Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 1 of 40 PageID# 1006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
LINDA SARSOUR;
RASHIDA TLAIB;
ZAHRA BILLOO;
NIHAD AWAD;
COREY SAYLOR;
DAWUD WALID;
BASIM ELKARRA;
HUSSAM AYLOUSH;
JOHN ROBBINS
ALIA SALEM;
ADAM SOLTANI;
IMRAAN SIDDIQI;
JULIA SHEARSON;
NAMIRA ISLAM;
KAREN DABDOUB;
JIM SUES;
HANIF MOHEBI;
JAYLANI HUSSEIN;

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

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United
States of America; in his official capacity

1

Case No. 1-cv-00120
Hon. Anthony J. Trenga

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 2 of 40 PageID# 1007

Elaine Duke, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security; in his official capacity;

)
)
)
Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State of the
)
Department of State, in his official capacity;
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________/
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through
their attorneys, Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) and Akeel and Valentine,
PLC, state as follows:
Introduction
1.

During his presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to

ban all Muslim immigration to the Untied States. Since moving to the White House, President
Donald Trump has tried via three separate executive actions to ban more than 100 million
Muslims from entering the United States.
2.

As the Trump Administration’s regular and vulgar attacks against Islam and

Muslims make clear, the attempt to ban Muslim immigration is but one part of a
multipronged attempt to demonize Islam and marginalize Muslims in the United States.
3.

This case is a challenge to the defendants’ latest attempt to fulfill this bigoted

attack against Islam. On September 24, 2017, President Trump issued a proclamation titled
“Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United
States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed Reg. 45,161

2

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 3 of 40 PageID# 1008

(Sept. 24, 2017) (“Proclamation”). The Proclamation indefinitely bans virtually all travel to the
United States from six Muslim-majority countries.
4.

The challenge is brought by Muslim citizens, many with relatives from the

banned countries subject to the executive action, who are stigmatized by the message the
Proclamation broadcasts: that Islam is dangerous and Muslims must be treated differently.
5.

These Muslim plaintiffs are leaders in their communities and their activism

against anti-Muslim bigotry and in defense of their communities has put them in the position
of confronting the stigma the Proclamation imposes on Islam. Indeed, the plaintiffs have
seen firsthand how the public understands the Proclamation to be a multi-thousand word
monument to the anti-Muslim bigotry that helped sweep Donald Trump into the presidency.
Parties
6.

Plaintiff Linda Sarsour is an American Muslim residing in Kings County, New

York. Plaintiff Sarsour is a Palestinian activist and Executive Director of the Arab American
Association of New York. In 2016, she served as spokesperson for Presidential Candidate
Senator Bernie Sanders, and was one of three national co-chairs for the 2017 Women’s
March held the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States.
Plaintiff Sarsour has appeared in “The Hijabi Monologues” and has her own show, The Linda
Sarsour Show. Plaintiff Sarsour has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete
harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial
announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1)
disfavor and condemnation of her religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims, including herself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit
terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over her own, (4) Muslims are outsiders,
3

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 4 of 40 PageID# 1009

dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of
Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Sarsour has had to change her
conduct adversely in that she has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims
targeted by the Proclamation and defend her religion as a religion of peace on national media
outlets and through grassroots efforts. Through her activism, Sarsour has come into direct
contact with the Proclamation’s stigmatizing message.
7.
Michigan.

Plaintiff Rashida Tlaib is a Muslim American residing in Wayne County,
Plaintiff Tlaib is a former Democratic member of the Michigan House of

Representatives and an attorney at the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice.
Upon her swearing in on January 1, 2009, Plaintiff Tlaib became the first Muslim-American
woman to serve in the Michigan Legislature, and only the second Muslim woman in history
to be elected to any state legislature in America. Plaintiff Tlaib suffered and will continue to
suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences,
since the initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a
message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of her religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and
exclusion of Muslims, including herself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone
to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over her own, (4) Muslims are
outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all nonadherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Tlaib has had to
change her conduct adversely in that she has been required to assist and advocate on behalf
of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend her religion as a religion of peace on
national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.

4

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 5 of 40 PageID# 1010

8.

Plaintiff Zahra Billoo is a Muslim American residing in Santa Clara County,

California. Plaintiff Billoo is a civil rights attorney and the Executive Director of the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area (CAIR-SFBA), a chapter of the
nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent
civil rights activist. Plaintiff Billoo is frequently seen at mosques and universities facilitating
trainings and workshops as a part of CAIR’s grassroots efforts to empower the American
Muslim community and build bridges with allies on civil rights issues. Plaintiff Billoo has
suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological
and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result
of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of her religion of
Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including herself, based on the false
messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions
over her own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political
community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact,
Plaintiff Billoo has had to change her conduct adversely in that she has been required to
assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend her religion
as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.
9.
D.C.

