In response to the original executive order, IRAP became involved in two lawsuits, IRAP v. Trump and Darweesh v. Trump, to challenge the Muslim ban and protect the rights of our clients and other refugees and immigrants, while simultaneously proving that executive power can be checked.
Learn more about these lawsuits and our wider litigation efforts:
- Darweesh v. Trump: Preventing Mass Detention and Deportation
In January 2017, we filed this first-in-the-nation challenge to President Trump’s first Executive Order banning entry of nationals from certain Muslim-majority countries (EO #13,769). We filed the emergency lawsuit on behalf of two Iraqi IRAP clients who were detained at JFK airport and threatened with deportation because the EO was issued while they were en route to the United States.
That same day, the court blocked deportations under the EO, leading to the release of approximately 2,000 people. In settling the case, the government agreed to reach out to everyone who was denied entry or deported under the EO and who had not yet reapplied for a visa or returned to the United States to inform them of their right to reapply for a visa.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP were co-counsel in this litigation.
View the complaint: Darweesh v Trump
View the press release: https://refugeerights.org/press-release-first-lawsuit-filed-challenging-trumps-order-banning-refugees-from-the-united-states/
View the New York Times story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html
IRAP v. Trump was the first lawsuit challenging the executive order in its entirety. The complaint states that the order is equivalent to a Muslim ban and thus unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law. The lawsuit was filed by IRAP, HIAS, and individual plaintiffs. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center are acting as co-counsel.
After oral arguments at the Maryland District Court, in response to an amended complaint filed by IRAP, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of a partial preliminary injunction, providing relief to thousands who would’ve been affected by these sweeping, discriminatory travel restrictions. On February 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit en banc affirmed the injunction.
However, on June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawai’i, which also challenged the new Proclamation, allowed the Proclamation to take effect and found that plaintiffs are not entitled to preliminary relief. Following that decision, IRAP v. Trump was remanded to the district court.
View the complaint: IRAP_v_Trump_Complaint
View the press release: GROUPS FILE NEW CHALLENGE TO TRUMP MUSLIM BAN Press Release Feb 7 2017