united states district court eastern district of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTEASTERNDISTRICTOFVIRGINIA
LINDASARSOUR; )RASHIDATLAIB; )ZAHRABILLOO; ) CaseNo.NIHADAWAD; ) Hon.COREYSAYLOR; )DAWUDWALID; ) BASIMELKARRA; ) HUSSAMAYLOUSH; ) COMPLAINTFORHASSANSHIBLY; ) INJUNCTIVEANDDECLARATORYALIASALEM; ) RELIEFANDJURYDEMANDADAMSOLTANI; ) IMRANSIDDIQI; ) JULIASHEARSON; ) NAMIRAISLAM; )KARENDABDOUB; )JOHNDOENO.1; ) JOHNDOENO.2; ) JOHNDOENO.3; )JOHNDOENO.4; )JOHNDOENO.5; )JOHNDOENO.6; )JOHNDOENO.7; )JOHNDOENO.8; )JOHNDOENO.9; )JOHNDOENO.10; )JANEDOENO.1;and, )JANEDOENO.2; ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )v. ) )DONALDJ.TRUMP,PresidentoftheUnited )StatesofAmerica;inhisofficialcapacity ) )JOHNF.KELLY,SecretaryoftheDepartment )ofHomelandSecurity;inhisofficialcapacity; ) )U.S.DEPARTMENTOFSTATE;and, ) )DIRECTOROFNATIONALINTELLIGENCE; ) ) Defendants. )
2
COMPLAINTFORINJUNCTIVEANDDECLARATORYRELIEF
Plaintiffs,forthemselvesandonbehalfofallotherssimilarlysituated,byandthrough
theirattorneys,CouncilonAmerican‐IslamicRelations(“CAIR”),TheLawOfficeofGadeir
Abbas,andAkeelandValentine,PLC,stateasfollows:
Introduction
1. The vulgar animosity that accounts for the existence of Executive Order
entitled“ProtectingtheNationfromTerroristAttacksbyForeignNationals”(hereinafterthe
“MuslimExclusionOrder”),issuedthesamedayofthisaction,isplaintosee,andtheabsence
ofthewordsIslamorMuslimdoesnothingtoobscureit.
2. In fact, the Executive Order has already gained national and international
mediaattentionandnationwideprotests,andhasbeendubbeduniformlyasthe“Muslim
Ban” because its apparent and true purpose and underlying motive—which is to ban
MuslimsfromcertainMuslim‐majoritycountries(Iraq,Iran,Libya,Somalia,Sudan,Syriaand
Yemen)(hereinafterthe“Muslimmajoritycountries”)—hasbeenbroadcasttothegeneral
publicbytheTrumpAdministration.
3. LessknownisthesecondandequallycentralpurposeoftheMuslimExclusion
Order – to initiate themass expulsionof immigrant andnonimmigrantMuslims lawfully
residing in theUnitedStatesbydenying them the ability to renew their lawful status or
receiveimmigrationbenefitsaffordedtothemundertheImmigrationandNationalityActof
1965(“INA”)–basedsolelyontheirreligiousbeliefs.
4. ManyMuslimslawfullyintheUnitedStatesthataretargetedbytheMuslim
ExclusionOrder,includingsomeoftheJohnDoeandJohnDoePlaintiffs,willbeforced–asa
3
resultoftheMuslimExclusionOrder–toreturntotheirhomecountries,wheretheywill
likelyfacepersecution,tortureandevenexecution,simplybecausetheyareMuslim.
5. Themalice that gave rise to theMuslim Exclusion Order first emerged on
December 7, 2015, when President Trump issued a campaign promise to implement, if
elected, “a total and complete shutdownofMuslims entering theUnited States until our
country’srepresentativescanfigureoutwhatisgoingon.”
6. The Muslim Exclusion Order is the fulfillment of President Trump’s
longstandingpromiseandboastedintenttoenactafederalpolicythatovertlydiscriminates
againstMuslimsandofficiallybroadcastsamessagethatthefederalgovernmentdisfavors
thereligionofIslam,preferringallotherreligionsinstead.
7. TheMuslimExclusionOrderisbothbroaderinsomewaysandnarrowerin
others than the policy Defendant Trump proposed on December 7, 2015. The Muslim
ExclusionOrderisbroaderinsofarasitdeniesimmigrationbenefitstothosewho,likesome
oftheimmigrantandnonimmigrantPlaintiffs,followedtherulesandenteredandarenow
lawfullypresentintheUnitedStates.
8. The Muslim Exclusion Order is also narrower than originally proposed,
becauseitappliesonlytoasubsetofMuslimsratherthanallMuslims.This,however,does
notcurethepolicyofitsconstitutionalinfirmity.WhiletheMuslimExclusionOrderdoesnot
applytoallMuslims,thepolicyonlyappliestoMuslims.
9. ThetextoftheMuslimExclusionOrderimplementsanimpermissiblereligious
gerrymanderthatdividesforeignnationals,eventhoselawfullypresentinsidetheUnited
States,intofavoredanddisfavoredgroupsbasedontheirfaith.
4
10. Likewise,theMuslimExclusionOrderalsodividesgreencardholders,lawfully
presentinsidetheUnitedStates,intofavoredanddisfavoredgroupsbasedontheirfaith.
11. BecausethehistoryandtextoftheMuslimExclusionOrderrevealanillegal
purposeandeffect,Plaintiffs’claimsmustbesustained.
Parties
12. PlaintiffLindaSarsourisanAmericanMuslimresidinginKingsCounty,New
York.PlaintiffSarsourisaPalestinianactivistandExecutiveDirectoroftheArabAmerican
AssociationofNewYork.In2016,sheservedasspokespersonforPresidentialCandidate
Senator Bernie Sanders, andwas one of three national co‐chairs for the 2017Women’s
MarchheldthedayaftertheinaugurationofDonaldTrumpasPresidentoftheUnitedStates.
PlaintiffSarsourhasappearedin“TheHijabiMonologues”andhasherownshow,TheLinda
SarsourShow.
13. Plaintiff Rashida Tlaib is a Muslim American residing in Wayne County,
Michigan. Plaintiff Tlaib is a former Democratic member of the Michigan House of
RepresentativesandanattorneyattheSugarLawCenterforEconomicandSocialJustice.
UponherswearinginonJanuary1,2009,PlaintiffTlaibbecamethefirstMuslim‐American
womantoserveintheMichiganLegislature,andonlythesecondMuslimwomaninhistory
tobeelectedtoanystatelegislatureinAmerica.
14. Plaintiff ZahraBilloo is aMuslimAmerican residing in Santa Clara County,
California.PlaintiffBillooisacivilrightsattorneyandtheExecutiveDirectoroftheCouncil
on American‐Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area (CAIR‐SFBA), a chapter of the
nation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsandcivillibertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominent
civilrightsactivist.PlaintiffBillooisfrequentlyseenatmosquesanduniversitiesfacilitating
5
trainingsandworkshopsasapartofCAIR’sgrassrootsefforts toempower theAmerican
Muslimcommunityandbuildbridgeswithalliesoncivilrightsissues.
