Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ARGHAVAN LOUHGHALAM AND
MAZDAK POURABDOLLAH
TOOTKABONI, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 17-cv-10154-NMG

OPPOSITION TO CONTINUATION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Defendants, by and through counsel, hereby oppose the continuation of the Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) entered on January 29, 2017 (ECF No. 6). The primary reason the Court
should decline to extend the TRO is that, assuming the truth of the allegations in the Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 28), the immediate need for the emergency relief Plaintiffs initially requested
has evaporated.
In this case, the original named Plaintiffs challenged the executive order of January 27,
2017 titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” (ECF No.
2) (hereinafter, “the Order”), alleging they were unlawfully detained upon entry into this country
on the basis of the Order. The resulting TRO thus addressed concerns of those affected by the
Order who were either in airports in the United States or in transit. At this point, however, all of
the named individual Plaintiffs are within the United States; none is alleged to be detained
(mooting any claim for habeas relief); and most of them are not affected by the Order at all given
the recent clarification that it does not apply to lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) (commonly
1

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 8

referred to as “green-card holders”). The free-speech claims of the organizational Plaintiff (that is,
their wish to have others physically present to hear what they have to say) similarly do not
represent the type of immediate and irreparable harm that warrants a TRO rather than consideration
on a preliminary-injunction schedule.
Consequently, none of the Plaintiffs has alleged circumstances that would lead to
substantial injury should the TRO expire. In short, there is no reason the Court cannot allow the
emergency order to expire and consider the merits of a preliminary injunction on a slightly less
expedited schedule. Such a plan would allow the Government to present full briefing on why
Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claims challenging the Order, particularly in light of the
longstanding judicial doctrines granting the political branches broad power to control the admission
of aliens into the United States. See, e.g., Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2137 (2015); Kleindienst
v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 (1972); Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982); Shaughnessy
v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953).
BACKGROUND
The original Plaintiff-Petitioners, Messrs. Tootkaboni and Arghavan Louhghalam, natives
and citizens of Iran, filed their petition for a writ of habeas corpus and complaint on January 28,
2017. (ECF No. 1; hereinafter, “Petition.”) They alleged therein that the LPRs being unlawfully
detained at Logan International Airport as a consequence of the Order. (Petition at 2.) The Order
suspended the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from “Countries of Particular Concern,”
including Iran, “for 90 days from the date of [the] order.” Order at Section 3; see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii) (requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify countries of
concern based on “(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the
likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States; (II) whether

2

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 8

a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and (III) whether
the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists”).
The President signed the Order at 4:48 p.m. (EST) on Friday, January, 27, 2017. That same
day, the U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) issued a letter provisionally revoking all
visas of nationals of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (subject to certain
exceptions) under the authority of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f), 1201(i), and 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.122, 42.82.
(ECF No. 23.)
In their Petition, Plaintiff-Petitioners alleged that they arrived at Logan International
Airport at approximately 5:30 p.m. (EST) on Saturday, January 28, 2017, and were held therein
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) until at least the time their petition was filed.
Petition at 2. The Court held a hearing on their request for a temporary restraining order at 11:34
p.m. that same evening. (ECF No. 17; Hearing Regarding Temporary Restraining Order, Tr. at 2:2
(Jan. 28–29, 2017)). At the time the hearing commenced, counsel for Petitioners acknowledged
that their clients were no longer being held by CBP. (Id. at 7:1-2.) The Court nonetheless heard
argument and on Sunday, January 29, 2017, granted Plaintiff-Petitioners’ request for a TRO, and
ordered Petitioners to file an amended complaint by January 30, 2017. (ECF No. 6). After seeking
a two-day extension, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, adding five individual Plaintiffs and one
corporate Plaintiff. (ECF No. 28; hereinafter, “Amended Complaint” or “Am. Compl.”) Each new
individual Plaintiff is currently present in the United States. See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 68–111.) Three
of the five new individual Plaintiffs are LPRs; the remaining two are in the United States in nonimmigrant status. See id. The corporate Plaintiff, Oxfam America, Inc. (“Oxfam”), alleges that it
regularly brings individuals from five of the seven countries of particular concern to the United

3

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 8

States to “obtain information from overseas colleagues” and “to speak with American
governmental officials”; the Amended Complaint does not explain why those individuals cannot
participate in meetings by telephone or videoconferencing. (See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 112–21.)
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017, White House counsel issued guidance regarding the
Order, clarifying that Section 3(c), which temporarily suspended the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from the countries of particular concern, did not apply to LPRs. Specifically, the White
House, in its “Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and
the Secretary of Homeland Security” (February 1, 2017), stated: “I understand that there has been
reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions apply to lawful permanent residents of the
United States. Accordingly, to remove any confusion, I now clarify that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do
not apply to such individuals. Please immediately convey this interpretive guidance to all
individuals responsible for the administration and implementation of the Executive Order.”
(hereinafter, “Defendants’ Exhibit 1.”)
LEGAL STANDARDS
The standard for issuance of a temporary restraining order is the same as that for issuance
of a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Kilmowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., — F. Supp. 3d
—, 2016 WL 3541540, at *1 (D. Mass. June 23, 2016). In evaluating either, courts consider: (1)
the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the potential for irreparable harm, (3) the balance of
hardships, and (4) whether an injunction is in the public interest. 178 Lowell St. Operating Co. v.
Nichols, 152 F. Supp. 3d 47, 53 (D. Mass. 2016) (Gorton, J.) (citing Jean v. Mass. State Police,
492 F.3d 24, 26–27 (1st Cir. 2007)). The moving party bears the burden of proof for each of these
four factors.
Finally, preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,

