Doe et al v. Donald Trump, President of The United States et al

Filing 106

ORDER denying Defendants' 95 Motion to stay the court's preliminary injunction order pending appeal (Dkt. # 95 ) and their request for a more limited in stay contained in their January 5, 2018, notice (Dkt. # 104 ). Signed by Judge James L. Robart.(PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
JOHN DOE, et al.,
10

CASE NO. C17-0178JLR
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

v.
11
12

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

(RELATING TO BOTH CASES)

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. C17-1707JLR

16
17

DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is Defendants Donald Trump, United States Department of State,
Rex Tillerson, United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), United States
Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, Michele James, Office of the

22

ORDER - 1

1

Director of National Intelligence, Elaine Duke, and Daniel Coats’s (collectively,

2

“Defendants” or “the Government”) emergency motion for a stay pending the appeal of

3

the court’s December 23, 2017, order granting Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary

4

injunctions in the consolidated cases. (MFS (Dkt. # 95); see also PI Order (Dkt. # 92).)

5

The court directed Plaintiffs in the two consolidated cases 1 to file separate responses to

6

Defendants’ motion. (12/30/17 Order (Dkt. # 97).) The court has considered the motion,

7

Plaintiffs’ responses (JFS Resp. (Dkt. # 100); Doe Resp. (Dkt. # 101)), the relevant

8

portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES the

9

motion.

10

II.

11

BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2017, the court issued a preliminary injunction in the

12

consolidated cases against certain aspects of Executive Order No. 13,815 (“EO-4”), 82

13

Fed. Reg. 50,055 (Oct. 27, 2017), and its accompanying memorandum to President

14

Trump, from Secretary of State Tillerson, Acting Secretary of DHS Duke, and Director of

15

National Intelligence (“DNI”) Coats. (See generally PI Order; see also Lin Decl. (Dkt.

16

# 46) ¶ 3, Ex. B (attaching a copy of the memorandum) (hereinafter, “Agency Memo”).)

17

//

18
19
20
21
22

1

Plaintiffs in Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. C17-0178JLR (W.D. Wash.), include John
Doe, Joseph Doe, James Doe, Jack Doe, Jason Doe, Jeffrey Doe, Episcopal Diocese of Olympia,
and Council on American Islamic Relations–Washington (collectively, “Doe Plaintiffs”).
Plaintiffs in Jewish Family Services, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. C17-1707JLR (W.D. Wash.),
include Afkab Mohamed Hussein, Allen Vaught, John Does 1-3, Jane Does 4-6, John Doe 7,
Jewish Family Service of Seattle (“JFS-S”), and Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley (“JFSSV”) (collectively, “JFS Plaintiffs”). On November 29, 2017, the court consolidated these two
cases under Case No. C17-0178JLR. (Min. Order (Dkt. #61).) Notations of docket entries in
this order that are preceded by “17-1707” are docket entries in Case No. C17-1707JLR.
Otherwise, docket entry notations refer to entries in Case No. C17-0178JLR.

ORDER - 2

1

The preliminary injunction enjoins Defendants 2 “from enforcing those provisions of the

2

Agency Memo that suspend the processing of [following-to-join (“FTJ”)] refugee

3

applications or suspend the admission of FTJ refugees into the United States” and “those

4

provisions of the Agency Memo that suspend or inhibit, including through the diversion

5

of resources, the processing of refugee applications or the admission into the United

6

States of refugees from [Security Advisory Opinion (“SAO”) list] countries.” (PI Order

7

at 64-65.)

8

On December 27, 2017, Defendants filed a motion asking the court to reconsider

9

certain aspects of the preliminary injunction related to SAO countries. (MTR (Dkt.

10

# 93).) Defendants’ motion asked the court to reconsider its ruling that a bona fide

11

relationship with an American organization includes refugee applicants covered by a

12

formal assurance from a refugee resettlement agency. (See generally id.; see also PI

13

Order at 63 n.31.) At the request of the court, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated response.

14

(MTR Resp. (Dkt. # 98); 12/29/17 Order (Dkt. # 94).) On January 5, 2018, the court

15

denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. (1/5/18 Order (Dkt. # 103).)

