Washington v. Trump - Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 14
1 ROBERT W. FERGUSON
WSBA #26004
2 Attorney General
3 NOAH G. PURCELL
WSBA #43492
4 Solicitor General
COLLEEN M. MELODY
5 WSBA #42275
Civil Rights Unit Chief
6 Office of the Attorney General
7 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
8 206-464-7744
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
10
STATE OF WASHINGTON, CIVIL ACTION NO.
11
Plaintiff,
12
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
13 AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DONALD TRUMP, in his official
14 capacity as President of the United
States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
15 (HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F.
KELLY, in his official capacity as
16 Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON,
17 in his official capacity as Acting
Secretary of State; and the UNITED
18 STATES OF AMERICA,
19 Defendants.
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 1. The State of Washington ("State") brings this action to protect the State
22 including its residents, its employers, and its educational institutionsagainst illegal actions of
23 the President and the federal government. The President's Executive Order of January 27, 2017
24 ("the Executive Order"), is separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington
25 residents, damaging Washington's economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and
26
COMPLAINT 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206)464-7744
1
undermining Washington's sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants
2
and refugees. The Court should invalidate the portions of the Executive Order challenged here.
3
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
2. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 2201(a).
5
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and
6
1391(e)(1). Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities,
7
and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in King
8
County, within the Western District of Washington.
9
III. PARTIES
10
4. The Governor is the chief executive officer of the State. The Governor is
11
responsible for overseeing the operations of the State and ensuring that its laws are faithfully
12
executed.
13
5. The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the State. The Attorney
14
General's powers and duties include acting in federal court on matters of public concern.
15
6. The State has declared that practices that discriminate against any of its
16
inhabitants because of race, creed, color, or national origin are matters of public concern that
17
threaten the rights and proper privileges of the State and harm the public welfare, health, and
18
peace of the people. See Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.010.
19
7. The State's interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its
20
residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is
21
a quasi-sovereign interest.
22
8. The State also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from
23
the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and
24
privileges provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
25
26

(206)464-7744
I
9. The State's interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public's health,
2
safety, and well-being extends to all of the State's residents, including individuals who suffer
3
indirect injuries and members of the general public.
4
10. According to the most current American Community Survey data from the U.S.
5
Census Bureau, as of 2015, approximately 7,280 non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria,
6
Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen reside in the State of Washington-1,409 Iranian
7
immigrants, 2,275 Iraqi immigrants, 360 Libyan immigrants, 2,883 Somalian immigrants, 165
8
Sudanese immigrants, and 187 Syrian immigrants.
9
11. Immigration is an important economic driver in Washington. Many workers in
10
Washington's technology industry are immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are
11
from Muslim-majority countries. Immigrant and refugee-owned businesses employ 140,000
12
people in Washington. Many companies in Washington are dependent on foreign workers to
13
operate and grow their businesses.
14
12. The technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program, through
15
which highly skilled workers like software engineers are permitted to work in the United
16
States. Washington ranks ninth in the U.S. by number of applications for high-tech visas.
17
Microsoft, a corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, is the State's top employer
18
of high-techor H-1B visa holders and employs nearly 5,000 people through the program.
19
Other Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ
20
thousands of H-1B visa holders.
21
13. The market for highly skilled workers and leaders in the technology industry is
22
extremely competitive. Changes to U.S. immigration policy that restrict the flow of people may
23
inhibit these companies' ability to adequately staff their research and development efforts and
24
recruit talent from overseas. If recruiting efforts are less successful, these companies' abilities
25
to develop and deliver successful products and services may be adversely affected.
26

(206)464-7744
1
14. Microsoft's U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest
2
workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan,
3
Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas. There may be other employees with
4
permanent-resident status or green cards. These employees may be banned from re-entering the
5
U.S. if they travel overseas or to the company's offices in Vancouver, British Columbia.
6
15. Seattle-based company Amazon also employs workers from every corner of the
7
world. Amazon's employees, dependents of employees, and candidates for employment with
8
Amazon have been impacted by the Executive Order that is the subject of this Complaint.
9
Amazon has advised such employees currently in the United States to refrain from travel
10
outside the United States.
11
16. Bellevue-based company Expedia operates a domestic and foreign travel
12
business. At the time of this filing, Expedia has approximately 1,000 customers with existing
13
flight reservations in or out of the United. States who hold passports from Iran, Iraq, Syria,
14
Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen. The Executive Order will restrict business, increase
15
business costs, and impact current employees and customers.
16
17. The University of Washington and Washington State University are the two
17
largest public research universities in the State. More than 95 students from Iran, Iraq, Syria,
18
Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen attend the University of Washington, based in Seattle.
19
More than 135 students from those countries attend Washington State University, based in
20
Pullman.
21
18. Up to 13 individuals were detained at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
22
.("Sea-Tac Airport") one day after President Trump issued the Executive Order that is the
23
subject of this Complaint.
24
19. An unknown number of Washington residents from the affected countries may
25
have been prevented from, or may be prevented from, traveling to Washington through air,
26

(206) 464-7744
I
land, and sea ports of entry across the United States. It is unknown how many additional
2
Washington residents will reach United States ports across the country and be prevented from
3
returning to Washington while the Executive Order in question remains in effect.
4
20. As a result, Washington residents have been separated from their families. One
5
Somali refugee, who has lived in Seattle for 12 years, went to Sea-Tac Airport to pick up her
6
husband who was flying from Somalia through Vienna, but never saw him before he was sent
7
back on a flight to Vienna. Another individual who was detained is related to a Sea-Tac
8
Airport worker. A third detainee, a sister of a blind Iraqi man who lives in Seattle, was
9
prevented from seeing him after 15 years apart.
10
21. Other Washington residents will be unable to travel to Canada to visit family.
11
An Iraqi-born software engineer, who works in Facebook's Seattle office and was in Canada
12
watching his little brother perform in a high school play, received a phone call from his
13
immigration attorney shortly before the Executive Order took effect, advising him to rush back
14
across the border.
15
22. Still other Washington residents will be prevented from being reunited with
16
family members. One Syrian family who recently resettled in Seattle is waiting for an older
17
child still in a refugee camp who was set to arrive next week, but for the Executive Order.
18
23. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and issued the
19
January 27, 2017, Executive Order on which Defendants rely for authority to detain and/or
20
remove non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen who
21
are traveling or returning to Washington via air, land, and sea ports across the United States,
22
including Sea-Tac Airport. He is sued in his official capacity.
23
24. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is a federal cabinet
24
agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. DHS
25
is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, and is an agency
26

800 FiBh Avenue, Suite 2000
(206)464-7744
1
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(f). The U.S. Customs and Border Protection is an
2
Operational and Support Component agency within DHS. The U.S. Customs and Border
3
Protection is responsible for detaining and/or removing non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq,
4
Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen arriving at air, land, and sea ports across the United
5
States, including Sea-Tac Airport.
6
25. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
7
Security. He is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality
8
Act ("INA"), and oversees the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He is sued in his official
9
capacity.
10
26. Defendant Tom Shannon is the Acting Secretary of State. The Secretary of State
11
has authority to determine and implement certain visa procedures for non-citizens. He is sued
12
in his official capacity.
13
27. Defendant the United States of America includes all government agencies and
14
departments responsible for the implementation of the INA and detention and/or removal of
15
non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen who are
16
traveling to or returning to Washington via air, land, and sea ports across the United States,
17
including Sea-Tac Airport.
18
IV. ALLEGATIONS
19
28. Prior to his election, Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would
20
ban Muslims from entering the United States.
21
29. On December 7, 2015, candidate Trump issued a press release calling for "a
22
total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." As of the date of this
23
filing, the press release remains available on Trump's campaign website and is attached hereto
24
as Exhibit 1.
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1
30. In defending his decision shortly thereafter, candidate Trump compared the
2
Muslim ban to former President Franklin Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans
3
during World War II, and stated, "This is a president highly respected by all, [Roosevelt] did
4
the same thing." A media report of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
5
31. On June 14, 2016, candidate Trump reiterated his promise to ban all Muslims
6
entering this country until "we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen
7
those people coming into our country." A transcript of this speech is attached hereto as Exhibit
8
3.
9
32. Asked during a July 24, 2016, interview about whether he was "backing off on
10
his Muslim ban[]," candidate Trump stated, "I actually don't think it's a pull-back. In fact, you
11
could say it's an expansion." A transcript of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
12
33. In a foreign policy speech delivered on August 15, 2016, candidate Trump
13
noted that the United States could not "adequate[ly] screen[]" immigrants because it admits
14
"about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year." Trump proposed
15
creating an ideological screening test for immigration applicants, which would "screen out any
16
who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles or who believe that Sharia
17
law should supplant American law." During the speech, he referred to his proposal as
18
"extreme, extreme vetting." A copy of the prepared remarks is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. A
19
video link to the delivered speech is available at: https://www.c-span.org/video/?413977-
20
1/donald-trump-delivers-foreign-policy-address (quoted remarks at 50:46).
21
34. On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President of the
22
United States. In his first television interview as President, he again referred to his plan for
23
"extreme vetting." A transcript of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
24
35. On January 27, 2017, one week after being sworn in, President Trump signed an
25
executive order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United
26

(206)464-7744
1
States." The Executive Order directs a series of changes to the manner in which non-citizens
2
may seek and obtain entry to the United States. The Executive Order is attached hereto as
3
Exhibit 7.
4
36. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that entry of immigrants and
5
nonimmigrants from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and
6
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), i.e., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and
7
Yemen, "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." The Executive Order
8
"suspend[s] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for
9
90 days from the date of this order."
10
37. Sections 5(a)(b) of the Executive Order suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions
11
Program in its entirety for 120 days and then, upon its resumption, direct the Secretary of State
12
to prioritize refugees who claim religious-based persecution, "provided that the religion of the
13
individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."
14
38. Section 5(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that entry of Syrian refugees is
15
"detrimental to the interests of the United States" and suspends their entry indefinitely.
16
39. In a January 27, 2017, interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network,
17
President Trump confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission
18
as refugees. A copy of the report of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
19
40. During a signing ceremony for the Executive Order on January 27, 2017,
20
President Trump stated that the purpose of the Executive Order was to "establish[] new vetting
21
measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America." He continued,
22 ,We don't want them here." A media report of these statements is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
23
V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Fifth Amendment Equal Protection)
25 41. The State realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
26 each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

(206)464-7744
1
42. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal
2
government from denying equal protection of the laws.
43. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by
4
Defendants concerning their intent and application, target individuals for discriminatory
5
treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion, without lawful justification.
6
44. The Executive Order was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular
7
group.
8
45. The discriminatory terms and application of the Executive Order are arbitrary
9
and cannot be sufficiently justified by federal interests.
10
46. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the equal protection
11
guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
12
47. Defendants' violation causes ongoing harm to Washington residents.
13
VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (First Amendment Establishment Clause)
17 49. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the federal
18 government from officially preferring one religion over another.
19 50. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, together with statements made by
20 Defendants concerning their intent and application, are intended to disfavor Islam and favor
21 Christianity.
22 51. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the Establishment
23 I Clause of the First Amendment.
24 52. Defendants' violation causes ongoing harm to Washington residents.
25 VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process)
26

(206)464-7744
53. The State realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
2
each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
3
4
government from depriving individuals of their liberty interests without due process of law.
5
55. Where Congress has granted statutory rights and authorized procedures
6
applicable to arriving and present non-citizens, minimum due process rights attach to those
7
statutory rights.
8
56. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order conflict with the statutory rights and
9
procedures directed by Congress. In issuing and implementing the Executive Order,
10
Defendants have violated the procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
11
12
VIH. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Immigration and Nationality Act Discriminatory Visa Procedures)
16 59. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), prohibits
17 discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of
18 birth, or place of residence.
20 Defendants concerning their intent and application, discriminate on the basis of race,
21 nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence in the issuance of visas, in violation of the
22 Immigration and Nationality Act.
24 IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Immigration and Nationality Act Denial of Asylum and Withholding of Removal)
25
26

(206)464-7744
I
2
3
63. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158 and 1231(b)(3), entitles
4
certain non-citizens arriving at Washington ports of entry to apply for asylum and withholding
5
of removal.
6
64. As implemented, the Executive Order suspends all immigrant and
7
nonimmigrant entry into Washington by individuals from seven countries and forecloses their
8
ability to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
9
10
X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act Denial of Convention Against Torture
Relief)
12
13
14
67. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 8 U.S.C. 1231
15
16 note, implements the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the United States
ratified in 1994. Pub. L. 105-277, div. G, subdiv. B, title XXII, 2242. Under the Convention
17
Against Torture, the United States may not involuntarily return any person to a country where
18
there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to
19
torture.
20
68. As implemented, the Executive Order suspends all immigrant and
21
nonimmigrant entry into Washington by individuals from seven countries and forecloses their
22
ability to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
23
24
XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)
26

(206)464-7744
1
2
3
71. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a), prohibits the
4
federal government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, even if the burden
5
results from a rule of general applicability.
6
72. Section 3 of the Executive Order, if implemented, will result in substantial
7
burdens on the exercise of religion by non-citizen immigrants by, for example, preventing
8
them from exercising their religion while in detention, returning to their religious communities
9
in Washington, and/or taking upcoming, planned religious travel abroad. Such burdens on
10
religion violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
11
12
XII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Procedural Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act)
16 75. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 and 706(2)(D), requires that
17 federal agencies conduct formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive
18 rights.
19 76. In implementing Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, federal agencies have
20 changed the substantive criteria by which individuals from affected countries may enter the
21 United States. Federal agencies did not follow the procedures required by the Administrative
22 Procedure Act before taking action impacting these substantive rights.
23 77. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the Administrative
24 Procedure Act.
26

(206)464-7744
1
XHI. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Substantive Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act)
5 80. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2), prohibits federal agency
6 action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute.
8 taken unconstitutional and unlawful action, as alleged herein, in violation of the Administrative
9 Procedure Act.
11 applied provisions arbitrarily, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
13 XIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 84. Wherefore, the State of Washington prays that the Court:
15 a. Declare that Sections 3(c), 5(a)(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order are
16 unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United
17 States;
18 b. Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a)-
19 (c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, including at all United States
20 borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas, pending further
21 orders from this Court;
22 C. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), set an expedited
23 hearing within fourteen (14) days to determine whether the Temporary
24 Restraining Order should be extended; and
25 d. Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
26
13 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
(206) 464-7744
1 DATED this 30th day of January, 2017.

