Hawai'i v. Trump

245 F. Supp. 3d 1227 · District Court, D. Hawaii · 2017

Facts

The President issued Executive Order No. 13,780 on March 6, 2017, entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." This Executive Order restricted the entry of foreign nationals from six specified countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) for 90 days and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days. Plaintiffs, the State of Hawai'i and Dr. Ismail El-shikh, alleged that the Executive Order inflicted constitutional and statutory injuries upon residents, employers, and educational institutions. They contended the order stigmatized Muslims and was motivated by anti-Muslim animus, citing public statements by the President and his advisors.

Issue

The legal question is whether the plaintiffs met their burden to convert a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780 into a preliminary injunction. This requires establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, irreparable injury, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor the injunction.

Holding

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, converting the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780 nationwide, including at all U.S. borders, ports of entry, and in visa issuance.

Rule

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish a likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of equities, and that the injunction is in the public interest. Success on the merits for an Establishment Clause claim is evaluated under the Lemon test, requiring government action to have a primary secular purpose, not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and not foster excessive entanglement. Failure to satisfy any prong invalidates the action. Irreparable harm is presumed with a First Amendment violation.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

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