State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 56

NOTICE by John F. Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, United States of America of Filing of Executive Order John F. Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: New Executive Order)(Rosenberg, Brad)

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI (No. 2286)
United States Attorney
EDRIC M. CHING
Assistant United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Branch Director
MICHELLE R. BENNETT (Co. Bar No. 37050)
BRAD P. ROSENBERG (D.C. Bar No. 467513)
DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar)
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
STATE OF HAWAIʻI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official )
)
capacity 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 )

No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM
NOTICE OF FILING OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Judge: Hon. Derrick K. Watson

Secretary of State; and the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

NOTICE OF FILING OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
Defendants hereby provide Notice that, on March 6, 2017, the President
signed an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United States” (“New Executive Order,” submitted herewith as
Exhibit A). The New Executive Order, by its own terms, will not take effect until
March 16, 2017. See New Executive Order § 14. It revokes Executive Order No.
13,769, see id. § 13, which has been the subject of litigation in this case. As
explained below, the New Executive Order sets forth policies substantially
different from the policies in Executive Order No. 13,769.
As this Court is aware, Executive Order No. 13,769 has been challenged in
other venues, including the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. On February 3, 2017, that Court entered a nationwide preliminary
injunction that enjoined the Government from enforcing the same provisions of
that Executive Order that are being challenged in this case. See Washington v.
Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141, ECF No. 52 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). Accordingly,
on February 7, 2017, this Court entered an Order staying proceedings in this case.
See Dkt. No. 27; see also Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’
2

Emergency Motion to Stay Deadlines Pending Resolution of Appellate
Proceedings Regarding Nationwide Injunction, Dkt. No. 32, Feb. 9, 2017. That
stay remains in effect “as long as the February 3, 2017 injunction entered in
Washington v. Trump remains in full force and effect, or until further order of this
Court.” Dkt. No. 32, at 13-14.
The Government is preparing to enforce the provisions of this New
Executive Order beginning on its effective date. Counsel for the Government are
available to confer with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding appropriate further
proceedings before this Court in the event that plaintiffs decide to bring a challenge
to this New Executive Order.
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2017, the President issued Executive Order No. 13,769,
titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”
See 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging that
Executive Order on February 3, 2017. See Compl. ¶ 1 (ECF No. 1). That same
day, plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, see ECF No. 2,
which sought to enjoin nationwide Sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the
Executive Order. Also on February 3, 2017, in another case, a federal district court
in the Western District of Washington entered a nationwide preliminary injunction
that enjoined the Government from enforcing the same provisions of that
3

Executive Order that are being challenged in this case. See Washington, No. 2:17cv-00141, ECF No. 52.
On February 7, 2017, in light of the injunction issued in the Western District
of Washington, this Court entered an order staying proceedings in this case,
including the deadlines for briefing plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining
order. See Dkt. No. 27. The Court indicated that “this matter is stayed as long as
the February 3, 2017 injunction entered in Washington v. Trump remains in full
force and effect, or until further order of this Court.” Dkt. No. 32, at 13-14.
The Government appealed the injunction in Washington v. Trump to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and also sought a stay of that
injunction. See Washington v. Trump, Case No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2017),
ECF No. 14. A panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s motion to stay,
and issued a written opinion declining to narrow the scope of the Western District
of Washington’s injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.
2017). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit explained that it is “not our role to try, in
effect, to rewrite the Executive Order” because “[t]he political branches are far
better equipped to make appropriate distinctions.” Id. at 1167.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and guidance, the President has now
replaced Executive Order No. 13,769 with a new, substantially revised Executive
Order that also expressly revokes the prior Executive Order. The New Executive
4

Order clarifies and narrows the scope of Executive action regarding immigration,
extinguishes the need for emergent consideration, and eliminates the potential
constitutional concerns identified by the Ninth Circuit.
SUMMARY OF KEY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER
Relevant to the issues that have been the subject of litigation, the New
Executive Order (i) suspends entry for 90 days of certain foreign nationals from six
of the seven countries designated in Executive Order No. 13,769 who do not hold
valid visas; (ii) creates a case-by-case waiver process that is integrated into the visa
application and admission processes; (iii) creates a 120-day suspension of certain
aspects of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which does not apply to refugee
applicants who already have been formally scheduled for transit, and also allows
for case-by-case waivers; and (iv) contains additional explanations in support of
the promulgated policy.
The New Executive Order accounts for concerns identified by the Ninth
Circuit regarding the potential due process claims of individuals affected by the
prior Executive Order. See Washington, 847 F.3d at 1164-67 (identifying potential
due process claims arising from Executive Order 13,769). The New Executive
Order’s suspension of entry provision does not apply to lawful permanent
residents. Nor does that provision apply to any person who holds a valid visa on
the date the New Executive Order takes effect or who held a valid visa as of 5:00
5

