State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17340
9th Cir.2017Background
- President Trump issued EO 13780 suspending entry from several countries (§2(c)) and reducing/suspending refugee admissions (§6(a), §6(b)).
- District of Hawai‘i preliminarily enjoined §§2 and 6 as likely violative of the Establishment Clause and entered a nationwide preliminary injunction; Ninth Circuit partially affirmed on statutory INA grounds and remanded for an amended injunction.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and partially stayed the lower courts’ injunctions, permitting enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals who lack a "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity but preserving relief for those with credible bona fide relationships (including certain close familial and formal entity relationships).
- After agencies issued guidance narrowing qualifying relationships, Hawai‘i moved to modify/enforce the injunction; the district court expanded the injunction to cover additional family members (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and in‑laws) and refugees with formal assurances and Lautenberg Program refugees.
- The Government appealed, arguing the district court exceeded the scope of the Supreme Court’s stay by broadening the categories excluded from enforcement; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s modifications as a proper equitable balance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of “close familial relationship” under the Supreme Court’s partial stay | The Supreme Court’s reference encompasses extended family (e.g., grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, in‑laws) that create concrete hardship if excluded | The Government limited "close familial" to immediate relationships (parents, spouses, children, siblings, fiancés, parents‑in‑law) based on INA text and EO waiver examples | The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the stay’s “close familial” exception covers the broader listed relatives; the district court did not err in including them |
| Whether a formal assurance from a U.S. resettlement agency creates a qualifying bona fide relationship for refugees | Formally assured refugees have formal, documented relationships formed in the ordinary course; agencies expend resources and incur harms if those refugees are barred | The assurance is an agreement between agency and government, not between agency and refugee, so it does not by itself establish a qualifying relationship | The Ninth Circuit affirmed that formal assurances can establish a bona fide relationship because they are formal, documented, ordinary‑course commitments and agencies suffer concrete tangible and intangible harms |
| Whether district court abused discretion in modifying injunction beyond Supreme Court’s stay | Modification preserved status quo and remedied agency narrowing that conflicted with the Supreme Court’s equitable balance | Government argued the modification expanded relief beyond the stay and disturbed the equities in favor of enforcement | The court held the district court carefully balanced equities as directed by the Supreme Court and did not abuse its discretion |
| Remedy timing (mandate issuance) | Plaintiffs emphasized urgent harms to refugees from delay in travel and expiring checks | Government raised standard mandate timing concerns | Ninth Circuit shortened mandate issuance to 5 days to limit harms to refugees and affirmed the injunction modifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (Supreme Court partially stayed injunction and defined bona fide relationships exception)
- Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (recognition of extended family relationships as constitutionally significant)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (discussing parental and familial interests and importance of close relatives)
- Tooahnippah v. Hickel, 397 U.S. 598 (1970) (noting close and sustained familial relationships in liberty/contextual analysis)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (standing/injury through resources expended and planning anticipated from government action)
- Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Pence, 165 F. Supp. 3d 718 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (resettlement agency harms and standing when government actions frustrate resettlement efforts)