Plaintiff Nihad Awad is a Muslim American residing in Washington County,

Plaintiff Awad is National Executive Director and co-founder of the Council on

American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil liberties
advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. As a national leader in the civil
rights movement, Plaintiff Awad has led multiple campaigns to defend the rights of Muslims
and to help Americans of other faiths better understand Islam. His work includes interfacing
5

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 6 of 40 PageID# 1011

with the U.S. government, facilitating interfaith dialogue, speaking at conferences,
conducting training and leadership seminars, and appearing in national and international
media to discuss Islam and American Muslims. Plaintiff Awad has testified before both
Houses of the U.S. Congress on matters involving Muslims in America. In 1997, he served on
the White House Civil Rights Advisory Panel to the Commission on Safety and Security. In the
2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential elections, Plaintiff Awad was a key figure in creating
the Muslim voting bloc. In 2006, he traveled to Iraq on a humanitarian mission to appeal for
the release of American journalist Jill Carrol who was kidnapped and later released in Iraq.
In September, 2011, Plaintiff Awad traveled to Iran as part of an interfaith delegation to meet
with the President of Iran to appeal for the release of two American hikers held by Iran. In
2004, he was named one of National Journal’s more than 100 Most Influential People in the
United States whose ideas will help shape the debate over public policy issues for the next
decade. In 2009, he was named by a Georgetown University publication as one of the 500
most influential Muslims in the world. And in 2010, Arabian Business ranked him as 39th in
the “Arabian Business Power 100” list, its annual listing of the most influential Arabs.
Plaintiff Awad has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition
to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of
his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based
on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of
all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the
political community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored.
In fact, Plaintiff Awad has had to change his conduct adversely in that he has been required
6

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 7 of 40 PageID# 1012

to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his
religion as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.
10.

Plaintiff Corey Saylor is a Muslim American residing in Fairfax County,

Virginia. Plaintiff Saylor is the former Director of the Department to Monitor and Combat
Islamophobia at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest
Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights
activist. Plaintiff Saylor is an expert on political communications, legislative advocacy, media
relations and anti-Islam prejudice in the United States. He is a regular voice on U.S. and
international news outlets. Plaintiff Saylor has also run successful advocacy campaigns
against corporate giants such as Burger King and Bell Helicopter-Boeing when their actions
or advertisements negatively impacted the American Muslim community. Plaintiff Saylor
has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to
psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of
his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based
on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of
all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the
political community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored.
In fact, Plaintiff Saylor has had to change his conduct adversely in that he has been required
to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his
religion as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts. His
research as a CAIR director has led him to conclude that the Trump Administration’s travel

7

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 8 of 40 PageID# 1013

and visa restrictions continue to fuel anti-Muslim sentiment and hate crimes to an extent
never seen before.
11.

Plaintiff Dawud Walid is a Muslim American residing in Wayne County,

Michigan. Plaintiff Walid is the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, Michigan (CAIR-MI), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil
liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. Plaintiff Walid has been
interviewed and quoted in approximately 150 media outlets and has lectured at over 50
institutions of higher learning about Islam, interfaith dialogue and social justice. Plaintiff
Walid served in the United States Navy under honorable conditions earning two United
States Navy & Marine Corp Achievement medals while deployed abroad. He has also
received awards of recognition from the city councils of Detroit and Hamtramck and from
the Mayor of Lansing as well as a number of other religious and community organizations.
Plaintiff Walid has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition
to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of
his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based
on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of
all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the
political community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored.
In fact, Plaintiff Walid has had to change his conduct adversely in that he has been required
to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his
religion as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.

8

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 9 of 40 PageID# 1014

12.

Plaintiff Basim Elkarra is a Muslim American residing in Sacramento County,

California. Plaintiff Elkarra is the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, Sacramento Valley (CAIR-SAC), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights
and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. Plaintiff
Elkarra is a former board member of the Sacramento chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union, and serves on the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party. He also serves
on the City of Sacramento Community Police Commission. In 2011, the United States
Embassy in London sent Plaintiff Elkarra to England to meet young British Muslims as part
of a strategy to promote civic engagement. Plaintiff Elkarra has suffered and will continue
to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences,
since the initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a
message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and
exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone
to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are
outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all nonadherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Elkarra has had to
change his conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and advocate on behalf
of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a religion of peace on
national media outlets and through grassroots efforts. Moreover, Plaintiff Elkarra has inlaws in Syria that he is unable to bring to visit him in the United States pursuant to the
Proclamation.
13.

Plaintiff Hussam Ayloush is a Muslim American residing in Riverside County,

California. Plaintiff Ayloush is the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic
9

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 10 of 40 PageID# 1015

Relations, Los Angeles (CAIR-LA), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and
civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist and community
organizer. Ayloush is a fourth-term elected Delegate to the California Democratic Party
(CDP). He also serves on the board of the Muslim American Homeland Security Congress
(MAHSC). Plaintiff Ayloush has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete
harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial
announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1)
disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit
terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders,
dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of
Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Ayloush has had to change his
conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims
targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a religion of peace on national media
outlets and through grassroots efforts. Ayloush also has Syrian relatives who, because of the
Proclamation, cannot now come to visit him and his family in the United States.
14.

Plaintiff Alia Salem is a Muslim American residing in Dallas County, Texas.

Plaintiff Salem is the former Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
Dallas/Fort Worth (CAIR-DFW), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil
liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist working for social
justice, understanding and empowerment in her community. Plaintiff Salem’s work with
CAIR-DFW has been featured on local, national and international media outlets. Plaintiff
Salem has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to
10

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 11 of 40 PageID# 1016

psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of
her religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including herself, based
on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of
all religions over her own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the
political community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored.
In fact, Plaintiff Salem has had to change her conduct adversely in that she has been required
to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend her
religion as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.
15.