p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the date of issuance of Executive Order 13,769.
For example, the provision does not apply to nonimmigrant visaholders who have
been in the United States but temporarily departed or wish to temporarily depart, or
to visaholders who have never before set foot in the United States. Further, the
New Executive Order sets out waiver procedures for those without visas who may
seek to come to the United States due to a relationship with a U.S. resident or an
institution.
1. The New Executive Order’s 90-Day Suspension of Entry Applies to
Aliens with No Material Connection to the United States.
Like Executive Order No. 13,769, the New Executive Order temporarily
suspends the entry of foreign nationals from certain countries in order to allow the
Government to review its screening and vetting procedures. See New Executive
Order § 2(c). Unlike the prior Executive Order, however, the New Executive
Order no longer suspends the entry of foreign nationals from Iraq. Moreover, for
those countries to which the suspension does apply, the New Executive Order is
substantially narrower in scope and contains robust waiver provisions.
a. The Suspension of Entry No Longer Applies to Nationals of
Iraq.
Executive Order No. 13,769 suspended, for a period of 90 days from the
effective date of that Order, the entry of certain nationals of the seven countries
referred to in Section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
6

8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12).
Iraq, however, presents a “special case.” New Executive Order § 1(g).
Unlike the other six countries, there exists a close cooperative relationship between
the United States and the Iraqi government, a strong United States diplomatic
presence in Iraq, a significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and a
commitment by Iraq to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”). See id.
And notably, since Executive Order No. 13,769 was issued, “the Iraqi government
has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information
sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.” Id.
Accordingly, the suspension of entry provisions no longer apply to Iraqi foreign
nationals. See id. §§ 1(f), (g).1
b. The Suspension of Entry Applies to Certain Nationals of Iran,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
As to the six countries other than Iraq identified under Section 217(a)(12) of

1

Although the temporary suspension no longer applies to Iraqi foreign nationals,
the New Executive Order states that Iraq is still host to an ongoing conflict that has
impacted the Iraqi government’s capacity to secure its borders and to identify
fraudulent travel documents. See New Executive Order § 1(g). Accordingly, the
New Executive Order notes that “[d]ecisions about issuance of visas or granting
admission to Iraqi nationals should be subjected to additional scrutiny to determine
if applicants have connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or
otherwise pose a risk to either national security or public safety.” Id. Section 4 of
the New Executive Order provides further guidance in that respect.
7

the INA—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—the suspension of entry
provisions differ substantially from those contained in Executive Order No.
13,769.
The New Executive Order’s suspension of entry applies only to nationals of
these six countries who are outside the United States on the New Executive
Order’s effective date of March 16, 2017, do not have a valid visa on that date, and
did not have a valid visa as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 27,
2017. See New Executive Order § 3(a). The suspension of entry excludes:
(1) lawful permanent residents; (2) any foreign national admitted to or paroled into
the United States on or after the New Executive Order’s effective date; (3) any
individual who has a document other than a visa, valid on the effective date of the
New Executive Order or issued anytime thereafter, that permits the individual to
travel to the United States and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole
document; (4) any dual national traveling on a passport not issued by one of the six
designated countries; (5) any foreign national traveling on diplomatic, diplomatictype, or other specified visas; and (6) any foreign national who has been granted
asylum, any refugee already admitted to the United States, or any individual
granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. See id. § 3(b).

8

These limits and exclusions accommodate concerns cited by the Ninth
Circuit to justify the temporary emergency relief issued with respect to the prior
Executive Order. See Washington, 847 F.3d at 1166 (discussing potential due
process rights of “persons who are in the United States”). Indeed, the New
Executive Order does not apply to groups the Ninth Circuit asserted may
potentially have due process rights impacted by the prior Executive Order. The
New Executive Order does not affect the ability of individuals—whether lawful
permanent residents or nonimmigrant visaholders—who are lawfully in the United
States on the effective date to leave the country to travel and later return. See
Washington, 847 F.3d at 1165-66. Further, the New Executive Order will not result
in the revocation or cancellation of valid visas or create an emergent situation
whereby visaholders abroad are prevented from entering the United States based
on the New Executive Order. See id. at 1157.
c. The Suspension of Entry Is Subject to a Robust Waiver
Provision.
The New Executive Order contains a robust and self-executing waiver
provision that is integrated into the visa approval and admission processes, and
provides an opportunity for individualized exceptions from the application of
Section 2(c) of the Order in all cases. See New Executive Order § 3(c). Thus,
foreign nationals of the six countries who do not possess a visa may still seek a
waiver allowing the issuance of a visa or the permission of entry into the United
9