2
4 V.
5 ob Ferguson, WSBA #26004

Attorney General
6 Noah G. Purcell, WSBA #4349
Solicitor General
7 Colleen M. Melody, WSBA #42275
8 Civil Rights Unit Chief
Office of the Attorney General
Seattle, WA 98104
10 (206) 464-7744
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(206)464-7744
Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 1-1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 3
Complaint
Exhibit 1
Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration | Donald J Trump for Pre... Page 1 of 2
INSTAGRAM FACEBOOK TWITTER
NE WS G E T IN V O L V ED GALLERY ABOUT US SHOP CO N TRI BU T E
- DECEMBER 07, 2015 - CATEGORIES
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON VIEW ALL

PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
STATEMENTS
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's ANNOUNCEMENTS
representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research,
ENDORSEMENTS
among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the
Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security
ADS
Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against
Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51%
of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being
governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder
against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts
ARCHIVE
that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to NOVEMBER 2016
anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and
OCTOBER 2016
why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this
problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of SEPTEMBER 2016
horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of
reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to AUGUST 2016
Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
JULY 2016
JUNE 2016
Next Release: Donald J. Trump Announces State Directors in Massachusetts and MAY 2016
Mississippi
APRIL 2016
Previous Release: Donald J. Trump Announces Statewide Leadership Team in
Oklahoma MARCH 2016
FEBRUARY 2016
JANUARY 2016
DECEMBER 2015
NOVEMBER 2015
OCTOBER 2015
SEPTEMBER 2015
AUGUST 2015
JULY 2015
JUNE 2015
MAY 2015
APRIL 2015
MARCH 2015
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-m... 1/29/2017
Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Contact The Campaign - Privacy Policy - Tel: 646-736-1779

*By entering your mobile number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Message and data rates may apply. Text "STOP" to opt-out. T&C/Privacy Policy: sms-terms/88022
Complaint
Exhibit 2
Donald Trump says he is not bothered by comparisons to Hitler - The Washington Post
Post Politics
Donald Trump says he is

not bothered by
comparisons to Hitler
By Jenna Johnson December 8, 2015
Editor's note: This story is from 2015.
The comparison between Donald Trump and Hitler is being made more and more frequently -- including on
the cover of Tuesday's Philadelphia Daily News -- but the Republican front-runner said Tuesday that the
comparison doesn't bother him.
"You're increasingly being compared to Hitler," ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said during an interview
with Trump on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. "Does that give you any pause at all?"
"No," Trump responded, "because what I am doing is no different than what FDR -- FDR's solution for
Germans, Italians, Japanese, you know, many years ago."
Stephanopoulos jumped in as Trump kept talking: "So you're for internment camps?"
"This is a president who is highly respected by all," Trump said of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "He did the
same thing -- if you look at what he was doing, it was far worse."
[ This is what happens when Donald Trump attacks a private citizen on Twitter]
Trump's answer was confusing and meandering but he seemed to be making the point that during times of
war, more extreme measures must be used.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/08/donald-trump-says-he... 1/30/2017
"We are now at war," Trump said. "We have a president that doesn't want to say that, but we are now at war."
"I've got to press you on that, sir,"Stephanopoulos said. "So you're praising FDR there, I take it you're
praising the setting up of internment camps for Japanese during World War II?"
Local Politics Alerts

Sign up
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
"No, I'm not," Trump responded. "No, I'm not. No, I'm not."
Trump then rattled off the numbers of some of the presidential proclamations Roosevelt issued "having to do
with alien Germans, alien Italians, alien Japanese."
"They went through a whole list of things -- they couldn't go five miles from their homes, they weren't
allowed to use radios, flashlights," Trump said. "Take a look at what FDR did many years ago, and he's one of
the most highly respected presidents... They named highways after him."
Stephanopoulos responded: "You want to bring back policies like that?"
After a pause, Trump responded: "No, I don't to bring it back, George. At all. I don't like doing it at all. It's a
temporary measure until our representatives, many of whom are grossly incompetent, until our
representatives can figure out what's going on."
Jenna Johnson is a political reporter who covers the White House. She spent more than than a
year writing about Donald Trump's presidential campaign, traveling to 35 states to attend more
than 170 political rallies and interview hundreds of Trump supporters. Follow @wpjenna
Complaint
Exhibit 3
Orlando Shooting: Read Donald Trump's Speech | Time.com
Read Donald Trump's Speech on the Orlando Shooting
Trump Pushes Muslim Ban After Orlando Shooting
DONALD TRUMP

Ryan Teague Beckwith
Updated: Jun 13, 2016 8:36 PM Pacific
Donald Trump addressed the shooting at a gay club in Orlando in a prepared speech
Monday, calling for suspending immigration from countries with a history of terrorism.
Here is a full transcript of his remarks, as given.
TRUMP: (OFF-MIKE) This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and all of the bad things
and we all know what's going on, and especially how poor she'd do as president in these very,
very troubled times of radical Islamic terrorism.
TRUMP: Even her former Secret Service agent, who's seen her under pressure and in times of
http://time.com/4367120/orlando-shooting-donald-trump-transcript/[1/29/2017 7:56:40 PM]

stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be our president. There will be
plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that
speech very, very soon.
But today, there's only one thing to discuss, the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders.
The attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was the worst terror strike on our soil since
September 11th, and the worst mass shooting in our country's history.
So many people -- it's just hard to believe, but just so many people dead, so many people gravely
injured, so much carnage, such a disgrace. The horror is beyond description. The families of these
wonderful people are totally devastated, and they will be forever. Likewise, our whole nation and
indeed the whole world is devastated.
We express our deepest sympathies to the victims, the wounded, and their families. We mourn as
one people for our nation's loss, and pledge our support to any and all who need it. I would like to
ask now that we all observe a moment of silence for the victims of this attack.
Thank you. Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT
community. They have been through something that nobody could ever experience. This is a very
dark moment in America's history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only
because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens, because of
their sexual orientation.
It's a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It's an assault on the ability of free
people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity. It's an attack on the right
of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.
We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people, with force, purpose, and
determination. But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and to think
and act clearly. We're not acting clearly, we're not talking clearly, we've got problems.
If we don't get tough, and if we don't get smart, and fast, we're not going to have our country
anymore. There will be nothing, absolutely nothing, left. The killer, whose name I will not use, or
ever say, was born in Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.
His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don't
share its radical views, and they murdered plenty. The father even said he was running for
president of Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the
first place, was because we allowed his family to come here.
That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about. We have a dysfunctional immigration system,
which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect
our citizens properly. We have an incompetent administration.
And if I'm elected president, that will not change, I will tell you, that will not change over the next
four years. We have an administration that will not change. But if I get in there, it's going to
change, and it's going to change quickly. We're going from totally incompetent to just the
opposite, believe me.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.

With 50 people dead and perhaps more ultimately and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to
talk around issues anymore. We have to address these issues head-on. I called for a ban after San
Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger but now many years and I have to say many
years but many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary we must
find out what is going on. We have to do it.
It will be lifted -- this ban -- when and as a nation we're in a position to properly and perfectly
screen these people coming into our country. They're pouring in and we don't know what we're
doing. The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into
the country of any class of persons. Now, any class -- it really is determined and to be determined
by the president for the interests of the United States. And it's as he or she deems appropriate.
Hopefully it's he in this case.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. I will use this power to protect the American people. When I'm elected I will suspend
immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United
States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats. After a full ...
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
And by the way we have no choice. After a full and partial and long -- really long overdue
security assessment we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and
values of America.
(APPLAUSE)
We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country many
of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of radical
Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.
(APPLAUSE) Remember this, radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti- American.
(APPLAUSE)
I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people
are targets of persecution and intimation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.
(APPLAUSE)
This is not just a national security issue. It's a quality of life issue. If we want to protect the quality
of life for all Americans -- women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all
people then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam and we need to do it now.
(APPLAUSE)
We need to tell the truth also about how radical Islam is coming to our shores. And it's coming ...
(APPLAUSE)
With these people, folks, it's coming. We're importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West
through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our
president. Even our own FBI director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the
backgrounds of people we're letting into America. All of the September 11th hijackists were
issued visas. Large numbers of Somali refugees in Minnesota have tried to join ISIS.

The Boston bombers came here through political asylum. The male shooter in San Bernardino
again whose name I will not mention was the child of immigrants from Pakistan and he brought
his wife, the other terrorist from Saudi Arabia through another one of our easily exploited visa
programs.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five fold --
five fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99 percent of the people in Afghanistan
support oppressive sharia law. We admit many more, and that's just the way it is. We admit many
more from other countries in the region.
And I'll tell you what: They share these oppressive views and values. We want to remain a free
and open society. Then, and if we do, then we have to control our borders. We have to control,
and we have to control them now, not later. Right now.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Yet Hillary Clinton, for months, and despite so many attacks, repeatedly refused to even say the
words radical Islam until I challenged her yesterday. And, guess what, she will probably say them.
She sort of has said them, but let's see what happens. She really has no choice, but she doesn't
want to.
However, she's really been forced, and she has been forced to say these words. She supports, and
the reason is, she supports so much of what is wrong, and what is wrong with this country, and
what's going wrong with our country and our borders. She has no clue, in my opinion, what
radical Islam is and she won't speak honestly about it if she does, in fact, know. She's in total
denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the
entire world -- true weakness.
I don't know if you know this, but just a few weeks before San Bernardino, the slaughter, that's all
it was was a slaughter, Hillary Clinton explained her refusal to say the words "radical Islam."
Here is what she said, exact quote, "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorism." That is Hillary Clinton.
So, she says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France which has among the toughest
gun laws anywhere in the world, and 130 people were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in
cold blood. Her plan is to disarm law abiding Americans, abolishing the Second Amendment, and
leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. No good. Not going to happen, folks. Not
going to happen. Not going to happen. (APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
She wants to take away American's guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.
Let them come into the country, we don't have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun
they want.
I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a presidential
race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of
terror. I will be always defending the Second Amendment.

(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you.
The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into
American and allow it to grow oversees, and it is growing. In fact, Hillary Clinton's catastrophic
immigration plan will bring vastly more radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening
not only our society but our entire way of life. When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism,
ignorance is not bliss. It's deadly -- totally deadly.
The Obama administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also damaged our
security by restraining our intelligence gathering and we have, just, no intelligence gathering
information. We need this information so badly, and he stopped it. We don't have the support. We
don't have the support of the law enforcement system because Obama is not letting them do their
job. They are not being allowed to do their job. And, they can do it well -- better than anybody.
We need a new leader. We need a new leader fast.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.
They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else. I
refuse to be politically correct.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to do the right thing. I want to straighten things out and I want to make America great
again.
(APPLAUSE)
The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon if I'm elected. As president I will
give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools they need to prevent
terrorist attacks. They don't have those tools now.
(APPLAUSE)
We need an intelligence gathering system second to none. Second to none. That includes better
cooperation between state, local and federal officials, and with our allies, very importantly. I will
have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence and a Secretary of Defense who'll
know how to fight a war on radical Islamic terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
And they will have the support that they need to get the job done right, not like it is right now. It's
not right.
(APPLAUSE)
We also must ensure the American people are provided the information they need to understand
the threat. The Senate subcommittee on Immigration has already identified hundreds of
immigrants charged with terrorist activities inside the United States since September 11th. Nearly
a year ago, the Senate Subcommittee asked President Obama's Department of Justice, State and
Homeland Security to provide the immigration history of all terrorists inside the United States.
These Departments refused to comply. Nobody even knows why. They refused to comply.
President Obama must release the full and complete immigration histories of all individuals

implicated in terrorist activities of any kind since September 11th. So important. The public has a
right to know how these people got here, how they came on to this great land, why are they here?
(APPLAUSE)
We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with or supporting radical
groups and beliefs, very simple. We have to control the amount of future immigration into this
country and we have to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America. Not
complicated.
(APPLAUSE)
Every - and just think of this. Take a look. Every single event, even a single individual can be
devastating, and all you have to do is take a look at what happened in Orlando and what happened
in other cases. Just a single event. And just one person. Can you imagine what they'll do in large
groups, which we're allowing now to come here.
Truly our President doesn't know what he's doing. He's failed us and he's failed us badly. Under
his leadership this situation will not get any better, it will only get worse. And I've been saying
that for a long time. Each year the United States permanently admits 100,000 immigrants from the
Middle East and many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East. Our government
has been admitting ever- growing numbers, year after year, without any effective plan for our own
security.
In fact, Clinton's State Department was in charge of admissions and the admissions process for
people applying to enter from overseas. Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans
to massively increase admissions without a screening plan including a 500 percent increase in
Syrian refugees coming into our country. Tell me, tell me - how stupid is that?
This could be a better, bigger, more horrible version than the legendary Trojan Horse ever was.
Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you'd be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the
Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of the children and their
children. Not only their children, by the way, they're trying to take over our children and convince
them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is and we don't know what's happening.
TRUMP: The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these
dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to really to screen. We're
not screening people.
So why don't we have an effective screening system? We don't. We're being laughed at all over
the world. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our
country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans. The burden is on
Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it, her plan will cost hundreds of billions of dollars
long term.
Wouldn't this be money better spent rebuilding America for our current population including the
many poor people already living here. We have cities, we have inner cities...
(APPLAUSE)
We have poverty all over and this is how we're spending billions of dollars. We have to stop the
tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United States. We don't know who they are, they

have no documentation and we don't know what they're planning and we won't unless we have
proper supervisor and proper leadership in which case they're out of here. What I want...
(APPLAUSE)
What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes American
values. That's a choice I put before the American people. A mainstream immigration policy
designed to benefit America or Hillary Clinton's radical immigration policy designed to benefit
politically correct special interests. That's all it is. We've got to get smart and tough and vigilant
and we've got to do it now because later is too late -- going to be too late for our country.
The media talks about home grown terrorism but Islamic radicalism and that's a very, very
important term -- a term that the president refuses to use and the networks that nurture it are
imports from overseas whether you like it or whether you don't like it. Yes, there are many
radicalized people already inside our country as a result of poor policies of the past.
But the whole point is that we will be much, much and it will be easier to deal with our current
problem if we don't keep on bringing people who add to the problem. And that's what they're
doing. We're letting all of these people -- hundreds of thousands of people come in and all they're
doing is adding to this incredible problem we have.
For instance, the controversial mosque attended by the Boston bombers had at its founder and as
its founder an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot. This shooter and
amazingly in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most
repressive regimes on earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?
Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to
support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country and who suppress
women, gays and anyone who doesn't share their views or values.
(APPLAUSE)
She can't have it both ways. She can't claim to be supportive of these communities while trying to
increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress these same communities. How does
this kind of immigration make our lives better? How does this kind of immigration make our
country better? Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people in in vast numbers who reject our
values? Why? Explain.
Ask yourself who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with
actions or Hillary Clinton with her words?
TRUMP: I will tell you who the better friend is and some day I believe that will be proven out
bigly (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
And by the way the LGBT community is just -- what's happened to them is just so sad and to be
thinking about where their policies are currently with this administration is a disgrace to that
community, I will tell you right now.
Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country. They enslave women,
and they murder gays. I don't want them in our country.
(APPLAUSE)

Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn't support our
communities. All of our communities, every single one of them. Americans already admitted four
times more immigrants than any country on Earth, anybody in the world. Four times more. At
least, because we don't even know who's coming in. And we continue to admit millions more with
no real checks or scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven't budged. In almost 20 years. You wonder why we
get the crowds, you wonder why we get this tremendous support, you wonder why I've gotten
more votes than any Republican in any primary in the history of the Republican Party? Take a
look at that. Take a look at your security, take a look at the wages. For 18 years they've been
stagnant, they've even gone down.
So whether it's a matter of national security, or financial security, we can't afford to keep on going
like this. Cannot afford it. We owe $19 trillion in debt. And no longer have any options. Our
communities from all backgrounds are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against
anyone. It's really an act of defense. I want us all, all of us, to work together. We have to form a
partnership, with our Muslim communities. We have Muslim communities in this country that are
great, and we have to form that partnership.
Now, the Muslim community, so important. They have to work with us. They have to cooperate
with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad. They know it. And they have
to do it, and they have to do it forthwith. I want to fix our schools. I want to fix our bridges. And
our jobs market, we're going to have it rocket again, we're going to make great trade deals. But I
want every American to succeed including Muslims.
But the Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what's going on.
They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know
what? They didn't turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.
Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that include
individuals who preach hate against our citizens. I want to protect our citizens, all of our citizens.
The terrorist attack on Pulse nightclub demands a full and complete investigation into every single
aspect of the assault. In San Bernardino, as an example, people who knew what was going on,
they knew exactly, but they used the excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it. They said oh,
"We thought so but we didn't want to use racial profiling." Which was probably an excuse given
to them by their lawyer, so they don't get in trouble.
We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and associates. We
need to know if he was affiliated with any radical mosques or radical activists and what, if any, is
their immigration status. We have to know, and we have to know fast. We need to know if he
traveled anywhere and who he traveled with. We need to know, and we need to make sure, every
single last person involved in this plan, including anyone who knew something but didn't tell us, is
brought to justice, so when people know what's going on and they don't tell us, and we have an
attack, and people die, these people have to have consequences. Big consequences.
(APPLAUSE)
America must do more -- much more -- to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential

victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientation, as you just saw in Orlando.
TRUMP: It also means we must change our foreign policy. The decision to overthrow the regime
in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans
for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow like nobody has ever seen
before.
These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in
partnership with our Muslim allies in the region. That is why our new goal must be to defeat
Islamic terrorism not nation building. No more nation building. It's never going to work.
And by the way we've spent almost $5 trillion over the years on trying to nation build in the
Middle East and it has been complete and total disaster. We're further away now than we were 15
years ago. For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That
mission helped to unleash ISIS on a new continent.
I've said NATO need to change its focus and stop terrorism. We have to focus on terrorism and
we have to stop terrorism. Since I've raised that criticism and it's OK. I've gotten no credit for it
but these are minor details -- NATO has since announced a new initiative -- front page of the Wall
Street Journal four days ago focused on just that. America must unite the whole civilized world in
the fight against Islamic terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
Pretty much like we did with communism during the Cold War. We tried it President Obama's
way, doesn't work. He gave the world his apology tour. We got ISIS and many other problems in
return. That's what we got. Remember the famous apology tour. We're sorry for everything.
I'd like to conclude my remarks today by again expressing our solitarily with the people of
Orlando who have come under this horrific attack. When I'm president I pledge to protect and
defend all Americans who live inside our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were
born, I don't care. All Americans living here and following our laws not other laws will be
protected.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you. We're going to be tough and we're going to be smart and we're going to do
it right. America will be a tolerant and open society. America will also be a safe society. We will
protect our borders at home. We will defeat ISIS overseas. We have no choice. We will ensure
every parent can raise their children in peace and safety. We will make America rich again. We
will make America safe again. We will make America great again. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you.
SPONSORED STORIES
by

Complaint
Exhibit 4
nbcnews.com Page 1 of 29
MEET THE PRESS JUL 24 2016, 11:47 AM ET
Meet the Press - July 24, 2016

CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday, the Democratic National Convention gets underway here in Philadelphia, after a raucous and unpredictable Republican
convention. That ended with the nomination of Donald Trump.
DONALD TRUMP:
I am with you, I will fight for you, and I will win for you.
CHUCK TODD:
This morning, my sit-down with Donald Trump on his convention speech.
DONALD TRUMP:
The only negative reviews were a little dark.
CHUCK TODD:
On whether he's backing off on his Muslim band.
DONALD TRUMP:
I actually don't think it's a pull-back. In fact, you could say it's an expansion.
CHUCK TODD:
And on Hillary Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine.
DONALD TRUMP:
Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders.
CHUCK TODD:
Plus Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine hit the road in Florida.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Tim Kaine is everything Donald Trump and Mike Pence are not.
CHUCK TODD:
But some Bernie Sanders supporters are criticizing the Kaine pick as a sellout to moderates. I'll talk to Sanders and get his reaction to
that and to the DNC Wikileaks e-mail release. Joining me for insight and analysis are MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, former chairman of
the RNC, Michael Steele, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, and host of Hardball and Philadelphia
hometown boy, Chris Matthews. Trump, Sanders and reactions to the new Democratic ticket. Welcome to Sunday, in a special edition
of Meet the Press at the Democratic National Convention.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. We are at the Wells Fargo Center here in South Philadelphia, home of the NBA 76ers and the NHL Broad
Street Bullies, the Fliers. Democrats have begun to arrive, along with a pretty bad heat wave. And beginning tomorrow, they will gather
to officially nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/pages/print 1/29/2017
Yesterday in Miami, Clinton was joined by her new running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, in an upbeat event that was notable
simply by the contrast to the disorganized rollout of Donald Trump's running mate a week earlier, Mike Pence.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Hillary Clinton, she doesn't insult people, she listens to them. What a novel concept, right? She doesn't trash our allies, she respects
them. And she'll always have our backs, that is something I am rock solid sure of.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
We will get to reaction to the new Democratic ticket later in the show, including my interview with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
in a moment. But first, we're going to talk also about Sanders, about those Wikileaks emails and what they may say about DNC
favoritism towards Hillary Clinton. But we begin with the man who has now taken control of the Republican Party. It's nominee Donald
Trump.
I traveled to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, sort of his weekend getaway, last night for a face-to-face interview
since dropping the word "presumptive," it's his first one, from the nominee title. We touched on so much: Tim Kaine, Trump's tax
returns, his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration and why he says he alone can fix the country's problems. But I began by
asking him how it feels to be the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it really feels great. And we really have a very unified party, other than a very small group of people that, frankly, lost. And we
have a very unified party. You saw that the other night with the love in the room, and the enthusiasm in the room. The enthusiasm,
there are people that say they have never seen anything like what was going on in that room, especially Thursday night.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me tell you, you bring up Thursday night, I've got to ask you about your entrance. Before we get serious here. That Monday night
entrance was something else. I know you've gotten a lot of feedback on it. How'd you come up with it?
DONALD TRUMP:
I think I'm a little bit lucky, and a couple of people had that idea and I went along with the idea. And everything just worked right. And it
was so good that they wanted to do it on Thursday night. I said, "Never in a million years, because you'll never get it that way again."
CHUCK TODD:
I don't think I've seen that even on WWE.
DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, I know. Well, Vince is a good friend of mine. He called me, he said, "That was a very, very good entrance." But I didn't want to
do it a second time, because, you know, it never works out the second time.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let's go into the speech. I want to put some meat on the bones. But first, let's talk about, you've seen some of the positive
reviews, some of the negative reviews. Some of the negative has been that it was a little dark--
DONALD TRUMP:
That's the only thing that--
CHUCK TODD:
--that there wasn't enough optimism in it. What would you say? It's not Morning in America.
DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
What would you say to that?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think the only negativity, and, you know, the hate, I call them the haters, and that's fine. But the only negative reviews were, "A
little dark." And the following day, they had another attack, and then today you see what happened in Afghanistan with many, many
people killed.
They have no idea how many, so many killed. Yesterday it was Munich. And you know, I know they're saying, "Maybe it wasn't
terrorism. Maybe it was just a crazy guy." But in the meantime he's screaming, "Allahu Akbar," as he's shooting people, so, you know,
we'll see how that turns out. And all of a sudden people are saying, "Maybe it wasn't dark at all." But the only thing that some people
said, "It was a little dark. It was a little bit tough."
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think it was a little dark?
DONALD TRUMP:
No, oh, I thought it was very optimistic. To me, it was an optimistic speech, because--
CHUCK TODD:
What makes it optimistic in your view?
DONALD TRUMP:
Because we're going to stop the problems. We're going to stop the problems. In other words, sure, I talk about the problems, but we're
going to solve the problems.
CHUCK TODD:
One of the phrases you used, "I alone can fix it." And to some people, that sounded almost too strong-mannish for them. Do you
understand that criticism and what do you make of it?
DONALD TRUMP:
I'll tell you, part of it was I'm comparing myself to Hillary. And we know Hillary, and we look at her record. Her record has been a
disaster. And I am running against Hillary. It's not like I'm running against the rest of the world. I know people that are very, very
capable that could do a very good job, but they could never get elected.
I can tell you right now. I can give you ten names of people that would do an extraordinary job, but there's no way they could ever get
elected. They wouldn't know where to begin. It wouldn't be for them. But for governing, they would be good. I'm running and, you
know, against one person.
CHUCK TODD:
You said there would be consequences for any company that tried to move a factory out. What--
DONALD TRUMP:
Absolutely, so simple--
CHUCK TODD:
--what is the consequence? Let's start with, you bring up Carrier a lot.
DONALD TRUMP:
It's so simple--
(OVERTALK)
CHUCK TODD:
Right, I understand that. But explain the consequences--
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, here's the consequence--
CHUCK TODD:
What would it be?
DONALD TRUMP:
So Carrier comes in, they announce they're moving to Mexico, they fire all their people in Indiana, and they say, "Hi, well, here we are
in Mexico, you know, enjoy your plant, enjoy the rest of your life," and you hire people from Mexico, okay? Now they make their
product and they put it into the United States.
Well, we will have a very strong border, by the way, but they put it into the United States and we don't charge them tax. There will be a
tax to be paid. If they're going to fire all their people, move their plant to Mexico, build air conditioners, and think they're going to sell
those air conditioners to the United States, there's going to be a tax.
CHUCK TODD:
What kind of tax are you thinking?
DONALD TRUMP:
It could be 25 percent. It could be 35 percent. It could be 15 percent. I haven't determined. And it could be different for different
companies. We have been working on trying to stop this government, because we don't know what we're doing. And not only Obama,
they've been trying to stop this from before Obama. But they don't know. You know, they've done, they've tried lower interest loans,
they've tried zero interest loans, these guys--
CHUCK TODD:
Well, some of these things aren't going to get through the World Trade Organization. There's--
DONALD TRUMP:
It doesn't matter. Then we're going to renegotiate or we're going to pull out. These trade deals are a disaster, Chuck. World Trade
Organization is a disaster.
CHUCK TODD:
You know the concern on some of this--
DONALD TRUMP:
NAFTA is a disaster--
CHUCK TODD:
-- is that it would rattle the world economy. Look what Brexit did to the world economy. Investors got rattled.
DONALD TRUMP:
What did it do? What did it do?
CHUCK TODD:
Now you--
DONALD TRUMP:
The stock market's higher now than it was when it happened. And by the way, I'm the only one of all of these people at the higher level
of the wonderful world of politics, I'm the only one that said, "Brexit's going to happen." Remember, I was asked the question. I said,
"Yeah, I think they're going to approve it. I think they want independence. I don't think they want people pouring into their country." And
I was--
CHUCK TODD:
You're not worried about, you think a fractured Europe is good for America?
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. But we're spending a lot of money on Europe. Don't forget, Europe got together, why, primarily did they get together? So that
they could beat the United States when it comes to making money, in other words, foreign trade--
CHUCK TODD:
Economic--
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay? And now we talk about Europe like it's so wonderful. Hey, I love Europe, I have property in Europe. I'm just saying, the reason
that it got together was like a consortium so that it could compete with the United States--
CHUCK TODD:
So what you're saying is all this stuff is good for America, even if it's not good for Europe?
DONALD TRUMP:
Look, you take a look at Airbus. They make more planes now than Boeing, okay? They got together, all of these countries got together
so that they could beat the United States. Okay, so we're in competition. So you know, we're in competition in one way, we're helping
them in another way. It is so messed up.
CHUCK TODD:
The Muslim ban. I think you've pulled back from it, but you tell me.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting
mechanisms have been put in place.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
This feels like a slight rollback--
DONALD TRUMP:
I don't think that's--
CHUCK TODD:
Should it be interpreted--
DONALD TRUMP:
I don't think so. I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were
so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm okay with that, because I'm
talking territory instead of Muslim.
But just remember this: Our Constitution is great. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a
religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that's great. And that's the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it
differently.
Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that? But you know what? I live with our Constitution. I love our Constitution. I
cherish our Constitution. We're making it territorial. We have nations and we'll come out, I'm going to be coming out over the next few
weeks with a number of the places. And it's very complex--
CHUCK TODD:
Well I was just going to say--
DONALD TRUMP:
--we have problems in Germany and we have problems with France--
CHUCK TODD:
I was just going to ask that. Will this limitt--
DONALD TRUMP:
You know, so it's not just the countries with--
CHUCK TODD:
--would this limit immigration from France?
DONALD TRUMP:
What we're going to have is a thing called--
CHUCK TODD:
They've been compromised by terrorism.
DONALD TRUMP:
They have totally been. And you know why? It's their own fault. Because they allowed people to come into their territory--
CHUCK TODD:
So you would toughen up. You're basically saying, "Hey, if the French want to come over here, you've got to go through an extra
check."
DONALD TRUMP:
It's their own fault, because they've allowed people over years to come into their territory. And that's why Brexit happened, okay?
Because the U.K. is saying, "We're tired of this stuff, what's going on, we're tired of." But listen to this--
CHUCK TODD:
You could get to the point where you're not allowing a lot of people to come into this country from a lot of places.
DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe we get to that point. Chuck, look what's happening. Look at what just took place in Afghanistan, where they blow up a whole
shopping center with people, they have no idea how many people were even killed. Happened today. So we have to be smart and we
have to be vigilant and we have to be strong. We can't be the stupid people--
CHUCK TODD:
So France, Germany, Spain--
DONALD TRUMP:
Here's my plan--
CHUCK TODD:
--places that have been compromised?
DONALD TRUMP:
--here is what I want: Extreme vetting. Tough word. Extreme vetting.
CHUCK TODD:
What does that look like?
DONALD TRUMP:
Tough. We're going to have tough standards. And if a person can't prove--
CHUCK TODD:
Give me one.
DONALD TRUMP:
--that they're from an area, and if a person can't prove what they have to be able to prove, they're not coming into this country. And I
would stop the Syrian migration and the Syrian from coming into this country in two seconds. Hillary Clinton wants to take 550 percent
more people coming in from that area than Barack Obama. I think she's crazy. I think she's crazy. We have no idea who these people
are for the most part, and you know, because I've seen them on different shows--
CHUCK TODD:
All right.
DONALD TRUMP:
--but more importantly, I've read about it. I study it. There is no way that you can vet some of these people. There is no way. Law
enforcement officials, I've had them in my office. I've talked to them.
CHUCK TODD:
You realize some of these folks have nowhere to go? They're truly victims of this civil war, what do you do with them?
DONALD TRUMP:
We will help them and we will build safe havens over in Syria, and we will get Gulf States--
CHUCK TODD:
We, the United States are going to build these safe havens?
DONALD TRUMP:
We, the United States, we'll get Gulf States to pay for it, because we right now, we're going to have $21 trillion very soon, trillion, in
debt. We will do safe havens and safe zones in Syria and we will get nations that are so wealthy that are not doing anything. They're
not doing much. They have nothing but money. And you know who I'm talking about, the Gulf States. And we will get them to pay for it.
We would lead it. I don't want to pay because our country is going down the tubes. We owe too much money.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Let me move to something with NATO. Mitch McConnell said this about your NATO remarks in the New York Times. He said
it was a rookie mistake, and that once you, let me finish the comment here. "It's a rookie mistake, and it proves that Trump needs
people like us around to help steer him in the right direction on some basic things."
DONALD TRUMP:
He's 100 percent wrong. Okay? He's 100 percent wrong if he said that. I didn't hear he said that--
CHUCK TODD:
He did say it.
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, fine, fine--
CHUCK TODD:
New York Times--
DONALD TRUMP:
If he said that, he's 100 percent wrong. And frankly it's sad. We have NATO, and we have many countries that aren't paying for what
they're supposed to be paying, which is already too little, but they're not paying anyway. And we're giving them a free ride or giving
them a ride where they owe us tremendous amounts of money. And they have the money. But they're not paying it. You know why?
Because they think we're stupid--
CHUCK TODD:
So Estonia is paying, and if they get invaded by Russia, you're there?
DONALD TRUMP:
I feel differently. I feel very differently--
CHUCK TODD:
But if a country's not doing -- Britain hasn't done the two percent.
DONALD TRUMP:
We have countries that aren't paying. Now, this goes beyond NATO, because we take care of-- we take care of Japan, we take care of
Germany, we take care of South Korea, we take care of Saudi Arabia, and we lose on everything. We lose on everything. If Mitch
McConnell says that, then he's wrong.
So all I'm saying is they have to pay. Now, a country gets invaded, they haven't paid, everyone says, "Oh, but we have a treaty." Well,
they have a treaty too. They're supposed to be paying. We have countries within NATO that are taking advantage of us. With me, I
believe they're going to pay. And when they pay, I'm a big believer in NATO.
But if they don't pay, we don't have, you know, Chuck, this isn't 40 years ago. This isn't 50 years ago. It's not 30 years ago. We're a
different country today. We're much weaker, our military is depleted, we owe tremendous amounts of money. We have to be
reimbursed. We can no longer be the stupid country.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, what Donald Trump says about David Duke, Bernie Sanders, and whether he really plans to spend millions for
the sole purpose of defeating Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Sanders about Trump and about his reaction to Tim Kaine becoming Hillary
Clinton's running mate. We're in Philadelphia, site of the Democratic National Convention. Stay with us.
***COMMERCIAL BREAK***
CHUCK TODD:
Such a beautiful city here. Welcome back. More now of my interview with Donald Trump at The Trump National Golf Club in
Bedminster, New Jersey. And since we had a limited amount of time, I ended up speeding things up by asking Trump for some quick
reaction to simply some very prominent names in the news.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just going to literally throw out a name and you'll know the question I'm asking. Bernie Sanders.
DONALD TRUMP:
Great respect for what he's done. He is being taken advantage of, and frankly, the system was rigged, and I'm the first one to say it
was rigged against him. And by the way--
CHUCK TODD:
You took after him. You took after him. You said for supporting Hillary Clinton, you think he needs to--
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders. But I am a fan of one thing that he talks about: Trade. He is the only one on that side that
understands trade. Now, he can't do anything about it because that's not his thing. But he has been gamed. He has been, it's a rigged
system against him. And what happened with the choice of Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders and everybody. I was
shocked. I love it from my standpoint, I love--
CHUCK TODD:
Why do you love the Kaine pick?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, first of all, he took over $160,000 of gifts. And they said, "Well, they weren't really gifts, they were suits and trips and lots of
different things," all for 160--
CHUCK TODD:
Legal, legal in the state of Virginia.
DONALD TRUMP:
Bob McDonnell-- I believe it was Bob McDonnell, in the meantime, he had to go to the United States Supreme Court to get out of going
to jail--
CHUCK TODD:
Well, they proved to quid pro quo--
DONALD TRUMP:
--for taking a fraction of what--
CHUCK TODD:
They proved quid pro quo on that one.
DONALD TRUMP:
Excuse me, Bob McDonnell took a fraction of what Kaine took. And I think, to me, it's a big problem. Now, how do you take all these
gifts? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. The other thing about him, he's bought and owned by the banks. And the third thing, he's in
favor of TPP and every other trade deal that he's ever looked at. And that means he wants people not to work.
Now, he's going to change his tune. And I understand he's now going to say, "I'm against TPP." Hillary Clinton was totally in favor of
TPP, which is the job killer, right? So was he. When she watched me on your show and other shows, all of a sudden she changed,
because she knows she can't win that in a debate.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Ted Cruz, I'm going to amend it, are you really going to fund a super PAC to help defeat him--
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it's not the number one thing on my mind. Look, what's on my mind is beating Hillary Clinton. What's on my mind is winning for
the Republican Party. With that being said, yeah, I'll probably do a super PAC, you know, when they run against Kasich, for $10 million
to $20 million, against Ted Cruz. And maybe one other person that I'm thinking about--
CHUCK TODD:
Who's that other one person?
DONALD TRUMP:
--but I won't tell you that. I mean, he's actually such a small person, I hate to give him the publicity. But yes, I will probably do that at
the appropriate at time. But I'm not going to do that until--
CHUCK TODD:
Oh, give me the small person here.
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, don't worry about it. We'll give it to you another time.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let me ask you about this one. David Duke announced his Senate candidacy claiming your agenda for his own, or essentially
saying, "Glad that you spoke out."
DONALD TRUMP:
Are you ready, before you ask the question?
CHUCK TODD:
Newt Gingrich said, "Every Republican should repudiate this guy no matter what it takes"--
DONALD TRUMP:
I did. And I do. Are you ready? I want--
CHUCK TODD:
Would you support a Democrat over David Duke if that was what was necessary to defeat him?
DONALD TRUMP:
I guess, depending on who the Democrat, but the answer would be yes. Look, the answer is, as quick as you can say it. In fact, I went
to answer you before you--
DONALD TRUMP:
Because last time with another person in your position, I did it very quickly. And they said, "He didn't do it fast enough." Rebuked. Is
that okay? Rebuked, done--
CHUCK TODD:
Rebuked, done. Okay. Tax returns. A lot of conspiracy theories are being out there about why-- what's in your tax returns. You would
get rid of all these conspiracy theories tomorrow--
DONALD TRUMP:
Let me tell you--
CHUCK TODD:
Probably make people look silly--
DONALD TRUMP:
Let me tell you. Let me give you a little lesson on tax returns. First of all, you don't learn very much from a tax return. I put in to the
federal elections group 100 and some-odd pages of my financials. It showed, as you know, that I'm much wealthier than anybody even
understood, okay? Tremendous cash, tremendous assets, tremendous all that stuff. Okay, that's it. I'm going through a routine audit.
Just a routine audit, and I've had it for I think 14 years, 13 years--
CHUCK TODD:
Why?
DONALD TRUMP:
Every year they audit me. It's routine government. I would never give my tax returns until the audit's finished. But remember this: Mitt
Romney, four years ago, was under tremendous pressure to give his tax returns. And he held it and held it and held it, and he fought it,
and he, you know, he didn't do too well, okay? But he didn't do anything wrong on his taxes. When he gave his tax returns, people
forget, not now. He gave them in September, before the election--
CHUCK TODD:
So you still might release them--
DONALD TRUMP:
No, wait a minute, wait a minute. When he did, and his tax returns are a tiny peanut compared to mine, they went through his tax
returns. And they found one little sentence, another little-- there was nothing wrong. And they made him look bad. In fact I think he lost
his election because of that.
CHUCK TODD:
Because of the tax returns?
DONALD TRUMP:
I think he lost. And I'll tell you why: He didn't do anything wrong. Mitt Romney did nothing wrong. But they would take out of, his
weren't too big. Have you ever seen mine with the picture, they're like this high?
CHUCK TODD:
I have seen that picture, yes.
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, so they took his tax return and they found a couple of little things. Nothing wrong, just standard. And they made him look very
bad, very unfair. But with all that said, I'd love to give them, but I'm under audit. When the audit's finished I'll give them.
CHUCK TODD:
Finally, Roger Ailes. Is he helping you? Is he advising you?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don't want to comment. But he's been a friend of mine for a long time, and I can tell you that some of the women that are
complaining, I know how much he's helped them. And even recently, and when they write books that are fairly recently released, and
they say wonderful things about him.
And now all of a sudden they're saying these horrible things about him. It's very sad. Because he's a very good person. I've always
found him to be just a very, very good person. And by the way, a very, very talented person. Look what he's done. So I feel very badly.
But a lot of people are thinking he's going to run my campaign.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, well--
DONALD TRUMP:
My campaign's doing pretty well.
CHUCK TODD:
Mr. Trump, until we meet again.
DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much--
CHUCK TODD:
Thank you for your time, sir, appreciate it.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Up next, the man who had hoped to be the candidate being nominated by Democrats right here in Philadelphia this week, Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont. What does he think of those leaked DNC e-mails? We'll get his first comments since it happened. We're
going to be right back in just a minute.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Tremendous shots there of a beautiful city. Welcome back. It's not the kind of thing you want happening days before your convention.
This weekend, Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 emails sent and received by members of the Democratic National Committee, some
of which seem to confirm what a lot of people had suspected, that the DNC was playing favorites with Hillary Clinton over Bernie
Sanders.
It appears Wikileaks either stole these emails or got them from a source. Remember, the DNC was hacked a few months ago. Among
the emails was one from the DNC's Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall that was looking ahead to the contests in Kentucky and West
Virginia in early May. While not mentioning Sanders specifically by name, the email appeared to question Sanders' faith.
He wrote this, quote: "Does he believe in a god? I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my
peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist." Well, Sanders has long believed that
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in Clinton's corner the whole campaign. Well, he joins me now. Senator Sanders,
welcome back to Meet the Press.
And I should note that you talked about your belief in God last fall in an interview, I think, with your hometown paper there, so want to
get that out of the way. So let me start with this question questioning your faith. Brad Marshall apologized on Facebook. Has anyone
apologized to you personally? And what is your response to this entire discussion?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, no, nobody has apologized to me. And as you just mentioned, this really does not come as a shock to me or my supporters.
There is no question but the DNC was on Secretary Clinton's side from day one. We all know that. And I think, as I have said a long
time ago, that the time is now for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step aside, not only for these issues.
We need a Democratic Party that is open, that's going to bring young people and working people into it, that is going to stand up and
take on the big money interests and fight for working families. I don't think Debbie has been that type of leader. So I would hope, and I
said this many months ago, that she would--
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
BERNIE SANDERS:
--step aside, we would have new leadership.
CHUCK TODD:
And do you think it needs to happen now, today, before the start of the convention?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well--
CHUCK TODD:
Would that help calm some of your supporters down?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think what is already happening is that it's clear she is not going to be speaking to the convention. That is the right thing. I think
right now what we have got to focus on as Democrats is defeating perhaps the worst Republican candidate that I have seen in my
lifetime. Donald Trump would be a disaster for this country. He must be defeated.
We've got to elect Secretary Clinton on every single issue: fighting for the middle class on health care, on climate change, is a far, far
superior candidate to Trump. That's where I think the focus has got to be.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you believe that the DNC's apparent favoritism cost you this race?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think you-- there are a lot of reasons why one loses. We started off 50 points behind Secretary Clinton. We had the opposition
of virtually the entire Democratic leadership in every state in this country. And by the way, in terms of media, we did not get the kind of
media attention that somebody like a Donald Trump got, because media is not necessarily interested in the issues facing the middle
class, more interested in attacks in personality. So I think there were a lot of reasons.
But I will tell you this, Chuck, from the bottom of my heart, I am extraordinarily proud of the campaign that we ran. The issues that we
raised, the fact that we got 13 million Americans to vote for a political revolution. People who know the economy is rigged in favor of
big money, people who know that our middle class continues to decline and we have to go outside of establishment politics and
economics, people who know that we need to reform a broken criminal justice system and we need comprehensive immigration
reform.
The people-- what we did in our campaign is bring people together to say, "You know what? This country, our government, belongs to
all of us and not just a few." So I am very proud of the campaign we ran and the supporters that came on board.
CHUCK TODD:
So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?
BERNIE SANDERS:
No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuck, I know media is
not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of
this country, people who are working longer hours for lower wages, people who do not have health care or are underinsured.
Hillary Clinton and I have worked together on a higher education proposal which will guarantee free tuition in public colleges and
universities for every family in this country making $125,000 a year or less. We're going to fight for paid family and medical leave.
Those are the issues that the American people want to hear discussed, and I'm going to go around the country discussing them and
making sure that Hillary Clinton is elected president.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, The Green Party presumptive nominee, Jill Stein, put out a release yesterday about the emails. And she said this:
"Democratic Party elites have been caught red-handed, sabotaging a grassroots campaign that tried to bring huge numbers of young
people, independents and non-voters into their party. Instead, they have shown exactly why America needs a new major party, a truly
democratic party for the people." Are you going to urge your supporters not to support Jill Stein and try to thwart her efforts to recruit
your supporters?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, you know, let me just say this. As the longest serving Independent in the history of the United States Congress, as somebody
who came into office by defeating an incumbent Democratic mayor in Burlington, Vermont, I know something about third party politics.
And I respect Jill.
But right now, the focus, to my mind, is to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States. I think by
temperament he is unqualified to be president. I think his views-- you have a guy who's running for president who rejects science,
doesn't even believe climate change is real, let alone wants to do something about it, wants to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
breaks to the top two-tenths of one percent.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you--
BERNIE SANDERS:
So my job right now is to see that Donald Trump is defeated, Hillary Clinton is elected.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, he makes a big deal out of the fact that you and he agree on one big issue, and that is trade deals, that these trade deals
have been bad for the country. And he basically says that Clinton and Kaine, as a ticket, aren't-- that their opposition, for instance, the
TPP as sort of Johnny-come-lately, that it can't be trusted, and that Sanders supporters should support Trump if they care about trade.
What do you say to that?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think in terms of who can be trusted, I think the evidence is clear that there has been no candidate that I have ever seen who
lies more often than does Donald Trump. I mean and that's just not me saying it, that's what any independent media analysis has
shown. So in terms of trust, you really can't trust a word, I think, that Mr. Trump has to say.
In terms of the TPP, it is no secret. I think our trade policies, for many, many years, have been a disaster. They have benefited
corporate America at the expense of working people. Secretary Clinton has come out in opposition to the TPP, does not want to see it-
-
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
BERNIE SANDERS:
--appear in the lame duck Congress. That's my view, as well.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, some of your supporters are disappointed in the pick of Tim Kaine, that he's not progressive enough. I know Tim Kaine
called you after he was picked. Do you consider Tim Kaine a progressive? And are you happy with this pick?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Look, you know, the pick is Secretary Clinton's. I've known Tim Kaine for a number of years. We've served in the Senate together,
obviously. Tim is a very, very smart guy. He's a very nice guy. His political views are not my political views. He is more conservative
than I am. Would I have preferred to see somebody like an Elizabeth Warren selected by Secretary Clinton? Yes, I would have.
CHUCK TODD:
And then finally, do you feel as if, that you, when you got Glass-Steagall, I wanted to ask about this, because it looks like the one thing
that both parties may agree on in their platforms is putting-- is being in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Does this mean we will see
that happen in the next Congress?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I'm going to do everything that I can to make it happen. You know, when we talk about our campaign, one of the things that we
have been able to do, Chuck, is create the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of the Democratic Party, and that
includes breaking up the large Wall Street banks and reestablishing Glass-Steagall.
I think the American people understand that we cannot continue to have a handful of reckless, irresponsible banks often acting
illegally, that something has to happen. They have to be broken up.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Senator Bernie Sanders. The big speech is tomorrow night. We'll be waiting for you here in a very, very hot Philadelphia, over
100 degrees.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Okay.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Sanders, thanks for coming on. Good to see you, sir.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Thank you very much.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, reaction to Hillary Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine as a running mate, who showed why he might have appeal,
unique appeal, to a very important voting bloc.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Aprendilo valores de mi pueblo--faith, familia, y trabajo.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD
And we'll be back in a moment from Philadelphia with this great panel. Rachel Maddow, Michael Steele, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris
Matthews. Stay tuned.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
And we'll be back in a moment from Philadelphia with this great panel, Rachel Maddow, Michael Steele, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris
***COMMERCIAL TAPE***
CHUCK TODD:
We are back. So much to talk about already. Our panel is here, Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC,
former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, he's sort of the fish out of water here in Philadelphia. Andrea
Mitchell, NBC News, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, host, of course, of Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC. And a Philadelphia
native himself, Mr. Brotherly Love Chris Matthews, host of Hardball--
RACHEL MADDOW:
Mr. Brotherly Love?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
And sisterly affection.
CHUCK TODD:
--Sisterly affection here for the Penn grad.
CHUCK TODD:
And-- this morning by the way we have new pictures of Tim Kaine walking into church this morning in Richmond, Virginia. He now
realizes, and now his parish is realizing, what it's like to have Secret Service following around a member of the parish there. All right.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Know what his Secret Service name is going to be yet?
CHUCK TODD:
What do we think the code name should be?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But we're not sure--
RACHEL MADDOW:
Well, the big joke was that if you're boring enough, your Secret Service name is Tim Kaine.
CHUCK TODD:
Ooh.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Right? That--
CHUCK TODD:
Those are old Johnny Carson and Jay Leno, Al Gore jokes--
CHUCK TODD:
All right, you guys are having already too much fun.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Sorry, sorry.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me just throw it out here. We heard what Bernie Sanders said about Tim Kaine. It was, that was tougher than I expected.
RACHEL MADDOW:
"His politics are not my politics."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
That's really --
RACHEL MADDOW:
"He does not share my political views." That's an aggressive take from Bernie. I'm not surprised. Bernie's an aggressive politician. And
I think when Senator Sanders speaks at the DNC, I think everybody's going to be on the edge of their seat. I think that he is not going
to pull a Ted Cruz because he's already made an endorsement.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, he said, "I'm for Hillary," and he was tough on Trump.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah. And but he doesn't relish going after Trump. He likes going after the Democratic Party to try to move the Democratic Party.
That's his target, always has been.
MICHAEL STEELE:
It's still obvious, he's not 'Feeling the Bern' for Hillary. And that was very obvious. And when you asked about the trust question, he
didn't say he trusted Hillary Clinton. He said he didn't trust Donald Trump. So the reality of it is there's still some tension there that
Bernie is reflecting among his supporters. And it was evident there. I mean--
RACHEL MADDOW:
He's got a mission that's bigger than one election. He always has.
MICHAEL STEELE:
That's true.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And in fact, he could quiet the march that is planned to go from the center of Center City, and Rittenhouse Square all the way down at
Independence Hall. This march is going to disrupt the city today, no matter how peaceful, because this is a city, in 100-degree heat,
that is planning for a convention. And it's going to be a very large outpouring. He also said--
CHUCK TODD:
And by the way, the hotter it is, the crankier people will be.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah. And he also says that Tim Kaine doesn't share his politics, not only that, but that he would have preferred Elizabeth Warren. He
made it very clear; Tim Kaine is a nice guy, but he's not endorsing or embracing someone who Hillary Clinton --
CHUCK TODD:
There's a painful look in your face, Chris.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
--called Tim Kaine a progressive.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
He didn't get to pick. Hillary Clinton did. And I've watched Hillary Clinton. I've watched a lot of politicians over the years. You can tell
when they're actually happy, not when they fake the laugh or anything else. She looked delighted during his speech yesterday. And I
haven't seen her that delighted in a long time. She had found her guy to be her running mate. I think she loved it.
And I think one thing we're getting all excited about, I understand why the progressives are upset. But one thing historically we all
know is the selection of a vice president is a poor predictor of the direction of that administration.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
FDR picked John Nance Garner--
RACHEL MADDOW:
It's not a policy pick.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Kennedy picked another conservative from the south, Lyndon Johnson, relatively conservative. And then we got the New Deal out of
that and we got the Great Society we got the New Frontier. It's a poor predictor. Now, if this is about spoils, they've got an argument.
They wanted a piece of the action. But there's differences between spoils and direction.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to throw out the one thing that Trump's trying to hit Kaine on, well, two things. But the one big one is the gifts in Virginia.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I only throw it out there is that I heard Ed Rendell ask to defend it. And he struggled, Andrea. He said, "Well, it's illegal in
Pennsylvania."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Virginia--
CHUCK TODD:
Okay. And it's legal in Virginia. That wasn't exactly a resounding defense.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah. Virginia has a very strange, let's face it, strange gift law. The difference with Bob McDonnell, who was convicted, and then the
Supreme Court overturned it, is there was no quid pro quo. He declared it. That was the main thing. He declared everything, put it
down, in fact, computed higher numbers to staying in friends' houses. He put everything down. He was meticulous about it.
So they don't think there's a big ethics thing. Just on his progressivity or lack of it, he has this civil rights background. I mean I was in
the room. And what you saw on T.V. yesterday in Miami, in that largely Hispanic campus, that wonderful campus in Miami, it was
extraordinary. The enthusiasm for him and the affection. And having watched her all of these years, you're absolutely right, Chris--
CHUCK TODD:
You know--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
--she found her guy. She was a happy camper.
RACHEL MADDOW:
He's not a progressive, but they will tell a very progressive story about his history. The party has moved to the left while he sort of
always been a solid liberal.
CHUCK TODD:
Both of them are trying to--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I feel like both Clinton and Kaine are trying to catch up to the party's movement.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
That's so true.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, on guns he was always there. He was heroic in Virginia on gun laws.
CHUCK TODD:
That they're moving-- and Michael, let me ask you this. The Trump camping says, "We love the Kaine pick." And here's their
reasoning. They love the Kaine pick because it reinforces that they're the political professionals, that here's Tim Kaine, and all he's
done in life, is been in office for the last 25 years.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHUCK TODD:
And the whole point of Trump is Trump's Mr. "I'm the total outsider." If they want to double down on that, fine, go ahead. What do you
say?
RACHEL MADDOW:
Except Mike Pence
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right, right, right.
CHUCK TODD:
They pay no attention to that. I brought that brought to them. I said, "What about Pence?" And they're like, "Well, it's the top of the
ticket."
MICHAEL STEELE:
"Ignore that man behind the curtain."
CHUCK TODD:
What do you say to that? Did they have a point or not?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, they'll have a-- I think the broader point, is an interesting one. Because what he's comparing himself-- he's comparing himself,
Trump, to Kaine--
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
MICHAEL STEELE:
--and Clinton. So it's me and against them.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Pence is not a part of that equation, necessarily.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
So when he's talking about the maverick, the outsider, he's-- he's assuming his ticket is total that.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, Pence wasn't even a part of his own rollout.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
If you remember. And that was--
RACHEL MADDOW:
He couldn't get a word in edgewise.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Hillary Clinton spoke about Tim Kaine--
MICHAEL STEELE:
I think their strength, Chuck, is gonna be on the argument-- this notion that Tim Kaine is progressive is just not believable. And for a
whole host of reasons. I think that's an opening for a lot of folks on Trump's side.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You can, there are element of his record that are not progressive, but on balance, I would argue that he is.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
I would argue that too.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
But one thing, the guy's two doors from you, if you're president. Look at the structure of the West Wing now. It's not some guy that
goes back to Maine like Lincoln's first vice president. He or she is right with you.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
You want a good person two doors for you, somebody who has values. And it's not just smart politics. I think what Hillary Clinton's
going to love having is a guy who's a true blue good guy. And I think he is a progressive on all the moral issues--
CHUCK TODD:
Let's sneak in a break here. When we come back, I want to get into the DNC e-mail situation. And I also want to get your guys'
reaction to some interesting comments from Donald Trump. Yeah, you know that guy that was at the start of the show. We'll be right
back.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, panelists here. Before we jump to Trump, the DNC email leaks, Cleveland, we expected rowdiness, Never Trumpsters,
and all that stuff. We expect order here. But I wonder, Rachel, if-- look, I'm hearing from the Bernie bros. I'm in one of the emails just--
I'm the complaint department here sometimes at NBC. Somebody was complaining about coverage. And I said, "Okay, let's talk on the
phone," or whatever. But we didn't do anything about it, because I get complaints about coverage every hour, every day.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
But I think Bernie supporters may like this place, at least outside. They may be upset, and they may do something about it.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah. I mean and, you know, there will be that big protest that Andrea was talking about today, to start things off. And there will be a
lot, there will be hundreds of Bernie delegates insides the room. Now honestly, from the top, down, he said, "We've got to elect Hillary
Clinton." He's been unequivocal about that, that's the most important thing.
It'll be interesting to see whether the rules fights and the platform fights end up, in the end, when there's need to get nailed down with
those votes, there is some dissent and chaos there. There might be.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
One thing is--
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to get out now?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Well, look--
CHUCK TODD:
Not even gavel it in?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
This is not a mystery story. This isn't Colombo.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
We knew from the beginning, watching the debate schedule, put together by the DNC--
CHUCK TODD:
Sure.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
--that they were tilting the scales to Hillary Clinton. Middle of the night debates, Sunday morning -- it was an absurd debate schedule.
And it just said, "We're for Hillary, we don't want the new guy to get all the attention."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And what Bernie said to you is that she's not going to be giving a speech. When does the party chair not give a speech at the
convention? And apparently that is the case.
CHUCK TODD:
And then right now, though, they will gavel in.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Thank god we haven't-- her quitting right now before -- I mean, the DNC's gonna be running a big part of the ground game for the
whole--
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You know, you don't--
CHUCK TODD:
But I tell you, this--
RACHEL MADDOW:
It would be suicide for the chair to jump out now--
CHUCK TODD:
This doesn't help her own fight for reelection, which I still think she's going to be okay.
RACHEL MADDOW:
No, but--
CHUCK TODD:
It's a district that she knows very well. But--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But Bernie endorsed her opponent.
RACHEL MADDOW:
But her reelection fight is in her district.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Right.
RACHEL MADDOW:
It's not to be the chair of the DNC, that's next year.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Michael Steele, what'd you hear from Donald Trump? Did it make you feel better or worse about his chances?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, I think Donald Trump did a couple of things he needed to do. One was, and you could see it in the room that night, people began
to say, "Okay, I can get there." The speech that he gave, when you read it, seemed a lot darker and harsher than when he delivered it.
He delivered it in a way--
RACHEL MADDOW:
I thought the opposite.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yeah, yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
When reading it, I wasn't freaked out.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
And then, when I saw him give it, I pulled the covers up.
MICHAEL STEELE:
No, for me, it was the reverse. Because the reaction. I'm sitting in the room and I'm getting the reaction from the crowd.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Mmm.
MICHAEL STEELE:
And the reaction from the crowd was, "This guy is going to be a fighter." And I think that's a strong message for him coming out of this
convention.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Rachel, you have never pulled the covers up.
RACHEL MADDOW:Oh no, I meant proverbially
CHUCK TODD:There's a lot of personal information here. Woah, it's Sunday morning, guys.
MICHAEL STEELE:
I thought he did what he needed to do, Chuck. I do.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Standing under those 15-foot-tall letters with Trump, and then his head comes up there. And then he spent 76 minutes screaming, red
faced, about terrorism and death and destruction and "I'm the only one who can fix it"--
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I think that was technical. I don't think he knew how to read a script like that. I don't think he had the ability to-- his daughter knew how
to do it. It's tough to read a script in a conversational manner. So you end up doing this sort of scream thing.
RACHEL MADDOW:
But it takes an ego to turn a 30 minute script into a 78 minute rant.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But he said that he was the person who would fix everything. And they're focusing on that. But, you know, Kaine was focusing on that.
You know, it is the "we" not the I. They're comparing him to a dictator.
MICHAEL STEELE:
But the--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It is the language and the delivery, Michael--
MICHAEL STEELE:
Don't lose sight of the fact that a lot of Americans out there are saying it is the "we" who screwed us up to this point.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
It is the we who've gotten us into this mess.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It's a different way of defining democracy, Michael.
MICHAEL STEELE:
So they're looking for the I, someone who's going to step forward as a leader, to get us through this mess. This is the bifurcation of the
of the population, the voting population right now. And it's going to be interesting to see which one of these arguments win--
RACHEL MADDOW:
Is this about the hunger for a strong man, is that what you're talking about?
MICHAEL STEELE:Yeah no, there really is Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW:We've seen this around the world, it's not supposed to be us.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I've heard Bernie make your point.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yes!
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
It's that we have to reach outside the establishment to get the solution to these really bad economic problems affecting the working
people of this country.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Same message. Different sides.
MICHAEL STEELE:Same message.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Same message. The question is whether or not one man is supposed to deliver salvation for the country. We're not supposed to be
that kind of country.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to throw one more. He seemed, at least in the interview with me, he goes after Mitch McConnell, goes after Ted Cruz, goes
after John Kasich.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He is fearless in that regard.
CHUCK TODD:He really is.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He is not going to moderate himself.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You didn't even ask about Kasich. And he's bringing it up
CHUCK TODD:
No, exactly. He brought Kasich up himself.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And another player to be named player, who, you know, remain -- could be one of the senators like Jeff Flake. Look, the fact is that he
is not playing by anybody's ground rules except Donald Trump's. What he said about N.A.T.O. was extraordinary because he doubled
down on that. And the whole system of collect your security in Europe, if you're in Poland today, you are not reassured--
CHUCK TODD:
What's amazing is the Trump campaign tried to walk it back all last week on the N.A.T.O. stuff. And he's basically saying, "Don't walk it
back."
RACHEL MADDOW:
Even beyond N.A.T.O. to talk about Europe as a threat to America is what's good for Europe is bad for America and we have an
interest in Europe being weak and divided, they only got together to screw us? Like, hold on a second.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah, it'll play in Scranton. It'll play up there in the Eerie, Pennsylvania it'll play.
RACHEL MADDOW:
The European Union-- came out of the way to try to not have World War III.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Because people think we're being shoved around and exploited and he's saying, "I'm going to shove back."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They are our markets-- markets, allies--
CHUCK TODD:
You guys great. I'm going to try to get another half hour. But let me sneak in this. We'll be back in a moment with our-- we'll call it
halftime segment. No, it's Endgame Segment. And we'll look at Hillary Clinton's popularity compared to other Democratic nominees on
the eve of their conventions.
CHUCK TODD:
The panel never stops interacting here. Seriously we just went to a commercial break--
RACHEL MADDOW:
--wants more with France!
CHUCK TODD:
It's endgame time. Look, I want to show you here very quickly some numbers, because it will help us judge whether this is a successful
convention for Hillary Clinton. These are favorable ratings, personal favorable ratings, whether you're right side up or upside down,
from our NBC Wall Street Journal poll, for every Democrat going back to '92. And as you can see, Hillary Clinton in the worst shape of
any presumptive nominee going into their convention.
Now, let me show you what everybody else came through after their convention. So successful convention for Bill Clinton, successful
one for Al Gore. Flat for John Kerry, successful, Barack Obama. Obviously, we'll find out, for Hillary Clinton, what does she need to--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, what they are going to do is they're going to have gauzy films, the same kind of films you saw in 1992, the same producers--
CHUCK TODD:
And JFK?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to have all of these films, biography, rsum. They know that her rsum is not resonating with millennials. People know
what she did, they don't know-- they know the list of what she was. They don't know what she actually did, what she accomplished.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to do all of that. The balance is going to be very different.
RACHEL MADDOW:
--because T.V. networks don't always take the movies anymore--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, they're going to have to validators.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to have people on that podium behind it who are going to talk about things she has done for them. And it's going to be
very much all about her and much less about taking down Trump
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I think the magic moment in this convention's going to be Thursday night. And a lot of women, and a lot of men, too, are going to see
Hillary Clinton as the first party nominee, who's probably going to be like the president. She has the advantage right now. And there
are going to be misty eyes all across the country.
And any men at that moment who make a wisecrack are going to be guaranteeing another vote for Hillary Clinton. I think it's a very
emotional moment for people. They've haven't quite got to it because of all is mishegas that's gone on this year. I think it's going to be
magical. And if Hillary Clinton just stands there with a little emotion, this is an amazing historic moment.
CHUCK TODD:
Michael was the Republican convention too anti-Clinton and not enough pro-Trump?
MICHAEL STEELE:
No. The Republican convention had to go anti-Clinton--
CHUCK TODD:
Had to do that?
MICHAEL STEELE:
--because of the Trump issues.
CHUCK TODD:
What about this one?
MICHAEL STEELE:
This one? I was thinking, as you guys were talking about Barack Obama and talking about Hillary Clinton being likable enough, this is
going to be a convention in which they're going to showcase her so you can like her. Because people, those numbers show, don't like
her. So it's going to be everything you just said, Chris, plus more. The problem is what happens afterwards. And that's where Hillary
Clinton's going to have to contine .
CHUCK TODD:
Here's an out question for all of you. Besides Hillary Clinton's speech, what will be the other buzziest speech or speaker when we walk
away from this convention?
RACHEL MADDOW:
We're going to have a huge one on night one. Bernie is a big deal.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Bernie.
RACHEL MADDOW:
The Democratic Party is going through a transformation. Liberals are having their moment. And this convention has to reflect it.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Every Democratic convention I can remember, going back to, God, '64, the best speech was never given by the nominee, whether it's
Bobby Kennedy or it's Jesse Jackson, or it's Mario Cuomo.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
The candidates never have been able to deliver the best speech. So I would bet on Bernie.
RACHEL MADDOW:
It was Trump Jr. last week.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Bernie or President Obama.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Michelle Obama and Barack Obama on day two.
CHUCK TODD:
I think it's Barack Obama on Wednesday night. I think it's going to be to Hillary Clinton what Bill Clinton was to Barack Obama four
years ago. All right. That's all for this Sunday morning.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
We agree.
CHUCK TODD:
I'll be hosting a special edition of Meet the Press Daily tonight at 5:00 Eastern on MSNBC. I know that's what everybody on this table
will be watching. And then, throughout the week, I'll be joined by my colleagues Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie right here at The
Wells Fargo Center for convention coverage on the network beginning at 10:00 Eastern, 7:00 Pacific. If you missed it last week, you
should be regretting it. Watch us this week. And of course we'll be back next Sunday. Because if it is Sunday, Meet the Press.
* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *
Complaint
Exhibit 5
Understanding The Threat: Radical Islam And The Age Of Terror