Plaintiff Adam Soltani is a Muslim American residing in Oklahoma County,

Oklahoma. Plaintiff Soltani is the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, Oklahoma (CAIR-OK), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil
liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. Plaintiff Soltani
currently serves as the chair of the Oklahoma Conference of Churches’ Religions United
Committee and planning committee member for OKC’s Jewish-Muslim Film Institute. He is
also a former member of the Oklahoma Democratic Party Religious Education Committee,
former board member of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, and a former member of
Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City Executive Committee. Plaintiff Soltani has suffered
and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and
spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the
Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2)
marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging
that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his
11

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 12 of 40 PageID# 1017

own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community,
and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Soltani
has had to change his conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and advocate
on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a religion of peace
on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts. Moreover, Plaintiff Soltani has
family in Iran that he is unable to bring to visit him in the United States pursuant to the
Proclamation.
16.

Plaintiff Imran Siddiqi is a Muslim American residing in Maricopa County,

Arizona. Plaintiff Siddiqi is the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, Oklahoma (CAIR-AZ), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil
liberties advocacy organization. Plaintiff Siddiqi is a writer and prominent civil rights
activist. He has written extensively on the subject of Islamophobia, Middle East Affairs, and
issues affecting American Muslims. Plaintiff Siddiqi has suffered and will continue to suffer
an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the
initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of
(1) disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit
terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders,
dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of
Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Siddiqi has had to change his
conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims
targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a religion of peace on national media
outlets and through grassroots efforts. Plaintiff Siddiqi’s online activism has brought him
12

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 13 of 40 PageID# 1018

into direct contact with evidence that the public understands the defendants’ repeated
attempts to establish visa restrictions on several countries to be an attempt to stigmatize
Islam and disfavor Muslims.
17.

Plaintiff Julia Shearson is a Muslim American residing in Cuyahoga County,

Ohio. Plaintiff Shearson is the Executive Director of the Cleveland chapter of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, Ohio (CAIR-OH), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil
rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. She has
delivered hundreds of lectures and trainings on Islam and Muslims, civil and human rights,
diversity, Islamophobia, and immigration justice. She was recently honored together with
22 area women for her leadership, activism, and community service in an art exhibit entitled
“Reflections: The Many Facets of Stephanie Tubbs Jones” installed at Cleveland Hopkins
Airport in memory of the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Before joining CAIROH, Shearson served in the field of education for over 10 years, teaching at Ohio University,
Jewish Vocational Services in Boston and at the Summer School and Division of Continuing
Education at Harvard University. Plaintiff Shearson has suffered and will continue to suffer
an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the
initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of
(1) disfavor and condemnation of her religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims, including herself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit
terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over her own, (4) Muslims are outsiders,
dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of
Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Shearson has had to change her
conduct adversely in that she has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims
13

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 14 of 40 PageID# 1019

targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend her religion as a religion of peace on national media
outlets and through grassroots efforts.

Shearson has seen directly how, in her own

community, the defendants’ attempts to impose visa and travel restrictions have catalyzed
and legitimized anti-Muslim activism.
18.

Plaintiff Namira Islam is a Muslim American residing in Oakland County,

Michigan. Plaintiff Islam is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Muslim AntiRacism Collaborative (MuslimARC), a faith-based human rights education organization
which focuses on racial justice. Plaintiff Islam has worked in the areas of prisoner rights, and
on international law and war crimes at the United Nations in The Hague, Netherlands.
Plaintiff Islam has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition
to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of
her religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including herself, based
on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of
all religions over her own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the
political community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored.
In fact, Plaintiff Islam has had to change her conduct adversely in that she has been required
to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend her
religion as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.
19.

Plaintiff Karen Dabdoub is a Muslim American residing in Hamilton County,

Ohio. Plaintiff Dabdoub is the Executive Director of the Cincinnati chapter of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, Ohio (CAIR-OH), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil
rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. Plaintiff
14

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 15 of 40 PageID# 1020

Dabdoub has served the community since 2006 as a commissioner with the Cincinnati
Human Relations Commission and was the president of CHRC from 2009 - 2011. She is a
founding member of Muslim Mothers Against Violence, a local group founded in 2005 by
Muslim women to take a stand against violence, abroad and at home. She has been a member
of the Martin Luther King Coalition of Cincinnati since 2006. She is a former member of the
FBI Multi-Cultural Advisory Council and the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights
Community Advisory Committee. She was a member of Friends of Open House – Cincinnati
Chapter, an international organization that worked to bring about peace and understanding
between Palestinians and Israelis. Plaintiff Dabdoub appears in the documentary “A Visit to
a Mosque in America,” an educational documentary, filmed locally, that has received national
recognition and commendation. Plaintiff Dabdoub has suffered and will continue to suffer
an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the
initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of
(1) disfavor and condemnation of her religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims, including herself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit
terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over her own, (4) Muslims are outsiders,
dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of
Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Dabdoub has had to change her
conduct adversely in that she has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims
targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend her religion as a religion of peace on national media
outlets and through grassroots efforts.
20.