States. That case-by-case process plainly satisfies any possible due process
requirements that would exist with respect to the interest of a U.S. citizen or entity
in seeking the entry of a foreign national. See Kleindeinst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,
769 (1972) (in case asserting First Amendment right to have alien enter the United
States, explaining that the “waiver decision has, properly, been placed in the hands
of the Executive”); cf. Washington, 847 F.3d at 1166 (citing Kleindeinst and noting
the “potential claims regarding possible due process rights” of “applicants who
have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of
its own to assert”).
The New Executive Order includes a nonexhaustive list of circumstances
when waivers “could be appropriate,” which will guide agencies in addressing
circumstances where the national interest would be served by a waiver. Waivers
may be appropriate when:
(i)

the foreign national has previously been admitted to the United
States for a continuous period of work, study, or other longterm activity, is outside the United States on the effective date
of the Order, seeks to reenter the United States to resume that
activity, and denial of reentry during the suspension period
would impair that activity;

(ii)

the foreign national has previously established significant
contacts with the United States but is outside the United States
on the effective date of the Order for work, study, or other
lawful activity;

(iii)

the foreign national seeks to enter the United States for
significant business or professional obligations and the denial
10

of entry during the suspension period would impair those
obligations;
(iv)

the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit 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 during the suspension period would cause undue
hardship;

(v)

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;

(vi)

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 employee can document that he or she
has provided faithful and valuable service to the United States
Government;

(vii) 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
IOIA;
(viii) the foreign national is a landed Canadian immigrant who
applies for admission at a land border port of entry or a
preclearance location located in Canada; or
(ix)

the foreign national is traveling as a United States Governmentsponsored exchange visitor.

See New Executive Order § 3(c). These circumstances for waivers ensure an
appropriate process is provided—integrated into the normal visa and admission
11

processes—even in circumstances where the law plainly creates no right of entry.
See Washington, 847 F.3d at 1169 (expressing concern that waiver process provide
more guidance as to “how would the ‘national interest’ be determined, who would
make that determination, and when”).
2. The New Executive Order Suspends Certain Refugee Operations for
120 Days.
Section 6 of the New Executive Order suspends travel into the United States
under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program and decisions on applications for
refugee status for a period of 120 days. During the suspension period, the
Government will review the refugee application and adjudication processes to
determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals
seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of
the United States, and to implement such additional procedures. See New
Executive Order § 6(a). The New Executive Order’s suspension does not apply to
refugee applicants who were formally scheduled for transit by the Department of
State before the March 16, 2017 effective date of the New Executive Order. See id.
Like the 90-day suspension, the 120-day suspension includes a waiver
provision that allows the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to admit
refugees on a case-by-case basis. See id. § 6(c). The New Executive Order
identifies specific circumstances in which waivers may be warranted, including
where the admission of the individual would allow the United States to conform its
12

conduct to a pre-existing international agreement or denying admission would
cause undue hardship. See id.
3. The New Executive Order Omits Two Provisions Included in
Executive Order No. 13,769 Regarding Refugee Admissions.
a. The New Executive Order Does Not Prioritize Refugees Who
Practice Minority Religions.
Executive Order No. 13,769 contained a provision that, upon the resumption
of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program, would have prioritized refugee claims
made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution if the individual
practiced a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. See Exec.
Order No. 13,769 § 5(b). The prior Executive Order also provided for the
possibility of a waiver of the temporary suspension provisions on a case-by-case
basis including, but not limited to, circumstances where an individual refugee is a
religious minority. See id. § 5(e). The New Executive Order advises that these
provisions were not motivated by animus toward any religion; to the contrary, they
would have applied to persecuted religious minority groups in any nation,
including nations in which practitioners of Islam are a minority, and also to
minority sects within a religion facing religious persecution. See New Executive
Order § 1(b)(iv). Nonetheless, the New Executive Order no longer contains any
provisions concerning refugees who practice minority religions.

