International Refugee Assistance Project et al v. Trump et al

Filing 93

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs, filed by Jane Doe 1, John Doe 1-4, International Refugee Assistance Project, Allan Hakky, Samaneh Takaloo, HIAS, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint [Redacted])(Keaney, Melissa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, a project of the
Urban Justice Center, Inc., on behalf of itself
and its clients,
40 Rector St, 9th Fl
New York, NY 10006;
HIAS, Inc., on behalf of itself and its clients,
1300 Spring Street, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910;
Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-00361-TDC
ALLAN HAKKY,
10629 Rivers Bend Lane
Potomac, MD 20854;
SAMANEH TAKALOO,
4701 WillardMIDDLE EAST STUDIES
ASSOCIATION of North America, Inc., on
behalf of itself and its members,
3542 N. Geronimo Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85705;
Muhammed Meteab
43 Jefferson Avenue
Springfield MA 01107;
Paul Harrison
1800 Fuller Wiser Road, #717
Euless, TX 76039-4610;
Ibrahim Ahmed Mohomed
631 Brent Boulevard, Apt. 821C3
Chevy Chase, MD 20815;
Columbus, OH 43228
JOHN DOES # 1-4; and & 3;
JANE DOE #12,

Plaintiffs,
v.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20035;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Serve on: John F. Kelly,
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528;
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Serve on: Rex W. Tillerson,
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520;
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE,
Serve on: Michael Dempsey,
Acting Director of National
Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20511;
JOHN F. KELLY
In his official capacity as Secretary of
Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528;
REX W. TILLERSON
In his official capacity as Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520;
MICHAEL DEMPSEY,
In his official capacity as Acting Director of
National Intelligence
Washington , D.C. 20511

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1
2

1.

On January 27March 6, 2017, the President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled

3

“Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States.” The” (the “March 6 Order”

4

or “Executive Order”). The March 6 Order, which Plaintiffs challenge in its entirety, was intended

5
6

and designed to target and discriminate against Muslims, and it does just that in operation.
2.

Once effective, the March 6 Order will rescind and replace a similar Executive Order,

7
8

signed on January 27, 2017 (the “January 27 Order”; together, we refer to the January 27 and

9

March 6 Executive Orders as the “Executive Orders”), that had the same purpose and effect, the

10

implementation of which prompted chaos and widespread civil rights abuses in airports across the

11

country. As a result of legal challenges to the January 27 Order, numerous courts enjoined several

12

key provisions that banned the entry to the United States of both refugees and the nationals of

13

seven predominantly Muslim countries.

14
3.

The major provisions of the March 6 Order are nearly identical to those of the January

15
16

27 Order. The new order bans individuals from six of the seven predominantly Muslim countries

17

identified in the January 27 Order—Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, and Syria—from

18

entering the United States for at least 90 days. Like the previous order, the March 6 Order suspends

19

the entire United States Refugee Admissions Program for at least 120 days and reduces the number

20

of refugees allowed into the United States for the current fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. The

21

March 6 Order also contains language that associates Muslims with violence, terrorism, bigotry,

22
23
24

and hatred, inflicting stigmatic and dignitary harms. As a result, the March 6 Order will have the
same discriminatory and stigmatizing impact on Muslims as the January 27 Order, which was itself

25

a product of the President’s clearly expressed intent to prevent Muslims from entering the United

26

States.

27
28
1

1

1.4.

While the March 6 Order contains various additions and revisions intended to insulate

2

it from the legal claims that led to the enjoining of the January 27 Order, the Trump Administration

3

has made clear that the March 6 Order is intended to effectuate the same policy outcome as the

4

January 27 Order. The March 6 Order likewise suffers from the same fundamental constitutional

5
6

and statutory defects as the January 27 Order.
2.5.

The President has been very clear about his desire to prevent Muslims from entering

7
8

the United States. He specifically promised to do so as a candidate. Presented with early

9

objections to that proposal, he asked advisors how he could implement a Muslim ban indirectly,

10

and they helped him craft the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order challenged here.. President Trump

11

further admitted on national television that through the January 27 Order he intended to favor

12

Christian refugees over Muslim refugees. Rarely in American history has governmental intent to

13

discriminate against a particular faith and its adherents been so plain.

14
6.

The ExecutiveAfter key provisions of the January 27 Order were preliminarily

15
16

enjoined, a Trump Administration spokesperson explained that the revised Executive Order (which

17

was ultimately signed on March 6) would have only minor, technical changes from the original

18

Order, and would thus produce the same basic policy outcome. That basic goal and outcome was,

19

and remains, the exclusion of Muslims from the United States.

20
21

3.7.

Like the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order violates two of our most cherished

constitutional protections: the guarantee that the government will not establish, favor, discriminate

22
23
24

against, or condemn any religion, and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
4.8.

The United States was born in part of an effort to escape religious persecution, and the

25

Religion Clauses of the First Amendment reflect the harrowing history of our Founders. More

26

than two centuries later, our nation is one of the most religiously diverse in the world and has

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

become a sanctuary for immigrants and visitors of all faiths and no faith, including refugees fleeing
persecution in their homelands.
5.9.

The ExecutiveBoth the January 27 Order fliesand the March 6 Order fly in the face of

our historical commitment to welcoming and protecting people of all faiths, and no faith, and it
violates the “clearest command of the Establishment Clause”—“one religious denomination
cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982).

7
8

6.10. The United States was likewise founded on the principle that all people—regardless of

9

their faith or where they are born—are created equal. Like the Religion Clauses, the equal

10

protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment reflects this country’s rejection of official

11

preferences on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin. The Executive Order—whichThe

12

March 6 Order—which, like the January 27 Order, was motivated by animus toward Muslims and

13

expressly discriminates on the basis of national origin—runs afoul of this core constitutional value

14
as well.

15
16

7.11. Plaintiffs challenge the ExecutiveMarch 6 Order under the Establishment Clause; the

17

equal protection guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; the Religious

18

Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.; the anti-discrimination provisions of the

19

INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A); the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; and the Administrative

20

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D).

21

8.12. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue appropriate declaratory relief and

22
23
24

preliminarily and permanently enjoin the ExecutiveMarch 6 Order as a whole.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25

9.13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over

26

Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has additional

27

remedial authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.

28
3

1

10.14. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) and Local Rule 501.4.a.ii. Defendants are

2

officers or employees of the United States acting in their official capacities, and agencies of the

3

United States. Plaintiffs HIAS, Allan Hakky, Samaneh Takaloo, and John Doe #1 reside in the

4

Southern Division of this District. No real property is involved in this action.

5
6

PARTIES
11.15. Plaintiff International Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”), a project of the Urban

7
8
9
10

Justice Center, Inc., provides and facilitates free legal services for vulnerable populations around
the world, including refugees, who seek to escape persecution and find safety in the United States
and other Western countries.

11

12.16. Founded in 2008 as a student organization at Yale Law School, IRAP initially served

12

Iraqi refugees who were victims of the Iraq War. In 2010, IRAP became part of the Urban Justice

13

Center and now has offices in New York as well as the Middle East. IRAP has expanded its client

14
base since its inception to assist refugees from Afghanistan, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan,

15
16

Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. Through in-house

17

casework, as well as supervision of 1,200 students from 29 law schools in the United States and

18

Canada and pro bono attorneys from over 75 international law firms and multinational

19

corporations, IRAP directly assists thousands of refugees in urgent registration, protection, and

20

resettlement cases every year.

21

13.17. IRAP lawyers provide legal assistance to refugees and other immigrants to the United

22
23
24

States throughout the resettlement process. IRAP lawyers advise their clients on the resettlement
process, write legal briefs and compile physical evidence in advance of clients’ interviews with

25

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), prepare them for their oral

26

testimony in their interviews, and then conduct regular follow-up with USCIS until the client

27

isclients are safely resettled.

28
4

1

14.18. IRAP assists many individuals in the United States who need assistance filing family

2

reunification petitions for family members overseas. IRAP also assists U.S.-based Iraqi and Syrian

3

citizens and lawful permanent residents in filing petitions in order to get their family members

4

overseas into the Direct Access Program of the United States Refugee Admissions Program.

5
6

Finally, IRAP also assists countless Iraqi and Afghan citizens who have served the United States
government to obtain Special Immigrant Visas, with the support of U.S. citizen veterans of Iraq

7
8

and Afghanistan.

9

15.19. Since its inception, IRAP has helped to resettle over 3,200 individuals to 55 countries,

10

with the majority resettled to the United States. It has provided legal assistance to nearly 20,000

11

more individuals.

12
13

16.20. The overwhelming majority of IRAP’s clients, including clients abroad and those
within the United States, identify as Muslim.

14
17.21. As set forth in greater detail below, implementation of the Executive OrderOrders has

15
16

caused substantial harm to IRAP and its clients, and will continue to harm them. IRAP asserts

17

claims on behalf of itself and its clients in the United States and abroad. The rights of its clients

18

that IRAP seeks to vindicate here are inextricably bound up with its organizational mission and

19

purpose, and its clients face numerous hurdles to bringing this suit in their own name.

20
21

18.22. Plaintiff HIAS, the world’s oldest refugee resettlement agency, is a faith-based
organization that aims to rescue people around the world whose lives are in danger. The

22
23
24

organization works toward a world in which refugees find welcome, safety, and freedom. Founded
in 1881 to assist Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, HIAS now serves refugees

25

and persecuted people of all faiths and nationalities around the globe. Since HIAS’s founding, the

26

organization has helped more than 4.5 million refugees start new lives.

27
28
5

1

19.23. HIAS has offices in twelve countries worldwide, including headquarters in Silver

2

Spring, Maryland, which is its principal place of business, and another domestic office in New

3

York City. HIAS also provides resettlement experts in support of the United Nations High

4

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Refugee resettlement lies at the heart of HIAS’s work in

5
6

the United States. It is one of nine non-profit organizations designated by the federal government
to undertake this humanitarian work through contracts with the Department of State and the

7
8

Department of Health and Human Services.

9

20.24. In 2016, HIAS provided services to more than 350,000 refugees and asylum seekers

10

globally. HIAS’s client base includes refugees abroad and in the United States who are from Syria,

11

Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Ukraine, Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of Congo,

12

Afghanistan, Eritrea, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Burundi, South Sudan, Uganda, Russia, Belarus, and

13

Burma, among other countries. Many of these clients are Muslim.

14
21.25. HIAS provides programs and services to refugees, including employment,

15
16

psychosocial, and legal services. HIAS has also been approved to refer cases of particularly

17

vulnerable refugees directly for third-country resettlement to the United States and other countries.

18

Around the world, HIAS provides legal services to protect the rights of refugees, and to register,

19

document, and secure the status of refugees.

20
21

22.26. HIAS is also assigned clients via the State Department’s allocation process, which
determines which refugee clients will be resettled by HIAS. For clients who have newly arrived

22
23
24

in the United States, HIAS either provides direct resettlement services or partners with other
organizations across the country to do so. These services include arranging housing and providing

25

essential furnishings, food, clothing, initial cash assistance, initial health screening, cultural and

26

community orientation, and, through case management services, assistance with enrollment in

27
28
6

1
2

English language classes and employment services, as well as referrals for health and legal
services.

3

23.27. HIAS, directly and through affiliated agencies, also provides assistance to refugee and

4

asylee clients in the United States who are seeking to gain entry for family members abroad who

5
6

still face persecution. As set forth in greater detail below, implementation of the ExecutiveJanuary
27 Order has caused substantial harm to HIAS and its clients, and the March 6 Order will continue

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

to harm them. HIAS asserts claims on behalf of itself and its clients. The rights of its clients that
HIAS seeks to vindicate here are inextricably bound up with its organizational mission and
purpose, and its clients face numerous hurdles to bringing this suit in their own name.
28.

Plaintiff Allan Hakky is a United States citizen of Iraqi Kurdish origin who lives in

Potomac, Maryland with his wife, also a U.S. citizenPlaintiff Middle East Studies
Association (MESA) is a non-profit learned society that brings together scholars, educators, and

14
those interested in the study of the Middle East from all over the world. From its inception in 1966

15
16

with 51 founding members, MESA has increased its membership to more than 2,400 and now

17

serves as an umbrella organization for fifty-five institutional members. MESA’s membership

18

includes both graduate students and faculty working in the field of Middle East studies.

