Hawai'i v. Trump
241 F. Supp. 3d 1119
D. Haw.2017Background
- In March 2017 President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,780 restricting entry for nationals of six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen) for 90 days and pausing refugee admissions for 120 days, with certain exemptions and case-by-case waivers; it replaced an earlier January Order that had been enjoined.
- Hawaii and Imam Ismail Elshikh sued seeking a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of the March Order before its effective date, asserting Establishment Clause, equal protection, due process, statutory (INA), RFRA, and APA claims.
- Plaintiffs introduced contemporaneous and prior public statements by the President and advisers referencing a “Muslim ban,” plus a DHS draft report, to argue the Order’s national-security rationale was pretextual and motivated by anti-Muslim animus.
- The State alleged proprietary injuries to the University of Hawai‘i (lost tuition, faculty, program harms) and tourism revenue; Elshikh alleged concrete Establishment Clause injuries to himself, his family, mosque community, and impediment to his mother‑in‑law’s pending visa.
- The district court held a March 15, 2017 hearing, found Plaintiffs had Article III standing at this preliminary stage, and granted a nationwide TRO enjoining enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Hawaii and Elshikh suffer concrete, imminent injuries (university revenue/program loss; family, community, and stigmatic Establishment harms) traceable to the Order | Government disputed ripeness/standing for some claims (e.g., visa waiver not yet sought) | Court: Plaintiffs have Article III standing at this preliminary stage; both State and Elshikh satisfy injury, causation, redressability |
| Ripeness | Claims are ripe because injuries to Elshikh and State are present and imminent; visa waiver process does not defeat injury | Govt: some injuries speculative until waiver applied for or visa denied | Court: Claims are ripe; injuries not contingent merely on future waiver requests |
| Likelihood of success on Establishment Clause | Order motivated by anti‑Muslim purpose; contemporaneous statements and historical context show religious animus; facial neutrality insufficient where context shows discriminatory purpose | Govt: Order facially neutral, targets countries based on security, not religion; courts should not probe subjective motives | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on Establishment Clause — objective observer, informed by context and statements, would conclude impermissible religious purpose; failed Lemon purpose prong |
| TRO equities/public interest | Enforcement would cause irreparable First Amendment harms, family separations, harm to state institutions and economy; public interest favors preventing constitutional violations | Govt: national security interest supports enforcement | Court: Irreparable harm presumed for likely First Amendment violation; balance of equities and public interest favor TRO; nationwide relief appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (standing principles for federal courts and injury requirements)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing elements)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (Establishment Clause three‑part test)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (prohibition on preferring one religious denomination over another)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (consideration of purpose and context when a law targets religion)
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (importance of historical context and purpose in Establishment Clause analysis)
- Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.) (prior Ninth Circuit proceedings enjoining predecessor Order and instructing courts to consider extrinsic evidence of purpose)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunction/TRO)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (First Amendment violations generally cause irreparable harm)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (deprivation of constitutional rights as irreparable injury)