Thank you. It is great to be with you this afternoon.
Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.
In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and
Communism.
Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic Terrorism.
This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war
zones of the Middle East every 84 hours. 1 2
Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.
13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood. 3 4
The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people, 5
and ultimately left five dead including 2 police officers. 6
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, five unarmed marines were shot and killed
at a military recruiting center. 7
Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office
party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured. 8
1
(Tim Lister, 'One ISIS Attack Every 84 Hours' Spurs Dread And Anger In Europe, CNN, 7/31/16)
2
(Tim Lister, Ray Sanchez, Mark Bixler, Sean O'Key, Michael Hogenmiller and Mohammed Tawfeeq, ISIS Goes
Global: 143 Attacks In 29 Countries Have Killed 2,043, CNN, 12/17/15)
3
(Jim Garamone, President, Top Leaders to Attend Fort Hood Service, United States Department of Defense,
11/9/09)
4
(Ted Rowlands and Michael Cary, Army Honors Dead, Searches For Motive In Fort Hood Shootings, CNN,
11/7/09)
5
(Scott Malone, Boston Officials Say 264 Injured In Marathon Bombing, Reuters, 4/23/13)
6
(Bob Salsberg, Officer Who Died Year After Boston Marathon Shootout Honored, Associated Press, 10/18/15)
7
(Lindsay Ellis, Devlin Barrett And Arian Campo-Flores, Navy Sailor Shot in Chattanooga Attack Dies, Bringing
Death Toll to Five, The Wall Street Journal, 7/22/15)
8
(San Bernardino Shooting: 22nd Injured Victim Steps Forward, FBI Says, The Press Enterprise, 12/9/15)
1
In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando,