15. PlaintiffNihadAwad is aMuslimAmerican residing inWashingtonCounty,
D.C. Plaintiff Awad is National Executive Director and co‐founder of the Council on
American‐IslamicRelations(CAIR),thenation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsandcivilliberties
advocacyorganization,andaprominentcivilrightsactivist.Asanationalleaderinthecivil
rightsmovement,PlaintiffAwadhasledmultiplecampaignstodefendtherightsofMuslims
andtohelpAmericansofotherfaithsbetterunderstandIslam.Hisworkincludesinterfacing
with the U.S. government, facilitating interfaith dialogue, speaking at conferences,
conductingtrainingandleadershipseminars,andappearinginnationalandinternational
media to discuss Islam and AmericanMuslims. Plaintiff Awad has testified before both
HousesoftheU.S.CongressonmattersinvolvingMuslimsinAmerica.In1997,heservedon
theWhiteHouseCivilRightsAdvisoryPaneltotheCommissiononSafetyandSecurity.Inthe
2000,2004,2008,and2012presidentialelections,PlaintiffAwadwasakeyfigureincreating
theMuslimvotingbloc.In2006,hetraveledtoIraqonahumanitarianmissiontoappealfor
thereleaseofAmericanjournalistJillCarrolwhowaskidnappedandlaterreleasedinIraq.
InSeptember,2011,PlaintiffAwadtraveledtoIranaspartofaninterfaithdelegationtomeet
withthePresidentofIrantoappealforthereleaseoftwoAmericanhikersheldbyIran.In
2004,hewasnamedoneofNationalJournal’smorethan100MostInfluentialPeopleinthe
UnitedStateswhoseideaswillhelpshapethedebateoverpublicpolicyissuesforthenext
decade.In2009,hewasnamedbyaGeorgetownUniversitypublicationasoneofthe500
mostinfluentialMuslimsintheworld.Andin2010,ArabianBusinessrankedhimas39thin
the“ArabianBusinessPower100”list,itsannuallistingofthemostinfluentialArabs.
6
16. Plaintiff Corey Saylor is a Muslim American residing in Fairfax County,
Virginia.PlaintiffSaylorisDirectoroftheDepartmenttoMonitorandCombatIslamophobia
attheCouncilonAmerican‐IslamicRelations(CAIR),thenation’slargestMuslimcivilrights
andcivillibertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominentcivilrightsactivist.PlaintiffSaylor
is an expert on political communications, legislative advocacy,media relations and anti‐
IslamprejudiceintheUnitedStates. HeisaregularvoiceonU.S.andinternationalnews
outlets.PlaintiffSaylorhasalsorunsuccessfuladvocacycampaignsagainstcorporategiants
such as Burger King and Bell Helicopter‐Boeing when their actions or advertisements
negativelyimpactedtheAmericanMuslimcommunity.
17. Plaintiff Dawud Walid is a Muslim American residing in Wayne County,
Michigan. Plaintiff Walid is the Executive Director of the Council on American‐Islamic
Relations,Michigan(CAIR‐MI),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsandcivil
libertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominentcivilrightsactivist.PlaintiffWalidhasbeen
interviewedandquoted inapproximately150mediaoutletsandhas lecturedatover50
institutionsofhigher learningaboutIslam, interfaithdialogueandsocial justice. Plaintiff
Walid served in the United States Navy under honorable conditions earning two United
States Navy & Marine Corp Achievement medals while deployed abroad. He has also
receivedawardsofrecognitionfromthecitycouncilsofDetroitandHamtramckandfrom
theMayorofLansingaswellasanumberofotherreligiousandcommunityorganizations.
18. PlaintiffBasimElkarraisaMuslimAmericanresidinginSacramentoCounty,
California. Plaintiff Elkarra is theExecutiveDirector of theCouncil onAmerican‐Islamic
Relations,SacramentoValley(CAIR‐SAC),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivilrights
and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. Plaintiff
7
ElkarraisaformerboardmemberoftheSacramentochapteroftheAmericanCivilLiberties
Union,andservesontheExecutiveBoardoftheCaliforniaDemocraticParty.Healsoserves
on the City of Sacramento Community Police Commission. In 2011, the United States
EmbassyinLondonsentPlaintiffElkarratoEnglandtomeetyoungBritishMuslimsaspart
ofastrategytopromotecivicengagement.
19. PlaintiffHussamAyloushisaMuslimAmericanresidinginRiversideCounty,
California. PlaintiffAyloush is theExecutiveDirectorof theCouncilonAmerican‐Islamic
Relations,LosAngeles(CAIR‐LA),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsand
civil libertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominentcivil rightsactivistandcommunity
organizer. Ayloush is a fourth‐term elected Delegate to the California Democratic Party
(CDP).Healsoserveson theboardof theMuslimAmericanHomelandSecurityCongress
(MAHSC).
20. PlaintiffHassanShiblyisaMuslimAmericanresidinginHillsboroughCounty,
Florida.PlaintiffShiblyistheChiefExecutiveDirectoroftheCouncilonAmerican‐Islamic
Relations,Florida(CAIR‐FL),achapterof thenation’s largestMuslimcivilrightsandcivil
libertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominentcivil rightsactivist. PlaintiffShiblymet
withPresidentBarackObamaandseveralhigh‐rankinggovernmentofficialsregardingIslam
andcivil rights issues facingMuslims. Healsooften servesasa consultanton Islam for,
amongotherprivateentities,lawenforcementandothergovernmentagencies.
21. Plaintiff Alia Salem is aMuslimAmerican residing inDallas County, Texas.
Plaintiff Salem is the Executive Director of the Council on American‐Islamic Relations,
Dallas/FortWorth(CAIR‐DFW),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsandcivil
liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist working for social
8
justice,understandingandempowerment inhercommunity. Plaintiff Salem’sworkwith
CAIR‐DFWhasbeenfeaturedonlocal,nationalandinternationalmediaoutlets.
22. Plaintiff Adam Soltani is aMuslim American residing in Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma. Plaintiff Soltani is the ExecutiveDirector of theCouncil onAmerican‐Islamic
Relations,Oklahoma(CAIR‐OK),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsandcivil
liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. Plaintiff Soltani
currently serves as the chair of the Oklahoma Conference of Churches’ Religions United
CommitteeandplanningcommitteememberforOKC’sJewish‐MuslimFilmInstitute.Heis
alsoaformermemberoftheOklahomaDemocraticPartyReligiousEducationCommittee,
former board member of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, and a former member of
IslamicSocietyofGreaterOklahomaCityExecutiveCommittee.
