Aziz v. Trump

231 F. Supp. 3d 23 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2017

Facts

On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) suspending entry for 90 days for individuals from seven countries, including Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. This EO did not explicitly exclude lawful permanent residents. Yemeni brothers Tareq and Ammar Aziz, holding IR2 immigrant visas, arrived at Dulles Airport on January 28, 2017. They were allegedly handcuffed, pressured by CBP agents to sign a form abandoning their lawful permanent resident status, had their visas cancelled, and were forced to purchase return tickets. Sahar Kamal Ahmed Fadul, a Somali citizen with a K-1 visa and fiancée of a U.S. citizen, experienced similar treatment at Dulles, being forced to surrender her visa and buy a return ticket. The Commonwealth of Virginia asserted that the EO harmed its residents, public universities, faculty, and students.

Issue

The court addressed whether the Commonwealth of Virginia, Osman Nasreldin, and Sahar Kamal Ahmed Fadul should be permitted to intervene in the case. Specifically, for the Commonwealth, the court determined if it had standing to pursue an action against the federal defendants.

Holding

The court granted the motions to intervene by the Commonwealth of Virginia and by Nasreldin and Fadul. It found that the Commonwealth had both parens patriae and proprietary standing to challenge the Executive Order.

Rule

Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) requires a movant to show an interest in the subject matter, that protection of this interest would be impaired, and that existing parties do not adequately represent it. Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(b) is allowed if there's a common question of law or fact and no prejudice to existing parties. A state has parens patriae standing to protect its quasi-sovereign interests (e.g., securing residents from discrimination, health/well-being, access to federal benefits) if the challenged executive action substantially affects its residents. States also have proprietary standing if they allege a concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent injury traceable to the challenged action, which is redressable by a favorable decision.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.