Arab American Civil Rights League et al v. Donald Trump et al

Filing 119

ORDER: (1) Granting Joint Motion 118 for Clarification; (2) Allowing Plaintiffs to File A Third Amended Complaint; and (3) Deeming Moot Defendants' Motion 76 to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Motion 104 to Compel Production of Documents. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (see image for details and dates) (LVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARAB AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-10310 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER: (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION [Doc. 118]; (2) ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; and (3) DEEMING MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 76] AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [Doc. 104] Plaintiffs’ operative complaint challenges President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13780, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (the “Executive Order”). In June, the Court entered an order staying proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s review of the Executive Order. However, because the challenged provisions of the Executive Order expired by their own terms, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments in the lower courts and remanded “with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge[s] to [the] Executive Order.” See Trump v. Hawaii, --- U.S. ---, 2017 WL 4782860, at *1 (Oct. 24, 2017); Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, --- U.S. ---, 2017 WL 4518553, at *1 (Oct. 10, 2017). On September 24, 2017, before the provisions of the Executive Order expired, President Trump issued a Proclamation entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 24, 2017) (the “Proclamation”). Among other things, the Proclamation indefinitely suspends immigration from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Yemen and Somalia, and suspends entry by certain classes of non-immigrants – e.g., students, tourists, and business travelers – from those countries. See id., §§ 2(a)-(e), (g)-(h). On October 24, the Court entered an order directing the parties to file a joint statement addressing the status of the case “once proceedings are concluded in the Supreme Court concerning the . . . Proclamation.” The parties filed a joint motion seeking clarification of that order, which is now before the Court. [Doc. 118]. That motion is GRANTED. The Court further provides that: (1) The intention of the Court’s October 24 order was to wait for guidance from the Supreme Court if it addressed the merits of the Proclamation in the stillpending Trump v. Hawaii case; however, the Supreme Court remanded the case that same day without addressing the merits. The parties should disregard the above-quoted portion of the October 24 order. 2 (2) Because the challenged provisions of the Executive Order expired, Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint does not present a case or controversy. However, issuance of the Proclamation potentially provides Plaintiffs with new causes of action. Plaintiffs may, as requested, file a third amended complaint; their amended complaint is due December 15, 2017. Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint by January 15, 2018. (3) Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss [Doc. 76] is MOOT. (4) Because no pending case or controversy exists, the Court will not decide Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents. That motion [Doc. 104] is MOOT. Plaintiffs must ask for discovery in the normal course, once Defendants answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. IT IS ORDERED. s/Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge Dated: November 16, 2017 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?