16

Meanwhile, on December 29, 2017, Defendants filed a second motion, which they

17

denominated as an “emergency motion” for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending

18

an appeal. (See MFS.) The court again directed Plaintiffs to file a response to

19

Defendants’ motion, but this time allowed Doe Plaintiffs and JFS Plaintiffs to file

20

separately. (See 12/30/17 Order (Dkt. # 97).) Doe Plaintiffs and JFS Plaintiffs filed their

21
2

22

The preliminary injunction applies to all Defendants except for President Trump. (See
PI Order at 64 n.32.)

ORDER - 3

1

responses on January 4, 2018. (See JFS Resp.; Doe Resp.) On the same day, Defendants

2

filed a notice of appeal of the court’s preliminary injunction. (Notice of Appeal (Dkt.

3

# 99).) Finally, on January 5, 2018, Defendants filed a “notice,” which asked the court to

4

stay that portion of the preliminary injunction that Defendants unsuccessfully challenged

5

in their motion for reconsideration. (Notice re: MFS (Dkt. # 104).) The court now

6

considers Defendants’ emergency motion for a stay.

7

III.

ANALYSIS

8

In analyzing Defendants’ motion, the court first considers its own jurisdiction to

9

decide the motion. Next, the court considers certain statements in Defendants’ motion,

10

which impliedly modify the court’s preliminary injunction unilaterally. Finally, the court

11

considers the merits of Defendants’ motion to stay.

12

A.

13

Jurisdiction
Because Defendants filed a notice of appeal (see Notice of Appeal), the court first

14

considers its own jurisdiction to decide Defendants’ emergency motion for a stay pending

15

appeal. “While a preliminary injunction is pending on appeal, a district court lacks

16

jurisdiction to modify the injunction in such a manner as to ‘finally adjudicate substantial

17

rights directly involved in the appeal.’” A & M Records v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091,

18

1099 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 285 U.S. 165, 177

19

(1992)). Nevertheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) allows the court to issue

20

further orders with respect to an injunction, even during an appeal, in order to preserve

21

the status quo or ensure compliance with its earlier orders. See Nat. Res. Def. Council,

22

Inc. v. Sw. Marine, Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). Indeed, “[t]he plain

ORDER - 4

1

language of Rule 62(c) allows the district court to ‘suspend, modify, restore, or grant an

2

injunction’ during the pendency of [an] interlocutory appeal, and such action can inure to

3

the benefit of plaintiffs or defendants.” Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th

4

Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c)); see also Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1) (“A party

5

must ordinarily move first in the district court for the following relief: (A) a stay of

6

the . . . order of a district court pending appeal; . . . or (C) an order suspending,

7

modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.”). Based on

8

these authorities, the court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider Defendants’

9

emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction despite the pending appeal. The

10

court’s exercise of jurisdiction, however, may “not ‘materially alter the status of the case

11

on appeal.’” Mayweathers, 258 F.3d at 935 (quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 242

12

F.3d at 1166).

13

B.

Defendants’ Attempts to Unilaterally Modify the Preliminary Injunction

14

Defendants declare in their motion they “do not understand the preliminary

15

injunction to require affirmative action to undo any of the steps that were taken to

16

implement the Joint Memorandum prior to December 23.” (MFS at 4; see also id. at 6

17

(“Defendants do not understand the preliminary injunction to require them to take

18

affirmative steps to undo decisions that were made consistent with the [Agency Memo]

19

prior to the preliminary injunction’s issuance.”).) To the extent that this declaration is an

20

attempt to unilaterally modify the preliminary injunction, the court rejects it. 3

21
3

22

At this point, the court declines to consider the possibility that Defendants’ declaration
is an improper attempt to excuse noncompliance with the court’s order. The court simply notes

ORDER - 5

1

The court’s preliminary injunction requires Defendants to take actions that are

2

necessary to undo those portions of the Agency Memo that are enjoined. For example, if

3

Defendants sent guidance suspending the admission of FTJ refugees or refugees from

4

SAO countries, they must rescind that guidance. If they issued instructions to

5

de-prioritize the processing of applications from SAO countries, they must reverse those

6

instructions. Defendants are required to restore the status quo prior to the issuance of the

7

Agency Memo with respect to the processing of applications from FTJ refugees and

8

refugees from SAO countries. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions (see MFS at 5), this

9

requirement does not transform the preliminary injunction into a mandatory one, see Ariz.

