State of Washington v. Trump
2:25-cv-00127
W.D. Wash.Jul 3, 2025Background
- Individual Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to lift a stay and expedite class certification proceedings in a case against Donald Trump and others.
- The motion was prompted by the Supreme Court's June 27, 2025, decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which addressed the scope of district court injunctions.
- The district court had previously stayed the matter pending Defendants' appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Supreme Court's decision suggested lower courts must ensure injunctions provide relief only to plaintiffs with standing and move expeditiously in light of the new ruling.
- Defendants oppose lifting the stay, arguing that the Ninth Circuit is already considering the scope of the injunction in light of CASA.
- Judge Coughenour denied the motion to lift the stay, citing judicial efficiency and pending Ninth Circuit proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to lift the stay based on new Supreme Court precedent | The CASA decision is a "stark change" warranting expeditious progress, including lifting the stay. | Appeal is pending; Ninth Circuit is reviewing injunction scope, so stay should remain. | The stay remains in place; lifting is premature. |
| Whether expediting class certification is required | Expediting class certification aligns with Supreme Court's instruction to move expeditiously. | Ninth Circuit’s decision on the injunction may render class certification moot. | Expediting is unwarranted until the appeal is resolved. |
| Appropriate scope of preliminary injunction | District court must ensure injunctions are not broader than needed for plaintiffs. | The Ninth Circuit is already determining this, so duplicative review is unnecessary. | Lower court should defer to appellate proceedings for now. |
| Judicial efficiency and comity | Immediate action would advance justice per Supreme Court's instruction. | Maintaining the stay simplifies issues and avoids conflicting rulings. | Maintaining the stay promotes efficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (broad discretion to stay proceedings lies with the district court)
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (courts can stay actions pending resolution of related proceedings)
- Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 (district courts have authority to stay proceedings for related matters)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (lays out factors for courts to consider when determining whether to stay a case)