State of Hawaii v. Trump
MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Neal Katyal appearing for Plaintiff State of Hawaii (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, #2 Exhibit Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of Service)(Katyal, Neal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII and ISMAIL
Civil No. 17-00050-DKW-KSC
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; ELAINE DUKE, in her official
capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;
REX TILLERSON, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion and the
documents filed therewith, including supporting declarations, Plaintiffs’ Third
Amended Complaint, and the files and records herein, and good cause appearing
therefor, the Court hereby finds and concludes as follows.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs face immediate and irreparable injuries as a result of the issuance
and implementation of the Proclamation issued by Defendant Donald J. Trump on
September 24, 2017, entitled “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting
Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by
Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats” (“EO-3”), which is designed to take
effect at 6:01 PM Hawaii Standard Time (H.S.T.) on October 17, 2017. If
implemented, Sections 2(a)-(c), (e), (g), and (h) of EO-3 would inflict irreparable
harm on Plaintiff State of Hawaii by impairing the operations of its university,
damaging its economy, diminishing its financial revenues, and undermining its
sovereignty; would irreparably harm Plaintiffs Ismail Elshikh and John Does 1 & 2
by separating them from their close familial relations and denigrating and
disadvantaging them on the basis of their faith; and would irreparably harm
Plaintiff Muslim Association of Hawaii, Inc. by reducing its membership, harming
its finances, impeding its religious practice, and subjecting it to discrimination
based on religion. The foregoing harms are ongoing and significant.
A temporary restraining order against Defendants, in the manner set forth
below, is necessary until the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims may be determined.
Plaintiffs took reasonable steps to provide sufficient notice to Defendants as
to their intention to file the instant motion by email correspondence dated October
6, 2017, the substance of which was relayed to the Court on the same date in
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift the Stay, and to Increase the Word Limit and Set a
Schedule for Briefing on Plaintiffs’ Forthcoming Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order, Dkt. 363. Plaintiffs’ efforts to contact Defendants reasonably
and substantially complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
The Court continues to have jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject
matter of this case.
No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
To obtain a temporary restraining order, 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 Plaintiffs’
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, there is a strong
likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims, and 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.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Now, therefore, it is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that:
Defendant ELAINE DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State; 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(a)-(c), (e), (g), and (h) of the Proclamation issued on
September 24, 2017, entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for
Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other PublicSafety Threats” across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places,
including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in
the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court; and
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), the Court sets
an expedited hearing for _______ to determine whether this Temporary
Restraining Order should be extended.
Honolulu, Hawaii, ___________.
Derrick K. Watson
U.S. District Judge
State of Hawaii, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 17-00050-DKW-KSC;
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
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?