Court: District Court, D. Maryland; April 24, 2018; Federal District Court
The Government filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in Cases TDC-17-2921 and TDC-17-2969, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Hawaii. Plaintiffs in these cases, comprising the Iranian Alliances Across Borders (IAAB) and Zakzok Plaintiffs, opposed the motion and submitted a request for a Scheduling Order. The Government did not seek a stay for Case No. TDC-17-0361, involving the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and other plaintiffs, who did not join the motion for scheduling. The Court, having reviewed the motions, determined that a hearing was unnecessary and granted the Government's Motion to Stay, also applying the stay to Case No. TDC-17-0361. The Motion for a Scheduling Order was denied without prejudice.
The background pertains to President Trump's Proclamation No. 9645, which aimed to restrict entry from certain countries, following previous executive orders. The IRAP Plaintiffs, later joined by the IAAB and Zakzok Plaintiffs, sought a preliminary injunction against the Proclamation. On October 17, 2017, the Court issued an injunction against most provisions of Section 2 of the Proclamation, except for individuals without a bona fide relationship in the U.S. The Government subsequently sought a stay from the Supreme Court, which temporarily stayed the injunctions on December 4, 2017, pending appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District of Hawaii's injunction on December 22, 2017, but stayed its ruling due to the Supreme Court's prior order, with oral arguments scheduled for April 25, 2018.
The Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii will evaluate four key issues: (1) the justiciability of the President's suspension of entry for aliens, (2) the legality of the Proclamation as an exercise of presidential authority, (3) the appropriateness of a global injunction, and (4) whether the Proclamation infringes the Establishment Clause. The Government filed a Motion to Stay proceedings on January 19, 2018, citing that the Supreme Court's decisions could clarify issues relevant to this case. Plaintiffs, who filed a Motion for Scheduling Order on February 2, 2018, oppose the stay, arguing it would exacerbate their injuries by prolonging family separations. They assert that the Supreme Court's resolution of their claims is uncertain and that their claims under free speech, equal protection, due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act are not before the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs seek immediate discovery, outlining specific materials they wish to obtain. The legal standard for granting a stay emphasizes the court's authority to manage its docket efficiently, referencing Landis v. N. Am. Co. for guidance on staying proceedings.
The exercise of the power to grant a stay is crucial in cases of significant public interest, allowing for reasonable delays that promote public welfare, as established in Clinton v. Jones. The burden to demonstrate the necessity for a stay lies with the moving party, especially when such a stay could harm another party. The moving party must provide clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of a stay outweigh the potential detriments to the opposing party, as outlined in Williford v. Armstrong World Industries.
Courts typically evaluate three factors when considering a stay: (1) the impact on the orderly administration of justice, including the simplification or complication of issues, (2) the hardship faced by the moving party if the case is not stayed, and (3) the potential damage to the non-moving party if a stay is granted, referencing cases like Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.
The filing of an appeal against a preliminary injunction does not strip the trial court of jurisdiction; it can still progress with other litigation activities, including discovery and trial. However, district courts may choose to stay proceedings for judicial economy when the validity of a preliminary injunction is under appellate review, as seen in cases like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Arizona v. United States. Many courts have opted to stay cases awaiting decisions from higher courts, especially in matters involving significant public interest, with many stays being granted by mutual agreement of the parties involved.
Multiple federal cases involving challenges to the Proclamation by President Trump have been stayed pending the Supreme Court's resolution of related legal questions. In Ali v. Trump, Sarsour v. Trump, Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, and Universal Muslim Association of America v. Trump, courts granted stipulated motions to stay proceedings, emphasizing judicial efficiency and the need to avoid inconsistent rulings. Although the District of Hawaii has not officially stayed its case, no actions have occurred since the Proclamation was enjoined in October 2017.