19
20
21

29.

As set forth in greater detail below, MESA and its members will be harmed in a variety

of ways by the Executive Order. MESA asserts claims on behalf of itself and its members.
24.

. Mr. Hakky is a Shia Muslim. He has been in the United States since 1991, when he

22
23
24
25
26

immigrated from the United Kingdom with his mother and three siblings. He has been a U.S.
citizen since 1996.
25.

Plaintiff Samaneh Takaloo is a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Chevy Chase,

Maryland. She is from a Muslim family. Ms. Takaloo came to the United States from Iran in May

27
28
7

1
2

2010 on a K-1 fiancée visa and has been a U.S. citizen since June 2015. She works in Washington,
D.C. as a sales associate.

3

26.30. Plaintiff John Doe #1 is a lawful permanent resident and national of Iran who lives in

4

Montgomery County, Maryland. He is a scientist. He came to the United States in 2014 on an

5
6

exchange visitor visa. In 2016, he obtained his lawful permanent resident status through the
National Interest Waiver program for people with extraordinary abilities. His pioneering scholarly

7
8
9
10

works are recognized as cutting edge in the sciences. Both John Doe #1 and his wife, who is not
a party, are non-practicing Muslims.
27.

Plaintiff John Doe #2 is a U.S. citizen from Iraq who lives in Baltimore County,

11

Maryland. John Doe #2 came to the United States in 2009, along with his wife and two daughters,

12

as a refugee. All four are now U.S. citizens, as is John Doe #2’s third daughter, who was born in

13

the United States. John Doe #2 is a Shiite Muslim, as is his father, whereas his mother is a Sunni

14
Muslim.

15
16

28.31. Plaintiff John Doe #3 is a lawful permanent resident and national of Iran who lives in

17

Anne Arundel County, Maryland. He came to the United States in 2011 through the Green Card

18

lottery. John Doe #3 worked as a teacher in Iran, and currently works in the engineering field.

19
20
21

32.

John Doe #4 and Plaintif Jane Doe #1,2 is a married couple, are U.S. citizenscitizen of

Iraqi descentSyrian origin who livelives in Alabama. 1

John Doe #1 was born in Mosul,

Iraq,Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. She is from a Muslim family and is enrolled in college

22
23
24
25

where she is studying to become a healthcare technician. She filed a family-based visa petition for
her sister who is a Syrian refugee currently living in a refugee-designated area in Saudi Arabia
with her husband and immigrated to two young children.

26
27
28

1

A motion for leave of the Court for John Does #1-4 and Jane Doe to proceed under
pseudonyms is filed contemporaneously herewith.
8

1

29.33. Plaintiff Mohammed Meteab is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at the

2

age of three; he is now a physician. Jane Doe #1 arrived in 2009who lives in Springfield,

3

Massachusetts. He came to the United States in 2015 as a refugee along with his wife and two

4

children. He now has a third child, a U.S. citizen born in the United States. Plaintiff Meteab is

5
6

one of five brothers; he, his wife, his two elder children, and all five brothers are Iraqi. One brother
came to the United States as a refugee. The other three brothers have been approved as refugees

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and remain in Jordan, awaiting resettlement.
Two of the three are approved to come to the United States but do not yet have travel documents.
Mr. . Both are Meteab is a Sunni MuslimsMuslim, as are his brothers.
34.

Plaintiff Paul Harrison is a citizen of the United States by birth who lives in Euless,

Texas. In November 2015, he met his partner, an Iranian national who lives in Tehran, Iran. In
March 2016, Mr. Harrison petitioned for his partner—now his fiancé—to join him in the United

14
States on a K-1 visa. After his November 2016 interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey,

15
16
17
18

his application was approved and administrative processing complete on January 17, 2017. A visa
has not yet been issued, however.
35.

Plaintiff Ibrahim Ahmed Mohomed is a United States citizen of Somali origin who

19

lives in Columbus, Ohio. He came to the United States as a refugee in 2009. In 2013, his wife and

20

nine children were approved to come to the United States as refugees but they are still in Ethiopia

21

awaiting authorization to travel to the United States to join Mr. Mohomed. Mr. Mohomed and his

22
23
24

family are Muslim.
30.36. As set forth in greater detail below, implementation of the Executive OrderOrders has

25

caused and will continue to cause harm to Plaintiffs Allan Hakky, Samaneh Takaloo,Meteab,

26

Harrison, Mohomed, Jane Doe #2 and John Does #1 through #4, and Jane Doe #1#3 (collectively,

27

the “Individual Plaintiffs”).

28
9

1
2

31.37. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his official
capacity. In that capacity, he issued the Executive OrderOrders challenged in this suit.

3

32.38. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a cabinet-level

4

department of the United States federal government. Its components include U.S. Citizenship and

5
6

Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

CBP’s responsibilities include inspecting and admitting

7
8

immigrants and nonimmigrants arriving with U.S. visas at international points of entry, including

9

airports and land borders. USCIS’s responsibilities include adjudicating requests for immigration

10

benefits for individuals located within the United States. ICE’s responsibilities include enforcing

11

federal immigration law within the interior of the United States.

12

assignsOrders assign DHS a variety of responsibilities regarding itstheir enforcement.

13

The Executive Order

33.39. Defendant U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) is a cabinet-level department of the

14
United States federal government.

DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant and

15
16
17

nonimmigrant visas abroad.

The Executive Order assignsOrders assign DOS a variety of

responsibilities regarding itstheir enforcement.

18

34.40. Defendant Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) is an independent

19

agency of the United States federal government. The ODNI has specific responsibilities and

20

obligations with respect to implementation of the OrderExecutive Orders.

21

35.41. Defendant Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for overseeing

22
23
24

enforcement and implementation of the Executive OrderOrders by all DOS staff. He is sued in his
official capacity.

25

36.42. Defendant John Kelly is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Kelly has

26

responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Executive OrderOrders by

27

all DHS staff. He is sued in his official capacity.

28
10

1

37.43. Defendant Michael Dempsey is the Acting Director of National Intelligence, and has

2

responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Executive OrderOrders by

3

all ODNI staff. He is sued in his official capacity.

4

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5

President Trump’s Expressed Intent To Target Muslims and
To Favor Christians Seeking to Enter the Country

6
7
8
9
10

38.44. President Trump has repeatedly made clear his intent to enact policies that exclude
Muslims from entering the United States and favor Christians seeking to enter the United States.
39.45. On December 7, 2015, then-Presidential candidate Trump issued a statement on his
campaign website. Entitled, “DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM

11
12
13
14

IMMIGRATION,” the statement declared that “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out
what is going on.”

15

40.46. The statement, which remains on President Trump’s campaign website to this day,

16

invokes stereotypes of Muslims, falsely suggesting that all Muslims believe in “murder against

17
18

non-believers who won’t convert” and “unthinkable acts” against women.
41.47. Defending his proposed Muslim ban the next day, candidate Trump told Good Morning

19
20

America, “What I’m doing is I’m calling very simply for a shutdown of Muslims entering the

21

United States—and here’s a key—until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going

22

on.”

23

42.48. When asked the same day on MSNBC how his Muslim ban would be applied by

24

customs officials, candidate Trump said, “That would be probably—they would say, are you

25

Muslim?” A reporter followed up by asking, “And if they said yes, they would not be allowed in

26
the country[?]” Candidate Trump responded, “That’s correct.”

27
28
11

1
2

43.49. Candidate Trump repeatedly reiterated his support for targeting Muslims seeking to
enter the United States.

3

44.50. On March 9, 2016, candidate Trump stated, “I think Islam hates us. There’s . . . a

4

tremendous hatred there . . . . There’s an unbelievable hatred of us . . . . We can’t allow people

5
6

coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States . . . and [of] people that are not
Muslim . . . .”

7
8

45.51. The next day, during a debate, candidate Trump said he would “stick with exactly”

9

what he had said the night before. When asked if he was referring to all 1.6 billion Muslims

10

worldwide, he explained, “I mean a lot of them.” Candidate Trump stated later in the same debate,

11

“There is tremendous hate. There is tremendous hate. Where large portions of a group of people,

12

Islam, large portions want to use very, very harsh means.”

13

46.52. On March 22, 2016, candidate Trump stated that “we’re having problems with the

14
Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country,” adding, “You need

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

surveillance. You have to deal with the mosques whether we like it or not . . . . These attacks
aren’t . . . done by Swedish people. That I can tell you.”
47.53. The same day, candidate Trump stated on Twitter that a Democratic candidate for
President, Hillary Clinton, wanted to “let the Muslims flow in.”
48.54. On June 13, 2016, candidate Trump stated, “I called for a ban after San Bernardino and
was met with great scorn and anger. But now many . . . are saying that I was right to do so.”

22
23
24

55.

In an interview aired on 60 Minutes on July 17, 2016, when asked about the proposed

Muslim ban, candidate Trump replied: “Call it whatever you want. We’ll call it territories, ok?”

25

Asked again whether Muslims would be banned, candidate Trump said that “there’s nothing like”

26

the Constitution “[b]ut it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country,

27

okay?” He again reiterated: “Call it whatever you want.”

28
12

1

49.56. In a July 24, 2016 interview on Meet the Press, candidate Trump was asked if a plan

2

similar to the now-enacted Executive Order was a “rollback” from “[t]he Muslim Ban.” Candidate

3

Trump responded: “I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say

4

it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories.”

5
6

50.57. Candidate Trump continued: “People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh,
you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking

7
8

territory instead of Muslim.”

9

51.58. ThatThis explanation tracks onethat the Muslim ban would use nationality as a proxy

10

was later providedconfirmed by Rudolph Giuliani, an advisor to candidate Trump and later an

11

advisor to him as President. After the Executive Order was signed, Mr. Giuliani explained that

12

“when [candidate Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said,

13

‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’” In response to this edict,

14
according to Mr. Giuliani, the commission decided to focus on territories, rather than explicitly

15
16

naming Muslims as the subjects of the ban.
The Discriminatory ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order

17
18

52.59. After conducting a campaign in which a ban on Muslim admissions was a key promise,

19

President Trump took action to carry out that promise by issuing the challenged ExecutiveJanuary

20

27 Order one week after being inaugurated.

21

53.

Contemporaneous statementsStatements made by President Trump and his advisors

22
23
24

around the time of the signing of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order confirm President Trump’s intent
to discriminate against Muslims. For instance, during the signing ceremony for the order,

25

President Trump made clear that the order was targeted at Muslims, pledging that it would “keep

26

radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.”

27
28
13

1

54.60. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network released the same day that he

2

signed the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order, President Trump stated that the Order was designed to give

3

Christians priority when applying for refugee status. “If you were a Muslim you could come in

4

[to the United States], but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible,” he said. “[T]hey

5
6

were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very,
very unfair. So we are going to help them.”

7
8
9
10

55.61. Consistent with this expressed religious animus towards Muslims and preference for
Christians, the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order will clearly disfavordisfavors Muslims while giving
special treatment to non-Muslims.

11

56.62. Section 3, for example, bans any entry for 90 days for individuals from seven countries,

12

alleach of which are predominantlyis more than ninety percent Muslim: Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran,

13

Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

14
57.

All seven banned countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

58.

Moreover, 82% percent of all Muslim refugees who entered the United States in fiscal

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

years 2014 through 2016 hailed from those seven countries.
59.63. The ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order does not single out any countries for disfavored
treatment that are not majority-Muslim.
64.

The January 27 Order provides a mechanism for the government to extend and/or

expand the 90-day ban at the end of the 90 day period. Sections 3 of the Order directs the Secretary

22
23
24

of Homeland Security to “immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from
any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in

25

order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is

26

not a security or public-safety threat,” and to “submit to the President a report on the results of the

27

review … within 30 days of the date of this order.” At that point, the “Secretary of State shall

28
14

1

request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such

2

information,” and 60 days after that—precisely at the end of the initial 90 day ban period—the

3

January 27 Order provides for the President to issue a proclamation indefinitely banning travelers

4

from a list of countries deemed to be non-compliant “until compliance occurs.” On information

5
6

and belief, the 30-day review to be conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security has not yet
resulted in a report to the President.

7
8
9

60.65. Section 5 of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order prohibits refugee admissions for 120 days,
except for Syrian refugees, who are banned indefinitely.

