284 F. Supp. 3d 1172
W.D. Wash.2018Background
- Plaintiffs challenged portions of an agency memorandum implementing Executive Order 13,815 (EO-4) that suspended processing/admission of following-to-join (FTJ) refugees and refugees from certain Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) countries.
- The district court entered a preliminary injunction (Dec. 23, 2017) enjoining enforcement of the Agency Memo provisions that suspend FTJ processing/admission and provisions that suspend or divert resources from processing refugees from SAO countries.
- Defendants (federal agencies and officials) filed an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal and a notice of appeal; they also sought reconsideration of the injunction (denied Jan. 5, 2018).
- Defendants argued they should not be required to take affirmative steps to undo prior implementation actions and asserted national security harms from admitting FTJ and SAO refugees; they pointed to Supreme Court stay orders in related EO-3 litigation.
- The court evaluated its jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) and Appellate Rule 8, rejected Defendants’ attempt to unilaterally modify the injunction, and denied the stay after applying the Nken factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's jurisdiction to decide stay motion after appeal filed | Court retains authority under Rule 62(c) to act to preserve status quo | Appeal divests court of power to alter injunction substantively | Court has jurisdiction to consider stay but cannot materially alter status of appeal |
| Whether preliminary injunction requires affirmative steps to undo prior implementation | Plaintiffs: injunction requires restoring pre-Memo status quo, rescinding guidance/instructions that implemented the Memo | Defendants: injunction should not require affirmative undoing of prior decisions; compliance may be impossible | Court: injunction can require restoring status quo; rejects unilateral modification by Defendants |
| Whether Defendants made strong showing of likelihood of success on merits | Injunction valid because Agency Memo conflicts with statutory refugee scheme and APA rulemaking requirements | Defendants rehash prior arguments; no new evidence or legal showing | Court: Defendants did not show likelihood of success; prior rulings stood |
| Whether stay pending appeal is warranted (Nken factors: irreparable harm, equities, public interest, harm to others) | Plaintiffs: will suffer irreparable harm; public interest favors enforcing statutes and protecting refugees and organizations | Defendants: asserted irreparable harm to national security and disruption of agency operations; cited Supreme Court stays in EO-3 cases | Court: Defendants failed to show irreparable harm or public-interest support; issuance of a stay would substantially injure plaintiffs and organizations; stay denied |
Key Cases Cited
- A & M Records v. Napster, 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (appeal divests district court of power to finally adjudicate rights on issues before the appellate court)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine, 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 62(c) allows district court to issue orders to preserve status quo during appeal)
- Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 62(c) permits district court to suspend, modify, or restore injunctions during interlocutory appeal)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal guided by four-factor test: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (factors guiding stays and preliminary injunction analysis)
- Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing prohibitory from mandatory injunctions prohibiting enforcement of new policy)
- Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (stay standard and government burden; national security assertions require evidence)
- Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017) (public interest inquiry and limits on relying on generalized national-security assertions)
- Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (Supreme Court's decision addressing injunctions on refugee-related executive actions)