230 F. Supp. 3d 26
D. Mass.2017Background
- Plaintiffs: two Iranian lawful permanent residents (Louhghalam, Tootkaboni) detained ~4 hours at Boston Logan Airport after international travel; five additional Iranian nationals (three LPRs, two F-1 students) and Oxfam America later joined; Commonwealth of Massachusetts and UMass intervened.
- Defendant: President Trump, DHS, CBP and named officials (official-capacity suits) challenging Executive Order 13,769 (EO) "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
- EO actions at issue: 90-day suspension of entry from seven countries and 120-day suspension of USRAP; Section 5(b) directs religious-based refugee prioritization for minority religions in their country of nationality.
- White House counsel issued a February 1, 2017 memorandum clarifying Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to lawful permanent residents.
- District court previously entered a TRO preventing detention/removal of individuals subject to the EO at Logan; this opinion decides whether to extend that TRO and addresses merits for remaining plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LPR plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief remain live after White House clarification | EO bars their entry and thus relief is needed | EO does not apply to LPRs per White House memo; mootness | Moot as to LPR plaintiffs; no ongoing conduct to enjoin |
| Whether EO violates equal protection by discriminating (religion/nationality) | EO motivated by anti-Muslim animus and targets nationals of seven countries | Immigration classifications of nonresident aliens are subject to rational-basis review and the EO advances national-security interests | Rational-basis review applies; plaintiffs not likely to succeed; claim denied |
| Whether EO violates Establishment Clause (favors Christians) | Section 5(b) favors Christians over Muslims, evidencing religious discrimination | Plaintiffs lack particularized injury (not refugees); Section 5(b) is religiously neutral on its face | No standing for Establishment Clause claim; claim dismissed |
| Whether EO violates due process for F-1 visa holders fearing inability to return | EO deprives noncitizen visa-holders of procedural protections and creates concrete harm | Visas are not protected property/lawful entitlement; no deportation proceedings pending; no present loss of liberty interest | No likelihood of success—no protected property/law interest in visas and no pending deportation |
| Whether EO is reviewable under APA | EO is arbitrary/contrary to law; review under APA appropriate | Presidential action under statutory 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) is discretionary and outside APA review per Franklin | President's action unreviewable under APA here; claim unlikely to succeed |
| Whether EO violates First Amendment/right to receive information (Oxfam) | Denial of entry to invited speakers harms Oxfam’s speech/association rights | Government supplied facially legitimate and bona fide national-security reasons; Kleindienst controls | Government’s stated reasons are facially legitimate and bona fide; Oxfam not likely to succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (explains admission/entry distinction under INA)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (federal equal protection principles for aliens within U.S.)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (rational-basis review for federal alien classifications)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (due process protections for aliens physically present in U.S.)
- Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (rational-basis standard and conceivable rational basis test)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (First Amendment challenge to visa denials; facially legitimate and bona fide reason bars review)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (Presidential actions not "agency" actions under APA; limits to APA review)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (due process in deportation context)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (no right of admission for nonresident aliens)