10

61.66. The ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order discriminates between persons of majority and

11

minority faiths in their country of origin. Section 5(b) requires the government to “prioritize

12

refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the

13

religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality” once the

14
120-day ban on refugee admissions is complete.

15
16

67.

During those 120 days, moreover, Section 5(e) allows the admission of certain refugees

17

on a discretionary case-by-case basis, “only so long as [the Secretaries of State and Homeland

18

Security] determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest—

19

including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious

20

persecution.”

21

62.

As the President has conceded, these provisions are intended to allow Christian

22
23
24
25
26

refugees to enter the United States, even while Muslim refugees from the same countries are
prohibited from doing so.
63.

And indeed, There is no basis in the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended—which

governs the admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement herein—to prioritize

27
28
15

1
2

refugees fleeing persecution on the basis of religion, as opposed to the other congressionallyrecognized bases. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (defining “refugee”).

3

64.68. Muslims willwould be severely disadvantaged under the minority-faith preferences set

4

forth in Sections 5(b) and 5(e). During the past three fiscal years, only 12% of Muslim refugees

5
6

hailed from a country where Islam is a minority faith. Thus, based on recent data, approximately
88% of Muslim refugees would be ineligible for the minority-faith preference, even if they can

7
8
9

assert strong claims of religious persecution.
65.

By contrast, during the past three fiscal years more than half (53%) of non-Muslim

10

refugees hail from countries where they are in the minority faith, and would thus be eligible for

11

the minority-faith preference if they are able to assert religious persecution claims.

12
13

66.69. There is no statutory, regulatory, or constitutional basis for favoring refugees from
minority faiths over refugees from majority faiths. There is no basis in the Refugee Act of 1980,

14
as amended—which governs the admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement

15
16
17
18

herein—to prioritize refugees fleeing persecution on the basis of religion, as opposed to the other
congressionally-recognized bases. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (defining “refugee”).
67.

In operation, the Executive Order not only disfavors Muslims while giving preference

19

to non-Muslims, but also entangles the executive branch in questions of religious doctrine and

20

practice. Under these provisions, the government is required to categorize a religion as “minority”

21

or “majority” in each country.

22
23
24
25

68.

Drawing these lines will necessarily entail inquiry into the religious beliefs, practices,

and faith identification of billions of people.
70.

The indefinite ban on SyrianSection 5(d) reduces, by more than half, the annual refugee

26

admissions allotment that was set prior to the current fiscal year by President Obama (reducing

27

from 110,000 to 50,000).

28
16

1

71.

Upon information and belief, as of February 2017, approximately 41,000 refugees also

2

effectuates President Trump’s intent to limit the entry of Muslims into the had already been

3

resettled in the United States. In fiscal year 2016, Muslim Syrian Upon information and belief,

4

the number of refugees made up 32%already somewhere in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program

5
6

pipeline—well over 50,000—would put the U.S. refugee resettlement total above Section 5(d)’s
reduced admissions allotment of 50,000.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

72.

As a result, upon information and belief, Defendants have already undertaken various

actions to bring to a halt the U.S. refugee resettlement process as a result of Section 5(d)’s
reduction in this fiscal year’s figure.
73.

For example, upon information and belief, shortly after the January 27 Order was

signed, USCIS, a component of Defendant Department of Homeland Security, cancelled nearly all
Muslimrefugee processing interviews abroad.

14
74.

Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendant Department of State has

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

suspended security checks for refugees who entered, a process that typically takes between 18-24
months.
69.75. Upon information and belief, Section 5(d)’s reduction in the annual refugee admissions
allotment has all but ground to a halt the United States.States’ refugee resettlement process.
70.76. Furthermore, Section 5(g) seeks to expand the limited role State and local governments
have in the refugee resettlement process beyond that envisioned by Congress in order to authorize

22
23
24

and facilitate the recently-stated desire and intent of some states and localities in the United States
to discriminate against lawfully-admitted refugees on the basis of their nationality and/or religion.

25

See, e.g., Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 838 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming

26

preliminary injunction on equal protection grounds of state executive order issued by then-

27
28
17

1
2
3
4
5
6

Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, that sought to prevent the resettlement in the State of refugees
from Syria).
71.77. In addition to Sections 3 and 5, other sections of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order
reinforce stereotypes about Muslims and discriminate against them.

Multiple sections, for

example, associate Muslims with violence, bigotry, and hatred, inflicting stigmatic and dignitary
harms, among other types of injury. These include Sections 1 and 2, which portray the ban as

7
8

protecting citizens from foreign nationals “who would place violent ideologies over American

9

law” and “who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States”; and Section 10, which

10

requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to periodically publish information about the number

11

of “foreign nationals” involved in, among other things, terrorism-related activities, radicalization,

12

and “gender-based violence against women, including honor killings”—direct echoes of then-

13

candidate Trump’s broad statements denigrating Islam and Muslims.

14
72.78. Further, on information and belief, since the January 27 Order was signed, CBP has

15
16

questioned foreign nationals entering from certain countries about their religious beliefs to

17

determine whether or not they are Muslim, and has subjected Muslim travelers from countries

18

other than the seven designation nations to disproportionate and unwarranted scrutiny and

19

interrogation.

20
21

73.79. There is no sound basis for concluding that Muslims generally, or Muslims from
particular countries, are more likely to commit violent acts of terror.

22
23
24

74.80. A previous program to track certain foreign nationals predominantly from Muslimmajority countries, NSEERS,the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (“NSEERS”),

25

did not lead to the conviction or even identification of a single terrorist, even though it subjected

26

tens of thousands of people to additional screening and investigation.

27
28
18

1

75.81. Many alternatives exist that do not involve targeting individuals based on their faith or

2

using nationality as a proxy for faith, are less restrictive than the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order, and

3

are more closely tailored to legitimate national security concerns.

4
5

82.

The January 27 Order remains in effect until March 16, 2017, when the March 6 Order

becomes effective and rescinds and replaces the January 27 Order.

6
The Chaotic and Irregular Implementation of the January 27 Order

7
8

76.83. The preparation and implementation of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order were extremely

9

unusual and chaotic. Upon information and belief, the White House bypassed regular channels for

10

input and cooperation with other components of the Executive Branch, including the Secretaries

11

of Homeland Security, Defense, and State. Moreover, upon information and belief, CBP was not

12

given clear operational guidance during critical times in the implementation of the

13

ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order.

14
77.84. The ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order was signed without final review or legal analysis from

15
16

DHS, which—along with the DOS—is principally charged with implementing the Order.

17

78.85. Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly was reportedly in the midst of a conference call

18

to discuss the January 27 Order when someone on the call learned from watching television that

19

the Order they were discussing had been signed.

20
21

79.86. Similarly, Secretary of Defense Mattis, who had publicly criticized President Trump’s
proposal to ban Muslims from the United States, reportedly did not see a final version of the

22
23
24

January 27 Order until the day it was signed and was not consulted during its preparation.
80.87. ThisThe January 27 Order did not arise out of the usual process of consulting with the

25

relevant cabinet-level officials and agencies before issuing an Executive Order. Instead, the

26

January 27 Order was primarily drafted by a small team of Presidential aides, overseen by chief

27

White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon.

28
19

1

81.88. Mr. Bannon has previously made anti-Muslim comments. He criticized former

2

President George W. Bush for referring to Islam as “a religion of peace,” calling President Bush

3

“one of the dumbest presidents in the history of these United States.”

4
5
6

82.89. Congressional staff who worked on the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order reportedly were
required to sign nondisclosure agreements, and not even the members of Congress they served
were allowed to know of their work on the January 27 Order. On information and belief, this

7
8

arrangement was also highly unusual.

9

83.90. During the days leading up to and following the signing of the ExecutiveJanuary 27

10

Order, its scope and provisions were changed without any rational relationship to the purported

11

reasons for the January Order.

12
13

84.91. For example, the night before the January 27 Order was signed, the Department of
Homeland Security issued guidance interpreting § 3(c) of the January 27 Order as not applying to

14
lawful permanent residents. Overnight, the White House overruled that guidance, applying the

15
16
17

January 27 Order to lawful permanent residents subject to a case-by-case exception process, in a
decision closely associated with Mr. Bannon.

18

85.92. After the detention at airports of many individuals, including lawful permanent

19

residents, led to chaos nationwide, Secretary Kelly issued a statement “deem[ing] the entry of

20

lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.” Secretary Kelly’s statement was made

21

pursuant to Section 3(g) of the order, which requires such a decision to be made jointly with the

22
23
24
25

Secretary of State and “on a case-by-case basis.”
86.93. Finally, on February 1, the Counsel to the President purported to interpret the January
27 Order as exempting Lawfullawful permanent residents from the ban entirely.

26

87.94. Similarly, initial guidance from the Department of State indicated that individuals with

27

dual citizenship, with one country of citizenship subject to the ban, would be banned from entering

28
20

1
2

the United States. Word of a change in that policy spread irregularly, with notice being given to
airlines and foreign nations but contradicted in official U.S. government communications.

3

88.95. Finally, CBP announced a changed policy, explaining, in response to the question

4

“Does ‘from one of the seven countries’ mean citizen, national or born in?” that “Travelers are

5
6

being treated according to the travel document they present.” According to this policy, currently
in place, the very same individual both is and is not subject to the travel ban depending only on

7
8

the travel document she presents.

9

89.96. The government also reversed itself on its policy toward holders of Special Immigrant

10

Visas from Iraq. Holders of these visas are clearly banned under the terms of the January 27 Order,

11

and they were refused entry when it went into effect. However, on February 2, 2017, the

12

government changed course and allowed them to enter the United States despite the

13

ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order.

14
90.97. Still other aspects of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order and its implementation

15
16

demonstrate utter disregard for the individuals affected by it. For example, the Administration

17

knew that the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order would bar the entry of individuals who were literally

18

mid-air when the order was issued. Nonetheless, and absent any exigency that would justify it,

19

the order was signed late on a Friday afternoon. That decision had a number of predictable

20

consequences, including: making it more difficult for the federal employees tasked with enforcing

21

the order to obtain instruction on how to interpret and enforce the order’s sloppily-written

22
23
24

provisions; prolonging the detentions at airports of those affected, and leading many to be
wrongfully deported; and increasing the difficulty advocates had in accessing their clients and the

25

courts.

26

98.

27

In a tweet on January 30, 2017, President Trump appeared to justify the rushed

implementation of the January 27 Order by claiming that “[i]f the ban were announced with a one

28
21

1
2

week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out
there!”

3

91.99. Even once advocates were able to access the courts and obtain temporary injunctive

4

relief against aspects of the Executive Order, DHS officials frequently refused or otherwise failed

5
6

to comply with the court orders, undermining bedrock constitutional principles and inflicting
further unlawful injury on the affected individuals.

7
8
9

92.100.Other actions taken by DHS and DOS to enforce the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order exhibit
a zealous desire to go beyond even the draconian measures the order actually requires.

10

93.101.Notwithstanding that Section 3 of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order only bars “entry into

11

the United States of aliens from” one of the aforementioned seven Muslim-majority countries,

12

DHS interpreted it to prohibit the granting of any immigration-related benefit to anyone from those

13

countries—including to individuals who are already in the United States. That decision would

14
have wide-ranging consequences, including: delaying naturalization of lawful permanent residents

15
16

(“LPRs”) from those countries who wish to become U.S. citizens; rendering asylees from those

17

countries unable to be lawfully employed once their Employment Authorization Documents

18

expire; and either expelling or making undocumented any individuals here on nonimmigrant visas

19

(including student, employment, and tourist) that otherwise couldwould have been renewed.

20
21

94.102.DOS, at the request of DHS, issued a letter purporting to provisionally revoke all
immigrant and nonimmigrant visas of nationals of the seven designated countries on a categorical

22
23
24
25

basis. The letter is dated January 27, 2017, but only came to light on January 31, 2017, when
Department of Justice lawyers filed it in pending litigation. DOS has stated that this action was
taken to “implement[]” the Executive Order.

26

95.103.OnUpon information and belief, DOS has never before revoked a broad swath of valid

27

visas in this manner. Nor, on information and belief, is visa revocation ordinarily undertaken in

28
22

1
2

secret, with no notice to the visa holder and no individualized consideration of whether any
particular visa should be revoked.

