Of these, however, only 34 entered through the
system after 9/11 (another one entered illegally), again far fewer than hundreds.
Finally, these 34 were not all vetting failures, either. To begin with, 14 entered
as juveniles, including nine who entered at 15-years-old or younger (Abdul
Artan’s exact age is uncertain, so I included him as an adult). Six of the juveniles
converted from Christianity to extremist Islam. Focusing solely on the adults,
we find that the government determined that radicalization occurred prior to
entry in just 11 cases. In another nine cases, no determination was made, but in
J.R. 697
JA 824
twoCase 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 278 of 344
of these cases, it is apparent from their biographical details and their postentry behavior that they most likely did not radicalize until after their entry to
the United States (both entered as teenagers and lived for eight years before
their offense). Thus, if we assume all seven of the other uncertain ones
radicalized prior to entry, there were 18 vetting failures since 9/11—not
hundreds.
Very few terrorism vetting failures were from banned countries
The 34 terrorism offenders came from 22 different countries. Notably, it
includes eight individuals from non-majority Muslim countries. Of the banned
countries—Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—only three are
represented on the list. The 18 vetting failures came from 13 countries. Only
nine of them actually attempted to carry out an attack, as opposed to aiding a
terrorist group abroad. No single country had more than three vetting failures.
Four of the six banned countries had no likely vetting failures since 9/11, which
means that nine countries for whom there were vetting failures are not on the
list—representing 78 percent of all vetting failures.
Terrorism offenders have entered or received status in the United States
through several avenues. President Trump’s executive order specifically targets
the refugee program, which accounts for 26 percent of post-9/11 terrorism
offenders and a third of all vetting failures. Other avenues account for 67
percent of the vetting failures. In absolute terms, this was just six refugees. Six
deviants simply cannot justify shutting down a program that has admitted
nearly a million new U.S. residents since 9/11.
Terrorism vetting failures from banned countries caused zero deaths since
9/11
Vetting failures from refugees or the six banned countries represent a tiny
portion of the terrorism offenders since 9/11—to be price, less than 2 percent.
More importantly, these offenders caused no deaths. Refugees and nationals of
these countries simply have not successfully killed anyone in the United States
in the last four decades. In fact, 14 of the 34 terrorism offenders were not
involved in a plot to kill anyone in the United States—they were mainly either
going overseas to join a terrorist organization or sending money to them.
J.R. 698
JA 825
Among the 18 vetting failures, fully half205-1 not attempting to kill279 of 344
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document were Filed 10/06/17 Page anyone in
the U.S. Only one did: Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani woman who immigrated
using a family-based nonimmigrant visa (fiancé K visa).
These facts contract the claims of the administration that vetting failures are
widespread, and that a total rewrite of the system is necessary. My colleague
has previously noted that the risk of foreign-born terrorism is miniscule: just a 1
in 3.6 million chance of dying in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil per year. The risk
from a post-9/11 vetting failure is more than a hundred times less.
Table 1: Foreign Terrorism Offenders Killed or Convicted Who Entered
Through the Immigration System After 9/11
Country of Birth
All Post-9/11 Entries
Likely Vetting Failures
1 Albania
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
2 Bangladesh
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
3 Cuba
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
4 Ethiopia
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
5 India
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
6 Iran
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
7 Iraq
3
8.8%
2
11.1%
8 Jordan
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
9 Kenya
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
10 Kuwait
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
11 Kyrgyzstan
2
5.9%
0
0.0%
12 Lebanon
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
13 Libya
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
14 Mexico
2
5.9%
0
0.0%
15 Nicaragua
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
16 Nigeria
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
17 Pakistan
3
8.8%
2
11.1%
18 Philippines
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
J.R. 699
JA 826
19 Saudi Arabia
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
20 Somalia
4
11.8%
3
16.7%
21 Sudan
2
5.9%
1
5.6%
22 Syria
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
23 United Kingdom
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
24 Uzbekistan
3
8.8%
2
11.1%
25 Yemen
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
34
100%
18
100%
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 280 of 344
Total*
Bold italics = banned country. *One who entered illegally and is not
represented came from Kazakhstan Sources: Department of Justice, National
Security Division, George Washington University, New America Foundation
Table 2: Foreign Terrorism Offenders Killed or Convicted Who Entered
Through the Immigration System or Illegally After 9/11
Status
All Terrorism Offenders Likely Vetting Failures
Resident
14
40.0%
5
27.8%
Refugee
9
25.7%
6
33.3%
Student
4
11.4%
3
16.7%
Asylum & Other
Humanitarian
3
8.6%
0
0.0%
Tourist
2
5.7%
2
11.1%
Family-Based
Temporary
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
Visa Waiver
1
2.9%
1
5.6%
Employment
Temporary
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Cultural Exchange
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Diplomatic
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Illegal
1
2.9%
0
0.0%
Sources: See Table 1
Table 3: Foreign Terrorism Offenders Killed or Convicted After 9/11 Who
Entered Through the ImmigrationJ.R. 700 As Adults
System
JA 827
Name
Offense Born in
Charge Entry Entry Years
Status
Deaths
Vet.
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 281 of 344
Year
year Age
in U.S.
Fail
1 Reid, Richard
US Plot
2 Mohammed,
Gufran
3 Mohamud,
Ahmed Nasir
2001
2001
28
0
YES
Abroad India
2013
2003
20
10 Resident
0
NO
Abroad Somalia
2011
2004
28
7 Resident
0
NO
4 Ahmad, Jubair Abroad Pakistan
2011
2007
19
4 Resident
0
YES
5 Mohamed,
Ahmed
Abroad Kuwait
2007
2007
25
0 Student
0
YES
6 Alwan, Waad
Abroad Iraq
2011
2007
28
4 Refugee
0
YES
7 Aldawsari,
Khalid
US Plot
Saudi
Arabia
2011
2008
18
3 Student
0
YES
Lebanon
2010
2008
20
2 Resident
0
?
Abroad Albania
2011
2008
24
3 Resident
0
?
10 Ibrahim,
Abdinasir
Abroad Somalia
2014
2008
32
6 Refugee
0
YES
11 Hammadi,
Mohanad
Abroad Iraq
2011
2009
20
2 Refugee
0
YES
12 Kodirov,
Ulugbek
US Plot
Uzbekistan
2011
2009
20
2 Student
0
NO
13 Abdulmatallab, US Plot
Umar
Nigeria
2010
2009
23
1 Tourist
0
YES
14 Kurbanov,
Fazliddin
US Plot
Uzbekistan
2013
2009
27
4 Refugee
0
?
15 Fazeli, Adnan
Abroad Iran
2016
2009
31
7 Refugee
0
NO
16 Esse, Amina
Abroad Somalia
2014
2009
35
5 Refugee
0
?
17 Juraboev,
Abdurasul
Abroad Uzbekistan
2015
2011
21
4 Resident
0
?
18 Nafis, Quazi
US Plot
2012
2012
21
0 Student
0
YES
19 Elhassan,
Mahmoud
Abroad Sudan
2016
2012
22
4 Resident
0
YES
20 Malik,
Tashfeen
US Plot
2015
2014
28
1 Fiancé
14*
YES
21 Artan, Abdul
Razak
US Plot Somalia
2016
2014
~16
2 Refugee
0
?
8 Hassoun, Sami US Plot
Samir
9 Hasbajrami,
Agron
Britain
Bangladesh
Pakistan
0 VWP
Italics = Banned Country or Refugee
*She carried out the attack with her husband, but all of their victims are
represented here.
Sources: See Table 1
J.R. 701
JA 828
Table 4: Foreign Terrorism Offenders205-1 Filed 10/06/17 After 282 of 344
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document Killed or Convicted Page 9/11 Who
Entered Through the Immigration System As Juveniles
Name
Offense Born in
Charge Entry Entry Years
Year
year Age
in U.S.
Status
Deaths Vet.
Fail
22 Tsarnaev,
Dzhokhar
US Plot
Kyrgyzstan
2013
2002
9
11 Asylum
3
NO
23 Suarez,
Harlem*
US Plot
Cuba
2015
2002
11
13 Asylum
0
NO
24 Daud,
Abdirahman
Abroad Kenya
2015
2003
9
12 Refugee
0
NO
25 Deleon,
Ralph*
Abroad Philippines
2012
2003
14
0
NO
26 Tsarnaev,
Tamerlan
US Plot
Kyrgyzstan
2013
2003
16
3
NO
27 Martinez,
Antonio*
US Plot
Nicaragua
2010
2004
15
6 Resident
0
NO
28 Melaku,
Yonathan*
Other
Ethiopia
2011
2005
16
6 Resident
0
NO
29 Santana,
Miguel*
Abroad Mexico
2012
2007
<16
>5 Resident
0
NO
2009
2007
16
2 Tourist
0
?
30 Smadi, Hosam US Plot
Jordan
9 Resident
10 Asylum
31 Badawi,
Muhanad
Abroad Sudan
2015
2007
16
8 Resident
0 Likely
NO
32 Khalid,
Mohammad
Abroad Pakistan
2011
2003
~9**
8 Resident
0
NO
33 Al Hardan,
Omar
Abroad Iraq
2016
2008
17
8 Refugee
0
NO
34 Garcia, Sixto
Ramiro*
Abroad Mexico
2015
2010
<15
>5 Resident
0
NO
2015
2011
15
0
NO
35 Saidakhmetov, Abroad Kazakhstan
Akhror
4 Illegal
Entry
*converted to Islam, **verified through personal correspondence with attorney
Sources: See Table 1
Topics: International Economics, Development & Immigration
Tags: Immigration; Terrorism; Vetting; Refugees
J.R. 702
JA 829
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 283 of 344
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
G R O.O TA C M O R F D E T N I R P
J.R. 703
JA 830
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 284 of 344
Exhibit Z
J.R. 704
JA 831
10/5/2017
Trump urges 'larger, tougher' travel ban after London bombing | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 285 of 344
Trump urges 'larger, tougher' t
ban after London bombing
BY JORDAN FABIAN - 09/15/17 06:57 AM EDT
2,051
SHARES
SHARE
TWEET
PLU
Just In...
Harvey Weinstein slams
New York Times for
'reckless reporting'
MEDIA — 15M 41S AGO
Your content starts in 28 seconds
After London train blast, Trump says 'we have to be
tougher, smarter'
Reuters
NBC: Trump 'furious'
after report on Tillerson
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM
— 24M 3S AGO
Mnuchin’s military
lights exceed $800K
ADMINISTRATION — 26M 11S AGO
Trump at gathering of
military leaders: 'Maybe
this is the calm before
the storm'
ADMINISTRATION — 29M 45S AGO
Key Dem questions
Trump sons on Dubai
deal
Autoplay: On | Off
President Trump on Friday advocated for a "larger, tougher and more
speci ic" travel ban in response to a bomb explosion in London’s subway
system.
Trump in a string of tweets called the bombing an attack “by a loser
terrorist” and suggested British authorities did not do enough to prevent
it.
FLOOR ACTION — 55M 53S AGO
Trump told HHS to deny
request to ix Iowa
ObamaCare market:
report
HEALTHCARE — 1H 2M AGO
Trump says admin
'looking into' bump
stock ban
ADMINISTRATION — 1H 19M AGO
"Another attack in London by a loser terrorist,” he tweeted. “These are sick
and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be
proactive!”
Trump then sent another message about the ban, writing ”the travel ban
into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more speci ic-but
stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"
A device exploded on a rush-hour train in southwest London early Friday,
injuring at least 23 people. Police are treating the incident as a terrorist
attack. They have identi ied a suspect, but have not released a name.
Trump: Iran deal
decision coming 'very
shortly'
The explosion at the Parsons Green Underground station is the latest in a
series of terror attack that have shaken Great Britain this year.
ADMINISTRATION — 1H 25M AGO
“It’s a terrible thing,” Trump told reporters at the White House later Friday.
“It keeps going and going, and we have to be very smart and we have to
be very, very tough—perhaps we’re not nearly tough enough.”
VIEW ALL
J.R. 705
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/350802-trump-calls-for-larger-tougher-travel-ban-in-response-to-london
JA 832
1/3
10/5/2017
Trump urges 'larger, tougher' travel ban after London bombing | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 authorities, since he appeared to reveal
Filed 10/06/17 Page 286 of 344
Trump’s response angered British
certain information about the attack before they did.
"I never think it is helpful for anyone to speculate in what is an ongoing
investigation," British Prime Minister Theresa May told reporters in London
when asked about the president’s comments.
Related News
by
In Washington, Trump said he had been briefed on the attack and planned
to call May later Friday.
The president’s pointed comments could be geared toward his
supporters, many of whom are angry with his efforts to strike an
immigration deal with Democrats.
Tillerson: I've never
considered resigning…
Senate Intel Committee
says Kushner didn't…
The agreement he discussed with Democratic leaders would provide relief
for young immigrants living in the U.S. illegally in exchange for tougher
border security measures. But that might not include Trump’s proposed
wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a key campaign promise, which he said
would come “later.”
Seeking to reassure supporters, Trump tweeted Friday that, “CHAIN
MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on
Immigration!”
Friday isn’t the irst time Trump has irked British leaders with his
administration’s response to terror attacks in their country.
The Memo: Five
takeaways from Trump…
The president attacked Sadiq Khan, London’s irst Muslim mayor, in June
after he urged city residents to remain calm after a terror attack on the
London Bridge killed seven.
“At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London
says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” Trump tweeted at the time.
Trump admin to expel 15
Cuban diplomats amid…
The U.K. temporarily stopped intelligence sharing with the U.S. after a May
attack in Manchester, when photos showing the grisly aftermath of the
strike were published in The New York Times.
A Shocking 21-Month
0% APR Credit Card
SPONSORED BY NEXTADVISOR
SPONSORED CONTENT
Trump pledged to investigate leaks coming from government agencies
after British authorities threatened to cut off intelligence sharing
altogether.
On Friday, the president once again chimed in on how he thinks Britain
should respond to terror attacks.
“Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner. The
internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better!”
Trump tweeted.
“We have made more progress in the last nine months against ISIS than
the Obama Administration has made in 8 years. Must be proactive &
J.R. 706
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/350802-trump-calls-for-larger-tougher-travel-ban-in-response-to-london
JA 833
2/3
10/5/2017
Trump urges 'larger, tougher' travel ban after London bombing | TheHill
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC added.
Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 287 of 344
nasty!” he
Trump’s tweets came a few days after the Supreme Court agreed to lift
restrictions on the travel ban until further notice, allowing the
administration to continue barring most refugees under the ban.
But the policy still faces legal challenges. Hawaii is suing the Trump
administration over the travel ban, which bars citizens from six majorityMuslim countries from entering the U.S. and temporarily halts the
country's refugee resettlement program.
Hawaii urged the court to uphold a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals and continue to allow refugees into the U.S.
- This story was updated at 11:22 a.m.
SHARE
TWEET
PLUS ONE
THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE ©2017 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
J.R. 707
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/350802-trump-calls-for-larger-tougher-travel-ban-in-response-to-london
JA 834
3/3
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 288 of 344
Exhibit AA
J.R. 708
JA 835
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 289 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Kate M. Manuel
Acting Section Research Manager
January 23, 2017
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44743
J.R. 709
JA 836
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 290 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Summary
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that individual aliens outside the United
States are “inadmissible”—or barred from admission to the country—on health, criminal,
security, and other grounds set forth in the INA. However, the INA also grants the Executive
several broader authorities that could be used to exclude certain individual aliens or classes of
aliens for reasons that are not specifically prescribed in the INA.
Section 212(f) of the INA is arguably the broadest and best known of these authorities. It
provides, in relevant part, that
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the
United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Over the years, Presidents have relied upon Section 212(f) to suspend or otherwise restrict the
entry of individual aliens and classes of aliens, often (although not always) in conjunction with
the imposition of financial sanctions upon these aliens. Among those so excluded have been
aliens whose actions “threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya”; officials of the North
Korean government; and aliens responsible for “serious human rights violations.”
Neither the text of Section 212(f) nor the case law to date suggests any firm legal limits upon the
President’s exercise of his authority to exclude aliens under this provision. The central statutory
constraint imposed on Section 212(f)’s exclusionary power is that the President must have found
that the entry of any alien or class of aliens would be “detrimental to the interests of the United
States.” The statute does not address (1) what factors should be considered in determining
whether aliens’ entry is “detrimental” to U.S. interests; (2) when and how proclamations
suspending or restricting entry should be issued; (3) what factors are to be considered in
determining whether particular restrictions are “appropriate”; or (4) how long any restrictions
should last. The limited case law addressing exercises of presidential authority under Section
212(f) also supports the view that this provision confers broad authority to bar or impose
conditions upon the entry of aliens. Key among these cases is the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision
in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., which held that the U.S. practice of interdicting persons
fleeing Haiti outside U.S. territorial waters and returning them to their home country without
allowing them to raise claims for asylum or withholding of removal did not violate the INA or the
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.S. practice had been
established by Executive Order 12807, which was issued, in part, under the authority of Section
212(f) and “suspend[ed] the entry of aliens coming by sea to the United States without necessary
documentation.” However, depending on their scope, future executive actions under Section
212(f) could potentially be seen to raise legal issues that have not been prompted by the
Executive’s prior exercises of this authority.
Beyond Section 212(f), other provisions of the INA can also be seen to authorize the Executive to
restrict aliens’ entry to the United States. Most notably, Section 214(a)(1) prescribes that the
“admission of any alien to the United States as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under
such conditions as [the Executive] may by regulations prescribe.” Section 215(a)(1) similarly
provides that “it shall be unlawful for any alien” to enter or depart the United States “except
under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and
exceptions as the President may prescribe.” For example, President Carter cited Section 215(a)—
rather than Section 212(f)—when authorizing the revocation of immigrant and nonimmigrant
visas issued to Iranian citizens during the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 710
JA 837
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 291 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Contents
Section 212(f) of the INA ................................................................................................................ 1
Statutory Language and Executive Branch Interpretations ....................................................... 2
Judicial Constructions of Section 212(f) ................................................................................... 3
Other Provisions of the INA .......................................................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. Categories of Aliens Excluded under INA § 212(f) ........................................................... 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 711
JA 838
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 292 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
he Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that individual aliens outside the
United States are “inadmissible”—or generally barred from admission to the country1—on
health, criminal, security, and other grounds set forth in the INA.2 However, the INA also
grants the Executive several broad authorities that could be used to exclude certain individual
aliens or classes of aliens for reasons that are not specifically set forth in the INA. Section 212(f)
of the INA is arguably the broadest and best known of these provisions,3 but Sections 214(a)(1)
and 215(a)(1) can also be seen to authorize the Executive to restrict aliens’ entry or admission to
the United States.4
T
This report provides a brief overview of the Executive’s authority under these provisions of the
INA. It begins with and focuses primarily on Section 212(f). It also briefly notes other provisions.
Section 212(f) of the INA
The provisions currently in Section 212(f)—which have been part of the INA since its enactment
in 19525—state, in relevant part, that
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the
United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.6
Legislative history materials from the time of the INA’s enactment suggest that these provisions
were seen to grant the President broad authority to bar or impose conditions upon the entry of
aliens,7 and Presidents over the years have relied upon Section 212(f) to suspend or restrict the
entry of various groups of aliens, often (although not always) in conjunction with the imposition
of financial sanctions upon them. Among those so excluded have been aliens whose actions
1
The INA defines “admission” to mean “the lawful entry of an alien into the United States after inspection and
authorization by an immigration officer.” INA § 101(a)(13)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A). The INA is codified in
Title 8 of the United States Code, and references to the INA in this report also include references to the corresponding
sections of Title 8.
2
See INA § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (prescribing the inadmissibility of, among others, aliens who have a
communicable disease of public health significance; have been convicted of two or more criminal offenses; have
engaged in a terrorist activity; are permanently ineligible for citizenship; or have previously voted in violation of any
federal, state, or local law). Certain of these grounds of inadmissibility may be waived. See, e.g., INA §
212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) (authorizing the Executive to waive the 3- and 10-year bars upon the
admission of aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days if the refusal of
admission to the alien would result in “extreme hardship” to a parent or spouse who is a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident (LPR)).
3
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
4
8 U.S.C. §§ 1184(a)(1), 1185(a)(1). As is discussed later in this report, the term “entry” is no longer defined for
purposes of the INA. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), P.L. 104-208,
§ 301(a), 110 Stat. 3009-575 (Sept. 30, 1996) (amending INA § 101(a)(13) so that it defines “admission,” instead of
“entry”). However, at one time, the INA defined the term “entry” to mean “any coming of an alien into the United
States, from any foreign port or place or from an outlying possession, whether voluntarily or otherwise.” INA
§ 101(a)(13), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13) (1994). See infra notes 26-27 and accompanying text.
5
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
6
See P.L. 82-414, § 212(e), 66 Stat. 188 (June 27, 1952).
7
See, e.g., H.R. RPT. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., at 53 (Feb. 14, 1952) (“The bill vests in the President the authority to
suspend the entry of all aliens if he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, for
such period as he shall deem necessary.”).
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 712
JA 839
1
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 293 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
“threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya”;8 officials of the North Korean government or
the Workers’ Party of North Korea;9 aliens who have participated in “serious human rights
violations”;10 and others noted in Table 1 below.
Neither the text of Section 212(f) nor the case law to date suggests any firm legal constraints
upon the President’s exercise of his authority under Section 212(f), as is explained below.
However, future executive actions under INA § 212(f) could potentially be seen to raise legal
issues that have not been prompted by the Executive’s prior exercise of this authority.11
Statutory Language and Executive Branch Interpretations
On its face, Section 212(f) would appear to give the President broad authority to preclude or
otherwise restrict the entry into the United States of individual aliens or classes of aliens who are
outside the United States and lack recognized ties to the country.12 The central statutory constraint
imposed on Section 212(f)’s exclusionary power is that the President must have found that the
entry of any aliens or class of aliens would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” in
order to exclude the alien or class of aliens.13 The statute does not address (1) what factors should
be considered in determining whether aliens’ entry is “detrimental” to U.S. interests; (2) when
and how proclamations suspending or restricting entry should be issued; (3) what factors are to be
considered in determining whether particular restrictions are “appropriate”; or (4) how long any
restrictions should last. There also do not appear to be any regulations addressing the exercise of
presidential authority under Section 212(f).
The Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) seemingly provides the only publicly
available executive branch guidance on the President’s Section 212(f) authority. In relevant part,
the FAM notes that Section 212(f) proclamations “typically” grant the Secretary of State authority
to identify individuals covered by the proclamation and to waive its application for foreign policy
8
See Executive Order 13726, Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Persons Contributing
to the Situation in Libya, 81 Fed. Reg. 23559 (Apr. 21, 2016).
9
See Executive Order 13687, Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect To North Korea, 80 Fed. Reg. 819 (Jan. 6,
2015).
10
See Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights
and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses, 76 Fed. Reg. 49277 (Aug. 9, 2011).
11
Not knowing the form that future restrictions might take, or the grounds upon which such restrictions might be
subject to legal challenges, it would be premature to assess whether specific restrictions might be within the
Executive’s authority. However, it is important to note that aliens outside the United States who have no ties to the
country generally have limited ability to challenge the denial of visas or admission to them. See, e.g., Shaughnessy v.
Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 216 (1953) (“Whatever our individual estimate of that policy and the fears on which it rests,
respondent’s right to enter the United States depends on the congressional will, and courts cannot substitute their
judgment for the legislative mandate.”); United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) (“[A]n
alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United
States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon
such terms as the United States shall prescribe.”). But see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-63 (1972)
(recognizing that U.S. persons adversely affected by the denial of a visa waiver to an alien outside the United States
may have a right to challenge the denial under certain circumstances).
12
LPRs who leave the United States for a brief period of time are distinguishable from, for example, refugees seeking
to be admitted to the United States. See, e.g., Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (discussing due process
concerns raised by the application to an LPR of a statute which provided for the exclusion of any alien who “at any
time shall have, knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to
try to enter the United States in violation of law”).
13
INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 713
JA 840
2
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 294 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
or other national interests.14 The FAM also notes that such proclamations may bar entry based on
either affiliation or “objectionable” conduct. In addition, it provides that Section 212(f) may reach
persons who are inadmissible under other provisions of law, in which case, the “statutory
inadmissibilities are to be considered prior to determining whether a Presidential Proclamation
applies.”15 However, the FAM is generally not seen as having the force of law to bind the
executive branch.16 Thus, the Executive would not need to engage in notice-and-comment
rulemaking in order to alter particular practices contained in the FAM that have historically been
associated with exercises of Section 212(f) authority (e.g., not relying on a 212(f) proclamation to
bar the admission of aliens who are inadmissible on other grounds).17
Judicial Constructions of Section 212(f)
The limited case law addressing exercises of presidential authority under Section 212(f) also
supports the view that this provision of the INA confers broad authority to suspend or restrict the
entry of aliens. Key among these cases is the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Sale v. Haitian
Centers Council, Inc., which held that the U.S. practice of interdicting persons fleeing Haiti
outside U.S. territorial waters and returning them to their home country without allowing them to
raise claims for asylum and withholding of removal did not violate either the INA or the United
Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.18 The U.S. practice had been established
by Executive Order 12807, which was issued, in part, under the authority of Section 212(f) of the
INA19 and “suspend[ed] the entry of aliens coming by sea to the United States without necessary
documentation.”20 Although the Sale Court was primarily concerned with whether the INA and
UN Convention provisions regarding withholding of removal applied extraterritorially,21 it is
arguably important for understanding the scope of the President’s Section 212(f) authority. In
particular, the Sale decision arguably helped clarify the relationship between exercises of the
authority granted by Section 212(f) and those granted by other provisions of the INA, as well as
the meaning of entry for purposes of Section 212(f).
14
9 FAM § 302.11-3(B)(1), available at h https://fam.state.gov/Fam/FAM.aspx (last accessed: Jan. 3, 2017).
Id.
16
See, e.g., Patel v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 11-cv-6-wmc, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108592, at *13 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 2,
2013) (“[T]he Foreign Affairs Manual is an internal guideline that sets forth agency practice and procedures. Because
internal guidelines and agency manuals like the Foreign Affairs Manual are not subject to [Administrative Procedure
Act] APA rulemaking procedures, they lack the force of law and do not bind agency discretion.”).
17
For more on the constraints of the rulemaking process, see generally CRS Report R41546, A Brief Overview of
Rulemaking and Judicial Review, by Todd Garvey and Daniel T. Shedd; CRS Report RL32240, The Federal
Rulemaking Process: An Overview, coordinated by Maeve P. Carey.
18
509 U.S. 155, 158-59 (1993). Specifically at issue in Sale were the provisions currently in INA § 241(b)(3)(B) and
Article 33 of the Convention, which both bar the return of aliens to countries where their life or freedom would be
threatened because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The
United States is technically a party to the 1967 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, not the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, the Protocol incorporated articles 2 to 34 of the Convention,
and it is customary for commentators to refer to the Convention, not the Protocol, when discussing these articles.
19
Executive Order 12,807 also cited INA § 215(a)(1), which provides that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the President,
it shall be unlawful for any alien to depart from or enter ... the United States except under such reasonable rules,
regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. §
1185(a)(1). For further discussion of this provision, see infra “Other Provisions of the INA”.
20
See Interdiction of Illegal Aliens, 57 Fed. Reg. 23133 (June 1, 1992). President George H.W. Bush initially issued
this order, but President Clinton left the order in place without modifications when he took office. It remained in effect
at the time of the Court’s decision in Sale. See generally 509 U.S. at 165.
21
Sale, 509 U.S. at 173-88.
15
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 714
JA 841
3
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 295 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
In particular, the Court rejected the view of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(“Second Circuit”) that interdiction was prohibited because of the INA’s prohibition upon the
then-Attorney General returning an alien to a country where he or she would be persecuted.22 The
Second Circuit had reached this conclusion by noting that the Attorney General was the
President’s “agent” in matters of immigration.23 Therefore, it found that INA’s prohibition on the
Attorney General returning aliens to countries where the alien’s life or freedom would be
threatened because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a
particular social group should be imputed to the rest of the executive branch.24 The Supreme
Court disagreed, however, holding that the interdiction program created by the President did not
“usurp[] authority that Congress has delegated to, or implicate[] responsibilities that it has
imposed on, the Attorney General alone.”25 The Court reached this conclusion, in part, because it
viewed the INA as restricting only the then-Attorney General’s immigration-related
responsibilities under the act. It did not view the INA as restricting the President’s actions in
geographic areas outside of where Congress had authorized the Attorney General to act in the
immigration context (i.e., outside the United States).26 The upshot of this reasoning was that the
Court declined to find that the interdiction program implemented under the authority of Section
212(f) ran afoul of statutory or treaty-based restrictions.
The Sale decision also helped define what is meant by the term entry as that term is used in
Section 212(f). At the time when Sale was decided, the INA explicitly defined entry to encompass
“any coming of an alien into the United States, from any foreign port or place or from an outlying
possession, whether voluntarily or otherwise.”27 Therefore, consistent with this definition, the
Court distinguished between (1) aliens who are “on our shores seeking admission” or “on the
threshold of initial entry,” and (2) aliens who are within the United States after entry, regardless
of the legality of that entry.28 While the statutory definition of entry that the Court relied upon was
deleted from the INA as part of the amendments made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-208),29 the Sale Court’s construction of
entry has persisted in discussions of Section 212(f) and in other contexts.30
22
Id. at 171-72. For several decades, the authority to interpret, implement, and enforce the provisions of the INA was
primarily vested in the Attorney General. The Attorney General, in turn, delegated this authority to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) within the Department of Justice. Following the establishment of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), the INS was abolished and
its functions were generally transferred to DHS. See 6 U.S.C. § 251. Although the INA still refers to the Attorney
General in multiple places, such references are generally (although not universally) taken to mean the Secretary of
Homeland Security. See generally CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG553, Does It Matter Whether the INA Says DOJ or DHS?:
An Example Involving Revocation of Asylum, by Kate M. Manuel.
23
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1350, 1360 (2d Cir. 1992).
24
Id. (“[W]e reject the government’s suggestion that since [the relevant provision of the INA] restricts actions of only
the attorney general, the President might in any event assign the same “return” function to some other government
official. Congress understood that the President’s agent for dealing with immigration matters is the attorney general,
and we would find it difficult to believe that the proscription of [the INA]—returning an alien to his persecutors—was
forbidden if done by the attorney general but permitted if done by some other arm of the executive branch.”).
25
Sale, 509 U.S. at 172.
26
Id. at 173. See also INA § 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (“The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged
with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization
of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the
President.... ”).
27
INA § 101(a)(13), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13) (1994).
28
Sale, 509 U.S. at 174.
29
P.L. 104-208, § 301(a), 110 Stat. 3009-575 (amending Section 101(a)(13) of the INA to define admission, instead of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 715
JA 842
4
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 296 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Lower court decisions provide some further discussion of exercises of 212(f) authority that would
seem to be consistent with Sale. The most recent of these, an unpublished 2003 decision by the
Second Circuit in Sesay v. Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], granted deference to
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) determination that the alien petitioner was ineligible
for asylum because a grant of asylum necessarily requires entry, and the petitioner’s entry was
barred by Presidential Proclamation 7062.31 Previously, in its 1992 decision in Haitian Refugee
Center, Inc. v. Baker, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had noted various
precedents characterizing the power to exclude aliens from the country as an “inherent executive
power” when opining that Section 212(f) “clearly grants the President broad discretionary
authority to control the entry of aliens into the United States.”32 A lower court, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, similarly emphasized the breadth of the executive’s
power over entry in conjunction with its discussion of Section 212(f) in its 1996 decision in
Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher, stating,
The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not
alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign
affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility
of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent
executive power.33
Collectively, Sale and these other decisions suggest that Section 212(f) gives the Executive
significant power to bar or impose conditions upon the entry of aliens “on our shores seeking
admission” or “on the threshold of initial entry.”34 None of these decisions note any limitations
upon the President’s power under Section 212(f). This silence could, however, be seen, in part, to
reflect the arguably limited nature of the Executive’s use of its Section 212(f) authority to date.
As Table 1 below illustrates, prior exercises of presidential authority under Section 212(f) have
(...continued)
entry). See supra note 5.
30
See, e.g., Sesay v. INS, 74 Fed. App’x 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2003) (considering the meaning of “entry” in the course of
addressing whether a grant of asylum requires entry into the United States); Matter of Rosas-Ramirez, 22 I. & N. Dec.
616, 617 (BIA 1999) (discussing whether adjustment of status while within the United States constitutes an
“admission” for purposes of INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), and noting that admission is defined, in part, in terms of “entry”).
31
74 Fed. App’x at 86. The BIA is the highest administrative tribunal for interpreting and applying immigration law.
The Second Circuit noted, but did not address, arguments as to the relationship between Sections 212(d) and 212(f) in
its decision. The Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority to parole aliens into the United States under Section
212(d), however, could be seen as a counterpart to the President’s authority under Section 212(f) in that the President
may “parole”—or permit the entry into the United States—almost any alien, regardless of whether the alien is subject
to one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility set forth in Section 212(a). See INA § 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. §
1182(d)(5)(A) (“The Attorney General [later, Secretary of Homeland Security] may [subject to certain restrictions
involving refugees and alien laborers] in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions
as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien
applying for admission to the United States.... ”).
32
953 F.2d 1498, 1506-08 (11th Cir. 1992).
33
930 F. Supp. 1360, 1365 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (quoting Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1949) (upholding the
executive branch’s determination to exclude the alien wife of a former U.S. servicemember, who was eligible for
admission under the War Brides Act of 1945, because of concerns that her admission would endanger public safety)).
The Christopher case arose from a challenge to the denial or revocation of visas to certain Cubans pursuant to
Presidential Proclamation 5377, which suspended the entry of individuals whom the Secretary of State (or a designee)
considered to be officers or employees of the Cuban government or Cuban Communist Party. As the district court
noted, although the plaintiffs at times seem to have suggested that Section 212(f) itself is invalid, their argument was
best construed as being that Presidential Proclamation 5377 was invalid because it conflicted with Section 901 of the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1988-1989. Id. at 1363.
34
Sale, 509 U.S. at 174.
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 716
JA 843
5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 297 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
differed in terms of which and how many aliens are subject to exclusion. In no case to date,
though, has the Executive purported to take certain types of action, such as barring all aliens from
entering the United States for an extended period of time or explicitly distinguishing between
categories of aliens based on their religion. Any such restrictions could potentially be seen to raise
legal issues that were not raised by prior exclusions. For example, if the Executive were to seek to
bar the entry of all aliens, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, for an extended time, questions could
be raised about whether the President’s action was consistent with Congress’s intent in enacting
statutes which prescribe criteria for the issuance of family- and employment-based immigrant and
nonimmigrant visas and authorize the issuance of certain numbers of such visas each year.35
Similarly, if the President were to purport to exclude aliens based on their religion, an argument
could potentially be made that this action is in tension with U.S. treaty obligations36 or the First
Amendment.37 (Distinctions between aliens based on nationality, in contrast, have historically
been viewed as a routine feature of immigration legislation and subjected to deferential “rational
basis” review by the courts.38)
Table 1. Categories of Aliens Excluded under INA § 212(f)
Arranged Chronologically, from the Most to the Least Recent,
by the Date of Their Publication in the Federal Register
Date & President
2016, Apr. 21 – Obama
Executive Order 13726, 81 Fed.
Reg. 23559
Nature of the Exclusion
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Libya” in
specified ways (e.g., engaging in “actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, or stability” of that country or may lead to or result in the
35
For example, Section 203(a)(1) provides that “[q]ualified immigrants who are the unmarried sons or daughters of
citizens of the United States shall be allocated visas in a number not to exceed 23,400” (with some additions possible)
each year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(1). “Shall” has been construed to indicate mandatory agency action when used in
other contexts. See, e.g., Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979, 1983 (2016); Kingdomware Techs.,
Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 1977 (2016); Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1931 (2016).
36
For example, Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “[e]ach State Party ...
undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind” based on religion, among other things. United
Nations, Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx (last accessed: Jan. 14, 2017). The United States ratified
this Convention in 1992, with certain reservations, understandings, and declarations. See, e.g., Kristina Ash, U.S.
Reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Credibility Maximization and Global
Influence, 3 NW. J. INT’L HUM. RTS. 1, 2 (2005). However, “Congress has not made the treaty enforceable in U.S.
courts,” and commentators have disagreed as to whether it or other provisions of law (e.g., the First Amendment) could
serve as basis for invalidating the exclusion of certain aliens because of their religion. See, e.g., Debra Cassens Weiss,
Would SCOTUS Uphold Trump’s Plan to Bar Muslim Immigrants, ABA J., Dec. 9, 2015, http://www.abajournal.com/
news/article/would_scotus_uphold_trumps_plan_to_bar_muslim_immigrants.
37
Aliens outside the United States without recognized ties to the country might have difficulty in maintaining such a
challenge. See id. However, in certain cases, a ban on the entry of persons based on religion could potentially be seen to
impinge upon the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens by, for example, excluding officers and teachers of that
religion. Cf. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-63 (1972) (recognizing that U.S. persons whose constitutional
rights are adversely affected by the denial of a visa way to an alien outside the United States may have the right to
challenge the denial in certain circumstances).
38
See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 435-36 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting an earlier decision to the effect that the
“most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review”); Narenji v.
Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“[C]lassifications among aliens based upon nationality are consistent
with due process and equal protection if supported by a rational basis.... ”).
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 717
JA 844
6
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 298 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Date & President
Nature of the Exclusion
misappropriation of Libyan state assets)
2016, Mar. 18 – Obama
Executive Order 13722, 81 Fed.
Reg. 14943
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving North
Korea (e.g., selling or purchasing metal, graphite, coal, or software directly or
indirectly to or from North Korea, or to persons acting for or on behalf of the
North Korean government or the Workers’ Party of Korea)
2015, Nov. 25 – Obama
Executive Order 13712, 80 Fed.
Reg. 73633
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Burundi” in
specified ways (e.g., engaging in “actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, or stability of Burundi,” or “undermine democratic processes or
institutions” in that country)
2015, Apr. 2 – Obama
Executive Order 13694, 80 Fed.
Reg. 18077 (later amended by
Executive Order 13757, 82 Fed.
Reg. 1 (Jan. 3, 2017))
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in “significant malicious cyber-enabled
activities” (e.g., harming or significantly compromising the provision of services by a
computer or computer network that supports an entity in a critical infrastructure
sector)
2015, Mar. 11 – Obama
Executive Order 13692, 80 Fed.
Reg. 12747
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have “contributed to the situation in Venezuela” in
specified ways (e.g., engaging in actions or policies that undermine democratic
processes or institutions, significant acts of violence or conduct that constitutes a
serious abuse or violation of human rights)
2015, Jan. 6 – Obama
Executive Order 13687, 80 Fed.
Reg. 819
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens with specified connections to North Korea (e.g., officials of the North
Korean government or the Workers’ Party of Korea)
2014, Dec. 24 – Obama
Executive Order 13685, 79 Fed.
Reg. 77357
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain transactions involving the
Crimea region of Ukraine (e.g., materially assisting, sponsoring, or providing
financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in
support of, persons whose property or interests are blocked pursuant to the
order)
2014, May 15 – Obama
Executive Order 13667, 79 Fed.
Reg. 28387
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have contributed to the conflict in the Central
African Republic in specified ways (e.g., engaging in actions or policies that threaten
the peace, security, or stability of that country, or that threaten transitional
agreements or the political transition process)
2014, Apr. 7 – Obama
Executive Order 13664, 79 Fed.
Reg. 19283
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain conduct as to South Sudan
(e.g., actions or policies that “have the purpose or effect of expanding or extending
the conflict” in that country, or obstructing reconciliation or peace talks or
processes)
2014, Mar. 24 – Obama
Executive Order 13662, 79 Fed.
Reg. 16169
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have contributed to the situation in Ukraine in
specified ways (e.g., operating in the financial services, energy, metals and mining,
engineering, or defense and related materiel sectors of the Russian Federation
economy)
2014, Mar. 19 – Obama
Executive Order 13661, 79 Fed.
Reg. 15535
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens determined to have contributed to the situation in Ukraine in specified ways
(e.g., officials of the government of the Russian Federation, or persons who
operate in the arms or related materiel sector)
2014, Mar. 10 – Obama
Executive Order 13660, 79 Fed.
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens determined to have contributed to the situation in Ukraine in specified ways
(e.g., engagement in or responsibility for misappropriation of state assets of
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 718
JA 845
7
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 299 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Date & President
Nature of the Exclusion
Reg. 13493
Ukraine or of economically significant entities in that country)
2013, June 5 – Obama
Executive Order 13645, 78 Fed.
Reg. 33945
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who have engaged in certain conduct related to Iran (e.g., materially assisting,
sponsoring, or providing support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any
Iranian person included on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked
Persons)
2012, Oct. 12 – Obama
Executive Order 13628, 77 Fed.
Reg. 62139
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain actions involving Iran (e.g.,
knowingly transferring or facilitating the transfer of goods or technologies to Iran,
to entities organized under Iranian law or subject to Iranian jurisdiction, or to
Iranian nationals, that are likely to be used by the Iranian government to commit
serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people)
2012, July 13 – Obama
Executive Order 13619, 77 Fed.
Reg. 41243
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma in
specified ways (e.g., participation in the commission of human rights abuses, or
importing or exporting arms or related materiel to or from North Korea)
2012, May 3 – Obama
Executive Order 13608, 77 Fed.
Reg. 26409
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who are determined to have engaged in certain conduct as to Iran and Syria
(e.g., facilitating deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject to
U.S. sanctions concerning Iran and Syria)
2012, Apr. 24 – Obama
Executive Order 13606, 77 Fed.
Reg. 24571
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens determined to have engaged in specified conduct involving “grave human
rights abuses by the governments of Iran and Syria via information technology”
(e.g., operating or directing the operation of communications technology that
facilitates computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could
assist or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of these governments)
2011, Aug. 9 – Obama
Proclamation 8697, 76 Fed. Reg.
49277
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who participate in serious human rights and humanitarian law violations and
other abuses (e.g., planning, ordering, assisting, aiding and abetting, committing, or
otherwise participating in “widespread or systemic violence against any civilian
population” based, in whole or in part, on race, color, descent, sex, disability,
language, religion, ethnicity, birth, political opinion, national origin, membership in a
particular social group, membership in an indigenous group, or sexual orientation
or gender identity)
2011, July 27 – Obama
Proclamation 8693, 76 Fed. Reg.
44751
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens subject to U.N. Security Council travel bans and International Emergency
Economic Powers Act sanctions
2009, Jan. 22 – Bush
Proclamation 8342, 74 Fed. Reg.
4093
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
foreign government officials responsible for failing to combat trafficking in persons
2007, July 3 – Bush
Proclamation 8158, 72 Fed. Reg.
36587
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for policies or actions that threaten Lebanon’s sovereignty and
democracy (e.g., current or former Lebanese government officials and private
persons who “deliberately undermine or harm Lebanon’s sovereignty”)
2006, May 16 – Bush
Proclamation 8015, 71 Fed. Reg.
28541
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for policies or actions that threaten the transition to
democracy in Belarus (e.g., Members of the government of Alyaksandr Lukashenka
and other persons involved in policies or actions that “undermine or injure
democratic institutions or impede the transition to democracy in Belarus”)
2004, Jan. 14 – Bush
Proclamation 7750, 69 Fed. Reg.
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who have engaged in or benefitted from corruption in specified ways (e.g.,
current or former public officials whose solicitation or acceptance of articles of
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 719
JA 846
8
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 300 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Date & President
Nature of the Exclusion
2287
monetary value or other benefits has or had “serious adverse effects on the
national interests of the United States”)
2002, Feb. 26 – Bush
Proclamation 7524, 67 Fed. Reg.
8857
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for actions that threaten Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions
and transition to a multi-party democracy (e.g., Senior members of the government
of Robert Mugabe, persons who through their business dealings with Zimbabwe
government officials derive significant financial benefit from policies that undermine
or injure Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions)
2001, June 29 – Bush
Proclamation 7452, 66 Fed. Reg.
34775
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons responsible for actions that threaten international stabilization efforts in
the Western Balkans, or are responsible for wartime atrocities in that region
2000, Oct. 13 – Clinton
Proclamation 7359, 65 Fed. Reg.
60831
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who plan, engage in, or benefit from activities that support the Revolutionary
United Front or otherwise impede the peace process in Sierra Leone
1999, Nov. 17 – Clinton
Proclamation 7249, 64 Fed. Reg.
62561
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens responsible for repression of the civilian population in Kosovo or policies
that obstruct democracy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) or otherwise
lend support to the government of the FRY and the Republic of Serbia
1998, Jan. 16 – Clinton
Proclamation 7062, 63 Fed. Reg.
2871
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
members of the military junta in Sierra Leone and their family
1997, Dec. 16 – Clinton
Proclamation 7060, 62 Fed. Reg.
65987
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
senior officials of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola
(UNITA) and adult members of their immediate families
1996, Nov. 26 – Clinton
Proclamation 6958, 61 Fed. Reg.
60007
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
members of the government of Sudan, officials of that country, and members of
the Sudanese armed forces
1996, Oct. 7 – Clinton
Proclamation 6925, 61 Fed. Reg.
52233
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who “formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede Burma’s
transition to democracy” and their immediate family members
1994, Oct. 27 – Clinton
Proclamation 6749, 59 Fed. Reg.
54117
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
certain aliens described in U.N. Security Council Resolution 942 (e.g., officers of
the Bosnian Serb military and paramilitary forces and those acting on their behalf,
or persons found to have provided financial, material, logistical, military, or other
tangible support to Bosnian Serb forces in violation of relevant U.S. Security
Council resolutions)
1994, Oct. 5 – Clinton
Proclamation 6730, 59 Fed. Reg.
50683
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede Liberia’s
transition to democracy and their immediate family
1994, May 10 – Clinton
Proclamation 6685, 59 Fed. Reg.
24337
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens described in U.N. Security Council Resolution 917 (e.g., officers of the
Haitian military, including the police, and their immediate families; major
participants in the 1991 Haitian coup d’etat)
1993, Dec. 14 – Clinton
Proclamation 6636, 58 Fed. Reg.
65525
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
aliens who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede Nigeria’s
transition to democracy and their immediate family
1993, June 23 – Clinton
Proclamation 6574, 58 Fed. Reg.
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who formulate or benefit from policies that impede Zaire’s transition to
democracy and their immediate family
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 720
JA 847
9
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 301 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
Date & President
Nature of the Exclusion
34209
1993, June 7 – Clinton
Proclamation 6569, 58 Fed. Reg.
31897
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
persons who formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impede the
progress of negotiations to restore a constitutional government to Haiti and their
immediate family
1992, June 1 – Bush
Executive Order 12807, 57 Fed.
Reg. 23133
Making provisions to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens
by sea and the interdiction of any covered vessel carrying such aliens
1988, Oct. 26 – Reagan
Proclamation 5887, 53 Fed. Reg.
43184
Suspending the entry of specified Nicaraguan nationals into the United States as
nonimmigrants (e.g., officers of the Nicaraguan government or the Sandinista
National Liberation Front holding diplomatic or official passports)
1988, June 14 – Reagan
Proclamation 5829, 53 Fed. Reg.
22289
Suspending the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of
certain Panamanian nationals who formulate or implement the policies Manuel
Antonio Noriega and Manuel Solis Palma, and their immediate families
1986, Aug. 26 – Reagan
Proclamation 5517, 51 Fed. Reg.
30470
Suspending the entry of Cuban nationals as immigrants with certain specified
exceptions (e.g., Cuban nationals applying for admission as immediate relatives
under INA § 201(b))
1985, Oct. 10 – Reagan
Proclamation 5377, 50 Fed. Reg.
41329
Suspending the entry of specified classes of Cuban nationals as nonimmigrants (e.g.,
officers or employees of the Cuban government or the Communist Party of Cuba
holding diplomatic or official passports)
1981, Oct. 1 – Reagan
Proclamation 4865, 46 Fed. Reg.
48107
Suspending the entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas, and directing the
interdiction of certain vessels carrying such aliens
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on various sources cited in Table 1.
Note: In a number of cases, the exclusions listed in Table 1 were expressly said to be waivable, in the
Executive’s discretion, when the entry of a particular alien otherwise subject to exclusion “would not be
contrary to the interests of the United States.” See, e.g., 50 Fed. Reg. 41329, at § 2 (Oct. 10, 1985).
Other Provisions of the INA
Beyond Section 212(f), other provisions of the INA can also be seen to authorize the Executive to
restrict aliens’ entry to the United States.39 Most notably, Section 214(a)(1) prescribes that the
“admission of any alien to the United States as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under
such conditions as [the Executive] may by regulations prescribe.”40 (Nonimmigrants are aliens
admitted to the United States for a specific period of time and purpose pursuant to one of the
39
In addition, yet other provisions of the INA could be seen to give the Executive discretion as to whether certain
categories of aliens are admitted. For example, Section 207(a)(2) of the INA could be seen to give the Executive broad
discretion in determining how many aliens are admitted to the United States as refugees each year. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1157(a)(2). Other provisions outside immigration law could also apply. See National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2017, P.L. 114-328, §§ 1261-1265,—Stat.—(Dec. 23, 2016) (sanctions for human rights abusers); Consolidated
Appropriations Act, P.L. 114-113, § 7031(c), 129 Stat. 2755 (Dec. 18, 2015) (providing that certain foreign officials
involved in “significant corruption” and their immediate family are ineligible for entry to the United States); Russia and
Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, P.L. 112-208, §§ 404406, 126 Stat. 1505-1509 (Dec. 14, 2012) (excluding certain aliens involved in human rights abuses).
40
8 U.S.C. § 1184(a)(1).
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 721
JA 848
10
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 302 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
“lettered” visas set forth in Section 101(a)(15) of the INA.41) Section 215(a)(1) similarly provides
that “it shall be unlawful for any alien” to enter or depart the United States “except under such
reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the
President may prescribe.”42 In the past, the Executive has relied upon Section 215(a)(1), in
particular, to exclude certain aliens. For example, President Carter cited to Section 215(a) when
authorizing the revocation of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued to Iranians during the
Iran Hostage Crisis.43
The current Section 215(a) was enacted as part of the INA in 1952.44 However, similar language
appeared in earlier immigration-related statutes.45 Both the earlier language and the initial version
of Section 215(a) granted the President the power to impose additional restrictions upon aliens’
entry into and departure from the United States during times of war and, in some cases, “national
emergency.”46 The President’s exclusion of certain aliens under this authority47 was upheld in
several court cases, the most notable of which was arguably the Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in
United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy.48 There, the Court rejected a challenge to the
exclusion of a German “war bride” under regulations promulgated pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation 2523, which was itself issued under the authority of a predecessor of Section
215(a).49 In so doing, the Court rejected the excluded bride’s argument that both the regulations
and the underlying statute constituted an impermissible delegation of legislative power, reasoning
that “[t]he exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not
41
Id. § 1101(a)(15) (defining an “immigrant” to mean “every alien except an alien who is within one of the following
classes of nonimmigrant aliens.... ”) (emphasis added).
42
Id. § 1184(a)(1).
43
See Executive Order 12172, Delegation of Authority With Respect to Entry of Certain Aliens Into the United States,
44 Fed. Reg. 67947, 67947 (Nov. 28, 1979) (authorizing the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to exercise “in
respect of Iranians holding nonimmigrant visas, the authority conferred upon the President by section 215(a)(1) of the
Act of June 27, 1952 (8 USC 1185).... ”) (emphasis added); Executive Order 12206, Amendment of Delegation of
Authority with Respect to Entry of Certain Aliens Into the United States,” 45 Fed. Reg. 24101, 24201 (Apr. 7, 1980)
(amending Executive Order 12172 to cover immigrant, as well as nonimmigrant visas). The exclusion addressed in Sale
was also effectuated, in part, under the authority of Section 215(a). See supra note 19.
