Sarsour et al v. Trump et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Director of National Intelligence, John F. Kelly, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of State (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0422-5353656), filed by Alia Salem, John Doe No. 5, Dawud Walid, John Doe No. 10, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 6, Linda Sarsour, John Doe No. 2, Imran Siddiqi, John Doe No. 7, Karen Dabdoub, Corey Saylor, John Doe No. 9, Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Rashida Tlaib, Hussam Ayloush, Adam Soltani, Julia Shearson, Namira Islam, John Doe No. 4, Basim Elkarra, Zahra Billoo, John Doe No. 8, Hassan Shibly, John Doe No. 3, Nihad Awad. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit Executive Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit EDVA TRO, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit EDNY TRO, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit WDWA TRO, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit EDCA TRO, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit EDMA TRO, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(jlan)

Download PDF
Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-3 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X HAMEED KHALID DARWEESH and HAIDER SAMEER ABDULKHALEQ ALSHA WI, 011 beltalf oftltemselves and otlters similarly situated, Petitioners, DECISION AND ORDER - against - 17 Civ. 480 (AMD) DONALD TRUMP, President oft/1e United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("OHS"); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN,Acting Commissioner ofCBP; JAMES T. MADDEN, New York Field Director, CBP,, Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------X ANN DONNELLY, District Judge. On January 28, 2017, the petitioners filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. IT APPEARING to the Court from the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, the other submissions, the arguments of counsel, and the hearing held on the 28th of January, 201 7, 1. The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution; Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-3 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 45 2. There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 2 7, 2017 Executive Order; 3. The issuance of the stay of removal will not injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; 4. It is appropriate and just that, pending completion of a hearing before the Court on the merits of the Petition, that the Respondents be enjoined and restrained from the commission of further acts and misconduct in violation of the Constitution as described in the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal. WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with them, from the date of this Order, are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to assure compliance with the Court's order, the Court directs service of this Order upon the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, and further directs the United States Marshals Service to take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set forth in this Order. Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1-3 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 46 SO ORDERED. M. Donnelly nited States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 28, 2017

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?