In some cases, stays were granted despite objections from plaintiffs, as noted in Pars Equality Center v. Trump, where the court denied a motion for a case management schedule to await the Supreme Court's decision. The Washington v. Trump case also stayed consideration of a motion for a temporary restraining order until the Ninth Circuit could rule on the matter. The courts recognized substantial overlap in legal issues with those before the Supreme Court and the potential for legal confusion if rulings were made while appeals were pending.
The Supreme Court's upcoming deliberations will address key issues, including justiciability of the challenge, the President's statutory authority for the Proclamation, and potential violations of the Establishment Clause. The court indicated that a stay would serve judicial economy, as the Supreme Court's findings could significantly influence the cases' future proceedings, including the Government's anticipated motion to dismiss based on justiciability and standing issues.
The Government intends to argue that the Plaintiffs have not established a valid claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or the Establishment Clause. Although the Court previously addressed these issues during the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the Fourth Circuit has indicated that the Establishment Clause claim is justiciable and likely infringed upon by the Proclamation, the Government continues to challenge these matters in the Supreme Court. A ruling from the Supreme Court could clarify these issues and potentially simplify the Court's handling of a motion to dismiss. Proceeding without waiting for the Supreme Court's decision could lead to inefficient provisional rulings that might need revisiting.
Both the District of Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit have based their decisions on the INA, which is now before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. It would be inefficient for the Court to rule on a motion to dismiss concerning the INA claims before the Supreme Court's guidance. Regarding the Establishment Clause claim, the Court's analysis would benefit from Supreme Court direction on the appropriate review standards. The Fourth Circuit has established that courts should evaluate constitutional challenges to immigration actions based on whether they have a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason," allowing for deeper scrutiny if there is evidence of bad faith by the decision-maker. In this context, the Supreme Court will need to assess how the principles from Mandel and Lemon apply to the Proclamation's potential violation of the Establishment Clause.
Evaluating the viability of the Plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claims is deemed highly inefficient until the Supreme Court provides guidance on the matter. Plaintiffs have additional claims outside the Supreme Court's review, including statutory claims under the APA and constitutional claims under the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment. However, the justiciability arguments raised by the Government could apply to these claims as well. The Supreme Court's interpretation of how the Mandel standard applies to the Establishment Clause could impact other constitutional challenges related to the Proclamation.
Given the potential for the Supreme Court's forthcoming rulings to clarify key legal issues, a stay is recommended for judicial economy. Considering the normal practice within the District, discovery typically begins after resolving any motion to dismiss, as the court's ruling can shape the scope of discovery. The Court sees no compelling reason to deviate from this practice, noting that commencing discovery before clarifying legal questions risks complicating the proceedings and overburdening resources.
The necessity for document production, as requested by Plaintiffs, hinges on the justiciability of their claims and the relevant constitutional review standards defined by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, discovery is viewed as potentially burdensome until the Supreme Court shapes the legal landscape, but with a decision expected by June 2018, the anticipated delay in the case is approximately six months.
The Court finds that judicial economy strongly supports a stay of the proceedings. While the potential hardship to the Government does not justify a stay—given that it voluntarily enacted a broad Proclamation affecting many individuals and possesses sufficient resources—the harm to the Plaintiffs is significant. Specific cases illustrate this harm, such as elderly individuals with health issues facing separation from family members at risk of persecution in their home countries due to the Proclamation.
In balancing these factors, the Court concludes that staying the cases until the Supreme Court resolves Trump v. Hawaii is necessary for an orderly judicial process. Immediate litigation may not lead to a quicker resolution, as the Supreme Court's ruling would likely necessitate renewed arguments, effectively prolonging the case. The Court anticipates the Supreme Court’s decision by late June 2018, resulting in an approximate six-month stay. To mitigate the impact of the stay on Plaintiffs, if the Supreme Court does not reinstate the preliminary injunction, the Court will expedite proceedings, including shortened timelines for motions and discovery.
Consequently, the Motion for a Stay is granted, and the cases will be stayed until the earlier of the Supreme Court's decision or June 30, 2018. The Motion for a Scheduling Order is denied without prejudice. A separate order will follow.