44
See P.L. 82-414, § 212(e), 66 Stat. 190 (June 27, 1952).
45
See P.L. 65-164, 40 Stat. 559 (May 22, 1918) (“[W]hen the United States is at war, if the President shall find that
public safety requires that restrictions and prohibitions ... be imposed upon the departure of persons from and their
entry into the United States, and shall make public proclamation thereof, it shall, until otherwise ordered by the
President or Congress, be unlawful [f]or any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United
States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the
President shall prescribe.”); P.L. 77-113, 55 Stat. 252 (June 20, 1941) (similar).
46
See 66 Stat. 190 (war and national emergency); 55 Stat. 252 (war); 40 Stat. 559 (war).
47
See, e.g., Proclamation 3,004, Control of Persons Leaving or Entering the United States, 18 Fed. Reg. 489 (Jan. 17,
1953) (President Truman relying, in part, on a predecessor to Section 215(a) to impose restrictions on the entry of
aliens into the Panama Canal Zone and American Samoa); Proclamation 2,850, 14 Fed. Reg. 5173 (Aug. 19, 1949)
(President Truman relying, in part, on a predecessor to Section 215(a) in excluding aliens whose entry executive
officials deem “would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States”); Proclamation 2,523, Control of Persons
Entering and Leaving the United States, 6 Fed. Reg. 2617 (Nov. 18, 1941) (similar, President Roosevelt).
48
338 U.S. 537 (1950). See also Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (noting the
President’s power to exclude aliens in the course of finding that an alien who was so excluded, but whom no other
country would accept, was not entitled to release into the United States). The Mezei Court, in particular, cited a number
of precedents for the proposition that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute
exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” 345 U.S. at 210 (citing
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); and Fong Yue
Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)).
49
Knauff, 338 U.S. at 540-42.
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 722
JA 849
11
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 303 of 344
Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief
from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the
nation.”50 Therefore, in the Court’s view, Congress could not have run afoul of the non-delegation
doctrine by authorizing the President to exercise this power “for the best interests of the country”
during wartime because the President already possessed such authority.51 The Knauff Court
similarly rejected the argument that the regulations in question were not “reasonable,” as required
by the statutory authority under which they were issued—which in relevant part, made it unlawful
for an alien to enter the United States “except under such reasonable rules ... as the President may
prescribe.”52 The Court did so because it viewed the regulations excluding aliens whose entry was
“deemed prejudicial to the public interest” as “reasonable in the circumstances of the period for
which they were authorized, namely, the national emergency of World War II.”53
The statutory language regarding war and national emergency—which arguably factored into the
Court’s decision in Knauff—was deleted from Section 215(a) in 1978.54 However, it seems
unlikely that this deletion would serve as a basis for overruling the Knauff Court’s conclusions
about whether the power in question was impermissibly delegated to the Executive,55 or about
what constitutes a “reasonable” regulation for purposes of Section 215(a).56 Knauff’s statements
about the inherent power of nations to exclude aliens outside the United States with no
recognized ties to the country would also generally seem to remain good law.57
Author Contact Information
Kate M. Manuel
Acting Section Research Manager
kmanuel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4477
50
Id. at 542.
Id. at 542-43 (“[T]here is no question of inappropriate delegation of legislative power involved here.”). The nondelegation doctrine precludes Congress from handing over its legislative powers to other branches of the federal
government. However, Congress may “confer[] decisionmaking authority upon agencies, so long as it “lays down by
legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [act] is directed to conform.” See
Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 472 (2001) (internal quotations omitted).
52
338 U.S. at 544.
53
Id.
54
P.L. 95-426, § 707(a), 92 Stat. 992-93 (Oct. 7, 1978).
55
Cf. Cass R. Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. CHI. L. REV. 315, 315 (2000) (“Since 1935, the Supreme Court
has not struck down an act of Congress on nondelegation grounds.... ”).
56
There does not appear to be any court cases establishing what is meant by the term “reasonable regulations” for
purposes of Section 215(a) and its predecessors. However, courts may grant considerable deference to the Executive’s
determinations in this area, given the “plenary power” that the political branches are generally seen to have over
immigration. See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976) (“For reasons long recognized as valid, the
responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the
political branches of the Federal Government.”).
57
See, e.g., Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 847, 875 (1985) (“It is in the area of entry] that the Government’s interest in
protecting our sovereignty is at its strongest and that individual claims to constitutional entitlement are the least
compelling.”); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (citing cases finding that the power to exclude is a
“fundamental sovereign attribute”); Kleindeinst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 765 (similar) (1972). Certain limits to this
power have, however, been recognized, particularly as to aliens with recognized ties to the United States or who would
need to be detained in the United States to effectuate their exclusion. See, e.g., CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1695,
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Aliens’ Detention Pending Removal Proceedings, by Kate M. Manuel.
51
Congressional Research Service
J.R. 723
JA 850
12
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 304 of 344
Exhibit BB
J.R. 724
JA 851
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 305 of 344
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
COUNTRY COMPARISON :: POPULATION
Population compares estimates from the US Bureau of the Census based on statistics from population censuses, vital statistics
registration systems, or sample surveys pertaining to the recent past and on assumptions about future trends.
(rawdata_2119.txt)
Rank
Country
1
China (../geos/ch.html)
2
India (../geos/in.html)
3
United States (../geos/us.html)
4
Indonesia (../geos/id.html)
5
Brazil (../geos/br.html)
6
Pakistan (../geos/pk.html)
7
Nigeria (../geos/ni.html)
8
Bangladesh (../geos/bg.html)
9
Russia (../geos/rs.html)
10
Japan (../geos/ja.html)
11
Mexico (../geos/mx.html)
12
Ethiopia (../geos/et.html)
13
Philippines (../geos/rp.html)
14
Egypt (../geos/eg.html)
15
Vietnam (../geos/vm.html)
16
Congo, Democratic Republic of the (../geos/cg.html)
J.R. 725
POPULATION Date of Information
1,379,302,771
Jul y 2017 est .
1,281,935,911
Jul y 2017 est .
326,625,791
Jul y 2017 est .
260,580,739
Jul y 2017 est .
207,353,391
Jul y 2017 est .
204,924,861
Jul y 2017 est .
190,632,261
Jul y 2017 est .
157,826,578
Jul y 2017 est .
142,257,519
Jul y 2017 est .
126,451,398
Jul y 2017 est .
124,574,795
Jul y 2017 est .
105,350,020
Jul y 2017 est .
104,256,076
Jul y 2017 est .
97,041,072
Jul y 2017 es t .
96,160,163
Jul y 2017 es t .
83,301,151
Jul y 2017 es t .
JA 852
17
18
Turkey (../geos/tu.html)
19
Germany (../geos/gm.html)
20
Thailand (../geos/th.html)
21
France (../geos/fr.html)
22
United Kingdom (../geos/uk.html)
23
Italy (../geos/it.html)
24
Burma (../geos/bm.html)
25
South Africa (../geos/sf.html)
26
Tanzania (../geos/tz.html)
27
Korea, South (../geos/ks.html)
28
Spain (../geos/sp.html)
29
Colombia (../geos/co.html)
30
Kenya (../geos/ke.html)
31
Argentina (../geos/ar.html)
32
Ukraine (../geos/up.html)
33
Algeria (../geos/ag.html)
34
Uganda (../geos/ug.html)
35
Iraq (../geos/iz.html)
36
Poland (../geos/pl.html)
37
Sudan (../geos/su.html)
38
Canada (../geos/ca.html)
39
Afghanistan (../geos/af.html)
40
Morocco (../geos/mo.html)
41
Malaysia (../geos/my.html)
42
Venezuela (../geos/ve.html)
43
Peru (../geos/pe.html)
44
Uzbekistan (../geos/uz.html)
45
Nepal (../geos/np.html)
46
Angola (../geos/ao.html)
47
Saudi Arabia (../geos/sa.html)
48
82,021,564
Iran (../geos/ir.html)
Yemen (../geos/ym.html)
Jul y 2017 es t .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 306 of 344
80,845,215
80,594,017
Jul y 2017 es t .
68,414,135
Jul y 2017 es t .
67,106,161
Jul y 2017 es t .
64,769,452
Jul y 2017 es t .
62,137,802
Jul y 2017 es t .
55,123,814
Jul y 2017 es t .
54,841,552
Jul y 2017 es t .
53,950,935
Jul y 2017 es t .
51,181,299
Jul y 2017 es t .
48,958,159
Jul y 2017 es t .
47,698,524
Jul y 2017 es t .
47,615,739
Jul y 2017 es t .
44,293,293
Jul y 2017 es t .
44,033,874
Jul y 2017 es t .
40,969,443
Jul y 2017 es t .
39,570,125
Jul y 2017 es t .
39,192,111
Jul y 2017 es t .
38,476,269
Jul y 2017 es t .
37,345,935
Jul y 2017 es t .
35,623,680
Jul y 2017 es t .
34,124,811
Jul y 2017 es t .
33,986,655
Jul y 2017 es t .
31,381,992
Jul y 2017 es t .
31,304,016
Jul y 2017 es t .
31,036,656
Jul y 2017 es t .
29,748,859
Jul y 2017 es t .
29,384,297
Jul y 2017 es t .
29,310,273
Jul y 2017 es t .
28,571,770
Jul y 2017 es t .
28,036,829
J.R. 726
Jul y 2017 es t .
Jul y 2017 es t .
JA 853
49
50
Mozambique (../geos/mz.html)
51
Korea, North (../geos/kn.html)
52
Madagascar (../geos/ma.html)
53
Cameroon (../geos/cm.html)
54
Cote d'Ivoire (../geos/iv.html)
55
Taiwan (../geos/tw.html)
56
Australia (../geos/as.html)
57
Sri Lanka (../geos/ce.html)
58
Romania (../geos/ro.html)
59
Burkina Faso (../geos/uv.html)
60
Niger (../geos/ng.html)
61
Malawi (../geos/mi.html)
62
Kazakhstan (../geos/kz.html)
63
Syria (../geos/sy.html)
64
Mali (../geos/ml.html)
65
Chile (../geos/ci.html)
66
Netherlands (../geos/nl.html)
67
Ecuador (../geos/ec.html)
68
Cambodia (../geos/cb.html)
69
Zambia (../geos/za.html)
70
Guatemala (../geos/gt.html)
71
Senegal (../geos/sg.html)
72
Zimbabwe (../geos/zi.html)
73
South Sudan (../geos/od.html)
74
Guinea (../geos/gv.html)
75
Chad (../geos/cd.html)
76
Rwanda (../geos/rw.html)
77
Belgium (../geos/be.html)
78
Burundi (../geos/by.html)
79
Tunisia (../geos/ts.html)
80
27,499,924
Ghana (../geos/gh.html)
Cuba (../geos/cu.html)
Jul y 2017 es t .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 307 of 344
26,573,706
25,248,140
Jul y 2017 es t .
25,054,161
Jul y 2017 es t .
24,994,885
Jul y 2017 es t .
24,184,810
Jul y 2017 es t .
23,508,428
Jul y 2017 es t .
23,232,413
Jul y 2017 es t .
22,409,381
Jul y 2017 es t .
21,529,967
Jul y 2017 es t .
20,107,509
Jul y 2017 es t .
19,245,344
Jul y 2017 es t .
19,196,246
Jul y 2017 es t .
18,556,698
Jul y 2017 es t .
18,028,549
Jul y 2017 es t .
17,885,245
Jul y 2017 es t .
17,789,267
Jul y 2017 es t .
17,084,719
Jul y 2017 es t .
16,290,913
Jul y 2017 es t .
16,204,486
Jul y 2017 es t .
15,972,000
Jul y 2017 es t .
15,460,732
Jul y 2017 es t .
14,668,522
Jul y 2017 es t .
13,805,084
Jul y 2017 es t .
13,026,129
Jul y 2017 es t .
12,413,867
Jul y 2017 es t .
12,075,985
Jul y 2017 es t .
11,901,484
Jul y 2017 es t .
11,491,346
Jul y 2017 es t .
11,466,756
Jul y 2017 es t .
11,403,800
Jul y 2017 es t .
11,147,407
J.R. 727
Jul y 2017 es t .
Jul y 2017 es t .
JA 854
11,138,234
81
Bolivia (../geos/bl.html)
82
Benin (../geos/bn.html)
83
Somalia (../geos/so.html)
84
Portugal (../geos/po.html)
85
Greece (../geos/gr.html)
86
Dominican Republic (../geos/dr.html)
87
Czechia (../geos/ez.html)
88
Haiti (../geos/ha.html)
89
Jordan (../geos/jo.html)
90
Azerbaijan (../geos/aj.html)
91
Sweden (../geos/sw.html)
92
Hungary (../geos/hu.html)
93
Belarus (../geos/bo.html)
94
Honduras (../geos/ho.html)
95
Austria (../geos/au.html)
96
Tajikistan (../geos/ti.html)
97
Israel (../geos/is.html)
98
Switzerland (../geos/sz.html)
99
Togo (../geos/to.html)
100
Hong Kong (../geos/hk.html)
101
Laos (../geos/la.html)
102
Serbia (../geos/ri.html)
103
Bulgaria (../geos/bu.html)
104
Paraguay (../geos/pa.html)
105
Papua New Guinea (../geos/pp.html)
106
Libya (../geos/ly.html)
107
Lebanon (../geos/le.html)
108
El Salvador (../geos/es.html)
109
Sierra Leone (../geos/sl.html)
110
United Arab Emirates (../geos/ae.html)
111
Nicaragua (../geos/nu.html)
112
Eritrea (../geos/er.html)
Jul y 2017 es t .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 308 of 344
11,038,805
11,031,386
Jul y 2017 es t .
10,839,514
Jul y 2017 es t .
10,768,477
Jul y 2017 es t .
10,734,247
Jul y 2017 es t .
10,674,723
Jul y 2017 es t .
10,646,714
Jul y 2017 es t .
10,248,069
Jul y 2017 es t .
9,961,396
Jul y 2017 es t .
9,960,487
Jul y 2017 es t .
9,850,845
Jul y 2017 es t .
9,549,747
Jul y 2017 es t .
9,038,741
Jul y 2017 es t .
8,754,413
Jul y 2017 es t .
8,468,555
Jul y 2017 es t .
8,299,706
Jul y 2017 es t .
8,236,303
Jul y 2017 es t .
7,965,055
Jul y 2017 es t .
7,191,503
Jul y 2017 es t .
7,126,706
Jul y 2017 es t .
7,111,024
Jul y 2017 es t .
7,101,510
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,943,739
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,909,701
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,653,210
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,229,794
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,172,011
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,163,195
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,072,475
Jul y 2017 es t .
6,025,951
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,918,919
J.R. 728
Jul y 2017 es t .
Jul y 2017 es t .
JA 855
5,888,926
113
Singapore (../geos/sn.html)
114
Kyrgyzstan (../geos/kg.html)
115
Central African Republic (../geos/ct.html)
116
Denmark (../geos/da.html)
117
Finland (../geos/fi.html)
118
Slovakia (../geos/lo.html)
119
Turkmenistan (../geos/tx.html)
120
Norway (../geos/no.html)
121
Ireland (../geos/ei.html)
122
Congo, Republic of the (../geos/cf.html)
123
Costa Rica (../geos/cs.html)
124
Georgia (../geos/gg.html)
125
Liberia (../geos/li.html)
126
New Zealand (../geos/nz.html)
127
Croatia (../geos/hr.html)
128
Bosnia and Herzegovina (../geos/bk.html)
129
Mauritania (../geos/mr.html)
130
Panama (../geos/pm.html)
131
Moldova (../geos/md.html)
132
Oman (../geos/mu.html)
133
Uruguay (../geos/uy.html)
134
Puerto Rico (../geos/rq.html)
135
Mongolia (../geos/mg.html)
136
Albania (../geos/al.html)
137
Armenia (../geos/am.html)
138
Jamaica (../geos/jm.html)
139
Kuwait (../geos/ku.html)
140
Lithuania (../geos/lh.html)
141
West Bank (../geos/we.html)
142
Namibia (../geos/wa.html)
143
Qatar (../geos/qa.html)
144
Botswana (../geos/bc.html)
Jul y 2017 es t .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 309 of 344
5,789,122
5,625,118
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,605,948
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,518,371
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,445,829
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,351,277
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,320,045
Jul y 2017 es t .
5,011,102
Jul y 2017 es t .
4,954,674
Jul y 2017 es t .
4,930,258
Jul y 2017 es t .
4,926,330
Jul y 2017 es t .
4,689,021
Jul y 2017 es t .
4,510,327
Jul y 2017 es t .
4,292,095
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,856,181
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,758,571
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,753,142
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,474,121
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,424,386
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,360,148
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,351,827
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,068,243
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,047,987
Jul y 2017 es t .
3,045,191
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,990,561
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,875,422
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,823,859
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,747,943
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,484,780
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,314,307
Jul y 2017 es t .
2,214,858
J.R. 729
Jul y 2017 es t .
Jul y 2017 es t .
JA 856
145
146
Gambia, The (../geos/ga.html)
147
Slovenia (../geos/si.html)
148
Lesotho (../geos/lt.html)
149
Latvia (../geos/lg.html)
150
Kosovo (../geos/kv.html)
151
Gaza Strip (../geos/gz.html)
152
Guinea-Bissau (../geos/pu.html)
153
Gabon (../geos/gb.html)
154
Swaziland (../geos/wz.html)
155
Bahrain (../geos/ba.html)
156
Mauritius (../geos/mp.html)
157
Timor-Leste (../geos/tt.html)
158
Estonia (../geos/en.html)
159
Cyprus (../geos/cy.html)
160
Trinidad and Tobago (../geos/td.html)
161
Fiji (../geos/fj.html)
162
Djibouti (../geos/dj.html)
163
Comoros (../geos/cn.html)
164
Equatorial Guinea (../geos/ek.html)
165
Bhutan (../geos/bt.html)
166
Guyana (../geos/gy.html)
167
Solomon Islands (../geos/bp.html)
168
Montenegro (../geos/mj.html)
169
Western Sahara (../geos/wi.html)
170
Macau (../geos/mc.html)
171
Luxembourg (../geos/lu.html)
172
Suriname (../geos/ns.html)
173
Cabo Verde (../geos/cv.html)
174
Brunei (../geos/bx.html)
175
Malta (../geos/mt.html)
176
2,103,721
Macedonia (../geos/mk.html)
Maldives (../geos/mv.html)
Jul y 2017 es t .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 310 of 344
2,051,363
1,972,126
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,958,042
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,944,643
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,895,250
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,795,183
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,792,338
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,772,255
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,467,152
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,410,942
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,356,388
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,291,358
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,251,581
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,221,549
Jul y 2017 es t .
1,218,208
Jul y 2017 es t .
920,938
Jul y 2017 est .
865,267
Jul y 2017 est .
808,080
Jul y 2017 est .
778,358
Jul y 2017 est .
758,288
Jul y 2017 est .
737,718
Jul y 2017 est .
647,581
Jul y 2017 est .
642,550
Jul y 2017 est .
603,253
Jul y 2017 est .
601,969
Jul y 2017 est .
594,130
Jul y 2017 est .
591,919
Jul y 2017 est .
560,899
Jul y 2017 est .
443,593
Jul y 2017 est .
416,338
Jul y 2017 est .
392,709
J.R. 730
Jul y 2017 es t .
Jul y 2017 est .
JA 857
360,346
177
Belize (../geos/bh.html)
178
Iceland (../geos/ic.html)
179
Bahamas, The (../geos/bf.html)
180
Barbados (../geos/bb.html)
181
French Polynesia (../geos/fp.html)
182
Vanuatu (../geos/nh.html)
183
New Caledonia (../geos/nc.html)
184
Sao Tome and Principe (../geos/tp.html)
185
Samoa (../geos/ws.html)
186
Guam (../geos/gq.html)
187
Saint Lucia (../geos/st.html)
188
Curacao (../geos/cc.html)
189
Aruba (../geos/aa.html)
190
Grenada (../geos/gj.html)
191
Kiribati (../geos/kr.html)
192
Virgin Islands (../geos/vq.html)
193
Tonga (../geos/tn.html)
194
Micronesia, Federated States of (../geos/fm.html)
195
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (../geos/vc.html)
196
Jersey (../geos/je.html)
197
Antigua and Barbuda (../geos/ac.html)
198
Seychelles (../geos/se.html)
199
Isle of Man (../geos/im.html)
200
Andorra (../geos/an.html)
201
Marshall Islands (../geos/rm.html)
202
Dominica (../geos/do.html)
203
Bermuda (../geos/bd.html)
204
Guernsey (../geos/gk.html)
205
Cayman Islands (../geos/cj.html)
206
Greenland (../geos/gl.html)
207
Saint Kitts and Nevis (../geos/sc.html)
208
Turks and Caicos Islands (../geos/tk.html)
Jul y 2017 est .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 311 of 344
339,747
329,988
Jul y 2017 est .
292,336
Jul y 2017 est .
287,881
Jul y 2017 est .
282,814
Jul y 2017 est .
279,070
Jul y 2017 est .
201,025
Jul y 2017 est .
200,108
Jul y 2017 est .
167,358
Jul y 2017 est .
164,994
Jul y 2017 est .
149,648
Jul y 2017 est .
115,120
Jul y 2017 est .
111,724
Jul y 2017 est .
108,145
Jul y 2017 est .
107,268
Jul y 2017 est .
106,479
Jul y 2017 est .
104,196
Jul y 2017 est .
102,089
Jul y 2017 est .
98,840
Jul y 2017 est .
94,731
Jul y 2017 est .
93,920
Jul y 2017 est .
88,815
Jul y 2017 est .
85,702
Jul y 2017 est .
74,539
Jul y 2017 est .
73,897
Jul y 2017 est .
70,864
Jul y 2017 est .
66,502
Jul y 2017 est .
58,441
Jul y 2017 est .
57,713
J.R. 731
Jul y 2017 est .
Jul y 2017 est .
52,715
Jul y 2017 est .
52,570
Jul y 2017 est .
JA 858
209
Northern Mariana Islands (../geos/cq.html)
210
American Samoa (../geos/aq.html)
211
Faroe Islands (../geos/fo.html)
212
Sint Maarten (../geos/sk.html)
213
Liechtenstein (../geos/ls.html)
214
British Virgin Islands (../geos/vi.html)
215
San Marino (../geos/sm.html)
216
Saint Martin (../geos/rn.html)
217
Monaco (../geos/mn.html)
218
Gibraltar (../geos/gi.html)
219
Palau (../geos/ps.html)
220
Anguilla (../geos/av.html)
221
Wallis and Futuna (../geos/wf.html)
222
Tuvalu (../geos/tv.html)
223
Nauru (../geos/nr.html)
224
Cook Islands (../geos/cw.html)
225
Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha
(../geos/sh.html)
226
Saint Barthelemy (../geos/tb.html)
227
Saint Pierre and Miquelon (../geos/sb.html)
228
Montserrat (../geos/mh.html)
229
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) (../geos/fk.html)
230
Svalbard (../geos/sv.html)
231
Norfolk Island (../geos/nf.html)
232
Christmas Island (../geos/kt.html)
233
Niue (../geos/ne.html)
234
Tokelau (../geos/tl.html)
235
Holy See (Vatican City) (../geos/vt.html)
236
Cocos (Keeling) Islands (../geos/ck.html)
237
52,263
Pitcairn Islands (../geos/pc.html)
Jul y 2017 est .
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 312 of 344
51,504
Jul y 2017 est .
50,730
Jul y 2017 est .
42,083
Jul y 2017 est .
38,244
Jul y 2017 est .
35,015
Jul y 2017 est .
33,537
Jul y 2017 est .
32,125
Jul y 2017 est .
30,645
Jul y 2017 est .
29,396
Jul y 2017 est .
21,431
Jul y 2017 est .
17,087
Jul y 2017 est .
15,714
Jul y 2017 est .
11,052
Jul y 2017 est .
9,642
Jul y 2017 est .
9,290
Jul y 2017 est .
7,828
Jul y 2017 est .
7,184
Jul y 2017 est .
5,533
Jul y 2017 est .
5,292
Jul y 2017 est .
2,931
2014 est .
2,667
Jul y 2016 est .
2,210
Jul y 2014 est .
2,205
Jul y 2016 est .
1,626
June 2015 est .
1,285
2016 est .
1,000
2015 est .
USA.gov (http://www.usa.gov/)
Jul y 2016 es t .
Copyright (/about-cia/site-policies/#copy)
Site Policies (/about-cia/site-policies/)
Jul y 2014 est .
54
Privacy (/about-cia/site-policies/#privacy-notice)
596
FOIA (http://www.foia.cia.gov/)
DNI.gov (http://www.dni.gov/)
J.R. 732
JA 859
NoFEAR Act (/about-cia/no-fear-act/)
Inspector General (/offices-of-cia/inspector-general/)
Contact CIA (/contact-cia/)
Site Map (/sitemap.html)
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 313 of 344
(/open/)
J.R. 733
JA 860
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 314 of 344
Exhibit CC
J.R. 734
JA 861
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 315 of 344
Y R AT N E M M O C
gnorW sI naB levarT
s’pmurT fo esimerP cisaB ehT
By David Bier
This article appeared on Washington Post on September 26, 2017.
resident Trump issued a presidential proclamation this weekend
instituting a new “travel ban” that restricts entry to the United States
for nationals of eight countries. The president cites America’s inability
P
to screen out terrorists as the justification for the ban. But such a ban would not
have kept out the 9/11 hijackers or any terrorists since then, nor would it have
prevented any terrorism deaths in decades.
Not only do the purported threats lack merit; the vetting rationale does, too. The
ban singles out nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela,
Somalia and Yemen. The purported basis for the proclamation is that most of
these governments fail to share sufficient information about the identities of
their nationals with U.S. agencies to, as the proclamation states, “adjudicate an
application” for a visa by their nationals.
This premise is flawed. Under immigration law, the U.S. government doesn’t
need to obtain any information on visa applicants merely to process an
application. That’s because applicants bear the burden of proof in the visa
process. If they cannot prove their identity and eligibility, visa adjudicators can
simply deny them on an individual basis.
This means that the travel ban exists solely to deny visa adjudicators the
opportunity to review each application. The president apparently doesn’t trust
these trained experts to do their jobs. The proclamation provides no reason to
doubt the integrity of consular officials reviewing visa applications, nor does it
provide any evidence that they are failing to review evidence properly.
J.R. 735
JA 862
In fact, consular officials do ramp up visa denials for nationals of countries
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 316 of 344
involved in civil wars. The denial rate for Syrians more than doubled what it
was before war broke out in their country. This increase likely reflects the
inability of applicants to obtain certain documents or to prove they will return
to their home country when the visa expires.
Supporters of the president’s travel ban may ask: If it’s true that these foreign
governments fail to cooperate fully with information-sharing, why not institute
a blanket ban on their nationals and save adjudicators the trouble? The answer
is because many applicants from these countries can still prove their identity
and eligibility. That’s what makes the ban politically necessary, even if it is
legally unnecessary.
Tens of thousands of the nationals of these countries have already traveled back
and forth peacefully to the United States. The U.S. government knows exactly
who they are. Thousands of others have U.S. citizen family sponsors whose
identity can be proven with a DNA match.
But there is a second major failure in Trump’s proclamation: It equates people’s
“nationality” with their “government.” A person can have the nationality of a
country that does not fully cooperate with the United States without ever having
lived under the targeted regime.
Syrians and Iranians, for example, can be born abroad and live their entire lives
outside of those countries and yet maintain Syrian or Iranian nationality. It’s
just incorrect to assume any connection between a government and “its
people.” Most countries in the world lack birthright citizenship, so it’s possible
that Syrian or Iranian nationality could be their only nationality.
Given these facts, the proclamation amounts to a White House override of the
immigration screeners, preventing the entry of nationals of these countries who
meet eligibility to enter. So it’s worth asking: How poorly have immigration
screeners done?
The proclamation presents no evidence that mistakes are at all common for
these eight nationalities or even for any others. In fact, only 34 people have
legally immigrated to the United States since 9/11 and been either convicted of
J.R. 736
JA 863
terrorism offenses or killed during an attempted attack. Of those people, a large
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 317 of 344
share arrived as children; they and others were radicalized long after their
entry. At most, only nine attempted to carry out an attack in the United States
after being radicalized prior to entry. That’s one potential terrorist per 41
million visa approvals or entries without visas since 2001.
There is only one post-9/11 terrorism offender who radicalized prior to entering
the United States and who actually killed people: Tashfeen Malik, the Pakistani
woman who participated in the San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2015. But
Pakistan has never been subject to Trump’s travel ban. And even if it were, one
instance is hardly a trend.
There is simply no evidence that visa adjudicators aren’t doing their jobs. The
president’s most recent proclamation is nothing more than a political document,
not one with any legal or national security basis.
David Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
G R O.O TA C M O R F D E T N I R P
J.R. 737
JA 864
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 318 of 344
Exhibit DD
J.R. 738
JA 865
10/5/2017
Trump’s Latest Travel Order Still Looks A Lot Like A Muslim Ban | FiveThirtyEight
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 319 of 344
SEP. 28, 2017 AT 6:28 PM
Trump’s Latest Travel Order Still Looks A Lot
Like A Muslim Ban
By Kathryn Casteel and Andrea Jones-Rooy
Filed under Travel Ban
Supporters of President Trump’s latest travel restrictions argue that they can no longer
be described as a Muslim ban because North Korea and Venezuela have been added to
the list of targeted countries. Critics, however, say that the impact of the new order will
be essentially unchanged from the effects of the previous two. Our estimates, based on
visas issued for U.S. travel last year, show that majority-Muslim countries would likely
still be the most affected by the new travel rules.
We looked at visas granted last year to see how the new rules would have affected
travelers from the eight countries named in the latest order — Chad, Iran, Libya, North
Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia. We found that if these rules had been in
place in 2016, they would have stopped more than 65,000 visas from being issued in
seven of the eight countries named. About 90 percent of those visas were issued to
visitors from Iran, Syria and Yemen — and that total does not include refugees, as it is
not yet clear whether they will be affected. If the ban had been applied to North Korea
last year, it would have affected just 61 visas.
The eighth country, whose affected visas were not included in our 65,000 total, is
Venezuela. Because the directive leaves some room for interpretation in terms of how it
will be implemented in that country, it is virtually impossible to know how many visas
the Venezuela restrictions would affect. But the way the rules are written suggest that
they will apply to a relatively narrow segment of the Venezuelan population, compared
to the broader restrictions being applied to the other seven countries.1
The newest restrictions, announced by the White House on Sunday, still target mostly
majority-Muslim countries, but they drop Sudan from the list and add Chad, Venezuela
and North Korea. The latest directive also made the restrictions indefinite, rather than
temporary, and distinguished between categories of visa holders in determining who
would be excluded. The administration said in its announcement Sunday night that the
countries included were found to lack adequate processes for ensuring that those
entering the U.S. didn’t pose a security threat. We wanted to understand who would be
J.R. 739
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-latest-travel-order-still-looks-a-lot-like-a-muslim-ban/
JA 866
1/5
10/5/2017
Trump’s Latest Travel Order Still Looks A Lot Like A Muslim Ban | FiveThirtyEight
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 320 of 344
2
affected by this version — though the courts blocked the implementation of many
aspects of his previous orders, and this one could face legal challenges as well.3
We looked at State Department numbers on how many visas were granted during the
2016 fiscal year, before Trump took office and began issuing travel restrictions.4 The
figures used in our analysis count visas, not people, but one person could theoretically be
issued multiple visas in the same fiscal year.
Iran, Syria and Yemen, three majority-Muslim countries that have been targeted in all
versions of Trump’s travel restrictions, would have been hit hardest by the new
restrictions had they been in effect in 2016. Somalia and Libya, also majority-Muslim
countries and the other two nations included in both previous versions of the travel
restrictions, would have had a few thousand visas blocked. Of the three new countries
added to the list in this round, we were only able to confirm that one — Chad, the other
Muslim-majority country — would have had more than a few hundred visas affected.
While the new rules block nearly all visas from North Korea (diplomatic visas are the
exception), the U.S. doesn’t receive many visitors from that country, so only 61 would
actually have been rejected in 2016.
Venezuela, however, is a special case. Our data doesn’t show how many people the
restrictions might have affected last year because the new rules don’t apply just to
certain classes of visas, like they do for other countries, but also to a certain class of
people, in this case officials in a handful of government agencies, plus members of their
immediate families.5 Officials and their family members would only be turned down for
tourist visas, not for a separate class of visa reserved for government agents traveling on
state business. The State Department data breaks down visas issued by type, but it does
not keep statistics on things like how many government officials requested tourist visas.
A spokesperson for the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs said the agency is
unable to predict how many affected people would apply for visas.
Asked to estimate how many Venezuelans might fall into the category of people whose
travel to the U.S. would be restricted, Dany Bahar, a Venezuelan economist with the
Brookings Institution, said, “I haven’t seen such numbers, probably given the ban is
written in such lousy terms. In theory it applies to all government officials and their
family members. It’s not clear if it is only high-ranking officials or every government
employee. If the latter, it could be tens of thousands, if not more.”
In a country of over 31 million residents, even tens of thousands of people is a relatively
narrow slice of the overall population. In all seven other countries named in the latest
J.R. 740
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-latest-travel-order-still-looks-a-lot-like-a-muslim-ban/
JA 867
2/5
10/5/2017
Trump’s Latest Travel Order Still Looks A Lot Like A Muslim Ban | FiveThirtyEight
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 321 of 344
round of travel restrictions, any citizen who applied for certain types of visas would be
rejected.
Number of U.S. visas granted by category in 2016
Red indicates groups facing travel restrictions under the new rules
COUNTRY
TOTAL
AFFECTED IMMIGRANT
TOURIST STUDENT DIPLOMATIC*
OTHER
SHARE OF VISAS
AFFECTED
Iran
32,278
7,727
23,678
4,368
485
873
87%
Yemen
16,931
12,998
3,933
914
222
134
93
Syria
11,584
2,633
7,980
478
145
493
99
Somalia
1,797
1,797
233
66
88
64
80
Libya
1,828
383
1,445
417
320
125
68
Chad
940
40
900
122
323
10
67
North
Korea
61
9
52
0
48
0
56
2,471 145,331**
4,791
563 5,676
—
Venezuela
—
* Diplomatic, NATO, UN, and other government visas are exempted from the nonimmigrant visa restrictions.
** The ban for Venezuela only applies to tourist visas for government officials in certain agencies, plus members of their
immediate families. It’s unclear how many visas were issued to those groups.
SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The restrictions applied to each nation vary by visa type:
How the new travel ban affects each country
Restrictions on types of visas to the U.S.
COUNTRY
IMMIGRANT VISAS
NONIMMIGRANT VISAS*
Somalia
All barred
Not affected
Syria
All barred
All barred
N. Korea
All barred
All barred
Iran
All barred
All barred except student visas
Yemen
All barred
Tourist visas barred
Libya
All barred
Tourist visas barred
Chad
All barred
Tourist visas barred
J.R. 741
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-latest-travel-order-still-looks-a-lot-like-a-muslim-ban/
JA 868
3/5
10/5/2017
Trump’s Latest Travel Order Still Looks A Lot Like A Muslim Ban | FiveThirtyEight
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 322 of 344
COUNTRY
IMMIGRANT VISAS
Venezuela
Not affected
NONIMMIGRANT VISAS*
No tourist visas for officials from at least five
government agencies, plus members of their
immediate families
*Diplomatic visas are exempt from these restrictions.
SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Visas are broadly divided into “immigrant” and “nonimmigrant” categories, depending
on whether a person is planning to move to the U.S. or simply visit. Many immigrant
visas are issued based on the applicant’s family connections in the U.S., while others are
allocated on the basis of employment. Another prominent subclass of immigrant visa is
the diversity visa; those are given out via a lottery system to people from countries with
historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.
Trump’s new rules ban immigrant visas from every targeted country except Venezuela.
For nonimmigrant visas — which are issued to visitors for temporary travel to the U.S.
for tourism, business or study — only North Korea and Syria face a complete ban. In
2016, about 11,500 travel visas from Syria would have been affected, but only 61 from
North Korea would have been.
This new set of rules, like its predecessors, is likely to go through court challenges that
may prevent the enforcement of some or all of its provisions. But until that happens, and
assuming 2016 is a good indicator of travel flow, the ban as it currently stands is likely to
affect lots of people — and most of them will still be from predominantly Muslim
countries.
Footnotes
1. We are looking at the 2016 numbers because that is the last set of data that is unaffected by
any of Trump’s previous sets of travel restrictions. However, the number of visas issued for
each country would likely vary from 2016 to 2017, both for reasons unrelated to the travel
restrictions and because the rules would likely discourage people from applying for visas if
they expected to be rejected.
2. The new order will be issued in two phases. From now until Oct. 18, nationals of four of the
eight affected countries (Iran, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) will be barred from travel to the U.S.
unless they have a relationship with “close family” — including parents, spouses, siblings and
grandparents — or a U.S. entity. For Somalia, only immigrant visas and diversity visas are
subject to the relationship rule; nonimmigrant visas will be not be affected. Starting on Oct.
18, the ban will go into effect for all countries named in the directive, and relationship
exemptions will no longer be available.
J.R. 742
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-latest-travel-order-still-looks-a-lot-like-a-muslim-ban/
JA 869
4/5
10/5/2017
Trump’s Latest Travel Order Still Looks A Lot Like A Muslim Ban | FiveThirtyEight
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 323 of 344
3. The Supreme Court on Monday scrapped a hearing on the old restrictions and asked lawyers
to instead submit arguments on whether the whole issue is moot now that there’s a new policy.
4. The Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs maintains public data on the number
and types of visas issued by the U.S. to citizens of other countries. The 2016 fiscal year runs
from Oct. 1, 2015, through Sept. 30, 2016.
5. According to the proclamation, the ban applies to “officials of government agencies of
Venezuela involved in screening and vetting procedures — including the Ministry of the
Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace; the Administrative Service of Identification,
Migration and Immigration; the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigation Service Corps;
the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service; and the Ministry of the Popular Power for
Foreign Relations — and their immediate family members.”
J.R. 743
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-latest-travel-order-still-looks-a-lot-like-a-muslim-ban/
JA 870
5/5
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 324 of 344
Exhibit EE
J.R. 744
JA 871
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 325 of 344
the WHITE HOUSE
From the Press O ice
Speeches & Remarks
Press Briefings
Statements & Releases
Nominations & Appointments
Presidential Actions
Legislation
Disclosures
The White House
O ice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 24, 2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on
Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and
Processes for Detecting Attempted
Entry Into the United States by
Terrorists or Other Public-Safety
Threats
Background
Every year, the United States grants lawful permanent resident status to approximately
1.1 million individuals from all across the world.
J.R. 745
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 872
1/10
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 326 of 344
In FY 2016, the United States issued approximately 10.4 million nonimmigrant visas to
individuals from all across the world.
In FY 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection o icers processed more than 390 million
travelers at air, land, and sea ports of entry, including more than 119 million travelers at
airports of entry.
Over the last five years, international travel has grown 15 percent overall and 26 percent
at airports. International travel at U.S. airports of entry increased 6 percent from FY2015.
Over the next five years, international travel is projected to increase at an annual rate of 4
percent.
National Security Baseline
The Administration’s top priority is ensuring the safety and security of the American people.
The Administration remains focused on raising the baseline for national security standards.
Section 2 of Executive Order 13780 requires the Administration to determine what minimum
information is needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application by a national of
that country for an immigration benefit and determine that the individual is not a security or
public safety threat.
The previous screening/vetting status quo for border and immigration security must be
improved for individuals from certain countries, if the United States is to adequately counter
terrorism and transnational crime threats against its people.
The new requirements reflect best practices derived from proven and effective security
partnerships, such as the Visa Waiver Program, and from internationally-recognized law
enforcement and national security initiatives, such as the adoption of ePassports to prevent
fraud and counterfeiting.
These include electronic passports, the sharing of criminal data, reporting lost/stolen
passports, and providing data on known and suspected terrorists.
Sharing of this information is particularly critical for those areas of the world where risk is
higher, such as those countries with significant terrorist populations that may seek to conduct
attacks in the U.S. and who repeatedly fail to take back their nationals subject to a final order
of removal thereby taxing our immigration system.
Robust Review and Engagement Process
Section 2 of Executive Order 13780 consisted of multiple steps:
o We conducted a worldwide review of information-sharing practices.
J.R. 746
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 873
2/10
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 327 of 344
o We analyzed the information collected in that review to establish a new informationsharing standard that protects U.S. national security.
o We communicated the new standard globally. Where practicable, we worked with
those countries we determined were not meeting it to enhance their information-sharing
or formulate a plan to do so.
o Following that robust engagement period, we made recommendations based on the
results of that engagement to further national security.
First, Section 2(b) of Executive Order 13780 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, 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 (adjudication) in order to determine that the
individual is not a security or public-safety threat.”
After analyzing the information collected in that review, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence,
submitted a report that established baseline requirements for 1) information sharing about
identity management; 2) information sharing about national security and public safety; and
3) national security and public-safety risk factors. The information sharing requirements
reflect a combination of long-standing U.S. government goals and standards established by
international bodies, such as the United Nations (UN), the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and INTERPOL.
As directed under Section 2(d), the Secretary of State then requested that all foreign
governments initially assessed as not supplying adequate information to begin to do so, or
provide an adequate plan to do so, within 50 days of notification.
After the 50-day period, Section 2(e) of the Executive Order instructed the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to
submit to the President a list of countries that have not provided the information requested,
have not provided an adequate plan to do so, and do not adequately share through other
means. Following an assessment of those countries, and in consultation with interagency
stakeholders, the DHS Secretary made her final recommendation to the President on foreign
nationals who should be subject to travel restrictions or other lawful actions, due to
deficiencies in identity management or information sharing, and/or other risk factors in place
in those countries.
The Department of State engaged with foreign governments in order to meet these new
standards for information sharing. We have been working, where necessary, with willing
foreign governments to design a plan to provide the information requested.
J.R. 747
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 874
3/10
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 328 of 344
The Administration will keep the public informed, if and when there is information to share,
about changes affecting travelers to the United States who may be affected by these changes.
Country-Specific Travel Restrictions:
The United States maintained, modified, or eased restriction on 5 of 6 countries currently
designated by Executive Order 13780. Those countries are Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and
Somalia.
The United States lifted restrictions on 1 of 6 countries currently designated by Executive
Order 13780: Sudan.
The United States added restrictions and/or additional vetting on 3 additional countries
found to not meet baseline requirements, but that were not included in Executive Order
13780. These countries are: Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela.
The country specific restrictions are as follows:
o Chad – Although it is an important partner, especially in the fight against terrorists,
the government in Chad does not adequately share public-safety and terrorism-related
information, and several terrorist groups are active within Chad or in the surrounding
region, including elements of Boko Haram, ISIS-West Africa, and al-Qa'ida in the
Islamic Maghreb. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Chad, as
immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist
(B-1/B-2) visas, is suspended.
o Iran – The government in Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States
Government in identifying security risks; is the source of significant terrorist threats; is
state sponsor of terrorism; and fails to receive its nationals subject to final orders of
removal from the United States. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals
of Iran as immigrants and as nonimmigrants is suspended, except that entry by nationals
of Iran under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas is not suspended,
although such individuals will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting
requirements.
o Libya – Although it is an important partner, especially in the area of counterterrorism,
the government in Libya faces significant challenges in sharing several types of
information, including public-safety and terrorism-related information; has significant
inadequacies in its identity-management protocols; has been assessed to be not fully
cooperative with respect to receiving its nationals subject to final orders of removal from
the United States; and has a substantial terrorist presence within its territory.
Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Libya, as immigrants, and as
J.R. 748
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 875
4/10
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 329 of 344
nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is
suspended.
o North Korea – The government in North Korea does not cooperate with the United
States Government in any respect and fails to satisfy all information-sharing
requirements. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of North Korea
as immigrants and nonimmigrants is suspended.
o Somalia – Although it satisfies minimum U.S. information-sharing requirements, the
government in Somalia still has significant identity-management deficiencies; is
recognized as a terrorist safe haven; remains a destination for individuals attempting to
join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States; and struggles
to govern its territory and to limit terrorists’ freedom of movement, access to resources,
and capacity to operate. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of
Somalia as immigrants is suspended, and nonimmigrants traveling to the United States
will be subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements.
o Syria – The government in Syria regularly fails to cooperate with the U.S.
Government in identifying security risks; is the source of significant terrorist threats; has
been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism; has significant inadequacies in identitymanagement protocols; and fails to share public-safety and terrorism information.
Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals of Syria as immigrants and
nonimmigrants is suspended.
o Venezuela – The government in Venezuela is uncooperative in verifying whether its
citizens pose national security or public-safety threats; fails to share public-safety and
terrorism-related information adequately; and has been assessed to be not fully
cooperative with respect to receiving its nationals subject to final orders of removal from
the United States. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of certain Venezuelan
government officials and their immediate family members as nonimmigrants on business
(B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas is suspended.
o Yemen – Although it is an important partner, especially in the fight against terrorism,
the government in Yemen faces significant identity-management challenges, which are
amplified by the notable terrorist presence within its territory; fails to satisfy critical
identity-management requirements; and does not share public-safety and terrorismrelated information adequately. Accordingly, the entry into the United States of nationals
of Yemen as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and
business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is suspended.
J.R. 749
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 876
5/10
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 330 of 344
The Secretary of Homeland Security also assesses Iraq as inadequate according to the
baseline criteria, but has determined that entry restrictions and limitations under a
Presidential proclamation are not warranted because of the close cooperative relationship
between the United States and the democratically elected government of Iraq, the strong
United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in
Iraq, and Iraq’s commitment to combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
o The Secretary recommends, however, that nationals of Iraq who seek to enter the
United States be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks to the
national security or public safety of the United States.
New Baseline for Information Sharing to Support Visa and Immigration Vetting
Determinations:
I. Identity Management: Establishing identity is a critical factor in e ective immigration
vetting. Under this standard, countries must improve passport integrity by:
1. Issuing secure passports: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)-compliant
biometric passports (known as ePassports).
2. Reporting lost and stolen passport information to Interpol in a timely, routine, and
consistent basis.
3. Sharing additional information upon request by the U.S. Government to validate an
applicant’s identity.
II. National Security and Public Safety Information: E ective admissibility decisions cannot
be made without knowledge of a traveler’s potential criminal or terrorist history. Countries
must:
1. Identify serious criminals: Provide data regarding whether nationals applying for a U.S.
visa, admissions, or immigration benefit are serious criminals.
2. Provide data on known or suspected terrorists: Proactively share biographic and
biometric information about known and suspected terrorists (KST), including foreign
fighters.
3. Provide national identity documentation: Share exemplars of their passports and identity
cards.
4. Partnership with travel industry: Ensure that the airlines and vessel operators are not
impeded from providing the USG with information about people traveling to the United
J.R. 750
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 877
6/10
10/6/2017
Fact Sheet: Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or…
States
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 331 of 344
III. National Security and Public-Safety Risk Assessment: The criteria assessed in this
category include:
1. Whether the country is a known or potential terrorist safe haven.
2. Whether the country is a participant in the Visa Waiver Program and whether it meets all
of its requirements.
3. Whether the country regularly fails to receive its nationals subject to final orders of
removal from the United States.
HOME
BRIEFING ROOM
ISSUES
THE ADMINISTRATION
USA.gov
Privacy Policy
J.R. 751
PARTICIPATE
1600 PENN
Copyright Policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/fact-sheet-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes
JA 878
7/10
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 332 of 344
J.R. 752
JA 879
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 333 of 344
J.R. 753
JA 880
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 334 of 344
J.R. 754
JA 881
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 335 of 344
J.R. 755
JA 882
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 336 of 344
J.R. 756
JA 883
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 337 of 344
J.R. 757
JA 884
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 338 of 344
J.R. 758
JA 885
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 339 of 344
J.R. 759
JA 886
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 340 of 344
J.R. 760
JA 887
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 341 of 344
J.R. 761
JA 888
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 342 of 344
J.R. 762
JA 889
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 343 of 344
J.R. 763
JA 890
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 205-1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 344 of 344
J.R. 764
JA 891
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________________________
|
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
|
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
|
|
|
Plaintiffs,
|
|
v.
|
|
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the
|
United States, et al.,
|
|
Defendants
|
|
|
Civil Action No.:
8:17-CV-00361-TDC
Date: October 11, 2017
JOINT DECLARATION OF
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS
We, the below named individuals, 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. 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.
b.
Rand Beers served as Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to the President of
the United States from 2014 to 2015.
c.
John B. Bellinger III served as the Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of
State from 2005 to 2009. He previously served as Senior Associate Counsel to
the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council from 2001 to
2005.
d.
Daniel Benjamin served as Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism at the
U.S. Department of State from 2009 to 2012.
J.R. 765
JA 892
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 12
e.
Antony Blinken served as Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to January 20,
2017. He previously served as Deputy National Security Advisor to the
President of the United States from 2013 to 2015.
f.
John O. Brennan served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from
2013 to 2017. He previously served as Deputy National Security Advisor for
Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Assistant to the President from
2009 to 2013.
g.
R. Nicholas Burns 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.
h.
William J. Burns 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.
i.
James Clapper served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence from 2010 to
January 20, 2017.
j.
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.
k.
Eliot A. Cohen served as Counselor of the U.S. Department of State from 2007
to 2009.
l.
Bathsheba N. Crocker served as Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs from 2014 to 2017.
m.
Ryan Crocker served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012, as
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan
from 2004 to 2007, as U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 1998 to 2001, as U.S.
Ambassador to Kuwait from 1994 to 1997, and U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon
from 1990 to 1993.
n.
Thomas Donilon served as U.S. National Security Advisor from 2010 to 2013.
o.
Jen Easterly served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for
Counterterrorism from October 2013 to December 2016.
p.
Daniel Feldman served as U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and
Pakistan from 2014 to 2015, Deputy U.S. Special Representative for
2
J.R. 766
JA 893
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 12
Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2009 to 2014, and previously Director for
Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs at the National Security Council.
q.
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.
Department of State from 2016 to January 20, 2017.
r.
Michèle Flournoy served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to
2013.
s.
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.
t.
Josh Geltzer served as Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National
Security Council from 2015 to 2017. Previously, he served as Deputy Legal
Advisor to the National Security Council and as Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice.
u.
Suzy George served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff and
Executive Secretary to the National Security Council from 2014 to 2017.
v.
Phil Gordon served as Special Assistant to the President and White House
Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf from 2013 to 2015,
and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs from 2009 to
2013.
w.
Chuck Hagel served as Secretary of Defense from 2013 to 2015, and previously
served as Co-Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. From 1997
to 2009, he served as U.S. Senator for Nebraska, and as a senior member of the
Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.
x.
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.
y.
Luke Hartig served as Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the
National Security Council from 2014 to 2016.
z.
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.
aa.
Heather A. Higginbottom served as Deputy Secretary of State for Management
and Resources from 2013 to 2017.
3
J.R. 767
JA 894
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 12
bb.
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.
cc.
John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017.
dd.
Prem Kumar served as Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa on
the National Security Council staff of the White House from 2013 to 2015.
ee.
Richard Lugar served as U.S. Senator for Indiana from 1977 to 2013, and as
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1985 to 1987 and
2003 to 2007, and as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations from 2007 to 2013.
ff.
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.
gg.
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.
hh.
Cameron P. Munter served as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan from 2009 to 2012
and to Serbia from 2007 to 2009.
ii.
James C. O’Brien served as Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs
from 2015 to January 20, 2017. He served in the U.S. Department of State from
1989 to 2001, including as Principal Deputy Director of Policy Planning and as
Special Presidential Envoy for the Balkans.
jj.
Matthew G. Olsen served as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center
from 2011 to 2014.
kk.
