State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 65

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Neal Katyal appearing for Plaintiffs Ismail Elshikh, State of Hawaii (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Certificate of Word Count, # 3 Proposed Temporary Restraining Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Katyal, Neal)

Download PDF
Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 5 DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465) Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i CLYDE J. WADSWORTH (Bar No. 8495) Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA (Bar No. 7923) DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 586-1500 Fax: (808) 586-1239 Email: deirdre.marie-iha@hawaii.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i PageID #: 1275 NEAL K. KATYAL* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Email: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh (See Next Page For Additional Counsel) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Civil Action No. 1:17-cvDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; 00050-DKW-KJM JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; REX TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 1 Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1276 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL DONNA H. KALAMA (Bar No. 6051) KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY (Bar No. 7813) ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI (Bar No. 6743) Deputy Attorneys General DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 586-1500 Fax: (808) 586-1239 COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK* MITCHELL P. REICH* ELIZABETH HAGERTY* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Fax: (202) 637-5910 THOMAS P. SCHMIDT* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 Fax: (212) 918-3100 SARA SOLOW* ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN* HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1835 Market St., 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 675-4600 Fax: (267) 675-4601 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i 2 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65 Filed 03/08/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1277 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Pursuant to Rules 7 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.2 for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Plaintiffs, the State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh, by and through counsel, hereby move this Honorable Court for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants from enforcing and implementing key portions of the March 6, 2017 Executive Order issued by Defendant Donald J. Trump (the “Executive Order”), which imposes a nationwide ban on the “entry” of foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. The State previously moved for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the enforcement of a January 27, 2017 iteration of the Executive Order. Portions of that previous order were enjoined by other courts, leading President Trump to issue the March 6 Executive Order. But despite revisions, the Executive Order violates federal law as well as the Constitution of the United States. Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., by discriminating on the basis of national origin and by contravening the INA’s finely reticulated system of immigration controls. Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order also violate individuals’ Due Process Clause rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitutions, while inflicting state-sanctioned disfavor 3 Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65 Filed 03/08/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1278 toward Muslims in violation of both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. These discriminatory and unlawful provisions of the Executive Order have no place in the State of Hawai‘i, where Defendants’ actions have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. As an immediate remedy, and to maintain the status quo while more permanent solutions may be considered, Plaintiffs ask that the Court enter a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order nationwide. Plaintiff further requests that the Court set an expedited hearing to determine whether such order should remain in place. This motion is supported by the attached Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, accompanying declarations, and the records and files in this action, as well as any additional submissions and oral argument that may be considered by the Court. DATED: Washington, D.C., March 8, 2017. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Neal K. Katyal DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465) Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i CLYDE J. WADSWORTH (Bar No. 8495) Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA (Bar No. 7923) DONNA H. KALAMA (Bar No. 6051) 4 NEAL K. KATYAL* COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK* MITCHELL P. REICH* ELIZABETH HAGERTY* THOMAS P. SCHMIDT* SARA SOLOW* Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM Document 65 Filed 03/08/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1279 KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY (Bar No. 7813) ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI (Bar No. 6743) Deputy Attorneys General ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN* DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i 5 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh

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?