State of Hawaii v. Trump
MOTION to Convert Temporary Restraining Order to Preliminary Injunction Neal Katyal appearing for Plaintiff State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Katyal, Neal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00050capacity as President of the United States;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his
official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; REX TILLERSON, in his
official capacity as Secretary of State; and
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONVERTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convert
Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”). The
Court has considered all papers filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of and
in opposition to the Motion, all papers filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support
of and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ prior Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and
the arguments of counsel provided at a hearing held on March 29, 2017 at 9:30
a.m. Hawaii Standard Time. Having considered the foregoing, the Court hereby
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and finds and concludes as follows.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In its Order of March 15, 2017, this Court found that Plaintiffs demonstrated
a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Executive Order issued
by Defendant Donald J. Trump on March 6, 2017 (the “Executive Order”) violated
the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Dkt. No. 219, at 3040. This Court also found that Plaintiffs faced an imminent threat of irreparable
harm if the Order were permitted to take effect on March 16, 2017, as scheduled.
Id. at 2, 40. Accordingly, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining
the Government from implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order
across the nation. Id. at 42.
The Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law reflected in
its Order of March 15, 2017 are still applicable today. The Executive Order, if
implemented, will harm the State of Hawai‘i through negative impacts upon its
universities, economy, revenues, and students, as well as through the establishment
of religion within the State, contrary to Hawaii’s Constitution and its sovereign and
quasi-sovereign interests. It will subject a portion of Hawaii’s population,
including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his Mosque, to discrimination
and second-class treatment on the basis of their religion. And it will disrupt the
ability of Dr. Elshikh and others to associate with family members and members of
their religious community.
The foregoing harms are ongoing and significant.
A preliminary injunction against Defendants, in the manner set forth below,
is necessary until a determination of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims may be held.
Plaintiffs made the following reasonable effort to provide sufficient notice to
Defendants as to its intention to file the instant motion:
a. Counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants on March
16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, in advance of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convert
Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction;
b. Plaintiffs served a copy of the parties’ joint motion for entry of proposed
briefing schedule for this Motion via CM/ECF on March 20, 2017; and
c. Plaintiffs served a copy of their Motion papers through CM/ECF on
March 21, 2017.
The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter of this
Plaintiffs reasonably and substantially complied with the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must establish: (1) a likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm is likely in the absence of
preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of the equities tips in Plaintiff’s favor; and
(4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order
Granting [Plaintiffs’] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order of March 15, 2017,
there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims,
irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, the balance of the
equities favors Plaintiffs, and the public interest favors entering temporary relief.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convert Temporary
Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction.
Now, therefore, it is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that:
Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them
who receive actual notice of this Order, hereby are enjoined fully from enforcing
or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation.
Enforcement of these provisions at all United States borders, ports of
entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this
Honolulu, Hawai‘i, ___________.
Derrick K. Watson
U.S. District Judge
State of Hawai‘i, et al. v. Trump, et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKWKSC; [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Convert Temporary Restraining Order
to a Preliminary Injunction.
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?