Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 84 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv-0255 (TSC)

Case No. 17-cv-0537 (TSC)

ORDER
Plaintiffs in two related cases challenge the President’s Executive Order No. 13,780
(“Second Executive Order”) and in both cases have moved for a preliminary injunction. (Pars
ECF No. 35; UMAA ECF No 11). The court heard the arguments of counsel at the combined
hearing on April 21, 2017. Following the hearing, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the
need for a nationwide injunction, particularly as to Sections 2 and 6 of the Second Executive
Order, given that these sections of the order have already been enjoined by other courts.1

See Hawai‘i v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017)
(issuing temporary restraining order as to Sections 2 and 6); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v.
Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) (preliminarily enjoining
Section 2(c)); Hawai‘i v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Haw. Mar. 29,
2017) (converting TRO to a preliminary injunction).
1
1

 Case 1:17-cv-00255-TSC Document 84 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 2

Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the court is inclined to agree with
Plaintiffs that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims with respect to Sections 2
and 6 of the Second Executive Order. However, the court recognizes that it must additionally
find that Plaintiffs face imminent and certain irreparable harm in order to grant a preliminary
injunction. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The existence of
two other nationwide injunctions temporarily casts uncertainty on the issue of whether the harms
Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain. Because both existing preliminary injunctions
are actively being considered on appeal by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits this month and the
continued existence of these injunctions will directly impact this court’s analysis, the court finds
that the most appropriate course of action is to temporarily stay resolution of the Plaintiffs’
motions pending the outcome of the current appeals. In the event that both existing injunctions
are overturned, this court is prepared to issue a ruling without delay.
On April 4, 2017, this court issued a Minute Order directing Defendants to file their
Answer or Motion to Dismiss within fifteen days of this court’s decision on the preliminary
injunction motions. In order to avoid undue delay in this litigation, the court now orders that this
time period shall commence with this filing of today’s Order. Accordingly, Defendants’
Answers or Motions to Dismiss are due by May 26, 2017, Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to any motions
are due by June 16, 2017, and Defendants’ Replies are due by June 26, 2017.

Date: May 11, 2017

Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge

2