| International Refugee Assistance Project v. Donald J. Trump | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
| Argued | 8 December 2017 |
| Decided | 15 February 2018 |
| Citation | 883 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018) |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Preliminary injunction against Executive Order 13780 affirmed, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2018); and preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 2 of Proclamation No. 9645, 265 F. Supp. 3d 570 (D. Md. 2017) |
| Subsequent history | Vacated on mootness grounds, No. 16-1436, 593 U.S. ___ (October 10, 2017) |
| Holding | |
| The preliminary injunction issued by the district court is affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Chief Judge Gregory, Judges Niemeyer, Motz, Traxler, King, Agee, Keenan, Wynn, Diaz, Floyd, Thacker, and Harris, and Senior Circuit Judge Shedd |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gregory, joined by Motz, King, Keenan, Wynn, Diaz, Floyd, Thacker, and Harris |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I. | |
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017).
The 2018 case was the result of three separate lawsuits brought in the District Court of Maryland, which were consolidated into one case on appeal. The suing parties were made up of the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP); HIAS, Inc.; the Middle East Studies Association (MESA); the Arab-American Association of New York (AAANY); the Yemeni-American Merchants Association (YAMA); Muhammed Meteab; Mohamad Mashta; Grannaz Amirjamshidi; Fakhri Ziaolhagh; Shapour Shirani; and Afsaneh Khazaeli; the Iranian Alliances Across Borders (IAAB); the Iranian Students' Foundation (ISF); Eblal Zakzok; Sumaya Hamadmad; Fahed Muqbil; and several unnamed individuals (John Doe 1, 3, and 5; and Jane Doe 1–6). These groups were represented in argument by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
The Fourth Circuit opinion affirming the injunction granted by the district court below was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision on a petition for a writ of certiorari appealing the circuit court ruling.
Similar cases were proceeding simultaneously in federal district court in Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately resulted in the Supreme Court decision Trump v. Hawaii 585 U.S. ___ (2018).