23. Plaintiff Imran Siddiqi is a Muslim American residing inMaricopa County,
Arizona. Plaintiff Siddiqi is the Executive Director of the Council on American‐Islamic
Relations,Oklahoma(CAIR‐AZ),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivilrightsandcivil
liberties advocacy organization. Plaintiff Siddiqi is a writer and prominent civil rights
activist.HehaswrittenextensivelyonthesubjectofIslamophobia,MiddleEastAffairs,and
issuesaffectingAmericanMuslims.
24. Plaintiff Julia Shearson is aMuslimAmerican residing inCuyahogaCounty,
Ohio.PlaintiffShearsonistheExecutiveDirectoroftheClevelandchapteroftheCouncilon
American‐IslamicRelations,Ohio(CAIR‐OH),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivil
rightsandcivillibertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominentcivilrightsactivist.Shehas
deliveredhundredsoflecturesandtrainingsonIslamandMuslims,civilandhumanrights,
diversity,Islamophobia,andimmigrationjustice.Shewasrecentlyhonoredtogetherwith
9
22areawomenforherleadership,activism,andcommunityserviceinanartexhibitentitled
“Reflections: TheMany Facets of Stephanie Tubbs Jones” installed at Cleveland Hopkins
AirportinmemoryofthelateCongresswomanStephanieTubbsJones.BeforejoiningCAIR‐
OH,Shearsonservedinthefieldofeducationforover10years,teachingatOhioUniversity,
JewishVocationalServicesinBostonandattheSummerSchoolandDivisionofContinuing
EducationatHarvardUniversity.
25. Plaintiff Namira Islam is a Muslim American residing in Oakland County,
Michigan. Plaintiff Islam is the Co‐Founder and Executive Director of the Muslim Anti‐
Racism Collaborative (MuslimARC), a faith‐based human rights education organization
whichfocusesonracialjustice.PlaintiffIslamhasworkedintheareasofprisonerrights,and
oninternationallawandwarcrimesattheUnitedNationsinTheHague,Netherlands.
26. PlaintiffKarenDabdoubisaMuslimAmericanresidinginHamiltonCounty,
Ohio.PlaintiffDabdoubistheExecutiveDirectoroftheCincinnatichapteroftheCouncilon
American‐IslamicRelations,Ohio(CAIR‐OH),achapterofthenation’slargestMuslimcivil
rightsandcivillibertiesadvocacyorganization,andaprominentcivilrightsactivist.Plaintiff
Dabdoub has served the community since 2006 as a commissioner with the Cincinnati
HumanRelationsCommissionandwasthepresidentofCHRCfrom2009‐2011.She isa
foundingmemberofMuslimMothersAgainstViolence,a localgroup founded in2005by
Muslimwomentotakeastandagainstviolence,abroadandathome.Shehasbeenamember
oftheMartinLutherKingCoalitionofCincinnatisince2006.Sheisaformermemberofthe
FBI Multi‐Cultural Advisory Council and the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights
CommunityAdvisoryCommittee.ShewasamemberofFriendsofOpenHouse–Cincinnati
Chapter,aninternationalorganizationthatworkedtobringaboutpeaceandunderstanding
10
betweenPalestiniansandIsraelis.PlaintiffDabdoubappearsinthedocumentary“AVisitto
aMosqueinAmerica,”aneducationaldocumentary,filmedlocally,thathasreceivednational
recognitionandcommendation.
27. PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.1isalawfulpermanentresidentandaMuslimofSyrian
nationaloriginresidinginOaklandCounty,Michigan.HeistheImam,orreligiousMuslim
leader,ofareligiouscongregation.IntheeventthatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.1exitstheUnited
States,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtohishomeandtohiscongregationdespitehis
lawfulpermanentresidentstatus,pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,andbasedsolely
onhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSyriannationalorigin.Accordingly,PlaintiffJohn
DoeNo.1isnolongerabletotraveloutsidetheUnitedStates.Moreover,PlaintiffJohnDoe
No.1willbedeniedcitizenshipintheUnitedStates,pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,
basedsolelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSyriannationalorigin.
28. Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.2 isastudentandaMuslimofSomalinationalorigin
residingintheUnitedStates. HeisanF‐1/Studentvisaholder. IntheeventthatPlaintiff
JohnDoeNo.2exitstheUnitedStates,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtohishomeand
continuing his education despite his lawful student visa status, pursuant to the Muslim
ExclusionOrder,andbasedsolelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSomalinational
origin. Accordingly,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.2isnolongerabletotraveloutsidetheUnited
States.Moreover,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.2willnotbeallowedtopursueapathtocitizenship
in the United States, pursuant to the Muslim Exclusion Order, also based solely on his
religiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSomalinationalorigin.
29. PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.3isastudentandaMuslimofYemeninationalorigin
residing inWayneCounty,Michigan. He isanF‐1/Studentvisaholder. Intheevent that
11
PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.3exitstheUnitedStates,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtohis
homeandcontinuinghiseducationdespitehislawfulstudentvisastatus,pursuanttothe
MuslimExclusionOrder,andbasedsolelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisYemeni
nationalorigin.Accordingly,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.3isnolongerabletotraveloutsidethe
UnitedStates. Moreover,Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.3willnotbeallowedtopursueapathto
citizenshipintheUnitedStates,pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,alsobasedsolely
onhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisYemeninationalorigin.
30. Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.4 isanasyleeandaMuslimofSyriannationalorigin,
residinginCookCounty,Illinois.PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.4fledforfearofhislifeandsafety
fromSyria.HewillbeeligibleforlawfulpermanentresidencyintheUnitedStates,however
willbepreventedfromobtaininglawfulpermanentresidencybasedsolelyonhisreligious
statusasaMuslimandhisSyriannationalorigin.IntheeventthatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.4
exitstheUnitedStates,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtotheUnitedStatesdespitehis
lawful status, pursuant to theMuslimExclusionOrder, also based solely onhis religious
statusasaMuslimandhisSyriannationalorigin.Moreover,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.4willno
longerbeeligibletorenewhisworkauthorizationintheUnitedStates.IntheeventPlaintiff
JohnDoeNo.4isdeniedreentryintheUnitedStateswerehetotraveloutsideoftheUnited
States,hewillbeforcedtoreturntoSyriawhereheislikelytobetorturedorevenexecuted.
31. Plaintiff John Doe No. 5 is a lawful permanent resident and a Muslim of
SudanesenationaloriginresidinginAlbanyCounty,NewYork.Heiseligibleforandfiledfor
citizenshipintheUnitedStates.Hisapplicationhasbeenpending,howeverwillbedenied,
pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,basedsolelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimand
hisSudanesenationalorigin.Moreover,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.5filedamarriagepetitionfor
12
his wife, which has already been pending for fourteen months. His wife has Sudanese
citizenship through her parents although she has never lived in Sudan. Pursuant to the
Muslim Exclusion Order, his wife will be denied a visa to enter the United States to be
reunitedwithherhusbandbasedsolelyonhisandhiswife’sreligiousstatusasMuslimsand
theirSudanesenationalorigin.Moreover,intheeventthatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.5exitsthe
United States, he will be prevented from returning to his home in the United States.