Plaintiff Jim Sues is a Muslim American residing in Bucks County,

Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Sues is the Executive Director of the New Jersey chapter of the Council
15

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 16 of 40 PageID# 1021

on American-Islamic Relations, New Jersey (CAIR-NJ), a chapter of the nation’s largest
Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights and
interfaith relations activist. Plaintiff Sues is also a Marketing Professional in the field of
Telecommunications. Besides launching start-ups and acting as a Telecommunications
Consultant, he spent 20 years at IBM filling various Marketing roles such as Product Manager,
Solutions Manager, and Strategy Team Lead. Plaintiff Sues is guest lecturer for Comparative
Religion courses at Drew University and multiple community colleges. He also provides
diversity training for corporations and local churches. Plaintiff Sues is a member of the south
Orange – Maplewood Clergy Association and has served on the Board of Directors of various
Muslim organizations including Majlis Ash-Shoora of New Jersey and the NIA Masjid in
Newark, NJ. Plaintiff Sues has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm,
in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial announcement of
the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and
condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of Muslims,
including himself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism,
(3) the endorsement of all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and
not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders
and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Sues has had to change his conduct adversely in that
he has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban
and defend his religion as a religion of peace on national media outlets and through
grassroots efforts.
21.

Plaintiff Hanif Mohebi is a Muslim American residing in San Diego County,

California. Plaintiff Mohebi is the Executive Director of the San Diego chapter of the Council
16

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 17 of 40 PageID# 1022

on American-Islamic Relations, San Diego (CAIR-SD), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim
civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. He
has appeared in both local and national media outlets and has worked to bridge the gap
between minorities and the American public. He has emerged as a guest speaker at high
schools, universities, companies and community events on variety of topics ranging from
Concepts of World Citizenship to The Cycle of Love, to History of Anti-Civil Liberties
Legislations. Plaintiff Mohebi has suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete
harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual consequences, since the initial
announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the Defendants sending a message of (1)
disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion of
Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to commit
terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his own, (4) Muslims are outsiders,
dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all non-adherents of
Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff Mohebi has had to change his
conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and advocate on behalf of Muslims
targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a religion of peace on national media
outlets and through grassroots efforts.
22.

Plaintiff Jaylani Hussein is a Muslim American residing in Ramsey County,

Minnesota. Plaintiff Hussein is the Executive Director of the San Diego chapter of the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, Minnesota (CAIR-MN), a chapter of the nation’s largest
Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights
activist. Plaintiff Hussein worked as the Community Liaison Officer at Metro State University
and as a Planner for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. In 2013, he created Zeila
17

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 18 of 40 PageID# 1023

Consultants to develop and offer cross-cultural training workshops on East African cultures.
He has presented on the Somali Culture to diverse public and private organizations across
the US. He specializes in the areas of urban planning, community development, youth
development (with over 8 years of experience in working in juvenile treatment centers for
court adjudicated youth), legal and civil rights. Plaintiff Hussein has suffered and will
continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual
consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the
Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2)
marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging
that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his
own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community,
and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff
Hussein has had to change his conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and
advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a
religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts.
23.

Plaintiff John Robbins is a Muslim American residing in Middlesex County,

Massachusetts. Plaintiff Robbins is the Executive Director of the Massachusetts chapter of
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Massachusetts (CAIR-MA), a chapter of the
nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent
civil rights activist. Plaintiff Robbins is a dedicated and experienced community organizer,
nonprofit leader, and public intellectual. He holds a Ph.D. in English, and completed a
postdoctoral fellowship at Tufts University. A dedicated educator, he has taught algebra to
high-risk youth at a public high school in Maryland, English to refugee and orphan children
18

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 19 of 40 PageID# 1024

in Turkey, and literature at Cornell and Tufts Universities. His writings have appeared in
numerous outlets including Fortune, Time, Muslim Matters, the Hill, the Jewish Journal, the
Boston Globe, and the Boston Herald, and he is a regular contributor at the Huffington Post.
Dr. Robbins sits on the board of directors of Cooperative Metropolitan Ministries, the greater
Boston area’s oldest interfaith social justice network. Plaintiff Robbins has suffered and will
continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm, in addition to psychological and spiritual
consequences, since the initial announcement of the “Muslim Ban” as a result of the
Defendants sending a message of (1) disfavor and condemnation of his religion of Islam, (2)
marginalization and exclusion of Muslims, including himself, based on the false messaging
that Muslims are prone to commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over his
own, (4) Muslims are outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community,
and (5) all non-adherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. In fact, Plaintiff
Robbins has had to change his conduct adversely in that he has been required to assist and
advocate on behalf of Muslims targeted by the Muslim Ban and defend his religion as a
religion of peace on national media outlets and through grassroots efforts. Plaintiff Robbins
intends to invite Plaintiff John Doe No. 12 to speak to the local Massachusetts community
about the effects of the Muslim Ban, however is unable bring him to the United States to
speak due to the likelihood that Plaintiff John Doe No. 12 will be unable to renew his student
visa under the EO-2 based on his Muslim religious status and Iranian national origin.
24.

Defendant Donald J. Trump is the current President of the United States of

America. Defendant Trump issued the Proclamation, which is the subject of this action.
Defendant Trump is being sued in his official capacity, only.

19

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 20 of 40 PageID# 1025

25.

Defendant Elaine Duke is the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security. Defendant Kelly is responsible for implementing the Proclamation,
which is the subject of this action. Defendant Kelly is being sued in his official capacity, only.
26.

