Hawai'i v. Trump, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1227

In March 2017 the President issued Executive Order 13,780 suspending entry for nationals of six countries for 90 days (Section 2) and pausing refugee admissions for 120 days (Section 6); it followed and revised EO 13,769.
Plaintiffs (State of Hawai‘i and Dr. Ismail Elshikh) sued, alleging the Order was motivated by anti‑Muslim animus and violated the Establishment Clause and other rights; they sought injunctive relief.
The court previously granted a nationwide temporary restraining order enjoining Sections 2 and 6; Plaintiffs moved to convert that TRO into a preliminary injunction.
The Government urged deference to the Executive and argued courts should confine review to the four corners of the Order and limit any injunction.
The district court found Plaintiffs had Article III standing (state proprietary injuries and Dr. Elshikh’s personal injuries), a strong likelihood of success on the Establishment Clause claim, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunction.
The court converted the TRO into a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 pending final resolution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing	State: proprietary losses to universities and tourism; Elshikh: personal stigmatic and associational harms	Government: challenges to scope/causation insufficient	Court: Plaintiffs meet standing at this preliminary stage for both State and Elshikh
Whether court may consider extrinsic evidence of purpose in Establishment Clause review	Plaintiffs: statements and context show anti‑Muslim purpose; review of history is appropriate	Government: courts must defer and look only to the Order’s text (Mandel)	Court: may consider context and extrinsic evidence; Washington precedent applies; likelihood of Establishment Clause success shown
Whether the Executive Order has a secular purpose and survives Lemon test	Plaintiffs: record shows religiously motivated purpose, failing Lemon’s purpose prong	Government: EO revised to remove explicit religious references and addresses security; merits should be evaluated facially	Court: preliminary record indicates EO fails Lemon’s purpose inquiry; Plaintiffs likely to succeed
Scope of relief (nationwide injunction; which sections)	Plaintiffs: both Sections 2 and 6 are motivated by same purpose and should be enjoined nationwide	Government: if enjoined, limit relief to Section 2(c) or carve out internal/implementation activities	Court: nationwide injunction of Sections 2 and 6 appropriate; cannot meaningfully narrow relief on present record

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (standing principles for federal courts)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (standing burden at preliminary stages)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (Establishment Clause three‑prong test)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (deference in immigration decisions argument)
McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (use of historical context to assess purpose under Establishment Clause)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (invalidating law whose objective is religious suppression)
Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.) (controls that context and purpose evidence may be considered in reviewing executive immigration action)
Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (public interest favors preventing constitutional violations)
Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (same standard for TRO and preliminary injunction)