Accordingly,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.5isalsonolongerabletotraveloutsidetheUnitedStates
tobereunitedwithhiswife.
32. PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.6isaMuslimAmericanresidinginAlbanyCounty,New
York.PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.6filedamarriagepetitionforhiswife,whoiscurrentlypregnant
withtheirbaby. Hisapplicationforher,howeverwillbedenied,pursuant to theMuslim
ExclusionOrder,basedsolelyonhiswife’sreligiousstatusasaMuslimandherSudanese
nationalorigin.PursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,JohnDoeNo.6willbeprevented
fromreunitedwithhiswifeandbabybasedsolelyonherreligiousstatusasaMuslimand
herSudanesenationalorigin.
33. PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.7isalawfulpermanentresidentandaMuslimofSyrian
nationaloriginresidinginBrowardCounty,Florida.Hewillbeeligibleforcitizenshipinthe
UnitedStates,hisapplicationwillbedenied,pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,based
solelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSyriannationalorigin.Moreover,Plaintiff
JohnDoeNo.7ismarriedtoaUnitedStatesCitizen.IntheeventthatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.
7exitstheUnitedStates,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtohishomeandtohiswifein
theUnitedStates.Accordingly,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.7isalsonolongerabletotraveloutside
theUnitedStatestobereunitedwithhiswifeorhisfamily.
13
34. Plaintiff John Doe No. 8 is a lawful permanent resident and a Muslim of
Sudanese national origin residing in Phillips County, Missouri. He will be eligible for
citizenship in the United States, however his applicationwill be denied, pursuant to the
MuslimExclusionOrder,basedsolelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSudanese
nationalorigin. Moreover,Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.8 filedamarriagepetition forhiswife,
whichhasalreadybeenpendingfornearlyayear.PursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,
hiswife,aSudanesenational,willbedeniedavisatoentertheUnitedStatestobereunited
withherhusbandbasedsolelyonhisandhiswife’sreligiousstatusasMuslimsandtheir
Sudanesenationalorigin.Moreover,intheeventthatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.8exitstheUnited
States,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtohishomeintheUnitedStates.Accordingly,
PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.8isalsonolongerabletotraveloutsidetheUnitedStatestobereunited
withhiswife.
35. PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.9isalawfulpermanentresidentandaMuslimofSyrian
nationaloriginresidingintheUnitedStates.HewillbeeligibleforcitizenshipintheUnited
States, however his applicationwill be denied, pursuant to theMuslim Exclusion Order,
basedsolelyonhisreligiousstatusasaMuslimandhisSyriannationalorigin.Intheevent
thatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.9exitstheUnitedStates,hewillbepreventedfromreturningto
hishomeintheUnitedStates.Moreover,PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.9isoneoffewcriticalcare
physiciansservicinganunderservicedareaintheUnitedStates.Intheeventheisprevented
fromreturningtotheUnitedStates,theareaheserveswillbelackinganessentialphysician
toprovidecriticalcaretoasubstantialpopulationintheUnitedStates.
14
36. Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.10 is aMuslimAmericanandadualnational, botha
UnitedStatescitizenandSyriannational.IntheeventthatPlaintiffJohnDoeNo.10exitsthe
UnitedStates,hewillbepreventedfromreturningtohishomeintheUnitedStates.
37. Plaintiff JaneDoeNo.1 isanasyleeandaMuslimofSyriannationalorigin,
residinginWayneCounty,Michigan.PlaintiffJaneDoeNo.1fledforfearofherlifeandsafety
fromSyria.SheiseligibleforandfiledforlawfulpermanentresidencyintheUnitedStates.
Herapplicationremainspending,howeverwillbedenied,pursuanttotheMuslimExclusion
Order,basedsolelyonherreligiousstatusasaMuslimandherSyriannationalorigin.Inthe
event that Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 1 exits the United States, she will be prevented from
returningtotheUnitedStatesdespiteherlawfulstatus,pursuanttotheMuslimExclusion
Order,alsobasedsolelyonherreligiousstatusasaMuslimandherSyriannationalorigin.
Moreover,PlaintiffJaneDoeNo.1willnolongerbeeligibletorenewherworkauthorization
in theUnitedStatesalsobasedsolelyonher religiousstatusasaMuslimandherSyrian
nationalorigin.IntheeventPlaintiffJaneDoeNo.1isdeniedreentryintheUnitedStates
wereshetotraveloutsideoftheUnitedStates,shewillbeforcedtoreturntoSyriawhere
sheislikelytobetorturedorevenexecuted.
38. Plaintiff JaneDoeNo.2 isanasyleeandaMuslimofSyriannationalorigin,
residinginCookCounty,Illinois.PlaintiffJaneDoeNo.2fledforfearofherlifeandsafety
fromSyria.ShewillbeeligibleforlawfulpermanentresidencyintheUnitedStates,however
willbepreventedfromobtaininglawfulpermanentresidencybasedsolelyonherreligious
statusasaMuslimandherSyriannationalorigin.IntheeventthatPlaintiffJaneDoeNo.2
exitstheUnitedStates,shewillbepreventedfromreturningtotheUnitedStatesdespiteher
lawful status,pursuant to theMuslimExclusionOrder, alsobasedsolelyonher religious
15
statusasaMuslimandherSyriannationalorigin.Moreover,PlaintiffJaneDoeNo.2willno
longerbeeligibletorenewherworkauthorizationintheUnitedStates.IntheeventPlaintiff
JaneDoeNo.2isdeniedreentryintheUnitedStateswereshetotraveloutsideoftheUnited
States, she will be forced to return to Syria where she is likely to be tortured or even
executed.
39. DefendantDonald J.Trump is the currentPresidentof theUnitedStatesof
America.DefendantTrumpissuedtheMuslimExclusionOrder,whichisthesubjectofthis
action.DefendantTrumpisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
40. Defendant John F. Kelly is the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of
HomelandSecurity.DefendantKellyisresponsibleforimplementingtheMuslimExclusion
Order,whichisthesubjectofthisaction.DefendantKellyisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,
only.
41. Defendant U.S. Department of State is responsible for issuing visas and
implementingtheMuslimExclusionOrder. TheSecretaryoftheU.S.DepartmentofState
positioniscurrentlyvacant.
42. DefendantDirectorofNational Intelligence isresponsible for implementing
the Muslim Exclusion Order. The Director of National Intelligence position is currently
vacant.DefendantDirectorofNationalIntelligenceisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
JurisdictionandVenue
43. Under U.S. Const. Art. III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights
soughttobeprotectedhereinaresecuredbytheUnitedStatesConstitution.Jurisdictionis
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, 5 U.S.C. § 706, the United States
Constitution,andfederalcommonlaw.