13

b. The New Executive Order Contains No Provision Specific to
Refugees from Syria.
Executive Order No. 13,769 contained a provision that suspended the entry
of Syrian refugees until the President determined that sufficient changes were
made to the U.S. Refugee Admission Program that would ensure that the admission
of those refugees was consistent with the national interest. See Exec. Order No.
13,769 § 5(c). The New Executive Order does not contain any provision
specifically affecting Syrian refugees.
4. The New Executive Order Explains in Detail the Basis for the Policy
It Announces.
The New Executive Order provides a detailed explanation on the importance
of improving vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance
process and the U.S. Refugee Admission Program, including the necessity of
temporarily suspending narrow aspects of both of those programs while a review
of those vetting protocols and procedures takes place.
As explained in the New Executive Order, the six countries that are subject
to its suspension of entry (and were also subject to Executive Order No. 13,769)
were selected because they “had already been identified as presenting heightened
concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States” and had been referred to
in, or designated under, Section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12).
See New Executive Order § 1(b)(i). Specifically, Syria is identified in the statutory
14

text of the INA; Iran, Syria, and Sudan have been identified as state sponsors of
terrorism for purposes of applying the INA; and Libya, Somalia, and Yemen have
been designated as countries of concern by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence,
for purposes of applying the INA, based on consideration of three statutory factors
related to terrorism and national security. See id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)).
The New Executive Order also makes clear that the President exercised his
statutory and constitutional authority after having “determined that, for a brief
period of 90 days, while existing screening and vetting procedures were under
review, the entry into the United States of certain aliens from the seven identified
countries -- each afflicted by terrorism in a manner that compromised the ability of
the United States to rely on normal decision-making procedures about travel to the
United States -- would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Id.
§ 1(b)(ii).
More specifically, the New Executive Order explains that, currently, the
entry of nationals from these countries “warrant[s] additional scrutiny in
connection with our immigration policies because the conditions in these countries
present heightened threats.” Id. § 1(d). “Each of these countries is a state sponsor
of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or
contains active conflict zones.” Id. “Any of these circumstances diminishes the
15

foreign government’s willingness or ability to share or validate important
information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States.” Id.
Moreover, the “significant presence” of terrorist organizations in these countries
“increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives
or sympathizers to travel to the United States.” Id. “[O]nce foreign nationals from
these countries are admitted to the United States, it is often difficult to remove
them, because many of these countries typically delay issuing, or refuse to issue,
travel documents.” Id.
The New Executive Order also addresses some of the specific risks
presented by each of the six countries, see New Executive Order § 1(e):
• Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and
does not cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism efforts. Id.
§ 1(e)(i). Iran continues to support terrorist groups, and has been linked
to support for al-Qa’ida. Id.
• Libya is an active combat zone wherein security and law enforcement
functions are provided in many parts of the country by armed militias
rather than state institutions; violent extremist groups, including ISIS,
have exploited these conditions to expand their presence in the country.
Id. § 1(e)(ii). Moreover, the Libyan government is unable to secure
thousands of miles of its land and maritime borders, enabling the illicit
16

flow of weapons and foreign terrorist fighters, and the United States
Embassy in Libya suspended its operations in 2014. Id.
• Portions of Somalia have been a “terrorist safe haven,” and the country
lacks the capacity to investigate suspected terrorists. Id. § 1(e)(iii). The
country “has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali
identity documents.” Id.
• Sudan has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, has provided
safe havens for al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, and continues to
have terrorist groups (including elements of al-Qa’ida and ISIS) active in
the country. Id. § 1(e)(iv).
• The Syrian government is engaged in an ongoing conflict with ISIS
(which uses Syria as its base) for control of portions of the country and
supports other terrorist groups, including permitting travel of extremists
through its territory to enter Iraq. Id. § 1(e)(v). The United States
Embassy in Damascus suspended its operations in 2012, and Syria does
not cooperate with the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. Id.
•