Defendant Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State. The U.S. Department of State

is responsible for issuing visas and implementing the Muslim Proclamation The Secretary of
the U.S. Department of State position is currently vacant.
Jurisdiction and Venue
27.

Under U.S. Const. Art. III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights

sought to be protected herein are secured by the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, 5 U.S.C. § 706, the United States
Constitution, and federal common law.
28.

This action also seeks declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment

Act, 28 U.S.C. § § 2201-02, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
pursuant to the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court.
29.

A substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein were committed within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
30.

Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to the Defendants because

Defendants are officers or employees of the United States sued in their official capacity and
because this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
to the claims occurred.
Factual Background
Defendant Trump’s Unconstitutional Executive Order
Banning Muslims from Entering the United States

20

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 21 of 40 PageID# 1026

31.

The Proclamation is the as-promised outcome of Defendant Trump’s hateful,

year-long campaign which was fueled, in significant part, by a desire to stigmatize Islam and
Muslims.
32.

Defendant Trump has often repeated his bigoted views on Islam and Muslims

in a variety of contexts—in print, on television, and via official campaign statements. The
Proclamation is the legal manifestation of those bigoted views.
33.

Defendant Trump’s views on Islam are unequivocal. On or about March 10,

2016, in an interview aired on CNN, Defendant Trump declared that he thinks “Islam hates
us.”
34.

His statements regarding Islam and Muslims give rise to the inference that the

EO-2 is motivated by a bare desire to inflict harm on this faith and those that belong to it.
35.

In addition to Defendant Trump’s statements regarding Islam and Muslims,

the history of the EO-2 reveals its unlawful, discriminatory purpose. On December 7, 2015,
while campaigning, Defendant Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going
on.”
36.

Defendant Trump’s rationale for this proposal included sweeping

condemnations of Islam, the second largest religion in the world with over 1.6 billion people.
His condemnation incorrectly surmised that Islam’s religious traditions, which he referred
to as “Sharia”, “authoriz[e] such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t
convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans,
especially women.”

21

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 22 of 40 PageID# 1027

37.

Subsequent to his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency,

Defendant Trump began using facially neutral language to describe his anti-Muslim policy.
This neutral language suggested that a Trump administration would stop immigration “from
any nation that has been compromised by terrorism.”
38.

On or about July 24, 2016, however, Defendant Trump conceded that the

neutral language was simply a veneer intended to subdue the public controversy generated
by his discriminatory plan. To that end, in an interview on NBC, Defendant Trump explained
the following: “People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the
word Muslim…And I’m OK with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”
39.

In fact, on January 27, 2017, hours before signing EO-1, Defendant Trump

explained during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network that his order was
“going to help [persecuted Christians]” as opposed to Muslims. His answer made clear that
Defendant Trump’s intention in crafting the Muslim Ban was to treat foreign nationals in the
seven identified countries differently based on their faith.
40.

The underlying unlawful discriminatory purpose of EO-1 is evidenced by the

recent admissions by close associates of Defendant Trump, such as Rudolf Giuliani's recent
admission that the President asked him to find legal ways to implement what he called “a
Muslim Ban.” On January 28, 2017, during a Fox News interview, Giuliani, who is a close
advisor to the Defendant Trump, boasted that after then-candidate Donald Trump
announced his Muslim Ban—which explicitly prohibited Muslims from obtaining entry into
the United States—Giuliani was asked to “show [Donald Trump] the right way to do [the
Muslim Ban] legally.” Giuliani then conceded that he formed a commission to find a way to
accomplish the EO-1’s scope without mentioning Islam or Muslims.
22

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 23 of 40 PageID# 1028

41.

The language of EO-1 corroborates Defendant Trump’s admission that the

facially neutral language is simply a pretext. That Order did not exclude persons based on
where they are from but on what religion they belong to. Section 5 suspended all grounds
for persecution and allows only one: “religious-based persecution.” However, religiousbased persecution could only be claimed by individuals who are not Muslim. Thus, EO-1
constituted a religious gerrymander—drawing distinctions that exclude the disfavored
group—Muslims—while leaving others untouched.
42.

Since the signing of the EO-1, several federal courts around the country issued

43.

On January 28, 2017, Judge Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia issued

stays.

a Temporary Restraining Order that forbade Defendants “from removing petitioners—
lawful permanent residents at Dulles International Airport—for a period of 7 days from the
issuance of that Order. That Order is attached an exhibit.
44.

On the same day, the United States District Court of the Western District of

Washington granted an emergency stay of removal that prohibits Defendants “from
removing John Doe I and Joe Doe II from the United States.” That Order is also attached as
an exhibit.
45.

Again on the same day, the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of New York granted an emergency stay of removal, finding that the petitioners “have a
strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others
similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection.” That Order is
also attached as an exhibit.

23

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 24 of 40 PageID# 1029

46.

On January 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of

Massachusetts granted a Temporary Restraining Order against parts of the Original
Proclamation, finding that the petitioners had established a “strong likelihood of success in
establishing that the detention and/or removal of the petitioners and others similarly
situated would violate their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection.” That Order is also
attached as an exhibit.
47.

That same day, the United States District Court for the Central District of

California prohibited the defendants “from barring Petitioner’s return to the United States”
because he had “demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in establishing that removal
violates the Establishment Clause” as well as other constitutional and statutory provisions.
That Order is also attached as an exhibit.
48.