16
44. Thisactionseeksdamagespursuantto28U.S.C.§1343(a)(4)and28U.S.C.§
1357.
45. ThisactionalsoseeksdeclaratoryreliefpursuanttotheDeclaratoryJudgment
Act, 28U.S.C. § § 2201‐02, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
pursuanttothegeneral,legal,andequitablepowersofthisCourt.
46. Asubstantialpartoftheunlawfulactsallegedhereinwerecommittedwithin
thejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia.
47. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to the Defendants because
DefendantsareofficersoremployeesoftheUnitedStatessuedintheirofficialcapacityand
becausethisjudicialdistrictiswhereasubstantialpartoftheeventsoromissionsgivingrise
totheclaimsoccurred.
FactualBackground
PresidentTrump’sUnconstitutionalExecutiveOrderBanningMuslimsfromEnteringtheUnitedStatesandInitiatingMassExpulsionofImmigrantandNonimmigrantMuslimsLawfullyResidingWithintheUnitedStates
48. The Muslim Exclusion Order is the as‐promised outcome of Defendant
Trump’shateful, year‐long campaignwhichwas fueled, in significantpart, by adesire to
stigmatizeIslamandMuslims.
49. DefendantTrumphasoftenrepeatedhisbigotedviewsonIslamandMuslims
inavarietyofcontexts—inprint,ontelevision,andviaofficialcampaignstatements.The
MuslimExclusionOrderisthelegalmanifestationofthosebigotedviews.
50. DefendantTrump’sviewsonIslamareunequivocal. OnoraboutMarch10,
2016,inaninterviewairedonCNN,PresidentTrumpdeclaredthathethinks“Islamhates
us.”
17
51. HisstatementsregardingIslamandMuslimsgiverisetotheinferencethatthe
MuslimExclusionOrderismotivatedbyabaredesiretoinflictharmonthisfaithandthose
thatbelongtoit.
52. InadditiontoPresidentTrump’sstatementsregardingIslamandMuslims,the
history of theMuslim Exclusion Order reveals its unlawful, discriminatory purpose. On
December7, 2015,while campaigning, PresidentTrump called for “a total and complete
shutdown ofMuslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can
figureoutwhatisgoingon.”
53. Defendant Trump’s rationale for this proposal included sweeping
condemnationsofIslam,thesecondlargestreligionintheworldwithover1.6billionpeople.
HiscondemnationincorrectlysurmisedthatIslam’sreligioustraditions,whichhereferred
to as “Sharia”, “authoriz[e] such atrocities as murder against non‐believers who won’t
convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans,
especiallywomen.”
54. SubsequenttohisnominationastheRepublicancandidateforthepresidency,
DefendantTrumpbeganusingfaciallyneutrallanguagetodescribehisanti‐Muslimpolicy.
ThisneutrallanguagesuggestedthataTrumpadministrationwouldstopimmigration“from
anynationthathasbeencompromisedbyterrorism.”
55. On or about July 24, 2016, however, Defendant Trump disclosed that the
neutrallanguagewassimplyaveneerintendedtosubduethepubliccontroversygenerated
byhisdiscriminatoryplan.Tothatend,inaninterviewonNBC,DefendantTrumpstatedthe
following:“PeopleweresoupsetwhenIusedthewordMuslim.Oh,youcan’tusetheword
Muslim…AndI’mOKwiththat,becauseI’mtalkingterritoryinsteadofMuslim.”
18
56. Infact,OnJanuary27,2017,hoursbeforesigningtheMuslimBan,President
Trumpexplained thathisorderwas “going tohelp [persecutedChristians]”. His answer
madeclearthatPresidentTrump’sintentionincraftingtheMuslimBanwastotreatforeign
nationalsinthesevenidentifiedcountriesdifferentlybasedontheirfaith.
57. OnJanuary28,2017,inaninterview,RudyGiulianiexplainedthatafterthen‐
candidateDonaldTrumpannouncedhisMuslimBan—whichexplicitlyprohibitedMuslims
fromobtainingentryintotheUnitedStates—Giulianiwasaskedto“show[DonaldTrump]
therightwaytodo[MuslimBan]legally.”Giulianithenformedacommissiontofindaway
toaccomplishtheMuslimBan’sscopewithoutmentioningIslamorMuslims.
58. SincethesigningoftheMuslimExclusionBanjusttwodaysago,fivedistrict
courtsaroundthecountryissuedstays.
59. OnJanuary28,2017,JudgeBrinkemaintheEasternDistrictofVirginiaissued
a Temporary Restraining Order that forbade Defendants “from removing petitioners—
lawfulpermanentresidentsatDullesInternationalAirport—foraperiodof7daysfromthe
issuanceofthatOrder,attachedanexhibit.
60. Onthesameday, theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtof theWesternDistrictof
Washington granted an emergency stay of removal that prohibits Defendants “from
removingJohnDoeIandJoeDoeIIfromtheUnitedStates.”ThatOrderisalsoattachedas
anexhibit.
61. Againonthesameday,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrict
ofNewYork granted an emergency stay of removal, finding that the petitioners “have a
strong likelihoodof success inestablishing that the removalof thepetitioner andothers
19
similarlysituatedviolatestheirrightstoDueProcessandEqualProtection.”ThatOrderis
alsoattachedasanexhibit.
62. On January 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted a Temporary Restraining Order against parts of theMuslim Ban,
findingthatthepetitionershadestablisheda“stronglikelihoodofsuccess inestablishing
that thedetentionand/or removalof thepetitionersandothers similarly situatedwould
violatetheirrightstoDueProcessandEqualProtection.”ThatOrderisalsoattachedasan
exhibit.
63. That same day, the United States District Court for the Central District of
Californiaprohibitedthedefendants“frombarringPetitioner’sreturntotheUnitedStates”
becausehehad“demonstratedastronglikelihoodofsuccessinestablishingthatremoval
violatestheEstablishmentClause”aswellasotherconstitutionalandstatutoryprovisions.
ThatOrderisalsoattachedasanexhibit.
64. WhiletheMuslimExclusionOrderstatesthatitsuspendsentryintotheUnited
StatesimmigrantsandnonimmigrantsfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriesfor90days,at
theconclusionofthefirst60days,theSecretaryofHomelandSecurityandSecretaryofState
willsubmitalistofcountriesforapermanentbanonentry.
65. ThelanguageoftheMuslimExclusionOrdercorroboratesPresidentTrump’s
admissionthatthefaciallyneutrallanguageissimplyapretext.TheOrderdoesnotexclude
personsbasedonwheretheyare frombutonwhatreligiontheybelongto. ParagraphF
suspendsall grounds forpersecutionandallowsonlyone: “religious‐basedpersecution.”
