| Washington v. Trump | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | State of Washington; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Argued | February 7, 2017 |
| Decided | February 9, 2017 |
| Citation(s) | 847 F.3d 1151; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2369 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Temporary restraining order granted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16012 (W.D. Wash. February 3, 2017) |
| Subsequent history | Appeal dismissed, 853 F.3d 933, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4572 (9th Cir. Wash., March 15, 2017); rehearing en banc denied, Washington v. Trump, 858 F.3d 1168, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4838 (9th Cir. Wash. March 17, 2017) |
| Holding | |
| The government did not meet its burden to justify a stay of an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of Executive Order 13769. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges. |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.[1][2]
A few days after the executive order was signed, on January 27, 2017, the state of Washington filed a suit alleging that it abrogated the equal protection under the law guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by discriminating among residents of the state according to their nation of origin or religion. The lawsuit also alleged that the order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by disfavoring Islam and favoring Christianity.[3] The federal government argued that the Constitution granted the president "unreviewable authority" over immigration matters and that the non-citizens the executive order affected did not have due process rights.[4][5]
On February 3, 2017, Judge James Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order which forbade the federal government from enforcing certain provisions of the order.[6] The federal government, in turn, filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court, however, denied the government's request to stay the temporary restraining order as the federal government failed to show it was likely to succeed at trial, thereby maintaining the prohibition on the government in enforcing the executive order.[7][8]
- ^ "2:17-cv-00141 State of Washington v. Donald Trumpets Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
- ^ "AG Ferguson seeks halt to Trump's immigration Executive Order - Washington State".
- ^ (Complaint 1 ¶ 41-52, January 30, 2017) Washington v. Trump (W.D.Wash.)
- ^ Washington v. Trump (9th Cir.) at 13, 19-21
- ^ "Case: 17-35105 Motion for Emergency Stay" (PDF).
- ^ "AG FERGUSON OBTAINS COURT ORDER HALTING TRUMP IMMIGRATION ACTION". Washington State Office of the Attorney General. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2017.
- ^ Laura Jarrett (February 5, 2017). "DOJ appealing travel ban ruling". CNN. Retrieved February 5, 2017.
- ^ "US appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban". CNBC. February 9, 2017.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search