International Refugee Assistance Project et al v. Trump et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 64 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 7/27/2017. (jf3, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the
Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself
and its clients,
HIAS, INC., on behalf of itself and its clients,
MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIA nON of
North America, Inc., on behalf of itself and its
IBRAHIM AHMED MOHOMED,
JOHN DOES Nos. 1 & 3, and
JANE DOE No.2,
Civil Action No. TDC-17-0361
DONALD 1. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security,
REX W. TILLERS ON, in his official capacity
as Secretary of State, and
MICHAEL DEMPSEY, in his official capacity
as Acting Director of National Intelligence,
On April 10, 2017, this Court issued an Order staying the resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction of
of the Executive Order, ECF No. 64, during the pendency
of the nationwide preliminary injunction of Section 6 of Executive Order 13,780, "Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" ("Second Executive Order"), 82 Fed.
Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017), by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. ECF
No. 182. On June 12, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld in
large part the injunction entered by the District of Hawaii, including, as relevant here, as to
Section 6(b)'s adoption of the 50,000 refugee cap. Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741,789 (9th Cir.
2017). On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hawaii and in
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017). Trump v. Int'l
Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2086 (2017).
Court granted in part the Government's
In the same ruling, the Supreme
application to stay the injunctions with respect to
Sections 2(c), 6(a), and 6(b) of the Second Executive Order. Id. at 2088-89.
As a result, the
injunction of Section 6(b) remains partially in effect. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, this
Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of
S 5(d) of the
Executive Order, subject to renewal when appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
S 5(d) of the
Executive Order, ECF No. 64, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THEODORE D. CHU
United States District
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?