State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al

Filing 117


Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 117 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, 11 12 v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 13 CASE NO. C17-0141JLR ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE Defendants. 14 On March 6, 2017, Defendants filed a notice informing the court that President 15 16 Donald J. Trump had signed a new Executive Order, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“New Executive Order”), and that the 17 New Executive Order revoked Executive Order No. 13,769, which has been the subject 18 of this litigation. (Notice (Dkt. # 108).) Defendants also informed the court that they 19 intend to begin enforcing the New Executive Order on its March 16, 2017, effective date. 20 (Id. at 1, 13.) Defendants’ notice outlines the provisions of the New Executive Order, 21 describes how the New Executive Order differs from Executive Order No. 13,769, and 22 ORDER - 1 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 117 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 3 1 states Defendants’ conclusion that the court’s “injunctive order does not limit the 2 Government’s ability to immediately begin enforcing the New Executive Order.” (Id. at 3 14.) 4 On March 9, 2017, Plaintiffs State of Washington and State of Minnesota filed 5 responses to Defendants’ notice. (Wash. Resp. (Dkt. # 113); Minn. Resp. (Dkt. # 114).) 6 In its response, State of Washington asserts that sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the New 7 Executive Order have the same effect as portions of Executive Order No. 13,769 that the 8 court has already enjoined. (Wash. Resp. at 6.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants cannot 9 unilaterally decide to enforce sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the New Executive Order without 10 first moving to modify the court’s prior injunction and demonstrating that they meet the 11 criteria for such a modification. (See id. at 6-14; see also Minn. Resp. at 2 (“Defendants 12 cannot unilaterally modify a preliminary injunction. . . . The appropriate procedure . . . is 13 for Defendants to file a motion to modify the preliminary injunction if they seek to 14 change it.”) 15 The court notes that there is no pending motion concerning the foregoing issues 16 presently before the court. (See generally Dkt.) Defendants filed a “notice”—not a 17 motion to modify the injunction; and Plaintiffs each filed a “response”—not a motion to 18 enforce the injunction. (See Notice; Wash. Resp.; Minn. Resp.) The court declines to 19 decide any of the issues raised in the parties’ filings until such time as one of the parties 20 files a motion that is both properly noted under the court’s Local Rules and properly 21 briefed. Further, the court notes that the New Executive Order revokes Executive Order 22 No. 13,769, which was the subject of Plaintiffs’ original complaint and first amended ORDER - 2 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 117 Filed 03/10/17 Page 3 of 3 1 complaint. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1); Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 18).) Plaintiffs have 2 informed the court that they intend to move to file a second amended complaint no later 3 than March 15, 2017. (Wash. Resp. at 3 n.1.) Accordingly, the court also declines to 4 resolve the apparent dispute between the parties concerning the applicability of the 5 court’s injunctive order to the New Executive Order until such time as an amended 6 complaint that addresses the New Executive Order is properly before the court. 7 Dated this 10th day of March, 2017. 8 9 A 10 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 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?