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)
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?