Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Trump

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 9, 2017

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION

          DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         On February 3, 2017, the State of Hawai‘i (“State”) filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin enforcement nationwide of Sections 3(c), 5(a)-5(c), and 5(e) of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order No. 13, 769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive Order”). Hours after the State's filings, a federal district judge from the Western District of Washington entered an injunction that is substantively identical to the one requested here. See Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017).

         Defendants now seek an emergency stay of all deadlines in this case, pending resolution of another emergency stay and appeal filed by the United States in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. 2017). Through its Ninth Circuit efforts, the United States seeks to invalidate or at least narrow the scope of the Western District of Washington's injunction. The United States' emergency stay request was argued to a Ninth Circuit motions panel on February 7, 2017, and a decision is expected shortly.

         Because the balance of relevant factors in the instant case - notably, the orderly course of justice and the balance of hardships to the parties while the existing injunction is in effect - weighs in favor of Defendants' request, the Emergency Motion to Stay is hereby GRANTED IN PART. This matter is stayed so long as the Western District of Washington's February 3, 2017 injunction remains in place undisturbed, or until further order of this Court. All pending deadlines and the hearing on the State's Motion for TRO are accordingly vacated. All further relief requested by the Emergency Motion to Stay is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         The State's Motion for TRO asserts that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for TRO, Dkt. No. 2-1 [hereinafter TRO Mem.]. The State also contends that the Executive Order violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., and three provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.-including its prohibitions on nationality- and religion-based classifications and its limited grant of presidential discretion to suspend entry into the United States by certain immigrant and non-immigrant classes under Section 212(f), as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). See TRO Mem. at 26-32.

         On February 3, 2017, almost immediately following the filing of the State's Complaint and Motion for TRO, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington entered a nationwide TRO enjoining the federal defendants in that case from enforcing the same sections of the Executive Order that the State challenges here. See W.D. Wash. TRO, 2:17-cv-00141, Dkt. No. 52, at 5-6. On Saturday, February 4, 2017, the federal government defendants in the Western District of Washington case filed a notice of appeal (No. 2:17-cv-00141, Dkt. No. 53) and an emergency motion to stay the Western District of Washington injunction, pending resolution of defendants' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 17-35105, Dkt. No. 14). On February 5, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied the State of Hawaii's Emergency Motion to Intervene in the pending Washington v. Trump appeal but granted the State leave to file an amicus brief in that case. Order, No. 17-35105, Dkt. No. 77 (ruling on Mot. to Intervene, No. 17-35105, Dkt. No. 21-1). On February 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the federal defendants' motion to stay the district court's TRO, pending appeal. No. 17-35105, Dkt. Nos. 124 and 125. A decision on that motion to stay is pending.

         In the instant case, Defendants ask the Court to stay existing deadlines and proceedings pending resolution of the appeal of the Western District of Washington's February 3, 2017 TRO. Alternatively, Defendants request that this Court issue a stay pending resolution of the appeal, but also mandate that if the Western District of Washington's nationwide injunction is no longer in effect, then Defendants would be required to file their response to the State's Motion for TRO within 48 hours without further order of this Court.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard

         “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255, for the same).

         In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Id. at 1110 (citing CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268). Those interests include: (A) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, ” (B) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, ” and (C) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. Moreover, “[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Here, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden.

         II. Analy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.