State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369
9th Cir.2017Background
- President issued Executive Order 13769 ("travel ban") on Jan 27, 2017, suspending entry from seven countries for 90 days, pausing refugee admissions for 120 days, and indefinitely barring Syrian refugees; it authorized case-by-case waivers in the national interest.
- Immediate effects: visas canceled, travelers detained or denied boarding/entry; Washington sued (joined by Minnesota) challenging sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) as violating the Constitution and federal law and sought a nationwide TRO.
- The district court granted a TRO enjoining enforcement of those provisions nationwide; Government appealed and sought an emergency stay of the TRO pending appeal.
- Ninth Circuit considered (1) appellate jurisdiction over the TRO-as-preliminary-injunction, (2) standing of the States, (3) whether executive immigration/national-security actions are judicially reviewable, and (4) whether the Government met the stay factors under Nken.
- Court concluded the States have Article III standing based on proprietary injuries to public universities and third‑party interests of students/faculty; judicial review of executive immigration actions is available; but the Government failed to show likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury, so the emergency stay was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over TRO | TRO functions as a preliminary injunction and is reviewable | TRO is not appealable as an ordinary TRO | Court: TRO has qualities of a reviewable preliminary injunction given adversarial briefing and indefinite duration; jurisdiction exists |
| Standing | States (via public universities) suffer concrete proprietary harms and may assert third‑party rights of students/faculty | States lack Article III standing | Court: States sufficiently alleged injury, traceability, and redressability; standing met at this stage |
| Reviewability of Executive Order | Executive acts are subject to judicial review when constitutional rights implicated | Executive immigration/national-security decisions are unreviewable | Court: Political‑branch deference warranted but review is not foreclosed; courts may adjudicate constitutional challenges to immigration/national security actions |
| Stay: likelihood of success on merits (Due Process & Establishment/Equal Protection) | Due process violations for persons denied reentry, visaholders, and refugees; Establishment/Equal Protection claims based on evidence of intent to disfavor Muslims | EO facially neutral re immigration; Mandel and national security deference limit review; urgent national‑security need justifies EO | Court: Government failed to show strong likelihood of success on due process claims (procedural rights apply to "persons" including many aliens) and did not carry burden on irreparable harm; religious‑discrimination claims raise serious questions but reserved for merits; stay denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (Article III standing framework and case/controversy limits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing burden and evidentiary standards at successive litigation stages)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (due process rights apply to "persons" in U.S., including aliens)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (limited review of individual visa denials when executive gives a facially legitimate and bona fide reason)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal factors and burden on movant)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (political branches cannot nullify judicial review of constitutional rights)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (deference to political branches on national security but obligation to protect constitutional rights)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) (returning resident aliens entitled to due process on reentry)
- Serv. Employees Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2010) (when a TRO may possess qualities of a preliminary injunction and be appealable)
- Bennett v. Medtronic, 285 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2002) (ordinary rule that TROs are not normally appealable)