In Yemen, both ISIS and al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula are active,
and have carried out hundreds of attacks. Id. § 1(e)(vi). Yemen has
porous borders susceptible to weapons smuggling. Id. The Department
of State suspended embassy operations and embassy staff were relocated
17

out of the country in 2015, and Yemen has been unable to cooperate
fully with the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. Id.
In view of these conditions, the President concluded that, “until the
assessment of current screening and vetting procedures required by” the New
Executive Order is completed, “the risk of erroneously permitting entry of a
national of one of these countries who intends to commit terrorist acts or otherwise
harm the national security of the United States is unacceptably high,” and a
“temporary pause” on such entry is therefore necessary. See id. § 1(f).
As for the suspension of certain refugee operations for 120 days, the New
Executive Order explains that “[t]errorist groups have sought to infiltrate several
nations through refugee programs,” and that “some of those who have entered the
United States through our immigration system”—including “individuals who first
entered the country as refugees”—“have proved to be threats to our national
security.” Id. § 1(b)(iii), (h). The New Executive Order cites specific examples
and notes a report that “more than 300 persons who entered the United States as
refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Id. § 1(h). Accordingly, the New Executive
Order explains that the 120-day pause in certain refugee operations will permit the
United States “to determine what additional procedures should be used to ensure

18

that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security
and welfare of the United States,” and to implement such procedures. Id. § 6(a).
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER
“[T]he entry into the United States of foreign nationals who may commit,
aid, or support acts of terrorism remains a matter of grave concern.” Id. § 1(i). To
help address this concern, the President replaced Executive Order No. 13,769 with
the New Executive Order “[i]n light of the Ninth Circuit’s observation that the
political branches are better suited to determine the appropriate scope of any
suspensions than are the courts, and in order to avoid spending additional time
pursuing litigation[.]” Id. To achieve the objective of reducing the risk of
terrorism posed by foreign nationals entering the United States, the Government
intends to begin enforcing the New Executive Order on its effective date of March
16, 2017. See New Executive Order § 14.
The New Executive Order complies with the Ninth Circuit’s decision
reviewing the Western District of Washington’s entry of temporary injunctive
relief. The Ninth Circuit invited the Executive Branch to promulgate a new order
to address the concerns highlighted by the courts because the “political branches
are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions.” Washington, 847 F.3d at
1167. The Executive Branch has now revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 and
promulgated a new and substantially different policy that addresses those concerns
19

and falls outside of the scope of the Western District of Washington’s injunction.
See Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 387-90 (1975); Diffenderfer v. Central
Baptist Church of Miami, Inc., 404 U.S. 412, 414-415 (1972) (per curiam). To the
extent plaintiffs wish to challenge the New Executive Order, the Government is
prepared to confer regarding appropriate proceedings.
Defendants note, however, that the New Executive Order does not present a
need for emergency litigation. The New Executive Order does not apply to legal
permanent residents or to holders of valid visas (for example, professors or
students at State universities) whether in the United States or abroad. Moreover,
the New Executive Order directs that it shall not be the basis for the revocation of
any visa. See New Executive Order § 12(c). As a result, no one who has been
approved for travel into the United States will be denied entry by the New
Executive Order.
Rather, the New Executive Order applies only to those who are overseas and
without a visa. That group of individuals is not suffering any immediate harm,
because those individuals do not have visas and do not have an entitlement to one.
Indeed, even if there were some legal right, there is no imminent harm from a
temporary suspension where visa applicants frequently must wait long periods of
time before applying and/or being issued a visa or travel document if found
eligible. The New Executive Order, moreover, provides robust waiver authority
20

under which such individuals may seek relief if they wish to travel to the United
States during the suspension period. In sum, there is no basis for emergency
relief. Any relief sought by plaintiffs should be assessed in a traditional manner,
allowing this Court a more complete opportunity to assess the provisions of the
New Executive Order, should plaintiffs assert a challenge to them.

21

Dated: March 6, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI
United States Attorney
EDRIC M. CHING
Assistant United States Attorney
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Brad P. Rosenberg
MICHELLE R. BENNETT
(Co. Bar No. 37050)
BRAD P. ROSENBERG
(D.C. Bar No. 467513)
DANIEL SCHWEI (N.Y. Bar)
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the dates and by the methods of service noted below,
a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following at their last
known addresses:
Served Electronically through CM/ECF:
Alexander Bowerman [e-mail] March 6, 2017
Clyde J. Wadsworth
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Colleen Roh Sinzdak
[e-mail] March 6, 2017
Deirdre Marie-Iha
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Donna H. Kalama
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Douglas S.G. Chin
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Elizabeth Hagerty
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Kimberly T. Guidry
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Mitchell Reich
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Neal Katyal
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Robert T. Nakatsuji
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Sara Solow
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Thomas Schmidt
[e-mail]
March 6, 2017
Date: March 6, 2017

/s/ Brad P. Rosenberg
BRAD P. ROSENBERG
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants

23