united states district court eastern district of … · 1/30/2017 · 1:17-cv-00120 case...

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. )

1:17-cv-00120

Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 of 35 PageID# 1

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.


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.


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.





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)



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.



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.





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.





25

COUNTIIIVIOLATIONOFTHEFIFTHAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION

(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)(EqualProtection)

(OnbehalfoftheJohnDoeandJaneDoePlaintiffs)



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.


demonstrablyineffectualandobviousalternativesexist.


27

93. Defendants’above‐describedactionsdonotserveacompellingstateinterest

or a legitimate or public purpose, nor are they the least restrictive means or narrowly

tailoredtoachieveanysuchinterest.

94. Plaintiffshavesufferedaconcreteharmandpsychologicalconsequencesasa



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.





28

COUNTIVUNLAWFULAGENCYACTIONINVIOLATIONOFTHEADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE

ACT,5U.S.C.§§702,706(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)

(OnbehalfofallPlaintiffs)



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.



non‐USCMuslimsoriginatingfromtheMuslim‐majoritycountries,constituteasubstantial

burdenontheirFirstAmendmentrightstofreeexerciseofreligion,anadverseactionagainst

themmotivatedbytheirreligiousbeliefsandpractices,andanactionthattargetsreligious

conductfordistinctivetreatment,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§

706.



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.


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.





567F.3d595(9thCir.2009).

113. Defendants’unlawfulactionscausedPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedMuslims

harm,andaccordinglytheyareentitledtoinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,inadditiontoall

suchotherreliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesinthis

action.

114. Plaintiffsareentitledtodeclaratoryrelief,andtheissuanceofapreliminary

andpermanentinjunctionintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow.




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


united states district court eastern district of … · 1/30/2017 · 1:17-cv-00120 case...

Documents