10

Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that an

11

injunction that prohibits the enforcement of a new law or policy is prohibitory, not

12

mandatory, even where the policy has already taken effect prior to filing the lawsuit).

13

In any event, Defendants’ arguments that they should be excused from taking any

14

“affirmative actions” to comply with the preliminary injunction are conclusory and

15

unsupported by any evidence. (See, e.g., MFS at 5 (asserting without evidence that there

16

“is significant doubt about whether it would even be possible for Defendants to undo

17

some of their prior decisions”).) Indeed, the only concrete example that Defendants

18

provide to support their argument relates to certain “circuit rides” that Defendants

19

scheduled for the second quarter of fiscal year 2018 pursuant to the Agency Memo’s

20

directive to divert resources away from processing SAO refugee applications. (See id. at

21
22

that, in the absence of a stay, Defendants’ failure to comply with the preliminary injunction
could result in a possible finding of contempt and the possible imposition of sanctions.

ORDER - 6

1

4-5.) Defendants posit that they “might” have to cancel the presently scheduled “circuit

2

rides” and refugee applicant interviews if they are required to comply with the

3

preliminary injunction. (See id. at 4-5 (asserting this possibility without evidentiary

4

support).) First, contrary to Defendants’ assertions, nothing in the preliminary injunction

5

requires Defendants to cancel any already-scheduled circuit rides or refugee interviews.

6

Complying with the preliminary injunction, however, does require Defendants to restore

7

any circuit rides that they would have scheduled absent the Agency Memo. Second,

8

Defendants have submitted no evidence that such interviews could not be restored

9

without cancelling previously scheduled interviews. (See MFS; see generally Dkt.)

10

Indeed, the time to submit such evidence, to the extent it exists, would have been when

11

the court was considering Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction. Thus, the court

12

rejects Defendants’ apparent attempts to unilaterally modify the preliminary injunction

13

and again orders Defendants to comply with the preliminary injunction as written.

14

C.

15

Motion to Stay
In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he standard for evaluating stays pending appeal is similar

16

to that employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.”

17

Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). Granting a stay is within the

18

court’s discretion, and the party seeking the stay bears the burden of demonstrating “that

19

the circumstances justify the exercise of that discretion.” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d

20

1151, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009)). The

21

court’s discretion is guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a

22

strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be

ORDER - 7

1

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure

2

the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”

3

Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (internal

4

quotation marks omitted).

5

1. Defendants Fail to Make a Strong Showing that They Are Likely to Succeed
on the Merits

6
Defendants fail to make the necessary “strong showing” that they are likely to
7
succeed on the merits. See id. Defendants offer no new arguments or analysis
8
concerning their likelihood of success on the merits. (See MFS at 10-12.) Instead,
9
Defendants simply rehash arguments this court has already rejected. (See id.) The court
10
has previously explained why (1) the suspension of the FTJ refugee program is
11
inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(2)(A) (PI Order at 48-51), (2) the suspension of
12
refugees from SAO countries is inconsistent with the Refugee Act of 1980 (id. at 51-56),
13
and (3) promulgation of the Agency Memo required notice and comment rulemaking
14

under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) (id. at 39-46). 4 Nothing in

15
Defendants’ motion for a stay causes the court to reevaluate those rulings.
16
//
17
//
18
//
19
20
21
22

4

Defendants assert that the court’s ruling that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their
APA rulemaking claim would “threaten agencies’ abilities to take important actions . . . on a
timely basis” or to “quickly and continually revise screening procedures” during national
emergencies. (See MFS at 12.) However, the court’s ruling does not throw open the door to
rulemaking in every instance. For example, the APA contains a “good cause” exception to
rulemaking, see 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B), which Defendants chose not to invoke here.