On February 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Michigan (Southern Division) issued an order temporarily enjoying the United States from
applying Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Original Proclamation. That Order is also attached as
an exhibit.
49.

On February 9, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court delivered a unanimous decision

upholding a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington enjoining and restraining Sections 3(c) and 5(a)-(c) of the
EO-1.
50.

The unlawful effects and purpose of EO-1 persisted through the issuance of

EO-2, issued on March 6, 2017.
51.

EO-2 was supposed to go into effect on March 16, 2017.

24

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 25 of 40 PageID# 1030

52.

EO-2 created a framework that although neutral on its face, allows case-by-

case waivers such that the unlawful goals and intent of the Original Proclamation could still
be implemented on a discretionary and nonreviewable basis.
53.

As such, the EO-2 created a framework that although mostly 1neutral on its

face, allows case-by-case waivers such that the unlawful goals and intent of the Original
Proclamation could still be implemented on a discretionary and nonreviewable basis.
54.

The Proclamation, issued on September 24, 2017, is the latest iteration of the

defendants attempt to stigmatize Islam and marginalize Muslims. This executive action
purports to be the product of a “worldwide review” of visa procedures in order to determine
which countries’ nationals should be restricted in their ability to get US visas.
55.

This process did not actually apply its own stated criterion. Countries with

adequate processes were still banned and countries with inadequate processes were left
unaffected. Five of the six countries affected by EO-2 were still affected by the Proclamation.
56.

The addition of North Korea and Venezuala is insulting window dressing to

the religious animus that still underlies this executive action.
57.

Overall, the Proclamation bars approximately 138 million Muslim nationals from

six Muslim-majority nations, which is more than 85% of the people affected by the Proclamation.
58.

The Proclamation also treats immigrant and nonimmigrant visas differently in a

manner that does not correspond to the rationale of the executive action itself and can only be
explained by animosity to Muslims moving to the United States permanently—a rationale that
the defendants would later confirm in their opposition to so-called chain migration.
1

EO-2 is not neutral on its face. Its reference to “honor killings” is a phrase anti-Muslim groups and media outlets
use to describe instances of Muslims committing domestic violence, and its embrace and rationalization of EO-1
incorporate the religious gerrymander of EO-1.

25

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 26 of 40 PageID# 1031

59.

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm

and spiritual and psychological consequences since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants having sent a message to the broader American public of
(1) disfavor and condemnation of their religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion
of Muslims, including Plaintiffs, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to
commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over their own, (4) Muslims are
outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all nonadherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844,
860 (2005); Moss v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. Seven, 683 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. S.C.
2012); Catholic League for Religious & Civ. Rights v. City & County of San Francisco, 567 F.3d
595 (9th Cir. 2009).
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Establishment Clause)
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs)
60.

The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.

61.

The EO-2 creates a framework that although neutral on its face, allows case-

by-case waivers such that the unlawful goals and intent of the Muslim Ban – the denial of
entry of Muslim into the United States – could still be implemented on a discretionary and
nonreviewable basis.
62.

Defendants’ unique application of the Proclamation to Muslims, insofar as it

allows for the (1) suspension of entry of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants
originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries from entering the United States, (2)
26

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 27 of 40 PageID# 1032

prohibition of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the
Predominantly Muslim Countries and who reside lawfully in the United States from engaging
in international travel and reentering the United States, and the (3) prohibition of Muslim
immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Predominantly Muslim
Countries and who are lawfully pursuing the education in the United States from renewing
their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, treats Islam on less than equal terms with
other religious and non-religious groups, thereby creating a denominational preference
against Islam as a religion.
63.

Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and similarly

situated Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries their right to be free
from religious discrimination in violation of the Establishment Clause to the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution by signing the EO-2 whose purpose and effect
is to discriminate on the basis of religion.
64.

Defendant Trump’s EO-2 imposes upon Islam—the religion to which all of the

Plaintiffs belong—the stigma of government disfavor. This condemnation, which has been
cast to the general public via the Proclamation, which the Proclamation implement via a nonreviewable and discretionary framework, signals to Plaintiffs’ fellow citizens that their faith
is uniquely threatening and dangerous insofar as it is the only religion singled out for
disfavored treatment.
65.

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm

and spiritual and psychological consequences since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants having sent a message to the broader American public of
(1) disfavor and condemnation of their religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion
27

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 28 of 40 PageID# 1033

of Muslims, including Plaintiffs, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to
commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over their own, (4) Muslims are
outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all nonadherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844,
860 (2005); Moss v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. Seven, 683 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. S.C.
2012); Catholic League for Religious & Civ. Rights v. City & County of San Francisco, 567 F.3d
595 (9th Cir. 2009).
66.

Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs and similarly situated Muslims

irreparable harm, and accordingly they are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, in
addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and
attorneys’ fees in this action.
67.

Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief, and the issuance of a preliminary

and permanent injunction in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief
this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
(Equal Protection)
(On behalf of the John Doe and Jane Doe Plaintiffs)
68.

The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.

28

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 29 of 40 PageID# 1034

69.

The EO-2 creates a framework that although neutral on its face, allows case-

by-case waivers such that the unlawful goals and intent of the Muslim Ban – the denial of
entry of Muslim into the United States – could still be implemented on a discretionary and
nonreviewable basis.
70.

