323 F. Supp. 3d 726
D. Maryland2018Background
- President Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645 (Sept. 24, 2017) restricting entry of nationals from certain countries; it followed two earlier executive orders challenging entry of aliens. Plaintiffs filed challenges and this Court granted a preliminary injunction on Oct. 17, 2017 against most of Section 2 of the Proclamation.
- The Government appealed and the Supreme Court temporarily stayed district-court injunctions on Dec. 4, 2017; the Ninth and Fourth Circuits later issued opinions and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Hawaii.
- The Government moved (Jan. 19, 2018) to stay three related district cases pending resolution of Trump v. Hawaii; some plaintiffs opposed and sought a scheduling/discovery order.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s preliminary injunction on Feb. 15, 2018 but stayed its mandate pending Supreme Court review; the Government filed certiorari in IRAP as well.
- The district court found the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision likely to resolve or substantially inform core questions here (justiciability, statutory authority under the INA, Establishment Clause standard), and that proceeding now would risk inefficient, duplicative litigation and burdensome discovery.
- Balancing factors (judicial economy, government hardship, plaintiff harm), the Court granted a stay of the three cases until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Trump v. Hawaii or June 30, 2018, and denied the scheduling order without prejudice; the Court committed to expedited post-decision proceedings if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay district proceedings pending Supreme Court resolution of Trump v. Hawaii | Plaintiffs argued a stay would prolong family separations and risk to relatives; their additional claims (APA, First and Fifth Amendment) are not before the Supreme Court and discovery should proceed now. | Government argued the Supreme Court’s decision will likely resolve dispositive issues, other courts have stayed similar cases, and discovery would be premature and burdensome. | Court granted a stay: judicial-economy reasons outweigh harms given imminent Supreme Court decision; stay until Supreme Court decision or June 30, 2018. |
| Whether discovery should proceed before disposition of threshold motions | Plaintiffs sought immediate targeted discovery (reports to the President, waiver-procedure materials, evidence of injury). | Government argued discovery scope depends on justiciability and review standards that the Supreme Court may clarify, so discovery would be inefficient. | Court denied immediate discovery and the scheduling order without prejudice, following district practice to resolve threshold motions first. |
| Whether the Supreme Court might decide merits affecting these cases | Plaintiffs viewed merits resolution as speculative and noted some claims are distinct from issues before the Supreme Court. | Government urged that the Supreme Court could decide justiciability, statutory authority, and Establishment Clause questions on the merits, eliminating or materially narrowing district issues. | Court concluded it was likely the Supreme Court would provide controlling guidance and possibly decide merits; this weighed strongly for a stay. |
| How to mitigate plaintiff harm during a stay | Plaintiffs requested prompt discovery to reduce delays and harm to family members at risk. | Government relied on the public interest and efficiency of staying while the Supreme Court acts. | Court limited the stay to the earlier of the Supreme Court decision or June 30, 2018 and promised expedited post-decision scheduling to mitigate plaintiff harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay power incidental to docket control)
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (delay may be required in cases of public moment)
- Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., Ltd., 649 F.3d 31 (trial court retains jurisdiction during appeal; may still act)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (factors for discretionary stay/judicial economy)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 ("facially legitimate and bona fide" rationale review in immigration context)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (Establishment Clause test)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (applying Mandel to equal protection challenge in immigration)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (district court stayed proceedings pending Supreme Court decision)