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.
ll.
Jeffrey Prescott served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director
for Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Gulf States from 2015 to 2017.
mm.
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.
4
J.R. 768
JA 895
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 12
nn.
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.
oo.
Anne C. Richard served as Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees
and Migration from 2012 to January 20, 2017.
pp.
Kori Schake served as the Deputy Director for Policy Planning at the U.S.
Department of State from December 2007 to May 2008. Previously, she was
the director for Defense Strategy and Requirements on the National Security
Council in President George W. Bush’s first term.
qq.
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.
rr.
Wendy R. Sherman served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from
2011 to 2015.
ss.
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.
tt.
Jeffrey H. Smith served as General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency
from 1995 to 1996. Previously, he served as General Counsel of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
uu.
James B. Steinberg served as Deputy National Security Adviser from 1996 to
2000 and as Deputy Secretary of State from 2009 to 2011.
vv.
William Wechsler served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Operations
and Combating Terrorism at the U.S. Department of Defense from 2012 to
2015.
ww.
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.
We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats that the
United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have held the highest security
clearances, and many of us were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist
threat streams directed against the United States 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” (“Travel Ban 1.0”). A number of us joined an amicus brief that was filed in
5
J.R. 769
JA 896
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 6 of 12
this court in support of plaintiffs’ challenge to to the March 6, 2017 Executive Order, which this
court enjoined (“Travel Ban 2.0”). Each of us also joined an amicus brief that was filed in the
Supreme Court in support of plaintiffs’ challenge to the subsequent March 6, 2017 Executive
Order (“Travel Ban 2.0”).
2.
The Administration has now replaced the Travel Ban 2.0 with a new
Proclamation titled “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for
Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.”
The Proclamation is dated September 24, 2017, and is scheduled to take effect fully on October
18, 2017 (“Travel Ban 3.0” or “Ban”).
3.
The Ban preserves the basic approach of the original two Orders, without
providing any persuasive evidence that these measures are necessary to enhance our national
security or foreign policy interests. The Ban includes a few new exceptions to the prior Order,
adds a couple of countries to the list (Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela) and removes a
country (Sudan). But it still relies on unprecedented and sweeping nationality-based bans,
directed at a list of almost exclusively Muslim-majority countries that is substantially similar
to the prior lists. (The North Korea and Venezuela additions will affect exceedingly few
people, and Chad is a majority-Muslim country.) The Ban blocks well over 150 million people
from entering the United States.1
4.
We 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. Yet, we are unaware of any national security threat that would
justify Travel Ban 3.0. To the contrary, its enforcement would cause serious harm to the national
security and foreign policy of the United States.
I.
Travel Ban 3.0 Serves No Genuine National Security Purpose
5.
As a national security measure, this Ban 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. Travel Ban 3.0 rests not on such tailored grounds, but
rather, on (1) general bans (2) that are not responsive to an actual national security threat
informed by intelligence, and (3) that emerged from a January Order that was not vetted through
the kind of careful interagency legal and policy review that we would expect from a serious
national security process.
6.
The Ban is of unprecedented scope. Apart from Travel Bans 1.0 and 2.0, 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 the 9/11 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. Suspensions were limited to particular individuals or
subclasses of nationals who posed a specific, articulable threat based on their known actions and
1
This figure reflects the population of the listed countries in the Proclamation, excluding North Korea and
Venezuela.
6
J.R. 770
JA 897
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 7 of 12
affiliations. In adopting Travel Ban 3.0, the Administration alleges no derogatory factual
information about any particular recipient of a visa or green card or any credible threat from
nationals of the countries banned.
7.
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. 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. Indeed, successive administrations have
continually worked to improve this vetting through robust information-sharing and data
integration, without resorting to multiple, sweeping bans on travel. We have seen no evidence
from the Government for why the country suddenly needs to shift from this tested system of
individualized vetting, developed and implemented by national security professionals across the
government, to a national origin-based ban.
8.
The current individualized vetting system places the burden of proof on the
traveler to prove her identity and eligibility for travel. If the traveler is unable to make this
showing, the U.S. Government can deny her a visa based on an individualized review. This has
been the policy of the U.S. Government across multiple administrations.
9.
Travel Ban 3.0’s generalized, country-based approach is substantially the same as
its predecessors, although its bans on travel are now indefinite rather than temporary, and the
stated rationale has shifted. Removing most of the emphasis on terrorism, the new Ban is
purportedly necessary “to elicit improved identity-management and information-sharing
protocols and practices from foreign governments.” We have seen no evidence, however, that
such a sweeping, country-based ban on travel is necessary for this objective.
10.
In fact, the only concrete evidence to emerge from this administration on this
point to date has shown just the opposite, that country-based bans are ineffective. A leaked DHS
Office of Intelligence and Analysis memorandum analyzing the ban in the January Order found
that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”
The memorandum went on to note that a majority of the U.S.-based individuals who were
inspired by a foreign terrorist organization to participate in terrorism-related activity were
citizens of the United States; the minority of foreign-born individuals were scattered from among
twenty-six different countries; and most of the top origin countries of those individuals are not
the countries listed in the Order.2
11.
Imposing a ban on all or most of the travelers for a series of countries due to the
information sharing practices of their government is a massively overbroad and imprecise
response, especially when the data does not show any particularized threat from those
countries. Defendants have provided no evidence or specific information that nationals of the
banned countries pose a credible threat to the safety of Americans if they are allowed to enter the
United States after individualized screenings, or of the alleged harm that would occur in the
2
Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States,
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730/DHS-intelligence-document-on-President-Donald.pdf.
7
J.R. 771
JA 898
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 8 of 12
absence of the ban. The Ban targets a list of countries whose nationals have committed no
deadly terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the last forty years.3 In fact, a recent analysis by the Cato
Institute shows that each new version of the travel ban is “even further divorced from threats of
terrorism to the United States than the prior order.”4
In particular:
a.
The Ban newly adds Chad to the list of countries subject to a ban. No citizen of
Chad has carried out a terrorist attack or been convicted of planning an attack on
U.S. soil in the last forty years. Chad, a Muslim-majority country, has long been
one of the United States’ most effective counterterrorism partners in the region.
Chad has been used as a staging ground by the U.S. Air Force in its surveillance
of Boko Haram, hosted about 2,000 U.S. troops for an annual military exercise in
March 2017, and is the base of the Multinational Joint Task Force, the
coordinated effort to fight Boko Haram in the region. The presence of Boko
Haram in Chad is dwarfed by their activity in other countries in the region that
were not included in the ban. Chad’s inclusion on the Travel Ban 3.0 list
reportedly occurred over objections by officials in the State Department, the
Pentagon, the U.S. Embassy in Chad, and U.S. Africa Command, a decision that
left administration officials “befuddled and frustrated.”5
b.
The Ban newly adds North Korea (DPRK) to the list of countries subject to a ban.
No citizen of North Korea has carried out a terrorist attack or been convicted of
planning an attack on U.S. soil in the last forty years. Because of severe exit
restrictions imposed by the North Korean government, very few North Koreans
actually travel to the United States at all. North Korean defectors typically first
receive South Korean passports in any event.6 In addition, such defectors would
likely have a well-founded fear of political persecution if returned to North Korea,
and thus deserve careful consideration for refugee status.
c.
The Ban newly adds Venezuela to the list of countries subject to a ban. No citizen
of Venezuela has carried out a terrorist attack or been convicted of planning an
attack on U.S. soil in the last forty years. The Ban only applies to officials from
government agencies involved in screening and vetting procedures. Such targeted
sanctions are more appropriately done by the Treasury Department under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other legal authorities rather
than through overbroad country bans.
3
Alex Nowrasteh, President Trump’s New Travel Executive Order Has Little National Security Justification, Cato
Institute: Cato at Liberty, September 25, 2017.
4
David Bier, New Travel Ban Would Not Have Prevented the Entry of Any Terrorists Since 9/11, Cato Institute:
Cato at Liberty, September 25, 2017.
5
Helene Cooper et al., Chad’s Inclusion in Travel Ban Could Jeopardize American Interests, Officials Say, N.Y.
Times, Sept. 26, 2017.
6
Darla Cameron, Why Trump’s Latest Travel Ban Included These Eight Countries, Wash. Post (Sept. 26, 2017);
Emily Rauhala, Almost No North Koreans Travel to the U.S., So Why Ban Them?, Wash. Post (Sept. 25, 2017).
8
J.R. 772
JA 899
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 9 of 12
12.
Notably, the Ban does not include non-Muslim majority countries such as
Belgium where there have been widely-documented problems with information sharing, and
whose nationals have carried out terrorist attacks on Europe. And although for some of the
countries, the Ban applies only to certain non-immigrant visas, together those visas are far and
away the most frequently used non-immigrant visas from these nations.
II.
Travel Ban 3.0 Will Harm the National Security and Foreign Policy Interests of the
United States
13.
In our professional judgment, Travel Ban 3.0 would undermine the national
security of the United States, rather than making us safer. If given effect, Travel Ban 3.0 would
do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, and disrupt
counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It would aid the propaganda effort of the
Islamic State (“IS”) and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the
United States is at war with Islam. It would hinder relationships with the very communities law
enforcement professionals need to engage to address the threat. And apart from all of these
concerns, the Ban offends our nation’s laws and values.
In particular:
a.
The Ban would disrupt critical 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 IS.
The Ban would further 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
would frustrate 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.
b.
The Ban would endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current
information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of the
countries listed. The Ban 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.
c.
The Ban would feed the recruitment narrative of IS 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 Ban’s disparate
impact on Muslim travelers and immigrants, it would fuel IS’s narrative and
sends the wrong message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the
world: that the U.S. Government is hostile to them and their religion. The
Ban also might endanger Christian communities, by handing IS a recruiting tool
and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is
engaged in a religious war.
9
J.R. 773
JA 900
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 10 of 12
d.
The Ban would disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating MuslimAmerican communities in the United States, it would harm our efforts to enlist
their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch attacks of the
kind recently seen in San Bernadino and Orlando.
e.
The Ban would have a devastating humanitarian impact. The current bans have
already disrupted the movement of countless people, including women and
children, who are fleeing danger and have been victimized by actual terrorists.
Travelers face deep uncertainty about whether they may travel to or from the
United States: for medical treatment, funerals or other pressing family reasons.
f.
The Ban would cause serious economic damage to American citizens and
residents. The Ban would affect many foreign travelers who annually inject
hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well over a million U.S.
jobs. Affected companies have noted the adverse impact of the bans to date on
many strategic economic sectors, including defense, technology, medicine, culture
and others.
14.
For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional opinion, Travel Ban 3.0
does not further—but instead harms—sound U.S. national security and foreign policy. Issuing
a new preliminary injunction against Travel Ban 3.0 would not jeopardize national security. It
would simply preserve the status quo ante, still requiring individuals to be subjected to all the
rigorous legal vetting processes that are currently in place. Allowing the Ban to take effect
would wreak havoc on innocent lives and deeply held American values.
15.
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 as free as possible from 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” or “Enhancing Vetting
Capabilities and Processes” does not disguise the Ban’s discriminatory intent, or make it
necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.
Respectfully submitted,
s/MADELINE K. ALBRIGHT
s/RAND BEERS
s/JOHN D. BELLINGER III
s/DANIEL BENJAMIN
s/ANTONY BLINKEN
s/JOHN O. BRENNAN
s/R. NICHOLAS BURNS
s/WILLIAM J. BURNS
10
J.R. 774
JA 901
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 11 of 12
s/JAMES CLAPPER
s/DAVID S. COHEN
s/ELIOT A. COHEN
s/BATHSHEBA N. CROCKER
s/RYAN CROCKER
s/THOMAS DONILON
s/JEN EASTERLY
s/DANIEL FELDMAN
s/JONATHAN FINER
s/MICHÈLE FLOURNOY
s/ROBERT S. FORD
s/JOSH GELTZER
s/SUZY GEORGE
s/PHIL GORDON
s/CHUCK HAGEL
s/AVRIL D. HAINES
s/LUKE HARTIG
s/MICHAEL V. HAYDEN
s/HEATHER A. HIGGINBOTTOM
s/CHRISTOPHER R. HILL
s/JOHN F. KERRY
s/PREM KUMAR
s/RICHARD LUGAR
s/JOHN E. MCLAUGHLIN
s/LISA O. MONACO
s/CAMERON P. MUNTER
s/JAMES C. O’BRIEN
s/MATTHEW G. OLSEN
s/LEON E. PANETTA
s/JEFFREY PRESCOTT
s/SAMANTHA J. POWER
s/SUSAN E. RICE
s/ANNE C. RICHARD
s/KORI SCHAKE
s/ERIC P. SCHWARTZ
s/WENDY R. SHERMAN
s/VIKRAM SINGH
s/JEFFREY H. SMITH
s/JAMES B. STEINBERG
s/WILLIAM WECHSLER
s/SAMUEL M. WITTEN
Executed this 11th day of October, 2017
*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
11
J.R. 775
JA 902
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 211-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 12 of 12
We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
12
J.R. 776
JA 903
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
2
3
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
Civil No.
PROJECT, et al.,
TDC-17-00361
TDC-17-2921
TDC-17-2969
4
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
Greenbelt, Maryland
6
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
October 16, 2017
Defendants.
--------------------------/
2:00 p.m.
7
8
9
IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS BORDERS,
et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
12
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
--------------------------/
15
EBLAL ZAKZOK, et al.,
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------/
21
22
23
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE THEODORE D. CHUANG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
JA 904
1
1
2
APPEARANCES:
3
For the PlaintiffS:
4
American Civil Liberties Union
By: OMAR C. JADWAT, ESQUIRE
125 Broad Street
5
New York, New York 10004
6
National Immigration Law Center
By: JUSTIN B. COX, ESQUIRE
P.O. Box 170208
Atlanta, Georgia 30317
18th Floor
7
8
9
10
Covington and Burling LLP
By: MARK W. MOSIER, ESQUIRE
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
11
12
13
CAIR
By: GADEIR I. ABBAS, ESQUIRE
453 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
14
15
16
Muslim Advocates
By: SIRINE SHEBAYA, ESQUIRE
P.O. Box 71080
Oakland, California 94612
17
18
19
20
Americans United for Separation of
Church and State
By: ERIC ROTHSCHILD, ESQUIRE
1310 L Street, NW
Suite 210
Washington, D.C. 20005
21
22
23
24
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law
MICHAEL W. PRICE, ESQUIRE
120 Broadway
Suite 1750
New York, New York 10271
25
JA 905
2
1
2
4
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and
Garrison, LLP
By: ROBERT A. ATKINS, ESQUIRE
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York, 10011
5
MARIKO HIROSE, ESQUIRE
3
6
7
For the Defendants:
8
US Department of Justice
By: HASHIM MOOPAN, ESQUIRE
DANIEL S. SCHWEI, ESQUIRE
MICHELLE BENNETT, ESQUIRE
ARJUN GARG, ESQUIRE
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
9
10
11
12
13
Court Reporter
Lisa K. Bankins RMR FCRR
United States District Court
6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
14
15
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
transcript produced by notereading.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JA 906
3
P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
THE CLERK:
The matter now pending before this
3
Court is Civil Number TDC-17-0361, International Refugee
4
Assistance Project, et al. versus Trump, et al, Civil
5
Number TDC-17-2921, Iranian Alliances Across Borders, et
6
al. versus Trump, et al. and Civil Number TDC-17-2969,
7
Zakzok, et al. versus Trump, et al.
8
purpose of a preliminary injunction hearing.
9
please identify yourself for the record.
10
11
12
13
14
MR. JADWAT:
We're here for the
Counsel,
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Omar
Jadwat for the plaintiffs, for the IRAP plaintiffs.
MR. COX:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Justin
Cox also for the IRAP plaintiffs.
MR. MOSIER:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Mark
15
Mosier on behalf of the plaintiffs and Iranian Alliances
16
Across Borders.
17
18
19
20
MR. ABBAS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Gadeir
Abbas appearing for the Zakzok plaintiffs.
MS. SHEBAYA:
Good afternoon.
Sirine Shebaya
for the IAAB plaintiffs.
21
MR. ROTHSCHILD:
22
Rothschild for the IAAB plaintiffs.
23
MR. PRICE:
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Eric
Michael Price from
24
the Brennan Center for Justice on behalf of the Zakzok
25
plaintiffs.
JA 907
4
1
MS. HIROSE:
2
behalf of the IRAP plaintiffs.
3
MR. ATKINS:
4
Good afternoon.
Robert Atkins on behalf of the
Zakzok plaintiffs.
5
THE COURT:
6
MR. MOOPAN:
7
Daniel Schwei on behalf of the
defendants.
MS. BENNETT:
Michelle Bennett on behalf of the
defendants.
MR. GARG:
12
13
Hashim Moopan on behalf of the
MR. SCHWEI:
10
11
Good afternoon.
federal defendants.
8
9
Mariko Hirose on
Arjun Garg on behalf of the
defendant.
THE COURT:
14
Good afternoon, everyone.
So we're
15
here for a hearing on the three motions for a preliminary
16
injunction filed by the various plaintiffs.
17
had already announced in advance or at least informally
18
told the parties we'd try to frame this as 30 minutes for
19
each side.
20
who would like to argue.
21
among yourselves.
22
arguments, I feel the need to go beyond that 30 minutes,
23
the government will get equal time on the other side of
24
that.
25
for rebuttal, I think we can -- is that something you all
I think we
I know the plaintiffs had different counsel
So I'd ask you to divide that up
If in the course of the plaintiffs'
And I mean if the plaintiffs want to save some time
JA 908
5
1
would like to do?
MR. COX:
2
Yes, Your Honor.
The IRAP plaintiffs
3
would like to reserve four minutes of our time in
4
rebuttal.
THE COURT:
5
Okay.
So it's somewhat informal.
6
We don't have a formal clock, but I think the clerk will
7
try to alert you if there's -- as we get closer towards
8
the end of that time and again depending on the questions
9
I have, we may go a little beyond that.
10
So why don't we first hear from the plaintiffs?
11
Is it Mr. Cox who will go first or Mr. Jadwat who will go
12
first?
13
MR. COX:
I'll go first, Your Honor.
14
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Thank you.
And if I'm correct,
15
you're addressing some judiciability issues and the
16
statutory claims.
17
MR. COX:
Correct?
Yes, Your Honor.
I'll be addressing
18
the judiciability and merits of the statutory claims
19
including any relevant standing.
20
addressing the judiciability of the constitutional claims
21
and the merits of the establishment clause claim.
22
Mr. Mosier for the IAAB plaintiffs will be addressing the
23
merits of equal protection claim and the standing and
24
harms of his clients and Mr. Abbas will be addressing the
25
standing and harms of the Zakzok plaintiffs.
Mr. Jadwat will be
JA 909
6
1
THE COURT:
2
MR. COX:
3
4
Okay.
Well, go ahead then.
Thank you, Your Honor.
May it please
the Court.
In yet again attempting to ban millions of
5
Muslims from this country, the President has claimed for
6
himself the authority to rewrite the Immigration and
7
Nationality Act and has used that power to override a
8
litany of congressional judgments including the standards
9
for visa issuance under which individuals have the burden
10
of proving visa eligibility and negating grounds in
11
admissibility and under which consular officials already
12
deny visas to individuals about whom they have
13
insufficient information to ascertain whether they pose a
14
risk to the United States.
15
He has overridden Congress' chosen approach to
16
the information sharing deficiencies upon which this
17
latest proclamation is allegedly based and the
18
proclamation violates Congress' mandate that individuals
19
should not be discriminated against on the basis of their
20
nationality in visa issuance.
21
moreover that his exercise of this authority is completely
22
immune from judicial review and that the only limit to it
23
is that he merely recite ten words, "would be detrimental
24
to the interest of the United States."
25
The President claims
The President's proclamation does even greater
JA 910
7
1
violence to the INA and the constitutional separation of
2
powers to say nothing of the constitutional guarantees of
3
religious neutrality and equal protection.
4
President's proclamation does even more violence to the
5
INA and the constitutional separation of powers than did
6
the first two.
7
preliminary injunction of the proclamation in its
8
entirety.
So we are here today asking for a
THE COURT:
9
The
So let me ask you.
On the issue of
10
1152, the nationality discrimination claim, what is your
11
response to the argument that if we accept your
12
interpretation that the president would not have the power
13
to bar entry from a certain nation during wartime or
14
immediately before the onset of hostilities or something
15
very serious like that?
16
addressed -- how does your argument address that concern?
MR. COX:
17
How does that concern get
Yes, Your Honor.
First as the Lavas
18
case out of the DC Circuit recognized, discrimination is a
19
legal term of art that has a particular meaning and it
20
doesn't -- it is not an absolute prohibition.
21
requires some heightened showing of need and some degree
22
of narrow tailoring.
It rather
23
Now that said, of course -- so there would be
24
no -- there is no absolute prohibition on a nationality
25
ban.
That said, it is, of course, instructive that no
JA 911
8
1
president before has ever thought it necessary to impose a
2
nationality ban like this much less multiple.
3
amendments to the INA were meant to reflect, nationality,
4
this sort of broad strokes categorization of people based
5
on where they were born is typically not indicative of
6
anything that the law should be concerned with.
7
and again, the DHS report that's in the record indicated
8
that nationality is not a particularly good marker.
THE COURT:
9
And as 1965
And so
Well, when you say there could be a
10
compelling state interest or some test that would be
11
applied, I mean that doesn't come from -- I mean that
12
comes from a constitutional standard.
13
that would be imported into analyzing this statute?
MR. COX:
14
You are saying that
I'm not sure exactly what the standard
15
would be.
16
appears in a variety of statutory schemes and it's never,
17
you know, in Title VII, it's never considered to be an
18
absolute prohibition.
19
particular characteristic is not particularly probative in
20
the ordinary course and therefore, in order to use it, the
21
actor has to have a -- some sort of heightened need and
22
has to take care so as to not use this generality too
23
broadly.
24
25
The word "discrimination" of course also
THE COURT:
It's rather an indication that this
Well, under that theory then, we
need to get into that kind of analysis here, right, which
JA 912
9
1
I don't think the parties really briefed.
2
there is a nationality discrimination bar and so we win on
3
that point, but I mean they at least made an argument that
4
there is some heightened risk.
MR. COX:
5
You just said
Well, Your Honor, I think that, of
6
course, the burden would be on the government to
7
demonstrate that they need to discriminate on the basis of
8
nationality.
9
discrimination work.
It's typically how these prohibitions on
And the only thing that the
10
government has put forward thus far is that they --
11
individuals from this country that they lack sufficient
12
information to assess whether they pose a risk to the
13
United States.
14
consular officials the authority to deny a visa to anyone
15
who cannot convince them of their admissibility to this
16
country.
17
But, of course, 8 USC 1361 already gives
And so the proclamation in the government's
18
briefs for that matter never grapple with the fact that
19
there is already a statutory provision addressing the very
20
same issue that they claim this proclamation is intended
21
to address.
22
THE COURT:
So what about your argument that
23
this goes beyond the scope of 1182 generally?
For
24
example, you say that the waiver criterior basically
25
rewrite the INA.
What would prevent the government then
JA 913
10
1
from just dispensing with the waiver criterior and just
2
saying we're just going to say you're barred period and
3
avoid this alleged intrusion into the INA?
4
you win, that might be the next step they would take.
5
MR. COX:
It seems as if
Well, to be clear, Your Honor, either
6
way, the President lacks the authority to rewrite the INA
7
in this manner.
8
9
10
THE COURT:
Other than the waiver criterior,
what is it that is rewriting the INA?
MR. COX:
Well, Congress has said that
11
individuals that meet certain criterior has set out the
12
criterior for getting a visa.
13
criterior are actually under regulations promulgated by
14
the Department of State entitled to a visa.
15
regulations state that the visa shall be issued and --
16
THE COURT:
Individuals who meet these
The
But then 1182(f) says the President
17
can -- presumably, the whole purpose of 1182(f) is to
18
allow some restrictions beyond 1182(a).
19
would be no need for it.
20
MR. COX:
21
THE COURT:
Otherwise, it
Right.
So clearly, the President can do
22
more than what the INA says.
You're just saying it goes
23
so far that you're rewriting the INA.
24
understand what is it about this that pushes it beyond the
25
line of -- beyond what 1182 says you can do which is
I'm trying to
JA 914
11
1
2
impose restrictions and/or bar someone from the country.
MR. COX:
Your Honor, the INA -- you know, for
3
decades the Supreme Court has refused to read broad --
4
seemingly broad delegations of authority in the INA to be
5
sort of -- to give unbridled discretion to the executive.
6
And it's simply not plausible that Congress in enacting
7
1182(f) intended to give the President the authority to
8
literally cancel any other portion of the INA he wants
9
even in violation of specific prohibitions contained
10
therein and then impose or not impose a waiver system that
11
gives sort of heightened criterior.
12
THE COURT:
Well, let's assume that you're right
13
that there is a limit and I think there probably is, but
14
where is that limit?
15
over the line, you need to tell me where the line is.
16
MR. COX:
In order to say that they have gone
Understood, Your Honor.
What the case
17
law seems to indicate is that 1182(f) is intended to give
18
the President flexibility to address emergent issues that
19
Congress has not had the occasion to address itself.
20
historically, that's certainly the way in which 1182(f)
21
has been used.
22
are rapidly developing and to which Congress could not be
23
expected to address.
24
25
And
It's been targeted at circumstances that
Here in contrast, the criterior on which the
proclamation is based are country conditions that Congress
JA 915
12
1
itself considered as recently as 2015 and Congress made
2
very specific judgments about what those conditions ought
3
to mean, the consequences of them.
4
well, it rejected proposals of outright bans and instead
5
decided that countries -- yes?
6
THE COURT:
And what it decided --
Didn't they just reject bans of
7
refugees, not nationals from certain countries such as the
8
countries on the lists today?
9
MR. COX:
My recollection, Your Honor, is that
10
their were proposals to ban certainly Iraqis and Syrians.
11
Perhaps, it was limited to refugees from those places.
12
But there were a number of different proposals that were
13
ostensibly based on these same country conditions and what
14
Congress did instead was to say those countries, we're not
15
going to ban their nationals, that's not necessary, but
16
instead we're going to take a targeted approach and in an
17
abundance of caution and simply make sure that nationals
18
from those countries go through the normal individualized
19
vetting procedure.
20
THE COURT:
So what's the authority that you
21
have to say that where Congress does not explicitly say
22
you can't do this, but they've legislated in a certain
23
area that that tells me that this particular action goes
24
beyond not just what they wanted because I think 1182
25
allows the President to do things that weren't necessarily
JA 916
13
1
even contemplated, but it goes into their statutory
2
authority?
I'm just trying to understand what the line is
3
4
or what signal is there whether it's a case, a statute or
5
something that tells me that this has gone over the line
6
or is it just you know it when you see it?
MR. COX:
7
Well, I think, Your Honor, that there
8
are going to be some gray areas.
9
that we are so far across the line that the particular
10
I think the key here is
place that's drawn isn't dispositive in this case.
I think if you see in Kent, the court was very
11
12
clear that it is not going to read these broad delegations
13
as broadly as they may seem because of the constitutional
14
concerns.
15
here, if accepted, means that the Congress has handed the
16
President its authority under Article 2 and that's --
17
excuse me -- under Article 1 in order to draw the
18
immigration laws as the President sees fit and that's
19
simply not plausible.
20
And essentially, the government's argument
THE COURT:
But going way over the line other
21
than the fact that this is arguably more broad than
22
anything that's been done before, what tells me that it's
23
gone way over the line legally as a matter of what
24
Congress has specifically said or some other principle,
25
some case?
JA 917
14
1
MR. COX:
Well, Your Honor, I think that, you
2
know, the DC Circuit case, Abourezk, talks about how
3
the -- that this power was intended just to be -- to
4
address issues that Congress has not issued.
5
You know, the truth is that no president before
6
has attempted to use 1182(f) in this manner and so there's
7
not a lot of precedent that says this is over the line.
8
All prior uses have been far more targeted.
9
I see that my -- I believe my time is up.
10
happy to continue if you'd like, Your Honor.
11
want to make sure --
12
THE COURT:
I'm
But I do
One last question I have is your
13
argument that this should not be deemed to have -- the
14
finding that this would be a detrimental to the United
15
States was insufficient.
16
other argument on the need to look at historical precedent
17
and show that this is the first time that the President
18
has gone this far in terms of numbers or countries,
19
numbers of people barred at the same time.
20
look at the history of 1182 proclamations, they give very
21
little justification, very little findings on detriment.
22
Why should I look at the history from one part but not for
23
this part?
24
25
MR. COX:
You focus quite a bit on the
But if you
Well, Your Honor, no proclamation
before has sought to ban this many people and no
JA 918
15
1
proclamation before has sought to use as its justification
2
a reason that's already addressed with a particular
3
statutory provision.
4
proclamation that once used essentially 1361 reasons for
5
its justification needs to at least grapple with why 1361
6
is inadequate.
7
that consular officials already had the authority to deny
8
visas to individuals who don't convince them of their
9
admissibility and so I think that fundamental conflict
10
11
12
Here again it's 1361.
And any
And here there's no even acknowledgment
makes the finding here completely inadequate.
THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, if you want to move on
to your colleague, we can do that.
13
MR. COX:
Thank you, Your Honor.
14
MR. JADWAT:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. JADWAT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Good afternoon, Mr. Jadwat.
What we have before us today is the
17
same core policy as in EO-2.
There are three changes to
18
the policy:
19
tweaked and some non-immigrants are allowed in.
20
result is just as the President promised, a bigger,
21
tougher version of the same ban.
22
hundred million people from Muslim majority countries and
23
the biggest change to the policy actually makes it worse
24
by extending the ban indefinitely.
25
of potential travelers from North Korea and a few
Indefinite, the list of countries has been
The
It still excludes over a
It adds a tiny number
JA 919
16
1
Venezuelans.
2
ban actually does.
THE COURT:
3
4
But that hardly moves the needle on what the
Can I ask you about North Korea and
Venezuela just for a moment?
5
MR. JADWAT:
6
THE COURT:
Sure.
I believe in the District of Hawaii,
7
the plaintiffs there are taking the view that they are not
8
really arguing on behalf of the North Koreans and -- or
9
against the North Korean and Venezuelan limitations.
10
you are able to succeed on this, are you seeking an
11
injunction that would bar enforcement as to North Korea
12
Venezuela or any other countries or is it all or nothing?
MR. JADWAT:
13
14
If
We would certainly rather have
something than nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
15
Well, I guess what I'm asking is are
16
you arguing that if you are able to succeed on getting an
17
injunction on some of these countries, the ones that you
18
are more focused on, is it appropriate to also enjoin
19
enforcement as to North Korea and Venezuela, either
20
legally or also as a matter of whether anyone has standing
21
to address those issues?
MR. JADWAT:
22
Yeah.
So I think that on the
23
constitutional side, it's true that the arguments are
24
primarily focused on the six Muslim majority countries in
25
the ban.
But, you know, there's nothing that suggests
JA 920
17
1
that the additional portions of the ban would exist but
2
for this overall scheme.
3
there's a difference between Venezuela on the one hand
4
which maybe resembles some of the previous 212(f)
5
proclamations a little more closely than North Korea and
6
then the others.
7
On the statutory side, I think
But --
THE COURT:
So if it's a statutory argument,
8
then you're asking for an injunction for all countries
9
except Venezuela.
And if it's an establishment-clause
10
based injunction, you would ask for injunction on the
11
non-Muslim majority countries or only the Muslim majority
12
countries or am I not getting that right?
13
MR. JADWAT:
Well, I mean we think that the most
14
appropriate course is to enjoin the EO-3 and if the
15
government in light of that as they did, you know, to some
16
degree in EO-2 wants to respond to the flaws in the order
17
in some way, then it would be able to.
18
But yes, I think that the thrust of our
19
constitutional arguments does focus on the effect, the
20
condemnation of Islam, the effect of that condemnation as
21
it plays through the order, which is its focus on Muslim
22
majority countries and as I said, I think on the statutory
23
side, the primary message, the main point of the statutory
24
argument is that this blanket national origin based 212(f)
25
ban is not within the scope of the President's authority.
JA 921
18
1
THE COURT:
So one question I have regarding the
2
establishment clause is even the -- this is I think the
3
third order that your clients have challenged, I think the
4
second one that we've had a hearing on here, the
5
government makes the point that basically from now on
6
whatever they do in this area of travel restrictions
7
involving some of these countries, you are going to come
8
back again and again and say this is an establishment
9
clause violation.
What is the limiting principle on the
10
type of argument you're making because it can't be that if
11
the President finds issues involving travel that because
12
of some prior statements or even a prior history if one
13
concludes that there was a prior history of violating the
14
establishment clause, that he can't fix that or address
15
that by coming out with a new plan because the country
16
cannot have that kind of limitation on the --
17
MR. JADWAT:
18
THE COURT:
Sure.
How would one know -- if this does
19
not cure the issues that you raised last time, what would
20
the government have to do to demonstrate that they have
21
been cured?
22
MR. JADWAT:
Well, so I think the first thing to
23
understand in answering that question is that this is
24
again exactly what the President promised and so the -- it
25
is difficult when the President has said that he is going
JA 922
19
1
to ban Muslims and do it by imposing a national origin
2
ban, something that no previous president has done, either
3
side of that, that and then he goes ahead and does
4
something that answers exactly that description, it does
5
make it difficult to convince a reasonable observer that
6
doing that thing again or doing it for the first time
7
doesn't have a primary religious purpose.
8
doesn't mean that there could never be such a showing.
THE COURT:
9
10
But that
What would they have to do to make
that showing?
MR. JADWAT:
11
You know, I don't know for sure,
12
Your Honor, and I don't think McCreary tells us for sure
13
exactly what those limits are or any of the other cases.
14
But I do think that this is not, you know, a line drawing
15
kind of -- we're not close to the line in this case
16
because what we have here is the same policy, you know, a
17
seamless kind of transition or sequence from EO-1 to EO-2
18
to EO-3.
19
he received a report under EO-2, he said we need a tougher
20
version of the ban and that's what he ended up imposing
21
and he imposed without, you know, on his own in the sense
22
that he did not impose or did not take the recommendations
23
that the Department of Homeland Security provided to him
24
and put them into policy.
25
after receiving some recommendations from them and that's
And the fact that the President said even before
Instead he crafted his own ban
JA 923
20
1
really not that different than the situation we had in
2
EO-2 where there was a letter from the Secretary of
3
Homeland Security and the Attorney General saying in
4
essence the same thing.
There are countries that have
5
inadequate information.
We think you should ban those
6
countries for 90 days.
THE COURT:
7
Well, here there was a study that
8
was done that led to the recommendations that were made.
9
I believe the proclamation states that there were
10
recommendations on these particular countries including
11
countries like Somalia that the factors didn't lead there,
12
but that the Secretary also recommended on Somalia.
13
wasn't just something the President came up with on his
14
own.
Is that correct?
MR. JADWAT:
15
It
I think the proclamation is
16
actually a little ambiguous as to Somalia.
17
it's not entirely clear from my reading whether or not the
18
Secretary recommended a ban on Somalia.
19
clarify that.
20
is that the -- you know, we don't know what the Secretary
21
actually recommended which is a difference from the last
22
time.
23
essentially was the ban.
24
25
In my reading,
Perhaps they can
But either way, Your Honor, what is clear
The last time we could see that the recommendation
THE COURT:
I think I read in your papers that
you said the government's refused to provide the
JA 924
21
1
underlying report.
Does that mean that you asked for it
2
or how do you know that they've refused to do that or from
3
the other case?
MR. JADWAT:
4
They have said that they will not
5
provide it publicly in the other case and that's, you
6
know, that's their decision.
7
that there's a need for this Court to look at the report
8
because the question is what the reasonable observer would
9
perceive and understand from the facts that are readily
10
available to the public.
11
And we're not suggesting
I --
12
THE COURT:
Your Honor, I'm out of time.
So
Well, let me just ask a couple of
13
additional questions.
14
not sure if you're the right person or someone else, but
15
what is your view on the effect of the Supreme Court's
16
vacating the Fourth Circuit's judgment issuing the
17
injunction on the last executive order, particularly in
18
the sense of how if at all can this Court use that opinion
19
in reaching its own resolution?
20
certainty means we can't use the Fourth Circuit opinion as
21
controlling authority.
22
that opinion is still persuasive or does it mean it just
23
does not exist?
24
25
MR. JADWAT:
One thing I wanted to ask and I'm
I don't think -- it
Does it mean that information from
I think the Fourth Circuit
authority is clear that even a vacated opinion is still
JA 925
22
1
2
3
4
persuasive authority and -THE COURT:
Even under these circumstances where
it was a mootness finding?
MR. JADWAT:
Yes, Your Honor.
I think so.
You
5
know, the mootness finding is explicitly and the court was
6
clear about this -- the Supreme Court was clear about this
7
when it vacated that it was not reaching the merits and
8
not expressing a position as to the merits and so I think
9
it's clear that that remains persuasive authority and
10
11
obviously, highly relevant.
THE COURT:
Okay.
And then I think the other
12
question I had was whether -- the government notes that
13
there was a speech by the President at least saying
14
positive things about Islam.
15
indicate there's no longer a religious motive.
16
any, counter examples are there in the record where post
17
second executive order he's made statements that are
18
detrimental or derogatory?
19
MR. JADWAT:
Right.
They're saying that that may
What, if
Well, one other example
20
which postdates that speech is that he re-invoked his
21
campaign trail suggestion that suspected terrorists should
22
be summarily executed with bullets that had been dipped in
23
pig's blood, which is obviously and which he attributed to
24
a campaign against Muslim guerillas in the Philippines.
25
You know, that is an extreme statement of hostility --
JA 926
23
THE COURT:
1
2
Is that an anti-Muslim statement or
an anti-terrorist statement?
MR. JADWAT:
3
Well, both, Your Honor.
I mean
4
it's a -- you know, it's a statement that says that we
5
will use specifically religious hostile means --
6
specifically religiously hostile means or that we should
7
use specifically religiously hostile means including the
8
desecration of bodies to combat terrorism and so, you
9
know --
10
11
12
13
THE COURT:
Are there other examples besides
that or is that the only one you have?
MR. JADWAT:
That's the one that I have that
comes most readily to mind, Your Honor.
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. JADWAT:
Okay.
There's just one other thing I'd
16
like to bring to the Court's attention, Your Honor, which
17
is that one of our plaintiffs, Mr. Mashta, we have gotten
18
word has just received his visa today or his wife's
19
visa -- has just received her visa today and so we just
20
wanted to apprise the Court of that information.
21
THE COURT:
22
MR. JADWAT:
23
24
25
Okay.
My understanding is that she's
actually already on route to the United States.
THE COURT:
Okay.
Good.
Thank you.
Good
afternoon.
JA 927
24
1
MR. MOSIER:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
I know
2
our time is running short.
3
do think it's worth taking a couple of minutes to briefly
4
touch on the equal protection claim.
5
THE COURT:
6
MR. MOSIER:
So I'll try to be brief, but I
Okay.
In the Court's order in March, you,
7
of course, did not decide the equal protection claim, but
8
we think there are important reasons why the claim could
9
play an important role now.
I think kind of at the center
10
of the controversy I think this will become apparent when
11
we hear from the government is what evidence and what
12
types of evidence can the Court consider to determine
13
whether the purpose behind the proclamation is truly
14
national security or whether it is a continuation of the
15
Muslim ban that had been promised before.
16
You know, the government takes the position that
17
for purposes of this preliminary injunction, the world
18
began on September 24th when the proclamation was issued.
19
Every statement by the President, everything that the
20
President did in the first two executive orders must be
21
ignored by the Court.
22
support that under the establishment cause, but we think
23
the case law under the equal protection clause is just as
24
clear if not more clear that the Court can consider all of
25
the relevant evidence in determining whether a
We think that McCreary doesn't
JA 928
25
1
discriminatory intent exists.
The Supreme Court's decision in Arlington
2
3
Heights expressly addresses this question.
It says
4
"courts can consider both direct and circumstantial
5
evidence to determine intent."
6
identifies a number of different categories of evidence
7
that courts should look to.
8
context of the action being challenged.
9
specific sequence of events that led to the challenged
Arlington Heights
One of them is the historical
Another is the
10
action.
And those categories alone show that the Court's
11
analysis should not begin on September 24th -THE COURT:
12
So does the -- are you arguing that
13
the equal protection analysis allows for a broader view
14
than the establishment clause or just an equal view of the
15
history?
16
MR. MOSIER:
It's an equal.
The way it's been
17
briefed here -- and we relied on the briefing -- is that
18
the claims are the same because when you have an equal
19
protection claim based on religious discrimination, it is
20
largely the same as an establishment clause.
21
we want to use these case law for is to show that -- so
22
the government accepts the position, right, that the
23
claims are virtually the same.
24
under the establishment clause, you have to have a narrow
25
focus on what the relevant evidence is.
I think what
It makes an argument that
And we respond in
JA 929
26
1
our briefs to show why that's not correct in the
2
establishment clause and I think the point I want to make
3
is you can also look to the equal protection case law to
4
see that you don't need to take that narrow focus -THE COURT:
5
So beyond that issue, what
6
differences are there between the two analyses?
7
that comes to mind initially is equal protection, you're
8
talking about an individual person's right.
9
clear to me whose right you are asserting.
10
One thing
It's not
Is it the U.S.
person or is it the family member?
MR. MOSIER:
11
It would be the U.S. person who has
12
been -- on the basis of race and perhaps also you could
13
rely on national origin in an equal protection claim.
14
they are forced to take advantage or use a system, an
15
immigration system that is different for people from a
16
handful of countries versus for other Americans.
17
I --
18
THE COURT:
But
So if
But doesn't Fiallo naturally put us
19
into the Mandel standard at that point on equal protection
20
because wasn't that an equal protection case?
21
MR. MOSIER:
It was, Your Honor.
But I think,
22
you know, for the same reason that Fiallo and Mandel
23
doesn't bar consideration of the establishment clause
24
claim, it shouldn't also bar consideration of the equal
25
protection.
And mainly, it comes down to it's legitimate
JA 930
27
1
on its face and bona fide and as the Fourth Circuit said,
2
bona fide, you can look behind the face to see if there's
3
evidence of bad faith.
THE COURT:
4
So I understand the logic of equal
5
protection argument saying that a family member is still
6
harmed and has more hurdles to get their family members
7
here than someone from a different background.
8
there any examples in the case law where that type of
9
argument has actually worked in an equal protection
But are
10
setting?
In the immigration context, the family members
11
here not just have standing, but actually can prevail on
12
that type of argument?
MR. MOSIER:
13
Well, it's well established in the
14
equal protection case law that this type of injury that we
15
are alleging where you are saying for one class of
16
citizens, the government creates additional barriers for
17
them to get a benefit than for others.
18
well-established principle.
THE COURT:
19
20
That's a
What about in the immigration
context though, which is sometimes unique?
MR. MOSIER:
21
Right.
We are not aware of a case
22
there.
But there's no reason it shouldn't apply.
23
Assuming you get past the standard that we've discussed, I
24
don't see a reason it shouldn't.
25
is getting -- I will point the Court to the Fourth
And, you know, my time
JA 931
28
1
Circuit's recent decision in NAACP versus McCrory where
2
the court considered an equal protection challenge to
3
North Carolina election laws.
4
to demonstrate just how broadly courts will look at
5
evidence to find discriminatory intent in the context of
6
an equal protection claim.
7
put restrictions that were alleged to have made it more
8
difficult for African-Americans to vote.
9
court turned to the Arlington Heights factor of historical
I think that's a good case
There the North Carolina law
And when the
10
context, it said we are going to look at the historical
11
context of efforts to disenfranchise African-Americans and
12
it began with slavery, went through the Civil War, Jim
13
Crow era, Civil Rights Act of 1965.
14
context there was 150 years.
15
So the historical
Here, we're talking about less than two years.
16
And so if the Fourth Circuit can look at 150 years to
17
decide an equal protection claim, then surely the court
18
can look to things that were said six or nine months ago.
19
And briefly if the Court -- I was just going to
20
address standing and I'll do it briefly just to say our
21
individual plaintiffs present the same facts as the
22
plaintiffs that were held to have standing by this court,
23
the Fourth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit in challenging the
24
executive order and here, if anything, the injuries are
25
more severe because this is an indefinite ban.
So if a
JA 932
29
1
90-day ban was sufficient to give rise to standing, I
2
think our plaintiffs clearly have standing here -THE COURT:
3
So with respect to IAAB, the
4
organizational claim, is your argument based on the fact
5
that they have members who are harmed or that the
6
organization has interests such as hosting conferences
7
that present the harm?
MR. MOSIER:
8
9
The argument for IAAB is the direct
harm, the way it will interfere with its conferences and
10
we think that's very analogous to the State of Hawaii,
11
which the Ninth Circuit found had standing based on the
12
interference with its ability of students and faculty to
13
come to this -THE COURT:
14
What about the argument that some of
15
your -- some of the people coming under IAAB's auspices
16
might get student visas or other visas that are allowed
17
for Iranian nationals -MR. MOSIER:
18
That won't cover all of the people
19
that came in.
20
visa, usually the university or the school needs to be
21
involved.
22
23
Particularly, a student visa.
The student
So it wouldn't be a good fit for a conference.
THE COURT:
conference.
So it's mainly people coming to the
That's your immediate harm.
24
MR. MOSIER:
Yes.
25
THE COURT:
For IAAB.
Yes.
Okay.
JA 933
30
1
MR. MOSIER:
It is also, you know, we say as we
2
say in the brief, they've expended time and resources
3
responding to constituents' concerns over there which we
4
think poses an additional cost.
5
THE COURT:
Is there anything, anything you can
6
point me to in the INA or elsewhere that tells me what
7
kind of visas your conference attendees would be seeking?
8
9
10
MR. MOSIER:
It's not in the record.
We would
be happy to submit an additional -THE COURT:
Well, it's sort of a legal question
11
of what they're eligible for --
12
MR. MOSIER:
13
THE COURT:
Right.
I mean my --
-- to come to a conference.
I mean
14
I think my general understanding is that conference
15
attendees get B visas, but I don't know that or maybe you
16
can point me to exactly where that would be found in the
17
INA or the regs.
18
MR. MOSIER:
Well, certainly with a B visa, you
19
can come as a tourist.
It isn't my understanding that a
20
lot of the participants that come here for the conference
21
would get a B visa.
22
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
23
MR. MOSIER:
24
MR. ABBAS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
25
THE COURT:
Good afternoon, Mr. Abbas.
Thank you, Your Honor.
JA 934
31
1
MR. ABBAS:
May it please the Court.
2
THE COURT:
And just pull the microphone a
3
little closer to you.
4
MR. ABBAS:
Oh, sorry about that.
5
THE COURT:
That's fine.
6
MR. ABBAS:
In many ways, the case before this
7
Court now is lot easier than the case previously before
8
the Court.
9
focused a lot on establishing the connective tissue
The Fourth Circuit in its IRAP decision
10
between the campaign promise of the Muslim ban and EO-1 --
11
connective tissue between EO-1 and EO-2.
12
that's left for this Court to conclude as it did
13
previously is to examine and determine whether there is in
14
fact connective tissue that links this proclamation to the
15
ones that have come before it.
16
reasonable counter point that the government can make.
17
The worldwide review that produces the obviously
18
pretextual basis --
19
20
THE COURT:
what supports that?
And really all
And there really is no
You say obviously pretextual, but
I mean we have --
21
MR. ABBAS:
Sure.
22
THE COURT:
-- a cabinet agency doing a review.
23
There is no suggestion that there was a religious animus
24
among the individuals conducting the review or the agency
25
overseeing it.
JA 935
32
MR. ABBAS:
1
If we just examine the proclamation
2
on its own terms and look at the parameters of the review,
3
it lays out that there is this baseline criteria of
4
assessing whether there's national security or public
5
safety risk.
6
criteria.
7
satisfy that criteria are actually on the list of banned
8
countries.
information from?
THE COURT:
Which part, that 12 countries don't
meet the criteria?
MR. ABBAS:
15
16
That's in the proclamation itself,
Your Honor.
13
14
So where are you getting that
Where in the record?
MR. ABBAS:
11
12
Only one of those 12 countries that don't
THE COURT:
9
10
Twelve countries don't satisfy that
I don't have a citation to the
proclamation provision itself -THE COURT:
17
But just numerically because I
18
thought it said that some of them didn't meet the
19
criteria, but then once they did the 50-day review or
20
consultation that some of them did meet the criteria after
21
that.
MR. ABBAS:
22
So there was -- no.
This is at the
23
end of the -- at the end of their process of consultation,
24
this is how many were left having failed to satisfy the
25
criteria.
Seven of the eight banned countries did in fact
JA 936
33
1
satisfy the criteria.
There was a focus on determining
2
which countries had terrorist havens.
3
were determined by the federal government to contain
4
terrorist havens were not banned countries.
5
countries that don't use electronic passports were not
6
subject to the ban.
7
electronic passports and were still subject to the bans.
8
And then more than half of the 17 countries that don't
9
provide the United States with any lost or stolen passport
Ten countries that
Eighty
Four of the banned countries do use
10
information are not subject to the ban.
11
the terms -- the proclamation on its own terms, it's not
12
actually applying the criteria that it is setting out.
13
So even taking
We look at the many factors that the
14
proclamation generates.
It's that you find the same
15
pretextual indicators.
Chad meets five out of five --
16
meets all the mitigating factors that the proclamation
17
articulates and is still included on the list of banned
18
countries.
19
out of the five mitigating factors just as Iraq does, but
20
are still banned.
21
Three of the other banned countries meet four
THE COURT:
Well, again, just to clarify when
22
you're saying you're putting these up against factors, are
23
you relying on the contents of the proclamation only or --
24
MR. ABBAS:
Yes, Your Honor.
25
THE COURT:
I noticed some materials were
JA 937
34
1
submitted and I don't mind relying on outside fact or
2
facts within the record that are outside the proclamation
3
if they are either government sources or sources that are
4
reliable.
5
where someone else has done an analysis, but don't tell us
6
where the source of the facts come from.
7
understand what you are relying on.
But, you know, I have some second hand reports
8
MR. ABBAS:
9
proclamation itself.
Sure.
I just want to
This is within the
So what we see is an inconsistent
10
application of the proclamation stated criteria to the
11
countries themselves.
12
being applied in any type of consistent or rational way,
13
what we are left with is an indication that it's pretext.
And when the stated criteria is not
14
And when we look even further and look at the
15
broad outlines of the proclamation itself, remember the
16
proclamation is replicating a problem that it's ostensibly
17
intending to address.
18
have case-by-case adjudication.
19
broad categorical suspensions of immigrants from
20
particular countries.
21
establishes the very case-by-case adjudication that it
22
says is so dangerous to the United States.
23
THE COURT:
The proclamation says that we can't
We need to create these
But then through its waiver scheme
So I'll ask you a similar question I
24
asked your co-counsel.
Let's assume that
25
information-sharing deficiencies is a problem that should
JA 938
35
1
be addressed and let's say there's some issues that the
2
visa waiver program did not address that still need to be
3
addressed at least in the President's view.
4
do that wouldn't run afoul of the establishment clause
5
given where we stand now to at least address that problem?
6
How would you do this differently?
7
him and he said this is a problem I need to fix, convince
8
countries to share more information, what would you
9
suggest he do other than what he has done now that would
10
not cause you and your clients to come back into court?
MR. ABBAS:
11
What could he
If you were advising
I would advise the President to stop
12
discriminating against Muslims and disfavoring Islam and
13
that's -THE COURT:
14
That's not the question.
The
15
question was whether if there's really an
16
information-sharing deficiency problem that needs to be
17
addressed including perhaps by trying to encourage or even
18
coerce countries to provide this information, how does he
19
do that without being accused of an establishment clause
20
violation just based on prior history which perhaps could
21
be left in the past?
