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

Filing 117

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE re 108 . Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

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