3

96.104.Still further evidence of discriminatory intent and effect is reflected in the statements

4

by President Trump and his Administration seeking to defend and justify the ExecutiveJanuary 27

5
6

Order after it was issued.
97.105.President Trump, for example, falsely stated that only 109 people were detained over

7
8
9
10

the weekend following the issuance of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order, even though he knew or
should have known that the number was far higher.
98.

Following the issuance on February 3 of a temporary restraining order of various parts

11

of the Executive Order, President Trump personally attacked the Honorable James Robart, who

12

issued the order. President Trump referred to Judge Robart as a “so-called judge,” calling his

13

opinion “outrageous,” “ridiculous,” and “terrible.” President Trump falsely claimed that one

14
consequence of Judge Robart’s order is that now “anyone, even with bad intentions” must be

15
16

allowed to enter the country, saying that the judge had “open[ed] up our country to potential

17

terrorists” and put it in “such peril.” President Trump advised the public to “blame him and the

18

court system” if “something happens.” Comments like this by a President about a sitting judge

19

are extremely unusual, if not unprecedented, and further underline the extent to which the ordinary

20

norms and processes of government have been cast aside with respect to this Order.

21

106.

Indeed, pursuant to a federal district court order, the federal government has since

22
23
24
25

revealed that at least 746 individuals were detained over a period of just 27 hours during the
weekend after the January 27 Order was signed. This 27-hour period did not begin until a day
after the January 27 Order went into effect.

26
27
28
23

1

99.107. These chaotic, irregular, and irrational policies, policy changes, and statements

2

indicate that the purported justifications for the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order are pretextual and that

3

it was at least substantially motivated by an intent to discriminate against Muslims.

4
5
6

The Nationwide Temporary RestrainingPreliminary Injunction Enjoining the January 27
Order

108.

TheA February 3, 2017, temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued by Judge

7

Robartthe District Court for the Western District of Washington currently prohibits the

8

government from enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), and 5(e) of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order.

9

The government has Upon issuance of this Order, which the District Court described as a

10
11
12
13

temporary restraining order, the government appealed to the Ninth Circuit and sought a stay
pending appeal. That

100.109.

After hearing oral argument, the Ninth Circuit declined to stay motion was fully

14

briefed by 3:00 pm Pacific Standard Time on February 6, 2017.the Order, noting that “although

15

courts owe considerable deference with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond

16

question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to

17
executive action.” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017).

18
19

110.

In response to reaching its holding, the TRO, the Court noted that “[t]he government

20

issued assurances that, while the TRO remained in place, entry procedures would revert to those

21

in place before the Order was signed; visas purportedly revoked by the DOS letter would be

22

reinstated; airlines would be informedhas pointed to no evidence that they could fly individualsany

23

alien from any of the banned countries to the named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack

24

in the United States;.” Id. at 1168.

25
26

101.111.

The Court also acknowledged “evidence of numerous statements by the

27

President about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban’” and visa processingobserved that “[i]t is

28

well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered
24

1
2
3
4
5

in evaluating Establishment and interviews overseas would resumeEqual Protection Clause
claims.” Id. at 1167.

112.

Presumably, The Court also found that the February 3 Order, although styled a TRO,

should the TRO be dissolved, the government will also unwind all of these changes, and thereby
reinstatebe treated as a preliminary injunction.

6
113.

Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s opinion issued, President Trump tweeted, “SEE YOU

7
8

IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He subsequently denounced

9

the Executive Order in its entirety (except as limited by other Executive Branch decisions, like

10

theopinion as “a political decision to allow Special Immigrant Visa holders” and stated, “[W]e’re

11

going to see them in court, and I look forward to doing that. It’s a decision that we’ll win, in my

12

opinion, very easily.”

13

114.

On March 7, 2017, the government withdrew its appeal of the February 3 Order, leaving

14
15

in place the preliminary injunction of Sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), and 5(e) of the January 27 Order.
The March 6 Order

16
17

115.

In the weeks preceding the issuance of the March 6 Order, Stephen Miller, a senior

18

advisor to President Trump, explained that the administration was preparing a new executive order

19

“to be responsive to the judicial ruling” of the Ninth Circuit. He explained that the changes would

20
21

be “mostly minor, technical differences. Fundamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic
policy outcome for the country.”

22
23

116.

Consistent with Mr. Miller’s statement, the March 6 Order, explicitly referring to the

24

Ninth Circuit’s ruling, exempts certain categories of noncitizens that have “prompted judicial

25

concerns” from the ban, and alters the original order’s “approach to certain other issues or

26

categories of affected aliens” “in order to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation” over

27

the constitutionality of the January 27 Order.

28
25

1

117.

Indeed, notwithstanding an expanded “Policy and Purpose” section and certain other

2

changes discussed more fully below, the March 6 Order is extremely similar to the January 27

3

Order in most important respects.

4
5
6

118.

Like the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order bans entry for a new 90 day period for

individuals from the six of the same seven predominantly Muslim countries identified in the
January 27 Order: Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (Section 2(c)).

7
8

119.

Like the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order also provides a mechanism for the

9

government to extend and/or expand the 90-day ban at the end of the 90 day period. Section 2 of

10

the Order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “conduct a worldwide review to identify

11

whether, and if so what, additional information will be needed from each foreign country to

12

adjudicate an application by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under

13

the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual is not a security or public-safety

14
threat.” In addition, the March 6 Order explicitly provides that the review need not be conducted

15
16

in a consistent matter between countries: “The Secretary of Homeland Security may conclude that

17

certain information is needed from particular countries even if it is not needed from every country.”

18

Again, the order provides for the submission of a report on this review within 30 days of the date

19

of the order, a period (50 days rather than 60) for countries to respond to the order, and a provision

20

for the President to thereafter issue a proclamation indefinitely banning travelers from a list of

21

countries deemed to be non-compliant.

22
23
24
25

120.

The corresponding provisions of the January 27 Order were never suspended and

remain in effect.
121.

The country-by-country report required by the January 27, 2017 Order was due on

26

February 26, 2017, eight days before the March 6 Order was issued. On information and belief,

27

this report was not produced.

28
26

1

122.

The March 6 Order states that “Iraq presents a special case” because of the “close

2

cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi

3

government” and because the “Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel

4

documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of

5
6

removal” (Section 4). With this justification, the March 6 Order exempts foreign nationals of Iraq
from the categorical ban on entry applicable to other countries originally targeted by the January

7
8
9
10

27 Order. Instead, Iraqis are subject to “thorough review” and “consideration of whether the
applicant has connections with ISIS or other terrorist organizations.”
123.

Like the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order allows for waivers to this ban on a

11

discretionary case-by-case basis (Section 3(c)). In contrast to the January 27 Order, which simply

12

stated that visas and other immigration benefits may be issued “when in the national interest,” the

13

March 6 Order provides nine examples of situations in which a waiver would be appropriate, such

14
as when “the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee” or “an individual needing

15
16

urgent medical care” (Sections 3(c)(i)-(ix)). These and other similar circumstances enumerated in

17

the March 6 Order reflect specific examples of individuals whose denial of entry pursuant to the

18

January 27 Order resulted in the filing of lawsuits and widespread public outcry.

19
20
21

124.

The March 6 Order also contains exceptions to this ban for, among others, lawful

permanent residents and dual nationals traveling on passports issued by a non-designated country
(Section 3(b)).

22
23
24

125.

Like the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order cuts the number of refugees admissible

to the United States for fiscal year 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000 and prohibits refugee admissions

25

for 120 days, with an exception for discretionary case-by-case admissions (Sections 6(a), 6(b)).

26

The March 6 Order also expressly suspends decisions on applications for refugee status for 120

27

days (Section 6(a)).

28
27

1

102.126.

Defendant Department of State has informed Plaintiff HIAS that only refugees

2

who are already booked for travel to the United States arriving at their port of entry through the

3

end of March 15, 2017, i.e., before the March 6 Order’s effective date of March 16, 2017 at 12:01

4

am, will be permitted to enter the United States, or by other court orders).. Defendant Department

5

of State has indicated that no further bookings may be made.

6
127.

Defendant Department of State has informed Plaintiff HIAS that all DHS screening

7
8
9
10

interviews will continue to be suspended until further notice, unless exceptions are arranged on an
individual basis.
128.

Defendant Department of State has informed Plaintiff HIAS that no new Interagency

11

Checks (IAC) and Security Advisory Opinion (SAC) security checks may be requested. Upon

12

information and belief, all refugees must undergo both IAC and SAO security checks before

13

traveling and being admitted to the US.

14
15
16
17

129.

In addition to the provisions discussed above, the March 6 Order contains near-

verbatim reproductions of all the other substantive provisions of the January 27 Order, including:
•

Former Section 4(a), now Section 5(a), which requires the Secretaries of State and

18

Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to

19

implement uniform screening standards to identify individuals “who seek to enter the

20

United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of

21
violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present

22
a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry.”

23
24

•

Former Section 5(g), now Section 6(d), which seeks to expand the limited role State

25

and local governments have in the refugee resettlement process, potentially facilitating

26

the stated desire and intent of some states and localities in the United States to

27
28
28

discriminate against lawfully-admitted refugees on the basis of their nationality and/or

1

religion. See, e.g., Exodus Refugee Immigration, 838 F.3d 902.

2
•

3
4

Former Section 6, now Section 7, which directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security to consider rescinding certain waivers of terrorism-related inadmissibility

5

grounds (“TRIG waivers”) authorized by previous administrations. TRIG waivers have

6
historically been used to facilitate the admission to the United States of certain

7
individuals or groups of individuals—often refugees fleeing persecution—who have

8

been forced to give aid to terrorist organizations under duress.

9
10

•

Former Section 8, now Section 9, which suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program.

11

•

Former Section 10, now Section 11, which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security

12

to periodically publish information about the number of “foreign nationals” involved

13

in, among other things, terrorism-related activities, radicalization, and “gender-based

14
violence against women, including so-called ‘honor killings.’”

15
16

130.

The signing and implementation of the March 6 Order was reportedly delayed because

17

of the positive media reviews President Trump received after his address to a joint session of

18

Congress on February 28, 2017. Although the Trump Administration had previously intended on

19

releasing the revised executive order the following day, on March 1, 2017, White House officials

20

stated that they delayed the release of the revised Executive Order so that President Trump’s

21
speech could continue to receive positive press attention.

22
23

131.

Upon information and belief, the delay following President Trump’s congressional

24

address marked the third time the administration put off the issuance of the revised Executive

25

Order.

26
27

132.

Before signing the March 6 Order, President Trump ordered the Department of

Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to produce an intelligence report to demonstrate

28
29

1
2
3
4
5
6

that the seven Muslim-majority countries originally identified in the January 27 Order present a
substantial security threat and have exported terrorism to the United States.
133.

Upon information and belief, such an attempt to reverse-engineer a national security

justification for an executive action is not common practice.
134.

In response, analysts at the Department of Homeland Security prepared a draft report,

released to the press on February 24, 2017, indicating that there was insufficient evidence that the

7
8
9
10

nationals of the seven Muslim-majority countries included in in the January 27 Order pose a terror
threat to the United States.
135.

The draft report found that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats to

11

the United States, and that few people from the countries identified in the January 27 Order have

12

carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the United States since Syria’s

13

civil war started in 2011.

14
136.

A second Department of Homeland Security report, dated March 1, 2017, found that of

15
16
17
18

the limited number of the foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists, most become radicalized
after living in the U.S. for a number of years.
137.

The Executive Order does not acknowledge or rely on either of these recent, specific

19

security appraisals from the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, it relies on the State

20

Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2015 (June 2016). In relying on those reports,

21

however, the Order disregards other countries that the State Department describes as safe havens

22
23
24

for terrorists, and that pose a similar if not larger threat. For example, the State Department noted
in its 2015 chapter on Terrorist Safe Havens that Venezuela has become a haven for terrorist

25

groups, explaining that the country’s “porous border with Colombia has made [it] attractive to the

26

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army.” Similarly, the State

27

Department concluded that “[t]here are ungoverned, under-governed, and ill-governed areas of

28
30

1
2
3
4
5
6

Mali that terrorist groups have used to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train and
operative in relative security.”
138.

The Secretary of Homeland Security also said in an interview that many other countries

not banned in the Executive Order raise similar security concerns. “There’s probably thirteen or
fourteen other countries—not all of them Muslim countries, not all of them in the Middle East—
that have very questionable vetting procedures that we can rely on.”

