International Refugee Assistance Project et al v. Trump et al
Correspondence re: Motion to Clarify/ Modify (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Clarify/ Modify)(Jadwat, Omar)
October 20, 2017
The Honorable Theodore D. Chuang
United States District Court
District of Maryland
6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Re: International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v. Trump, Case No. 8:17-cv-00361-TDC
Dear Judge Chuang:
Pursuant to § II.A of the Case Management Order, Plaintiffs respectfully inform the
Court that they intend to file the attached motion to clarify or modify the preliminary injunction
issued by the Court on October 17, 2017. As set forth therein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
the Court clarify that the preliminary injunction protects clients of organizations like IRAP and
HIAS whose relationships are “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,” or in
the alternative that it modify the injunction to reflect that, while a refugee assurance alone does
not bring a refugee within the protection of the injunction, there is no categorical rule barring
protection for clients generally.
Plaintiffs have communicated with the other parties in this and related cases regarding
their intent to file this motion. The I.A.A.B. and Zakzok plaintiffs have no objection to this
motion. The government indicated that it (1) would oppose Plaintiffs’ filing of any motion to
modify the injunction that could potentially interfere with the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction over
its appeal of the preliminary injunction, and (2) took no position to the extent that Plaintiffs seek
only to clarify the injunction (but reserved the right to do so at a later date, depending on the
exact nature and content of the motion).
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court waive the requirement of a pre-motion
conference and instead accept this motion for filing.
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat
Omar C. Jadwat
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?