and another 53 were injured. 9 It was the worst mass shooting in our
history, and the worst attack on the LGBTQ community in our history.
In Europe, we have seen the same carnage and bloodshed inflicted
upon our closest allies.
In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was
attacked for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve
were killed, including two police officers, and 11 were wounded. 10 Two
days later, four were murdered in a Jewish Deli. 11
In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris
that slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. 12 France is
suffering gravely, and the tourism industry is being massively affected
in a most negative way. 13
In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels
airport, killing 32 and injuring 340. 14
This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck
into an instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men,
women and children 15 and wounding another 308. 16 Among the
dead were 2 Americans a Texas father, and his 11-year-old son. 17
9
(Lizette Alvarez, Richard Perez-Pena and Christine Hauser, Orlando Gunman Was Cool and Calm After
Massacre, Police Say, The New York Times, 6/13/16)
10
(Cassandra Vinograd, Alastair Jamieson, Florence Viala And Alexander Smith, Charlie Hebdo Shooting: 12 Killed
at Muhammad Cartoons Magazine in Paris, NBC News, 1/7/15)
11
(Yamiche Alcindor and Elena Berton, Four Killed At Paris Grocery Store Were All Jewish, USA Today, 1/11/15)
12
(France Attacks, Associated Press, Accessed 8/13/16)
13
(Tara Patel, French Tourism Slumps as Terror Attacks Spook Foreign Travelers, Bloomberg, 8/7/16)
14
(Aurelien Breeden, More Suspects in Brussels Attacks Arrested in Belgium, The New York Times, 4/8/16)
15
(Steve Visser, Death Toll Rises to 85 in Bastille Day Attack in Nice, CNN, 8/5/16)
16
(Alissa J. Rubin and Lilia Blaise, A Third of Nice Truck Attacks Dead Were Muslim, Group Says, The New York
Times, 7/19/16)
17
(Mary Hui, Lindsey Bever and Cleve R. Wootson Jr, Texas Father And His 11-Year-Old Son Among The Dead In
Nice Attack; California Student Missing, The Washington Post, 7/15/16)
2
A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded

five people in a gruesome train attack. 18
Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy
France, forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat
before his congregation. 19
Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another.
Children slaughtered, 20 girls sold into slavery, 21 22 men and women
burned alive. 23 Crucifixions, 24 beheadings 25 and drownings. 26 Ethnic
minorities targeted for mass execution. Holy sites desecrated.
Christians driven from their homes and hunted for extermination. ISIS
rounding-up what it calls the nation of the cross in a campaign of
genocide. 27 28
We cannot let this evil continue.
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam its oppression of
women, gays, children, and nonbelievers be allowed to reside or
spread within our own countries.
We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated
every threat we have faced in every age before.
18
(Melissa Eddy, Afghan Teenager Spoke of Friends Death Before Ax Attack in Germany, The New York Times,
7/19/16)
19
(Noemie Olive, Islamists Attack French Church, Slit Priest's Throat, Reuters, 7/27/16)
20
(Malia Zimmerman, 74 Children Executed By ISIS For 'Crimes' That Include Refusal To Fast, Report Says, FOX
News, 7/2/15)
21
(Arwa Damon, Hamdi Alkhshali, and Bryony Jones, Meet The Man Saving Yazidi Slaves From ISIS, CNN, 6/2/16)
22
(Rukmini Callimachi, To Maintain Supply of Sex Slaves, ISIS Pushes Birth Control, The New York Times, 3/12/16)
23
(19 Yazidi Girls Burned Alive For Refusing To Have Sex With Their ISIS Captors, FOX News, 6/6/16)
24
(Steve Almasy, Group: ISIS 'Crucifies' Men In Public In Syrian Towns, CNN, 6/30/14)
25
(Rukmini Callimachi, The Horror Before the Beheadings, The New York Times, 10/25/14)
26
(Joe Tacopino, ISIS Slowly Drowns Prisoners In A Cage, New York Post, 6/24/15)
27
(Jamie Dean, The ISIS War Against 'The People Of The Cross', WNG, 2/17/15)
28
(Michael Lipka, Muslims and Islam: Key Findings In The U.S. And Around the World, PewResearchCenter,
7/22/16)
3
But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.

Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country.
Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of
Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.
The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by
President Obama and Secretary Clinton
Lets look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before
the Obama-Clinton Administration took over.
Libya was stable. 29 30
Syria was under control. 31 32
Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.
33 34 35
Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence. 36 The group that would

become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished. 37 38 39
Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions. 40 41
29
(Jeff Bachman, Revisiting the Humanitarian Intervention in Libya, The Huffington Post, 3/14/16)
30
(Priyanka Boghani, Regrets Of A Revolution? Libya After Qaddafi, PBS, 11/29/15)
31
(William R. Polk, Understanding Syria: From Pre-Civil War To Post-Assad, The Atlantic, 12/10/13)
32
(Hassan M. Fattah And Graham Bowley, Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader, The New York Times, 4/4/07)
33
(Brad Plumer, The U.S. Gives Egypt $1.5 Billion A Year In Aid. Heres What It Does, The Washington
Post, 7/9/13)
34
(Ashraf Khalil, Mubarak Meets Obama To Patch Up US-Egypt Relationship, The Christian Science
Monitor, 8/18/09)
35
(President George W. Bush, Joint Press Conference At The Presidents Ranch In Texas, White House, 4/12/04)
36
(David Petraeus, How We Won In Iraq, Foreign Policy, 10/29/13)
37
(Cameron Glenn, Timeline: Rise and Spread of the Islamic State, Wilson Center, 7/5/16)
38
(Jennifer Griffin and Lucas Tomlinson, Army Chief Odierno, In Exit Interview, Says US Could Have Prevented
ISIS Rise, FOX News, 7/22/15)
39
(David Ignatius, How ISIS Spread in the Middle East, The Atlantic, 10/29/15)
40
(Uri Berliner, Crippled By Sanctions, Iran's Economy Key In Nuclear Deal, NPR, 11/25/13)
41
(Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright, Iran Sanctions Are Meant to Prevent War, Bush Aides Say, The
Washington Post, 10/26/07)
4
Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton

produced?
Libya is in ruins, 42 our ambassador and three other brave Americans
are dead, 43 and ISIS has gained a new base of operations. 44 45
Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. 46 ISIS controls large
portions of territory. 47 A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the
United States. 48
In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the
Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world. 49
Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose. 50
ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS
was operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18
countries with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 51 and
many believe it is even more than that. The situation is likely worse
than the public knows: a new Congressional report reveals that the
Administration has downplayed the growth of ISIS, with 40% of
surveyed analysts saying they had experienced efforts to manipulate
their findings. 52 53
42
(Roula Khalaf, Misplaced Nostalgia For Libyas Colonel Gaddafi, Financial Times, 4/29/15)
43
(David D. Kirkpatrick and Steven Lee Myers, Libya Attack Brings Challenges For U.S., The New York Times,
9/12/12)
44
(Ahmed Elumani And Aidan Lewis, U.S. Air Raid Hits Islamic State In Libya, 43 Dead, Reuters, 2/19/16)
45
(Paul Cruickshank, Nic Robertson, Tim Lister and Jomana Karadsheh, ISIS Comes To Libya, CNN, 11/18/14)
46
(Hugh Naylor, Death By Siege In Syrias Civil War: Hundreds Of Thousands At Risk, The Washington Post,
1/23/16)
47
(Liam Stack, How ISIS Expanded Its Threat, The New York Times, 11/14/15)
48
(AFP, "Kerry: Refugee Crisis A Near Existential Threat To Europe, The Times of Israel, 2/13/16)
49
(Andrew Roth, Russia Confirms Sinai Plane Crash Was The Work Of Terrorists, The Washington Post, 11/17/15)
50
(Tim Arango, Days of Chaos in Baghdad: Protest or Meltdown?, The New York Times, 5/2/16)
51
(William Arkin, Robert Windrem, and Cynthia McFadden, New Counterterrorism 'Heat Map' Shows ISIS
Branches Spreading Worldwide, NBC News, 8/3/16)
52
(Barbara Starr, House Intel Committee Blasts Pentagon Over ISIS Files, CNN, 2/25/16)
53
(Nacy A. Youssef, House Probe: CENTCOMs ISIS Intel Cooked, The Daily Beast, 8/11/16)
5
At the same time, ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into Europe
and the United States. 54
Iran, the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with
$150 billion in cash released by the United States plus another $400
million in ransom. 55 Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the
number one state sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to
nuclear weapons. 56 57
In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS,
destabilized the Middle East, and put the nation of Iran which chants
Death to America 58 in a dominant position of regional power and, in
fact, aspiring to be a dominant world power. 59
It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obamas
global Apology Tour. 60
In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as
arrogant, dismissive derisive 61 and a colonial power. 62 He
informed other countries that he would be speaking up about
Americas past errors. 63 He pledged that we would no longer be a
senior partner, that sought to dictate our terms. He lectured CIA
54
(CIA Director Brennan, Statement by Director Brennan as Prepared for Delivery Before the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 6/16/16)
55
(Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed, The Wall Street Journal,
8/3/16)
56
(George Jahn, AP Exclusive: Document Shows Less Limits On Iran Nuke Work, Associated Press, 7/18/16)
57
(Nasser Karimi, Iran's FM Extolls Country's Ability To Restore Nuke Program, Associated Press, 7/19/16)
58
(Ali Arouzi, Iran Marks Revolution With 'Death to America' Chants, NBC News, 2/11/16)
59
(Jay Solonon and Laura Meckler, Hillary Clinton Opened Door to Key U.S. Shift Toward Iran Nuclear Deal, The
Wall Street Journal, 9/8/15)
60
(Karl Rove, The President's Apology Tour, The Wall Street Journal, 4/23/09)
61
(President Obama, Remarks by President Obama at Strasbourg Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, The White
House, 4/3/09)
62
(President Obama, Obama's Interview With Al Arabiya, Al Arabiya News, 1/27/09)
63
(President Obama, Remarks By The President At The Summit Of The Americas Opening Ceremony, Port of
Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, The White House, 4/17/09)
6
officers of the need to acknowledge their mistakes, 64 and described

Guantanamo Bay as a rallying cry for our enemies. 65
Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obamas
speech to the Muslim World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009. 66
In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted
the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the
Evil Empire. 67
Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such
moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression
of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic
violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism,
President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human
rights record and theirs.
His nave words were followed by even more nave actions.
The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and
the election-driven timetable for withdrawal, 68 surrendered our gains
in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS. 69
The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clintons disaster in
Libya. President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst
mistake. 70 According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the
64
(President Obama, Remarks By The President To CIA Employees At CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, The
White House, 4/20/09)
65
(President Obama, Remarks By The President On National Security, Washington, D.C., The White House,
5/21/09)
66
(President Obama, Remarks by the President at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, The White House, 6/4/09)
67
(President Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, Orlando,
Florida, 3/8/83)
68
(Scott Wilson, President Obama Took Credit In 2012 For Withdrawing All Troops From Iraq. Today He Said
Something Different, The Washington Post, 6/19/14)
69
(Mark Moyar, Where We Went Wrong, From Afghanistan To ISIS, Newsweek, 2/21/16)
70
(Alexander Mallin, What Obama Says Is His 'Worst Mistake' as President, ABC News, 4/10/16)
7
invasion of Libya was nearly a split decision, but Hillary Clintons

forceful advocacy for the intervention was the deciding factor. 71
With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clintons
policies launched ISIS onto the world. 72
Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out
well for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income
while she was Secretary of State. 73 74 75 76
Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the
judgement, the temperament and the moral character to lead this
nation. Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to
take on ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face not only in
terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to
turn this country around.
It is time for a new approach
Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven
failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and
thrive. 77
I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning a major
difference between me and my opponent.
Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such
matters was not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private
doubts about the invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in
71
(Jo Becker and Scott Shane, Hillary Clinton, Smart Power and a Dictators Fall, The New York Times, 2/27/16)
72
(A Conversation With Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Strategic Interests, Values, and Hard
Choices, Council on Foreign Relations, 6/12/14)
73
(William J. Clinton & Hillary Rodham Clinton, 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, 2012)
74
75
76
77
(Nada Bakos, Terrorist Group Fills Power Vacuum Among Syria Rebels, CNN, 1/9/13)
8
an interview with Neil Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a

speedy recovery, that perhaps [we] shouldn't be doing it yet, and that
the economy is a much bigger problem. 78
In August of 2004, very early in the conflict, I made a detailed
statement to Esquire magazine. 79 Here is the quote in full:
"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never
have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is
going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run
down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the
winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon.
Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and
the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over.
And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't
have.
"What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and

hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people
coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other
side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns
out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All
this for nothing."
So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in.
But I have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake
Hillary Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in
which they pulled out.
78
(Donald J. Trump, Interview on Your World with Neil Cavuto, FOX News, 1/28/03)
79
(Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump: How I'd Run the Country (Better), Esquire Magazine, 8/04)
9
After we had made those hard-fought sacrifices and gains, 80 81 82 we

should never have made such a sudden withdrawal on a timetable
advertised to our enemies. 83 Al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated,
and Obama and Clinton gave it new life and allowed it to spread across
the world.
By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never
have attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, 84 to push for immediate
regime change in Syria, 85 86 or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in
Egypt. 87
One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the
oil in Iraq another area where my judgement has been proven
correct. According to CNN, ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales
in 2014 alone, fueling and funding its reign of terror. 88 If we had
controlled the oil, we could have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq
both by cutting off a major source of funding, 89 and through the
presence of U.S. forces necessary to safeguard the oil and other vital
infrastructure. 90 91 I was saying this constantly and to whoever would
listen: keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, I said dont let someone
else get it.
80
(Tom Bowman, After 15 Years, The State Of The War In Afghanistan, NPR, 7/5/16)
81
(Daniel Trotta, Iraq War Costs U.S. More Than $2 Trillion: Study, Reuters, 3/14/13)
82
(Conflict Casualties, Defense Manpower Data Center, Accessed 7/20/16)
83
(Mark Landler, U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Years End, Obama Says, The New York Times, 10/21/11)
84
(Corbett Daly, Clinton on Qaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died, CBS News, 10/20/11)
85
(Rebecca Kaplan, Hillary Clinton Still Wouldn't Give Up On Training Syrian Rebels, CBS News, 9/22/15)
86
(Michael D. Shear, Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt, Obama Administration Ends Effort to Train Syrians to
Combat ISIS, The New York Times, 10/9/15)
87
(Tom Curry, Clinton Urges Transition To A Democratic Regime in Egypt, NBC News, 1/30/11)
88
(Jose Pagliery, Inside The $2 Billion ISIS War Machine, CNN Money, 12/11/15)
89
(Kellan Howell, Islamic State Earns $50 Million Per Month On Oil Sales, The Washington Times, 10/24/15)
90
(Erika Solomon, Robin Kwong and Steven Bernard, Inside Isis Inc: The Journey Of A Barrel Of Oil, Financial
Times, Accessed 8/13/16)
91
(Matthew Philips, Islamic State Loses Its Oil Business, Bloomberg, 10/14/14)
10
If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic

benefits of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the
wounded soldiers and families of those who died and thousands of
lives would have been saved.
This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to
guard our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor
belonged the spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq and our adventures
in the Middle East was death, destruction and tremendous financial
loss.
But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new
course.
If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our
new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our
allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt
the spread of Radical Islam.
All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which
shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends,
but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.
As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this
goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East,
including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of
Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this
ideology of death that must be extinguished.
We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had
previously said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal
adequately with terrorism; since my comments they have changed their
policy and now have a new division focused on terror threats.
11
I also believe that we could find common ground with Russia in the
fight against ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria,
and have had their own battles with Islamic terrorism.
My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military
operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut-
off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to
disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow
the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by
our enemy we must shut down their access to this form of
communication, and we must do so immediately.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless
handling of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph
exact military plans to the enemy. I have often said that General
MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were
alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to
recklessly announce their every move before it happens like they did
in Iraq so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.
The fight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we
will seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We
can use existing UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.
Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling
Islamic terrorism.
But we must use ideological warfare as well.
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of
communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on
the ideology of Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation
donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by
12
prison or death, 92 93 my Administration will speak out against the

oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. 94 95
Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in
the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.
This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor
killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing,
marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings. 96 97
Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor
killings by their relatives each year. 98 Recently, a prominent Pakistani
social media star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge
of dishonoring the family. 99 In his confession, the brother took pride in
the murder and said: Girls are born to stay home and follow
traditions.
Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.
One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34
years in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become
too Westernized. 100
To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a
hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and
terrorism to grow.
92
(Clinton Foundation, Accessed 8/13/16)
93
(Stars Step Up Protest Against Anti-Gay Owner Of Beverly Hills Hotel, CBS News,2/6/15
94
(Country Reports On Human Rights Practices For 2012: Saudi Arabia, United States State Department, 4/19/13)
95
(William La Jeunesse, Rights Groups Silent As Clinton Foundation Takes Millions From Countries That Imprison
Gays, FOX News, 6/17/16)
96
(Pregnant Pakistani Woman Stoned To Death By Family, Associated Press in Lahore, 5/28/14)
97
(Perry Chiaramonte, Texas 'Honor Killing' Suspect Yaser Said Could Be Hiding In Plain Sight As NYC Cabbie,
Private Investigator Says, FOX News, 5/29/12)
98
(Pakistan Honour Killings On The Rise, Report Reveals, BBC, 4/1/16)
99
(Juliet Perry and Sophia Saifi, Brother Of Pakistan's Qandeel Baloch Charged With Crime Against State, CNN,
7/19/16)
100
(Iraqi Immigrant Gets 34 Years For Killing 'Too Westernized' Daughter, CNN, 4/16/11)
13
A new immigration policy is needed as well

