373 F. Supp. 3d 650
D. Maryland2019Background
- In Sept. 2017 President Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645 suspending or restricting entry of nationals from certain countries (initially Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen) as a national-security vetting measure; waivers and exceptions were provided and agencies were directed to issue implementing guidance.
- Plaintiffs (three consolidated actions: IRAP, IAAB, Zakzok) allege the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus and that its design, exceptions, and waiver implementation are pretextual; they bring APA and multiple constitutional claims (Establishment Clause, due process, equal protection, First Amendment freedoms).
- Lower courts (D. Md. and 4th Cir.) had entered and affirmed preliminary injunctions on Establishment Clause and statutory grounds; the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii applied a version of Kleindienst/Mandel and remanded, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the Establishment Clause at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- On remand plaintiffs amended complaints; they dismissed some statutory claims post-Hawaii and renewed APA challenges to agency implementation and Constitutional Claims against the Proclamation and implementing agencies.
- The government moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing for some plaintiffs, consular nonreviewability, that presidential action is not reviewable under the APA, no discrete final agency action was identified, and that Hawaii forecloses the constitutional claims.
- The district court (Chuang, J.) granted the motion in part and denied it in part: APA claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to identify a discrete final agency action; Constitutional Claims survived dismissal (court found plausible allegations to overcome presumption of rationality and allowed due-process and Establishment/equal-protection claims to proceed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Justiciability | Plaintiffs: organizational and individual injuries from family separation, marginalization; within INA zone of interests | Gov: some plaintiffs lack standing; Hawaii controls | Court: reaffirms earlier standing findings; plaintiffs have standing consistent with Hawaii; denies dismissal |
| APA reviewability of presidentially‑directed action | Plaintiffs: agencies implementing Proclamation are reviewable under APA | Gov: presidential action and agency action under presidential direction not reviewable under APA | Court: agency implementation can be APA‑reviewed in principle but plaintiffs failed to identify a discrete final agency action; APA claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Final agency action (discrete act) | Plaintiffs: pre‑ and post‑Proclamation agency actions (worldwide review, waiver guidance, implementation) are reviewable | Gov: pre‑Proclamation recommendations are non‑final; no discrete post‑Proclamation final agency action identified | Court: pre‑Proclamation recommendations are non‑final; plaintiffs did not plead a discrete post‑Proclamation final action — dismissal without prejudice, leave to amend |
| Constitutional claims (Establishment, equal protection, due process) | Plaintiffs: presidential statements + design, exceptions, waiver practice show animus and lack of rational relation to national security; due‑process interest in family unity and visa procedures | Gov: Hawaii held Proclamation survives rational‑basis review; plaintiffs fail to negate any conceivable rational basis; no protected liberty/property interest | Court: at Rule 12(b)(6) stage plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to overcome presumption of rationality and state plausible claims; due‑process claims also plausibly pleaded; Constitutional Claims survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (presidential action not an "agency" under the APA; distinction between agency recommendations and presidential final action)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (test for final agency action under the APA)
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) (agency recommendations not final when President has statutory decisionmaking power)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (standards for judicial review of executive denial of admission: facially legitimate and bona fide reason)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (applies Mandel framework to travel proclamation and defers to national‑security justification under rational basis)
- Din v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (concurrence discussing "bona fide" and procedural rights in visa denials)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational‑basis invalidation where classification rests on irrational prejudice)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational‑basis invalidation where motivation is animus)
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (explains interplay of rational‑basis review and sufficiency of pleadings on a motion to dismiss)