Defendants’ unique application of the EO-2 to Muslims, insofar as it allows for

the (1) suspension of entry of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating
from the Predominantly Muslim Countries from entering the United States, (2) prohibition
of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Predominantly
Muslim Countries and who reside lawfully in the United States from engaging in
international travel and reentering the United States, and the (3) prohibition of Muslim
immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Predominantly Muslim
Countries and who are lawfully pursuing the education in the United States from renewing
their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, treats Islam on less than equal terms with
other religious and non-religious groups, thereby creating a denominational preference
against Islam as a religion.
71.

By creating a framework that allows for the implementation of a Muslim Ban

– the denial of entry of Muslim into the United States – through a discretionary and
nonreviewable waiver process, Defendants have treated them like second-class citizens.
72.

Moreover, by preventing the student John Doe Plaintiffs and other similarly

situated Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries and lawfully
residing in the United States who are pursuing their education, from engaging in
international travel and returning home in the United States, in order to avoid risking
forfeiting their F-1 status, Defendants have treated them like second-class citizens.
29

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 30 of 40 PageID# 1035

73.

Moreover, by subjecting Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim

Countries to a discretionary and nonreviewable waiver process to obtain a visa, including
family-based visas, solely based on their national origin, Defendants have treated them like
second-class citizens.
74.

Defendants’ above-described actions are motivated by the religious status of

the John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs and other similarly situated non-USC Muslims originating
from the Predominantly Muslim Countries and on the basis of their constitutionallyprotected free exercise of religion.
75.

Defendants’ actions lack a compelling interest insofar as their true purpose is

to ban Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries from entering the
United States based solely on their religious beliefs.
76.

Defendants’ above-described actions will have a discriminatory effect upon

and disparately impact the John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs and other similarly situated non-USC
Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries, and not non-USCs of other
faiths originating from the same Predominantly Muslim Countries.
77.

Defendants’ actions also not narrowly tailored insofar as they are entirely and

demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist.
78.

Defendants’ above-described actions do not serve a compelling state interest

or a legitimate or public purpose, nor are they the least restrictive means or narrowly
tailored to achieve any such interest.
79.

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm

and spiritual and psychological consequences since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants having sent a message to the broader American public of
30

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 31 of 40 PageID# 1036

(1) disfavor and condemnation of their religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion
of Muslims, including Plaintiffs, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to
commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over their own, (4) Muslims are
outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all nonadherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844,
860 (2005); Moss v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. Seven, 683 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. S.C.
2012); Catholic League for Religious & Civ. Rights v. City & County of San Francisco, 567 F.3d
595 (9th Cir. 2009).
80.

Defendants’ unlawful actions caused the John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated non-USC Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries
harm, and accordingly they are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to all
such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this
action.
81.

The John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief, and the

issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction in the form described in the Prayer for
Relief below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief
this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT III
UNLAWFUL AGENCY ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706
(Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)

31

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 32 of 40 PageID# 1037

(On behalf of all Plaintiffs)
82.

The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.

83.

The EO-2 creates a framework that although neutral on its face, allows case-

by-case waivers such that the unlawful goals and intent of the Original Proclamation could
still be implemented on a discretionary and nonreviewable basis.
84.

Defendants’ unique application of the EO-2 to Muslims, insofar as it allows for

the (1) suspension of entry of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating
from the Predominantly Muslim Countries from entering the United States, (2) prohibition
of Muslim immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Predominantly
Muslim Countries and who reside lawfully in the United States from engaging in
international travel and reentering the United States, and the (3) prohibition of Muslim
immigrants and Muslim nonimmigrants originating from the Predominantly Muslim
Countries and who are lawfully pursuing the education in the United States from renewing
their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, treats Islam on less than equal terms with
other religious and non-religious groups, thereby creating a denominational preference
against Islam as a religion, should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
85.

Defendants’ actions as described above are arbitrary and capricious, shock the

conscience, violate the decencies of civilized conduct, are so brutal and offensive that they
do not comport with the traditional ideas of fair play and decency, lack even a rational
relationship to any legitimate government interest, and have substantially burdened and
unduly deprived Plaintiffs and similarly situated Muslims their constitutionally protected
rights, including their right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, the right
to be free from condemnation by the government on the basis of their religion, the right to
32

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 33 of 40 PageID# 1038

be free from being singled out by the government for disfavored treatment on the basis of
their religion, liberty interests in engaging in international travel and returning home in the
United States, their international human rights, their rights to freedom of association, their
rights to freedom from false stigmatization and nonattainder, and should be set aside as
unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
86.

Defendants’ above-described unlawful actions that mandate or permit the

above-described treatment of the John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
non-USC Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries, constitute an
adverse action against them motivated by their religious beliefs and practices and an action
that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment, and should be set aside as unlawful
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
87.

By creating a framework that allows for the implementation of a Muslim Ban

– the denial of entry of Muslim into the United States – through a discretionary and
nonreviewable waiver process, Defendants have treated them like second-class citizens, and
should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
88.

By preventing the student John Doe Plaintiffs and other similarly situated non-

USC Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries lawfully residing in the
United States from engaging in international travel and returning home in the United States
without risking forfeiting their F-1 status, Defendants have treated them like second-class
citizens, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
89.

Moreover, by subjecting Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim

Countries to a discretionary and nonreviewable waiver process to obtain a visa, including

33

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 34 of 40 PageID# 1039

family-based visas, solely based on their national origin, Defendants have treated them like
second-class citizens, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
90.