4

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 8

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and the party seeking such
relief bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to an injunction. Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto
Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)
(“‘[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’”). A temporary
restraining order expires unless the Court finds good cause to extend it, for a period not to exceed
14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Here, there has been no showing that the grounds for issuance
of the Temporary Restraining Order continue to exist.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs cannot show good cause to extend the TRO. This is because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated the potential for irreparable harm, at least not pending briefing on a preliminary
injunction. This Court has previously explained that “[i]rreparable harm is ‘a substantial injury
that is not accurately measurable or adequately compensable by money damages.’” Hearst
Stations, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 977 F. Supp. 2d 32, 40 (D. Mass. 2013) (Gorton, J.) (quoting RossSimons of Warwick v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1996)). The First Circuit has stated
that Plaintiffs’ allegations of irreparable harm must not be an “overly speculative forecast of
anticipated harm.” Baccarat, 102 F.3d at 19.
Even if the circumstances surrounding Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ entry into the United States on
January 28, 2017 was, at that time, an injury sufficient to meet the First Circuit’s standard for
irreparable harm, that is no longer the case. In this case, the individual Plaintiffs are all within the
United States. Plaintiffs argue that they will be irreparably harmed by the Order because their
travel plans outside of the country may now be impeded. The first problem with this argument is
that most of the Plaintiffs are LPRs—whose claims are now entirely moot because they are not

5

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 8

covered by the Order. (See Defendants’ Exhibit 1.) This development effectively means that any
decision by the Court regarding those LPR Plaintiffs would be “strictly advisory.” Cambridge Taxi
Drivers & Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Cambridge, 2017 WL 373491, at *3 (D. Mass. Jan. 25,
2017) (Gorton, J.); see also New Eng. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Kinton, 284 F.3d 9, 18 (1st
Cir. 2002) (noting how it is “pointless” to pass on constitutional issues when a disputed policy was
revised during litigation). Put simply, there is no risk that the Order will impede the LPR Plaintiffs’
entry into the United States in the future.
Furthermore, only two plaintiffs (Mses. Renani and Amirsardary) have any specific
intentions of making such a trip outside of the United States. (See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 52–111.) But
neither have alleged concrete travel plans in the next month, which would allow sufficient time for
the parties to brief, and the Court to consider, whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted in
this case.
Oxfam’s allegations similarly do not present the type of irreparable harm that warrants the
extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order. It alleges that it is being irreparably harmed
by the Order because “[m]any people who bear witness on Oxfam’s behalf about their experiences
and conditions in their countries must come to the United States to do so because they cannot
safely or legally speak publicly at home,” along with their First Amendment rights. (Am. Compl.
at ¶¶ 119.) However, the Supreme Court has already addressed this sort of claim, concluding that
there is very limited review of them. See Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 769–70. Moreover, Oxfam does
not allege that any individual has an intention to come to the United States in the next month. 1

1

Defendants recognize that the Court today allowed the intervention of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and the University of Massachusetts. (ECF No. 44.) The Intervenor-Plaintiffs’
proposed complaint similarly does not present specific allegations of the types of immediate
concerns that would warrant continuation of the temporary restraining order (Proposed Compl.,
ECF No. 25-1, at ¶¶ 41–46.) Indeed, many of the Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ allegations address claimed
6

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 8

(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 117-118.) Even if there were such a person, there is no reason that the individuals
Oxfam wishes to bring to the United States for speeches and meetings—or even briefings—cannot
appear via videoconference or telephone. Although Oxfam may certainly prefer that certain
individuals be physically present within the United States, modern technology such as the
telephone, international mail, electronic mail, and video conferencing would all accomplish the
ends that Oxfam now purportedly seek—especially when the claim most relevant to it is one
regarding the freedom of speech. At the very least, that mitigates the harm sufficiently to resolve
these issues on a preliminary injunction schedule, rather than tomorrow. As none of the Plaintiffs
has alleged non-speculative harm in the immediate future, the reasons for issuance of the
Temporary restraining order no longer exist, and the Court should allow it to expire.
CONCLUSION
As there is no potential irreparable harm pending fuller consideration of whether
preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, good cause does not exist to continue the Temporary
Restraining Order for any period of time.
Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST FLENTJE
Special Counsel
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
GISELA M. WESTWATER
Assistant Director

restrictions of immigration benefits and concerns that are not at all addressed by the TRO. (See id.
¶¶ 37–40.)
7

 Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 8

KATHERINE J. SHINNERS
Trial Attorney
By: /s/ Joshua S. Press
JOSHUA S. PRESS
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
Dated: February 2, 2017

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing OPPOSITION
TO CONTINUATION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER with the Clerk of the Court
by using the CM/ECF system, which will provide electronic notice and an electronic link of this
document to the attorneys of record.

DATED: February 2, 2017
By: /s/ Joshua S. Press
JOSHUA S. PRESS
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division

8

 Case Document 50-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document 50-1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 2

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

February 1, 2017
MEMORANDUM TO THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FROM:

Donald F. McGahn II - Counsel to the President

SUBJECT: Authoritative Guidance on Executive Order Entitled "Protecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Jan. 27, 2017)
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United States" (Jan. 27, 2017) suspends for 90 days the entry into the United States
of certain aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Section 3(e) of the order directs the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit to the President a list of countries
recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of certain
foreign nationals from countries that do not provide information needed to adjudicate visas,
admissions, or other benefits under the INA.
I understand that there has been reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions
apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States. Accordingly, to remove any confusion,
I now clarify that Sections 3(c) and 3(e) do not apply to such individuals. Please immediately
convey this interpretive guidance to all individuals responsible for the administration and
implementation of the Executive Order.

1