7
8

139.

The Order also states that “more than 300 persons who entered the United States as

9

refugees are currently subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of

10

Investigation.” The Order does not note that very few F.B.I. initial assessments of terrorism threats

11

become intensive investigations: for example, in the four months from December 2008 to March

12

2009, the F.B.I. began 11,667 “assessments” related to terrorism, only 427 of which—less than

13

4%—led to more intensive investigations.

14
140.

Over 970,000 individuals have been admitted to the United States as refugees between

15
16
17

2001 and the present.
141.

The March 6 Order was motivated by the same anti-Muslim purpose that motivated the

18

January 27 Order. In replicating much of the substance of the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order

19

seeks to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States and reinforces stereotypes about

20

Muslims by associating them with terrorism, violence, bigotry, and hatred. .

21

142.

White House spokesperson Sean Spicer echoed these comments on March 6,

22
23
24

explaining, after President Trump signed the revised Order, “The principles of the executive order
remain the same.”
The Grave Harm to Plaintiffs and Their Clients

25
26
27

103.143.

Implementation and enforcement of the January 27 Order has already caused

Plaintiffs and their clients substantial, concrete, and particularized injury, and will continue to

28
31

1
2
3
4
5
6

harm Plaintiffs. Implementation of the March 6 Order threatens them with continued irreparable
harm if not permanently enjoined.
104.144.

TheBoth Executive Order, which suspendsOrders suspend refugee resettlement

and intentionally discriminatesdiscriminate against Muslim immigrants, frustratesMuslims. Both
Executive Orders therefore frustrate IRAP’s mission and imposesimpose a significant burden on
IRAP’s work. As a direct result of the imposition and enforcement of the ExecutiveJanuary 27

7
8
9
10

Order, IRAP and its clients have suffered substantial, concrete injuries. Because the March 6
Order is substantively the same, these injuries will continue once the March 6 Order takes effect.
105.145.

IRAP serves refugees and displaced persons of all faiths, but the vast majority

11

of its client base isclients are Muslim. IRAP counsels persecuted individuals on various legal

12

avenues to safe countries and represents them throughout these processes, with a majority of its

13

clients resettling toin the United States.

14
106.146.

The January 27 Order has already severely restricted IRAP’s ability to carry out

15
16

its work and mission. In the ten days immediately following the issuance of the ExecutiveJanuary

17

27 Order, IRAP provided assistance to more than forty individuals from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya,

18

Syria, Somalia, and Yemen who, despite being vetted and given permission to enter the United

19

States, had been prevented by the Order from doing so.

20
21

107.147.

Of its 583IRAP’s 599 open cases, 419402 families are from Iraq, Syria, Iran,

Sudan, Somalia, Libya, or Yemen or are refugees from other countries and therefore potentially

22
23
24

affected by thisthe new March 6 Order. IRAP has already used a significant portion of its financial
resources and time to represent these 419 clients402 families through legal adjudications and to

25

provide counseling through the demanding vetting process. Restricting entry into the United States

26

has renderedissuance of visas wastes that investment of resources and time a waste.

27
28
32

1

108.148.

Furthermore, the ExecutiveMarch 6 Order will create a significant backlog in

2

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, delaying the processing of many of IRAP’s clients’ cases.

3

This delay forces IRAP to exhaust more of its resources, as the average lifespan of a case now

4

grows significantly.

5
6

149.

IRAP attorneys are not providing only limited representation in certain new cases,

which, prior to the Executive Order would have received full representation, as a result of the

7
8
9

exorbitant delays in USRAP processing that the Executive Order will cause.
150.

IRAP relies on volunteers from its law school chapters and pro bono firms to meet the

10

needs of their vast client base. With the increased demands of their caseload resulting from the

11

Executive Order, IRAP now has very limited capacity to open new law school chapters or begin

12

new relationships with law firms to place cases for direct representation.

13

151.

Under the Executive Order’s freeze of the USRAP, IRAP may also be unable to place

14
new cases with existing chapters or law firms because there is no movement on any refugee cases.

15
16
17
18

IRAP risks losing hundreds of volunteers, and relationships with numerous law firms, because
they are unable to provide them with a way to partner with them on cases.
152.

IRAP’s law firm partners also provide financial support to IRAP. If IRAP no longer

19

has cases to place at law firms, and thus have to decrease our number of law firm partners, it will

20

significantly cut into the corporate funding IRAP receives.

21

153.

As a result of the Executive Order, IRAP's Resettlement Deployment Scheme with

22
23
24

UNHCR, which allows IRAP resettlement experts since early 2016 to be deployed to UNHCR for
assisting with their resettlement operations, may be terminated due to the drastic decrease in

25

resettlement slots available in the United States and worldwide. This would lead to the termination

26

of three IRAP staff as well as a revenue loss of approximately $260,000.

27
28
33

1

109.154.

The delay also greatly endangers the lives of IRAP’s clients, because the longer

2

it takes for their cases to be decided, the longer they are in life-threatening environments. In

3

addition, some of the IRAP clients abroad have familialfamily ties to IRAP clients already in the

4

United States, and those U.S. clients are suffering harm as a result of the ongoing delay in

5
6

reunification with their family members, as well as the risk that their family members may suffer
persecution or death in the meantime.

7
8

110.155.

The ExecutiveBoth the January 27 Order and the March 6 Order, moreover,

9

marginalizesmarginalize IRAP’s Muslim clients and subjects, subject them to suspicion, scrutiny,

10

and social isolation on the basis of religion and national origin, and inflicts stigmatic and dignitary

11

injuriesinflict stigmatic and dignitary injuries. IRAP clients who are already inside the U.S. are

12

afraid and fear they are not welcome. Some IRAP clients have been subjected to harassment by

13

law enforcement agencies allegedly conducting “new” security checks. Others have been detained

14
at airports, or rejected from flights multiple times even though they are presenting valid visas.

15
16

111.156.

The ExecutiveBoth the January 27 Order hasand the March 6 Order,

17

furthermore, have forced IRAP to devote substantial resources to addressing the order’s effects on

18

IRAP’s clients and those similarly situated. Following the signing of the ExecutiveJanuary 27

19

Order on January 27, 2017 at 4:42 P.M. EST, two IRAP clients, Mr. Hameed Khalid Darweesh

20

and Mr. Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, were detained at John F. Kennedy Airport (“JFK”)

21

despite being the recipients ofhaving valid visasentry documents. As a result, IRAP attorneys

22
23
24

were present at JFK from 2 am to 6:30 pm on January 28, 2017 attempting to secure their lawful
release. Furthermore, together with co-counsel, IRAP filed a habeas petition on behalf of those

25

two clients, together with a motion for class certification (Darweesh et al. v. Trump et al., No.

26

1:17-cv-480 (E.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 28, 2017)). That litigation is ongoing. These actions are not in

27
28
34

1
2
3
4
5
6

the scope of normal IRAP legal assistance, as previous IRAP clients were allowed to enter at U.S.
Ports of Entry after receiving final approval to travel.
112.157.

TheBoth the January 27 Order hasand the March 6 Order have further caused

IRAP to divert its resources as IRAP has become the focal point organization for volunteer
attorneys all across the country who have gone to airports to attempt to secure the release of
individuals detained pursuant to this Order.both Executive Orders. In addition to being the first

7
8

organization to put out a call to volunteer attorneys, IRAP created and maintains a unique hotline

9

email address ([e-mail]) to advise attorneys and affected individuals. Since the

10

creation of this email address on January 28, 2017, IRAP has received and responded to nearly

11

800over a thousand email messages. IRAP has also developed templates and informational

12

materials for attorneys, affected family members in the United States, and individuals overseas

13

who have been denied travel pursuant to the Order. [HW1]

14
15
16

158.

IRAP also provides safe housing for clients whose lives are in immediate danger while

they await the outcomes of USRAP. Clients in urgent situations who face additional four-month

17

delays on their applications (at a minimum) will require IRAP to expend significant funding to

18

ensure continued safe housing.

19
20
21

113.159.

HIAS hasand its clients have likewise been significantly harmed by the

Executive Order.January 27 and March 6 Orders. HIAS’s refugee resettlement work is grounded
in, and an expression of, the organization’s sincere Jewish beliefs. The Torah, Judaism’s central

22
23

and most holy text, commands followers to welcome, love, and protect the stranger. The Jewish

24

obligation to the stranger is repeated throughout the Torah, more than any other teaching or

25

commandment. HIAS believes that this religious commandment demands concern for and

26

protection of persecuted people of all faiths. The Torah also teaches that the Jewish people are to

27

welcome, protect, and love the stranger because “we were strangers in the land of Egypt”

28
35

1

(Leviticus 19:34). Throughout their history, violence and persecution have made the Jewish

2

people a refugee people. Thus, both history and values lead HIAS to welcome refugees in need of

3

protection. A refusal to aid persecuted people of any one faith, because of stigma attached to that

4

faith, violates HIAS’s deeply held religious convictions.

5
6

114.160.

The Executive Like the January 27 Order, the March 6 Order severely impedes

HIAS’s religious mission and work by intentionally discriminating against Muslims, and

7
8
9
10

prohibiting the entry of all refugees into the United States for 120 days, indefinitely prohibiting
Syrian refugees’ entry into the United States, and disfavoring majority-faith refugees generally.
115.161.

Before the January 27 and March 6 Orders were signed, arrangements had been

11

made for many of HIAS’s refugee clients to arrive in the United State in January, February, and

12

the coming months.

13

Despite having been previously vetted and granted refugee status,

HIAShowever, clients from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Ukraine, Bhutan, the Democratic Republic

14
of Congo, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Russia, Belarus, and Burma were

15
16

delayed in or prevented from entering the country because of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order and.

17

If the Temporary Restraining Order barring enforcement of the January 27 Order is lifted, or if the

18

March 6 Order goes into effect, HIAS’s clients will continue to face significant delays. But for

19

the Temporary Restraining Order, HIAS clients would continue to or be barred from entering the

20

country. Before the Executive Order was signed, arrangements had been made for many of these

21

clients to arrive in denied entry into the United State in January, February, and the coming

22
23
24

months.States altogether.
116.

Many of these clients are Muslim and hail from Muslim-majority countries and would

25

thus be precluded from using the preference for refugees of a minority faith, even if they have

26

religious persecution claims. Others are not Muslim but follow faiths that are the majority faiths

27
28
36

1
2
3
4
5
6

in their countries of origin and thus would similarly be ineligible for the “minority” faith preference
even if they are able to assert religious persecution claims.
162.

Some HIAS Specifically, HIAS has identified nearly 1,400 clients worldwide who were

allocated through the Department of State process, have been vetted, and have been approved for
refugee status. These refugees have already been allocated and assured to one of HIAS’s
resettlement sites. Of these clients, less than 60 have been scheduled for travel following the

7
8
9
10

signing of the March 6 Order. That means that any travel for the remaining approved refugees
will be significantly delayed, and many will be unable to come at all in this Fiscal Year.
163.

Under the Executive Order, the earliest that refugee resettlement could resume would

11

be early July 2017. This would leave Resettlement Agencies, at most, with only two-and-a-half

12

months before the end of the fiscal year to resettle hundreds or thousands of refugees who were

13

supposed to be resettled over a much longer period of time. Refugee processing would be impacted

14
by the 120-day ban since security checks and processing would be suspended during that time.

15
16

Because security and medical clearances have expiration dates, it is likely that some refugees

17

would lose their readiness for travel during the suspension period and lengthy checks would need

18

to be repeated.

19
20
21

164.

In addition, after the January 27 Order was issued, the U.S. Department of State notified

HIAS that its resettlement commitment will be cut by 39 percent for the remainder of FFY 2017
due to the Order’s drastic reduction in the planned level of refugee admission from 110,000 to

22
23
24
25

50,000. Thus, some of HIAS’s clients who have been vetted and approved as refugees will simply
not be able to enter the country in FFY 2017.
165.

Of the nearly 1,400 HIAS clients worldwide who were allocated through the

26

Department of State process, have been vetted, and have been approved for refugee status, 500 are

27

nationals of one of the six banned countries. The overwhelmingly majority of these individuals

28
37

1

are Muslim. Because they are national of the six banned countries, they will likely be ineligible

2

for the case-by-case exception to the 120-day ban on for refugee applicants set forth in Section

3

6(c) of the March 6 Executive Order.

