Intl Refugee Assistance v. Donald Trump
961 F.3d 635
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- President issued Proclamation 9645 (Sept. 24, 2017) after a DHS-led worldwide review identifying countries with inadequate identity-management or information-sharing; it imposed tailored entry restrictions on nationals of eight countries and included exemptions and a waiver process.
- Plaintiffs (individuals and organizations) challenged the Proclamation as motivated by anti-Muslim animus in violation of the Establishment Clause (and other constitutional provisions), relying on campaign and post‑campaign statements by President Trump and advisers.
- District court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement (insisting the Proclamation likely violated the Establishment Clause); the Fourth Circuit en banc affirmed that injunction.
- The Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii reversed the Ninth Circuit’s injunction, holding the Proclamation survives Mandel/rational‑basis review because it states facially legitimate, bona fide national‑security reasons.
- On remand to the district court the government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court denied dismissal of the constitutional claims. The government appealed under §1292(b).
- The Fourth Circuit (opinion by Judge Niemeyer) held Hawaii controls; applied Mandel and rational‑basis review, found the Proclamation facially legitimate and plausibly related to national‑security objectives, and reversed with instructions to dismiss the complaints with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable standard of review for entry‑exclusion claims (Mandel vs. full merits scrutiny) | Mandel is inapplicable; courts may consider President’s statements and review on the merits | Mandel (Kleindienst v. Mandel) controls; facially legitimate and bona fide reasons foreclose further probing | Court: Mandel applies; even under rational‑basis review the Proclamation survives |
| Whether the complaints plausibly allege an Establishment Clause violation (animus) | Complaints plead detailed factual allegations (statements, deviations from DHS baseline, waiver denials) sufficient under Iqbal/Twombly to show animus and lack of rational relation to security goals | Hawaii forecloses: Proclamation provides legitimate national‑security purposes and process; plaintiffs must negative every conceivable rational basis | Held: Plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible constitutional claim; dismissal required |
| Whether Trump v. Hawaii (Supreme Court) is binding and dispositive here | Hawaii addressed only preliminary‑injunction posture and limited record; it does not preclude a 12(b)(6) inquiry after discovery | Hawaii is controlling precedent; it found facial legitimacy and persuasive national‑security justification that survives deferential review | Held: Hawaii is binding and dispositive; it defeats plaintiffs’ claims at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage |
| Whether the Proclamation survives rational‑basis review (even if court looks beyond the face) | Plaintiffs: deviations, overbreadth, and available statutory tools show irrationality and animus | Government: multi‑agency review, country‑specific explanations, exceptions, waiver process, and ongoing review provide plausible national‑security bases | Held: Proclamation plausibly related to legitimate objectives; rational‑basis review is satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (Supreme Court held Proclamation survives rational‑basis review and set limits on inquiry into presidential statements)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (courts will not look behind a facially legitimate and bona fide exercise of executive exclusion authority)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly pleading standard and plausibility)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (under rational‑basis review challenger must negative every conceivable basis)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational‑basis review framework)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (deference to political branches on immigration matters)
- Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (Mandel reasoning applied in due‑process/visa denial context)
- Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) (sovereign power to exclude foreigners)
- Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892) (sovereign power to admit or exclude aliens)
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (exclusion of aliens is a fundamental sovereign act)
- IRAP v. Trump, 883 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (Fourth Circuit had affirmed district court injunction against Proclamation before Supreme Court review)