22
MR. ABBAS:
I don't have an answer to that
23
question.
But this Court doesn't need to answer that
24
question either because the proclamation can be assessed
25
on its own terms.
And the establishment clause question
JA 939
36
1
does not regard the specific provisions of the
2
proclamation.
3
proclamation -- is this proclamation intended to broadcast
4
the message of disfavor against Islam?
5
de-stigmatize Muslim?
6
clear and it's that yes.
7
contents of the proclamation, the only conclusion that's
8
reasonable in light of the proclamation's history is the
9
inescapable conclusion that it was produced out of a
It's an intent-based argument.
Does this
Is it intended to
And the answer to that question is
The only explanation for the
10
desire to express animosity towards Muslims and towards
11
Islam.
That's why when you look at Sumaya Hamadmad, who
12
13
has never been to Syria ever in her entire life, but as a
14
result of the peculiarities of how citizenship and
15
nationality is passed on in Syria and how it's not
16
established in Jordan.
17
parents were Syrian nationals and though she's lived her
18
whole life in Jordan and has never ever been to Syria,
19
she's a Syrian national --
20
21
22
THE COURT:
analysis?
She was born in Jordan.
Her
So how do I factor that into the
Why is that relevant?
MR. ABBAS:
The federal government knows that
23
there are people that are nationals of countries that have
24
never been to those countries.
25
And President Trump indicated that, well, I'm
JA 940
37
1
actually focused on territory, I'm not focused on Muslim
2
anymore.
3
it matters more -- we would expect the government's
4
proclamation to focus on where the actual plaintiffs have
5
been, not their country of origin.
THE COURT:
6
7
So if they modified it to say that,
there would be no problem?
MR. ABBAS:
8
9
Well, if the government is focused on territory,
intent.
I don't know that.
But the issue is
It's difficult and, you know, we're all tired,
10
but the Fourth Circuit said that the establishment clause
11
is "the untiring sentinel protecting religious liberty"
12
and but there are many lawyers that are very tired here,
13
but it's up to this court and the folks in this room to
14
ensure that religious liberty persists in light of wave
15
after wave of an attempt to broadcast the message that
16
disfavors Islam.
17
plaintiffs have reached when Fahed Muqbil asks himself why
18
is it that I can't have my foreign national spouse come
19
tend to the dire needs of my U.S. citizen daughter getting
20
treatment in Mississippi, he answers that question because
21
of my faith.
22
is told by the consulate to purchase a ticket for her
23
spouse on a spousal visa -- that ticket is October 29th,
24
later this month -- asked why is it that my -- the
25
relationship with my spouse may never come to fruition
And that's the conclusion that the
When Jane Doe 3 who has bought a ticket who
JA 941
38
1
inside the United States, she perceives it.
2
desire to disfavor Islam and disfavor Muslims.
3
thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you.
And so
4
THE COURT:
5
the government then.
6
there is still the four minutes for rebuttal.
7
government wants it, it looks like we have used up 45
8
minutes.
9
call what we're doing.
Okay.
Okay.
That it is a
I'll hear from
I'm going to assume that
Time flies when you're -- whatever you want to
Go ahead -- so you have 49 minutes
10
if you'd like.
11
need or how much I need to hear from you.
12
So if the
We'll see how far we get or how much you
MR. MOOPAN:
Go ahead.
Thank you, Your Honor.
May it
13
please the Court.
14
different from the entry suspensions that preceded it
15
because of the multi-agency worldwide review process that
16
it relied on in part as well as the tailored substantive
17
restrictions that it imposes.
18
features, the proclamation falls well within the
19
President's broad statutory and constitutional authority
20
to restrict it and free it of aliens abroad for national
21
security and foreign policy purposes.
22
into the merits, I would like to address at least a little
23
bit why we think that these claims aren't judiciable at
24
all and I'd like to start with the statutory claims.
25
The proclamation is fundamentally
In light of those two
But before I get
The Supreme Court in Knauff versus Shaughnessy
JA 942
39
1
made clear that it is beyond the province of courts to
2
review the political branch's determination to exclude an
3
alien unless Congress expressly authorizes it.
THE COURT:
4
5
That case involved an individual,
didn't it, and not a challenge to the policy?
MR. MOOPAN:
6
It did.
But there is no case that
7
has ever said that without congressional authorization,
8
courts can review even on policy that governs aliens
9
abroad.
And by the way, these plaintiffs would not have
10
standing if they were not pointing to individual aliens
11
abroad whose entry injured them.
So this isn't just an
12
abstract challenge to a policy.
They are claiming that
13
individual aliens should be allowed to enter this country
14
and in those circumstances, Knauff makes clear and every
15
other case makes clear that in the absence of
16
congressional authorization, that is a political
17
determination that is beyond the province of the courts to
18
address.
Now they have not pointed to any congressional
19
20
authorization.
The INA doesn't provide it.
The INA has
21
long been held and interpreted and even amended to make
22
clear that there is not review of the exclusion of aliens
23
abroad.
24
through the history at some length in explaining how
25
because of deference to the political branches, there is
The DC Circuit in Saavedra Bruno case went
JA 943
40
1
not exclusion of aliens abroad and to be sure that case
2
did involve --
3
THE COURT:
I thought that same case said that
4
if there's constitutional and statutory claims together
5
that they can be reviewed or at least indicated that.
6
MR. MOOPAN:
No.
What that case said was that
7
an earlier DC Circuit opinion, Abourezk, had so held.
8
importantly, what Saavedra Bruno, a subsequent DC Circuit
9
case pointed out was that Abourezk relied critically on a
10
provision in the INA, Section 1329, that it interpreted to
11
provide statutory authorization.
12
critical is that provision was subsequently amended by
13
Congress to remove any authorization, perceived
14
authorization for aliens abroad to challenge by limiting
15
that statutory provision to claims by the government.
16
Saavedra Bruno makes clear that whatever Abourezk held on
17
the facts before it and the law before it at the time, it
18
doesn't provide authorization now for aliens abroad to
19
challenge their exclusion.
20
THE COURT:
But
And the reason that it's
So
So is this aspect of your argument
21
the same as your consular non-reviewability argument or is
22
it different?
23
MR. MOOPAN:
I think it is the same.
Consular
24
non-reviewability is a subset of the broad reviewability
25
principle.
JA 944
41
1
THE COURT:
2
MR. MOOPAN:
I see.
Okay.
That under Knauff versus Shaunessy,
3
you need express authorization of Congress and I would
4
urge this Court to read that discussion in Knauff where it
5
says there has to be express authorization from Congress
6
before a judiciary can review the exclusion of aliens
7
abroad.
8
9
The INA doesn't provide it as we've just
discussed.
They point to the APA and suggests that the
10
APA provides the authorization.
11
clear that when a statute precludes review and when there
12
is general non-reviewable principles, the APA doesn't
13
supplant that.
14
non-reviewability show that that means that the APA
15
doesn't provide a remedy.
16
But the APA makes quite
And here the principles of
And again I think the DC Circuit's opinion in
17
Saavedra Bruno is very instructive in this regard.
When
18
it went through the history, it pointed out that when the
19
Supreme Court once and only once suggested that there was
20
APA review of the exclusion of aliens and no aliens in
21
this country, Congress promptly amended the statute to
22
make clear there isn't APA review and those aliens were
23
relegated only to habeas records, which of course is not
24
available to aliens abroad.
25
that change in its legislative history called it a
And the statute that made
JA 945
42
1
fallacious notion that aliens have any right to challenge
2
their exclusion.
THE COURT:
3
Well, again the argument here seems
4
to be that it's not aliens, but the U.S. citizen or legal
5
permanent resident, relatives of them.
MR. MOOPAN:
6
Right.
What they are challenging
7
is the exclusion of the aliens and there is no statute
8
that provides them with an authorization to do so.
One way of thinking about this, Your Honor, is
9
10
if the aliens were in this country and they were
11
challenging a statute that let them be -- that would be
12
removed or deported, it would be crystal clear that they
13
could not bring this sort of pre-enforcement injunction
14
suits that they are asking for.
15
the INA under 1252(g), they would be required to go
16
through the petition for a review process and before
17
IIRIRA, they would have been required to use the habeas
18
process.
19
Saavedra Bruno.
20
that an alien in this country has less statutory right to
21
challenge his removal than an alien abroad and that is
22
what their position is.
23
Under current law under
That's the history that I was referencing in
It is completely backwards to suggest
THE COURT:
It just simply makes no sense.
Okay.
I understand the argument.
24
So then let me ask you a little bit about the arguments
25
regarding -- well, before we get to that, let me just ask
JA 946
43
1
you the same question I asked the plaintiffs.
2
your view of how and if the Fourth Circuit opinion is of
3
any utility to us at this point?
MR. MOOPAN:
4
What is
So it is certainly not binding
5
precedent, Your Honor.
6
persuasive insofar as if you find it persuasive.
7
submit that it is not particularly persuasive for the
8
various errors it has that I will address as I go along
9
today.
I would
So on this issue though -THE COURT:
10
I would acknowledge it is
So it's persuasive to the point
11
where if I find it persuasive, I should cite to it or it's
12
persuasive to the point that it's interesting, but it
13
doesn't exist anymore?
MR. MOOPAN:
14
No.
I don't have any objection to
15
citing it insofar as you find it persuasive any more than
16
you find the law review article persuasive.
17
that much authority which is to say none as a legal
18
binding matter.
THE COURT:
19
It has about
I agree with that part at least.
20
The legal binding part.
21
persuasive ever, anything the Fourth Circuit says or has
22
said.
23
MR. MOOPAN:
I'm not going to say it's not
So on this non-reviewability issue,
24
the Fourth Circuit, of course, didn't address statutory
25
non-reviewability because it only went off on the
JA 947
44
1
constitutional claims.
Let me turn to constitutional and
2
non-reviewability briefly if I may.
On that point, they point to two asserted
3
4
injuries.
Their first claim is that they are injured
5
because they have relatives abroad who aren't able to
6
enter here.
7
Honor, is that is not a violation of the U.S. Persons
8
constitutional rights.
9
clause rights are not at stake based on the treatment of
And the fundamental point about that, Your
The U.S. Persons establishment
10
their relatives abroad and one of the easiest ways to
11
understand that is if every one of their plaintiffs were
12
Christian rather than Muslim and their relatives were
13
exactly the same religion that they are, Muslim or if they
14
were Christian, their injuries and their claims would be
15
exactly the same, which shows you that it cannot be that
16
their establishment clause rights are violated.
17
They are complaining about the treatment of
18
their relatives abroad based on their relatives abroad,
19
the religion of the countries that the overall share of
20
the religion of the countries where they are from.
21
nothing to do with their religion and that's why it has
22
nothing to do with their establishment clause rights.
23
It has
All they are showing is that they at most -- and
24
we don't even agree with this -- have Article III injury
25
in fact that stems from the allegedly discriminatory
JA 948
45
1
treatment of aliens abroad, but that does not make it a
2
violation of their establishment clause rights.
3
a whole -THE COURT:
4
They are
Well, is it crystal clear to you
5
that you have to be of a particular -- I mean you do have
6
to have a personal contact with the establishment clause
7
violation.
8
have to be of the exact religion that's harmed to have
9
standing if there is something else that personally
But why is it absolutely the case that you
10
affects you whether it is a relative who has a religion
11
and that affects you?
12
statement on religion, it still could have an impact on
13
somebody, couldn't it?
MR. MOOPAN:
14
If it was a government official
Injury in fact is not sufficient to
15
make it a violation of your establishment clause rights.
16
And let me give you a hypothetical as an example.
17
Sante Fe versus Doe is the school prayer, the school
18
football prayer.
19
school football prayer, there was a boycott and the
20
parking garage across the street lost business.
21
thinks that the parking garage across the street can bring
22
a lawsuit saying that its establishment clause rights were
23
violated.
24
traceable to an establishment clause violation.
25
doesn't mean that its establishment clause rights are
Right?
So
Imagine that if because of the
No one
Of course, it would have injury in fact that's
But that
JA 949
46
1
violated.
The fundamental difference between -- and that
2
is no different than this case.
Right?
What they are saying is because of the treatment
3
4
of third parties, they have suffered an injury in fact.
5
No case -- they have not cited a single case that
6
recognizes establishment clause rights violation.
What they have tried to point is a case like
7
8
McGowan, but the fundamental difference in McGowan is that
9
McGowan was directly regulated by the law at issue.
In
10
McGowan, it was a Sunday closing and so the people who
11
were subject to Sunday closing law were prosecuted and
12
fined.
13
government imposes a tax on people because of religion.
14
It was an indirect tax in the sense that rather than
15
saying you would have to pay money, it says you can't have
16
a business and if you do have a business, we'll fine you.
17
But the fundamental difference there is individual people
18
were subjected to a law directly because of what was
19
allegedly imposition of a religious law.
20
That is essentially no different than if the
THE COURT:
Let me ask you a different question.
21
Now let me move on to a different topic.
I think I
22
understand your argument on that point.
I asked the
23
plaintiffs whether they were interested in any of the
24
underlying materials.
25
I'm not mistaken, at least in another case, you have at
It sounds like they're not.
But if
JA 950
47
1
least objected to the Court looking at the September 15,
2
2017 Homeland Security report.
3
position for all cases or just for that case?
MR. MOOPAN:
4
5
6
7
8
9
No.
Is that your general
In this case as well, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
And I wasn't in that case.
So maybe
you can explain the reasoning for that.
MR. MOOPAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
So our primary
objection -- we have a couple of objections.
First is the
10
report actually contains a lot of classified information.
11
But more importantly --
12
13
14
THE COURT:
Well, judges can see classified
information.
MR. MOOPAN:
So I was going to say more
15
importantly for purposes of your questioning, the report
16
is also protected by both deliberative process
17
presidential communication privilege.
18
from the acting DHS Secretary to the President of the
19
United States.
20
considered.
21
That's a report
And so it is privilege and shouldn't be
THE COURT:
But obviously, it's the underlying
22
support for this.
The proclamation by its own terms says
23
it doesn't say everything that there is to say partly
24
because it's classified or otherwise.
25
representing to me now as an officer of the court that
Are you
JA 951
48
1
there's nothing in there that's inconsistent with the
2
proclamation?
MR. MOOPAN:
3
I'm representing to you that the
4
proclamation report as to the aspects of the report that
5
it relied on and you can judge the proclamation on its own
6
terms.
7
it under the relevant legal standards, then it should be
8
upheld.
9
isn't sufficient to support the relevant legal standards,
10
11
12
If you think what's in the proclamation supports
If you think that what's in the proclamation
then it should be invalidated -THE COURT:
as the record.
And you're prepared to rely on that
Correct?
13
MR. MOOPAN:
14
THE COURT:
Yes.
But I guess the other question I had
15
was suppose there was some discrepancy between
16
recommendations in the report or just important probative
17
facts in the report and what's in the proclamation and you
18
feel the government would have an obligation to bring that
19
to the Court's attention given that you're relying so
20
heavily on the contents of that report as the basis for
21
the proclamation?
22
MR. MOOPAN:
I don't think so, Your Honor.
It's
23
core deliberative process that, you know, it's potentially
24
possible that various government advisors disagree among
25
themselves.
At the end of the day, the President is the
JA 952
49
1
one who made the decision and the President has adopted
2
the rules he wants by issuing the proclamation.
3
THE COURT:
So how is this different than
4
Korematsu where they relied on an executive order by the
5
president and many years after the fact, it was determined
6
that there was information within the justice department
7
that contradicted representations made to the court, led
8
to some action.
9
create that error later on, but it didn't fix the problem
I believe that the Supreme Court took to
10
at the time.
11
proclamation that is inconsistent with what or nothing in
12
the September 15th report that's inconsistent with what's
13
in the proclamation because if it were, I would feel like
14
that would be a material fact that you need to disclose.
15
So can you assure me there's nothing in this
MR. MOOPAN:
Let me assure you of this which
16
hopefully should give you a fair amount of comfort and I
17
think you pointed this out early.
18
expressly says that the eight countries it has selected
19
for restrictions are the eight countries that the report
20
designated or recommended be subject to restrictions.
21
That includes by the way, Somalia.
22
1(i) of the report, that makes that clear.
23
inconsistency in that regard which I can tell you without
24
breaching the privilege because it's referenced in the
25
proclamation itself.
The proclamation itself
If you look at Section
So there is no
JA 953
50
THE COURT:
1
Are you saying there are no
2
inconsistencies or just no others that you think you can
3
talk about without --
4
MR. MOOPAN:
5
to the contents of the report.
6
THE COURT:
7
Have you yourself reviewed the
report?
8
MR. MOOPAN:
9
THE COURT:
10
Your Honor, I'm not going to speak
I have.
Okay.
And you are saying there are
no other inconsistencies?
MR. MOOPAN:
11
I am not going to make
12
representations about what's in the report, Your Honor.
13
understand where you're coming from.
14
you're asking me -THE COURT:
15
I
I understand why
Do you agree with me that if there
16
were material inconsistencies, they should be disclosed to
17
the Court?
18
MR. MOOPAN:
19
material, Your Honor.
20
THE COURT:
This is deliberative process
That's an abstract question in
21
general.
22
situation, would you agree that they should be disclosed
23
to the Court if there's material inconsistencies?
MR. MOOPAN:
24
25
Leaving this report aside, but in a similar
this way.
I would not -- let me just put it
If the facts asserted in the proclamation we
JA 954
51
1
believe to not be true, I would think that we would have
2
an obligation to disclose it.
3
have the obligation or should be asked about whether there
4
were disagreements among presidential advisors in the
5
report and whether -- what one describes as an
6
inconsistency of what one agency thought or what another
7
agency thought.
8
representations of the proclamation are what we
9
assert that -- if there were disagreements about that, I
I do not think we either
But if the ultimate factual
10
can understand what your question is.
11
the factual representations in the proclamation.
Okay.
But we stand behind
12
THE COURT:
Thank you.
13
MR. MOOPAN:
Let me say one last issue on the
14
constitutional issue.
As I said earlier, they have two
15
injuries.
16
just on the message injury, what I would point out is if
17
you take that injury by itself, it would blow a massive
18
hole in established clause standing because, for example,
19
in Valley Forge, it would be the plaintiffs there could
20
have come into court and said when the federal government
21
transferred the property to that church that sent a
22
message of endorsement of that religion or it sent a
23
message of disapproval of atheists and under their theory
24
and because that was alleged, that would be enough to get
25
to court and that simply doesn't make any sense.
Their other asserted injury is the message and
And I
JA 955
52
1
think the Fourth Circuit recognized it didn't make any
2
sense which is why even the Fourth Circuit refused to rely
3
solely on the message theory.
4
combination with the delay in entry, which has the problem
5
I said earlier.
6
It tied it back into the
The last thing I will say on this is I think the
7
equal protection claim underscores why there's no -- why
8
it shouldn't be judiciable.
9
claim, there is just no argument that plaintiffs' equal
Under the equal protection
10
protection rights are violated.
11
utterly irrelevant under the proclamation.
12
13
THE COURT:
the merits now.
Okay.
Plaintiffs' religion is
I'd really like to move on to
So why don't you do that?
14
MR. MOOPAN:
15
THE COURT:
Okay.
So on the merits --
Let me just direct you to what I'd
16
like to hear about given that you've used up a lot of time
17
on this other issue.
18
plaintiffs where the line is and then give me a line.
19
It's probably not in your interest necessarily to draw
20
one, but I think courts are often skeptical of authority
21
being unlimited in any way.
22
disagreed in your brief with the proposition that there
23
are certain things such as perhaps any use of 1182 to ban
24
any employment based visas from anywhere in the world or
25
something that might run afoul or directly contradict the
On the INA, I've asked the
It didn't sound as if you
JA 956
53
1
statute might be beyond the scope of what the President
2
can do.
3
is, how would one identify a boundary that you can say
4
this is not crossed other than just saying we don't
5
think -- either saying there is no limit or this is
6
clearly not at the boundary?
7
think the boundary should be.
Even if you don't want me to tell what the limit
MR. MOOPAN:
8
9
Sure.
Give me an idea of what you
Well, I think that any -- a
restriction that was targeting foreign policy and national
10
security concerns goes well beyond whatever line there
11
might be.
12
suggested, if the restriction was meant to involve
13
domestic issues or meant to totally upset the lines that
14
the INA has drawn.
15
Let me go right to the INA point because I think that's
16
critical.
If instead as some of the examples you just
But that's not what's happening here.
They repeatedly suggested that because Congress
17
18
did certain things, that means that the President can't go
19
add to them.
20
If you look at, for example, Abourezk, in Footnote 2 of
21
Abourezk.
22
issue in the case was whether 1182, the inadmissibility
23
ground, was limited to people who did certain activities
24
once they got here and that were deemed detrimental or
25
whether their mere entry could be deemed detrimental.
Their own case law undermines that argument.
The issue in Abourezk was -- the statutory
JA 957
54
1
That was what the statutory fight was about whether it was
2
activities or entry.
3
And in Abourezk in a footnote and in Allende in
4
the First Circuit, what both of those courts held, it was
5
the right rule under the statute was activities, not
6
entry.
7
to be a problem because if there's an issue with entry,
8
the President can deal with it through 1182(f).
9
doing exactly what they say cannot be done.
But they then said don't worry, that's not going
It is
Taking an
10
inadmissibility ground in the INA, looking at one of the
11
limits on it and saying the President can go beyond that
12
because exactly as Your Honor said during their argument,
13
the whole point of 1182(f) is to give the President
14
additional authority over and above the minimum
15
restrictions the INA imposes and that makes perfect sense
16
both because Congress is delegating President with the
17
power, but also importantly because the President has
18
inherent executive authority to deal with the exclusion of
19
aliens.
20
THE COURT:
So when you said that one line might
21
be implicit in 1182 is a foreign policy national security
22
interest even though it doesn't say that explicitly, it's
23
not limited directly, you think that might be one limit if
24
it was just a domestic policy reason?
25
that's one potential limitation?
You're saying
JA 958
55
MR. MOOPAN:
1
I'm saying that it would be a much
2
harder case than what is a core application of 1182(f)
3
which is to restrict aliens abroad to accomplish foreign
4
policy and national security.
And again take the two most discussed
5
6
proclamations in this case have been the Cuban
7
proclamation and the Iranian proclamation, both of which
8
are very similar to this in certain respects.
9
example, the Iranian proclamation.
For
The point of the
10
Iranian -- no one was saying in the Iranian proclamation
11
that there was any problem with Iranian nationals or they
12
presented any risk or any danger and ditto with the Cuban
13
proclamation.
14
pressure on foreign governments who had done other things
15
abroad, which is exactly what this proclamation is meant
16
to do.
17
The point of those proclamations was to put
After a worldwide review, the Department of
18
Homeland Security and the State Department has recommended
19
to the President that these eight countries have
20
deficiencies in information reporting.
21
way to get them to improve, the President has imposed
22
restrictions on their ability of their aliens to enter in
23
the hopes of encouraging improvement as successfully
24
occurred with Iraq at the first stab as has occurred with
25
many other countries during the 50-day engagement.
And as part of the
They
JA 959
56
1
just simply ignore that critical aspect of the
2
proclamation.
3
individual aliens coming into this country present risk
4
and ignore that a crucial part of proclamations that
5
exclude aliens from entering are to accomplish foreign
6
policy rules by putting pressure on foreign governments.
They emphasize again and again whether
THE COURT:
7
Well, what if the issue here is
8
maybe another line that they are talking about is the
9
scope of this in terms of the number of countries, the
10
number of people, but also just the prescriptive nature of
11
what particular criteria should be applied.
12
simply just saying you're not allowed to enter, which is
13
what 1182 says you can't do.
14
criteria that need to be considered that aren't in the
15
INA.
16
hostage case or the Cuba case.
17
MR. MOOPAN:
So it's not
But they identify additional
That may be different than what happened in the Iran
Isn't it?
Well, but so I don't think that's
18
the case in this case other than the waiver criteria,
19
which as Your Honor --
20
21
22
THE COURT:
Well, that's what they are arguing
is the additional criteria.
MR. MOOPAN:
Right.
And the response to that is
23
exactly what Your Honor suggested.
That it can't be that
24
the waiver criteria caused the problem because we didn't
25
have the waiver criteria in the first place.
There was --
JA 960
57
1
I'm not sure if there was a waiver criteria in either Cuba
2
or Iran.
3
because a big part of the purpose of the proclamation is
4
to put pressure on the foreign countries to improve their
5
information.
6
makes perfect sense to have it be a sweeping proclamation
7
that picks up all of the nationals.
8
pressure on them to serve what is an indisputably
9
legitimate goal of improving information.
There is no reason that there would have to be
And if given that that's the purpose, it
That's what puts more
10
THE COURT:
11
question about 1182.
12
of a detrimental interest, again similar to my question
13
about the statute generally, where is the line there?
14
mean one position you could take is that and I think you
15
sort of have at least -- it appears you may have taken
16
this position that this is a completely non-reviewable
17
issue.
18
would be it is reviewable, but it's a low bar.
19
is your position?
20
So let me ask you a different
If we are talking about the finding
I
Another position that might be more reasonable
MR. MOOPAN:
So which
So I think that if the President
21
makes the determination that it's not in the national
22
interest as national interest is defined along the lines
23
we just talked about earlier, under Webster versus Doe, et
24
cetera, it should not be reviewable at all.
25
minimum that's it's not reviewed for anything more than
But at a
JA 961
58
1
something approaching a rational basis.
2
not reviewed under the search standards they are talking
3
about which are searching review of the degree of
4
tailoring and pointing out that there are potential
5
examples where it's overinclusive or underinclusive -THE COURT:
6
It's certainly
Well, the Ninth Circuit seemed to --
7
I don't know if it's the same as what the plaintiffs are
8
asking for -- but they seem to do more than a very limited
9
cursory review.
Are you just saying they are wrong or is
10
there something about their review that is at least
11
reasonable in terms of the standard even if it isn't met
12
here?
MR. MOOPAN:
13
No.
So we do think that they are
14
wrong.
15
statute says that if the President finds it's in the
16
national interest.
17
definition that's satisfied.
18
to go look behind it, I don't see how you get to say that
19
it's going to be some searching APA style review of
20
whether it's arbitrary and capricious as opposed to some
21
bare minimum rational.
22
There's no basis in the statute for that.
The
If the President finds it, by
But even if you were going
But here, we exceed that by far.
But let me take a step back and talk a little
23
bit about exactly what the proclamation -- the process
24
leading to the proclamation because I think that's quite
25
important here.
So the first point and I think it's a
JA 962
59
1
critical point is that there's not a shred of evidence,
2
not a shred of evidence that the Department of Homeland
3
Security, the acting Secretary for the Department of
4
Homeland Security, the Secretary of State or any of their
5
subordinates has any animus against Muslims.
6
haven't pointed to anything in any brief or today.
7
was the Department of Homeland Security in consultation
8
with the Secretary of State that engaged in the initial
9
determination of what the new baseline should be for
None.
They
But it
10
information sharing and other national security risks.
11
That's not in EO-2.
12
what it should be, but it doesn't specify what the
13
criteria are.
14
THE COURT:
The EO-2 directs them to consider
So the EO-2 does specify -- maybe
15
you can give me a response on this issue -- it does
16
specify or it states specifically the Secretary of
17
Homeland Security shall submit a list of countries for
18
inclusion in a presidential proclamation that would
19
prohibit the entry of those nationals.
20
do a review and tell me whether I need to ban any
21
countries.
22
Am I reading that incorrectly?
23
MR. MOOPAN:
So it doesn't say
It says give me a list of countries to ban.
24
overbroad.
25
appropriate nationals.
You are reading it a little
So the very sentence you're reading said
And before that, the whole section
JA 963
60
1
is 2(b) and (d) before you get to what you are reading
2
said -- it tells you what you are looking for.
3
off by saying I want you to do the review for which
4
countries have information problems and then I want you to
5
investigate that and then I want you to make a
6
recommendation and it's I think quite clear in the context
7
when you read it through --
8
9
THE COURT:
It starts
Well, but it's a recommendation not
I grant you maybe it doesn't say for total ban, but it
10
says he's looking for a list of countries for inclusion in
11
a proclamation that would prohibit entry and perhaps with
12
some nuance or some exceptions, but he's asked for, in
13
fact ordered them to provide a list of countries where
14
there's going to be a ban of some kind.
15
MR. MOOPAN:
16
THE COURT:
Right.
Rather than saying do a study and
17
tell me what you think should we ban anybody or not.
18
seems -- I'm trying to understand whether I'm misreading
19
that or that even under that standard, there is still --
20
it still doesn't indicate any problems here?
21
MR. MOOPAN:
It
A ban for countries that have
22
problems with information sharing.
If it was the case
23
that there were no countries that had a problem with
24
information sharing, then the appropriate nationals would
25
have been zero.
JA 964
61
THE COURT:
1
Well, even if there are problems --
2
so you are saying that assuming that if there's any kind
3
of problems whatsoever, that people will get banned?
4
Because I just can't -- it seems to me -- the way I read
5
it, it seems as if it's a one-way issue here.
6
give the Secretary discretion to come back and say nobody
7
should be barred from entry.
8
provide some list of people or categories of people.
MR. MOOPAN:
9
It doesn't
It asks the Secretary to
I don't think that's a fair reading
10
of the order, Your Honor.
11
Secretary to do is to provide a list of recommendations of
12
appropriate nationals.
13
Secretary from in her judgment saying there aren't any.
14
Having done my investigation, I don't think there are any
15
appropriate nationals that should be banned because we
16
think that there's no country that has sufficient problems
17
with information sharing that that's the appropriate
18
measure.
19
THE COURT:
I think what it asks the
That doesn't foreclose the
I mean historically, I don't think
20
any countries have ever been -- had all their nationals or
21
a significant portion barred because of
22
information-sharing problems.
23
presumes that if there's an information-sharing problem,
24
they should be banned and I'm just trying to understand
25
how is it then that the Secretary really had the
But here the report
JA 965
62
1
opportunity to say I don't think anybody should be banned
2
even though there are information problems, they just
3
don't rise to that level.
4
MR. MOOPAN:
I don't think it's a fair reading
5
of that to say it was dictating to the Secretary that
6
there has to be at least one country on the list with at
7
least one person --
8
THE COURT:
Just I want to look at that area
9
again just to make sure I understand your argument here.
10
Remind me again what number that is even though I quoted
11
that to you.
12
MR. MOOPAN:
So it's Section 2(e) of the report
13
says "the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation
14
with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall
15
submit to the President a list of countries recommending
16
for inclusion in a presidential proclamation that would
17
prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign
18
nationals of countries that have not provided the
19
information requested."
20
So first of all --
21
THE COURT:
22
23
So it asks for a list of countries,
not appropriate people or categories of people.
MR. MOOPAN:
No.
So it's a list of countries
24
that will prevent entry of appropriate categories of
25
foreign nationals, right, that have not provided
JA 966
63
1
information requests.
2
discretion to the Secretary of DHS to conclude that having
3
investigated all the countries, that she didn't think that
4
there was any country that warranted inclusion on that
5
list.
6
THE COURT:
7
MR. MOOPAN:
I think that order leaves abundant
Okay.
I understand.
I still think that's a fair reading
8
to say that.
She would have read that as dictating that
9
there must be some countries.
So with that -- so again what the Secretary did
10
11
was in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
12
DNI investigate -- created a new baseline for information
13
sharing of multiple factors, then investigated every
14
country in the world, assess them on those factors, then
15
had an engagement period with the countries to get them to
16
improve and then having done all of that, evaluated them
17
and provided the list that we've been talking about.
18
I think it's important to note on this that on
19
the baseline, a lot of the argument that were made today
20
about whether there's a mismatch or whether the baseline
21
was applied seemed to assume that if you flunk any one
22
factor, you are not adequate -THE COURT:
23
24
25
So maybe you can clarify that for
me.
MR. MOOPAN:
Yes.
JA 967
64
1
THE COURT:
Are you disputing that there are
2
characterizations of countries that didn't have a certain
3
factor is inaccurate or are you saying that there was no
4
requirement that every factor be met so there are going to
5
be some countries for which they either had a factor and
6
were not banned or lacked a factor and yet were banned?
7
So is that your argument primarily?
8
9
MR. MOOPAN:
The baseline has ten factors.
The
adequacy under the baseline was assessed holistically.
It
10
was not you have to check all ten boxes.
11
holistically and the eight countries that the agencies
12
recommended to the President to be included on the list
13
are as the proclamation lays out the eight countries that
14
the President after consulting with his cabinet and other
15
advisors decided the list.
16
THE COURT:
It was assessed
So you're saying even within the
17
methodology that was established with the baseline
18
criteria and otherwise and these various factors, there
19
was -- it wasn't an objective analysis.
20
based on qualitative factors as we saw in the case of
21
Somalia that weren't even in the list and that's how the
22
list was generated.
23
criteria or how many did you meet.
24
25
MR. MOOPAN:
It was subjective
It wasn't just did you meet these
Yeah.
I think it's fair to say,
Your Honor, that those factors are both, you know, they
JA 968
65
1
are subject to discretion in how you would apply them to
2
any given country and how you would weigh all ten of them.
3
But critically, the people who were doing the weighing
4
were the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary
5
of State, who again there's not a shred of evidence that
6
either of them or any of their subordinates have ever
7
harbored any anti-Muslim bias or ever said anything saying
8
they wanted to have a Muslim ban.
And so they then make a recommendation to the
9
10
President of these eight countries.
11
think about these eight countries.
12
countries, the recommendation dropped two Muslim countries
13
from the earlier iterations.
14
dropped Iraq.
15
added North Korea.
16
and only one Muslim country, Chad, which is barely a
17
majority Muslim country.
Of those eight
They dropped Sudan.
They
They added two non-Muslim countries.
They added Venezuela.
THE COURT:
18
Now let's stop and
They
They added one
It's basically --
So let me ask you this.
I think in
19
your brief, you cite the Felix case from the Tenth Circuit
20
about the scenario where perhaps there were some issues in
21
the past and how do we look at those and it refers to a
22
purposeful public and persuasive curing of any prior
23
issue.
24
of all, do you agree with that as being an appropriate way
25
to look at this, an appropriate standard and you're saying
Are you saying that the proclamation does -- first
JA 969
66
1
the proclamation does that or do you rely on other facts
2
outside the proclamation to meet that standard?
MR. MOOPAN:
3
The proclamation including the
4
review that we're seeking.
I think what's critical here
5
is that you had two agencies who have -- the heads of
6
which and the subordinates of which have never been
7
accused, never been accused of harboring any anti-Muslim
8
bias, who engaged in a month's long worldwide review.
9
They then provided recommendations to the President.
The
10
countries that they recommended don't evince any Muslim
11
bias because as I just pointed out, they dropped Muslim
12
countries.
13
only one Muslim country.
They added non-Muslim countries.
They added
And then when the President acted, having
14
15
considered those recommendations and consulted with his
16
cabinet and others, he covered those eight countries, but
17
further look at the restrictions that are imposed.
18
are tailored restrictions.
19
Chad and Yemen, most non-immigrant visas are allowed.
20
Even for Iran, student visas and exchange visas are
21
allowed.
22
sort of Muslim ban.
23
whole swarths of non-immigrant visas and whole countries?
24
Their story just does not make sense.
25
They
For example, for Libya and
None of that makes any sense if this is some
Who enacts a Muslim ban and exempts
What does make sense is that having engaged in a
JA 970
67
1
worldwide review run by two agencies that have no bias,
2
that have never been accused of having bias, the President
3
considered their recommendations, consulted with his
4
cabinet and made a good faith decision that in order to
5
both improve the information that is considered when
6
granting visas and to pressure foreign governments to
7
improve that information, then these tailored restrictions
8
would be imposed.
9
to act in this area, then I think, Your Honor, the
And if that is not sufficient for him
10
question does become as you asked them when will he ever
11
do that.
12
answer for you and I understand that answer because it
13
seems inconceivable they will ever be content.
14
And at least one counsel said he doesn't have an
THE COURT:
Well, Felix as well as I think
15
McCreary do address the issue of at least some,
16
particularly in Felix, some persuasive refutation of any
17
prior motive.
18
Has that happened?
MR. MOOPAN:
Well, so we have pointed to the
19
speech that the President gave in Saudi Arabia.
20
disagreed as to whether that's probative.
21
circumstance, I think what's far more probative is the
22
process that happened and the substance of what the
23
President has done.
24
25
They've
In this
The notion that the President of the United
States should have to come in and I don't know what sort
JA 971
68
1
of apology would satisfy them.
2
the President of the United States based on national
3
security and foreign policy concerns based on
4
recommendations that have been given to him by both two
5
cabinet secretaries in consultation with multiple other
6
cabinet agencies.
7
1182(f) and 1185 or as an established clause violation is
8
astonishing.
9
resemblance to this.
10
But this is a core act of
The notion that that falls outside of
They don't have any case that has any
In McCreary, for example, they try to say that
11
the history matters.
12
religious symbol that they then put on some window
13
dressing on both sides and said things have changed.
14
In McCreary, you had a facially
Here we have a month's long worldwide review by
15
multiple cabinet agencies.
16
What it does actually have more in common with is, for
17
example, McGowan.
18
closing laws.
19
that Sunday closing laws historically were rooted in
20
religious motives.
21
There are all sorts of exceptions for things that are
22
totally inconsistent with any religious purpose that
23
evinced that it's for recreation.
24
25
Those have nothing in common.
In McGowan, it dealing with Sunday
What the court pointed out is yes, we know
But look at Sunday closing laws today.
I would submit that in this context, the
analogue there is the fact that the proclamation dropped
JA 972
69
1
multiple Muslim countries and exempted multiple types of
2
non-immigrant visas even from the Muslim countries.
3
is strong evidence that this is not some sort of Muslim
4
ban in disguise.
5
good faith national security determination of the
6
President to solve a pressing problem that two agencies
7
determined after a month-long investigation.
9
10
It is what it purports to be, which is a
THE COURT:
8
That
I don't know where we are in time,
but I think I have covered the main questions I would like
to ask you.
Anything else you would like to add?
11
MR. MOOPAN:
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. COX:
No.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Mr. Cox?
Thank you, Your Honor.
Just a couple
14
of quick points.
15
of the statutory claim, I just wanted to point out that in
16
Sale, the Supreme Court, of course, evaluated that the
17
merits of a claim that the President had exceeded his
18
authority under 212(f).
19
briefs.
20
brief of the government's brief in that case.
21
take a look, the arguments you've heard today could be
22
lifted precisely from that and, of course, the court
23
rejected them.
24
25
First with regard to the judiciability
And we've cited the government's
So that we have given the Westlaw cites in our
And if you
More generally, when it comes to this -- the
alleged principle of non-reviewability, the government has
JA 973
70
1
argued that consular non-reviewability is but one part of
2
a subset of some sort of broader principle, but that
3
broader principle simply doesn't exist.
4
has yet to point to a single case that either articulates
5
it, explains it, applies it or acknowledges that it
6
exists.
The government
To the contrary, the Fourth Circuit in the
7
8
case -- in the IRAP decision at 857 F.3rd at 587 talked
9
about how when you have statutory claims with
10
constitutional claims, you can consider them both.
11
there's no bar here.
12
principle that bars this Court's evaluation of statutory
13
claims.
14
And so
There's no non-reviewability
And I just wanted to say a word about counsel's
15
proposed limit on the 212(f) power, which I believe he
16
proposed limit was that the President would have to be
17
attempting to achieve some sort of foreign policy or
18
national security goal.
19
limit at all.
20
wants to ban guest workers because he thinks that for some
21
foreign policy reason he wants to, you know, pressure a
22
government of a particular country and so that perhaps
23
sends a fair number of guest workers to this country.
24
could easily put that in terms of foreign policy or
25
national security.
But, of course, that's not a
The President could say tomorrow that he
He
You know, when it comes to
JA 974
71
1
immigration, pretty much anything you could dress up to
2
look like that.
So it's not a limit at all.
3
And if the goal really is to --
4
THE COURT:
Shouldn't Congress set the limit
5
then?
6
if Congress or if the American people decide this goes
7
beyond what the President should be allowed to do, isn't
8
that the remedy to have Congress pass a law limiting or an
9
amendment limiting 1182 in some way that would either
10
I mean if it's unclear now and if this issue is or
avoid this situation or some other situation?
11
MR. COX:
12
fact sets a limit.
13
who gets to set the policies when it comes to immigration
14
and entry policies and Congress cannot delegate that
15
authority to the executive branch which is precisely
16
why --
17
18
19
Well, Your Honor, our Constitution in
Our Constitution says that Congress is
THE COURT:
Well, it can and it does.
a matter of whether 1182 does it.
MR. COX:
Right.
It's just
Isn't that correct?
And our point rather is that
20
1182 has to be read in terms of that constitutional
21
prohibition and it can't -- it cannot be that Congress
22
simply hands the President a pen and says feel free to
23
cancel any part of the INA you want, impose your own
24
restrictions if you'd like, you know, we leave it up to
25
you and, you know, so long as you say it's about national
JA 975
72
1
security, no court can even review it.
I mean that's no
2
limit -- that's no limit at all.
3
think that Congress thought that that's what it was doing
4
when it enacted 212(f) particularly in light of the long
5
history of indications of it that are far, far narrower.
6
And, Your Honor, if the goal, of course, is to
And there's no reason to
7
simply pressure governments to share information, the
8
government has never explained why it couldn't enact
9
similar bans with regard to the other countries as it did
10
to Venezuela.
There's no explanation here as to why it
11
works for Venezuela, but not for Chad, for example.
12
there are far more targeted measures of achieving the
13
government's stated goals here that don't involve banning
14
tens and hundreds of millions of Muslims.
So
The last issue I just wanted to touch on
15
16
briefly, Your Honor, is that of organizational standing.
17
As Your Honor may be aware as we went up to the Supreme
18
Court last time, you know, in light of the injunction,
19
several of our individual plaintiffs, their relatives
20
received their visas, which the government argued mooted
21
them out.
22
Honor's -- you know, when Your Honor didn't reach the
23
standing of our organizational plaintiffs the last time,
24
that that somehow indicated that this Court didn't believe
25
we had standing.
The government also argued repeatedly that Your
And so we do think that there would be
JA 976
73
1
some value of an avoiding mootness concerns and ensuring
2
that we get resolution of this case on the merits were
3
this Court to consider the standing of organizational
4
plaintiffs which I can address and I think we've addressed
5
extensively in our papers.
6
THE COURT:
But --
I think you've covered it, but I
7
think that's a legitimate point to raise about the future
8
of the case.
9
10
11
MR. COX:
All right.
I think that's all we
have, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Great. well, thank you very much.
12
Thank you to both sides for a well-argued motion.
13
will take the matter under advisement.
14
earlier in I think some informal scheduling issues, I
15
can't give you a forecast on exactly when I'll issue a
16
decision on this, but I'll do it as soon as I can.
17
you very much.
18
And I
As I had stated
Thank
(Proceedings concluded.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JA 977
74
1
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3
I, Lisa K. Bankins, an Official Court Reporter
4
for the United States District Court for the District of
5
Maryland, do hereby certify that I reported, by machine
6
shorthand, in my official capacity, the proceedings had
7
and testimony adduced upon the motions hearing in the case
8
of the International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v.
9
Trump, et al, Iranian Alliance Across Borders, et al. v.
10
Trump, et al, Zakzok et al. v. Trump, et al., Civil Action
11
Number TDC-17-00361, TDC-17-2921, TDC-17-2969, in said
12
court on the 16th day of October, 2017.
13
I further certify that the foregoing 74 pages
14
constitute the official transcript of said proceedings, as
15
taken from my machine shorthand notes, together with the
16
backup tape of said proceedings to the best of my ability.
17
18
In witness whereof, I have hereto subscribed my
name, this 18th day of October, 2017.