4
5
6

166.

Every day that HIAS clients’ entry is delayed, they remain in precarious situations.

167.

Many of HIAS’s clients abroad have refugee referral, whose refugee status has been

approved but have yet to be scheduled for travel, including clients from the six banned countries,

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

have family members in the United States, also HIAS clients, who will suffer as a result of the
delay in reuniting with their family members. Some of these U.S. ties are, in fact, individuals who
petitioned for refugee status (often through HIAS) for their family members.
117.168.

In addition, more than 1,300 refugee applications initiated through HIAS by

family members residing in the United States remain pending with the United States, and will
suffer significant delay in thefor HIAS clients abroad. The adjudication of thosethese applications

14
has been or will be substantially delayed because of the Executive Order. That March 6 Order. In

15
16

fact, since the Orders were signed, consideration of most refugee applicant cases in need of security

17

checks have been suspended. This means that, for many refugees in the pipeline, security checks

18

that typically lasted 18-24 months will now be paused and restarted, potentially adding years to

19

their wait for stable resettlement. The delay puts them at in processing of these applications will

20

subject these clients to further risk of the very persecution and abuse that they are fleeing. Some

21

of these clients are from Syria; therefore, under the Executive Order, adjudication of their refugee

22
23
24

applications is suspended indefinitely. Some of these clients are Muslim and hail from Muslimmajority countries. They will be precluded, even once refugee resettlement resumes, from

25

benefiting from the preference for refugees of a minority faith. in their current situations, and their

26

family members who petitioned for them to come to the United States will remain in limbo as to

27

whether they will ever be reunited.

28
38

1

118.

Some HIAS clients in the United States have relatives abroad who are eligible for

2

resettlement or other immigration applicants. Some HIAS clients abroad have family ties in the

3

United States. Those U.S. clients and family members in the United States are suffering harm as

4

a result of the ongoing delay in reunification with their family members, as well as the risk that

5
6

their family members may suffer persecution or death in the meantime.
119.169.

The Executive Orders convey an official message of disapproval and hostility

7
8

toward HIAS’s Muslim clients, making clear that the government deems them outsiders, not full

9

members of the political community. HIAS’s Muslim clients in the United States have been

10

marginalized as a result of thethis anti-Muslim message conveyed by the Executive Order and,

11

have been subjected to baseless suspicion, scrutiny, and social and political isolation on the basis

12

of religion and national origin, and have suffered other dignitary and stigmatic injuries.

13

120.170.

Additionally, as a result of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order, at least one of

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

HIAS’s Muslim clients in the United States has beenwas detained at an airport for an extended
period, handcuffed and separated from his family, and many other clients have otherwise had their
travel significantly delayed.
121.171.

Because HIAS is a non-profit resettlement organization that has a cooperative

agreement with the federal government on a per-capita basis for each refugee served, and because
the Department of State asked HIAS to increase its capacity from the 3,884 refugees resettled in
federal fiscal year (“FFY”) 2016 to 4,794 refugees in FFY 2017, HIAS would be denied crucial

22
23

funding as a result of the ExecutiveMarch 6 Order, which bans all refugees for 120 days, bars all

24

entry for the sevensix Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, indefinitely bars refugees from

25

Syria, and capslimits the number of refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year at 50,000,

26

which is less than half the number the Department of State told the resettlement agencies to

27

collectively plan to resettle.

28
39

1

172.

The Executive OrderAfter the January 27 Order was issued, the U.S. State Department

2

notified HIAS that its resettlement obligation for FFY 2017 would be slashed from nearly 4,800

3

to just over 2900 refugees. The financial losses to HIAS and its affiliate network—up to $2.2

4

million—will be crippling, especially for many of HIAS’s affiliates, which are heavily dependent

5
6

on funding that flows through HIAS. These losses will translate to irreparable harm to HIAS, its
affiliates, and its clients because they will cause (and have already caused) a substantial reduction

7
8

in program services and closure of resettlement sites. When this happens, the local expertise,

9

relationships, and good will—developed by affiliate staff, often over years and years—are lost

10

entirely or substantially diminished. Building a new resettlement site can take months or years of

11

relationship-building, including cooperation with local government and elected officials,

12

businesses who would be potential employers, landlords, volunteers, and the refugee communities

13

themselves. In addition, fewer resettlement sites may limit the type of specialized assistance and

14
services (e.g., for LGBT refugees) that clients can receive.

15
16

122.173.

The January 27 and March 6 Orders would also result in the waste of HIAS

17

resources. For example, in the past year, HIAS has devoted substantial private resources to

18

developing a program with several congregations in Westchester, New York, to welcome Syrian

19

refugee families. Because of the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and90-day and 120-day bans,

20

as well as the unexpected and dramatic lowering of the refugee admissions ceiling,level, both the

21

ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order and the March 6 Order would put those resources to waste.

22
23
24

Congregations and family members of HIAS clients have extended resources to prepare for
anticipated refugees, by renting apartments and purchasing furnishings. In addition, some refugees

25

who were anticipating resettlement through HIAS left jobs or travelled through other countries and

26

now face precarious situations as a direct result of this Executivethe January 27 Order and March

27

6 Order.

28
40

1

123.174.

In the weeks and months prior to the order, HIAS concluded a formal plan with

2

the Department of State to increase HIAS’s national resettlement capacity by 23.4% from 3,884

3

refugees in federal fiscal year 2016 to 4,794 refugees in federal fiscal year 2017. This plan caused

4

HIAS to invest substantial resources into expanding existing resettlement sites and opening new

5
6

refugee resettlement sites in Wisconsin, Delaware, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts, as
approved by the Department of State. These resources will be wasted, at least in part, because of

7
8
9

the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order and the March 6 Order.
124.175.

In addition, HIAS will behas been forced to divert substantial resources, and will

10

continue to to do so, to dealing with the fallout from the Executive Orderboth executive orders and

11

itstheir effect on HIAS’s clients, including devoting staff time to working with clients, and their

12

families in the United States, who were denied entry and face precarious situations overseas.

13

125.

Plaintiff Hakky, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because

14
of the Executive Order. Mr. Hakky has six sisters-in-law, one of whom lives in the United States

15
16

and is a lawful permanent resident. Another sister-in-law lives in London, United Kingdom. His

17

parents-in-law and four other sisters-in-law are all Iraqi nationals who have valid visitor visas to

18

the United States. One sister-in-law was born in Kuwait and the other three were born in Jordan.

19

Like their parents, all four are considered to be Iraqi nationals and subject to the executive order

20

travel ban. Mr. Hakky’s parents-in-law and sisters-in-law are all Muslim.

21

176.

Plaintiff Hakky’s parents-in-law and sisters-in-law were coming to the United States to

22
23
24

visit Plaintiff MESA and its members will also be harmed by the March 6 Order. MESA has
members from the six designated countries who are outside the United States and lack

25

U.S. visas. Because of the March 6 Order, these members will not be able to travel to the United

26

States to attend academic conferences, including an annual meeting sponsored by

27

MESA. Participation in academic conferences is crucial to the professional success of both

28
41

1

graduate students and professors, and to their ability to fully engage with the ideas and scholarship

2

of the broader Middle Eastern studies community. Many important conferences, including the

3

MESA annual meeting, take place in the United States

4
5
6

177.

Graduate students who are MESA members or are studying under MESA members in

the United States often leave the country to complete field work for advanced degrees. Because
of the Executive Order, many such students from the six designated countries fear exclusion from

7
8

the United States if they leave the country. The inability to leave the United States with an

9

assurance they will be permitted to reenter will impair their ability to engage in research and

10

participate in academic conferences. Such students will also lose their ability to visit family and

11

friends abroad with an assurance they will be permitted to reenter. For example, Iranian students

12

affiliated with MESA have cancelled plans to return home for Persian New Year, an important

13

holiday that will occur on March 21, because of the Executive Order.

14
178.

MESA members who are U.S.-based faculty will be impacted by the Executive Order

15
16

because potential students from the designated countries will be unable to obtain visas to study

17

with them in the United States. Similarly, their current U.S.-based students from the designated

18

countries will not be able to travel abroad for field work with an assurance they will be permitted

19

to reenter, impacting faculty members’ ability to facilitate quality research and educational

20

opportunities. Likewise, U.S.-based MESA faculty members will forego opportunities to travel

21

abroad for research and academic conferences for fear that they will not be readmitted, or will be

22
23
24

subjected to harassment or discrimination upon application for reentry to the United States. MESA
members will also be precluded from traveling to the designated countries for research or academic

25

conferences when those countries institute reciprocal actions in response to the Executive Order,

26

as Iran has done.

27
28
42

1

179.

A large number of MESA members are Muslim or are institutional members whose

2

officers, employees, or members are Muslim. The Executive Orders convey an official message

3

of disapproval and hostility toward these Muslim members, making clear that the government

4

deems them outsiders, not full members of the political community. This marginalizes them,

5
6

subjects them to suspicion, scrutiny, and social and political isolation on the basis of religion and
national origin, and inflicts other stigmatic and dignitary injuries.

7
8

180.

MESA itself will also be harmed by the Executive Order. As part of its goal to advance

9

learning, facilitate communication, and promote cooperation, MESA sponsors an annual meeting

10

that is a leading international forum for scholarship, intellectual exchange, and pedagogical

11

innovation. Approximately thirty percent of MESA members are based outside of the United

12

States and must travel to the United States to attend MESA’s annual conference. At least 46

13

citizens of the six designated countries traveled to the United States to attend the last annual

14
meeting. MESA expects that a substantial number of scholars will be unable to attend this year’s

15
16

meeting because of the restrictions imposed by the Executive Order. Moreover, in part because of

17

the stigmatic message of the Executive Order, many members based in Europe and the Middle

18

East are likely to heed international calls to boycott academic conferences in the United States in

19

protest of the Executive Order, including the MESA annual conference. The absence of these

20

scholars, attributable to the Executive Order, will have a substantial negative effect on the meeting.

21

These and other impacts of the Executive Order will negatively impact MESA’s mission of

22
23
24

fostering the study and public understanding of the Middle East.
181.

In addition, the Executive Order will cause serious financial harms to MESA. A large

25

portion of MESA’s annual budget is funded through annual membership dues and registration fees

26

to attend the annual meeting. For each individual who cannot or will not attend the annual meeting,

27

MESA will lose $90-250 in registration fees. MESA will also suffer other financial injuries related

28
43

1

to its annual meeting as a result of the executive order. Some individuals who cannot or will not

2

attend the meeting will allow their MESA membership to lapse as a result. For each such lapsed

3

membership, MESA will lose $25-300 in membership dues.

4
5
6

126.

Mr. Hakky’s sister-in-law, a lawful permanent resident who gave birth prematurely to

a baby in January, 2017. Her parents and sisters planned to visit the United States to provide
support and assistance and to meet the baby, who is still in the neonatal intensive care unit. They

7
8
9
10

had planned to travel to the United States in late January but were barred from doing so because
of the Executive Order.
127.

Plaintiffs Jane Doe and John Doe #4, U.S. citizens, have suffered and will continue to

11

suffer harm because of the Executive Order. Jane Doe is pregnant, and she is scheduled for a

12

Caesarean section in mid-February, 2017. She filed a family-based visa petition for her two

13

parents, who live in Baghdad, in 2016. That visa petition was approved, and her parents were

14
issued visas, which are facially valid until May 2017.

15
16

128.

Jane Doe’s mother, who is a Shiite Muslim, and her father, who is a Sunni Muslim,

17

plan to travel to the United States before the date of the Caesarean section and will be unable to

18

do so under the terms of the executive order. If the executive order banning entry from Iraq is in

19

effect, Jane Doe’s parents will not be able to travel to the United States to be present for the birth

20

of their grandchild.

21

129.

Plaintiff Takaloo, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm because

22
23
24
25

of the Executive Order. Ms. Takaloo’s parents are Muslim and live in Iran. They received
temporary family-based visas, permitting them to become lawful permanent residents upon arrival
in the United States. These visas expire on April 13, 2017.

26
27
28
44

1

130.

Ms. Tukaloo and her parents have expended substantial amounts of money in obtaining

2

visas for her parents, including fees payable to the U.S. government, costs of travel outside of Iran

3

for a visa interview because there is no U.S. embassy in Iran, and required medical examinations.