However, religious‐based persecution can only be claimed by individuals who are not
20
Muslim.Thus,theMuslimExclusionOrderconstitutesareligiousgerrymander—drawing
distinctionsthatexcludethedisfavoredgroup—Muslims—whileleavingothersuntouched.
66. Plaintiffshavesufferedandwillcontinuetosufferanongoingconcreteharm
andpsychological consequencessince the initialannouncementof the “MuslimBan”asa
resultoftheDefendants’condemnationoftheirreligionandtheendorsementofallreligions
overtheirown.CatholicLeagueforReligious&Civ.Rightsv.City&CountyofSanFrancisco,
567F.3d595(9thCir.2009).
COUNTIVIOLATIONOFTHEFIRSTAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(EstablishmentClause)
(OnbehalfofallPlaintiffs)
67. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
68. Defendants’ unique application of theMuslim Exclusion Order toMuslims,
insofar as it (1) suspends entry of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants
originating from the Muslim‐majority countries from entering the United States, (2)
prohibits Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Muslim‐
majority countries and who reside lawfully in the United States from engaging in
internationaltravelandreenteringtheUnitedStates,(3)prohibitsMuslimimmigrantsand
Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Muslim‐majority countries and who reside
lawfullyintheUnitedStatesfromrenewingtheirlawfulimmigrantornonimmigrantstatus,
(4) prohibitsMuslim immigrants andMuslim nonimmigrants originating from same the
Muslim‐majority countries from applying for any immigration benefit, including
immigrationbenefitsaffordedundertheINAandinternationalhumanrightslawssuchas
21
political asylum, (5) allowsanexceptiononly tonon‐UnitedStatesCitizens (“non‐USCs”)
originating from the Muslim‐majority countries who are not Muslim to claim religious
persecutionandgainentryintotheUnitedStates,and(6)denyingareligiouspersecution
exceptiontonon‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieswhoareMuslimin
ordertogainentryintotheUnitedStates,treatsIslamonlessthanequaltermswithother
religiousandnon‐religiousgroups, therebycreatingadenominationalpreferenceagainst
Islamasareligion.
69. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and similarly
situatedMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriestheirrighttobefreefrom
religiousdiscriminationinviolationoftheEstablishmentClausetotheFirstAmendmentto
theUnitedStatesConstitutionbysigningaMuslimExclusionOrderwhosepurposeandeffect
istodiscriminateonthebasisofreligion.
70. PresidentTrump’sMuslimExclusionOrderimposesuponIslam—thereligion
towhichallofthePlaintiffsbelong—thestigmaofgovernmentdisfavor.Thiscondemnation,
whichhasbeencasttothegeneralpublicpursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,signalsto
Plaintiffs’fellowcitizensthattheirfaithisuniquelythreateninganddangerousinsofarasit
istheonlyreligionsingledoutfordisfavoredtreatment.
71. Plaintiffshavesufferedandwillcontinuetosufferanongoingconcreteharm
andpsychological consequencessince the initialannouncementof the “MuslimBan”asa
resultoftheDefendants’condemnationoftheirreligionandtheendorsementofallreligions
overtheirown.CatholicLeagueforReligious&Civ.Rightsv.City&CountyofSanFrancisco,
567F.3d595(9thCir.2009).
22
72. Defendants’unlawfulactionscausedPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedMuslims
harm,andaccordinglytheyareentitledtoinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,inadditiontoall
suchotherreliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesinthis
action.
73. Plaintiffsareentitledtodeclaratoryrelief,andtheissuanceofapreliminary
andpermanentinjunctionintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTIIVIOLATIONOFTHEFIRSTAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(FreeExercise)
(OnbehalfoftheJohnDoeandJaneDoePlaintiffs)
74. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
75. Defendants’ unique application of theMuslim Exclusion Order toMuslims,
insofarasitprohibitstheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatednon‐USC
MuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,(1)whoarelawfullyresidinginthe
UnitedStatesfromengagingininternationaltravelandsubsequentlyreenteringtheUnited
Statesinordertoreturntotheirhomes,(2)whoarelawfullyresidingintheUnitedStates
from renewing their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, and (3) who are either
lawfully residing inside theUnited States or outside theUnited States from applying for
immigrationbenefitsaffordedundertheImmigrationandNationalityActof1965(“INA”)
23
andinternationalhumanrightslawssuchaspoliticalasylum,hasdeprivedandcontinuesto
deprivethemtheirrighttofreeexerciseofreligionassecuredbytheFirstAmendmentto
the United States Constitution, by discriminating against them based on their religious
beliefsandbysubstantiallyburdeningtheirrighttofreelyexercisetheirreligiousfaith.
76. Defendants’ above‐described unlawful actions directly infringe upon or
substantiallyburdentheFirstAmendmentrightstofreeexerciseofreligionasguaranteed
by theUnited States Constitution of the John and JaneDoePlaintiffs and other similarly
situatednon‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriesbydiscriminating
againstthembasedontheirreligiousbeliefsandbysubstantiallyburdeningtheirrightto
freelyexercisetheirreligiousfaith.
77. Defendants’ above‐described unlawful actions that mandate or permit the
above‐describedtreatmentoftheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
non‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,constituteasubstantial
burdenontheirFirstAmendmentrightstofreeexerciseofreligion,anadverseactionagainst
themmotivatedbytheirreligiousbeliefsandpractices,andanactionthattargetsreligious
conductfordistinctivetreatment.
78. Defendants’ above‐described unlawful actions that mandate or permit the
above‐describedtreatmentoftheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
non‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieswoulddeteranindividual
ofordinaryfirmnessfromopenlyexercisinghis/herrighttopracticehis/herreligionand
maycausethatindividualtoabandonhisfaith.
79. Defendants’actionsalsonotnarrowlytailoredinsofarastheyareentirelyand
demonstrablyineffectualandobviousalternativesexist.
24
80. Impositionofsuchaburdenisnotinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernment
interest nor is it the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest,
compellingorotherwise.
81. Plaintiffshavesufferedandwillcontinuetosufferanongoingconcreteharm
andpsychological consequencessince the initialannouncementof the “MuslimBan”asa
resultoftheDefendants’condemnationoftheirreligionandtheendorsementofallreligions
overtheirown.CatholicLeagueforReligious&Civ.Rightsv.City&CountyofSanFrancisco,
567F.3d595(9thCir.2009).
82. Defendants’unlawfulactionscausedtheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandother
similarly situated non‐USCMuslims originating from theMuslim‐majority countries, and
accordinglytheyareentitledtoinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,inadditiontoallsuchother
reliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesinthisaction.