19
20
21
Lisa K. Bankins
22
Lisa K. Bankins
Official Court Reporter
23
24
25
JA 978
75
12 [2] 33/6 33/13
120 [1] 2/23
MR. ABBAS: [16] 4/16 31/23
125 [1] 2/4
31/25 32/3 32/5 32/20 32/25
1252 [1] 43/15
33/10 33/14 33/21 34/23 35/7
1285 [1] 3/3
36/10 36/21 37/21 38/7
1310 [1] 2/19
MR. ATKINS: [1] 5/2
1329 [1] 41/10
MR. COX: [22] 4/11 6/1 6/12
1361 [4] 10/13 16/3 16/4 16/5
6/16 7/1 8/16 9/13 10/4 11/4
48/1
11/9 11/19 12/1 12/15 13/8 14/6 15 [1]
150 [2] 29/14 29/16
14/25 15/23 16/12 70/12 72/10
15th [1] 50/12
72/18 74/8
16 [1] 1/6
MR. GARG: [1] 5/11
16th [1] 75/12
MR. JADWAT: [19] 4/9 16/13
17 [1] 34/8
16/15 17/4 17/12 17/21 18/12
170208 [1] 2/7
19/16 19/21 20/10 21/14 22/3
1750 [1] 2/24
22/23 23/3 23/18 24/2 24/11
18th [2] 2/4 75/18
24/14 24/21
1965 [2] 9/2 29/13
MR. MOOPAN: [45] 5/5 39/11
40/5 41/5 41/22 42/1 43/5 44/3 2
44/13 44/22 46/13 48/3 48/7
20 [1] 3/9
48/13 49/2 49/12 49/21 50/14
20001 [1] 2/10
51/3 51/7 51/10 51/17 51/23
20003 [1] 2/13
52/12 53/13 54/7 55/25 57/16
20005 [1] 2/20
57/21 58/19 59/12 60/22 61/14 2015 [1] 13/1
61/20 62/8 63/3 63/11 63/22
2017 [4] 1/6 48/2 75/12 75/18
64/6 64/24 65/7 65/23 67/2
20530 [1] 3/10
68/17 70/10
20770 [1] 3/13
MR. MOSIER: [16] 4/13 24/25 210 [1] 2/20
25/5 26/15 27/10 27/20 28/12
212 [5] 18/4 18/24 70/18 71/15
28/20 30/7 30/17 30/23 30/25
73/4
31/7 31/11 31/17 31/22
24th [2] 25/18 26/11
MR. PRICE: [1] 4/22
2921 [3] 1/3 4/5 75/11
MR. ROTHSCHILD: [1] 4/20
2969 [3] 1/4 4/6 75/11
MR. SCHWEI: [1] 5/7
29th [1] 38/23
MS. HIROSE: [1] 4/25
2:00 [1] 1/7
MS. SHEBAYA: [1] 4/18
3
THE CLERK: [1] 4/1
THE COURT: [113]
30 [2] 5/18 5/22
30317 [1] 2/7
0
00361 [2] 1/3 75/11
0361 [1] 4/3
1
10004 [1] 2/5
10011 [1] 3/4
10271 [1] 2/24
10th [1] 2/10
1152 [1] 8/10
1182 [23] 10/23 11/16 11/17
11/18 11/25 12/7 12/17 12/20
13/24 15/6 15/20 53/23 54/22
55/8 55/13 55/21 56/2 57/13
58/11 69/7 72/9 72/18 72/20
1185 [1] 69/7
4
45 [1] 39/7
453 [1] 2/13
49 [1] 39/9
5
50-day [2] 33/19 56/25
587 [1] 71/8
6
6500 [1] 3/13
7
71080 [1] 2/16
74 [1] 75/13
8
850 [1] 2/10
857 [1] 71/8
9
90 [1] 21/6
90-day [1] 30/1
94612 [1] 2/16
A
ABBAS [4] 2/12 4/18 6/24
31/25
ability [3] 30/12 56/22 75/16
Abourezk [8] 15/2 41/7 41/9
41/16 54/20 54/21 54/21 55/3
above [1] 55/14
abroad [17] 39/20 40/9 40/11
40/23 41/1 41/14 41/18 42/7
42/24 43/21 45/5 45/10 45/18
45/18 46/1 56/3 56/15
absence [1] 40/15
absolute [3] 8/20 8/24 9/18
absolutely [1] 46/7
abstract [2] 40/12 51/20
abundance [1] 13/17
abundant [1] 64/1
accept [1] 8/11
accepted [1] 14/15
accepts [1] 26/22
accomplish [2] 56/3 57/5
accused [4] 36/19 67/7 67/7
68/2
achieve [1] 71/17
achieving [1] 73/12
acknowledge [1] 44/5
acknowledges [1] 71/5
acknowledgment [1] 16/6
across [7] 1/9 4/5 4/16 14/9
46/20 46/21 75/9
act [4] 7/7 29/13 68/9 69/1
acted [1] 67/14
acting [2] 48/18 60/3
action [5] 13/23 26/8 26/10
50/8 75/10
activities [3] 54/23 55/2 55/5
actor [1] 9/21
add [2] 54/19 70/10
added [6] 66/14 66/15 66/15
66/15 67/12 67/12
address [18] 8/16 10/21 12/18
12/19 12/23 15/4 17/21 19/14
29/20 35/17 36/2 36/5 39/22
40/18 44/8 44/24 68/15 74/4
addresses [1] 26/3
adds [1] 16/24
JA 979
A
adduced [1] 75/7
adequacy [1] 65/9
adequate [1] 64/22
adjudication [2] 35/18 35/21
admissibility [3] 7/11 10/15
16/9
adopted [1] 50/1
advance [1] 5/17
advantage [1] 27/14
advisement [1] 74/13
advisors [3] 49/24 52/4 65/15
Advocates [1] 2/15
afoul [2] 36/4 53/25
African [2] 29/8 29/11
African-Americans [2] 29/8
29/11
afternoon [16] 4/10 4/12 4/14
4/17 4/19 4/21 4/23 5/1 5/5 5/14
16/14 16/15 24/25 25/1 31/24
31/25
agencies [6] 65/11 67/5 68/1
69/6 69/15 70/6
agency [5] 32/22 32/24 39/15
52/6 52/7
al [18] 1/3 1/6 1/9 1/12 1/15
1/18 4/4 4/4 4/6 4/6 4/7 4/7 75/8
75/9 75/9 75/10 75/10 75/10
alert [1] 6/7
alien [3] 40/3 43/20 43/21
aliens [23] 39/20 40/8 40/10
40/13 40/22 41/1 41/14 41/18
42/6 42/20 42/20 42/22 42/24
43/1 43/4 43/7 43/10 46/1 55/19
56/3 56/22 57/3 57/5
alleged [4] 11/3 29/7 52/24
70/25
allegedly [3] 7/17 45/25 47/19
alleging [1] 28/15
Allende [1] 55/3
Alliance [1] 75/9
ALLIANCES [3] 1/9 4/5 4/15
allow [1] 11/18
allowed [7] 16/19 30/16 40/13
57/12 67/19 67/21 72/7
allows [2] 13/25 26/13
alone [1] 26/10
ambiguous [1] 21/16
amended [3] 40/21 41/12 42/21
amendment [1] 72/9
amendments [1] 9/3
American [2] 2/3 72/6
Americans [4] 2/18 27/16 29/8
29/11
Arlington [3] 26/2 26/5 29/9
Americas [1] 3/3
art [1] 8/19
amount [1] 50/16
article [4] 14/16 14/17 44/16
analogous [1] 30/10
45/24
analogue [1] 69/25
articulates [2] 34/17 71/4
analyses [1] 27/6
analysis [6] 9/25 26/11 26/13 ascertain [1] 7/13
35/5 37/21 65/19
aspect [2] 41/20 57/1
aspects [1] 49/4
analyzing [1] 9/13
assert [1] 52/9
and/or [1] 12/1
assert that [1] 52/9
animosity [1] 37/10
animus [2] 32/23 60/5
asserted [3] 45/3 51/25 52/15
asserting [1] 27/9
announced [1] 5/17
assess [2] 10/12 64/14
answer [5] 36/22 36/23 37/5
68/12 68/12
assessed [3] 36/24 65/9 65/10
answers [2] 20/4 38/20
assessing [1] 33/4
ASSISTANCE [3] 1/3 4/4 75/8
anti [4] 24/1 24/2 66/7 67/7
anti-Muslim [3] 24/1 66/7 67/7 assume [4] 12/12 35/24 39/5
64/21
anti-terrorist [1] 24/2
anymore [2] 38/2 44/13
assuming [2] 28/23 62/2
APA [8] 42/9 42/10 42/10 42/12 assure [2] 50/10 50/15
42/14 42/20 42/22 59/19
astonishing [1] 69/8
atheists [1] 52/23
apology [1] 69/1
ATKINS [2] 3/3 5/3
apparent [1] 25/10
Atlanta [1] 2/7
APPEARANCES [1] 2/2
attempt [1] 38/15
application [2] 35/10 56/2
attempted [1] 15/6
applied [4] 9/11 35/12 57/11
64/21
attempting [2] 7/4 71/17
attendees [2] 31/7 31/15
applies [1] 71/5
Attorney [2] 21/3 63/14
apply [2] 28/22 66/1
attributed [1] 23/23
applying [1] 34/12
auspices [1] 30/15
apprise [1] 24/20
authority [22] 7/6 7/21 10/14
approach [2] 7/15 13/16
11/6 12/4 12/7 13/20 14/2 14/16
approaching [1] 59/1
16/7 18/25 22/21 22/25 23/1
Arabia [1] 68/19
23/9 39/19 44/17 53/20 55/14
arbitrary [1] 59/20
55/18 70/18 72/15
13/23 19/6 63/8 68/9
area [4]
authorization [11] 40/7 40/16
areas [1] 14/8
40/20 41/11 41/13 41/14 41/18
aren't [4] 39/23 45/5 57/14
62/13
42/3 42/5 42/10 43/8
authorizes [1] 40/3
arguably [1] 14/21
Avenue [3] 2/13 3/3 3/9
argue [1] 5/20
71/1 73/20 73/21
avoid [2] 11/3 72/10
argued [4]
74/12
avoiding [1] 74/1
arguing [4] 17/8 17/16 26/12
B
57/20
argument [29] 8/11 8/16 10/3 background [1] 28/7
backup [1] 75/16
10/22 14/14 15/13 15/16 18/7
backwards [1] 43/19
18/24 19/10 26/23 28/5 28/9
ban [37] 7/4 8/25 9/2 13/10
28/12 30/4 30/8 30/14 37/2
13/15 15/25 16/21 16/24 17/2
41/20 41/21 43/3 43/23 47/22
17/25 18/1 18/25 20/1 20/2
53/9 54/19 55/12 63/9 64/19
20/20 20/24 21/5 21/18 21/23
65/7
arguments [5] 5/22 17/23 18/19 25/15 29/25 30/1 32/10 34/6
34/10 53/23 60/20 60/21 61/9
43/24 70/21
61/14 61/17 61/21 66/8 67/22
ARJUN [2] 3/9 5/12
JA 980
41/8 44/2 44/21 44/24 53/1 53/2
55/4 59/6 66/19 71/7
ban... [3] 67/22 70/4 71/20
Circuit's [3] 22/16 29/1 42/16
Bankins [4] 3/12 75/3 75/21
circumstance [1] 68/21
75/22
circumstances [3] 12/21 23/2
banned [13] 33/7 33/25 34/4
40/14
34/6 34/17 34/18 34/20 62/3
circumstantial [1] 26/4
62/15 62/24 63/1 65/6 65/6
citation [1] 33/15
banning [1] 73/13
cite [2] 44/11 66/19
bans [4] 13/4 13/6 34/7 73/9
cited [2] 47/5 70/18
bar [8] 8/13 10/2 12/1 17/11
cites [1] 70/19
27/23 27/24 58/18 71/11
citing [1] 44/15
bare [1] 59/21
citizen [2] 38/19 43/4
barely [1] 66/16
citizens [1] 28/16
barred [4] 11/2 15/19 62/7
citizenship [1] 37/14
62/21
Civil [8] 1/3 2/3 4/3 4/4 4/6
barriers [1] 28/16
C
29/12 29/13 75/10
bars [1] 71/12
cabinet [7] 32/22 65/14 67/16 claim [18] 6/21 6/23 8/10 10/20
baseline [8] 33/3 60/9 64/12
68/4 69/5 69/6 69/15
25/4 25/7 25/8 26/19 27/13
64/19 64/20 65/8 65/9 65/17
CAIR [1] 2/12
27/24 29/6 29/17 30/4 45/4 53/7
basis [7] 7/19 10/7 27/12 32/18 California [1] 2/16
53/9 70/15 70/17
49/20 59/1 59/14
campaign [3] 23/21 23/24
claimed [1] 7/5
behind [4] 25/13 28/2 52/10
32/10
claiming [1] 40/12
59/18
cancel [2] 12/8 72/23
claims [15] 6/16 6/18 6/20 7/20
benefit [1] 28/17
capacity [1] 75/6
26/18 26/23 39/23 39/24 41/4
BENNETT [3] 3/8 5/10 5/10
capricious [1] 59/20
41/15 45/1 45/14 71/9 71/10
besides [1] 24/10
Carolina [2] 29/3 29/6
71/13
beyond [14] 5/22 6/9 10/23
case-by-case [2] 35/18 35/21 clarify [3] 21/19 34/21 64/23
11/18 11/24 11/25 13/24 27/5
categorical [1] 35/19
class [1] 28/15
40/1 40/17 54/1 54/10 55/11
categories [6] 26/6 26/10 62/8 classified [3] 48/10 48/12 48/24
72/7
63/17 63/22 63/24
clause [27] 6/21 18/9 19/2 19/9
bias [5] 66/7 67/8 67/11 68/1
categorization [1] 9/4
19/14 25/23 26/14 26/20 26/24
68/2
caution [1] 13/17
27/2 27/23 36/4 36/19 36/25
bigger [1] 16/20
center [4] 2/6 2/22 4/24 25/9
38/10 45/9 45/16 45/22 46/2
biggest [1] 16/23
certainty [1] 22/20
46/6 46/15 46/22 46/24 46/25
binding [3] 44/4 44/18 44/20
CERTIFICATE [1] 75/1
47/6 52/18 69/7
blanket [1] 18/24
certify [2] 75/5 75/13
clear [23] 11/5 14/12 21/17
blood [1] 23/23
cetera [1] 58/24
21/19 22/25 23/6 23/6 23/9
blow [1] 52/17
Chad [4] 34/15 66/16 67/19
25/24 25/24 27/9 37/6 40/1
bodies [1] 24/8
73/11
40/14 40/15 40/22 41/16 42/11
bona [2] 28/1 28/2
challenge [7] 29/2 40/5 40/12
42/22 43/12 46/4 50/22 61/6
BORDERS [4] 1/9 4/5 4/16 75/9 41/14 41/19 43/1 43/21
clerk [1] 6/6
born [2] 9/5 37/16
challenged [3] 19/3 26/8 26/9 clients [3] 6/24 19/3 36/10
boundary [3] 54/3 54/6 54/7
challenging [3] 29/23 43/6
clock [1] 6/6
Box [2] 2/7 2/16
43/11
close [1] 20/15
boxes [1] 65/10
characteristic [1] 9/19
closely [1] 18/5
boycott [1] 46/19
characterizations [1] 65/2
closer [2] 6/7 32/3
branch [1] 72/15
Cherrywood [1] 3/13
closing [5] 47/10 47/11 69/18
branch's [1] 40/2
chosen [1] 7/15
69/19 69/20
branches [1] 40/25
Christian [2] 45/12 45/14
co [1] 35/24
breaching [1] 50/24
CHUANG [1] 1/22
co-counsel [1] 35/24
Brennan [2] 2/22 4/24
church [2] 2/18 52/21
coerce [1] 36/18
brief [7] 25/2 31/2 53/22 60/6 Circuit [23] 8/18 15/2 22/20
colleague [1] 16/12
66/19 70/20 70/20
22/24 28/1 29/16 29/23 29/23
combat [1] 24/8
briefed [2] 10/1 26/17
30/11 32/8 38/10 40/23 41/7
combination [1] 53/4
B
briefing [1] 26/17
briefs [3] 10/18 27/1 70/19
broad [10] 2/4 9/4 12/3 12/4
14/12 14/21 35/15 35/19 39/19
41/24
broadcast [2] 37/3 38/15
broader [3] 26/13 71/2 71/3
broadly [3] 9/23 14/13 29/4
Broadway [1] 2/23
Bruno [5] 40/23 41/8 41/16
42/17 43/19
bullets [1] 23/22
burden [2] 7/9 10/6
Burling [1] 2/9
business [3] 46/20 47/16 47/16
JA 981
51/5
context [9] 26/8 28/10 28/20
come to [1] 30/13
29/5 29/10 29/11 29/14 61/6
comfort [1] 50/16
69/24
common [2] 69/15 69/16
continuation [1] 25/14
communication [1] 48/17
contradict [1] 53/25
compelling [1] 9/10
contradicted [1] 50/7
concern [2] 8/15 8/16
contrary [1] 71/7
concerns [5] 14/14 31/3 54/10
contrast [1] 12/24
69/3 74/1
controlling [1] 22/21
conclude [2] 32/12 64/2
controversy [1] 25/10
concluded [1] 74/18
convince [4] 10/15 16/8 20/5
concludes [1] 19/13
36/7
conclusion [3] 37/7 37/9 38/16
core [4] 16/17 49/23 56/2 69/1
condemnation [2] 18/20 18/20
counsel's [1] 71/14
conditions [3] 12/25 13/2 13/13
counter [2] 23/16 32/16
conducting [1] 32/24
countries [81]
conference [6] 30/21 30/23
country [23] 7/5 10/11 10/16
31/7 31/13 31/14 31/20
12/1 12/25 13/13 19/15 38/5
conferences [2] 30/6 30/9
40/13 42/21 43/10 43/20 57/3
conflict [1] 16/9
62/16 63/6 64/4 64/14 66/2
Congress [25] 11/10 12/6
66/16 66/17 67/13 71/22 71/23
12/19 12/22 12/25 13/1 13/14
court [51] 1/1 3/12 3/12 4/3 7/3
13/21 14/15 14/24 15/4 40/3
12/3 14/11 22/7 22/18 23/5 23/6
41/13 42/3 42/5 42/21 54/17
24/20 25/12 25/21 25/24 28/25
55/16 72/4 72/6 72/8 72/12
29/2 29/9 29/17 29/19 29/22
72/14 72/21 73/3
32/1 32/7 32/8 32/12 36/10
Congress' [2] 7/15 7/18
36/23 38/13 39/13 39/25 42/4
congressional [4] 7/8 40/7
42/19 48/1 48/25 50/7 50/8
40/16 40/19
51/17 51/23 52/20 52/25 69/18
connective [3] 32/9 32/11
70/16 70/22 73/1 73/18 73/24
32/14
74/3 75/3 75/4 75/12 75/22
consequences [1] 13/3
Court's [7] 22/15 24/16 25/6
consideration [2] 27/23 27/24
26/2 26/10 49/19 71/12
consistent [1] 35/12
courts [8] 26/4 26/7 29/4 40/1
constituents' [1] 31/3
40/8 40/17 53/20 55/4
constitute [1] 75/14
cover [1] 30/18
Constitution [2] 72/11 72/12
covered [3] 67/16 70/9 74/6
constitutional [16] 6/20 8/1 8/2
Covington [1] 2/9
8/5 9/12 14/13 17/23 18/19
2/6 4/13 6/11 70/12
39/19 41/4 45/1 45/1 45/8 52/14 COX [4]
crafted [1] 20/24
71/10 72/20
create [2] 35/18 50/9
consular [6] 7/11 10/14 16/7
created [1] 64/12
41/21 41/23 71/1
creates [1] 28/16
consulate [1] 38/22
criteria [21] 33/3 33/6 33/7
consultation [6] 33/20 33/23
33/14 33/19 33/20 33/25 34/1
60/7 63/13 64/11 69/5
34/12 35/10 35/11 57/11 57/14
consulted [2] 67/15 68/3
57/18 57/21 57/24 57/25 58/1
consulting [1] 65/14
60/13 65/18 65/23
contain [1] 34/3
criterior [8] 10/24 11/1 11/8
contained [1] 12/9
11/11 11/12 11/13 12/11 12/24
contains [1] 48/10
critical [5] 41/12 54/16 57/1
contemplated [1] 14/1
60/1 67/4
content [1] 68/13
critically [2] 41/9 66/3
contents [4] 34/23 37/7 49/20
crossed [1] 54/4
C
Crow [1] 29/13
crucial [1] 57/4
crystal [2] 43/12 46/4
Cuba [2] 57/16 58/1
Cuban [2] 56/6 56/12
cure [1] 19/19
cured [1] 19/21
curing [1] 66/22
cursory [1] 59/9
D
D.C [4] 2/10 2/13 2/20 3/10
danger [1] 56/12
dangerous [1] 35/22
DANIEL [2] 3/8 5/8
daughter [1] 38/19
DC [6] 8/18 15/2 40/23 41/7
41/8 42/16
de [1] 37/5
de-stigmatize [1] 37/5
decades [1] 12/3
decide [3] 25/7 29/17 72/6
decided [3] 13/3 13/5 65/15
decision [8] 22/6 26/2 29/1
32/8 50/1 68/4 71/8 74/16
deemed [3] 15/13 54/24 54/25
defendant [1] 5/13
defendants [7] 1/7 1/13 1/19
3/7 5/7 5/9 5/11
deference [1] 40/25
deficiencies [3] 7/16 35/25
56/20
deficiency [1] 36/16
defined [1] 58/22
definition [1] 59/17
delay [1] 53/4
delegate [1] 72/14
delegating [1] 55/16
delegations [2] 12/4 14/12
deliberative [3] 48/16 49/23
51/18
demonstrate [3] 10/7 19/20
29/4
deny [3] 7/12 10/14 16/7
department [10] 3/7 11/14
20/23 50/6 56/17 56/18 60/2
60/3 60/7 66/4
depending [1] 6/8
deported [1] 43/12
derogatory [1] 23/18
description [1] 20/4
desecration [1] 24/8
designated [1] 50/20
desire [2] 37/10 39/2
determination [5] 40/2 40/17
JA 982
60/14
drawn [2] 14/10 54/14
dress [1] 72/1
EO-3 [2] 18/14 20/18
determination... [3] 58/21 60/9
dressing [1] 69/13
equal [25] 5/23 6/23 8/3 25/4
70/5
dropped [5] 66/12 66/13 66/14 25/7 25/23 26/13 26/14 26/16
determined [3] 34/3 50/5 70/7
67/11 69/25
26/18 27/3 27/7 27/13 27/19
detriment [1] 15/21
27/20 27/24 28/4 28/9 28/14
detrimental [6] 7/23 15/14
E
29/2 29/6 29/17 53/7 53/8 53/9
23/18 54/24 54/25 58/12
early [1] 50/17
era [1] 29/13
developing [1] 12/22
easier [1] 32/7
ERIC [2] 2/19 4/21
DHS [3] 9/7 48/18 64/2
easiest [1] 45/10
error [1] 50/9
dictating [2] 63/5 64/8
easily [1] 71/24
errors [1] 44/8
difference [5] 18/3 21/21 47/1 EBLAL [1] 1/15
ESQUIRE [13] 2/3 2/6 2/9 2/12
47/8 47/17
effect [3] 18/19 18/20 22/15
2/15 2/19 2/23 3/3 3/5 3/7 3/8
differences [1] 27/6
efforts [1] 29/11
3/8 3/9
difficult [4] 19/25 20/5 29/8
eight [10] 33/25 50/18 50/19
essence [1] 21/4
38/9
56/19 65/11 65/13 66/10 66/11 essentially [4] 14/14 16/4 21/23
dipped [1] 23/22
66/11 67/16
47/12
dire [1] 38/19
Eighty [1] 34/4
established [6] 28/13 28/18
direct [3] 26/4 30/8 53/15
election [1] 29/3
37/16 52/18 65/17 69/7
disagree [1] 49/24
electronic [2] 34/5 34/7
establishes [1] 35/21
disagreed [2] 53/22 68/20
eligibility [1] 7/10
establishing [1] 32/9
disagreements [2] 52/4 52/9
eligible [1] 31/11
establishment [25] 6/21 18/9
disapproval [1] 52/23
elsewhere [1] 31/6
19/2 19/8 19/14 25/22 26/14
disclose [2] 50/14 52/2
emergent [1] 12/18
26/20 26/24 27/2 27/23 36/4
disclosed [2] 51/16 51/22
emphasize [1] 57/2
36/19 36/25 38/10 45/8 45/16
discrepancy [1] 49/15
employment [1] 53/24
45/22 46/2 46/6 46/15 46/22
discretion [4] 12/5 62/6 64/2
enact [1] 73/8
46/24 46/25 47/6
66/1
enacted [1] 73/4
establishment-clause [1] 18/9
discriminate [1] 10/7
enacting [1] 12/6
et [19] 1/3 1/6 1/9 1/12 1/15
discriminated [1] 7/19
enacts [1] 67/22
1/18 4/4 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7 4/7
discriminating [1] 36/12
encourage [1] 36/17
58/23 75/8 75/9 75/9 75/10
discrimination [6] 8/10 8/18
encouraging [1] 56/23
75/10 75/10
9/15 10/2 10/9 26/19
endorsement [1] 52/22
evaluated [2] 64/16 70/16
discriminatory [3] 26/1 29/5
enforcement [3] 17/11 17/19
evaluation [1] 71/12
45/25
43/13
events [1] 26/9
discussion [1] 42/4
engaged [3] 60/8 67/8 67/25
everyone [1] 5/14
disenfranchise [1] 29/11
engagement [2] 56/25 64/15
evidence [12] 25/11 25/12
disfavor [3] 37/4 39/2 39/2
enjoin [2] 17/18 18/14
25/25 26/5 26/6 26/25 28/3 29/5
disfavoring [1] 36/12
ensure [1] 38/14
60/1 60/2 66/5 70/3
disfavors [1] 38/16
ensuring [1] 74/1
evince [1] 67/10
disguise [1] 70/4
enter [4] 40/13 45/6 56/22
evinced [1] 69/23
dispensing [1] 11/1
57/12
examine [2] 32/13 33/1
dispositive [1] 14/10
entirely [1] 21/17
examples [5] 23/16 24/10 28/8
disputing [1] 65/1
entirety [1] 8/8
54/11 59/5
DISTRICT [7] 1/1 1/1 1/23 3/12 entitled [1] 11/14
exceed [1] 59/21
17/6 75/4 75/4
entry [14] 8/13 39/14 40/11
exceeded [1] 70/17
ditto [1] 56/12
53/4 54/25 55/2 55/6 55/7 60/19 exceptions [2] 61/12 69/21
divide [1] 5/20
61/11 62/7 63/17 63/24 72/14
exchange [1] 67/20
DIVISION [1] 1/2
EO [14] 16/17 18/14 18/16
exclude [2] 40/2 57/5
DNI [1] 64/12
20/17 20/17 20/18 20/19 21/2
excludes [1] 16/21
Doe [3] 38/21 46/17 58/23
32/10 32/11 32/11 60/11 60/11 exclusion [8] 40/22 41/1 41/19
domestic [2] 54/13 55/24
60/14
42/6 42/20 43/2 43/7 55/18
DONALD [3] 1/6 1/12 1/18
EO-1 [3] 20/17 32/10 32/11
excuse [1] 14/17
draw [2] 14/17 53/19
EO-2 [9] 16/17 18/16 20/17
executed [1] 23/22
drawing [1] 20/14
20/19 21/2 32/11 60/11 60/11
executive [8] 12/5 22/17 23/17
D
JA 983
Floor [1] 2/4
flunk [1] 64/21
executive... [5] 25/20 29/24
focus [7] 15/15 18/19 18/21
50/4 55/18 72/15
26/25 27/4 34/1 38/4
exempted [1] 70/1
focused [6] 17/18 17/24 32/9
exempts [1] 67/22
38/1 38/1 38/2
exercise [1] 7/21
folks [1] 38/13
exist [4] 18/1 22/23 44/13 71/3
football [2] 46/18 46/19
exists [2] 26/1 71/6
footnote [2] 54/20 55/3
expended [1] 31/2
forced [1] 27/14
explanation [2] 37/6 73/10
forecast [1] 74/15
explicitly [3] 13/21 23/5 55/22
foreclose [1] 62/12
express [3] 37/10 42/3 42/5
foregoing [1] 75/13
expressing [1] 23/8
foreign [16] 38/18 39/21 54/9
expressly [3] 26/3 40/3 50/18
55/21 56/3 56/14 57/5 57/6 58/4
extensively [1] 74/5
63/17 63/25 68/6 69/3 71/17
extreme [1] 23/25
71/21 71/24
Forge [1] 52/19
F
formal [1] 6/6
F.3rd [1] 71/8
Fourth [15] 22/16 22/20 22/24
face [2] 28/1 28/2
28/1 28/25 29/16 29/23 32/8
facially [1] 69/11
fact [16] 10/18 14/21 20/18 30/4 38/10 44/2 44/21 44/24 53/1
53/2 71/7
32/14 33/25 35/1 45/25 46/14
frame [1] 5/18
46/23 47/4 50/5 50/14 61/13
free [2] 39/20 72/22
69/25 72/12
factor [7] 29/9 37/20 64/22 65/3 fruition [1] 38/25
fundamental [5] 16/9 45/6 47/1
65/4 65/5 65/6
factors [11] 21/11 34/13 34/16 47/8 47/17
fundamentally [1] 39/13
34/19 34/22 64/13 64/14 65/8
65/18 65/20 65/25
G
facts [8] 22/9 29/21 35/2 35/6
GADEIR [2] 2/12 4/17
41/17 49/17 51/25 67/1
garage [2] 46/20 46/21
factual [2] 52/7 52/11
GARG [2] 3/9 5/12
faculty [1] 30/12
Garrison [1] 3/2
Fahed [1] 38/17
general [6] 21/3 31/14 42/12
failed [1] 33/24
48/2 51/21 63/14
faith [4] 28/3 38/21 68/4 70/5
generality [1] 9/22
fallacious [1] 43/1
generated [1] 65/22
falls [2] 39/18 69/6
generates [1] 34/14
family [4] 27/10 28/5 28/6 28/10
Georgia [1] 2/7
FCRR [1] 3/12
gets [1] 72/13
Fe [1] 46/17
gives [2] 10/13 12/11
features [1] 39/18
goal [4] 58/9 71/18 72/3 73/6
federal [4] 5/7 34/3 37/22 52/20
goals [1] 73/13
Felix [3] 66/19 68/14 68/16
gotten [1] 24/17
Fiallo [2] 27/18 27/22
government [31] 5/23 10/6
fide [2] 28/1 28/2
10/10 10/25 18/15 19/5 19/20
fight [1] 55/1
23/12 25/11 25/16 26/22 28/16
findings [1] 15/21
32/16 34/3 35/3 37/22 38/2 39/5
fit [2] 14/18 30/21
39/7 41/15 46/11 47/13 49/18
fix [3] 19/14 36/7 50/9
49/24 52/20 70/25 71/3 71/22
flaws [1] 18/16
73/8 73/20 73/21
flexibility [1] 12/18
government's [7] 10/17 14/14
flies [1] 39/8
21/25 38/3 70/18 70/20 73/13
E
governments [4] 56/14 57/6
68/6 73/7
governs [1] 40/8
grant [1] 61/9
granting [1] 68/6
grapple [2] 10/18 16/5
gray [1] 14/8
Great [1] 74/11
greater [1] 7/25
Greenbelt [2] 1/5 3/13
ground [2] 54/23 55/10
grounds [1] 7/10
guarantees [1] 8/2
guerillas [1] 23/24
guest [2] 71/20 71/23
H
habeas [2] 42/23 43/17
Hamadmad [1] 37/12
handful [1] 27/16
happy [2] 15/10 31/9
harbored [1] 66/7
harboring [1] 67/7
harder [1] 56/2
hardly [1] 17/1
harm [3] 30/7 30/9 30/23
harmed [3] 28/6 30/5 46/8
harms [2] 6/24 6/25
HASHIM [2] 3/7 5/6
havens [2] 34/2 34/4
Hawaii [2] 17/6 30/10
hearing [5] 1/22 4/8 5/15 19/4
75/7
heavily [1] 49/20
heightened [4] 8/21 9/21 10/4
12/11
Heights [3] 26/3 26/5 29/9
hereby [1] 75/5
hereto [1] 75/17
highly [1] 23/10
HIROSE [2] 3/5 5/1
historical [5] 15/16 26/7 29/9
29/10 29/13
historically [3] 12/20 62/19
69/19
history [13] 15/20 15/22 19/12
19/13 26/15 36/20 37/8 40/24
42/18 42/25 43/18 69/11 73/5
holistically [2] 65/9 65/11
Homeland [10] 20/23 21/3 48/2
56/18 60/2 60/4 60/7 60/17
63/13 66/4
Honor [59] 4/10 4/12 4/14 4/17
6/2 6/13 6/17 7/2 8/17 10/5 11/5
12/2 12/16 13/9 14/7 15/1 15/10
JA 984
imposed [4] 20/21 56/21 67/17
68/8
Honor... [42] 15/24 16/13 16/14
imposes [3] 39/17 47/13 55/15
17/14 20/12 21/19 22/10 23/4
imposing [2] 20/1 20/20
24/3 24/13 24/16 25/1 27/21
imposition [1] 47/19
31/23 31/24 33/12 34/24 39/3
56/21 58/4 64/16
39/12 43/9 44/5 45/7 48/5 48/8 improve [5]
68/5 68/7
49/22 51/4 51/12 51/19 55/12
improvement [1] 56/23
57/19 57/23 62/10 65/25 68/9
improving [1] 58/9
70/11 70/13 72/11 73/6 73/16
INA [26] 8/1 8/5 9/3 10/25 11/3
73/17 73/22 74/10
11/6 11/9 11/22 11/23 12/2 12/4
Honor's [1] 73/22
12/8 31/6 31/17 40/20 40/20
HONORABLE [1] 1/22
41/10 42/8 43/15 53/17 54/14
hopefully [1] 50/16
54/15 55/10 55/15 57/15 72/23
hopes [1] 56/23
inaccurate [1] 65/3
hostage [1] 57/16
inadequate [3] 16/6 16/10 21/5
hostile [3] 24/5 24/6 24/7
inadmissibility [2] 54/22 55/10
hostilities [1] 8/14
inclusion [4] 60/18 61/10 63/16
hostility [1] 23/25
64/4
hosting [1] 30/6
inconceivable [1] 68/13
hundred [1] 16/22
inconsistencies [4] 51/2 51/10
hundreds [1] 73/14
51/16 51/23
hurdles [1] 28/6
inconsistency [2] 50/23 52/6
hypothetical [1] 46/16
inconsistent [5] 35/9 49/1
50/11 50/12 69/22
I
incorrectly [1] 60/22
I'd [5] 5/20 24/15 39/24 53/12
indefinite [2] 16/18 29/25
53/15
indefinitely [1] 16/24
I'll [8] 6/13 6/17 25/2 29/20
indication [2] 9/18 35/13
35/23 39/4 74/15 74/16
indications [1] 73/5
I'm [20] 6/14 9/14 11/23 14/3
indicative [1] 9/5
15/9 17/15 22/10 22/13 37/25
38/1 39/5 44/20 47/25 49/3 51/4 indicators [1] 34/15
indirect [1] 47/14
56/1 58/1 61/18 61/18 62/24
indisputably [1] 58/8
I've [1] 53/17
individual [8] 27/8 29/21 40/4
IAAB [6] 4/20 4/22 6/22 30/3
40/10 40/13 47/17 57/3 73/19
30/8 30/24
individualized [1] 13/18
IAAB's [1] 30/15
individuals [8] 7/9 7/12 7/18
ignore [2] 57/1 57/4
10/11 11/11 11/12 16/8 32/24
ignored [1] 25/21
inescapable [1] 37/9
III [1] 45/24
informal [2] 6/5 74/14
IIRIRA [1] 43/17
informally [1] 5/17
Imagine [1] 46/18
information [32] 7/13 7/16
immediate [1] 30/23
10/12 21/5 22/21 24/20 33/10
immediately [1] 8/14
immigrant [3] 67/19 67/23 70/2 34/10 35/25 36/8 36/16 36/18
48/10 48/13 50/6 56/20 58/5
immigrants [2] 16/19 35/19
58/9 60/10 61/4 61/22 61/24
immigration [8] 2/6 7/6 14/18
62/17 62/22 62/23 63/2 63/19
27/15 28/10 28/19 72/1 72/13
64/1 64/12 68/5 68/7 73/7
immune [1] 7/22
information-sharing [4] 35/25
impact [1] 46/12
36/16 62/22 62/23
implicit [1] 55/21
inherent [1] 55/18
imported [1] 9/13
initial [1] 60/8
impose [6] 9/1 12/1 12/10
initially [1] 27/7
12/10 20/22 72/23
injunction [12] 4/8 5/16 8/7
H
17/11 17/17 18/8 18/10 18/10
22/17 25/17 43/13 73/18
injured [2] 40/11 45/4
injuries [4] 29/24 45/4 45/14
52/15
injury [8] 28/14 45/24 46/14
46/23 47/4 52/15 52/16 52/17
insofar [2] 44/6 44/15
instead [5] 13/4 13/14 13/16
20/24 54/11
instructive [2] 8/25 42/17
insufficient [2] 7/13 15/15
intended [6] 10/20 12/7 12/17
15/3 37/3 37/4
intending [1] 35/17
intent [5] 26/1 26/5 29/5 37/2
38/9
intent-based [1] 37/2
interest [8] 7/24 9/10 53/19
55/22 58/12 58/22 58/22 59/16
interested [1] 47/23
interests [1] 30/6
interfere [1] 30/9
interference [1] 30/12
INTERNATIONAL [3] 1/3 4/3
75/8
interpretation [1] 8/12
intrusion [1] 11/3
invalidated [1] 49/10
investigated [2] 64/3 64/13
investigation [2] 62/14 70/7
invoked [1] 23/20
Iran [3] 57/15 58/2 67/20
IRANIAN [10] 1/9 4/5 4/15
30/17 56/7 56/9 56/10 56/10
56/11 75/9
IRAP [6] 4/11 4/13 5/2 6/2 32/8
71/8
Iraq [3] 34/19 56/24 66/14
Iraqis [1] 13/10
irrelevant [1] 53/11
Islam [7] 18/20 23/14 36/12
37/4 37/11 38/16 39/2
issuance [2] 7/9 7/20
issue [22] 8/9 10/20 27/5 38/8
44/9 44/23 47/9 52/13 52/14
53/17 54/21 54/22 55/7 57/7
58/17 60/15 62/5 66/23 68/15
72/5 73/15 74/15
issued [3] 11/15 15/4 25/18
issues [10] 6/15 12/18 15/4
17/21 19/11 19/19 36/1 54/13
66/20 74/14
issuing [2] 22/16 50/2
iterations [1] 66/13
JA 985
legislative [1] 42/25
legitimate [3] 27/25 58/9 74/7
JADWAT [5] 2/3 4/11 6/11 6/19
length [1] 40/24
16/15
letter [1] 21/2
Jane [1] 38/21
Liberties [1] 2/3
Jersey [1] 2/13
liberty [2] 38/11 38/14
Jim [1] 29/12
Libya [1] 67/18
Jordan [3] 37/16 37/16 37/18
life [2] 37/13 37/18
judge [2] 1/23 49/5
lifted [1] 70/22
judges [1] 48/12
light [6] 18/15 37/8 38/14 39/17
judgment [2] 22/16 62/13
73/4 73/18
judgments [2] 7/8 13/2
limit [14] 7/22 12/13 12/14 54/2
judiciability [4] 6/15 6/18 6/20
54/5 55/23 71/15 71/16 71/19
70/14
72/2 72/4 72/12 73/2 73/2
judiciable [2] 39/23 53/8
limitation [2] 19/16 55/25
judicial [1] 7/22
limitations [1] 17/9
judiciary [1] 42/6
limited [4] 13/11 54/23 55/23
justice [4] 2/22 3/7 4/24 50/6
59/8
justification [3] 15/21 16/1 16/5
limiting [4] 19/9 41/14 72/8
JUSTIN [2] 2/6 4/12
72/9
limits [2] 20/13 55/11
K
lines [2] 54/13 58/22
Kent [1] 14/11
links [1] 32/14
key [1] 14/8
Lisa [4] 3/12 75/3 75/21 75/22
Knauff [4] 39/25 40/14 42/2
list [19] 16/18 33/7 34/17 60/17
42/4
60/21 61/10 61/13 62/8 62/11
knows [1] 37/22
63/6 63/15 63/21 63/23 64/5
Korea [6] 16/25 17/3 17/11
64/17 65/12 65/15 65/21 65/22
17/19 18/5 66/15
lists [1] 13/8
Korean [1] 17/9
litany [1] 7/8
Koreans [1] 17/8
literally [1] 12/8
Korematsu [1] 50/4
LLP [2] 2/9 3/2
L
logic [1] 28/4
lack [1] 10/11
M
lacked [1] 65/6
machine [2] 75/5 75/15
lacks [1] 11/6
main [2] 18/23 70/9
Lane [1] 3/13
mainly [2] 27/25 30/22
largely [1] 26/20
majority [6] 16/22 17/24 18/11
latest [1] 7/17
18/11 18/22 66/17
Lavas [1] 8/17
mandate [1] 7/18
law [19] 2/6 2/22 9/6 12/17
Mandel [2] 27/19 27/22
25/23 26/21 27/3 28/8 28/14
manner [2] 11/7 15/6
29/6 41/17 43/14 44/16 47/9
March [1] 25/6
47/11 47/18 47/19 54/19 72/8
laws [5] 14/18 29/3 69/18 69/19 MARIKO [2] 3/5 5/1
marker [1] 9/8
69/20
MARYLAND [4] 1/1 1/5 3/13
lawsuit [1] 46/22
75/5
lays [2] 33/3 65/13
Mashta [1] 24/17
lead [1] 21/11
Massachusetts [1] 3/9
leading [1] 59/24
massive [1] 52/17
led [3] 21/8 26/9 50/7
legal [7] 8/19 31/10 43/4 44/17 material [4] 50/14 51/16 51/19
51/23
44/20 49/7 49/9
materials [2] 34/25 47/24
legally [2] 14/23 17/20
matter [7] 4/2 10/18 14/23
legislated [1] 13/22
J
17/20 44/18 72/18 74/13
matters [2] 38/3 69/11
McCreary [5] 20/12 25/21 68/15
69/10 69/11
McCrory [1] 29/1
McGowan [6] 47/8 47/8 47/9
47/10 69/17 69/17
measure [1] 62/18
measures [1] 73/12
mechanical [1] 3/15
member [2] 27/10 28/5
members [3] 28/6 28/10 30/5
mere [1] 54/25
merely [1] 7/23
merits [10] 6/18 6/21 6/23 23/7
23/8 39/22 53/13 53/14 70/17
74/2
message [8] 18/23 37/4 38/15
52/15 52/16 52/22 52/23 53/3
methodology [1] 65/17
MICHAEL [2] 2/23 4/23
MICHELLE [2] 3/8 5/10
microphone [1] 32/2
million [1] 16/22
millions [2] 7/4 73/14
minimum [3] 55/14 58/25 59/21
mismatch [1] 64/20
misreading [1] 61/18
Mississippi [1] 38/20
mistaken [1] 47/25
mitigating [2] 34/16 34/19
modified [1] 38/6
moment [1] 17/4
month [2] 38/24 70/7
month's [2] 67/8 69/14
month-long [1] 70/7
months [1] 29/18
MOOPAN [2] 3/7 5/6
mooted [1] 73/20
mootness [3] 23/3 23/5 74/1
MOSIER [3] 2/9 4/15 6/22
motion [1] 74/12
motions [3] 1/22 5/15 75/7
motive [2] 23/15 68/17
motives [1] 69/20
Mr [2] 6/24 31/25
Mr. [7] 6/11 6/11 6/19 6/22
16/15 24/17 70/12
Mr. Cox [2] 6/11 70/12
Mr. Jadwat [3] 6/11 6/19 16/15
Mr. Mashta [1] 24/17
Mr. Mosier [1] 6/22
MS [1] 5/10
multi [1] 39/15
multi-agency [1] 39/15
JA 986
M
multiple [6] 9/2 64/13 69/5
69/15 70/1 70/1
Muqbil [1] 38/17
Muslim [30] 2/15 16/22 17/24
18/11 18/11 18/21 23/24 24/1
25/15 32/10 37/5 38/1 45/12
45/13 66/7 66/8 66/12 66/14
66/16 66/17 67/7 67/10 67/11
67/12 67/13 67/22 67/22 70/1
70/2 70/3
Muslims [7] 7/5 20/1 36/12
37/10 39/2 60/5 73/14
66/15
notereading [1] 3/15
noticed [1] 34/25
notion [3] 43/1 68/24 69/6
nuance [1] 61/12
number [11] 4/3 4/5 4/6 13/12
16/24 26/6 57/9 57/10 63/10
71/23 75/11
numbers [2] 15/18 15/19
numerically [1] 33/17
NW [3] 2/10 2/19 3/9
NYU [1] 2/22
overseeing [1] 32/25
P
p.m [1] 1/7
P.O [2] 2/7 2/16
pages [1] 75/13
papers [2] 21/24 74/5
parameters [1] 33/2
parents [1] 37/17
parking [2] 46/20 46/21
part [11] 15/22 15/23 33/13
39/16 44/19 44/20 56/20 57/4
58/3 71/1 72/23
O
participants [1] 31/20
Oakland [1] 2/16
parties [3] 5/18 10/1 47/4
N
objected [1] 48/1
partly [1] 48/23
NAACP [1] 29/1
objection [2] 44/14 48/9
pass [1] 72/8
narrow [3] 8/22 26/24 27/4
objections [1] 48/9
passed [1] 37/15
narrower [1] 73/5
objective [1] 65/19
passport [1] 34/9
nation [1] 8/13
obligation [3] 49/18 52/2 52/3 passports [2] 34/5 34/7
national [21] 2/6 18/24 20/1
observer [2] 20/5 22/8
Paul [1] 3/2
25/14 27/13 33/4 37/19 38/18
occasion [1] 12/19
pay [1] 47/15
39/20 54/9 55/21 56/4 58/21
October [4] 1/6 38/23 75/12
peculiarities [1] 37/14
58/22 59/16 60/10 69/2 70/5
75/18
pen [1] 72/22
71/18 71/25 72/25
October 29th [1] 38/23
pending [1] 4/2
nationality [10] 7/7 7/20 8/10
48/25
people [21] 9/4 15/19 15/25
8/24 9/2 9/3 9/8 10/2 10/8 37/15 officer [1]
16/22 27/15 30/15 30/18 30/22
official [5] 46/11 75/3 75/6
nationals [16] 13/7 13/15 13/17
75/14 75/22
37/23 47/10 47/13 47/17 54/23
30/17 37/17 37/23 56/11 58/7
7/11 10/14 16/7
57/10 62/3 62/8 62/8 63/22
60/19 60/25 61/24 62/12 62/15 officials [3]
63/22 66/3 72/6
Oh [1] 32/4
62/20 63/18 63/25
OMAR [2] 2/3 4/10
perceive [1] 22/9
nature [1] 57/10
one-way [1] 62/5
perceived [1] 41/13
necessary [2] 9/1 13/15
onset [1] 8/14
perceives [1] 39/1
needle [1] 17/1
opinion [7] 22/18 22/20 22/22 perfect [2] 55/15 58/6
negating [1] 7/10
22/25 41/7 42/16 44/2
perhaps [9] 13/11 21/18 27/12
neutrality [1] 8/3
36/17 36/20 53/23 61/11 66/20
opportunity [1] 63/1
nine [1] 29/18
71/22
opposed [1] 59/20
Ninth [3] 29/23 30/11 59/6
order [14] 9/20 12/14 14/17
period [2] 11/2 64/15
nobody [1] 62/6
18/16 18/21 19/3 22/17 23/17
permanent [1] 43/5
non [18] 16/19 18/11 41/21
25/6 29/24 50/4 62/10 64/1 68/4 persists [1] 38/14
41/24 42/12 42/14 44/23 44/25
orders [1] 25/20
person [4] 22/14 27/10 27/11
45/2 58/16 66/14 67/12 67/19
63/7
ordinary [1] 9/20
67/23 70/2 70/25 71/1 71/11
organization [1] 30/6
person's [1] 27/8
non-immigrant [3] 67/19 67/23
organizational [4] 30/4 73/16 personal [1] 46/6
70/2
73/23 74/3
Persons [2] 45/7 45/8
non-immigrants [1] 16/19
origin [4] 18/24 20/1 27/13 38/5 persuasive [14] 22/22 23/1
non-Muslim [3] 18/11 66/14
23/9 44/6 44/6 44/7 44/10 44/11
ostensibly [2] 13/13 35/16
67/12
44/12 44/15 44/16 44/21 66/22
ought [1] 13/2
non-reviewability [9] 41/21
68/16
outlines [1] 35/15
41/24 42/14 44/23 44/25 45/2
outright [1] 13/4
petition [1] 43/16
70/25 71/1 71/11
overall [2] 18/2 45/19
Philippines [1] 23/24
non-reviewable [2] 42/12 58/16
overbroad [1] 60/24
picks [1] 58/7
none [3] 44/17 60/5 67/21
overinclusive [1] 59/5
pig's [1] 23/23
North [10] 16/25 17/3 17/8 17/9
overridden [1] 7/15
place [2] 14/10 57/25
17/11 17/19 18/5 29/3 29/6
override [1] 7/7
plaintiffs [38] 1/4 1/10 1/16 2/3
JA 987
16/20 19/11 19/24 19/25 20/2
20/18 21/13 23/13 25/19 25/20
plaintiffs... [34] 4/11 4/11 4/13
36/11 37/25 48/18 49/25 50/1
4/15 4/18 4/20 4/22 4/25 5/2 5/4
50/5 54/1 54/18 55/8 55/11
5/16 5/19 5/24 6/2 6/10 6/22
55/13 55/16 55/17 56/19 56/21
6/25 17/7 24/17 29/21 29/22
58/20 59/15 59/16 63/15 65/12
30/2 38/4 38/17 40/9 44/1 45/11
65/14 66/10 67/9 67/14 68/2
47/23 52/19 53/18 59/7 73/19
68/19 68/23 68/24 69/2 70/6
73/23 74/4
70/17 71/16 71/19 72/7 72/22
plaintiffs' [3] 5/21 53/9 53/10
President's [5] 7/25 8/4 18/25
plan [1] 19/15
36/3 39/19
plausible [2] 12/6 14/19
presidential [4] 48/17 52/4
play [1] 25/9
60/18 63/16
plays [1] 18/21
pressing [1] 70/6
point [29] 10/3 18/23 19/5 27/2
pressure [7] 56/14 57/6 58/4
27/19 28/25 31/6 31/16 32/16
58/8 68/6 71/21 73/7
42/9 44/3 44/10 44/12 45/3 45/3
presumes [1] 62/23
45/6 47/7 47/22 52/16 54/15
pretext [1] 35/13
55/13 56/9 56/13 59/25 60/1
pretextual [3] 32/18 32/19
70/15 71/4 72/19 74/7
34/15
points [1] 70/14
prevail [1] 28/11
policies [2] 72/13 72/14
prevent [2] 10/25 63/24
policy [18] 16/17 16/18 16/23
PRICE [2] 2/23 4/23
20/16 20/24 39/21 40/5 40/8
primarily [2] 17/24 65/7
40/12 54/9 55/21 55/24 56/4
primary [3] 18/23 20/7 48/8
57/6 69/3 71/17 71/21 71/24
principle [8] 14/24 19/9 28/18
political [3] 40/2 40/16 40/25
41/25 70/25 71/2 71/3 71/12
pose [2] 7/13 10/12
principles [2] 42/12 42/13
poses [1] 31/4
privilege [3] 48/17 48/19 50/24
position [9] 23/8 25/16 26/22
probative [4] 9/19 49/16 68/20
43/22 48/3 58/14 58/16 58/17
68/21
58/19
problem [14] 35/16 35/25 36/5
positive [1] 23/14
36/7 36/16 38/7 50/9 53/4 55/7
post [1] 23/16
56/11 57/24 61/23 62/23 70/6
postdates [1] 23/20
problems [8] 61/4 61/20 61/22
potential [3] 16/25 55/25 59/4
62/1 62/3 62/16 62/22 63/2
potentially [1] 49/23
procedure [1] 13/19
power [5] 7/7 8/12 15/3 55/17
proceedings [5] 3/15 74/18
71/15
75/6 75/14 75/16
powers [2] 8/2 8/5
process [9] 33/23 39/15 43/16
prayer [3] 46/17 46/18 46/19
43/18 48/16 49/23 51/18 59/23
pre [1] 43/13
68/22
pre-enforcement [1] 43/13
proclamation [74] 7/17 7/18
preceded [1] 39/14
7/25 8/4 8/7 10/17 10/20 12/25
precedent [3] 15/7 15/16 44/5
15/24 16/1 16/4 21/9 21/15
precisely [2] 70/22 72/15
25/13 25/18 32/14 33/1 33/11
precludes [1] 42/11
33/16 34/11 34/14 34/16 34/23
preliminary [4] 4/8 5/15 8/7
35/2 35/9 35/10 35/15 35/16
25/17
35/17 36/24 37/2 37/3 37/3 37/7
prepared [1] 49/11
38/4 39/13 39/18 48/22 49/2
prescriptive [1] 57/10
49/4 49/5 49/6 49/8 49/17 49/21
present [3] 29/21 30/7 57/3
50/2 50/11 50/13 50/17 50/25
president [59] 7/5 7/20 8/12 9/1
51/25 52/8 52/11 53/11 56/7
11/6 11/16 11/21 12/7 12/18
56/7 56/9 56/10 56/13 56/15
13/25 14/16 14/18 15/5 15/17
57/2 58/3 58/6 59/23 59/24
P
60/18 61/11 63/16 65/13 66/23
67/1 67/2 67/3 69/25
proclamation's [1] 37/8
proclamations [5] 15/20 18/5
56/6 56/13 57/4
produces [1] 32/17
program [1] 36/2
prohibit [3] 60/19 61/11 63/17
prohibition [4] 8/20 8/24 9/18
72/21
prohibitions [2] 10/8 12/9
PROJECT [3] 1/3 4/4 75/8
promise [1] 32/10
promised [3] 16/20 19/24 25/15
promptly [1] 42/21
promulgated [1] 11/13
property [1] 52/21
proposals [3] 13/4 13/10 13/12
proposed [2] 71/15 71/16
proposition [1] 53/22
prosecuted [1] 47/11
protected [1] 48/16
protecting [1] 38/11
protection [22] 6/23 8/3 25/4
25/7 25/23 26/13 26/19 27/3
27/7 27/13 27/19 27/20 27/25
28/5 28/9 28/14 29/2 29/6 29/17
53/7 53/8 53/10
province [2] 40/1 40/17
proving [1] 7/10
provision [6] 10/19 16/3 33/16
41/10 41/12 41/15
provisions [1] 37/1
public [3] 22/10 33/4 66/22
publicly [1] 22/5
pull [1] 32/2
purchase [1] 38/22
purports [1] 70/4
purposeful [1] 66/22
purposes [3] 25/17 39/21 48/15
pushes [1] 11/24
puts [1] 58/7
Q
qualitative [1] 65/20
question [23] 15/12 19/1 19/23
22/8 23/12 26/3 31/10 35/23
36/14 36/15 36/23 36/24 36/25
37/5 38/20 44/1 47/20 49/14
51/20 52/10 58/11 58/12 68/10
questioning [1] 48/15
questions [3] 6/8 22/13 70/9
quick [1] 70/14
quoted [1] 63/10
JA 988
52/22 53/10
religious [12] 8/3 20/7 23/15
raise [1] 74/7
24/5 26/19 32/23 38/11 38/14
raised [1] 19/19
47/19 69/12 69/20 69/22
rapidly [1] 12/22
religiously [2] 24/6 24/7
rational [3] 35/12 59/1 59/21
rely [4] 27/13 49/11 53/2 67/1
re [1] 23/20
relying [4] 34/23 35/1 35/7
re-invoked [1] 23/20
49/19
reach [1] 73/22
remains [1] 23/9
reached [1] 38/17
remedy [2] 42/15 72/8
reaching [2] 22/19 23/7
Remind [1] 63/10
readily [2] 22/9 24/13
removal [1] 43/21
rebuttal [3] 5/25 6/4 39/6
remove [1] 41/13
recent [1] 29/1
removed [1] 43/12
recently [1] 13/1
replicating [1] 35/16
recite [1] 7/23
report [23] 9/7 20/19 22/1 22/7
recognized [2] 8/18 53/1
48/2 48/10 48/15 48/17 49/4
recognizes [1] 47/6
49/4 49/16 49/17 49/20 50/12
recollection [1] 13/9
50/19 50/22 51/5 51/7 51/12
recommendation [5] 21/22
51/21 52/5 62/22 63/12
61/6 61/8 66/9 66/12
Reporter [4] 3/12 75/1 75/3
recommendations [10] 20/22
75/22
20/25 21/8 21/10 49/16 62/11
reporting [1] 56/20
67/9 67/15 68/3 69/4
reports [1] 35/4
recommended [7] 21/12 21/18
50/7 51/12
21/21 50/20 56/18 65/12 67/10 representations [4]
52/8 52/11
recommending [1] 63/15
requested [1] 63/19
record [7] 4/9 9/7 23/16 31/8
requests [1] 64/1
33/10 35/2 49/12
required [2] 43/15 43/17
recorded [1] 3/15
requirement [1] 65/4
records [1] 42/23
resemblance [1] 69/9
recreation [1] 69/23
resembles [1] 18/4
referenced [1] 50/24
reserve [1] 6/3
referencing [1] 43/18
resident [1] 43/5
reflect [1] 9/3
resolution [2] 22/19 74/2
REFUGEE [3] 1/3 4/3 75/8
resources [1] 31/2
refugees [2] 13/7 13/11
response [3] 8/11 57/22 60/15
refused [4] 12/3 21/25 22/2
restrict [2] 39/20 56/3
53/2
restriction [2] 54/9 54/12
refutation [1] 68/16
restrictions [13] 11/18 12/1
regs [1] 31/17
19/6 29/7 39/17 50/19 50/20
regulated [1] 47/9
55/15 56/22 67/17 67/18 68/7
regulations [2] 11/13 11/15
72/24
reject [1] 13/6
result [2] 16/20 37/14
rejected [2] 13/4 70/23
review [28] 7/22 32/17 32/22
relationship [1] 38/25
32/24 33/2 33/19 39/15 40/2
relative [1] 46/10
40/8 40/22 42/6 42/11 42/20
relatives [7] 43/5 45/5 45/10
42/22 43/16 44/16 56/17 59/3
45/12 45/18 45/18 73/19
59/9 59/10 59/19 60/20 61/3
relegated [1] 42/23
67/4 67/8 68/1 69/14 73/1
reliable [1] 35/4
reviewability [10] 41/21 41/24
relied [5] 26/17 39/16 41/9 49/5
41/24 42/14 44/23 44/25 45/2
50/4
70/25 71/1 71/11
religion [10] 45/13 45/19 45/20
reviewable [4] 42/12 58/16
45/21 46/8 46/10 46/12 47/13
58/18 58/24
R
rewrite [3] 7/6 10/25 11/6
rewriting [2] 11/9 11/23
Rifkind [1] 3/2
rights [11] 29/13 45/8 45/9
45/16 45/22 46/2 46/15 46/22
46/25 47/6 53/10
rise [2] 30/1 63/3
risk [6] 7/14 10/4 10/12 33/5
56/12 57/3
risks [1] 60/10
RMR [1] 3/12
ROBERT [2] 3/3 5/3
role [1] 25/9
room [1] 38/13
rooted [1] 69/19
ROTHSCHILD [2] 2/19 4/22
route [1] 24/23
rule [1] 55/5
rules [2] 50/2 57/6
S
Saavedra [5] 40/23 41/8 41/16
42/17 43/19
safety [1] 33/5
Sale [1] 70/16
Sante [1] 46/17
satisfied [1] 59/17
satisfy [5] 33/5 33/7 33/24 34/1
69/1
Saudi [1] 68/19
save [1] 5/24
scenario [1] 66/20
scheduling [1] 74/14
scheme [2] 18/2 35/20
schemes [1] 9/16
school [5] 2/22 30/20 46/17
46/17 46/19
SCHWEI [2] 3/8 5/8
scope [4] 10/23 18/25 54/1 57/9
SE [1] 2/13
seamless [1] 20/17
search [1] 59/2
searching [2] 59/3 59/19
second [3] 19/4 23/17 35/4
secretaries [1] 69/5
Secretary [21] 21/2 21/12 21/18
21/20 48/18 60/3 60/4 60/8
60/16 62/6 62/7 62/11 62/13
62/25 63/5 63/13 63/14 64/2
64/10 64/11 66/4
section [4] 41/10 50/21 60/25
63/12
security [22] 20/23 21/3 25/14
33/4 39/21 48/2 54/10 55/21
56/4 56/18 60/3 60/4 60/7 60/10
JA 989
subjective [1] 65/19
source [1] 35/6
submit [5] 31/9 44/7 60/17
sources [2] 35/3 35/3
security... [8] 60/17 63/13 66/4
63/15 69/24
SOUTHERN [1] 1/2
69/3 70/5 71/18 71/25 73/1
specific [4] 12/9 13/2 26/9 37/1 submitted [1] 35/1
seeking [3] 17/10 31/7 67/4
specify [3] 60/12 60/14 60/16 subordinates [3] 60/5 66/6
sees [1] 14/18
67/6
speech [3] 23/13 23/20 68/19
selected [1] 50/18
subscribed [1] 75/17
spousal [1] 38/23
sense [11] 20/21 22/18 43/22
spouse [3] 38/18 38/23 38/25 subsequent [1] 41/8
47/14 52/25 53/2 55/15 58/6
subset [2] 41/24 71/2
stab [1] 56/24
67/21 67/24 67/25
substance [1] 68/22
stake [1] 45/9
sentence [1] 60/24
substantive [1] 39/16
stand [2] 36/5 52/10
sentinel [1] 38/11
succeed [2] 17/10 17/16
standard [8] 9/12 9/14 27/19
separation [3] 2/18 8/1 8/5
28/23 59/11 61/19 66/25 67/2
successfully [1] 56/23
September [4] 25/18 26/11
Sudan [1] 66/13
standards [4] 7/8 49/7 49/9
48/1 50/12
59/2
sufficient [6] 10/11 30/1 46/14
September 15 [1] 48/1
49/9 62/16 68/8
standing [17] 6/19 6/23 6/25
September 15th [1] 50/12
17/20 28/11 29/20 29/22 30/1
suggest [2] 36/9 43/19
September 24th [2] 25/18
30/2 30/11 40/10 46/9 52/18
suggested [4] 42/19 54/12
26/11
54/17 57/23
73/16 73/23 73/25 74/3
sequence [2] 20/17 26/9
suggesting [1] 22/6
starts [1] 61/2
serious [1] 8/15
state [11] 2/18 9/10 11/14 11/15 suggestion [2] 23/21 32/23
serve [1] 58/8
30/10 56/18 60/4 60/8 63/14
suggests [2] 17/25 42/9
setting [2] 28/10 34/12
64/11 66/5
Suite [2] 2/20 2/24
Seven [1] 33/25
suits [1] 43/14
stated [4] 35/10 35/11 73/13
severe [1] 29/25
74/13
Sumaya [1] 37/12
shall [3] 11/15 60/17 63/14
statement [6] 23/25 24/1 24/2 summarily [1] 23/22
share [3] 36/8 45/19 73/7
24/4 25/19 46/12
Sunday [5] 47/10 47/11 69/17
sharing [10] 7/16 35/25 36/16
69/19 69/20
statements [2] 19/12 23/17
60/10 61/22 61/24 62/17 62/22
states [17] 1/1 1/23 3/12 7/14 supplant [1] 42/13
62/23 64/13
7/24 10/13 15/15 21/9 24/23
support [3] 25/22 48/22 49/9
Shaughnessy [1] 39/25
34/9 35/22 39/1 48/19 60/16
supports [2] 32/20 49/6
Shaunessy [1] 42/2
68/25 69/2 75/4
Supreme [9] 12/3 22/15 23/6
SHEBAYA [2] 2/15 4/19
26/2 39/25 42/19 50/8 70/16
statute [12] 9/13 14/4 42/11
short [1] 25/2
73/17
42/21 42/24 43/7 43/11 54/1
shorthand [2] 75/6 75/15
55/5 58/13 59/14 59/15
surely [1] 29/17
shred [3] 60/1 60/2 66/5
suspected [1] 23/21
statutory [22] 6/16 6/18 9/16
side [6] 5/19 5/23 17/23 18/2
10/19 14/1 16/3 18/2 18/7 18/22 suspensions [2] 35/19 39/14
18/23 20/3
18/23 39/19 39/24 41/4 41/11
swarths [1] 67/23
sides [2] 69/13 74/12
41/15 43/20 44/24 54/21 55/1
sweeping [1] 58/6
signal [1] 14/4
70/15 71/9 71/12
symbol [1] 69/12
single [2] 47/5 71/4
Syria [3] 37/13 37/15 37/18
stems [1] 45/25
SIRINE [2] 2/15 4/19
3/15
Syrian [2] 37/17 37/19
stenography [1]
situation [4] 21/1 51/22 72/10
Syrians [1] 13/10
step [2] 11/4 59/22
72/10
system [3] 12/10 27/14 27/15
stigmatize [1] 37/5
skeptical [1] 53/20
34/9
stolen [1]
slavery [1] 29/12
T
story [1] 67/24
solely [1] 53/3
tailored [3] 39/16 67/18 68/7
street [5] 2/4 2/10 2/19 46/20
solve [1] 70/6
tailoring [2] 8/22 59/4
46/21
Somalia [6] 21/11 21/12 21/16
tape [1] 75/16
strokes [1] 9/4
21/18 50/21 65/21
targeted [4] 12/21 13/16 15/8
strong [1] 70/3
soon [1] 74/16
30/16 30/19 30/19 73/12
student [4]
sorts [1] 69/21
targeting [1] 54/9
67/20
sought [2] 15/25 16/1
tax [2] 47/13 47/14
students [1] 30/12
sound [1] 53/21
TDC [9] 1/3 1/3 1/4 4/3 4/5 4/6
21/7 61/16
study [2]
sounds [1] 47/24
75/11 75/11 75/11
style [1] 59/19
S
JA 990
vetting [1] 13/19
travelers [1] 16/25
treatment [5] 38/20 45/9 45/17 VII [1] 9/17
TDC-17-00361 [2] 1/3 75/11
46/1 47/3
violated [4] 45/16 46/23 47/1
TDC-17-0361 [1] 4/3
53/10
TRUMP [10] 1/6 1/12 1/18 4/4
TDC-17-2921 [3] 1/3 4/5 75/11
4/6 4/7 37/25 75/9 75/10 75/10 violates [1] 7/18
TDC-17-2969 [3] 1/4 4/6 75/11
violating [1] 19/13
truth [1] 15/5
tend [1] 38/19
violation [10] 12/9 19/9 36/20
tweaked [1] 16/19
tens [1] 73/14
45/7 46/2 46/7 46/15 46/24 47/6
Twelve [1] 33/5
Tenth [1] 66/19
69/7
typically [2] 9/5 10/8
term [1] 8/19
violence [2] 8/1 8/4
terms [11] 15/18 33/2 34/11
U
virtually [1] 26/23
34/11 36/25 48/22 49/6 57/9
U.S [6] 27/9 27/11 38/19 43/4 visa [16] 7/9 7/10 7/20 10/14
59/11 71/24 72/20
45/7 45/8
11/12 11/14 11/15 24/18 24/19
territory [2] 38/1 38/2
ultimate [1] 52/7
24/19 30/19 30/20 31/18 31/21
terrorism [1] 24/8
unbridled [1] 12/5
36/2 38/23
terrorist [3] 24/2 34/2 34/4
unclear [1] 72/5
visas [14] 7/12 16/8 30/16
terrorists [1] 23/21
under which [1] 7/9
30/16 31/7 31/15 53/24 67/19
test [1] 9/10
underinclusive [1] 59/5
67/20 67/20 67/23 68/6 70/2
testimony [1] 75/7
underlying [3] 22/1 47/24 48/21 73/20
thank [17] 6/13 6/14 7/2 16/13 undermines [1] 54/19
vote [1] 29/8
24/24 31/22 31/23 39/3 39/4
underscores [1] 53/7
39/12 52/12 70/11 70/12 70/13 understanding [3] 24/22 31/14 W
74/11 74/12 74/16
31/19
waiver [10] 10/24 11/1 11/8
THEODORE [1] 1/22
12/10 35/20 36/2 57/18 57/24
Union [1] 2/3
theory [3] 9/24 52/23 53/3
57/25 58/1
unique [1] 28/20
therein [1] 12/10
UNITED [16] 1/1 1/23 2/18 3/12 War [1] 29/12
thinking [1] 43/9
7/14 7/24 10/13 15/14 24/23
warranted [1] 64/4
thought [6] 9/1 33/18 41/3 52/6 34/9 35/22 39/1 48/19 68/24
wartime [1] 8/13
52/7 73/3
69/2 75/4
Washington [4] 2/10 2/13 2/20
thrust [1] 18/18
3/10
university [1] 30/20
thus [1] 10/10
wave [2] 38/14 38/15
unless [1] 40/3
ticket [3] 38/21 38/22 38/23
we'd [1] 5/18
unlimited [1] 53/21
tied [1] 53/3
Webster [1] 58/23
untiring [1] 38/11
time [22] 5/23 5/24 6/3 6/8 15/9 upheld [1] 49/8
weigh [1] 66/2
15/17 15/19 19/19 20/6 21/22
weighing [1] 66/3
upset [1] 54/13
21/22 22/10 25/2 28/24 31/2
Weiss [1] 3/2
urge [1] 42/4
39/8 41/17 50/10 53/16 70/8
well-argued [1] 74/12
us [6] 3/7 16/16 20/12 27/18
73/18 73/23
35/5 44/3
well-established [1] 28/18
tiny [1] 16/24
Westlaw [1] 70/19
USC [1] 10/13
tired [2] 38/9 38/12
Wharton [1] 3/2
utility [1] 44/3
tissue [3] 32/9 32/11 32/14
whatsoever [1] 62/3
utterly [1] 53/11
Title [1] 9/17
when you're [1] 39/8
V
topic [1] 47/21
whereof [1] 75/17
total [1] 61/9
vacated [2] 22/25 23/7
wife's [1] 24/18
totally [2] 54/13 69/22
vacating [1] 22/16
win [2] 10/2 11/4
touch [2] 25/4 73/15
Valley [1] 52/19
window [1] 69/12
tougher [2] 16/21 20/19
value [1] 74/1
workers [2] 71/20 71/23
tourist [1] 31/19
variety [1] 9/16
world [3] 25/17 53/24 64/14
towards [3] 6/7 37/10 37/10
Venezuela [8] 17/4 17/12 17/19 worldwide [6] 32/17 39/15
traceable [1] 46/24
18/3 18/9 66/15 73/10 73/11
56/17 67/8 68/1 69/14
trail [1] 23/21
Venezuelan [1] 17/9
worry [1] 55/6
transcript [3] 1/22 3/15 75/14 Venezuelans [1] 17/1
worse [1] 16/23
transferred [1] 52/21
version [2] 16/21 20/20
worth [1] 25/3
transition [1] 20/17
versus [9] 4/4 4/6 4/7 27/16
travel [2] 19/6 19/11
29/1 39/25 42/2 46/17 58/23
T
JA 991
Y
York [6] 2/5 2/5 2/24 2/24 3/4
3/4
you'd [3] 15/10 39/10 72/24
Z
ZAKZOK [7] 1/15 4/7 4/18 4/24
5/4 6/25 75/10
zero [1] 61/25
JA 992
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 91
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-17-0361
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS
BORDERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. TDC-17-2921
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
EBLAL ZAKZOK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-17-2969
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
For the third time this year, President Donald J. Trump has issued an order banning the
entry into the United States, with some exceptions, of nationals of multiple predominantly
JA 993
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 2 of 91
Muslim nations. At issue is whether this latest travel ban should be enjoined by this Court
because it is the latest incarnation of the “Muslim ban” originally promised by President Trump
as a candidate for the presidency, and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, or because the issuance of the travel ban exceeds
the President’s delegated authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the
entry into the United States of classes of immigrants and nonimmigrants. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is warranted.
