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)

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