83. The John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief, and the
issuanceofapreliminaryandpermanentinjunctionintheformdescribedinthePrayerfor
Reliefbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
25
COUNTIIIVIOLATIONOFTHEFIFTHAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)(EqualProtection)
(OnbehalfoftheJohnDoeandJaneDoePlaintiffs)
84. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
85. Defendants’ unique application of theMuslim Exclusion Order toMuslims,
insofarasitprohibitstheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatednon‐USC
MuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,(1)whoareresidinglawfullyinthe
UnitedStatesfromengagingininternationaltravelandsubsequentlyreenteringtheUnited
Statesinordertoreturntotheirhomes,(2)whoareresidinglawfullyintheUnitedStates
from renewing their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, and (3) who are either
residing lawfully inside theUnited States or outside theUnited States from applying for
immigrationbenefitsaffordedundertheImmigrationandNationalityActof1965(“INA”)
and international human rights laws such as political asylum,without a constitutionally
adequatelegalmechanism,arediscriminatoryandconstituteanactionthattargetsreligious
conductfordistinctivetreatment.
86. Bypreventing the Johnand JaneDoePlaintiffs andother similarly situated
non‐USCMuslimsoriginating fromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries lawfullyresiding inthe
UnitedStatesfromengagingininternationaltravelandreturninghomeintheUnitedStates,
and/or applying for immigration benefits afforded to them under the Immigration and
NationalityActof1965(“INA”)andinternationalhumanrightslawsuchaspoliticalasylum,
Defendantshavetreatedthemlikesecond‐classcitizens.
26
87. Moreover,non‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieswhoseek
lawfulentryintotheUnitedStatesorthatleavethecountryandclaimreligiouspersecution
upon their return,andwhoarenotMuslim,willbepermitted toenter theUnitedStates
pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder.
88. On theotherhand,non‐USCMuslimsoriginating from theMuslim‐majority
countrieswhoseeklawfulentryintotheUnitedStatesorthatleavethecountryandclaim
religiouspersecutionupontheirreturn,andwhoareMuslimwillnotbepermittedtoenter
theUnitedStatespursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder.
89. Defendants’above‐describedactionsaremotivatedbythereligiousstatusof
theJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatednon‐USCMuslimsoriginating
fromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriesandonthebasisoftheirconstitutionally‐protectedfree
exerciseofreligion.
90. Defendants’actionslackacompellinginterestinsofarastheirtruepurposeis
tobanMuslimsoriginating fromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries fromentering theUnited
Statesandtoinitiatethemassexpulsionofnon‐USCMuslimslawfullyresidingintheUnited
States by denying them the ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration
benefitsaffordedtothemundertheINAbasedsolelyontheirreligiousbeliefs.
91. Defendants’ above‐describedactionshaveadiscriminatoryeffectuponand
disparately impact the Johnand JaneDoePlaintiffs andother similarly situatednon‐USC
MuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,andnotnon‐USCsofotherfaiths
originatingfromthesameMuslim‐majoritycountries.
92. Defendants’actionsalsonotnarrowlytailoredinsofarastheyareentirelyand
demonstrablyineffectualandobviousalternativesexist.
27
93. Defendants’above‐describedactionsdonotserveacompellingstateinterest
or a legitimate or public purpose, nor are they the least restrictive means or narrowly
tailoredtoachieveanysuchinterest.
94. Plaintiffshavesufferedaconcreteharmandpsychologicalconsequencesasa
resultoftheDefendants’condemnationoftheirreligionandtheendorsementofallreligions
overtheirown.CatholicLeagueforReligious&Civ.Rightsv.City&CountyofSanFrancisco,
567F.3d595(9thCir.2009).
95. Defendants’unlawfulactionscausedtheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandother
similarlysituatednon‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriesharm,
andaccordinglytheyareentitledtoinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,inadditiontoallsuch
other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this
action.
96. The John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief, and the
issuanceofapreliminaryandpermanentinjunctionintheformdescribedinthePrayerfor
Reliefbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
28
COUNTIVUNLAWFULAGENCYACTIONINVIOLATIONOFTHEADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
ACT,5U.S.C.§§702,706(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
(OnbehalfofallPlaintiffs)
97. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
98. Defendants’ unique application of theMuslim Exclusion Order toMuslims,
insofarasit(1)suspendsentryofnon‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majority
countriesfromenteringtheUnitedStates,(2)prohibitsnon‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfrom
the Muslim‐majority countries lawfully residing in the United States from engaging in
international travel and reentering the United States, (3) prohibits non‐USC Muslims
originatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieslawfullyresidingintheUnitedStatesfrom
renewing their lawful immigrantornonimmigrantstatus, (4)prohibitsnon‐USCMuslims
originatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriesfromapplyingforanyimmigrationbenefit,
includingimmigrationbenefitsaffordedundertheINAandinternationalhumanrightslaws
such as political asylum, (5) allows an exception only to non‐USCs originating from the
Muslim‐majoritycountrieswhoarenotMuslimtoclaimreligiouspersecutionandgainentry
into the United States, and (6) denying a religious persecution exception to non‐USCs
originatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieswhoareMusliminordertogainentryinto
theUnitedStates,treatsIslamonlessthanequaltermswithotherreligiousandnon‐religious
groups,shouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
99. Defendants’actionsasdescribedabovearearbitraryandcapricious,shockthe
conscience,violatethedecenciesofcivilizedconduct,aresobrutalandoffensivethatthey
do not comportwith the traditional ideas of fair play and decency, lack even a rational
29
relationship to any legitimate government interest, andhave substantially burdened and
undulydeprivedPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedMuslims theirconstitutionallyprotected
rights,includingtheirrighttobefreefromdiscriminationonthebasisofreligion,theright
tobefreefromcondemnationbythegovernmentonthebasisoftheirreligion,therightto
befreefrombeingsingledoutbythegovernmentfordisfavoredtreatmentonthebasisof
theirreligion,libertyinterestsinengagingininternationaltravelandreturninghomeinthe
UnitedStates,theirinternationalhumanrights,theirrighttofreeexerciseofreligion,their
rights to freedom from false stigmatizationandnonattainder, and shouldbe set aside as
unlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
100. Defendants’ above‐described unlawful actions that mandate or permit the
above‐describedtreatmentoftheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
non‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,constituteasubstantial
burdenontheirFirstAmendmentrightstofreeexerciseofreligion,anadverseactionagainst
themmotivatedbytheirreligiousbeliefsandpractices,andanactionthattargetsreligious
conductfordistinctivetreatment,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§
706.
101. Defendants’ above‐described unlawful actions that mandate or permit the
above‐describedtreatmentoftheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
non‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieswoulddeteranindividual
ofordinaryfirmnessfromopenlyexercisinghis/herrighttopracticehis/herreligionand
maycausethatindividualtoabandonhisfaith,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuant
to5U.S.C.§706.