ORDER - 8

1

2. Defendants Fail to Show Irreparable Harm Absent a Stay or that the Public
Interest Favors a Stay

2
Defendants fail to show that they will be irreparably injured absent a stay or that
3

the public interest favors a stay. 5 First, Defendants assert that “[e]ven a single State

4
‘suffers a form of irreparable injury’ ‘[a]ny time [it] is enjoined by a court from
5
effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people.” (MFS at 3 (alterations in
6
original) (quoting Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2012)).) Here, however, it is
7
Defendants who—based on the Agency Memo—seek to override statutes enacted by
8
Congress. As the court explained in its preliminary injunction, the enjoined Agency
9
Memo provisions concerning FTJ refugees run roughshod over the nondiscriminatory
10
family reunification provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(2)(A). (PI Order at 48-51.) In
11
addition, the Agency Memo’s SAO provisions (1) seek to evade the “permanent and
12
systemic procedure” for refugee admission and resettlement that Congress established in
13
the Refugee Act of 1980, (2) rework the Act’s definition of “refugee” under 8 U.S.C.
14
1101(a)(42), and (3) impermissibly alter the admissibility standards set by Congress in 8
15
U.S.C. § 1182(a). (Id. at 51-56.) Where the Government’s actions thwart Congressional
16
intent and undermine Congressionally-enacted statutes, the public interest is best served
17
by curtailing those actions. See Hawaii v. Trump, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 6554184, at *23
18
(9th Cir. 2017) (“Hawaii III”) (“It is axiomatic that the President must exercise his
19
//
20
21
22

5

As the court noted when ruling on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions, when the
Government is a party, analysis of the public interest element tends to overlap with other
elements central to the court’s analysis. (See PI Order at 59.) Accordingly, although the public
interest and irreparable harm to Defendants in the absence of a stay are separate factors, the court
considers them together here.

ORDER - 9

1

executive powers lawfully. When there are serious concerns that the President has not

2

done so, the public interest is best served by ‘curtailing unlawful executive action.’”)

3

(quoting Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally

4

divided court, --- U.S. ---, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016)).

5

Further, although the Government has a “compelling” interest in national security,

6

see Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981), 6 Defendants cannot simply rely on

7

unspecified security concerns, see Ziglar v. Abbasi, --- U.S. ---, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1862

8

(2017) (explaining that “national-security concerns must not become a talisman used to

9

ward off inconvenient claims—a ‘label’ used to ‘cover a multitude of sins’”). 7 Here,

10

although the Agency Memo states that the Secretaries who authored it continue to have

11

indeterminate, general “concerns” regarding the admission of nationals, and stateless

12

persons who last habitually resided in, SAO list countries (Agency Memo (Dkt. # 46-2) at

13

2), Defendants offer no evidence in support of their assertion that the preliminary

14

injunction poses national security harms (see generally Dkt.). Indeed, there is no

15

//

16

//

17
6

18
19
20
21
22

See also Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741, 784 (9th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Trump
v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, --- U.S. ---, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017), and cert. granted,
judgment vacated on other grounds as moot, --- U.S. ---, 138 S. Ct. 377 (2017), and vacated on
other grounds as moot, 874 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Hawaii I”) (“National security is
undoubtedly a paramount public interest.”).
7

See also Hawaii III, 2017 WL 6554184, at *22 (holding that in the absence of
“sufficient findings that the ‘entry of certain classes of aliens would be detrimental to the
national interest,’” national security interests did not outweigh harm to plaintiffs); Washington,
847 F.3d at 1168 (similarly holding that the Government’s general interest in combatting
terrorism, without more, was insufficient to outweigh likely harm to the plaintiffs).

ORDER - 10

1

evidence in the record that either SAO or FTJ refugees pose a security threat. 8

2

Countering Defendants’ general and unspecified concerns, Plaintiffs offer detailed

3

testimony from numerous former national security officials concretely describing how the

4

Agency Memo will harm our national security and foreign policy interests. (See Joint

5

Decl. Former Nat’l Sec. Officers.) Based on the record before it, the court cannot

6

conclude that Defendants have met their burden of establishing that the public interest

7

favors a stay.

8

In addition, Defendants’ own actions undermine their position that they or the

9

public interest will be harmed absent a stay. Defendants assert that they have tracked

10

down Joseph Doe’s family and that a “[p]roposed interim guidance” of the U.S.