4
5
6

131.

Ms. Takaloo’s parents bought plane tickets on Qatar Airlines to travel to the United

States on March 7, 2017. On January 27, 2017, Ms. Takaloo’s parents learned through news
reports that under President Trump’s executive order, Iranian nationals would no longer be

7
8
9

permitted to travel to the United States.
132.182.

Plaintiff John Doe #1, a lawful permanent resident, has suffered and will

10

continue to suffer harm because of the Executive Order. In August 2016, while John Doe #1’s

11

application to become a lawful permanent resident was pending, he married an Iranian national

12

who lives in Iran. She applied for a visa as John Doe #1’s dependent and her application was

13

approved on November 3, 2016. As of January 9, 2017 John Doe #1 and his wife had submitted

14
all of the requisite documentation and paid immigrant visa processing fees, and were waiting for

15
16

notification that an interview was scheduled. At the time the Executive Order went into effect,

17

John Doe #1 expected his wife’s interview to be scheduled within no more than six weeks based

18

on information published by the National Visa Center. Under the Executive Order, John Doe #1’s

19

wife will not be interviewed or granted a visa.

20
21

133.183.

The executive order’sExecutive Order’s travel ban on Iranian nationals has

created significant fear, anxiety and insecurity for John Doe #1 and his wife regarding their future.

22
23
24
25
26
27

After her mother’s unexpected death in 2013, John Doe #1’s wife has been alone in Tehran. The
Executive Order’s ban forces John Doe to choose between his career and being together with his
wife, who remains in Tehran.
134.

Plaintiff John Doe #2, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm

because of the Executive Order. In 2006, John Doe #2’s uncle and cousin were killed in Iraq, after

28
45

1

which he also received threats. Three days after his uncle and cousin were killed, John Doe #2

2

fled to Syria, where he lived for three years. Because he continued to feel threatened in Syria,

3

John Doe #2 applied for refugee status in 2007, was approved in 2009, and arrived in the United

4

States in August 2009.

5
6

135.

In March 2015, Plaintiff John Doe #2 filed a petition for family-based immigration

visas for his parents, still in Iraq, so they could join him and his family in the United States.

7
8

Plaintiff John Doe #2’s parents are Iraqi nationals and retired teachers who worked in the United

9

States in the 1980s. Plaintiff John Doe #2’s parents had an immigration interview at the U.S.

10

Embassy in Baghdad in September 2016, and their visas were subsequently approved, although

11

the visas have not yet been issued. As of December 2016, the embassy told John Doe #2 that his

12

parents’ applications were still being processed.

13

136.

Expecting to be allowed to join Plaintiff John Doe #2 in the United States in early 2017,

14
John Doe #2’s parents sold their furniture and prepared for their move. When they learned about

15
16
17
18

the Executive Order, they realized that the travel ban would prevent them from joining their son
and his family in the United States.
137.

Plaintiff John Doe #2’s parents continue to face threats and harassment in Iraq. His

19

parents are moving between the houses of various friends and relatives to ensure they are not

20

targeted. John Doe #2 is unable to return to Iraq to see his parents for fear of putting himself, his

21

family in Iraq, or his wife and children in danger. Leaving the United States also puts John Doe

22
23
24

#2 in danger of not being able to return because of the Executive Order.
138.184.

Plaintiff John Doe #3, a lawful permanent resident, has suffered and will

25

continue to suffer harm because of the Executive Order. John Doe #3 recently applied to become

26

a naturalized citizen, and that petition remains pending with USCIS. Should the Executive Order

27
28
46

1

be fully implemented, the processing of that petition, and therefore John Doe #3’s naturalization,

2

will be delayed.

3

139.185.

4
5
6

In the summer of 2014, John Doe #3 married a national of Iran. In October

2014, John Doe #3 applied for an immigration visa on her behalf. Approximately 19 months later,
in May 2016, she had her interview at the U.S. Embassy. At that time, she was informed that her
documentation was complete and she needed to wait for administrative processing, but that she

7
8

should be able to join her husband in two to three months. She therefore resigned from her job

9

and began preparing to join her husband in the United States. The Executive Order, however, puts

10

the couple’s plans in peril, as it has at least delayed, and could prevent, John Doe #3’s wife from

11

obtaining her visa and joining her husband in United States.

12
13

140.186.

Since moving to the United States, John Doe #3 has returned to Iran on several

occasions to visit his wife, but is now fearful of leaving the United States. He had planned to visit

14
her in February 2017, but put his plans on hold in light of the Executive Order. John Doe #3 is

15
16

afraid that if he leaves the United States to see his wife, he will not be permitted to reenter the

17

United States or could be detained by immigration officials at the airport upon his return. As a

18

result, if John Doe #3 must leave the United States to visit Iran for an urgent family member, he

19

feels he must make plans for his apartment, car, savings account, and other aspects of his personal

20

life in the United States in order to prepare for the possibility that he may not be allowed to return.

21

187.

The Their continued separation has placed extraordinary stress on John Doe #3 and his

22
23
24
25
26
27

wife, and their relationship. John Doe #3 and his wife are young and feel as though they’ve been
unable to start their lives together because of the delays and uncertainty caused by the Executive
Order marginalizes the Individual.
188.

Plaintif Jane Doe #2, a U.S. citizen, has suffered and will continue to suffer harm

because of the Executive Order. She is enrolled in a local college where she is studying to become

28
47

1

a healthcare technician. She filed a family-based visa petition for her sister who is a Syrian refugee

2

currently living in Saudi Arabia on the border with Yemen. The petition is currently pending a

3

decision. Approval of the petition would allow Jane Doe #2’s sister to access the U.S. Refugee

4

Admissions Program (USRAP).

5
6

189.

Jane Doe #2’s sister, who is Muslim, was born in Damascus, Syria, where she grew up

and spent most of her life. She worked as a French teacher and her husband was a sales manager

7
8

at a local business. They have two young children. In 2012, continuous bombing of her

9

neighborhood forced her and her family to move to her parent-in-laws with nothing more than

10

their passports and the clothes on their backs. The bombing of her neighborhood continued and

11

she was never able to re-enter her home.

12
13

190.

While internally displaced in Syria, Jane Doe #2’s sister and husband learned that the

Syrian government’s selective service might be expanded to include men over the age of 30, which

14
would include her husband. After some of her husband’s friends were conscripted for the selective

15
16

service, they determined that he should flee immediately to Yemen. Because Jane Doe #2’s sister

17

was a government employee, she was required to apply for government approval before stopping

18

work and could not flee with him immediately. As a result, she and her oldest child remained in

19

Syria—at the time she was pregnant with their youngst child. When, in 2013, she finally received

20

government approval to discontinue work, she and her child fled to join her husband in Yemen. In

21

Yemen, she registered with the U.N High Commissioner for Refugees, which provided her with a

22
23
24
25

temporary protection certificate explaining that she should be protected from forcible return to
Syria.
191.

As a result of the war in Yemen, Jane Doe #2’s sister and her family had to flee again,

26

this time to Saudi Arabia, where they now live in a refugee hotel close to the border of Yemen.

27

They remain under constant threat from nearby rocket file and military conflict. The shelling

28
48

1
2
3
4
5
6

where they currently live is so constant that the local school is only open one to two days per week,
if at all. Jane Doe #2’s children are unable to go to school and are receiving no formal education.
192.

The building where Jane Doe #2’s family is living is infested with bugs and human

refuse from the bathroom in the unit above theirs leaks into their room. Jane Doe #2 and her family,
are constantly sick and her children regularly vomit. The Saudi Arabian government is also
regularly turning off the power to the building there they live with other refugees in order to make

7
8
9

life so intolerable that they will leave.
193.

Jane Doe #2’s sister and her family also face sever discrimination in Saudi Arabia on

10

account of their status as Syrian refugees. Her husband has had a very difficult time finding work

11

and even when he can work, he is often cheated out of his wages and otherwise exploited. Jane

12

Doe #2’s sister is unable to leave the apartment where they are staying in the daytime because

13

without being accompanied by her husband, the risk that she would be abducted as a Syrian refugee

14
woman is too high. As a result, her children did not believe that the sun rose and set in Saudi

15
16
17
18

Arabia because the room that they are staying in does not have any windows and they only left the
room at night when Jane Doe #2’s husband could accompany them.
194.

As Syrian refugees, Jane Doe #2’s sister and her family are eligible and qualify for the

19

Priority-2 Direct Access Program for Iraqi and Syrian Beneficiaries of Form I-130 Petition for

20

Alien Relatives. If the Executive Order remains in effect, Jane Doe #2’s sister will not be

21

interviewed or granted a visa. Moreover, she will have little chance of traveling to the United

22
23
24

States as a refugee given the suspension of USRAP, the high likelihood that Syrian refugees will
continued to be barred from entry to the United States, and the lowered refugee admissions cap of

25

50,000.

26

195.

27

Plaintiff Meteab, a lawful permanent resident, has also suffered and will continue to

suffer harm because of the Executive Order. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mr. Meteab

28
49

1

and his four brothers all cooperated with the U.S. military in helping to establish the transitional

2

government, in the wake of the conflict in Najaf, Iraq. Because of their cooperation with the U.S.

3

government, they were targeted and threatened by armed militia groups in Iraq.

4
5
6

196.

Mr. Meteab is a Sunni Muslim, as are his brothers. In Iraq, they lived together in a Shi’a

neighborhood. In 2013, Mr. Meteab and his family were warned by neighbors and community
members that if they failed to leave the area, their family would be killed. In 2013, Mr. Meteab’s

7
8

nephew Mosad was shot in the leg. After this, on December 25, 2013, Plaintiff Meteab’s older

9

brother fled to Jordan with his children and two of his nephews, including Mosad. Plaintiff Meteab

10

and his wife and children joined them in Jordan on January 5, 2014. Plaintiff Meteab’s three other

11

brothers also fled to Jordan in 2014. All of them applied for and received recognition as refugees

12

from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

13

197.

In August 2015, after being approved as a refugee, Plaintiff Meteab came to the United

14
States with his wife and children. His three other brothers, Ali, Abdulateef, and Ahmed, have been

15
16

approved as refugees but remain in Jordan awaiting resettlement,. Abdulateef was approved for

17

resettlement in Canada but is awaiting final clearance. Mr. Meteab’s brothers Ali and Ahmed, were

18

approved for resettlement in the United States.

19
20
21

198.

In November 2016, Plaintiff Meteab’s brothers Ali and Ahmed were told by the

International Organization for Migration that while their refugee applications had been approved,
they still did not have travel documents to come to the United States. Jewish Family Services

22
23
24
25
26
27

notified Plaintiff Meteab’s family of this update at the same time. When Mr. Meteab’s brothers
learned about the Executive Order from the news in January 2017, they realized the travel ban
would prevent them from joining him in the United States.
199.

Since the January 27th Executive Order was released, Mr. Meteab and his wife have

experienced anti-Muslim sentiment and felt very uncomfortable and insecure in their community,

28
50

1

causing them acute mental stress. They have experienced hostility in public, with people staring at

2

Mr. Meteab’s wife, who wears a hijab, and refusing to stop for them at crosswalks. Their nieces,

3

who also came to the United States as refugees, have been harassed in school.

4
5
6

200.

Plaintiff Harrison has suffered and will continue to suffer harm as a result of the

Executive Order. Mr. Harrison is a citizen of the United States and lives in Euless, Texas. His
fiancé is a citizen and resident of Iran and is Muslim. They have been together since November

7
8
9

2015.
201.

In March 2016, Plaintiff Harrison petitioned for a K-1 (fiancé) visa for his partner

10

(now-fiancé) . After the petition was approved, Plaintiff Harrison’s partner was interviewed at the

11

U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey on November 7, 2016. His K-1 visa application was approved

12

and administrative processing completed on January 17, 2017. The U.S. Embassy in Ankara

13

informed Mr. Harrison’s partner that he needed to submit his passport for the visa to be issued.

14
202.

On January 30, 2017, after the January 27 Order was signed, the U.S. Embassy in

15
16

Turkey emailed Plaintiff Harrison’s fiancé and explained that his visa process was on hold and

17

that he should contact them again when the travel ban had been lifted to continue the processing

18

of his visa.