INTRODUCTION
On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13,769, “Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“EO-1”), 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan.
27, 2017), which barred the entry into the United States of nationals of seven predominantly
Muslim countries for a 90-day period. On February 7, 2017, Plaintiffs International Refugee
Assistance Project (“IRAP”), HIAS, Inc., and seven individuals (collectively, “the IRAP
Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint in this Court alleging that EO-1 violated the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I; the equal protection component of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. V; the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537 (2012); the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (2012); the Refugee Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1521-1524 (2012); and the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012).
On March 6, 2017, after EO-1 was enjoined by other federal courts, President Trump
issued Executive Order 13,780 (“EO-2”), which bears the same title as EO-1 and was scheduled
to go into effect and supplant EO-1 on March 16, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017).
Section 2(c) of EO-2 suspended for 90 days the entry into the United States of nationals of Iran,
2
JA 994
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 3 of 91
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. On March 10, 2017, the IRAP Plaintiffs amended
their Complaint to seek the invalidation of EO-2, alleging the same causes of action pleaded in
their original Complaint. The IRAP Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
against the enforcement of EO-2, on Establishment Clause and INA grounds. On March 15,
2017, this Court enjoined enforcement of Section 2(c) after finding that the IRAP Plaintiffs were
likely to succeed on their claim that EO-2 violated the Establishment Clause. Int’l Refugee
Assistance Project v. Trump (“IRAP”), 241 F. Supp. 3d 539 (D. Md. 2017). This Court’s Order
was then appealed to and in substantial part affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (“IRAP”), 857
F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017). In light of the expiration of EO-2, the Fourth Circuit’s judgment has
since been vacated as moot by the United States Supreme Court.
Trump v. Int’l Refugee
Assistance Project, No. 16-1436, 2017 WL 4518553 (Oct. 10, 2017).
On September 24, 2017, President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, entitled
“Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United
States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats” (“Proclamation”), which will bar
indefinitely the entry into the United States of some or all nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia,
Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (Sept. 27, 2017).
On October 3, 2017, Iranian Alliances Across Borders (“IAAB”) and Doe Plaintiffs 1-6
(collectively, the “IAAB Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in this Court asserting that the
Proclamation violates the INA, the Establishment Clause, the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment, and the equal protection and procedural due process components of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On October 5, 2017, the IRAP Plaintiffs, now
consisting of IRAP, HIAS, Middle East Studies Association (“MESA”), Arab-American
3
JA 995
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 4 of 91
Association of New York (“AAANY”), Yemeni-American Merchants Association (“YAMA”),
John Does No. 1 and 3-5, Jane Doe No. 2, Muhammed Meteab, Mohamad Mashta, Grannaz
Amirjamshidi, Fakhri Ziaolhagh, Shapour Shirani, and Afsaneh Khazaeli, filed a Second
Amended Complaint in which they repeated their prior causes of action and extended them to the
Proclamation, added a second claim under the INA alleging that the Proclamation exceeded the
President’s statutory authority, and added a claim that the Proclamation violated the procedural
due process protections of the Fifth Amendment. On October 6, 2017, in a separate case, Eblal
Zakzok, Sumaya Hamadmad, Fahed Muqbil, John Doe No. 1, and Jane Does No. 2-3
(collectively, “the Zakzok Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint stating causes of action under the
Establishment Clause, the INA, and the APA.
On October 12, 2017, the IAAB Plaintiffs
amended their Complaint to add the Iranian Students’ Foundation (“ISF”), an affiliate of IAAB
at the University of Maryland College Park, as a Plaintiff. The IAAB Plaintiffs subsequently
filed a Motion for Leave, which the Court has since granted, seeking to file declarations from
representatives of ISF in support of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
Each of these three separate cases name some or all of the following as Defendants:
President Trump; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Department of State;
Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State;
Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Attorney
General; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
James McCament, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. All of the
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief.
On October 6, 2017, the IRAP Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in
which they ask this Court to enjoin the Proclamation in its entirety before it takes effect. The
4
JA 996
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 5 of 91
IAAB and Zakzok Plaintiffs have also each filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and have
joined in the arguments of the IRAP Plaintiffs.
Defendants filed a consolidated brief in
opposition to the Motions on October 12, 2017, and Plaintiffs filed separate reply briefs on
October 14, 2017. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on October 16, 2017. With the
matter fully briefed and argued, the Court now issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
Public Statements
On December 7, 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump posted a “Statement
on Preventing Muslim Immigration” on his campaign website in which he “call[ed] for a total
and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can
figure out what is going on.” Joint Record (“J.R.”) 85.
Trump promoted the Statement on
Twitter that same day, stating that he had “[j]ust put out a very important policy statement on the
extraordinary influx of hatred & danger coming into our country. We must be vigilant!” J.R.
209. In a March 9, 2016 interview with CNN, Trump stated his belief that “Islam hates us,” and
that the United States had “allowed this propaganda to spread all through the country that [Islam]
is a religion of peace.” J.R. 255-57. Then, in a March 22, 2016 Fox Business interview, Trump
reiterated his call for a ban on Muslim immigration, asserting that his call for the ban had gotten
“tremendous support” and that “we’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having
problems with Muslims coming into the country.” J.R. 261.
In a May 11, 2016 appearance on On the Record, Trump stated that he would ask former
New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani to lead a group to “look at the Muslim ban or
temporary ban,” that there “has to be something,” and that he had “[g]reat Muslim friends who
are telling me you are so right. … [T]here is something going on that we have to get to the
5
JA 997
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 6 of 91
bottom of.” J.R. 513. In a June 13, 2016 speech, Trump stated that “[w]e have to control the
amount of future immigration into this country to prevent large pockets of radicalization from
forming inside America,” noting that “[e]ach year, the United States permanently admits more
than 100,000 immigrants from the Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside
the Middle East.” J.R. 528.
In a July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press soon after he accepted the Republican
nomination, Trump was asked about the “Muslim ban.” J.R. 219. Trump responded that
immigration should be “immediately suspended” “from any nation that has been compromised
by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” J.R. 219.
When questioned whether this formulation was a “rollback” of his December 2015 call for a
“Muslim ban,” Trump disagreed, stating “I don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s
an expansion. I’m looking now at territories.” J.R. 220. He explained that “[p]eople were so
upset when I used the word Muslim,” so he was instead “talking territory instead of Muslim.”
Id. During the October 9, 2016 Presidential Debate, when asked by the moderator about his
proposed “Muslim ban,” he explained that the “Muslim ban” had “morphed into an extreme
vetting from certain areas of the world.” J.R. 591.
On December 21, 2016, when asked whether a recent attack in Germany affected his
proposed Muslim ban, President-Elect Trump replied, “You know my plans. All along, I’ve
proven to be right. 100% correct.” J.R. 245. In a written statement about the events, he
lamented the attack on people “prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday” by “ISIS and other
Islamic terrorists [who] continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of
worship as part of their global jihad.” J.R. 245.
6
JA 998
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 7 of 91
II.
Executive Order 13,769
On January 27, 2017, a week after his inauguration, President Trump issued EO-1 in
which, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the President suspended for 90 days the entry into the
United States of immigrant and nonimmigrants who were nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan,
Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, based on his finding that such entry was “detrimental to the interests
of the United States.” EO-1 § 3(c). Each of these countries has a predominantly Muslim
population, including Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, which are more than 99 percent Muslim. The
provision allowed for exceptions on a “case-by-case basis” when such an exception was “in the
national interest.” EO-1 § 3(g). EO-1 also required changes to the refugee screening process “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.” EO-1 § 5(b). It further provided that during this 90-day period, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence (“DNI”), was to initiate a review process beginning with “a review to determine the
information needed from any country” to assess whether an individual from that country
applying for a “visa, admission, or other benefit . . . is not a security or public-safety threat,” the
generation of a list of countries that do not provide adequate information of this nature, and a
consultation process to request such information from those countries. EO-1 § 3(a)-(d). At the
end of this review process, the Secretary of Homeland Security was required to “submit to the
President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that
would prohibit entry of foreign nationals . . . from countries that do not provide the information
requested.” EO-1 § 3(e).
7
JA 999
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 8 of 91
When preparing to sign EO-1, President Trump remarked, “This is the ‘Protection of the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.’ We all know what that means.”
J.R. 142. That same day, President Trump stated in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting
Network that EO-1 would give preference in refugee applications to Christians. Referring to
Syria, President Trump stated that “[i]f you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a
Christian, it was almost impossible,” a situation that he thought was “very, very unfair.” J.R.
201. The day after EO-1 was issued, President Trump assured reporters that implementation of
EO-1 was “working out very nicely and we’re going to have a very, very strict ban.” J.R. 123.
That same day, Mayor Giuliani appeared on Fox News and asserted that President Trump told
him he wanted a Muslim ban and asked Giuliani to “[s]how me the right way to do it legally.”
J.R. 247. Giuliani, in consultation with others, proposed that the action be “focused on, instead
of religion . . . the areas of the world that create danger for us,” specifically “places where there
are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” J.R. 247-248.
EO-1 prompted several legal challenges, including an action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington based on the Due Process, Establishment,
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution that resulted in a nationwide temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) issued on February 3, 2017 against several sections of EO-1. See,
e.g., Washington v. Trump, C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL 462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). On
February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, construing the order
as a preliminary injunction, upheld the entry of the injunction. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d
1151, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2017). Although it did not reach the Establishment Clause claim, the
Ninth Circuit noted that the asserted claim raised “serious allegations” and presented “significant
constitutional questions.” Id. at 1168. On February 13, 2017, the United States District Court
8
JA 1000
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 9 of 91
for the Eastern District of Virginia found a likelihood of success on the merits of an
Establishment Clause claim and issued an injunction against enforcement of Section 3(c) of EO1 as to Virginia residents or students enrolled a Virginia state educational institution. Aziz v.
Trump, 234 F. Supp. 3d 724, 739 (E.D. Va. 2017).
In response to the injunctions against EO-1, President Trump maintained at a February 16,
2017 news conference that EO-1 was lawful but that a new Order would be issued. J.R. 91.
Stephen Miller, Senior Policy Advisor to the President, described the changes being made to the
Order as “mostly minor technical differences,” emphasizing that the “basic policies are still
going to be in effect.” J.R. 319. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated that “[t]he
principles of the [second] executive order remain the same” and described EO-1 as a legal
exercise of the President’s power “to suspend immigration.” J.R. 78, 118. As of February 12,
2017, Trump’s Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration remained on his campaign website.
J.R. 207.
III.
Executive Order 13,780
On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued EO-2, which was scheduled to go into effect
and supplant EO-1 on March 16, 2017. Section 2(c) of EO-2 reiterated the 90-day ban on entry
into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, but
removed Iraq from the list. EO-2 applied only to individuals outside the United States who did
not have a valid visa as of the issuance of EO-1 and who had not obtained one prior to the
effective date of EO-2.
In addition, the travel ban expressly exempted lawful permanent
residents (“LPRs”), dual citizens traveling under a passport issued by a country not on the
banned list, asylees, and refugees already admitted to the United States, and it provided a list of
specific scenarios under which a case-by-case waiver could be granted.
9
JA 1001
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 10 of 91
To justify its restrictions on entry by nationals of the listed countries, EO-2 stated that
“the conditions in these countries present heightened threats” because each country is “a state
sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains
active conflict zones.” EO-2 § 1(d) (citing information from the State Department’s Country
Reports on Terrorism 2015).
EO-2 stated that, as a result, the governments of the listed
countries were less willing or able to provide necessary information for the visa or refugee
vetting process, such that there was a heightened chance that individuals from these countries
would be “terrorist operatives or sympathizers.” EO-2 § 1(d). EO-2 therefore concluded that the
risk of admitting individuals from these countries was “unacceptably high” because the United
States was unable “to rely on normal decision-making procedures” about their travel. EO-2 §
1(b)(ii), (f). EO-2 disavowed that EO-1 was motivated by religious animus.
EO-2 also stated that “Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted
of terrorism-related crimes in the United States” and referenced two Iraqi refugees who were
convicted of terrorism-related offenses and a naturalized U.S. citizen who came to the United
States from Somalia as a child refugee and had been convicted of a plot to detonate a bomb at a
Christmas tree lighting ceremony. EO-2 § 1(h). It did not identify any instances of individuals
who came from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen engaging in terrorist activity in the United
States.
Like EO-1, EO-2 instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the DNI, to conduct a worldwide review to determine whether additional
information from foreign governments was needed to enable the United States to determine
whether a foreign national applying for a visa or for admission was a security or public safety
threat. The Secretary of Homeland Security was then required to submit a report within 20 days
10
JA 1002
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 11 of 91
providing the results of the review, including listing countries that do not provide adequate
information and identifying the needed information. The Secretary of State was then required to
request that the listed countries begin providing the needed information within 50 days. At the
end of the 50-day period, the Secretary of Homeland Security was to “submit to the President a
list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit
entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not provided the
information requested until they do so or until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that
the country has an adequate plan to do so, or has adequately shared information through other
means.” EO-2 § 2(f). The Secretary of Homeland Security could also identify other countries
for other restrictions or limitations that would be appropriate.
The same day that EO-2 was issued, Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, III and
Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly submitted a letter to the President recommending
a temporary suspension on the entry to the United States of nationals of certain countries so as to
facilitate a review of security risks in the immigration system. Upon the issuance of EO-2,
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson described it as “a vital measure for strengthening our national
security.” J.R. 115. In a March 7, 2017 interview, Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly stated
that the Order was not a Muslim ban but instead was focused on countries with “questionable
vetting procedures,” but noted that there were 13 or 14 countries with questionable vetting
procedures, “not all of them Muslim countries and not all of them in the Middle East.” J.R. 150.
Other White House officials, noting that EO-2’s provisions were temporary, stated that the ban
might be extended past 90 days and to additional countries. J.R. 116.
11
JA 1003
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 12 of 91
IV.
Litigation on EO-2
On March 10, 2017, the IRAP Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to seek the invalidation
of EO-2, alleging the same causes of action pleaded in their original Complaint. The IRAP
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of EO-2, on
Establishment Clause and INA grounds. On March 15, 2017, this Court enjoined enforcement of
Section 2(c) after finding that the IRAP Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that EO-2
violated the Establishment Clause. IRAP, 241 F. Supp.3d at 566. The same day, the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a TRO, later converted to a preliminary
injunction, barring enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of EO-2. Hawaii v. Trump, 241 F. Supp. 3d
1119, 1140 (D. Haw. 2017).
This Court’s Order was appealed to and in substantial part affirmed by the Fourth Circuit
on May 25, 2017. IRAP, 857 F.3d 554, 606 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc). In so ruling, the Fourth
Circuit described EO-2 as one that “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and
discrimination.” Id. at 572. After finding that an individual plaintiff had standing to challenge
the ban and concluding that upon a showing of bad faith it could “look behind” a proffered
“facially legitimate” reason for the action, the court applied standard Establishment Clause
analysis to conclude that because EO-2 “cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking
it to the animus that inspired it . . . the reasonable observer would likely conclude that [EO-2’s]
primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious
beliefs.” IRAP, 857 F.3d at 586, 590-92, 601.
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in substantial part the preliminary injunction
ordered by the District of Hawaii on the grounds that EO-2 exceeded the President’s authority
under the INA, primarily in that it did not contain a sufficient finding of detrimental interest as
12
JA 1004
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 13 of 91
required by the statute and that it violated the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based
discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F. 3d 741, 774, 779
(9th Cir. 2017). The Government sought review of both the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit
decisions by the United States Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases for argument.
Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2086 (2017)
(granting writ of certiorari). Pending resolution of those appeals, the Supreme Court declined the
Government’s request to stay the injunctions of EO-2 in their entirety, but ordered a partial stay
of the injunctions to permit their enforcement against only foreign nationals who lack a credible
claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or organization within the United States. Id. at
2087.
In light of the expiration of EO-2, the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing on
whether the case relating to EO-2 is now moot. Trump v. IRAP, No. 16-1436, 2017 WL 2405595
(Sept. 25, 2017). On October 10, 2017, after that supplemental briefing, the Supreme Court
vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge to
EO-2. The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits.1 Trump v. IRAP, No. 16-1436,
2017 WL 4518553 (Oct. 10, 2017).
V.
Public Statements Since EO-2
At a March 16, 2017 rally, President Trump reported to the audience that EO-2 had been
enjoined and described it as a “watered down version of the first one” that had been “tailor[ed]”
by lawyers in response to prior legal challenges. J.R. 652-53. He emphasized that “we ought to
1
Because the judgment of the Fourth Circuit has been vacated as moot, it has been “strip[ped]
of its binding effect.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 200 (1988). Accordingly, this Court
does not rely on the Fourth Circuit’s opinion as controlling authority and will review all legal
questions decided by the Fourth Circuit anew, without reliance on that Court’s prior decision.
However, as confirmed at the hearing on the Motions, the parties agree that the Court may cite
the Fourth Circuit opinion as persuasive authority, so this Court does so on a limited basis.
13
JA 1005
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 14 of 91
go back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I wanted to do in the first place.” J.R.
653.
On May 21, 2017, President Trump delivered a speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Arab
and Muslim leaders as part of the Arab Islamic American Summit. Speaking as “a representative
of the American people” delivering “a message of friendship and hope,” he decried terrorism, but
cautioned that “the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this
enemy for them,” but instead “have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves.”
President Trump’s full speech from Saudi Arabia on global terrorism, Wash. Post (May 21,
2017), https://goo.gl/viJRg2. They had to “honestly confront” the “crisis of Islamic extremism
and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds.” Id.
In a June 3, 2017 tweet, President Trump emphasized the “need to be smart vigilant and
tough,” and asserted, “We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!” J.R. 662. In a series
of tweets on June 5, 2017 referencing the court decisions relating to EO-1 and EO-2, President
Trump stated, “[t]he 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!” J.R. 664. He reiterated that “[t]he Justice Dept.
should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct
version they submitted to [the Supreme Court],” and advised the Justice Department to “ask for
an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much
tougher version!” Id. The following day, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated that
President Trump’s tweets should be “considered official statements by the president of the
United States.” J.R. 667.
In an August 17, 2017 tweet, Trump endorsed what appears to be an apocryphal story
involving General John J. Pershing and a purported massacre of Muslims with bullets dipped in a
14
JA 1006
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 15 of 91
pig’s blood, advising people to “[s]tudy what General Pershing … did to terrorists when caught.
There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!” J.R. 679. In a September 15, 2017
tweet, President Trump again insisted that “the travel ban into the United States should be far
larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!” J.R. 705.
VI.
Presidential Proclamation 9645
On September 24, 2017, President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, which
immediately supplanted EO-2 as to foreign nationals who lack a credible claim of a bona fide
relationship with a person or organization within the United States, and which is slated to go into
effect on October 18, 2017 for all other individuals covered by its terms. The Proclamation
stated that in a July 9, 2017 report issued pursuant to the requirements of EO-2, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the DNI, had selected
baseline criteria for assessing the sufficiency of the information provided by foreign
governments to permit the United States to confirm the identities of individuals seeking to enter
the country and make a security assessment about them.
Three categories of information were identified.
The first is “identity-management
information,” consisting of information necessary to confirm that individuals are who they claim
to be. Criteria for assessing the sufficiency of information provided include whether a foreign
government employs electronic passports embedded with data on the holder’s identity, reports
lost or stolen passports, and provides other identity-related information not contained in
passports. The second category is “national security and public-safety information,” relating to
whether individuals seeking to enter the United States pose a national security or public safety
risk, the criteria for which include whether a foreign government provides information on known
or suspected terrorists and individuals’ criminal histories, shares exemplars of its passports and
15
JA 1007
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 16 of 91
national identity documents, or impedes the transfer of information about passengers and crew
traveling to the United States. The third category is “national security and public-safety risk
assessment,” relating to risk indicators about the country itself, the criteria for which include
whether the country is a known or potential terrorist safe haven, whether it is a participant in the
Visa Waiver Program, and whether it regularly refuses to accept its nationals subject to final
orders of removal from the United States.
According to the Proclamation, pursuant to the process set forth in EO-2, nearly 200
countries were evaluated based on these criteria. Of those, 16 nations were found to be
“inadequate” and 31 were found to be at risk of becoming so. In accordance with Section 2(d) of
EO-2, those nations were given 50 days to bring their information-sharing practices into
compliance with United States expectations. At the end of that 50-day period, eight countries
were determined to have continued inadequate information-sharing practices: Chad, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. In a September 15, 2017 report to the
President (“the DHS Report”), the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security recommended that
entry restrictions be imposed on all of those countries with the exception of Iraq. Although
Somalia’s information-sharing practices were found to be adequate, the Acting Secretary of
Homeland Security recommended that Somalia also be subjected to entry restrictions.
As a result, the Proclamation states that “absent the measures set forth in this
proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States” of nationals from
Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen (the “Designated
Countries”) “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Procl. pmbl.
Specifically, the Proclamation suspends the entry of all immigrants from seven of the eight
Designated Countries, excepting only Venezuela. The ban on entry by nonimmigrants is “more
16
JA 1008
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 17 of 91
tailored,” with a narrower ban imposed on countries with mitigating circumstances such as a
willingness to play a substantial role in combatting terrorism. Procl. § 1(h)(iii).
As to specific countries previously subject to EO-2’s travel ban, the Proclamation
suspends entirely the entry of Iranian nationals on both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, with
an exception for individuals traveling on nonimmigrant, student (“F” and “M”) and exchange
visitor (“J”) visas. However, Iranians traveling on F, M, and J visas are to be subjected to
enhanced screening and vetting. As justification, the Proclamation asserts that Iran is a source of
significant terrorist threats and a designated state sponsor of terrorism, and that it fails adequately
to cooperate with the United States to identify security risks, has at least one unspecified national
security risk factor, and refuses to accept its nationals slated for deportation.
The Proclamation suspends entry of all Libyan nationals as immigrants, as well as entry
of nonimmigrants using business (“B-1”), tourist (“B-2”), or business/tourist (“B-1/B-2”) visas.
These restrictions are based on the conclusions that Libya does not provide adequate public
safety or terrorism-related information, has deficiencies in its identity-management protocols,
has at least one unspecified national security risk factor, and does not reliably accept its nationals
slated for deportation.
The entry of nationals from Somalia traveling on immigrant visas is suspended entirely,
and adjudications for all nonimmigrant visas are to be subjected to additional scrutiny.
According to the Proclamation, these restrictions are justified by the facts that the United States
does not recognize the Somali electronic passport, Somalia has been designated a terrorist safe
haven, and large parts of Somalia are outside the control of the central government such that its
ability to share information about criminal and terrorist risks is compromised.
17
JA 1009
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 18 of 91
Regarding Syria, the Proclamation suspends entirely the entry of all Syrian nationals,
both immigrants and nonimmigrants, on the basis that Syria does not cooperate with the United
States in identifying security risks, is a source of significant terrorist threats and has been
designated a state sponsor of terrorism, does not provide adequate public safety or terrorismrelated information, has deficiencies in its identity-management protocols, and has at least one
unspecified national security risk factor.
The Proclamation suspends entirely the entry of Yemeni nationals as immigrants, as well
as entry of Yemeni nonimmigrants traveling under B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visas.
As justification, the Proclamation notes that Yemen does not provide adequate public safety or
terrorism-related information, has deficiencies in its identity-management protocols, has at least
one national security risk factor, and has a terrorist presence.
As for countries identified for the first time in the Proclamation, entry of Chad nationals
as immigrants is suspended entirely, as is entry of nonimmigrants using B-1, B-2, or B-1/B-2
visas. In support of this determination, the Proclamation asserts that Chad fails to provide
adequate public safety and terrorism-related information, and that the nation has at least one
unspecified national security risk factor.
All entry of North Korean visa holders, immigrant or nonimmigrant, is entirely
suspended, because North Korea has reportedly failed in any way to cooperate or engage in
information sharing with the United States.
Venezuela is the only designated country for which entry of immigrants is not suspended.
Limitations on the entry of Venezuelan nationals are confined to barring entry of specific
government officials and their immediate family members, who are suspended from traveling to
the United States on B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas. All other Venezuelan nationals are to be
18
JA 1010
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 19 of 91
subjected to enhanced screening and vetting procedures but are not otherwise banned from entry.
The Proclamation reasons that although Venezuela fails to provide adequate terrorism-related or
public safety information, has at least one unspecified national security risk factor, and does not
reliably receive its nationals slated for deportation, there are other, unspecified sources available
for verifying the identities of Venezuelan nationals.
These suspensions apply to foreign nationals of the Designated Countries who (1) are
outside the United States on the applicable effective date of the Proclamation; (2) do not have a
valid visa as of the applicable effective date of the Proclamation; and (3) are not among those
entitled to receive a new visa or other travel document because their visas were revoked or
canceled pursuant to EO-1. Excepted from the suspensions are a number of other individuals,
including LPRs; dual nationals if traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country; and
foreign nationals who have been granted asylum status or who have been already admitted to the
United States as refugees.
In addition to these delineated exceptions, the Proclamation provides for waivers, to be
granted on a case-by-case basis by either a State Department consular officer or an official of
United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), based on criteria to be developed by the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. Any waiver granted by a consular
officer would allow both the issuance of a visa and subsequent entry to the United States on that
visa. The Proclamation expressly provides that waivers may be granted only upon a showing
that (1) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship, (2) allowing entry would
not pose a national security or public safety threat, and (3) entry would be in the national interest.
The Proclamation charges the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to devise a process for determining whether the suspensions should be
19
JA 1011
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 20 of 91
continued, terminated, modified, or supplemented. At 180-day intervals, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the
DNI, and any other appropriate agency heads, is to submit a report and recommendations to the
President on whether any such changes should be made, including whether similar suspensions
should be imposed on additional countries. In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consulting with these same officials, may recommend modifications to the list of suspended
countries at any time.
As noted, the Proclamation is already in effect as to foreign nationals currently barred by
EO-2. For all other covered foreign nationals, it becomes effective on October 18, 2017.
In a joint declaration, 49 former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence
officials who served in the White House, Department of State, Department of Homeland
Security, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Senate, and
as ambassadors in Republican and Democratic Administrations, some of whom were aware of
the available intelligence relating to potential terrorist threats to the United States as of January
19, 2017, state that “[a]s a national security measure,” the Proclamation is “unnecessary” and is
of “unprecedented scope.” J.R. 770. Excluding North Korea and Venezuela, the Proclamation
blocks over 150 million people from entering the United States on the basis of their nationality,
despite the fact that “concrete evidence” has shown that “country-based bans are ineffective.”
J.R. 771. The officials note that the Proclamation has internal inconsistencies, such as its uneven
application to nonimmigrant visas, which are the most frequently used visas from the banned
nations, and its failure to block individuals from non-Muslim majority countries with “widelydocumented” problems with information sharing, such as Belgium. J.R. 773. On this score, the
officials note that no terrorist acts have been committed on U.S. soil by nationals of the
20
JA 1012
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 21 of 91
Designated Countries in the last 40 years, and that no intelligence as of January 19, 2017
suggested any such potential threat. Nor, the former officials assert, is there any rationale for the
abrupt shift from individualized vetting to group bans, particularly in light of the fact that the
present system of individualized vetting places the burden of proving identity and eligibility for
travel on the person seeking a visa.
VII.
The Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, a combination of 23 individuals (“the Individual Plaintiffs”) and seven
organizations (“the Organizational Plaintiffs”), assert that they will suffer harm from the
implementation of the Proclamation in the form of prolonged separation of family members
located in the Designated Countries and stigmatizing injuries arising from the anti-Muslim
animus of the travel ban. Of the Individual Plaintiffs, nine are U.S. citizens or LPRs who have
an approved visa petition on behalf of an Iranian-national parent, child, or sibling, consisting of
IRAP Plaintiffs John Doe No. 4, Shapour Shirani, Fakhri Ziaolhagh, and Afsaneh Khazaeli; and
IAAB Doe Plaintiffs Nos. 1-5.
Two Plaintiffs, IAAB Doe Plaintiff No. 6 and Grannaz
Amirjamshidi seek nonimmigrant visas for their Iranian-national mother or mother-in-law to
visit the United States. Four Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens or LPRs with an approved visa petition
for their Syrian-national family members, consisting of Mohamad Mashta,2 IRAP Plaintiff Jane
Doe No. 2, and Zakzok Plaintiffs Jane Does No. 1-2. Zakzok Plaintiff Eblal Zakzok, an LPR,
has submitted an immigrant visa petition for his Syrian-national daughter but it has not been
approved, and Zakzok Plaintiff Sumaya Hamadmad has a sister, a Syrian national, who has
applied for a nonimmigrant visa to visit the United States for an academic project. IRAP
2
At the time the IRAP Amended Complaint was filed, Plaintiff Mohamad Mashta had an
approved I-130 visa petition for his Syrian-national wife and was awaiting a visa for her. At the
hearing, counsel informed the Court that Mashta’s wife had been granted a visa and that she is on
her way to the United States, which appears to render his claim moot.
21
JA 1013
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 22 of 91
Plaintiffs John Doe No. 5 and Fahed Muqbil are U.S. citizens who have approved immigrant visa
petitions for their Yemeni-national wife and mother, respectively. Zakzok Plaintiff Jane Doe No.
3 is a U.S. citizen who has a pending immigrant visa petition for her Somali fiancée. Three of
the Individual Plaintiffs, specifically Mohammed Meteab, and IRAP John Does Nos. 1 and 3,
are LPRs of Iranian or Iraqi descent who do not have immediate family members from one of the
Designated Countries seeking an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa.
Of the Organizational Plaintiffs, three primarily provide services to clients.
IRAP
provides legal services to its clients, displaced persons around the world seeking to come to the
United States, to help them navigate the refugee or immigrant application process.
HIAS
provides a variety of services to refugees, including assisting their clients with refugee
resettlement in the United States. AAANY primarily serves the Arab-American and Arab
immigrant community in New York City by providing legal and other services to its clients.
The remaining Organizational Plaintiffs convene events on issues relating to the Middle
East or advocate on behalf of their members. MESA consists of over 2,400 graduate students
and faculty around the world focused on the field of Middle Eastern studies.
YAMA, a
membership organization of Yemeni American merchants, seeks to protect its members from
harassment and to assist them with immigration issues.
IAAB organizes youth camps,
educational events, and international conferences for the Iranian diaspora, including inviting
prominent scholars from outside the country to speak at events. ISF is an affiliate of IAAB and
organizes events and fundraisers for its members, approximately 30 Iranian American students at
the University of Maryland. Additional facts relating to certain Organizational Plaintiffs are
contained in the Court’s discussion of standing. See infra part I.A.
22
JA 1014
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 23 of 91
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In this Motion, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction based on their claims that the
Proclamation violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act, (2) the Establishment Clause, and
(3) the Equal Protection Clause.
I.
Justiciability
Defendants raise several arguments that Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable.
Specifically, they assert that Plaintiffs lack standing, the claims are not ripe, the claims are barred
by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, and the statutory claims are not reviewable under
the APA.
A.
Standing
Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the federal courts to actual
“Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. To invoke this power, a litigant must
have standing. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013). A plaintiff establishes
standing by demonstrating (1) a “concrete and particularized” injury that is “actual or imminent,”
(2) “fairly traceable to the challenged conduct,” (3) and “likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Id.; Covenant Media of S.C., LLC v. City of N. Charleston, 493 F.3d 421, 428
(4th Cir. 2007). For claims involving a statutory cause of action, a plaintiff must also have
interests that fall within the “zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1388 (2014). Standing must be established
for each claim. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). The presence of one
plaintiff with standing renders a claim justiciable. Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 370-71 (4th
Cir. 2014).
23
JA 1015
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 24 of 91
1.
Immigration and Nationality Act
The various Individual Plaintiffs assert standing based on the allegation that they are
harmed by the prolonged separation from close family members who are unable to travel to the
United States under the terms of the Proclamation. The Supreme Court has reviewed the merits
of cases brought by U.S. residents with a specific interest in the entry of a foreigner challenging
the application of the immigration laws to that foreign individual. See Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct.
2128, 2131, 2138-42 (2015) (considering an action brought by a U.S. citizen challenging the
denial of her husband’s visa); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 756, 762-65 (1972)
(considering the merits of a claim brought by American plaintiffs challenging the denial of a visa
to a Belgian journalist whom they had invited to speak in various academic forums in the United
States); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998) (stating that
because standing relates to a court’s power to hear and adjudicate a case, it is normally
“considered a threshold question that must be resolved in [the litigant’s] favor before proceeding
to the merits”); Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1050 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“Presumably, had
the Court harbored doubts concerning federal court subject matter jurisdiction in Mandel, it
would have raised the issue on its own motion.”). Other courts have done the same. See
Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (considering an action by a United
States citizen challenging the denial of her husband’s visa and holding that the citizen had a
procedural due process right to a “limited judicial inquiry regarding the reason for the decision”);
Allende v. Shultz, 845 F.2d 1111, 1114 & n.4 (1st Cir. 1988) (evaluating the merits of a claim
brought by scholars and leaders who extended invitations to a foreign national challenging the
denial of her visa).
24
JA 1016
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 25 of 91
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has found that
U.S. citizens and residents have standing to challenge the denial of visas to individuals in whose
entry to the United States they have an interest. See Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1050 (finding that
U.S. citizens and residents had standing to challenge the denial of visas to foreigners whom they
had invited to “attend meetings or address audiences” in the United States); Legal Assistance for
Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 45 F.3d 469, 471
(D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1 (1996) (“LAVAS”). In LAVAS, the
court held that U.S. resident sponsors had standing to assert that the State Department’s failure to
process visa applications of Vietnamese citizens in Hong Kong violated one of the same
provisions at issue here, 8 U.S.C. § 1152, based on the cognizable injury of prolonged
“separation of immediate family members” resulting from the State Department’s inaction. Id. at
471. And in a related case, the Ninth Circuit held that an individual plaintiff had standing to
challenge EO-2 where the plaintiff’s mother-in-law was a Syrian national with a pending
immigration visa application, because the “prolonged separation” from her constituted a
sufficient injury-in-fact. Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 763.
Here, several Individual Plaintiffs, specifically IRAP Plaintiffs John Doe No. 4, John Doe
No. 5, Jane Doe No. 2, Shapour Shirani, and Fakhri Ziaolhagh; IAAB Plaintiffs Doe Plaintiff
No. 1, Doe Plaintiff No. 3, Doe Plaintiff No. 4, and Doe Plaintiff. No. 5; and Zakzok Plaintiffs
Eblal Zakzok, John Doe No. 1, and Jane Doe No. 2 have standing to assert their claims that the
Proclamation violates the INA. Each of these Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent
residents who have immediate family members who are nationals of the Designated Countries
and currently in the process of securing a visa to come to the United States as immigrants. As
one illustrative example, John Doe No. 4 is a U.S. citizen whose wife is an Iranian national
25
JA 1017
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 26 of 91
seeking an immigrant visa to join him in the United States. Other Plaintiffs, including IRAP
Plaintiff Grannaz Amirjamshidi, IAAB Plaintiff Doe Plaintiff No. 6, and Zakzok Plaintiff
Sumaya Hamadmad have standing as U.S. citizens who are separated from close family
members who are nationals of Designated Countries seeking nonimmigrant visas to travel to the
United States.
The Proclamation’s indefinite ban on the issuance of immigrant and
nonimmigrant visas for nationals of the Designated Countries has imposed an actual, imminent
injury on these Plaintiffs by prolonging their separation from their family members. See LAVAS,
45 F.3d at 471; Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 763. Because a “threat” of an injury that is “real and
immediate” can support standing, Friends of the Earth, Inc. v Gaston Copper Recycling Corp.,
204 F.3d 149, 160 (4th Cir. 2000), it is not necessary that the family member’s visa application
already be denied. Where the Proclamation halts issuance of visas to nationals of the Designated
Countries indefinitely, the threat is quite real.
This injury is “fairly traceable” to the challenged practice in that the implementation of
the travel ban imposed by the Proclamation would cause the prolonged separation, and an
injunction against the Proclamation would likely redress that injury. See Hollingsworth, 133 S.
Ct. at 2661. The Court therefore finds that these Individual Plaintiffs have standing to assert the
claim that the Proclamation violates the INA.
The Organizational Plaintiffs assert standing for the INA claim in their own right and on
behalf of their members. For an organization’s claim of standing, the Court conducts the same
inquiry as in the case of an individual. Lane v. Holder, 703 F.3d 668, 674 (4th Cir. 2012). An
organization suffers an injury-in-fact when “a defendant’s actions impede its efforts to carry out
its mission.” Lane, 703 F.3d at 674; see also Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363,
379 (1982) (“Such concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities–with the
26
JA 1018
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 27 of 91
consequent drain on the organization’s resources–constitutes far more than simply a setback to
the organization’s abstract social interests.”). However, an injury to an organization generally
does not arise from a decision to expend resources on member education or litigation in response
to legislation. See Lane, 703 F.3d at 675.
Here, several organizations have asserted sufficient injury to their proprietary and
organizational interests to constitute an injury-in-fact for standing purposes. Both MESA and
IAAB argue that the Proclamation will disrupt upcoming conferences and events in the United
States by preventing individuals from the Designated Countries from attending. Specifically, the
Proclamation would bar scholars from some of the Designated Countries from MESA’s annual
meeting in November, including one prospective attendee from Iran, which would harm MESA
financially because approximately half of MESA’s budget is derived from the annual meeting.
The inability of scholars to travel to the annual meeting would also hinder the exchange of ideas
among scholars and thus adversely impact MESA’s mission of “fostering study and public
understanding of the Middle East.” J.R. 430-31. Likewise, the Proclamation will prevent
Iranian nationals from attending IAAB’s International Conference on the Iranian Diaspora,
scheduled for April 2018 in New York, at which scholars, students, journalists, artists, and
community leaders gather to exchange ideas on issues affecting the worldwide Iranian
community. Where approximately half of the invited speakers for this event typically come from
Iran, the inability of Iranian nationals to travel to the United States would hinder IAAB’s mission
of “address[ing] issues affecting the Iranian Diaspora community.” Kharazzi Aff. ¶ 17, IAAB
Mot. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 1, ECF No. 26-3. Although the Proclamation excepts Iranian nationals
traveling on a student (F and M) or exchange visitor (J) visa, such visas typically are for
individuals enrolling in an academic or vocational program or in a specific exchange visitor
27
JA 1019
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 28 of 91
program such as an au pair, summer camp, or summer work travel program. See 22 C.F.R. §§
41.61–41.62 (2017); U.S. Dep’t of State, 9 Foreign Affairs Manual §§ 402.5-5–402.5-6.
Attendees at educational, professional, or business conferences would generally use a B-1 visa,
which is now unavailable to Iranian nationals. See 9 Foreign Affairs Manual § 402.2-5(B)(5)
(stating that one of the permitted activities on a B-1 visa is to “participate in scientific,
educational, professional, or business conventions, conferences, or seminars”).