11

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) would allow travel to the United States

12

of Joseph’s family and all other FTJ refugee applicants who obtained valid travel

13

documents on or before October 24, 2017—the day that Defendants issued EO-4 and the

14

Agency Memo. 9 (MFS at 9; Smith Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) Indeed, Defendants state that they

15

//

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

8

“During the four decades from 1975 to the end of 2015, over three million refugees
have been admitted to the United States. Despite this number, only three refugees have killed
people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during this period. None of these refugees were from the
11 listed countries in the [Agency Memo].” (Joint Decl. Former Nat’l Sec. Officers (17-1707
Dkt. # 46) ¶ 12.)
9

Defendants state that the proposed interim guidance “was in the process of being
reviewed for clearance before the Preliminary Injunction was issued.” (Smith Decl. (Dkt.
# 95-1) ¶ 2.) But Defendants did not so inform the court while it was considering the
preliminary injunction. Further, the declaration describes the interim guidance as merely
“[p]roposed.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Thus, although USCIS may have processed Joseph Doe’s wife and
children “[b]ased on the proposed USCIS guidance,” it is unclear if USCIS has generally
adopted the interim guidance with respect to processing all FTJ refugee applicants who had
received valid travel documents prior to October 24, 2017. (See id. ¶ 3.)

ORDER - 11

1

expect to know the date of travel booking for Joseph’s family by January 2, 2018. 10

2

(Smith Decl. ¶ 4.) Thus, Defendants have decided to admit certain FTJ refugees,

3

including those from SAO countries, prior to implementation of the additional screening

4

procedures for FTJ refugees or completion of the additional threat analysis of SAO

5

countries that the Agency Memo prescribes. This decision undermines Defendants’

6

position that the preliminary injunction impairs national security or that Defendants will

7

be irreparably harmed absent a stay. Defendants’ decision to permit Joseph Doe’s

8

family, as well as other FTJ and SAO refugees, to travel to the United States so long as

9

they received their travel papers prior to October 24, 2017, confirms that the government

10

will suffer no irreparable harm by allowing such refugee admissions during the pendency

11

of their appeal.

12

Finally, Defendants again rely on the Supreme Court’s December 4, 2017, stay

13

orders in Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17A550, 2017 WL 5987406 (U.S. Dec. 4 2017), and

14

//

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

10

Defendants may be attempting to moot Joseph Doe’s claims by creating an exception
for him. (See MFS at 9; see also Doe Resp. at 8-10 (asserting that such attempts are
unavailing).) Although the court need not rule on this issue for purposes of determining the
present motion to stay, the court notes that Joseph seeks to represent a class. (See Mot. for Class
Cert. (Dkt. # 19).) Mootness of a named plaintiff’s claim after class certification does not moot
the action. Haro v. Sebelius, 747 F.3d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Sosna v. Iowa, 419
U.S. 393, 401 (1975)). Further, where the named plaintiff’s claim is transitory such that the trial
court does not have sufficient time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed
representative’s individual claim expires, the ‘relation back’ doctrine preserves the merits of the
case for judicial resolution. See id.; see also Pitts v. Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090-91 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“[A]lthough [the plaintiff’s] claims are not inherently transitory as a result of being
time sensitive, they are acutely susceptible to mootness in light of the defendant’s tactic of
picking off lead plaintiff’s with a Rule 68 offer to avoid a class action. . . . The result is the same:
a claim transitory by its very nature and one transitory by virtue of the defendant’s litigation
strategy share the reality that both claims would evade review.” (internal quotation marks,
citations, and alterations omitted)).

ORDER - 12

1

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17A560, 2017 WL 5987435 (U.S. Dec. 2017), to argue that their

2

national security interests outweigh Plaintiffs’ interests and that the court should impose a

3

stay here as well. (MFS at 2.) Defendants’ reliance on these two stay orders is

4

misplaced. First, the court has already declined to speculate on the reasons for the

5

Supreme Court’s December 4, 2017, stay orders, which involved preliminary injunctions

6

against portions of Presidential Proclamation No. 9,645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27,

7

2017) (“EO-3”), and were devoid of any analysis. (See PI Order at 61-62 n.30.)

8
9

Second, the balancing of the equities here is necessarily different here than in the
cases challenging EO-3. This case involves refugees—individuals “who are fleeing

10

danger” and “who have been persecuted by actual terrorists”—and their families or other

11

individuals or organizations in the United States with whom those refugees have a bona

12

fide relationship. (See Joint Decl. Former Nat’l Sec. Officers ¶ 14.f; see also id. ¶ 17.)