30
102. Bypreventing the Johnand JaneDoePlaintiffs andother similarly situated
non‐USCMuslimsoriginating fromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries lawfullyresiding inthe
UnitedStatesfromengagingininternationaltravelandreturninghomeintheUnitedStates,
and/orapplyingforimmigrationbenefitsaffordedundertheImmigrationandNationality
Actof1965(“INA”)andinternationalhumanrightslawssuchaspoliticalasylum,Defendants
havetreatedthemlikesecond‐classcitizens,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto
5U.S.C.§706.
103. Moreover,non‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountrieswhoseek
lawfulentryintotheUnitedStatesorthatleavethecountryandclaimreligiouspersecution
upon their return,andwhoarenotMuslim,willbepermitted toenter theUnitedStates
pursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5
U.S.C.§706.
104. Ontheotherhand,non‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries
whoseeklawfulentryintotheUnitedStatesorthatleavethecountryandclaimreligious
persecutionupontheirreturn,andwhoareMuslim,willnotbepermittedtoentertheUnited
StatespursuanttotheMuslimExclusionOrder,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuant
to5U.S.C.§706.
105. Defendants’above‐describedconductwaspromptedorsubstantiallycaused
byPlaintiffs’andsuchothersimilarlysituatedMuslims’religiousidentityonthebasisoftheir
constitutionally‐protected free exercise of religion, and should be set aside as unlawful
pursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
106. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Muslims their right to be free from religious discrimination in violation of the
31
EstablishmentClausetotheFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionbyissuinga
MuslimExclusionOrderwhosepurposeandeffectistodiscriminateonthebasisofreligion,
andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
107. PresidentTrump’sMuslimExclusionOrderimposesuponIslam—thereligion
towhichallofthePlaintiffsbelong—thestigmaofgovernmentdisfavor.Thiscondemnation,
whichhasbeenbroadcast to thegeneralpublicpursuant to theMuslimExclusionOrder,
signals toPlaintiffs’ fellowcitizens that their faith isuniquely threateninganddangerous
insofarasitistheonlyreligionsingledoutfordisfavoredtreatment,andshouldbesetaside
asunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
108. Defendants’actionsalsonotnarrowlytailoredinsofarastheyareentirelyand
demonstrablyineffectualandobviousalternativesexist,andshouldbesetasideasunlawful
pursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
109. Defendants’actionslackacompellinginterestinsofarastheirtruepurposeis
tobanMuslimsoriginatingfromtheseMuslim‐majoritycountriesfromenteringtheUnited
Statesandtoinitiatethemassexpulsionofnon‐USCMuslimslawfullyresidingintheUnited
States by denying them the ability to renew their lawful status or receive immigration
benefitsaffordedtothemundertheINAbasedsolelyontheirreligiousbeliefs,andshould
besetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
110. Impositionofsuchaburdenisnotinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernment
interest nor is it the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest,
compellingorotherwise,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
111. Defendants’ above‐describedactionshaveadiscriminatoryeffectuponand
havedisparatelyimpactedtheJohnandJaneDoePlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatednon‐USC
32
MuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,andnotnon‐USCsofotherfaiths,
andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
112. Plaintiffshavesufferedandwillcontinuetosufferanongoingconcreteharm
andpsychological consequencessince the initialannouncementof the “MuslimBan”asa
resultoftheDefendants’condemnationoftheirreligionandtheendorsementofallreligions
overtheirown.CatholicLeagueforReligious&Civ.Rightsv.City&CountyofSanFrancisco,
567F.3d595(9thCir.2009).
113. Defendants’unlawfulactionscausedPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedMuslims
harm,andaccordinglytheyareentitledtoinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,inadditiontoall
suchotherreliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesinthis
action.
114. Plaintiffsareentitledtodeclaratoryrelief,andtheissuanceofapreliminary
andpermanentinjunctionintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
PrayerforRelief
WHEREFORE,Plaintiffsrespectfullyrequests:
1. A speedy hearing of this action under Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
2. AdeclaratoryjudgmentthatDefendants’policies,practices,andcustomsviolate
theFifthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution;
33
3. An injunction that requiresDefendants to remedy the constitutional violations
identifiedabove,includingprohibitingDefendantsfromengaginginthefollowing:
(1) suspending entry of individuals with dual nationality,includingAmericancitizens,whosesecondnationality is fromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,fromenteringtheUnitedStates,pursuanttotheunconstitutionaltermsspecifiedintheMuslimExclusionOrder;
(2)suspendingentryofnon‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountriesfromenteringtheUnitedStates,pursuanttothe unconstitutional terms specified in theMuslim ExclusionOrder;
(3)prohibitingnon‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries and who lawfully reside in the United States fromengaging in international travel and reentering the UnitedStates,pursuanttotheunconstitutionaltermsspecifiedintheMuslimExclusionOrder;
(4)prohibitingnon‐USCsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries and who lawfully reside in the United States fromrenewing their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status,pursuanttotheunconstitutionaltermsspecifiedintheMuslimExclusionOrder;
(5) prohibiting non‐USCs originating from these Muslimscountriesfromapplyingforanyimmigrationbenefit,includingpoliticalasylum,undertheImmigrationandNationalityActof1965(“INA”),pursuanttotheunconstitutionaltermsspecifiedintheMuslimExclusionOrder;
(6)allowinganexceptiononlytonon‐USCswhoarenotMuslimto claim religious persecution and gain entry into theUnitedStates,pursuanttotheunconstitutionaltermsspecifiedintheMuslimExclusionOrder;and
(7)denyinganexceptiontonon‐USCswhoareMusliminorderto gain entry into the United States, pursuant to theunconstitutionaltermsspecifiedintheMuslimExclusionOrder;
4. Atrialbyjury;
34
5. Anawardofattorneys’fees,costs,andexpensesofalllitigation,pursuantto28
U.S.C.§2412;and,
6. SuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper.
JURYDEMAND
NOWCOMEPlaintiffs,byandthroughtheirundersignedcounsel,andherebydemand
trialbyjuryoftheabove‐referencedcausesofaction.
Respectfullysubmitted,
THELAWOFFICEOFGADEIRABBASBY:/s/GadeirAbbasGADEIRI.ABBASAttorneyforPlaintiff1155FStreetNW,Suite1050Washington,D.C.20004Telephone:(720)251‐0425Fax:(720)251‐0425Email:[email protected],notinD.C.Practicelimitedtofederalmatters
COUNCILONAMERICAN‐ISLAMICRELATIONSBY: /s/LenaMasriLENAF.MASRI(P73461)AttorneyforPlaintiffNationalLitigationDirector353NewJerseyAve,SEWashington,DC20003Phone:(202)488‐8787
35
AKEEL&VALENTINE,PLLCBY: /s/ShereefAkeelSHEREEFH.AKEEL(P54345)AttorneyforPlaintiffs888W.BigBeaverRd.,Ste.910Troy,MI48084Phone:(248)269‐[email protected]
Dated:January30,2017