Defendants’ above-described conduct was prompted or substantially caused

by Plaintiffs’ and such other similarly situated Muslims’ religious identity, and should be set
aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
91.

Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and similarly

situated Muslims their right to be free from religious discrimination in violation of the
Establishment Clause to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by issuing
the EO-2 whose purpose and effect is to discriminate on the basis of religion, and should be
set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
92.

Defendant Trump’s Proclamation imposes upon Islam—the religion to which

all of the Plaintiffs belong—the stigma of government disfavor. This condemnation, which
has been broadcast to the general public pursuant to the Proclamation, signals to Plaintiffs’
fellow citizens that their faith is uniquely threatening and dangerous insofar as it is the only
religion singled out for disfavored treatment, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
93.

Defendants’ actions also not narrowly tailored insofar as they are entirely and

demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist, and should be set aside as unlawful
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
94.

Defendants’ actions lack a compelling interest insofar as their true purpose is

to ban Muslims originating from these Predominantly Muslim Countries from entering the
United States based solely on their religious beliefs, and should be set aside as unlawful
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
34

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 35 of 40 PageID# 1040

95.

Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government

interest nor is it the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest,
compelling or otherwise, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
96.

Defendants’ above-described actions will have a discriminatory effect upon

and disparately impact the John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs and similarly situated non-USC
Muslims originating from the Predominantly Muslim Countries, and not non-USCs of other
faiths, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
97.

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer an ongoing concrete harm

and spiritual and psychological consequences since the initial announcement of the “Muslim
Ban” as a result of the Defendants having sent a message to the broader American public of
(1) disfavor and condemnation of their religion of Islam, (2) marginalization and exclusion
of Muslims, including Plaintiffs, based on the false messaging that Muslims are prone to
commit terrorism, (3) the endorsement of all religions over their own, (4) Muslims are
outsiders, dangerous, and not full members of the political community, and (5) all nonadherents of Islam are insiders and therefore favored. McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844,
860 (2005); Moss v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. Seven, 683 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. S.C.
2012); Catholic League for Religious & Civ. Rights v. City & County of San Francisco, 567 F.3d
595 (9th Cir. 2009).
98.

Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs and similarly situated Muslims

harm, and accordingly they are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to all
such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this
action.

35

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 36 of 40 PageID# 1041

99.

Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief, and the issuance of a preliminary

and permanent injunction in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief
this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act)
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs)
1.

The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.

2.

Defendant Trump does not have the authority to give any person preference

or priority or to discriminate in the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis of a “person’s
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,” and therefore the Proclamation is
an unconstitutional overreach in violation of Section 202(a)(1) of the INA.
3.

Defendant Trump does not have the authority to suspend the entry of “all

aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens
any restrictions” on the basis of religion, and therefore the Proclamation is an
unconstitutional overreach that is inconsistent with the First Amendment right to equal
protection of the laws.
4.

The Proclamation is a factually baseless, biased and bigoted effort to

discriminate against a targeted group that even if one would to accept its purported basis, is
not in any way related to the Proclamation’s purported goals.

36

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 37 of 40 PageID# 1042

5.

Further, the Proclamation is an irrational and arbitrary use of power, and as

such is an unconstitutional executive overreach.

37

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 38 of 40 PageID# 1043

Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:
1.

A speedy hearing of this action under Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;

2.

A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ EO-2 violates the First and Fifth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure
Act;

3.

A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ EO-2 is an unconstitutional overreach in
violation of Section 202(a)(1) of the INA and the First Amendment right to equal
protection;

4.

An injunction that requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional violations
identified above, including prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the following:
(1) requiring visa applications filed by non-USCs originating
from the Predominantly Muslim Countries to be subjected to
case-by-case waivers such that applicants are denied their visa
applications on the basis of religion or national origin, pursuant
to the unconstitutional terms specified in the EO-2;
(3) prohibiting student visa holders originating from the
Predominantly Muslim Countries and who lawfully reside in the
United States from engaging in international travel and
renewing their student visas to reenter the United States and
continue their education, pursuant to the unconstitutional
terms specified in the EO-2; and,
(4) prohibiting non-USCs originating from the Predominantly
Muslim Countries and who lawfully reside in the United States
from renewing their lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status,
pursuant to the unconstitutional terms specified in the EO-2;

5.

A trial by jury;
38

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 39 of 40 PageID# 1044

6.

An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412; and,

7.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand

trial by jury of the above-referenced causes of action.
Respectfully submitted,
______/s/___________________________
_
Gadeir Abbas*
Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR)
453 New Jersey Avenue SE
Ph: (202) 488-8787
Fax: (202) 488-0833
lfmasri@cair.com
Licensed in VA; not in DC
Practice limited to federal matters

/s/ Lena Masri
LENA F. MASRI (P73461)
Attorney for Plaintiff
National Litigation Director
453 New Jersey Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: (202) 488-8787

39

 Case 1:17-cv-00120-AJT-IDD Document 48 Filed 12/26/17 Page 40 of 40 PageID# 1045

AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLLC
BY:
/s/ Shereef Akeel
SHEREEF H. AKEEL (P54345)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
888 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 910
Troy, MI 48084
Phone: (248) 269-9595
shereef@akeelvalentine.com

Dated: March 10, 2017

40