...
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As an initial matter, the court finds that it has jurisdiction over Federal Defendants
and the subject matter of this lawsuit. The States efforts to contact Federal Defendants
reasonably and substantially complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(b). Indeed, Federal Defendants have appeared,
argued before the court, and defended their position in this action.
The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the standard for issuing a
preliminary injunction. A TRO is an extraordinary remedy that may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to Such relief. The proper legal standard for
preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate (1) that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an
injunction is in the public interest.
As an alternative to this test, a preliminary injunction is appropriate if serious
questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in
pg 3
the plaintiff favor, thereby allowing preservation of the status quo when compleir legal
questions require further inspection or deliberation. However, the serious questions approach
supports the courts entry of a TRO only so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest. The moving party
bears the burden of persuasion and must make a clear showing
that it is entitled to such relief.
The court finds that the States have satisfied these standards and that" the court
should issue a TRO. The States have satisfied the Winter test because they have shown
that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claims that would entitle them to relief;
the States are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the
balance of the equities favor the States; and a TRO is in the public interest. The court
also finds that the States have satisfied the alternative Cottreii test because they have
established at least serious questions going to the merits of their claims and that the
balance of the equities tips sharply in their favor. As the court noted for the Winter test,
the States have also established a likelihood of irreparable injury and that a TRO is in the
public interest.
Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO, the court finds that the States
have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as
a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
adversely affects the States? residents in areas of employment, education, business,
family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of
pg 4
IV. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them
are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from:
I Enforcing Section 3(c) of the Executive Order,
Enforcing Section 5(a) of the Executive Order;
2(0) Enforcing Section 5(b) of the Executive Order or proceeding with any
action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities;
Enforcing Section 5(0) of the. Executive Order;
Enforcing Section 5(e) of the Executive Order to the extent Section 5(a)
purports to prioritize refugee claims of certain religious minorities.
2. This TRO is granted on a nationwide basis and prohibits enforcement of
Sections and 5(e) of the Executive Order (as described in
the above paragraph) at all United States borders and ports of entry pending
further orders from this court. Although Federal Defendants argued that any
should be limited to the States at issue (see Resp. at 30), the resulting
partial implementation of the Executive Order ?would undermine the
constitutional imperative of ?a uniform Rule of Naturalization? and Congress?s
instruction that ?the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced
vigorously and uniformly. (quoting U.S. CONST. art. I, cl. 4)
3. No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(0).
4. Finally, the court orders the parties to propose a briefing schedule and noting
date with respect to the States' motion for a preliminary injunction no later
than Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:00 pm. The court will schedule
a hearing on the States' motion for a preliminary injunction, if requested and
necessary, following receipt of the parties? briefing.
CONCLUSION
Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of
three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create
policy or judge the Wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.
That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this
country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the
Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two
branches comport with our country?s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution. The
narrow question the court is asked to consider today is whether it is appropriate to enter a
TRO against certain actions taken by the Executive in the context of this specific lawsuit.
Although the question is narrow, the court is mindful of the considerable impact its order
may have on the parties before it, the executive branch of our government, and the
country?s- citizens and residents. The court concludes that the circumstances brought
before it today are such that it must intervene to ful?ll its constitutional role in our tripart
government. Accordingly, the court concludes that entry of the above~described TRO is
necessary, and the States? motion is therefore GRANTED.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
