United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY DEADLINES PENDING
RESOLUTION OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING NATIONWIDE
DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.