Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., CASE NO. 
Plaintiffs, TEMPORARY RESTRATNING
ORDER

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et a1.,

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION
Before the court is Plaintiffs State of Washington and State of Minnesota?s
(collectively, ?the States?). emergency motion for a temporary restraining order 
(TRO- Met. (cht. 3, 19 (as amended)).) The court has reviewed the motion, the
complaint (Cornpl. (Dkt. the amended complaint-(FAC (Dkt. all the
submissions of the parties related to the metion, the relevant portions of the record, and

the applicable law. In addition, the court heard the argument of counsel on February 3,



ORDER - 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 7

2017. (See Min. Entry (Dkt. Having considered all of the foregoing, the court
GRANTS the States? motion as set forth below.
11. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2017, the State of Washington ?led a complaint seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Donald J. Trump, in his official I
capacity as Presidentof the United States, the United States Department of Homeland
Security John F. Kelly, in his of?cial capacity as Secretary of DHS, Torn
Shannon, in his of?cial capacity as Acting Secretary of State, and the United States of
America (collectively, ?Federal (See Compl.) On February 1,2017, the
State of Washington ?led an amended complaint adding the State of Minnesota as a
plaintiff. (See FAC.) The States seek declaratory relief invalidating portions of the
Executive Order of January 27, 2017, entitled ?Protecting the Nation from-Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States? (?Executive Order?) (see FAC EX. 7 (attaching a
copy of the Executive Order)), and an order enjoining Federal Defendants from enforcing
those same portions of the Executive Order. (See generally FAC at 18.)

The States are presently before the court seeking a TRO against Federal
Defendants. (See generoily TRO Met.) The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status
quo before the court holds a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. See Granny
Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. OfTeomsters Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 ofAZam-edo
City, 415 U..S. 423', 439' (1974); Am. Honda Fin. Corp. v. Gilbert Imports, LLC, No.
2013 WL 12120097, at *3 (ED. Was-h. Feb. 22, 2013) (?The purpose



ORDER 2

 

 

 

Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page preserve the status quo until there is an opportunity to hold a hearing on
the application for a preliminary injunction. . . (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Defendants oppose the States? motion. (See generally Resp. (Dkt. 
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As an initial matter, the court ?nds that it has jurisdiction over Federal Defendants

land the subject matter of this lawsuit. The States? efforts to contact Federal Defendants

reasonably and substantially complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Indeed, Federal Defendants have appeared,
argued before the court, and defended their position in this action. (See Not. of App.
(Dkt. 20, Min. Entry; see generally Resp. I

The standard for issuing. a TRO is the same as the standard for issuing a
preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox 434
US. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977). A TRO is ?an extraordinary remedy that may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to Such relief? Winter v. Nat.
Res. Def. Council, Inn, 555- US. 7, 24 (2008). ?The proper leg-a1 standard for
preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate (1) ?that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an
injunction is in the public interest.? Stormarzs, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th
Cir. 2009) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

As an alternative to this test, a preliminary injunction is appropriate if ?serious

questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in

ORDER - 3

 

 

 

Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of7

the plaintiff favor,? thereby allowing preservation of the status quo when compleir legal
questions require further inspection or deliberation. All. for the Wiid Rockies v. Cottrell,
632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the ?serious questions? approach
supports the court?s entry of a TRO only so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest. Id. at
1135. The moving party bears the burden of persuasion and must make a clear showing
that it is entitled to such relief. Winter, 555 US. at 22.

The court ?nds that the States have satis?ed these standards and that" the court
should issue .a TRO. The States have satis?ed the Winter test because they have shown
that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claims that vvould entitle them to relief;
the States are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the
balance of the equities favor the States; and a TRO is in the public interest. The court
also ?nds that the States have satisfied the ?alternative? Cottreii test because they have
established at least serious questions going to the merits of their claims and that the
balance of the equities tips sharply in their favor. As the court noted for the Winter test,
the States have also established a likelihood of irreparable injury and that a TRO is in the
public interest. I

?Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court ?nds that the States
have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as
a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
adversely affects the States? residents in areas of employment, education, business,

family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of

ORDER 4

 

 

 

 

10Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 7

their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the
States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the
Executive Order has in?icted upon the operations and missions of their public
universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States"
operations, tax bases, and public funds. These harms are signi?cant and ongoing.
Accordingly, the court concludes that a TRO against Federal Defendants is necessary
until such time as the court can hear and decide the States? request for a preliminary
injunction.

IV. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Federal Defendants and all their respective of?cers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them
are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from:

I Enforcing Section 3(c) :of the Executive Order,
Enforcing Section 5(a) of the Executive Order;
2(0) Enforcing Section 5(b) of the Executive Order or proceeding with any
action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities;
Enforcing Section 5(0) of the. Executive Order;
Enforcing Section 5(e) of the Executive Order to the extent Section 5(a)
purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities?.
2. This TRO is granted on a nationwide basis and prohibits enforcement of

Sections and 5(e) of the Executive Order (as described in

ORDER - 5

 

 

 

2'2

 

 

Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 7

the above paragraph) at all United States borders and ports of entry pending
further orders from this court. Although Federal Defendants argued that any
should be limited to the States at issue (see Resp. at 30), the resulting
partial implementation of the Executive Order ?would undermine the
constitutional imperative of ?a uniform Rule of Naturalization? and Congress?s
instruction that ?the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced
vigorously and um?formly.?? Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 155 (5th
Cir. 2015) (footnotes omitted) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. I, cl. 4
(emphasis added) and Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-603, 115(1), 100 Stat. 3359, 33-84 (emphasis added?.1

3. No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(0).

4. Finally, the court orders the parties to propose a briefing schedule and noting
date with respect to the States? motion for a preliminary injunction no later
than Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:00 pm. The court will schedule
a hearing on the States? motion for a preliminary injunction, if requested and
necessary, following receipt of the parties? briefing.

CONCLUSION

Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of

three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create

policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.

 

1An equally divided Supreme Court af?rmed Texas 7v. Uni-red States, 809 F.3d 134, in
United States v. Texas, U.S. 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam).

ORDER - 6

 

 

 

Case Document 52 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 7

That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this
country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the
Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two
branches comport with our country?s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution. The
narrow question the court is asked to consider today is whether it is appropriate to enter a
TRO against certain actions taken by the Executive in the context of this specific lawsuit.
Although the question is narrow, the court is mindful of the considerable impact its order
may have on the parties before it, the executive branch of our government, and the
country?s- citizens and residents. The court concludes that the circumstances brought
before it today are such that it must intervene to ful?ll its constitutional role in our tripart
government. Accordingly, the court concludes that entry of the above~described TRO is
necessary, and the States? motion (Dkt. 2, 19) is therefore GRANTED.

aim

Dated this 3?day of February, 2017.

ROBART

United tates District Judge

ORDER - 7