19

203.

20
21

Subsequently on on February 7, 2017, the U.S. Embassy in Turkey sent a follow-up

email to Plaintiff Harrison’s fiancé, stating that the embassy had been informed of the ruling in
Washington v. Trump and that he should send in his passport to the U.S. Embassy in Ankara,

22
23
24

Turkey.
204.

On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff Harrison and his fiancé traveled again to Turkey to submit

25

the passport and to see one another. On March 6, 2017, the new executive order was announced.

26

As the embassy has not provided additional information or told Plaintiff Harrison’s fiancé that

27

they are no longer processing visas, they submitted his passport on March 8, 2017. They fear the

28
51

1

U.S. Embassy in Ankara will not issue the visa before March 16. Even if there is a waiver process

2

might apply to his fiancé, Mr. Harrison is concerned he may not receive the waiver and/or that his

3

fiancé may be required to start the entire process over, resulting in prolonged separation and

4

anxiety for both of them.

5
6

205.

If the Executive Order remains in effect, Plaintiff Harrison and his partner will remain

separated. Mr. Harrison cannot currently travel to Iran, which has put in place a reciprocal ban on

7
8

U.S. citizen visitors, and the travel to Turkey to see one another is a significant financial burden

9

for Mr. Harrison. Moreover, Plaintiff Harrison’s partner has had some negative interactions with

10

the morality police in Iran, leading to harassment and, in one instance, an assault on Mr. Harrison’s

11

partner.

12

206.

13

Plaintiff Ibrahim Ahmed Mohomed has suffered and will continue to suffer harm as a

result of the Executive Order. Mr. Mohomed is a United States citizen of Somali origin who lives

14
in Columbus, Ohio. He came to the United States as a refugee in 2009. He is Muslim.

15
16
17
18

207.

Mr. Mohomed’s wife and nine children have been approved to come to the United

States as refugees. They are all in Ethiopia waiting for authorization to travel to the United States.
208.

Plaintiff Mohomed is a member of a minority clan in Somalia. When he and his family

19

were living in Mogadishu, Mr. Mohomed was targeted and threatened by members of the majority

20

clans in Mogadishu, who knew he did not have protection. He came to the United States as a

21

refugee in March 2009.

22
23
24

209.

With the rise of insurgents from al-Shabaab and increased fighting in Mogadishu, after

Mr. Mohomed’s departure, his wife and children fled first to Yemen and then, in 2011, to Ethiopia,

25

where Mr. Mohomed was able to visit them. He applied for them to join him in the United States,

26

and in 2013, they were approved for resettlement in the United States. However, they were still

27

waiting for travel documents when the January 27 order was issued.

28
52

1

210.

After the January 27 order was signed, Mr. Mohomed and his family learned from the

2

news that under the new Executive Order, his family would not be able to come to the United

3

States. They remain in Ethiopia waiting to join Mr. Mohomed.

4
5
6

141.211.

The Executive Orders conveys an official message of disapproval and hostility

toward the individual Muslim Plaintiffs and their families, and making clear that the government
deems them outsiders or second-class citizens who are not full members of the political

7
8
9
10

community. This marginalizes them, subjects them to baseless suspicion, scrutiny, and social and
political isolation on the basis of religion and national origin, and inflicts other stigmatic and
dignitary injuries.

11
12
13

Class Allegations
142.212.

Individual Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 23(b) (1) and (b) (2), on behalf of themselves and all other persons in the United

14
States for whom the Executive Order either interferes with family reunification or the ability to

15
16

travel internationally and return to the United States. This class includes:

17

a. Individuals in the United States who currently have an approved or pending petition to

18

the United States government to be reunited with family members who are nationals of

19

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen (the “Designated Countries”), or

20

who will soon file such petition;

21

b. Refugees in the United States who have currently pending, or will soon file, a petition

22
23
24

to the United States government to be reunited with family members; and
c. Nationals of the Designated Countries who reside in the United States and who wish to

25

travel abroad and return to United States or who, prior to issuance of the Executive

26

Order, did travel abroad with the intent to return and are currently abroad.

27
28
53

1

143.213.

The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. According to

2

the Annual Report of the Visa Office, in 2015, the last year for which data are available, the United

3

States issued approximately 8570,000 immigrant and non-immigrant visas to nationals from the

4

sevensix Designated Countries. The U.S. government haspreviously estimated that between

5
6

60,000 and 100,000 people arewere affected by Section 53(c) of the ExecutiveJanuary 27 Order.
144.214.

The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of law,

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

including but not limited to whether the Executive Order violates their associational, religious
exercise and due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
145.215.

The claims of the Plaintiff Class members share common issues of fact,

including but not limited to whether the Executive Order is being or will be enforced so as to
prevent them or their family members from entering the United States from abroad or from re-

14
entering the United States should they choose to leave the United States briefly, even though they

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

would otherwise be admissible.
146.216.

The claims or defenses of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or

defenses of members of the Plaintiff Class.
147.217.

The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

Plaintiff class. The named Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic
to the interests of the Plaintiff class. The attorneys representing the named Plaintiffs include

22
23
24
25
26

experienced civil rights attorneys who are considered able practitioners in federal constitutional
litigation. These attorneys should be appointed as class counsel.
148.218.

Defendants have acted, have threatened to act, and will act on grounds generally

applicable to the Plaintiff Class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate

27
28
54

1
2
3
4
5
6

to the class as a whole. The Plaintiff Class may therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ.
P.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) (2).
149.219.

Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class

would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for individual members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff Class may
therefore be properly certified under Fed. R. Civ. P.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).

7
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

8

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Establishment Clause, First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

9
10

150.220.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

11
12
13

herein.
151.221.

The Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause by singling out Muslims

14

for disfavored treatment and granting special preferences to non-Muslims. It. It has the purpose

15

and effect of inhibiting religion, and it is neither justified by, nor closely fitted to, any compelling

16

governmental interest.

17

152.

In addition, Sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Executive Order discriminate between

18
“minority religions” and majority religions, explicitly granting official preference to foreign

19
20
21

adherents of minority faiths in the refugee-application process. This express preference is neither
justified by, nor closely fitted to, any compelling governmental interest.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Equal Protection, Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

22
23
24
25

153.222.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.

26
27
28
55

1

154.223.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

2

provides that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

3

law.” The Clause contains an equal protection component.

4
5
6

155.224.

The Executive Order discriminates on the basis of religion and national origin,

each a suspect classification, and is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental
interest, and thereby violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.

7
8
9
10

156.225.

Additionally, the Executive Order was substantially motivated by an intent to

discriminate against Muslims, on whom it has a disparate effect, in further violation of the equal
protection component of the Due Process Clause.

11
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Immigration and Nationality Act & Administrative Procedure Act)

12
13
14

157.226.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.

15
16
17

158.227.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides, with certain exceptions not

applicable here, that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against

18

in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth,

19

or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).

20
21

159.228.

Several clients of IRAP are otherwise eligible and approved for refugee status,

but pursuant to the Executive Order, their entry to the United States will be denied or delayed. The

22
Executive Order on its face purports to deny entry to these clients of IRAP because of their

23
24
25

nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence, in violation of § 1152(a)(1)(A).
160.229.

Plaintiffs Takaloo, Harrison, Mohomed, Jane Doe #2 and John Does #1 through

26

#4, and Jane Doe #1#3 have filed petitions for immigrant visas for members of their families, some

27

of whom have subsequently received visas. Plaintiff Mohomed’s wife and nine children’s refugee

28
56

1

visa applications have been approved, but they have not received travel documents or had their

2

travel scheduled. Plaintiff Harrison’s fiancé’s visa has been approved and the processing complete

3

but he still does not have a visa issued. Pursuant to the Executive Order, the processing of those

4

petitions and/or the subsequent issuance of visas and travel documents will be delayed or denied,

5
6

and/or their family members with facially valid visas will be denied entry. The Executive Order
on its face purports to deny or delay these applications because Plaintiffs’ petitions for their family

7
8
9

members to receive immigrant visas and/or to use previously-issued, facially valid immigrant visas
because of theirmembers’ nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence, in violation of §

10

1152(a)(1)(A).

11

161.230.

12
13

The Executive Order on its face mandates discrimination against those who

apply for and/or hold immigrant visas on the basis of their nationality, place of birth, and/or place
of residence, in violation of § 1152(a)(1)(A).

14
162.231.

The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, constitute final agency action and

15
16

are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary

17

to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority,

18

or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law, in

19

violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).

20

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.)

21
22
23
24
25

163.232.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
164.233.

The Executive Order will have the effect of imposing a special disability on the

basis of religious views or religious status, by denying or impeding Muslim Plaintiffs, on account

26
of their religion, from accessing benefits relating to their own or their family members’

27
28

immigration status. In doing so, the Executive Order places a substantial burden on Muslims’
57

1
2
3
4
5
6

exercise of religion in a way that is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.
165.234.

This substantial burden is not imposed in furtherance of a compelling

governmental interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
et seq.

7
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Refugee Act & Administrative Procedure Act)

8
9
10

166.235.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.

11
12
13

167.236.

ThePursuant to the President’s congressionally delegated authority under 8

U.S.C. § 1182(f), the Executive Order purports to limit the number of refugees who may be

14

admitted in fiscal year 2017 to 50,000, despite an earlier proclamation setting a limit of 110,000,

15

in violation of the Refugee Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(2).

16
17
18

168.

The Executive Order purports to alter the prior allocation of refugee admissions for

fiscal year 2017 by indefinitely prohibiting “the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees,” in
violation of the Refugee Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(3).

19
20

169.237.

President Trump did not engage in “appropriate consultation” prior to altering

21

the number and allocation of refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017, in violation of the Refugee

22

Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(3)..

23
24
25

170.

The Executive Order’s preference for Christian refugees in the resettlement process,

and the disfavoring of Muslim and Syrian refugees, violate the congressional mandate that refugee
resettlement services “shall be provided to refugees without regard to race, religion, nationality,

26
sex, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(5).

27
28
58

1
2
3
4
5
6

171.238.

The Executive Order makes other alterations to the refugee admission process

that are not authorized by the Refugee Act and are in violation of the Refugee Act.
172.239.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted byhave been

undertaken pursuant to Section 56 of the EOExecutive Order, as set forth above, constitute final
agency action and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory

7
8
9
10

jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of
procedure required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§
706(2)(A)-(D).

11

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Administrative Procedure Act)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

173.240.

The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth

herein.
174.241.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by the Executive Order,

as set forth above, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
175.242.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by the Executive Order,

19
20

as set forth above, are contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, including

21

rights protected by the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in violation of the

22

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

23
24
25

176.243.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by the Executive Order,

as set forth above, are in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
statutory right, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).

26
27
28
59

1

177.244.

The actions of Defendants that are required or permitted by the Executive Order,

2

as set forth above, were without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of the

3

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

4
5
6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A.

A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officials, agents,

7
employees, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from implementing

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

or enforcing any portion of the Executive Order;
B.

A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that the entire Executive Order is unlawful

and invalid;
C.

An order awarding Plaintiffs costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses

pursuant to any applicable law;
D.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Melissa S. Keaney
Justin B. Cox (Bar No. 17550)
National Immigration Law Center
1989 College Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Karen C. Tumlin†
Nicholas Espíritu†
Melissa S. Keaney†
Esther Sung†
National Immigration Law Center
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Dated: March 10, 2017

Omar C. Jadwat†
Lee Gelernt†
Hina Shamsi†
Hugh Handeyside†
Sarah L. Mehta†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

60

1
2

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Justin B. Cox (Bar No. 17550)
National Immigration Law Center
1989 College Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30317
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Cecillia D. Wang†
Cody H. Wofsy†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Cole†
Daniel Mach†
Heather L. Weaver†
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ David Rocah
David Rocah (Bar No. 27315)
Deborah A. Jeon (Bar No. 06905)
Sonia Kumar (Bar No. 07196)
Nicholas Taichi Steiner (Bar
No.19670)
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Maryland
3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350
Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

25
26

†Admitted Pro Hac Vice

27

Counsel for Plaintiffs

28
61

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of March, 2017, I caused a PDF version of the

3

foregoing document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court, using the

4

CM/ECF System for filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF

5
6

registrants.
Dated: March 10, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

7
8

/s/ Melissa S. Keaney

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
62