13

The two cases stayed by the Supreme Court on December 4, 2017, challenged EO-3 and

14

did not involve refugees or those here in the United States with a bona fide relationship to

15

refugees. Further, in this case, Defendants have acknowledged that they will process the

16

applications of FTJ refugees and refugees from SAO countries so long as the refugees

17

received their travel papers prior to October 24, 2017. As discussed above, this

18

acknowledgement undermines Defendants’ assertion of national security concerns

19

regarding the admission of FTJ and SAO refugees pending Defendants’ appeal and

20

necessarily affects the balancing of equities in this case in a manner not applicable to the

21

cases challenging EO-3.

22

//

ORDER - 13

1

Moreover, the EO-3 cases before the Supreme Court involved entry prohibitions

2

by the President and specific authorities that Congress granted the President in 8 U.S.C.

3

§§ 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1). Those authorities and the unique role the President may play

4

based on those authorities is not at issue here. (See PI Order at 51 (discussing statutory

5

authorities invoked in this case).) Indeed, the restrictions at issue here were put into

6

place by agency officials after the President found that his suspension of entry of refugees

7

was no longer necessary. (Compare EO-4 § 3(a) (“Presidential action to suspend the

8

entry of refugees under [United States Refugee Assistance Program (“USRAP”)] is not

9

needed at this time to protect the security and interests of the United States and its

10

people.”), with Agency Memo at 2-3 (suspending the processing of applications and entry

11

of refugees from SAO countries for 90 days and FTJ refugees indefinitely).)

12

Third, Defendants again ignore the Supreme Court’s earlier, reasoned opinion

13

denying a stay in relevant part in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, ---

14

U.S. ---, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2089 (2017) (“IRAP”). IRAP, like this case, involved a

15

purportedly temporary ban on refugees contained in Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed.

16

Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 9, 2017) (“EO-2”), which the Government justified by indicating its

17

desire to study and upgrade vetting procedures. IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2084. Nevertheless,

18

the Supreme Court denied a stay of the injunctions on EO-2 as to the same refugees

19

protected by the preliminary injunction here—those with a bona fide relationship to

20

Untied States persons or entities. Id. at 2089. Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, the

21

court again rejects Defendants’ argument that the Supreme Court’s December 4, 2017,

22

//

ORDER - 14

1

stay orders concerning EO-3 require this court to balance the equities in Defendants’

2

favor or to impose a stay on the preliminary injunction in this litigation as well.

3

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that Defendants have failed

4

to demonstrate that they will be irreparably injured absent a stay or that the public interest

5

favors a stay.

6

3. Issuance of the Stay Will Substantially Injure the Other Interested Parties

7

Defendants’ contentions concerning a lack of injury to individual Plaintiffs in the

8

event of a stay pending appeal again reiterate arguments that this court has already

9

rejected. (Compare Mot. at 6-10 with PI Order at 12-16, 20-25, 56-57.) Defendants

10

provide the court with no basis to reevaluate its prior rulings that Plaintiffs will be

11

irreparably harmed in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Further, Defendants

12

ignore the harm to organizational Plaintiffs, such as JFS-S and JFS-SV, in their motion

13

seeking a stay. (See generally MFS.) These organizational Plaintiffs would also suffer

14

substantial harm in the event of a stay. (See PI order at 25-28.) The court concludes that

15

Defendants failed to demonstrate that this factor favors a stay.
Having evaluated all the factors that guide its exercise of discretion, the court

16
17

denies Defendants’ motion for a stay. In addition, for the same reasons as stated herein

18

and in its order denying Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (see 1/5/18 Order), the

19

court also denies Defendants’ request in their January 5, 2018, notice for a more limited

20

stay concerning those refugees who have a bona fide relationship with an entity in the

21

United States through a resettlement assurance agency (see Notice re: MFS).

22

//

ORDER - 15

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the analysis and authority cited above, the court DENIES Defendants’

3

motion to stay the court’s preliminary injunction order pending appeal (Dkt. # 95) and

4

their request for a more limited in stay contained in their January 5, 2018, notice (Dkt.

5

# 104).

6

Dated this 9th day of January, 2018.

7
8

A

9

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 16