Doe v. Donald Trump, President of The United States
2:17-cv-00178
W.D. Wash.Jan 5, 2018Background
- Two consolidated suits challenged aspects of Executive Order No. 13,815 and an accompanying Agency Memorandum that affected refugee processing from certain countries.
- On December 23, 2017 the court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of parts of the Agency Memo that suspended or diverted resources for processing refugees from SAO-listed countries, but limited relief to refugees with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity.
- The court interpreted "bona fide relationship" consistent with the Supreme Court's definition in IRAP: relationships must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course.
- The injunction expressly covered refugees who had received formal assurances from resettlement agencies (JFS-S, JFS-SV, or similar organizations), because assurances are given after individualized screening and exclusion would cause concrete hardship to the agencies.
- Defendants moved for reconsideration arguing the injunction should exclude refugees whose only claimed relationship is a resettlement-agency assurance; they relied on the Supreme Court's stays of the Ninth Circuit's Hawaii decision and submitted a Bartlett declaration.
- The court denied reconsideration, holding Ninth Circuit precedent (Hawaii II) controls, the Bartlett declaration was not newly available, and exclusion of assured refugees would permit irreparable harm to resettlement agencies and fail to preserve the status quo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refugees who have only a resettlement-agency assurance qualify as having a "bona fide relationship" | Assured refugees have formal, documented relationships with agencies; assurances follow individualized screening and impose planning commitments on agencies | Assurances are insufficient because the government acts as an intermediary; such relationships should be excluded from the injunction | Court: Assurances qualify as bona fide relationships under Ninth Circuit precedent; injunction remains inclusive of assured refugees |
| Whether the court should exclude assured refugees based on the Supreme Court's stay of the Ninth Circuit | Injunction follows Supreme Court/IRAP standard as interpreted by Ninth Circuit (Hawaii II) and protects agencies from irreparable harm | The Supreme Court's stay indicates Hawaii II should not bind this court or that its reasoning is suspect | Court: Ninth Circuit's Hawaii II remains binding precedent; the Supreme Court stays do not vacate Hawaii II and do not permit ignoring it |
| Whether new evidence (Bartlett declaration) justifies reconsideration | Plaintiffs contend the declaration was previously available in the record before Ninth Circuit and Defendants failed to timely present new evidence | Defendants present Bartlett declaration to show assurances are not sufficient and that agencies won't be meaningfully harmed | Court: Bartlett declaration is not new (dated July 3, 2017 and previously filed in Hawaii); motion for reconsideration is disfavored and fails to show manifest error or newly discoverable facts |
| Whether excluding assured refugees is necessary to avoid overbroad injunction / balance equities | Agencies would suffer irreparable operational and mission harm if assured refugees were excluded; injunction preserves status quo pending merits | Government contends agencies' operations are not meaningfully impaired and injunction should be narrowed | Court: Excluding assured refugees would allow irreparable harm to agencies and fail to preserve the status quo; injunction remains as issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (defining "bona fide relationship" requirement for injunction relief)
- Hawaii v. Trump, 871 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017) (Ninth Circuit decision holding resettlement assurances can establish bona fide relationships)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 1 (2017) (Supreme Court stay order)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 49 (2017) (Supreme Court stay order)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 377 (2017) (Supreme Court remand/dismissal as moot without expressing views on merits)
- Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (motions for reconsideration may not raise arguments or evidence that could have been presented earlier)
- Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001) (precedential decisions of the Ninth Circuit bind district courts unless overruled or altered)