The
Proclamation also impacts IRAP’s ability to bring one of its Syrian-national employees back to
the United States to participate in its annual, week-long strategic planning and training retreat at
its headquarters in New York, which would adversely impact IRAP’s operations and mission.
These injuries are not “merely speculative.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 561 (1992). MESA has described at least one specific individual from Iran who would
attend the MESA annual meeting and whose fees would have to be refunded if he cannot attend,
and IRAP has referenced a specific employee who cannot receive the in-person training and
participate in strategic planning at its annual retreat. Even without identifying specific
individuals who will definitely be barred from entry into the United States to attend its events,
IAAB has alleged that the Proclamation presently constrains their efforts to recruit attendees for
their upcoming meetings and conferences and to secure their arrival in time for the events. Cf.
Hawaii 859 F.3d at 766 (finding that Hawaii had standing based on its interest in students
attending the University of Hawaii). Thus, the Proclamation would injure MESA, IAAB, and
IRAP by impeding their efforts to accomplish their missions and by disrupting their ability to
raise money, train staff, and convene programs designed to foster the free flow of ideas on topics
of significance to their organization’s purpose. See Lane, 703 F.3d at 674.
28
JA 1020
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 29 of 91
MESA, IAAB, and IRAP also fall within the zone of interests protected by the INA.
Where MESA’s purpose is to foster “study and public understanding of the Middle East,” J.R.
431-32, and IAAB is focused on “address[ing] issues affecting the Iranian Diaspora Community,
Kharazzi Aff. ¶ 17, these organizations necessarily engage in collaboration and exchange with
foreign nationals who visit the United States. Accordingly, they necessarily have a substantial
interest in the effective operation of the INA, particularly its provisions for admitting foreign
scholars and other foreign nationals to the United States as nonimmigrants to attend educational
conferences. See, e.g., 9 Foreign Affairs Manual § 402.2-5(B)(5). Likewise, as an organization
focused on refugee resettlement, IRAP has a need to engage foreign-national employees familiar
with parts of the world with refugee populations and periodically to have those employees travel
to and from the United States for planning, direction, and training. It, too, has an ongoing
interest in operation of the INA’s nonimmigrant visa provisions. See 9 Foreign Affairs Manual
§ 402.2-5(B)(3) (stating that one of the permitted activities on a B-1 visa is to “consult with
business associates”). Thus, as organizations that depend on the entry of foreign nationals into
the United States under the INA, MESA, IAAB, and IRAP are within the zone of interest of the
law. See Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1050-51 (finding that organizations that invited foreign nationals
to the United States to speak at a rally had a cognizable stake in the Government’s interpretation
of a provision of the INA).
The Court also finds that these organizational injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants’
actions and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision because the Proclamation imposes an
entry ban on nationals from the Designated Countries who would otherwise be able to apply for
visas to enter the United States and participate in the organizational events. See Hollingsworth,
29
JA 1021
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 30 of 91
133 S. Ct. at 2661. Therefore, the Court finds that MESA, IAAB, and IRAP each have standing
to challenge the Proclamation as a violation of the INA.
Finally, several organizations can assert standing as representatives of their members. To
establish associational standing, an organization must establish that (1) its members would have
standing to sue in their own right; (2) “the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the
organization’s purpose”; and (3) “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the
participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert.
Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 563 (stating that a single member with
standing in his or her own right is sufficient to establish that an organization has standing). An
organization must “make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had
suffered or would suffer harm.” Southern Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand
at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
555 U.S. 488, 498 (2009)).
MESA and YAMA both identify at least one individual member who is a U.S. citizen or
LPR seeking to secure an immigrant visa for a close relative from one of the Designated
Countries. MESA alleges that one of its members of Syrian descent is imminently filing a
petition seeking an immigrant visa for his mother-in-law, a Syrian national. YAMA asserts that
one of its members, “Ahmed,” is a U.S. citizen whose wife has petitioned for his Yemeni
national wife and their five Yemeni national children to immigrate to the United States.
The interests raised by Plaintiffs’ claims are germane to the organizations’ purposes.
MESA seeks to foster greater understanding and dialogue with Middle East nations, including
one or more of the Designated Countries. YAMA, in part, seeks to help Yemeni American
business owners navigate immigration issues they face. Plaintiffs’ interest in obtaining an
30
JA 1022
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 31 of 91
injunction to preserve the ability of foreign nationals from the Designated Countries to travel to
the United States squarely relates to both of these missions. Finally, where the claims in these
cases consist of constitutional and statutory challenges to the Proclamation, there is no
discernible reason why the participation of individual members, as opposed to their
representatives in the form of the organization, is required for the effective advancement of this
lawsuit. With all the requirements met, the Court concludes that MESA and YAMA have
standing to assert their INA claims on behalf of their members. See Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343.
2.
Establishment Clause
To have standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim, a plaintiff must meet the same
elements as for any other claim: (1) a cognizable injury, (2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s
actions; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Suhre v.
Haywood Cty., 131 F.3d 1082, 1085 (4th Cir. 1997). To show an injury in the context of the
Establishment Clause, the plaintiff must have “personal contact with the alleged establishment of
religion” resulting in a personal injury. Id. at 1086.
The injury can take the form of
noneconomic, intangible harm to spiritual beliefs, such as “[f]eelings of marginalization and
exclusion” because “one of the core objectives of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence
has been to prevent the State from sending a message to non-adherents of a particular religion
that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.” Moss v. Spartanburg Cty.
Sch. Dist. Seven, 683 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2012); see Suhre, 131 F.3d at 1086; Awad v. Ziriax,
670 F.3d 1111, 1122-23 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that a Muslim plaintiff residing in Oklahoma
suffered a cognizable injury in the form of condemnation of his religion and exposure to
“disfavored treatment” based on a voter-approved state constitutional amendment prohibiting
Oklahoma state courts from considering Sharia law); Catholic League v. City & Cty. of San
31
JA 1023
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 32 of 91
Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that a “psychological consequence”
constitutes a concrete injury where it is “produced by government condemnation of one’s own
religion or endorsement of another’s in one’s own community”). The injury, however, needs to
be a “personal injury suffered” by the plaintiff “as a consequence of the alleged constitutional
error.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454
U.S. 464, 485 (1982).
Here, multiple Individual Plaintiffs have asserted “personal contact” with the
Proclamation’s alleged Establishment Clause violation to demonstrate standing. As discussed
above, multiple Plaintiffs have asserted that they have been personally injured by the
Proclamation through the harm of prolonged separation from close relatives who would be
barred from entry to the United States under the Proclamation. See supra Part I.A.1. Thus,
contrary to Defendants’ claim, they are asserting a personal injury sustained as a consequence of
the alleged constitutional error, not an injury to others. See Suhre, 131 F.3d at 1086 (finding that
“unwelcome direct contact with a religious display that appears to be endorsed by the state” is a
personal injury). It is this personal impact that separates the claims of Plaintiffs here from those
in Valley Forge, in which the plaintiffs had merely read about a conveyance of property to a
religious institution that they believed to be unfairly advantageous, Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at
468-69, 485, or in In re Navy Chaplaincy, 543 F.3d 756, 764 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in which
Protestant Navy chaplains alleging that Catholic chaplains received a preference in the chaplain
retirement system had observed the impact of the alleged Establishment Clause violation on
others but had not suffered any personal consequences from it, id. at 764-65.
Several of these Plaintiffs have also asserted specific, intangible injuries resulting from
this personal contact with the alleged Establishment Clause violation.
Among the IRAP
32
JA 1024
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 33 of 91
Plaintiffs, John Doe No. 4 states that he “felt insulted” by EO-1 and received “more suspicious
looks from people,” which caused him to feel that “I am being labeled as a Muslim more often,”
and that the Proclamation “has made me feel this more strongly” such that “I continue to feel
demeaned by the ban.”
J.R. 461-62.
Jane Doe No. 2 states that she understands the
Proclamation to fulfill campaign promises to condemn her religion, which has made her feel
depressed and has caused her to question whether to remain in the United States because she
does not want her children to face discrimination. Afsaneh Khazaeli states that the Proclamation
and the predecessor travel bans have made him feel like a “second-class citizen” and has made
his family the target of abuse and discrimination. J.R. 465-66. Shapour Shirani states that the
anti-Muslim nature of the travel ban has made the separation from his wife “more painful,” and
the Proclamation has made him “feel even worse” and worry that discrimination against Muslims
will persist and interfere with his rights. J.R. 476-77.
Of the IAAB Plaintiffs, Doe Plaintiff No. 2, Doe Plaintiff No. 3, Doe Plaintiff No. 5, and
Doe Plaintiff No. 6 have all expressed similar intangible harms arising from the Proclamation’s
alleged Establishment Clause violation. For example, Doe Plaintiff No. 2 states that because the
Proclamation “targets” her based on her religion, “I feel insecure and I fear for my safety and the
safety of my loved ones,” and “I feel that I am being treated as an outsider in my own country.”
Jane Doe No. 2 Aff. ¶ 9, IAAB Mot. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 3, ECF No. 26-5. Doe Plaintiff No. 3 has
stated that she fears the Proclamation will result in “more hatred and attacks against my
community” such that “I fear for my safety and the safety of my loved ones.” Jane Doe No. 3
Aff. ¶ 9, IAAB Mot. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 4, ECF No. 26-6. Both Doe Plaintiff No. 5 and Doe
Plaintiff No. 6 express that they feel attacked, targeted, and disparaged by the Proclamation’s
hostility to Muslims and that they fear for their safety as a result.
33
JA 1025
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 34 of 91
Zakzok Plaintiffs Fahed Muqbil, Eblal Zakzok, Sumaya Hamadmad, John Doe No. 1,
Jane Doe No. 2, and Jane Doe No. 3 all express that they feel condemned, stigmatized, attacked,
or discriminated against as a result of the Proclamation. For example, Fahed Muqbil feels “as if
I and my fellow American Muslims are unwanted, different, and somehow dangerous” as a result
of the Proclamation. Fahed Muqbil Decl.¶ 15, Zakzok Mot. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 1, ECF No. 6-1.
These feelings of marginalization constitute an injury in fact in an Establishment Clause
case. See Moss, 683 F.3d at 607 (holding that a Jewish father and daughter suffered an injury
when they felt like “outsiders” upon receiving a school letter stating that academic credit was
available for taking a class at a Christian bible school). Furthermore, these injuries are traceable
in whole or in part to the Proclamation, and an injunction is likely to redress these injuries by
removing the stigma associated with the Proclamation.
Multiple Individual Plaintiffs can
establish both a personal contact with the alleged establishment of religion through the prolonged
separation from their family members and a direct injury from the Proclamation through their
feelings of marginalization and exclusion. These Plaintiffs include IRAP Plaintiffs John Doe
No. 4, Jane Doe No. 2, and Shapour Shirani; IAAB Plaintiffs Doe Plaintiff No. 3, Doe Plaintiff
No. 5, and Doe Plaintiff No. 6; and Zakzok Plaintiffs Eblal Zakzok, Jane Doe No. 2, and Sumaya
Hamadmad.
Finally, MESA and YAMA, which have standing to assert an INA claim based on their
representation of members injured by the Proclamation, likewise have standing to assert an
Establishment Clause claim on behalf of their members. As discussed above, both have asserted
that at least one specific member faces prolonged separation from a close relative as a result of
the Proclamation. See supra Part I.A.1. Both also assert that the same member has experienced
feelings of marginalization or emotional distress as a result of the Proclamation’s alleged anti-
34
JA 1026
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 35 of 91
Muslim message. According to MESA, the various versions of the travel ban have caused its
member “extreme stress” and “ma[d]e him feel unwelcome, even more so now that he is a
citizen.” J.R. 429.
According to YAMA, Ahmed, one of its members facing a prolonged
separation from family, states that the ban has made him “scared here in the United States
because the message is coming from the highest people in government that Muslims are
terrorists.” J.R. 486.
Where both of these organizations have at least one member with both a personal contact
with the alleged establishment of religion and a direct injury as a result of it, the injury-in-fact
requirement has been satisfied. Since MESA serves to foster understanding of the Middle East,
in which there are many predominantly Muslim nations, and YAMA was founded in part to
oppose what its members perceived to be a Muslim ban arising from EO-1, the interests they
seek to protect through an Establishment Clause claim are germane to their organizations’
purposes. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343. Lastly, as discussed above, there is no discernible reason why
the individual members themselves must participate in this suit, rather than their membership
organization. Id. Accordingly, MESA and YAMA have standing to assert an Establishment
Clause claim on behalf of their members.
Having found that multiple Individual and Organizational Plaintiffs have standing to
assert both INA and Establishment Clause claims, the Court need not address whether the
remaining Plaintiffs have standing. By not addressing those arguments, the Court does not
convey any view on whether those Plaintiffs have standing to assert one or more claims.
B.
Ripeness
The Government also argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe because their relatives
have not yet been denied both a visa and a waiver. For the Individual Plaintiffs discussed above
35
JA 1027
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 36 of 91
whose family members are already in the process of seeking visas, denial of visas is generally
mandated because they are ineligible based on the plain language of the Proclamation. Although
a claim is generally not ripe if it is based on contingent future events, Texas v. United States, 523
U.S. 296, 300 (1998), the potential to receive a waiver does not render the claims unripe because
the waiver process itself presents an additional hurdle not faced by other visa applicants which
would delay reunification, thus creating a harm not contingent on future events. See Jackson v.
Okaloosa Cty., 21 F.3d 1531, 1541 (11th Cir. 1994) (finding in a Fair Housing Act action that
plaintiffs’ claim was ripe where, “assuming that [plaintiffs] successfully prove at trial that this
[challenged] additional hurdle was interposed with discriminatory purpose and/or with disparate
impact, then the additional hurdle itself is illegal whether or not it might have been
surmounted”).
In assessing ripeness, courts are to consider the fitness of the issues for decision and the
hardship to the parties of withholding judicial consideration. See Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v.
Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). Where this case centers on legal issues arising from
the Proclamation, which has been issued in its final form, and is not dependent on facts that may
derive from application of the waiver process, it is now fit for decision. See Miller v. Brown, 462
F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir. 2006). In light of the individual Plaintiffs’ circumstances, withholding
judicial consideration of their claims until waivers are adjudicated would cause undue hardship
in the form of additional prolonged separation. The Court therefore finds that the claims are now
ripe.
C.
Consular Nonreviewability
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable pursuant to the doctrine of
consular nonreviewability, citing Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
36
JA 1028
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 37 of 91
Defendants also cite United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), in which
the Supreme Court held that a foreign national could not challenge the Attorney General’s
decision to exclude her from the country and deny her a hearing to which she would ordinarily
be entitled. Id. at 547. Defendants assert that, taken together, these cases establish that any
judicial review of the President’s decision to exclude an alien for any reason is unreviewable.
Plaintiffs, however, challenge not individual visa decisions by consular officers, but the
overarching travel ban policy imposed by the Proclamation. See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 768
(rejecting the argument that consular nonreviewability barred judicial review of statutory claims
challenging EO-2 and noting that “[c]ourts can and do review both constitutional and statutory
challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy”) (citation omitted);
Washington, 847 F.3d at 1162; Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 761 F.2d
798, 801 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (distinguishing challenges to consular decisions on individual visa
applications from a challenge to general operational instructions promulgated by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service); cf. Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,
940-41 (1983) (noting that although Congress has plenary authority over immigration, the Court
could still review an immigration statute to ensure that it implemented that authority by
“constitutionally permissible means”). The Defendants’ reliance on Knauff and Saavedra Bruno
is thus misplaced. These decisions relate only to aliens appealing individual denials of entry into
the United States. Knauff, 338 U.S. at 539; Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1155, 1163-64. Where
Plaintiffs include U.S. citizens asserting statutory and constitutional claims challenging a broader
policy as opposed to individual consular determinations, the doctrine of consular
nonreviewability is not applicable. See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 768-69; see also IRAP, 857 F.3d at
587.
37
JA 1029
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 38 of 91
D.
APA
Defendants assert that the APA has foreclosed the Plaintiffs’ statutory claims on multiple
grounds. The APA provides standing for any party that is “adversely affected or aggrieved by
agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702; see LAVAS, 45 F.3d at
471. This general grant of standing is subject to several limitations. Judicial review is available
only for “final agency action,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, and is not available if “agency action is
committed to agency discretion by law,” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).
First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot bring a claim under the APA because they
are not “adversely affected or aggrieved” within the meaning of the APA. As discussed above,
the Individual Plaintiffs and several Organizational Plaintiffs are within the zone of interests of
the INA and are injured by the denial of immigrant or nonimmigrant visas for family members or
expected conference attendees. See supra Part I.A.1. They are thus “adversely affected or
aggrieved” by Defendants’ use of their authority under the INA. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see LAVAS, 45
F.3d 471-72 (finding that U.S. family members of Vietnamese nationals desiring to be processed
for visas in Hong Kong but ordered to return to Vietnam were “aggrieved” under the APA and
within the “zone of interests” of the INA); Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1051 (finding that U.S. citizens
who invited foreign nationals to speak were “aggrieved” by the State Department’s interpretation
of an INA definition that led to the exclusion of the intended speakers).
Second, Defendants assert that judicial review is not available because the Proclamation
was issued by the President, not the head of a federal department or agency, and thus is not a
“final agency action” within the meaning of the APA. In Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S.
788 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the President is not subject to the APA such that his
actions cannot be reviewed under that law. Id. at 800-01. To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek
38
JA 1030
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 39 of 91
an injunction against the President himself, this argument has merit. See id. at 802 (stating that
“a grant of injunctive relief against the President himself is extraordinary and should . . . raise[]
judicial eyebrows”); see also IRAP, 857 F.3d at 605.
However, Plaintiffs have named as
defendants federal agency officials who will implement the Proclamation. “[I]t is now well
established” that “[r]eview of the legality of a Presidential action can ordinarily be obtained in a
suit seeking to enjoin the officers who attempt to enforce the President’s directive.” Chamber of
Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1327-28 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (permitting judicial review of an
Executive Order through a suit against the Secretary of Labor). Such review is warranted
because there is a “strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action.”
Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001). As for Defendants’
claim that the agency action to date is not “final,” the Proclamation is already in effect as to
certain individuals and is being enforced by federal agencies, and, as discussed above in relation
to ripeness, a formal denial of a visa or waiver is not necessary for the case to be subject to
review. See supra Part I.B.
Third, Defendants claim that review of the Proclamation is foreclosed by 5 U.S.C. §
701(a)(2) as “committed to agency discretion by law.” Under their view, Congress committed
the use of § 1182(f) to the sole discretion of the President, such that a reviewing court has no
manageable standard by which to evaluate it. Despite the Government’s asserted claim of a lack
of intelligible standard, courts have had no difficulty reaching the merits of challenges to the
President’s use of § 1182(f). See Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155, 187 (1993);
Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 770-74; cf. Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1051 (finding that the INA “does not
commit to unguided agency discretion the decision to exclude an alien”).
39
JA 1031
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 40 of 91
More generally, courts have regularly reviewed Presidential action, including action
taken in the context of foreign policy and immigration, to ensure that it fits within the bounds of
federal statutes. See, e.g., Sale, 509 U.S. at 187 (reviewing on the merits an INA challenge to
President’s use of § 1182(f)); Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 669-88 (1981)
(reviewing on the merits an Executive Order regarding the attachment of Iranian assets pursuant
to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (establishing the framework for
judicial review of Presidential action). Defendants’ contention that the Plaintiffs cannot contest
the Proclamation in court cannot square with this body of precedent. The Court therefore finds
that this case is justiciable and proceeds to the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
II.
Legal Standard
To obtain a preliminary injunction, moving parties must establish that (1) they are likely
to succeed on the merits, (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) an injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Dewhurst v.
Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). A moving party must satisfy each
requirement as articulated. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d
342, 347 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010).
Because a
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy,” it “may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
40
JA 1032
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 41 of 91
III.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Because “courts should be extremely careful not to issue unnecessary constitutional
rulings,” Am. Foreign Serv. Ass’n v. Garfunkel, 490 U.S. 153, 161 (1989) (per curiam), the Court
first addresses the statutory claims and then proceeds, if necessary, to the constitutional claim.
A.
Immigration and Nationality Act
Plaintiffs assert that the Proclamation violates provisions of the INA. The formulation of
immigration policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress. Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531
(1954). In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163, Congress
delegated some of its power to the President in the form of what is now Section 212(f) of the
INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (“§ 1182(f)”), which provides that:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens
into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,
he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend
the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or
impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Congress has also authorized the President to take action relating to entry into the United
States in what is now Section 215(a) of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) (“§ 1185(a)”):
Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the
United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and
subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.
8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)(1). The Proclamation relies on these two provisions as the statutory authority
for the President’s action.
Plaintiffs assert that the Proclamation violates the INA in three ways. First, they argue,
as they did in challenging EO-2, that the Proclamation violates Section 202(a) of the INA,
41
JA 1033
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 42 of 91
codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a) (“§ 1152(a)”), which bars discrimination on the basis of
nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. Second, they assert that the Proclamation fails to
comply with the requirement in § 1182(f) that the President find that the suspension of entry by
nationals from the Designated Countries would “be detrimental to the interests of the United
States.” Third, they contend that the Proclamation exceeds the authority granted by § 1182(f)
because it effectively re-writes portions of the INA or otherwise intrudes on Congress’s
legislative power.
1.
Nationality Discrimination
Plaintiffs argue that the Proclamation’s suspension of entry into the United States by
immigrants from the Designated Countries violates the INA’s bar on discrimination based on
nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. In opposition, the Government asserts that the
Proclamation was lawful because it was issued pursuant to § 1182(f), which grants the President
broad authority to bar the entry of immigrants, and that the non-discrimination provisions of §
1152(a) do not limit the President’s § 1182(f) authority.
Section 1152(a) provides that, with certain exceptions:
No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in
the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of
birth, or place of residence[.]
8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
Section 1152(a) was enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965,
which was adopted expressly to abolish the “national origins system” imposed by the
Immigration Act of 1924, which keyed yearly immigration quotas for particular nations to the
percentage of foreign-born individuals of that nationality who were living in the continental
United States, based on the 1920 census, in order to “maintain, to some degree, the ethnic
42
JA 1034
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 43 of 91
composition of the American people.” H. Rep. No. 89-745, at 9 (1965). President Lyndon B.
Johnson sought this reform because the national origins system was at odds with “our basic
American tradition” that we “ask not where a person comes from but what are his personal
qualities.” Id. at 11.
In reviewing the motion for a preliminary injunction of EO-2, this Court considered the
interplay between § 1182(f) and § 1152(a) and concluded, based on canons of statutory
construction, that the President’s authority under § 1182(f) is limited by the § 1152(a) bar on
discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. See IRAP, 241 F.
Supp.3d at 553-56. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as to both § 1182(f) and §
1185(a). Under the canon that a later-adopted provision controls over an earlier one, § 1152(a),
enacted in 1965, controls over § 1182(f) and the relevant text of § 1185(a)(1), enacted in 1952.3
See Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 266 (1981). Section 1152(a) is also the more specific
provision, in that it requires a particular result, namely non-discrimination in the issuance of
immigrant visas on specific, enumerated bases, while § 1182(f) and § 1185(a) mandate no
particular action, but instead set out general parameters for the President’s power to bar entry and
impose rules and regulations on entry and departure. Thus, to the extent that § 1152(a) may
conflict with § 1182(f) and § 1185(a) on whether the President can bar the issuance of immigrant
visas based on nationality, § 1152(a), as the more specific provision, controls. See RadLAX
Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2071 (2012) (“The general/specific
canon is perhaps the most frequently applied . . . To eliminate the contradiction, the specific
provision is construed as the exception to the general one.”); Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S.
3
Section 1185 was amended in 1978, to broaden its applicability beyond times of war or
national emergency, but the operative language of § 1185(a)(1) remained unchanged. See
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979, Pub. L. No. 95-426, § 707(a), 92 Stat.
992-993 (1978).
43
JA 1035
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 44 of 91
651, 657 (1997) (“Ordinarily, where a specific provision conflicts with a general one, the
specific governs.”); United States v. Smith, 812 F.2d 161, 166 (4th Cir. 1987).
Finally, it is highly significant that § 1152(a) explicitly excludes certain sections of the
INA from its scope, specifically §§ 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153, but does not
exclude § 1182(f) or § 1185(a) from its reach. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A). The absence of any
reference to § 1182(f) or § 1185(a) among these exceptions provides strong evidence that
Congress did not intend for those provisions to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provision
of § 1152(a). United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, 532 U.S. 822, 836 (2001) (“[T]he
mention of some implies the exclusion of others not mentioned.”); Reyes-Gaona v. N.C. Growers
Ass’n, 250 F.3d 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that Congress “knows how to expand the
jurisdictional reach of a statute”). Thus, pursuant to § 1152(a), a proclamation under § 1182(f)
or § 1185(a) may not discriminate in the issuance of immigrant visas.
This conclusion is consistent with that of the Ninth Circuit, which found a likelihood of
success on the merits of the claim that EO-2’s ban on entry by immigrants based on nationality
exceeded the President’s § 1182(f) authority, concluding that “§ 1152(a)(1)(A)’s nondiscrimination mandate cabins the President’s authority under § 1182(f).” Hawaii, 859 F.3d at
778. To reach this determination, the Ninth Circuit similarly applied the canons of statutory
construction and relied on the facts that § 1152(a) was more recently enacted, § 1152(a) was the
more specific statute, and § 1182(f) was not listed among sections of the INA exempt from the
non-discrimination requirements of § 1152(a)(1)(A). See id. at 778.
The Government argues that the Proclamation does not conflict with § 1152(a) because it
suspended the entry of immigrants, not the issuance of visas. There is a textual difference.
Section 1182(f) authorizes the President to bar “entry” to certain classes of aliens. 8 U.S.C. §
44
JA 1036
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 45 of 91
1182(f).
Section 1152(a) bars discrimination based on nationality in the “issuance of an
immigrant visa.” Id. § 1152(a)(1)(A). These activities, however, usually go hand-in-hand. An
immigrant cannot seek entry without first obtaining an immigrant visa.
But receiving an
immigrant visa is meaningless without later receiving permission to enter. Thus, the denial of
entry to immigrants would generally have the effect of causing the denial of immigrant visas.
See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 776 (holding that the EO-2’s suspension on entry “in substance operates
as a ban on visa issuance on the basis of nationality”); see also IRAP, 857 F.3d at 637 (Thacker,
J., concurring) (“Here, the ultimate effect of what EO-2 actually does is require executive
agencies to deny visas based on nationality.”). If § 1182(f) can be used to deny entry based on
nationality, “the President could circumvent the limitations set by § 1152(a)(1)(A) by permitting
the issuance of visas to nationals of . . . designated countries, but then deny them entry.
Congress could not have intended to permit the President to flout § 1152(a) so easily.” Hawaii,
859 F.3d at 777.
There may be scenarios under which denial of entry based on nationality under § 1182(f)
or § 1185(a) could be deemed to have such a limited impact that it would not also effect a denial
of an immigrant visa. For example, a nationality-based denial of entry of limited duration, such
as during a specific urgent national crisis or public health emergency, that was not designed to
halt visa issuances but instead simply to impose a delay or limitations on migration, arguably
would not result in discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas in violation of § 1152(a).
President Reagan’s 1986 decision to bar entry to Cuban nationals in retaliation for Cuba’s
suspension of an immigration agreement and facilitation of illegal migration into the United
States, the only historical example of the use of § 1182(f) authority to bar entry based on
nationality, falls into this category. That bar of entry, by its own terms, was to continue only
45
JA 1037
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 46 of 91
until “the restoration of normal migration procedures between the two countries.” Proclamation
5,517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30,470 (Aug. 22, 1986). Likewise, President Carter’s invocation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1185(a)(1) in response to the Iran Hostage Crisis authorized “limitations and exceptions on the
rules and regulations governing the entry” of Iranians into the United States without any
reference to visa issuance. Exec. Order 12,172, 44 Fed. Reg. 67947 (Nov. 26, 1979); Exec.
Order 12,206, 45 Fed. Reg. 24,101 (Apr. 7, 1980). Accordingly, when considering EO-2, which
imposed only a 90-day “temporary pause” during which some entry could have been denied
without impacting the issuance of visas, this Court drew a distinction between entry and visa
issuance. See IRAP, 241 F. Supp.3d at 556.
Here, however, the Proclamation has no specified end date and no requirement of
renewal. Where the Proclamation has effectively imposed a permanent, rather than temporary,
ban on immigrants from the Designated Countries, and has effectively stopped the issuance of
immigrant visas indefinitely, the bar on entry is the equivalent of a ban on issuing immigrant
visas based on nationality. This conclusion is supported by the Proclamation itself, which, even
more than EO-2, makes clear that its intended effect is to deny the issuance of immigrant visas,
in violation of § 1152(a). First, unlike EO-2, which generally barred entry by nationals of the
Designated Countries, the Proclamation explicitly and specifically targets nationals seeking to
immigrate to the United States. The Proclamation states, “For all but one of those 7 countries . . .
I am restricting the entry of all immigrants.” Procl. § 1(h)(ii).
Second, the text of the
Proclamation reveals that its primary effect is not that nationals of the Designated Countries
holding immigrant visas will be denied entry at the border by CBP, but that the State Department
and consular officers will stop issuing immigrant visas to such nationals.
Indeed, the
Proclamation actually permits entry by any nationals holding approved visas. Id. § 3(a)(iii).
46
JA 1038
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 47 of 91
Thus, as a result of the Proclamation, Defendants will effect the travel ban by no longer issuing
immigrant visas to nationals of the Designated Countries.
Moreover, the fact that the
Proclamation provides that the Secretary of State and consular officers may grant waivers to the
entry ban, Procl. § 3(c), further reveals that the Proclamation generally imposes a ban on visa
issuance, because those officials’ statutory role is to issue visas, not to oversee actual entry into
the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(16) (stating that an “immigrant visa” is “issued by a
consular officer”). Indeed, the Proclamation erases the line between the issuance of a visa and
entry into the United States when it specifically provides that a waiver issued by a consular
officer “will be effective both for the issuance of a visa and for any subsequent entry on that
visa.” Procl. § 3(c)(iii). Finally, any claim that the Proclamation relates only to the question of
entry to the United States is belied by its multiple references to visa issuance, including the
provision stating that “visa adjudications for nationals of Somalia and decisions regarding their
entry as nonimmigrants should be subject to additional scrutiny.” Procl. § 2(h)(ii). Notably, the
State Department publicly describes the Proclamation not as limiting entry, but as a “Presidential
Proclamation on Visas.” New Presidential Proclamation on Visas September 24, 2017, U.S.
Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Sept. 24, 2017), https://travel.state.gov
/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html. Because § 1152(a) does not permit such
discriminatory denials of immigrant visas, the Proclamation exceeds the President’s statutory
authority under § 1182(f) and § 1185(a). See Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1061 (noting that the
President’s authority in the immigration context derives from “the statutory authority conferred
by Congress”).
Defendants’ remaining arguments do not alter this conclusion.
Defendants
unpersuasively claim that § 1182(f) and § 1185(a) do not conflict with § 1152(a) because they
47
JA 1039
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 48 of 91
“limit the universe of individuals eligible to receive visas” to which the non-discrimination
provision of § 1152(a) would apply. This argument fails because there is nothing in the text of
either statute that remotely suggests that they serve any function relating to visa eligibility.
Moreover, acceptance of the Government’s construction, under which discrimination would be
permitted before the application of the non-discrimination provision, would render § 1152(a)
meaningless. See Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 633 (1973)
(stating that “all parts of a statute, if at all possible, are to be given effect”).
Likewise, the Court finds unpersuasive Defendants’ assertion that nationality
discrimination is permissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(B), which states that “[n]othing in [§
1152(a)] shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the
procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such
applications will be processed.” This provision applies only to the Secretary of State and thus
does not provide a basis to uphold discriminatory action in a Presidential Proclamation. More
importantly, where the Proclamation now imposes an indefinite travel ban based on nationality,
rather than a 90-day “pause,” such an action cannot fairly be construed as a change in
“procedures” or the “location” of visa processing. § 1152(a)(1)(B).
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim
that the Proclamation violates the non-discrimination provision of § 1152(a) to the extent that it
bars entry by immigrants on the basis of nationality. Because this argument does not apply to
nonimmigrants seeking entry to the United States, the Court must consider Plaintiffs’ remaining
statutory arguments.
48
JA 1040
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 49 of 91
2.
Section 1182(f) Finding
Plaintiffs further contend that the President has failed to make an adequate finding to
support his invocation of authority under § 1182(f). Section 1182(f) requires that the President
find that the entry of a class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. 8
U.S.C. § 1182(f) (emphasis added); see also Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 770, 774 (concluding that EO-2
did not contain adequate findings that the entry of nationals from the countries subject to that
travel ban would be detrimental to the interests of the United States). The INA does not define
key elements of this requirement, such as “find” or “detrimental to the interests of the United
States.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (defining terms used in the INA). “Classes of aliens” is also not
defined, but examples are given in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). These examples include aliens who have
“engaged in a terrorist activity,” § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I), and “illegal entrants and immigration
violators,” § 1182(a)(6). None of these examples are based on nationality. See §§ 1182(a)(1)(10).
The President explicitly made the finding that “absent the security measures set forth in
this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons”
barred from entry by the proclamation “would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States.” Procl. pmbl. In support of that finding, the Proclamation describes two purposes. First,
the Proclamation helps to prevent the “entry of those foreign nationals about whom the United
States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the United
States.”
Procl. § 1(h)(i).
Second, the Proclamation will help “elicit improved identity-
management and information-sharing protocols and practices from foreign governments” and
thus “advance foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism objectives.” Id. The
Proclamation contains additional information in support of its conclusion that a ban on entry of
49
JA 1041
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 50 of 91
Designated Country nationals will further these two goals.
With regard to addressing
information deficiencies, the Proclamation states that “information-sharing and identitymanagement protocols and practices of foreign governments are important for the effectiveness
of the screening and vetting protocols of the United States,” and, citing the September 15, 2017
DHS Report, concludes that seven of the Designated Countries “continue to have ‘inadequate
identity-management protocols, information-sharing practices, and risk factors.” Procl. § 1(b),
(g). It further states that Somalia, although not identified as inadequate in the DHS Report,
“lacks command and control of its territory” such that its ability to share information about
nationals who pose terrorist risks is compromised. Id. § 2(h)(i). Without this information from
the Designated Countries, the President finds, nationality-based restrictions are needed to prevent
the entry of individuals about whom there is insufficient risk information.
Id. § 1(h)(i).
According to the Proclamation, a nationality-based policy also fits with the diplomatic purpose
of the Proclamation to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing
practices. See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 772 n.13 (noting that the two past nationality-based entry
bans as to Cuba and Iran were for “retaliatory diplomatic measures responsive to government
conduct”).
Plaintiffs assert compelling arguments that the Proclamation’s nationality-based
restrictions are not actually necessary.
Under current policy, applicants for immigrant or
nonimmigrant visas, not their governments, are required to produce the information necessary to
demonstrate that they are eligible to enter the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Dozens of
former national security officials have stated that this travel ban is unnecessary, that it serves no
national security purpose, and that there is no evidence that the United States needs to shift away
from this individualized vetting system to nationality-based bans. See Joint Decl. of Former
50
JA 1042
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 51 of 91
Nat’l Sec. Officials, J.R. 770. Notably, the Proclamation does not provide examples of vetting
failures involving nationals from the Designated Countries that resulted in the entry of terrorists
or others who should not have been admitted.
Plaintiffs also question the choices made in the Proclamation given that Somalia met the
Proclamation’s baseline criteria and was included in the entry ban, while Iraq did not meet the
baseline criteria but was not included. Procl. § 1(g), 2(h). Further, the Proclamation appears to
be overbroad with regard to its purported goals. It prohibits almost all Designated Country
nationals from entering the United States, regardless of age, health, or even connection to the
Designated Country itself. At least one of the Plaintiffs, Dr. Sumaya Hamadmad, seeks to
reunite with her sister, a Syrian national who has spent her entire life in Jordan, about whom the
Syrian government would have no relevant information.
Under a more robust standard of review, these criticisms might carry the day. But there
is no requirement that a § 1182(f) entry restriction meet more stringent standards found
elsewhere in the law, such as that it be “narrowly tailored” or the “least restrictive means” to
obtain its stated aims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508
U.S. 520, 531-32 (1993); 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b)(2) (2012). The text of § 1182(f) does not
even require the President to find that suspending the entry of a class of aliens would be
detrimental to national security, only that it is detrimental to the interests of the United States. 8
U.S.C. § 1182(f). Under this broad standard, previous § 1182(f) proclamations have provided far
less detail regarding their findings. See, e.g., Proclamation 8,015, 71 Fed. Reg. 28,541 (May 12,
2006) (barring entry of members of the Government of Belarus based on “the importance to the
United States of fostering democratic institutions in Belarus”); Exec. Order. No. 12,807, 57 Fed.
Reg. 21,133 (May 24, 1992) (barring entry of “any defined vessel carrying [illegal] aliens” based
51
JA 1043
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 52 of 91
on a finding that “there continues to be a serious problem of persons attempting to come to the
United States by sea without necessary documentation and otherwise illegally”). Against this
background, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the
Proclamation fails to make a finding of detrimental interest sufficient to invoke § 1182(f).
3.
Section 1182(f) Authority
Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the Proclamation’s ban on entry of nationals from the
Designated Countries exceeds the authority granted to the President in § 1182(f). Specifically,
Plaintiffs assert that the Proclamation effectively revises the INA by imposing alternative visa
issuance criteria that conflict with statutory criteria and thereby overrides Congress’s policy
judgments, particularly those made in establishing the Visa Waiver Program (“VWP”).
Defendants counter that (1) the issue of whether the Proclamation exceeds the authority granted
in § 1182(f) is not judicially reviewable; and (2) even if subject to review, the Proclamation is an
appropriate use of the President’s broad authority under § 1182(f). Although the Proclamation
also relies on § 1185(a)(1), the parties do not argue that this section provides broader authority
than § 1182(f). Therefore, the Court need only consider whether the Proclamation exceeds the
President’s delegated authority under § 1182(f).
The Court first addresses Defendants’ claim that the President’s exercise of authority
pursuant to § 1182(f) is not subject to judicial review. In Defendants’ view, review of § 1182(f)
would be inappropriate because it would amount to a second-guessing of a decision that is
appropriately committed to the President. Yet the Supreme Court had no difficulty reaching the
merits of a challenge asserting that the President’s use of § 1182(f) to blockade illegal migrants
from Haiti violated another provision of the INA. See Sale, 509 U.S. at 170-74, 187. Moreover,
in evaluating Plaintiffs’ argument, the Court is not second-guessing the President’s discretion,
52
JA 1044
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 53 of 91
but examining whether the Proclamation fits within the President’s grant of authority. Such
review of whether executive action exceeds statutory authority is plainly within the purview of
the courts. See, e.g., Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2090 (2015)
(reviewing whether the President’s decision to not list “Jerusalem, Israel” as a birthplace on a
passport conflicted with a provision of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act); Dames &
Moore, 453 U.S at 668 (stating, in reviewing a claim that President Carter’s actions in freezing
Iranian assets during the Iran Hostage Crisis exceeded his statutory and constitutional authorities,
that “the validity of the President’s action, at least so far as separation-of-powers principles are
concerned, hinges on a consideration of all the circumstances which might shed light on the
views of the Legislative Branch toward such action”). Thus, the Court rejects the argument that
it may not review Plaintiffs’ claim that the Proclamation exceeds the authority granted in §
1182(f).
Plaintiffs’ claim centers on two alleged transgressions. First, Plaintiffs argue that the
Proclamation imposes new criteria on the issuance of visas that conflict with Congress’s
statutorily established criteria. Indeed, although the text of § 1182(f) authorizes the President
only to “suspend the entry” of classes of immigrants and nonimmigrants, the Proclamation goes
further. The Proclamation does not stop nationals of the Designated Countries from entering the
United States if they already have a valid visa or if they are able to obtain one through the
processes described in the Proclamation. Rather, as with EO-2, the Proclamation effectuates the
travel ban by using the visa issuance process.
See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 777 (noting the
Government’s acknowledgment that “the entry ban” under EO-2 “would be implemented
through visa denials”). Thus, Plaintiffs correctly observe that the Proclamation goes beyond
mere suspension of entry and delves into the criteria for issuing visas to nationals of the
53
JA 1045
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 54 of 91
Designated Countries. Specifically, the Proclamation allows a consular officer to issue waivers
to such nationals that would be “effective both for the issuance of a visa and for any subsequent
entry on that visa.” Procl. § 3(c)(iii). These waivers may be granted only if a foreign national
demonstrates that denial of entry would cause “undue hardship,” that entry would not pose a
threat to the United States, and that entry will be in the “national interest.” Procl. §§ 3(c)(i)(A),
(C). The Proclamation then directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish guidance for consular officials to use when making waiver determinations
and establishes factors that the guidance must consider along with specific factual scenarios that
would generally justify a waiver.
Arguably, these criteria conflict with Congress’s detailed system governing the issuance
of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. As part of this system, Congress places on applicants for
visas the burden to establish eligibility, including to show that they do not fall into any categories
of individuals ineligible for visas. See 8 U.S.C. § 1361; id. § 1182(a). These categories include
those with possible links to terrorism or criminal activity. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)-(3)(B).
Plaintiffs thus assert, with some force, that the Proclamation adds additional criteria that
nationals of the Designated Countries must satisfy before they can obtain an immigrant or
nonimmigrant visa to gain entry to the United States. This addition of such criteria, Plaintiffs
argue, impermissibly replaces Congress’s list of criteria with the President’s own. The Court
agrees that, as constructed, the Proclamation effectively adds new criteria for the issuance of
visas and entry by nationals of certain countries beyond those formally imposed by Congress.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Proclamation exceeds the bounds of § 1182(f) because it
conflicts with Congress’s policy judgments in addressing the same problem purportedly
addressed by the Proclamation: poor information sharing by foreign governments. As evidence,
54
JA 1046
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 55 of 91
Plaintiffs reference the VWP, established by Congress, which allows nationals of certain foreign
countries to enter the United States for periods of less than 90 days without a visa. 8 U.S.C. §
1187(a)(1). To be eligible for this program, a country must meet certain standards relating to
cooperation and the sharing of information with the United States. § 1187(c)(2). Notably, many
of the standards applied to determine if a country qualifies for the VWP are strikingly similar to
those considered in the Proclamation. For example, among the criteria for VWP eligibility are
whether a country provides its nationals with an electronic machine-readable passport containing
biographic and biometric data, § 1187(a)(3), and whether the country reports lost and stolen
passports to the United States, § 1187(c)(2)(D). The Proclamation lists these same criteria as
“identity management information” considered in the assessment whether a country should be
added to the travel ban list. Procl. § 1(c)(i). Other VWP criteria include whether a foreign
government shares information on whether its nationals traveling to the United States pose a
security threat, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c)(2)(F), the same type of information considered by the
Proclamation under the category of “National security and public-safety information,” Procl. §
1(c)(ii). Likewise, the VWP considers whether a country is a safe haven for terrorists, 8 U.S.C. §
1187(a)(12)(D)(ii)(III), and whether the country generally accepts the repatriation of its own
nationals subject to orders of removal from the United States, § 1187(c)(2)(E). These factors,
along with whether a country is a participant in the VWP program itself, are the “National
security and public-safety risk assessment” factors considered by the Proclamation in assessing
whether a country should be subject to the travel ban. Thus, in determining which countries to
subject to a travel ban, the Proclamation duplicates many of the same criteria, and revisits many
of the same issues, that Congress considered in crafting the VWP.
55
JA 1047
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 56 of 91
Further, the Proclamation imposes a travel ban on some of the same nations, based on the
some of the same criteria, on which Congress imposed lesser restrictions in its recent
amendments to the VWP. In 2015, Congress amended the VWP to exclude individuals from
participating countries who were dual citizens of, or had traveled to, Iraq, Syria, a country
designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism (Iran, Syria, and Sudan), or
other countries designated by the Department of Homeland Security (Libya, Somalia, and
Yemen). See Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015,
Pub. L. No. 114-113, Div. O, Title II, § 203, 129 Stat. 2242 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)).
For example, a French national who had traveled to Syria or was also a Syrian national would
not be eligible for visa-free travel to the United States, even though France is a VWP country.
Instead, Congress required such an individual to apply for a nonimmigrant visa and submit to a
consular interview and adjudication by a consular officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12). In light
of this statutory scheme, Plaintiffs argue that the Proclamation exceeds the bounds of § 1182(f)
because it conflicts with Congress’s policy judgments relating to the same issues and same
nations. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Proclamation addresses some of the same
issues considered by Congress, specifically, information sharing by foreign nations relating to
travel of foreign nationals to the United States and the consequences for failing to engage in it,
and that the Proclamation imposes significantly more restrictive limitations that go beyond what
Congress has previously imposed.
Contrary to the Defendants’ characterization, Plaintiffs’ claim is not one of implied
repeal. See Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003) (establishing the standard for claims that
a later provision has effectively revealed a prior provision). No one is arguing that § 1182(f) has
effectively been repealed. Rather, Plaintiffs’ argument appears to be that Congress’s legislative
56
JA 1048
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 57 of 91
action, in enacting the VWP and criteria for issuance of visas, has implicitly limited the
President’s § 1182(f) authority to bar intrusions into these areas. In a different context, the
Supreme Court recognized a similar theory when it held that “the meaning of one statute may be
affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more
specifically to the topic at hand.” Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (holding that the Food and Drug Administration’s statutory
authority to regulate medical “devices” did not extend to regulation of tobacco, in part because
Congress’s frequent legislation relating to tobacco signaled that Congress did not intend that
result). Indeed, not only has Congress amended the VWP as recently as 2015, but it has
regularly revised various aspects of the immigration system affecting visa issuance over the past
15 years. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 110-161, Div. J, § 691(d), 121
Stat. 1844 (2008) (designating the Taliban as a terrorist organization representatives of which are
inadmissible under the INA); Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L.
No. 108-458, § 7203, 118 Stat. 3638 (requiring that all visa applications be reviewed and
adjudicated by a consular officer). Thus, Plaintiffs have offered a legitimate theory that the
Proclamation has gone beyond suspending entry into legislating changes to Congress’s statutory
scheme.
However, this theory is undermined in two ways. First, with respect to the new visa
issuance criteria arising from the waiver provisions, § 1182(f) explicitly grants the President the
authority not just to suspend entry, but to “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may
deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Thus, even if the waiver requirements are deemed
to be additional criteria that must be met by an alien seeking admission, a fair reading of §
57
JA 1049
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 58 of 91
1182(f) is that it allows the President to impose such additional restrictions outside of previously
listed requirements.
Second, it is not clear that the Proclamation directly conflicts with the judgments
reflected in Congress’s construction of the VWP.
The VWP covers certain participating
countries that have agreed to abide by certain conditions set by the United States, including
information-sharing conditions, in exchange for visa-less travel to the United States for their
nationals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(c)(2). It does not directly address whether nationals of certain
non-VWP countries should be subject to even greater scrutiny than the standard visa issuance
process. Likewise, the 2015 amendments related to the treatment of nationals of VWP countries
who were either dual nationals of or had traveled to certain countries, including five of the
countries covered by the Proclamation. See Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist
Travel Prevention Act of 2015 § 203. Those individuals are not affected by the Proclamation.
See Procl. § 3(b)(iv) (excepting dual nationals of Designated Countries traveling on a passport of
a different country). Thus, although the Proclamation and the VWP address similar problems
and consider similar factors, the two are not in such conflict that the VWP could fairly be
deemed to foreclose the restrictions imposed through the Proclamation pursuant to § 1182(f).
The Court therefore does not conclude that there is a likelihood of success on the claim that the
Proclamation has effectively legislated changes to the INA in contravention of Congressional
intent.
Finally, Plaintiffs point to the sheer scope of the Proclamation and argue that it must be
beyond the limit of any authority delegated by Congress. Indeed, the Proclamation is unique
among past invocations of § 1182(f). Of the 42 proclamations issued pursuant to § 1182(f) or §
1185(a)(1) prior to EO-1, none have sought to ban entry by nationals of more than one country at
58
JA 1050
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 59 of 91
once, let alone eight countries with approximately 150 million nationals. See Kate M. Manuel,
Cong. Research Serv., R44743, Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief 6-10 (2017).
The only uses of § 1182(f) or § 1185(a)(1) to bar entry by nationals of a specific country were
triggered by a specific foreign policy dispute: the Iran Hostage Crisis and a decision by the
Cuban government to cancel a migration agreement with the United States. Exec. Order No.
12,172, 44 Fed. Reg. 67947; Exec. Order No. 12,206, 45 Fed. Reg. 24,101; Proclamation No.
5,517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30,470. None explicitly affected the issuance of visas to the same extent as
the Proclamation. Indeed, most § 1182(f) proclamations were issued in response to a discrete
event and were limited to a specific group of individuals associated with that event. Manuel,
supra, at 6-10. As a typical example, President Clinton invoked § 1182(f) to suspend entry of
Sudanese government and military officials for their failure to comply with a United Nations
Security Council Resolution. See, e.g., Proclamation No. 6,958, 61 Fed. Reg. 60,007 (Nov. 22,
1996); see also Exec. Order No. 13,606, 77 Fed. Reg. 24,571 (Apr. 22, 2012) (suspending entry
of certain persons associated with human rights abuses by the Iranian and Syrian governments
through the use of information technology). Thus, the Proclamation is unprecedented in its
combination of a broad sweep impacting millions of people based on their nationality, its
imposition of additional criteria for visa issuance, and its arguable conflict with Congressional
immigration policy. If there is an example of a § 1182(f) order, past or present, that exceeds the
authority of that statute, it would be this one.
But other than the specific nationality restriction of § 1152(a), Plaintiffs have not
identified, nor has the Court found, any clear limit on the President’s authority under § 1182(f)
that this proclamation has crossed. Nor have Plaintiffs cited any case where a court has struck
down a § 1182(f) order as beyond the scope of that provision. In the only Supreme Court
59
JA 1051
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 60 of 91
decision considering such an argument, the Court held that the statute gave “the President ample
power to establish a naval blockade” to prevent Haitian migrants from entering the United States.
Sale, 509 U.S. at 187. Rather, courts have generally recognized that § 1182(f) provides the
President with a “sweeping proclamation power.” Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1049 n. 2; see Haitian
Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1507 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating that § 1182(f) provides
the President with “broad discretionary authority”); Allende, 845 F.2d at 1117-1118 (stating that
§ 1182(f) grants the President “vast power to exclude any individual alien or class of aliens
whose entry might harm the national interest”); Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744
n.9 (9th Cir. 1980) (referring to § 1182(f) as an “extreme power”).
The text of the statute itself is similarly unhelpful for discerning its limit. As discussed
above, § 1182(f) does not impose a time limit on the President, stating that any restriction is “for
such period as he shall deem necessary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The President can impose
restrictions on “any aliens or [] any class of aliens.” Id. The President is not required to find that
entry would be detrimental to the nation’s security, only to its “interests,” a term that
encompasses any number of reasons. Id.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are correct that there must be some limit on § 1182(f) authority.
See, e.g., Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129-30 (1985) (holding that a broad statute authorizing
the Secretary of State to issue passports under rules established by the President did not allow the
Secretary to deny passports to Communists due to constitutional considerations); Zemel v. Rusk,
381 U.S. 1, 7 (1965) (noting that statutes affecting foreign relations often “leave the exercise of
power to [the President’s] unrestricted judgment,” but that does not mean that the President has
“totally unrestricted freedom of choice”). For example, Plaintiffs persuasively argue that the use
of § 1182(f) to rewrite immigration law, such as to ban all family-based immigrant visas, would
60
JA 1052
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 61 of 91
likely go too far. But that line has yet to be drawn. Where the Proclamation does not clearly
run afoul of any identified limit on § 1182(f) authority with regard to nonimmigrant visas, the
Court cannot find that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.
