State of Hawaii v. Trump
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)
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] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (the “Motion”). The Court has considered the Motion and
documents filed therewith, including declarations, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and the arguments of counsel
provided at an emergency hearing held March 15, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. Hawaii
Standard Time. Having considered the foregoing, the Court hereby finds and
concludes as follows.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs face an immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the issuance
and implementation of the Executive Order issued by Defendant Donald J. Trump
on March 6, 2017 (the “Executive Order”). The Executive Order affects the
employment, education, business, and travel of Hawai‘i residents, and harms the
State of Hawai‘i itself through negative impacts upon its economy, revenues,
students, and sovereignty. Moreover, the Executive Order subjects a portion of
Hawaii’s population, including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his
Mosque, to discrimination and second-class treatment, and disrupts the ability of
Dr. Elshikh and others to associate with family members and members of their
The foregoing harms are ongoing and significant.
A temporary restraining order against Defendants, in the manner set forth
below, is necessary until a determination of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims may be
Plaintiffs took the following reasonable steps 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 6 and 7, 2017 in advance of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order;
b. Plaintiffs served a copy of their Motion to Lift Stay and File a
Second Amended Complaint, and their [Proposed] Second
Amended Complaint, via CM/ECF on March 7, 2017; and
c. Plaintiffs served a copy of their Motion papers through CM/ECF
on March 8, 2017.
The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter of this
Plaintiff’s efforts to contact Defendants reasonably and substantially
complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
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 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, 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:
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 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, 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-DKWKJM; [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?