Because Plaintiffs’ statutory arguments do not support their requested relief in its entirety, the
Court must consider their constitutional claims.
B.
Establishment Clause
Plaintiffs assert that the Proclamation’s ban on citizens from the Designated Countries is
the next step in a “clear and direct chain” that began with President Trump’s campaign promise
to ban Muslims from entering the United States and continued through EO-1 and EO-2. IRAP
Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 24. They argue that the Proclamation therefore violates the Establishment
Clause.
1.
Legal Standard
Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim summarily fails upon
application of the standard set forth in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). Under
Mandel, pursuant to Congress’s plenary power over immigration, courts review a claim that a
consular officer denied a visa in contravention of constitutional rights only to determine whether
there was a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the denial, in which case the court will
not “look behind the exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 770 (rejecting a claim that the denial of a
visa to Mandel, a Marxist, violated the First Amendment rights of professors who invited him to
speak because the Government offered the facially legitimate reason that on a prior visit, Mandel
had engaged in activities outside the scope of his visa). Although Mandel involved the denial of
an individual visa, the Supreme Court extended the use of the “facially legitimate and bona fide”
standard to a categorical immigration determination in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), where
61
JA 1053
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 62 of 91
a father alleged that the INA’s grant of an immigration preference to illegitimate children based
on their relationship with their mothers, but not their fathers, violated the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 788-89, 795.
There are persuasive reasons to conclude that the Mandel standard does not apply to
Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim. First, there is a more recent line of cases recognizing that
courts must not simply defer to the political branches when constitutional rights are at stake.
See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that in immigration matters, the
judicial branch is not required wholly to defer to the political branches because their plenary
“power is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41
(underscoring that even when another branch of government has “plenary authority,” courts may
still review whether that branch chose “a constitutionally permissible means of implementing
that power”). Here, where the right at issue arises from the Establishment Clause, the Mandel
standard is a poor fit because the core harm of a violation of the Establishment Clause, as
opposed to the Free Speech Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, is not a limitation on an
individual’s right—whether to speak, listen, or be treated equally to another—but the
dissemination of a public message that the Government has adopted an official policy of favoring
one religion. A “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard designed to evaluate an individual
visa determination is therefore not compatible with a fair evaluation of that public message,
which necessarily requires some evaluation of the purpose behind the message. See Church of
the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 532 (stating that an Establishment Clause violation consists
of “an official purpose” to disapprove of a religion). Notably, the Supreme Court has not applied
the Mandel standard to an Establishment Clause claim.
62
JA 1054
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 63 of 91
Nevertheless, in light of the Fourth Circuit’s application of Mandel to its review of EO-2,
see IRAP, 857 F. 3d at 588-91, Plaintiffs do not seriously contest, and this Court accepts, the
applicability of Mandel. The Court then looks to the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy in
Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015), to understand the distinction between “facially legitimate”
and “bona fide.” See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (“When a fragmented
Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five
Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who
concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”) (citation omitted). An action is “facially
legitimate” if there is a valid reason for it on the face of the action. Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2140-41
(Kennedy, J. concurring). An action is “bona fide” if there has been no “affirmative showing of
bad faith” by the decisionmaker. Id. at 2141. Based on Din, this Court concludes that if there is
a particularized showing of bad faith, a court should then “look behind” the action to evaluate its
justification. Id. at 2040-41; see also IRAP, 857 F.3d at 590-91.
Here, the Proclamation states that the President, pursuant to § 1182(f) and § 1185(a), is
suspending entry into the United States of nationals from the Designated Countries “to protect
the security and interests of the United States and its people.” Procl. pmbl. This national
security interest is a facially legitimate reason for the actions set forth in the Proclamation, to the
extent authorized by those statutes. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2140 (Kennedy, J. concurring).
Plaintiffs, however, assert that the Proclamation’s proffered national security rationale is
not the true motivation behind the restrictions, but is instead a pretext for an anti-Muslim bias.
In support of their assertion of bad faith, Plaintiffs, as part of their challenge to EO-2, previously
offered President Trump’s statements during his presidential campaign calling for a “Muslim
ban”; his statements that he would fulfill his campaign promise of a Muslim ban by focusing on
63
JA 1055
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 64 of 91
territories rather than religion; EO-1, adopted without agency consultation, which targeted only
majority-Muslim countries and contained preferences for religious minorities within those
countries; and statements of President Trump and his advisors that EO-2 had the same policy
goals as EO-1. Plaintiffs also pointed to the continued focus in EO-2 on countries with majorityMuslim populations, and what they asserted was a lack of correlation between the stated national
security aims of EO-2 and the mechanisms outlined to achieve it.
Based on these facts, this
Court concluded that the primary purpose for EO-2 was to effect the equivalent of a Muslim ban.
IRAP, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 560, 562-63. The Court now reaffirms that finding for purposes of the
present analysis.
In their challenge to the Proclamation, Plaintiffs link it to this history of bad faith by
noting that the Proclamation is the specific result of the President’s directive in EO-2 that
agencies develop a list of countries to be subject to a travel ban. They have supplemented the
previous factual record with statements by President Trump since the injunctions against EO-2
were entered urging a return to and a toughening of the travel ban. They again note what they
see as the misalignment between the stated national security goals of the ban and the means
implemented to achieve them.
They also assert that the Proclamation continues
disproportionately to affect Muslims, despite the inclusion of two non-Muslim majority nations
on the list of Designated Countries. This combined record provides facts that plausibly allege
with sufficient particularity an affirmative showing of bad faith in the stated rationale for the
Proclamation. Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Having found that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Government’s stated, facially
legitimate, reason for the Proclamation is not bona fide, this Court “look[s] behind” that stated
reason. See id. at 2040-41. The Court thus turns to a traditional constitutional analysis, in this
64
JA 1056
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 65 of 91
case by applying the traditional tests for evaluating an Establishment Clause claim.
See
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695; Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41; see also IRAP, 857 F. 3d at 590-91.
The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion,” U.S.
Const. amend. I, and “mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and
between religion and nonreligion,” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). When a
government action does not differentiate among religions on its face, courts apply the test
articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to evaluate an Establishment Clause
challenge. See Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 695 (1989). Under Lemon, to withstand an
Establishment Clause challenge (1) an act must have a secular purpose, (2) “its principal or
primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,” and (3) it must not “foster
‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” Id. at 612-613 (quoting Walz v. Tax
Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970)). All three prongs of the test must be satisfied. Edwards v.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987).
As the first prong of the Lemon test makes clear, in Establishment Clause cases, “purpose
matters.” McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 866 n.14 (2005).
Thus the purpose test is not satisfied by the identification of any secular purpose. McCreary, 545
U.S. at 865 n.13. Such a rule “would leave the purpose test with no real bite, given the ease of
finding some secular purpose for almost any government action.” Id. (“[A]n approach that
credits any valid purpose . . . has not been the way the Court has approached government action
that implicates establishment.” (emphasis added)).
Although governmental statements of
purpose generally receive deference, an identified secular purpose must be “genuine, not a sham,
and not merely secondary to a religious objective.” Id. at 864. Further, if a religious purpose for
the government action is the predominant or primary purpose, and the secular purpose is
65
JA 1057
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 66 of 91
“secondary,” the purpose test has not been satisfied. Id. at 860, 862-65; see also Edwards, 482
U.S. at 594 (finding a violation of the Establishment Clause where the “primary purpose” of the
challenged act was “to endorse a particular religious doctrine”).
An assessment of the purpose of an action is a “common” task for courts. McCreary, 545
U.S. at 861. An “understanding of official objective” can emerge from “readily discoverable
fact” without “any judicial psychoanalysis” of the decisionmaker. Id. at 862. In determining
purpose, a court acts as an “objective observer” who considers “the traditional external signs that
show up in the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, or comparable official
act.” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862 (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308
(2000)).
Because “the world is not made brand new every morning,” McCreary, 545 U.S. at
866 (quoting Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 315), the Court must also consider the “historical context” of
a challenged action and the “specific sequence of events” leading up to it. Edwards, 482 U.S. at
594-95. Such evidence is “perfectly probative” and considering it is a matter of “common
sense,” because when determining purpose, courts are “forbid[den] . . . ‘to turn a blind eye to the
context in which [the] policy arose.’” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866 (quoting Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at
315).
2.
Historical Context
This Court previously applied the Lemon test to EO-2 and found that it likely failed the
purpose prong because there was substantial direct evidence that the travel ban was motivated by
a desire to ban Muslims as a group from entering the United States. IRAP, 241 F. Supp. 3d at
560, 562-63. In making this factual determination, the Court relied largely on a record of public
statements made by President Trump and his advisors before his election, before the issuance of
EO-1, and after the decision to issue EO-2. Id. at 558-59, 562, 564. See Green v. Haskell Cty.
66
JA 1058
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 67 of 91
Bd. of Comm’rs, 568 F.3d 784, 801 (10th Cir. 2009) (considering quotations from county
commissioners that appeared in news reports in finding that a Ten Commandments display
violated the Establishment Clause); Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1282, 1284-85, 1297
(11th Cir. 2003) (finding an Establishment Clause violation based on a record that included the
state chief justice’s campaign materials, including billboards and television commercials,
proclaiming him to be the “Ten Commandments Judge”).
That record revealed that on December 7, 2015, while still a Republican primary
candidate, Trump posted a “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” on his campaign
website “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until
our representatives can figure out what is going on.” J.R. 85. Then in a March 22, 2016 Fox
Business interview, Trump reiterated his call for a ban on Muslim immigration, explaining that
his call for the ban had gotten “tremendous support” and that “we’re having problems with the
Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country.” J.R. 261. On
December 21, 2016, when asked whether a recent attack in Germany affected his proposed
Muslim ban, President-Elect Trump replied, “You know my plans. All along, I’ve proven to be
right. 100% correct.” J.R. 245. After becoming the Republican presidential nominee, Trump
clarified his plans for a Muslim ban. In a July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press, Trump
asserted that immigration should be immediately suspended “from any nation that has been
compromised by terrorism.” J.R. 219. When questioned whether his new formulation was a
“rollback” of his call for a “Muslim ban,” he described it as an “expansion” and explained that
“[p]eople were so upset when I used the word Muslim,” so he was instead “talking territory
instead of Muslim.” J.R. 220.
67
JA 1059
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 68 of 91
Within a week of taking office, President Trump issued EO-1. Upon signing it, President
Trump remarked, “This is the ‘Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States.’ We all know what that means.” J.R. 142. The next day, Mayor Giuliani asserted
on Fox News that President Trump told him he wanted a Muslim ban and asked Giuliani to
“[s]how me the right way to do it legally.” J.R. 247. Giuliani explained that, after consulting
with others, he proposed that the action be “focused on, instead of religion . . . the areas of the
world that create danger for us,” specifically “places where there are [sic] substantial evidence
that people are sending terrorists into our country.” J.R. 247-48.
EO-1 mirrored this rhetoric. It suspended for 90 days the immigrant and nonimmigrant
entry into the United States of aliens from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen,
all countries where the vast majority of the population is Muslim. The stated purpose of this
suspension was to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals
admitted to the United States.” EO-1 pmbl. EO-1 cautioned that this threat required the United
States to be “vigilant during the visa-issuance process,” a process that “plays a crucial role in
detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.” EO1 § 1. However, EO-1 contained no facts tying the seven banned countries to any particular
terror threats or to any visa-issuance failures. EO-1 also expressly drew distinctions based on
religion, requiring that refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution be prioritized for
individuals who were members of a minority religion in their country of nationality.
EO-1 was issued without traditional interagency consultation.
Considering this
abbreviated process, the similarity between the provisions of EO-1 and the public statements
about the form the promised Muslim ban would take, the express references to religion within its
text, and the lack of any articulated connection between the scope of the ban and particular
68
JA 1060
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 69 of 91
national security threats, this Court concluded, in resolving the motion for a preliminary
injunction against EO-2, that there was a “convincing case” that the purpose of EO-1 was “to
accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump’s promised Muslim ban” through a policy of
restricting entry of nationals of predominantly Muslim countries deemed to be dangerous
territory. IRAP, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 558-59. This Court reaffirms this finding for purposes of the
present analysis.
That conclusion echoed the determination of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, which had enjoined EO-1 on Establishment Clause grounds. Aziz,
234 F. Supp.3d at 730, 737-38 (quoting from a July 17, 2016 interview during which thencandidate Trump, upon hearing a tweet stating “Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are
offensive and unconstitutional,” responded “So you call it territories. OK? We’re gonna do
territories.”). Similarly, in reviewing a TRO halting EO-1, the Ninth Circuit opined that an
Establishment Clause claim as to EO-1 raised “serious allegations” and presented “significant
constitutional questions.” Washington, 847 F.3d at 1168.
EO-2 followed only six weeks after EO-1. EO-2 again instituted a 90-day suspension of
entry from Designated Countries. However, EO-2 removed Iraq from the list of Designated
Countries, which was otherwise the same, exempted certain categories of individuals from the
ban, and delineated other categories of individuals who might be eligible for a case-by-case
waiver. It also removed the preference for refugees from religious minorities and contained no
express mention of religion. EO-2 contained a more fulsome factual predicate for its stated
national security purpose, asserting that there is a heightened risk that individuals from the
Designated Countries will be “terrorist operatives or sympathizers” because each Designated
Country is “a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist
69
JA 1061
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 70 of 91
organizations, or contains active conflict zones,” such that their governments will therefore be
less willing or able to “share or validate important information about individuals seeking to
travel to the United States.” EO-2 § 1(d).
EO-2 required that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the DNI, conduct a “worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what,
additional information” would be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate a visa
application and determine that the applicant is not a security threat. EO-2 § 2(a). A report on
that review was to be submitted 20 days after the effective date of EO-2. Then, the Secretary of
State was to begin a 50-day process of requesting that foreign governments bring their practices
into compliance with any of the report’s recommendations. After that period, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the DNI, was to “submit to
the President of list of countries recommended for inclusion in a Presidential proclamation that
would prohibit entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals of countries that have not
provided the information requested.” EO-2 § 2(e). This review and recommendation plan
(collectively, the “DHS Review”) was largely unchanged from a comparable review process
contained in EO-1.
In public statements, the Trump Administration repeatedly emphasized that EO-2 was, in
substance, the same as EO-1. On February 16, 2017, before EO-2 was issued, Stephen Miller,
Senior Policy Advisor to the President, characterized the changes made as “mostly minor
technical differences” and asserted that the “basic policies are still going to be in effect.” J.R.
319. When EO-2 was signed on March 6, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer
emphasized that “[t]he principles of the [second] executive order remain the same” as those of
70
JA 1062
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 71 of 91
EO-1. J.R. 118. EO-2 itself explicitly stated that changes from EO-1, particularly the addition
of exemption and waiver categories, were made to address “judicial concerns.” EO-2 § 1(i).
Considering EO-2 in this context, this Court concluded that despite the modifications
from EO-1 and the removal of any reference to religion, the history of public statements
“continued to provide a convincing case that the purpose of EO-2 remains the realization of the
long-envisioned Muslim ban.”
IRAP, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 559.
In so finding, the Court
determined that the core policy outcome of a ban on entry of nationals from the Designated
Countries remained intact, that EO-2 continued to have the same practical mechanics of a
Muslim ban by another name that President Trump had so publicly described, and that the
national security rationale, under the circumstances, represented at most a secondary purpose for
the travel ban. Id. at 559-60, 562-63. This Court accordingly found that the Plaintiffs were
likely to succeed on their claim that EO-2 violated the Establishment Clause. Id. at 560, 564; see
also IRAP, 857 F.3d at 601. The Court reaffirms this finding for purposes of the present
analysis.
It is against this backdrop that the Court must now assess the likelihood of success of
Plaintiffs’ claim that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. Because “reasonable
observers have reasonable memories,” past Establishment Clause violations are relevant to the
assessment of present government actions. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866, 874. See Santa Fe
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 315 (2000) (rejecting the argument, in a case involving
successive school-prayer policies, that adoption of a new, facially neutral school-prayer policy
“insulates the continuation of such prayers from constitutional scrutiny,” because any such
inquiry “must include an examination of the circumstances surrounding its enactment”). When
faced with allegations of a successive Establishment Clause violation, a court must thus not lapse
71
JA 1063
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 72 of 91
into the role of “an absentminded objective observer,” but must instead remain “familiar with the
history of the government’s action and competent to learn what history has to show.” McCreary,
545 U.S. at 866. Here, where EO-1 and EO-2 were each likely to violate the Establishment
Clause, and the third iteration, the Proclamation, was issued close on their heels—within nine
and six months, respectively—it is “common sense” that the Proclamation stands in their
shadow. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 855, 869-72, 874 (evaluating the purpose of a third proposed
display of the Ten Commandments in light of two prior proposals made within the course of a
year).
However, past actions do not “forever taint” present ones. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 874.
While courts should reject an “implausible claim that governmental purpose has changed,” they
should also “take account of genuine changes in constitutionally significant conditions.” Id. The
Supreme Court has not articulated what kind of changes are necessary to obviate the taint of a
prior Establishment Clause violation. On this point, Felix v. City of Bloomfield, 841 F.3d 848
(10th Cir. 2016), cited by Defendants, is instructive. In Felix, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit stated that “it is possible that a government may begin with an
impermissible purpose, or create an unconstitutional effect, but later take affirmative actions to
neutralize” the Establishment Clause violation. Id. at 863. In assessing “whether curative effects
are sufficient to overcome an objective observer’s impression” of an impermissible
Establishment Clause violation, governmental curative actions would have “not only to
persuasively present a primary nonreligious effect, but also to disassociate the [government
action] from its previous religious effect.” Id. Specifically, the governmental cure should be (1)
“purposeful,” (2) “public,” and (3) “at least as persuasive” as the initial Establishment Clause
violation. Id.
72
JA 1064
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 73 of 91
3.
The Proclamation
The Government argues that the Proclamation does not violate the Establishment Clause
because unlike EO-2, it is based on a worldwide review by the Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security of information-sharing practices and other factors relevant to the visa issuance process.
A comparison of the two orders reveals certain changes that support this argument. First, the
Proclamation describes the review process conducted in advance of the Proclamation’s issuance,
which included consideration of baseline criteria for assessing available information relevant to
the visa issuance process, an assessment of each country against those factors, the consultation
with foreign governments to increase compliance, and recommendations on restrictions for
countries whose compliance remains inadequate. Procl. §§ 1(e), (f). Second, the Proclamation
also alters the list of Designated Countries. In EO-1 and EO-2, all the banned countries were
majority-Muslim; the Proclamation’s Designated Countries include two non-majority Muslim
countries:
North Korea and Venezuela.
Like EO-2, the Proclamation includes certain
exceptions and authorizes case-by-case waivers, but its restrictions are more finely tuned, with
distinctions made for most of the Designated Countries as to particular kinds of visas subject to
suspension.
Defendants also emphasize that the Proclamation makes no express distinctions based on
religion. As with EO-2, the fact that, within the four corners of the document, there is no explicit
distinction among countries based on religion does not end the inquiry. Establishment Clause
violations can arise from facially neutral government action. See Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel
Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 699-702 (1994); cf. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
508 U.S. at 534, 542 (holding that a facially neutral city ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifice
and intended to target the Santeria faith violated the Free Exercise Clause because “the Free
73
JA 1065
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 74 of 91
Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination” and action
targeting religion “cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial
neutrality”). As in Kiryas Joel, where a facially neutral delegation of civic power to “qualified
voters” of a village predominantly comprised of followers of Satmas Hasidism was deemed to be
a “purposeful and forbidden” violation of the Establishment Clause, a simple check on the
demographics of the geographic area affected by the Proclamation, with a combined population
that is predominantly Muslim, reveals that its impact closely aligns with religious affiliation.
Kiryas Joel, 512 U.S. at 699-702.
Likewise, the inclusion of two non-majority Muslim nations, North Korea and
Venezuela, does not persuasively show a lack of religious purpose behind the Proclamation. The
Venezuela ban is qualitatively different from the others because it extends only to government
officials, and the ban on North Korea will, according to Department of State statistics, affect
fewer than 100 people, only a fraction of one percent of all those affected by the Proclamation.
In short, the inclusion of Venezuela and North Korea in the Proclamation has little practical
consequence.
The Court must therefore still assess whether, as has occurred in other
Establishment Clause cases, the insertion of these countries was “a litigating position” rather
than an earnest effort to “cast off” the prior “unmistakable” objective. McCreary, 545 U.S. at
871-72 (finding that the addition of secular texts to a Ten Commandments display did not
remedy a prior Establishment Clause violation).
As with EO-2, the Court must consider not whether the Proclamation has stated a nonreligious purpose for the travel ban, but whether that purpose is, in fact, the primary purpose for
the travel ban, rather than a purpose secondary to the religious animus that the Court has found,
and continues to find, to be the primary purpose for the EO-2. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 860, 862-
74
JA 1066
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 75 of 91
65.
The Court also considers whether the governmental curative action since EO-2 was
purposeful, public, and “at least as persuasive as the initial endorsement of religion.” Felix, 841
F.3d at 863. At the outset of this analysis, the Court notes that, on its face, the Proclamation is
not entirely independent of the President’s history of public advocacy for a Muslim ban. In a
July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press, then-candidate Trump, when asked about his
proposed “Muslim ban,” responded by stating that “[w]e 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.” J.R. 219-20. When asked if this formulation represented a
“rollback” of the Muslim ban, President Trump answered that it was an “expansion,” noting that
he was now “looking at territories” because “[p]eople were so upset when I used the word
Muslim.” J.R. 220. President Trump’s characterization of the Muslim ban on that occasion, as a
suspension of immigration until vetting mechanisms have been implemented, appears to mirror
the contours of the Proclamation.
Likewise, the permanent travel ban imposed by the
Proclamation was forecast at the time of EO-1 and EO-2. On January 30, 2017, three days after
issuing the 90-day ban under EO-1, ostensibly for the purpose of conducting an internal review
of vetting procedures, President Trump seemed to predict the results of that review, stating,
“we’re going to have a very, very strict ban.” J.R. 123. Shortly after the issuance of EO-2,
White House officials, noting that EO-2’s provisions were temporary, stated that the ban might
be extended past 90 days and to additional countries. J.R. 116.
Upon consideration of the text of EO-1, EO-2, and the Proclamation, there are substantial
reasons to question whether the asserted national security purpose has now indeed become the
primary purpose.
First, the underlying architecture of the prior Executive Orders and the
Proclamation is fundamentally the same. Each of these executive actions bans the issuance of
75
JA 1067
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 76 of 91
immigrant and nonimmigrant visas on the basis of nationality to multiple majority-Muslim
countries on the basis of concerns about terrorism. The Proclamation does not abandon this
fundamental approach, but rather doubles down on it, because rather than imposing a temporary,
90-day travel ban, the Proclamation establishes an indefinite travel ban, which is subject to
periodic review, but which would become permanent in the absence of additional action.
Although the Government frames the Proclamation review process as an independent
action that has cured any taint from EO-2, a close read of EO-1 and EO-2 reveals that the
outcome of the DHS Review was at least partially pre-ordained. It is undisputed that the DHS
Review was conducted pursuant to the President’s directive, contained in both EO-1 and EO-2,
mandating a review of information-sharing practices, but that directive also telegraphed the
expected recommendations.
Specifically, EO-2 instructed that the Secretary of Homeland
Security “shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion in a
Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign
nationals.” EO-2 § 2(e), see EO-1 § 2(e) (omitting the phrase “appropriate categories of”). This
language does not permit the Secretary to recommend that no nationality-based travel ban is
necessary. The language of EO-2 thus indicates that the President had decided, even before the
study had been conducted, that regardless of the results, some nationals would be subject to a
travel ban. Where EO-2 contemplated and planned for the very type of travel ban imposed by
the Proclamation, the Proclamation cannot be framed as an independent product of bureaucratic
operation.
Moreover, a comparison of EO-2 with the Proclamation reveals that many of the criteria
considered in the DHS Review, and used to justify the ban on specific countries in the
Proclamation, were substantially similar to those used to select the list of countries banned by
76
JA 1068
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 77 of 91
EO-2. EO-2 explained its choice of countries by noting that some or all were “a state sponsor of
terrorism,” had “been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations,” and made it difficult
for the United States to deport their nationals because they “typically delay issuing, or refuse to
issue, travel documents.” EO-2 § 1(d). These factors largely track the “National security and
public-safety risk assessment” factors considered in the DHS Review, which include whether a
country is a “known or potential terrorist safe haven” and “fails to receive its nationals subject to
final orders of removal from the United States.” Proclamation § 1(c)(iii). Likewise, EO-2
ostensibly selected banned countries in part because country circumstances diminished “the
foreign government’s willingness or ability to share or validate important information about
individuals seeking to travel to the United States,” a consideration that encompasses many of the
“Identity-management information” and “National security and public-safety information”
criteria used as the baseline for the DHS Report. Id. § 1(c)(i)-(ii).
Many of EO-2’s specific findings about banned countries are also substantially the same
as those described in the Proclamation. For example, EO-2 noted as one factor in banning Iran
that it “regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security
risks,” EO-2 § 2(e)(i), while the Proclamation concluded that “Iran does not cooperate with the
United States in counterterrorism efforts,” Procl. § 2(b) (i). EO-2 justified the ban on Somalia in
part because “most countries do not recognize Somali identity documents,” EO-2 § 2(e)(iii), one
of the same factors used to justified the Somali ban in the Proclamation, see Procl. § 2(h)(i). In
both orders, the ban on Syria is justified in part by the fact that Syria is a state sponsor of
terrorism and does not cooperate with the United States in addressing security or terrorism risks.
This substantial overlap between EO-2 and the Proclamation in terms of the criteria considered
and applied in identifying countries to ban undermines the characterization of the Proclamation’s
77
JA 1069
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 78 of 91
determination to impose a travel ban as the product of an independent evaluation unconnected to
the earlier, tainted travel bans, and further suggests that many of the results may have been preordained. Where the President ordered the submission of a list of countries to be banned, and the
criteria used to arrive at that list substantially aligned with those he applied to generate the list of
banned countries in the tainted EO-2, it is not surprising that agency officials acting in good faith
could and did propose a similar list of countries to be banned in the Proclamation.
Some of the specific determinations made in the Proclamation, by deviating from the
general findings of the DHS Review, also undermine the argument that the Designated Countries
were selected by an independent process completely untethered to the President’s earlier
statements advocating for a Muslim ban. For example, although the Proclamation’s travel ban is
purportedly designed to combat deficient information-sharing practices, Somalia, which was
found to have adequate information-sharing practices, is nevertheless on the list of Designated
Countries and is subject to a ban on all immigrants from that nation. Somalia is a majorityMuslim country that was included in the list of Designated Countries in both EO-1 and EO-2.
Venezuela, meanwhile, a non-majority Muslim nation, was determined to have inadequate
information-sharing practices, to have at least one national security risk factor, and to not reliably
receive its nationals slated for deportation. Despite these deficiencies, only officials of the
Venezuelan government are barred from entry. Thus, by its own terms, the Proclamation did not
simply rely on the results of an objective information-sharing review but instead made certain
subjective determinations that resulted in a disproportionate impact on majority-Muslim nations,
and a greater alignment with the travel ban of EO-2, than would otherwise flow from the
objective factors considered in the review. Moreover, the exception given to Venezuela serves to
78
JA 1070
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 79 of 91
reveal that information-sharing deficiencies do not necessarily warrant a broad, nationality-based
ban.
That fact brings into relief a continued lack in the Proclamation, as in EO-1 and EO-2, of
facts establishing that a broad nationality-based travel ban is justified by possible failures in the
visa-issuance process and the terrorist and public safety threats that the Proclamation’s ban is
meant to thwart. While the President’s findings may meet the low bar of “detrimental interest,”
8 U.S.C.§ 1182(f); see supra part II.A.2, they do not explain why the broad travel ban is
necessary in a way that convincingly demonstrates that its primary purpose is now unrelated to
religious animus. As discussed above, a nationality-based travel ban against eight nations
consisting of over 150 million people is unprecedented. Since the enactment of § 1182(f), only
two of the 42 invocations of that authority have sought to bar entry based on nationality, and in
those cases only against a single nation and in response to a specific diplomatic dispute with that
nation. See Exec. Order No. 12,172, 44 Fed. Reg. 67947; Exec. Order No. 12,206, 45 Fed. Reg.
24,101; Proclamation No. 5,517, 51 Fed. Reg. 30,470. Such a ban was not even imposed after
the September 11, 2001 attacks. Furthermore, while EO-1 and EO-2 sought to justify the travel
ban based on prior acts of terrorism involving nationals of the Designated Countries, Defendants
offer no evidence, even in the form of classified information submitted to the Court, showing an
intelligence-based terrorism threat justifying a ban on entire nationalities; rather, the
Proclamation relies primarily on the lack of information sharing from the Designated Countries.
Numerous distinguished former national security officials have attested to the unique nature of
this travel ban and the lack of a discernible national security rationale for it, including any
rationale that would flow from information-sharing deficiencies. Notably, in the context of the
VWP, Congress as recently as 2015 examined this same issue and responded with legislation that
79
JA 1071
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 80 of 91
falls well short of any kind of nationality-based travel ban. See supra part III.A.3. Thus, the
Proclamation fails adequately to explain not the need to respond to information-sharing
deficiencies, but the need for the specific response of an unprecedented, sweeping nationalitybased travel ban against majority-Muslim nations.
The Court does not reference the record evidence showing the apparent disconnect
between the identified problem and the broad, nationality-based travel ban to evaluate the merits
of the travel ban as a national security matter. See Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561
U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (stating that generally, courts should afford deference to national security
and foreign policy judgments of the Executive Branch). Nor does it question that informationsharing deficiencies can have a national security impact and should be addressed. Rather, it
considers this context only to assess whether the Proclamation persuasively establishes that the
primary purpose of the travel ban is no longer religious animus. Based on the facts that the
Proclamation’s ban generally resembles President Trump’s earlier description of the Muslim ban,
EO-2 dictated the Proclamation’s outcome of a recommended list of nations to be subjected to a
travel ban, the criteria used to select countries were highly correlated with those used to select
the countries for EO-2, the terms of the Proclamation’s travel ban skew against Muslim nations
as compared to the objective measures applied in the DHS Review, and the proposed response
has not been adequately explained as a necessary one to the identified problem, the Court cannot
conclude that the Proclamation sufficiently offers a “purposeful” curative action that establishes
that the taint of EO-2 no longer underlies the travel ban. See Felix, 841 F. 3d at 863.
To the extent that the Government might have provided additional evidence to establish
that national security is now the primary purpose for the travel ban, it has not done so. It has not
offered classified information such as the September 15, 2017 DHS Report which, even though
80
JA 1072
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 81 of 91
not “public,” could have been submitted to the Court to explain the shift in purpose. Of course,
even if such evidence was forthcoming, its value in obviating the taint of the earlier Executive
Orders would be limited. As noted, in Establishment Clause cases, it is the opinion of the
reasonable observer that controls. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866 (quoting Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at
315). Purposes that can be discerned only if one “burrow[s] into a difficult-to-access” record do
little to “assure [the public] that the government is not endorsing a religious view.” Felix, 841 F.
3d at 863.
Beyond the Proclamation itself, Defendants have offered only one additional “public”
statement to bolster the case that the Proclamation is now cured of religious animus: a speech by
the President delivered in Saudi Arabia in May 2017 in which he made various positive
statements about Islam. See Felix, 841 F. 3d at 863. Such a statement, however, did not in any
way repudiate the President’s prior intention to impose a Muslim ban. Particularly where, in
August 2017, President Trump tweeted a statement that a method hostile to Islam—shooting
Muslims with bullets dipped in pig’s blood—should be used to deter future terrorism, there is no
record of public statements showing any change in the President’s intentions relating to a
Muslim ban.
Rather, the only other available public statements not only fail to advance, but instead
undermine, the position that the primary purpose of the travel ban now derives from the need to
address information-sharing deficiencies. Even while interagency consultation regarding the
travel ban took place behind closed doors, another conversation continued in the public eye. The
day after EO-2 was enjoined, President Trump proclaimed at a rally that it had been a “watered
down version of the first one” that had been “tailor[ed]” by lawyers to respond to legal
challenges. J.R. 652-53. He suggested instead that “we ought to go back to the first one and go
81
JA 1073
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 82 of 91
all the way, which is what I wanted to do in the first place.” J.R. 653. In a June 3, 2017 tweet,
days after the Fourth Circuit’s opinion upholding this Court’s injunction against EO-2, President
Trump declared in a tweet that “We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!” J.R. 662.
On June 5, 2017, President Trump tweeted that “[t]he Justice Dept. should have stayed with the
original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to [the
Supreme Court],” and that “the Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered
down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!” J.R. 664. Then,
on September 15, 2017, the same day that the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security submitted
her report, President Trump again called for an expansion of the travel ban, tweeting that “the
travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that
would not be politically correct!” J.R. 705.
Thus, while Defendants assert that the Proclamation’s travel ban was arrived at through
the routine operations of the government bureaucracy, the public was witness to a different
genealogy, one in which the President—speaking “straight to the American people,” J.R. 667—
announced his intention to go back to and get even tougher than in EO-1 and EO-2. Notably, the
June 5 tweet calling for a “much tougher version” reveals that even before President Trump had
received any reports on the DHS Review that ostensibly identified the need for a travel ban, the
first of which he received over a month later on July 9, 2017, the President had already decided
that the travel ban would continue. His September 15, 2017 tweet calling for a “far larger,
tougher” travel ban, issued the same day that that the final report was received, reinforced this
position. Against the backdrop of two prior Executive Orders that this Court and others have
deemed likely violated the Establishment Clause, see, e.g., Aziz, 234 F. Supp.3d at 739 and
Hawaii, 241 F. Supp. 3d at 1137-38, this Court is obligated to pay attention to such statements.
82
JA 1074
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 83 of 91
See McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866 (cautioning courts that they cannot become “an absentminded
objective observer,” but must instead remain “familiar with the history of the government’s
action and competent to learn what history has to show”). The reasonable observer using a
“head with common sense” would rely on the statements of the President to discern the purpose
of a Presidential Proclamation. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 874. Here, those statements do not offer
“persuasive” rejection of the President’s prior calls for a Muslim ban, or his stated intention to
use a ban on certain “dangerous territory” to effectuate a Muslim ban, Felix, 841 F.3d at 863, nor
do they show that the stated intention to impose a Muslim ban has been “repealed or otherwise
repudiated,” McCreary, 545 U.S. at 871-72. Rather, they cast the Proclamation as the
inextricable re-animation of the twice-enjoined Muslim ban, and, in echoes of McCreary, convey
the message that the third iteration of the ban—no longer temporary—will be the “enhanced
expression” of the earlier ones. Id. at 872.
The “initial” announcement of the Muslim ban, offered repeatedly and explicitly through
President Trump’s own statements, forcefully and persuasively expressed his purpose in
unequivocal terms. Under Felix, the Government’s cure must be made “as persuasively as the
initial” violation. Felix, 841 F.3d at 863. Here, the Court concludes that where the Proclamation
itself is not sufficiently independent of EO-2 to signal a purposeful, persuasive change in the
primary purpose of the travel ban, and there were no other public signs that “as persuasively” as
the original violation established a different primary purpose for the travel ban, it cannot find that
a “reasonable observer” would understand that the primary purpose of the Proclamation’s travel
ban is no longer the desire to impose a Muslim ban. See McCreary, 545 U.S. at 872 (finding that
a third version of a Ten Commandments display continued to have a primarily religious
purpose); Felix, 841 F. 3d at 863. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated
83
JA 1075
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 84 of 91
that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. Having reached
this conclusion, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on their Equal
Protection Clause claim.
IV.
Irreparable Harm
Having concluded that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits on
their § 1152(a) and Establishment Clause claims, the Court turns to whether they have shown a
likelihood of irreparable harm. The Supreme Court has held that “loss of First Amendment
freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (finding irreparable harm upon a violation of the
freedom of association). The Fourth Circuit has applied this holding to cases involving the
freedom of speech and expression. E.g., Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184,
190, 191-92 (4th Cir. 2013); Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637 F.3d 291, 302 (4th Cir. 2011).
Although the Fourth Circuit has not held that a violation of the Establishment Clause likewise
necessarily results in irreparable harm, other circuits have. See, e.g., Chaplaincy of Full Gospel
Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Ingebretsen ex rel. Ingebretsen v.
Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 1996); Parents’ Ass’n of P.S. 16 v. Quinones,
803 F.2d 1235, 1242 (2d Cir. 1986); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. City of St. Charles, 794
F.2d 265, 275 (7th Cir. 1986) (finding irreparable harm in an Establishment Clause case and
stating that the “harm is irreparable as well as substantial because an erosion of religious liberties
cannot be deterred by awarding damages to the victims of such erosion”).
Here, as in Elrod, “First Amendment interests were either threatened or in fact being
impaired at the time relief was sought.” 427 U.S. at 373. “[W]hen an Establishment Clause
violation is alleged, infringement occurs the moment the government action takes place.”
84
JA 1076
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 85 of 91
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 303.
The Court accordingly finds that
Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of irreparable harm arising from their Establishment
Clause claim at the time the Proclamation takes effect.
The Court also finds that Plaintiffs with a family member seeking an immigrant visa have
established a likelihood of irreparable harm as a result of the Proclamation’s violation of the
INA. Irreparable harm occurs when the threatened injury impairs a court’s ability to grant an
effective remedy, such as a harm that cannot be compensated by money damages at a later trial.
See Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 782; see also 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (3d ed. 1998).
The injury must be likely, not merely
speculative, in order to be considered irreparable. Wright & Miller, supra, § 2948.1. Without an
injunction, Plaintiffs will be subjected to imminent and irreparable harm as a result of the
prolonged separation from their family members caused by the Proclamation. Hawaii, 859 F.3d
at 782 (considering separation from family members in finding a likelihood of irreparable harm);
see also IRAP, 857 F.3d at 611-12 (Keenan, J., concurring). The absence of a family member
cannot be cured through a later payment of money damages, and is therefore irreparable. For the
same reason that Plaintiffs’ claims are ripe, the injury is not speculative, despite the
Proclamation’s waiver provisions. See supra part I.B. Thus, Plaintiffs have shown irreparable
harm as a result of the Proclamation.
V.
Balance of the Equities
In balancing the equities, the Court considers the significant, irreparable harm Plaintiffs
would face both from the prolonged separation from family members and the Establishment
Clause violation. While Plaintiffs would likely face irreparable harm in the absence of an
injunction and would plainly benefit from an injunction, Defendants are not directly harmed by a
85
JA 1077
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 86 of 91
preliminary injunction preventing them from enforcing a Proclamation likely to be found
unconstitutional. See Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261
(4th Cir. 2003); Aziz, 234 F. Supp.3d at 738.
At the same time, the Supreme Court has stated that “no governmental interest is more
compelling than the security of the Nation.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981). Although
the Proclamation seeks to further information-sharing and diplomatic purposes, Defendants have
not shown that national security cannot be maintained without an unprecedented eight-country
travel ban. An injunction would not grant entry to any individual foreign national, but would
only preclude the use of a blanket ban. Even with an injunction, visa applicants from the
Designated Countries would be screened through the standard, individualized vetting process
under which the burden is on individual applicants to prove that they are not inadmissible to the
United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1361. An injunction would not shift or lessen that burden or prevent
the denial of any particular visa application. Thus, as a general matter, the balance of the
equities favors the issuance of an injunction.
However, in partially staying the injunction of EO-2, the Supreme Court noted that the
balance of equities varies depending on a foreign national’s strength of connection to the United
States. See Trump, 137 S. Ct. at 2088. For those individuals who lack “a credible claim of a
bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the equities shift such that
Defendants’ interest in national security prevails over any harms resulting from the
Proclamation’s likely Establishment Clause or INA violations. See id. Accordingly, this factor
supports an injunction extending only to individuals with a bona fide relationship with an
individual or entity in the United States, as discussed below.
86
JA 1078
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 87 of 91
VI.
Public Interest
Preventing an Establishment Clause violation provides a significant public benefit. The
Supreme Court has recognized the “fundamental place held by the Establishment Clause in our
constitutional scheme.” Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 60 (1985). The Founders “brought into
being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights with its prohibition against any
governmental establishment of religion” because they understood that “governmentally
established religions and religious persecution go hand in hand.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421,
432-33 (1962). When the government chooses sides among religions, the “inevitable result” is
“hatred, disrespect, and even contempt” from those who adhere to different beliefs. See id. at
431.
Thus, to avoid sowing seeds of division in our nation, upholding this fundamental
constitutional principle at the core of our Nation’s identity serves a significant public interest.
The Court also finds that granting an injunction on the Proclamation’s violation of the
INA advances the public interest. Section 1152(a) represents a judgment by Congress that our
immigration policy should not discriminate on the basis of nationality. To the extent that this
judgment is undermined by the Proclamation, the public interest is furthered by an injunction on
those grounds.
Although the Government’s interest in national security is a significant public interest,
for the reasons discussed above, see supra part V, those interests are not paramount in this
instance. Accordingly, the Court finds that the public interest favors an injunction.
VII.
Scope of Relief
The Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause and § 1152(a) arguments focused primarily on the
travel ban for citizens of the eight Designated Countries in Section 2 of the Proclamation. The
Court will therefore enjoin Section 2 only, subject to the following exceptions.
87
JA 1079
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 88 of 91
As discussed above, because the balance of equities favor Defendants as to visa
applicants with no ties to the United States, the injunction is limited to barring enforcement of
Section 2 against those individuals “who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a
person or entity in the United States.” Trump, 137 S. Ct. at 2088. For individuals, the injunction
covers visa applications by individuals with immediate family members, such as parents,
children, or siblings, as well as “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law,
aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” Id.; Hawaii v.
Trump, 871 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2017) (clarifying the scope of the injunction against EO-2).
For organizations, the connection must be “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary
course” rather than for the purposes of evading the Proclamation. Trump, 137 S. Ct. at 2088.
For example, IRAP’s employee or an invited speaker for MESA’s annual meeting or IAAB’s
conference would qualify.
See id. (including a “lecturer invited to address an American
audience” and a “worker who accepted an offer of employment” within the scope of the
injunction). A member of MESA or another membership organization who formally joined the
organization before the date of the injunction and seeks to enter the United States for organized
activities or meetings of the association would also fall within its scope. See id. Pursuant to the
Supreme Court’s stay of the Ninth Circuit’s determination that a refugee with a formal
sponsorship assurance from a U.S. resettlement agency has a bona fide connection to the United
States, the Court concludes that clients of IRAP and HIAS, and those similarly situated, are not
covered by the injunction absent a separate bona fide relationship as defined above. See id. at
2088; Hawaii, 871 F.3d at 661-64 (finding that a refugee with a formal sponsorship assurance
from a U.S. resettlement agency has a bona fide connection to the United States); Trump v.
88
JA 1080
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 89 of 91
Hawaii, No. 17A275, 2017 WL 3975174 (Sept. 11, 2017) (staying the Ninth Circuit mandate
“with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance”).
The injunction also will not apply to travelers from Venezuela or North Korea because
the balance of equities favors Defendants with respect to those two countries. Section 1152(a)
provides no basis to support an injunction relating to Venezuela because the Proclamation does
not bar immigrants from Venezuela. Given the extremely limited number of visas typically
issued to individuals from North Korea, Plaintiffs have neither argued nor shown how any
individuals from that nation with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United
States will be harmed by the § 1152(a) violation. Likewise, they have not shown how travelers
from Venezuela or North Korea would be harmed by the likely Establishment Clause violation.
Accordingly, the injunction will not apply to nationals of Venezuela or North Korea.
Finally, in light of the constitutional concerns associated with enjoining the President of
the United States, this injunction does not apply to the President and instead applies only to the
other Defendants and the federal officials who will actually enforce the Proclamation. See
Franklin, 505 U.S. at 800-01.
The injunction will apply nationwide. It is “well established” that a federal district court
has “wide discretion to fashion appropriate injunctive relief in a particular case.” Richmond
Tenants Org., Inc. v. Kemp, 956 F.2d 1300, 1308 (4th Cir. 1992); see also Texas v. United States,
809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that the “Constitution vests the District Court with
‘the judicial Power of the United States,’” which “extends across the country” (quoting U.S.
Const. art. III § 1)), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). Injunctive relief
“should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the
plaintiffs.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). However, nationwide injunctions
89
JA 1081
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 90 of 91
are appropriate if necessary to afford relief to the prevailing party. See id.; Richmond Tenants
Org., Inc., 956 F.3d at 1308-39; Texas, 809 F.3d at 188.
The Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that Section 2 of
the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause and § 1152(a).
The Individual and
Organizational Plaintiffs are located in different parts of the United States, indicating that
nationwide relief may be appropriate. Richmond Tenants Org., Inc., 956 F.3d at 1309 (holding
that a nationwide injunction was “appropriately tailored” because the plaintiffs lived in different
parts of the country). Moreover, although the Government has argued that relief should be
strictly limited to the specific interests of Plaintiffs, an Establishment Clause violation has
impacts beyond the personal interests of individual parties. Joyner v. Forsyth Cty., 653 F.3d
341, 355 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[T]hese plaintiffs are not so different from other citizens who may feel
in some way marginalized on account of their religious beliefs and who decline to risk the further
ostracism that may ensue from bringing their case to court or who simply lack the resources to
do so.”); City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d at 275 (stating that a violation of the Establishment Clause
causes “harm to society”). Here, nationwide relief is appropriate because this case involves an
alleged violation of the Establishment Clause by the federal government manifested in
immigration policy with nationwide effect. See Decker v. O’Donnell, 661 F.2d 598, 618 (7th
Cir. 1980) (affirming a nationwide injunction in a facial challenge to a federal statute and
regulations on Establishment Clause grounds).
Nationwide relief is also warranted on the § 1152(a) claim, with respect to applicants for
immigrant visas, because under these facts, a “fragmented” approach “would run afoul of the
constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy.” Washington,
847 F.3d at 1166-67. “Congress has instructed that the immigration laws of the United States
90
JA 1082
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 219 Filed 10/17/17 Page 91 of 91
should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, and the Supreme Court has described immigration
policy as a comprehensive and unified system."
Texas, 80 F.3d at 187-88 (footnotes omitted).
Accordingly, Section 2 of the Proclamation, with the exceptions and to the extent described
above, will be enjoined on a nationwide basis.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing
reasons,
Plaintiffs'
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motions
for a Preliminary
Injunction
are
The Court will issue a preliminary injunction
barring enforcement of Section 2 of the Proclamation, subject to the terms stated in the separate
Order.
Date: October 17, 2017
THEODORE D. C
United States Distric
91
JA 1083
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 220 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-17-0361
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
IRANIAN ALLIANCES ACROSS
BORDERS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK CHAPTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. TDC-17-2921
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
EBLAL ZAKZOK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-17-2969
DONALD J. TRUMP, etal.,
Defendants.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that
the Plaintiffs have standing to maintain this civil action and have established that they are likely
JA 1084
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 220 Filed 10/17/17 Page 2 of 3
to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
injunctive relief, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiffs' Motions for a Preliminary Injunction, TDC-17-0361 ECF No. 205,
TDC-17-2921 ECF No. 26, TDC-17-2969 ECF No.2, are GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
2.
The Motions are GRANTED as to Section 2 of Presidential Proclamation 9645
("Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry
Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety
Threats").
All
Defendants with the exception of the President of the United States; all
officers, agents, and employees of the Executive Branch of the United States
government; and anyone acting under their authorization or direction, are
ENJOINED from enforcing Section 2 of Presidential Proclamation
9645
except with regard to:
a. Sections 2(d) and 2(f) of the Proclamation;
b. Individuals lacking a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a
person or entity in the United States, as dermed in the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion.
3.
This Preliminary Injunction is granted on a nationwide basis and prohibits the
enforcement
of Section 2 of Presidential
Proclamation
9645 in all places,
including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in
the issuance of visas, with the above exceptions, pending further orders from this
Court.
2
JA 1085
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 220 Filed 10/17/17 Page 3 of 3
4.
The Motion is DENIED as to the President of the United States and as to all other
provisions of Presidential Proclamation 9645.
5.
Plaintiffs are not required to pay a security deposit.
6.
The Court declines to stay this ruling or hold it in abeyance should an emergency
appeal of this Order be filed.
Date: October 17,2017
THEODORED. CH
United States Distri
3
JA 1086
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 223 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
____________________________________
)
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
)
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC
)
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity )
as President of the United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all defendants hereby appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order at ECF Nos. 219 and
220, both dated October 17, 2017.
Dated: October 20, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
HASHIM M. MOOPPAN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
STEPHEN M. SCHENNING
Acting United States Attorney
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Director, Federal Programs Branch
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
/s/ Daniel Schwei
DANIEL SCHWEI (Bar No. 96100)
MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Bar No. 806456)
1
JA 1087
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 223 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 3
ARJUN GARG (Bar No. 806537)
Senior Trial Counsel / Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 305-8693
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: daniel.s.schwei@usdoj.gov
michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov
arjun.garg@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
2
JA 1088
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 223 Filed 10/20/17 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 20, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of
Appeal using the Court’s CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel
of record.
/s/ Daniel Schwei
DANIEL SCHWEI
JA 1089
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 229 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 5
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;
NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL
YEMENI-AMERICAN MERCHANTS
ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members,
33-42 9st
Long Island City, NY 11106;
JOHN DOES # 1, 3 through 5;
JANE DOE #2;
MUHAMMED METEAB;
MOHAMAD MASHTA;
GRANNAZ AMIRJAMSHIDI;
FAKHRI ZIAOLHAGH;
SHAPOUR SHIRANI; and
AFSANEH KHAZAELI,
Plaintiffs,
1
JA 1090
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 229 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 5
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.
2
JA 1091
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 229 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 5
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all plaintiffs hereby cross-appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order at ECF Nos. 219
and 220, both dated October 17, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: October 23, 2017
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
Omar C. Jadwat†
Lee Gelernt†
Hina Shamsi†
Hugh Handeyside†
Sarah L. Mehta†
David Hausman†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 549-2600
Fax: (212) 549-2654
ojadwat@aclu.org
lgelernt@aclu.org
hshamsi@aclu.org
hhandeyside@aclu.org
smehta@aclu.org
dhausman@aclu.org
Karen C. Tumlin†
Nicholas Espíritu†
Melissa S. Keaney†
Esther Sung†
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 639-3900
Fax: (213) 639-3911
tumlin@nilc.org
espiritu@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
sung@nilc.org
Justin B. Cox (Bar No. 17550)
National Immigration Law Center
PO Box 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: (678) 279-5441
Fax: (213) 639-3911
cox@nilc.org
Cecillia D. Wang†
Cody H. Wofsy†
Spencer E. Amdur†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 343-0770
Fax: (415) 395-0950
cwang@aclu.org
cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
Kathryn Claire Meyer†
Mariko Hirose†
International Refugee Assistance Project
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10006
Tel: (646) 459-3044
Fax: (212) 533-4598
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
mhirose@refugeerights.org
3
JA 1092
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 229 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 5
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
Foundation of Maryland
3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350
Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel: (410) 889-8555
Fax: (410) 366-7838
jeon@aclu-md.org
rocah@aclu-md.org
kumar@aclu-md.org
steiner@aclu-md.org
David Cole†
Daniel Mach†
Heather L. Weaver†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 675-2330
Fax: (202) 457-0805
dcole@aclu.org
dmach@aclu.org
hweaver@aclu.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs
†Admitted Pro Hac Vice
4
JA 1093
Case 8:17-cv-00361-TDC Document 229 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of October, 2017, I caused a PDF version of the
foregoing document and any accompanying exhibits to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk
of the Court, using the CM/ECF System for filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic
Filing to all CM/ECF registrants.
Dated: October 23, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
5
JA 1094
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?