The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have
recently occurred on our soil 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, 101 the
Boston Bombing, 102 the San Bernardino attack, 103 the Orlando attack
104 is that they have involved immigrants or the children of
immigrants.
Clearly, new screening procedures are needed.
A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identified
380 foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorism-
related offenses between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.
105
We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the
country as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in
Minnesota. 106
Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have
brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them. 107
In Cologne, Germany, on New Years Eve, we have seen the reports of
sexual violence and assault. 108
101
(Army Major Kills 13 People In Fort Hood Shooting Spree, History, Accessed 8/13/16)
102
(Peter Finn, Carol D. Leonnig and Will Englund, Tsarnaev Brothers Homeland Was War-Torn Chechnya, The
103
(Salman Masood and Declan Walsh, Tashfeen Malik, San Bernardino Suspect, Attended Conservative Religious
School in Pakistan, The New York Times, 12/7/15)
104
(Jonathan Landay and Yeganeh Torbati, Father Of Orlando Shooter Hosted Political Show On Afghan-Pakistan
Issues, Reuters, 6/13/16)
105
(Subcommittee On Immigration And The National Interest, At Least 580 Individuals Convicted In Terror Cases
Since 9/11, At Least 380 Are Foreign-Born, U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, 6/22/16)
106
(Jamie Yuccas, Minneapolis Community Struggles With ISIS Recruiting Tactics, CBS News, 9/19/15)
107
(Matt Hadro, Anti-Semitism Threatens Frances Jewish Communities, The Washington Times, 1/18/16)
108
(Jessica Durando, Report: 1,200 Women Assaulted On New Year's Eve In German Cities, USA Today, 7/11/16)
14
Pew polling shows that in many of the countries from which we draw
large numbers of immigrants, extreme views about religion such as
the death penalty for those who leave the faith are commonplace. 109
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern
all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this
country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. 110 The time is
overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist
groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes
towards our country or its principles or who believe that Sharia law
should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry
and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country and to embrace
a tolerant American society should be issued immigration visas.
To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily
suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile
regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.
As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the
Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where
adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas
from those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based
on new circumstances or new procedures.
109
(The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society, PewResearchCenter, 4/30/13)
110
(James R. Edwards Jr., Keeping Extremists Out: The History of Ideological Exclusion and the Need for Its
Revival, Center for Immigration Studies, 9/05)
15
The size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform
adequate screening. 111
We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East
every year. 112 Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of
temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. 113 If we dont
control the numbers, we cant perform adequate screening.
By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the flow of Syrian refugees
by 550% percent. 114
The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that
Hillary Clintons plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all
current refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to
other refugee programs. This would be additional to all other non-
refugee immigration. 115
The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of
roughly $400 billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare,
housing, schooling, and all other entitlement benefits that are excluded
from the State Departments placement figures.
In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be Americas Angela Merkel, and you
know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany
and the people of Germany crime has risen to levels that no one
111
(Nations Top Security Officials Concerns On Refugee Vetting, Homeland Security Committee, 11/19/15)
112
(Caroline May, Since 9/11 U.S. Has Accepted Over 2 Million Migrants from Majority Muslim Nations, Breitbart,
11/16/15)
113
(Julia Hahn, Congress Votes To Fund Nearly 300,000 Visas For Muslim Migrants In One Year, Breitbart,
12/18/15)
114
(C. Eugene Emery Jr. Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton Wants To Let 500 Percent More Syrians Into The U.S.,
Politifact, 6/13/16)
115
(Subcommittee On Immigration And The National Interest, Clinton Refugee Plan Could Bring In 620,000
Refugees In First Term At Lifetime Cost Of Over $400 Billion, U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, 6/27/16)
16
thought would they would ever see. 116 We have enough problems in
our country, we dont need another one.
Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security
procedures
Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our
soil is that warning signs were ignored.
The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications. 117
The Russians warned us about the Boston Bombers, 118 here on political
asylum, 119 and the attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.
120 121
The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a fianc visa from Saudi
Arabia, 122 wrote of her support for Jihad online. 123 124 A neighbor saw
suspicious behavior but didnt warn authorities, because said they
didnt want to be accused of racially profiling 125 now many are dead
and gravely wounded.
116
(Michelle Martin, Migrants Linked To 69,000 Would-Be Or Actual Crimes In Germany In First Three Months Of
2016: Police, Reuters, 6/8/16)
117
(Martha Raddatz, State Dept. Lapses Aided 9/11 Hijackers, ABC News, 10/23/02)
118
(Josh Gerstein, FBI Knew Earlier Of Boston Bombing Suspect, Politico, 6/15/13)
119
(Phil Marringly, Mike Dorning, and Julie Bykowica, Boston Bombing Suspect Apprehended at Watertown
Home, Bloomberg, 4/20/13)
120
In January 2011, two counterterrorism agents from the bureaus Boston field office interviewed Tamerlan and
family members.. (Eric Schmitt, Michael S. Schmidt and Ellen Barry, Bombing Inquiry Turns to Motive and Russian
Trip, The New York Times, 4/20/13)
121
In response to this [March] 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information
to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the
promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education
history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family member. (FBI National Press Office, 2011
Request for Information on Tamerlan Tsarnaev from Foreign Government, FBI, 4/19/13)
122
(Brian Bennett and Richard A. Serrano, Scrutiny Of Tashfeen Malik's Fiancee Visa Fell Short, Congressional
Investigators Say, The Los Angeles Times, 12/18/15)
123
(Evan Perez and Dana Ford, San Bernardino Shooters Social Media Posts on Jihad Were Obscured, CNN,
12/14/15)
124
(Richard A. Serrano, Tashfeen Malik Messaged Facebook Friends About Her Support For Jihad, Los Angeles
Times, 12/14/15)
125
(Christian Datoc, Shooters Neighbor Didnt Report Suspicious Activity For Fear of Being Labeled Racist, The
Daily Caller, 12/3/15)
17
The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after

9/11. 126 He too was interviewed by the FBI. 127 His father, a native of
Afghanistan, 128 supported the oppressive Taliban regime, 129 and
expressed anti-American views 130 and by the way, was just seen
sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a big smile on his face all the way
through her speech. He obviously liked what she had to say.
The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental
health experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red flag
after another. 131 He even proclaimed that we love death more than
you love life!
These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has
replaced common sense in our society
That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a
Commission on Radical Islam which will include reformist voices in the
Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build
bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the
American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to
identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks
in our society that support radicalization.
126
(Hunter Walker and Jason Sickles, Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen Was Suspended For Cheering 9/11 And
Beating Another Student In High School, Yahoo, 6/16/16)
127
(Mark Mazzetti, Eric Lichtblau and Alan Blinder, Omar Mateen, Twice Scrutinized by F.B.I., Shows Threat of
Lone Terrorists, The New York Times, 6/13/16)
128
(Jonathan Landay and Yeganeh Torbati, Father of Orlando Shooter Hosted Political Show on Afghan-Pakistan
129
(Tim Craig, Max Bearak and Lee Powell, Shooter Omar Mateens Father Says Hes Saddened By Massacre, Calls
Gunman A Good Son, The Washington Post, 6/13/16)
130
(Tucker Reals, "What Has the Orlando Gunman's Father Said?," CBS News, 6/13/16)
131
(Dana Priest, Fort Hood Suspect Warned Of Threats Within The Ranks, The Washington Post, 11/10/09)
18
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police
officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.
We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed
emphasis on human intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our
strategy, but we will also seek to capture high-value targets to gain
needed information to dismantle their organizations. Foreign
combatants will be tried in military commissions.
Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges
against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the
effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of
every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.
To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks
for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one
by one.
Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who
are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return
home.
To Make America Safe Again, We Must Work Together Again
Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international
consensus. That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic
terrorism.
But just like we couldnt defeat communism without acknowledging
that communism exists or explaining its evils we cant defeat Radical
Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.
This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own
way of life and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.
19
Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by
parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.
Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.
Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the
world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.
This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together
as a country.
Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our
country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common not
what pulls us apart.
This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be
your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is
treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject
bigotry and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on
our common culture and values as one American people.
Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again For
Everyone.
Thank you.
20
Complaint
Exhibit 6
On Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC News "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir interviewed
President Donald Trump in the White House. The following is a transcript of the interview:
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, it's an honor to be here at the White House.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much, David.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, has the magnitude of this job hit you yet?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It has periodically hit me. And it is a tremendous magnitude. And where
you really see it is when you're talking to the generals about problems in the world. And we do
have problems in the world. Big problems. The business also hits because the the size of it.
The size.
I was with the Ford yesterday. And with General Motors yesterday. The top representatives,
great people. And they're gonna do some tremendous work in the United States. They're gonna
build plants back in the United States. But when you see the size, even as a businessman, the
size of the investment that these big companies are gonna make, it hits you even in that regard.
But we're gonna bring jobs back to America, like I promised on the campaign trail.
DAVID MUIR: And we're gonna get to it all right here.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I want to start we're five days in. And your campaign promises. I
know today you plan on signing the order to build the wall.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Correct.
DAVID MUIR: Are you going to direct U.S. funds to pay for this wall? Will American taxpayers
pay for the wall?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Ultimately it'll come out of what's happening with Mexico. We're gonna be
starting those negotiations relatively soon. And we will be in a form reimbursed by Mexico
which I will say ...
DAVID MUIR: So, they'll pay us back?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, absolutely, 100 percent.
DAVID MUIR: So, the American taxpayer will pay for the wall at first?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: All it is, is we'll be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction we
make from Mexico. Now, I could wait a year and I could hold off the wall. But I wanna build the
wall. We have to build the wall. We have to stop drugs from pouring in. We have to stop people
from just pouring into our country. We have no idea where they're from. And I campaigned on
the wall. And it's very important. But that wall will cost us nothing.
DAVID MUIR: But you talked often about Mexico paying for the wall. And you, again, say
they'll pay us back. Mexico's president said in recent days that Mexico absolutely will not pay,
adding that, "It goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as Mexicans." He says ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, he has to say that. He has to say that. But I'm just telling you there
will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form. And you have to understand
what I'm doing is good for the United States. It's also going to be good for Mexico.
We wanna have a very stable, very solid Mexico. Even more solid than it is right now. And they
need it also. Lots of things are coming across Mexico that they don't want. I think it's going to
be a good thing for both countries. And I think the relationship will be better than ever before.
You know, when we had a prisoner in Mexico, as you know, two years ago, that we were trying
to get out. And Mexico was not helping us, I will tell you, those days are over. I think we're
gonna end up with a much better relationship with Mexico. We will have the wall and in a very
serious form Mexico will pay for the wall.
DAVID MUIR: What are you gonna say to some of your supporters who might say, "Wait a
minute, I thought Mexico was going to pay for this right at the start."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I'd say very simply that they are going to pay for it. I never said
they're gonna pay from the start. I said Mexico will pay for the wall. But what I will tell my
supporters is, "Would you like me to wait two years or three years before I make this deal?"
Because we have to make a deal on NAFTA. We have to make a new trade deal with Mexico
because we're getting clobbered.
We have a $60 billion trade deficit. So, if you want, I can wait two years and then we can do it
nice and easily. I wanna start the wall immediately. Every supporter I have I have had so many
people calling and tweeting and and writing letters saying they're so happy about it. I wanna
start the wall. We will be reimbursed for the wall.
DAVID MUIR: When does construction begin?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: As soon as we can. As soon as we can physically do it. We're ...
DAVID MUIR: Within months?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would say in months. Yeah, I would say in months. Certainly planning is
starting immediately.
DAVID MUIR: People feel ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We'll be having some really good, really solid plans within a short period of
time.
DAVID MUIR: When people learn of the news of this wall today there are gonna be a lot of
people listening to this. And I wanna ask about undocumented immigrants who are here in
this country. Right now they're protected as so called dreamers the children who were
brought here, as you know, by their parents. Should they be worried that they could be
deported? And is there anything you can say to assure them right now that they'll be allowed to
stay?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They shouldn't be very worried. They are here illegally. They shouldn't be
very worried. I do have a big heart. We're going to take care of everybody. We're going to have
a very strong border. We're gonna have a very solid border. Where you have great people that
are here that have done a good job, they should be far less worried. We'll be coming out with
policy on that over the next period of four weeks.
DAVID MUIR: But Mr. President, will they be allowed to stay?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm gonna tell you over the next four weeks. But I will tell you, we're
looking at this, the whole immigration situation, we're looking at it with great heart. Now we
have criminals that are here. We have really bad people that are here. Those people have to be
worried 'cause they're getting out. We're gonna get them out. We're gonna get 'em out fast.
General Kelly is I've given that as his number one priority.
DAVID MUIR: Senator Jeff Sessions, your pick for attorney general, as you know during his
confirmation hearing said that ending DACA, this is President Obama's policy protecting the
dreamers that, "Ending it certainly would be constitutional." That you could end the
protection of these dreamers. Is that a possibility?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna be talking with attorney general. He will soon be the
attorney general. He's done fantastically well. We're all very proud of him. I thought he was
treated very, very unfairly. He's a brilliant man and he's a very good man. He'll do a fantastic
job. I'll be speaking to him as soon as he's affirmed.
DAVID MUIR: So, it's a possibility.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We will be talking to the attorney general.
DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White
House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the
presidential election with them telling them that you lost the popular vote because of
millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in
American history. Where is the evidence of that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed
to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon
as you but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do and I'm very ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you it was supposed to be a confidential
meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a
minute. They made it somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly
even discussed.
I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's
number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the
popular vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York
where I didn't campaign at all.
I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier
than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It
doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of
winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign.
So, but ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote,
much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different
states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one.
I went to M I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning
by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way
you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can
get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the
electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead
people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two
states, you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a
look at those registration for you're gonna s find and we're gonna do an investigation on
it.
DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: But ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out.

(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's
not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell " He said, "You know we
don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration.
You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You
have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They
vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ...
DAVID MUIR: But again ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ...
DAVID MUIR: Youre now, youre now president of the United States when you say ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate.
DAVID MUIR: But what I'm asking ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: The people that ...
DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes,
that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free
election.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure.
DAVID MUIR: You say you're gonna launch an investigation.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure, done.
DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... false.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports.
DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found
no evidence of voter ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, then why did he write the report?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: According to Pew report, then he's then he's groveling again. You know, I
always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something that you wanna
hear but not necessarily millions of people wanna hear or have to hear.
DAVID MUIR: So, youve launched an investigation?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time
and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They
would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that
are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states we have a lot
to look into.
DAVID MUIR: House Speaker Paul Ryan has said, "I have seen no evidence. I have made this
very, very clear." Senator Lindsey Graham saying, "It's the most inappropriate thing for a
president to say without proof. He seems obsessed with the idea that he could not have
possibly lost the popular vote without cheating and fraud." I wanna ask you about something
bigger here. Does it matter more now ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's nothing bigger. There's nothing bigger.
DAVID MUIR: But it is important because ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you know what's important, millions of people agree
with me when I say that if you wouldve looked on one of the other networks and all of the
people that were calling in they're saying, "We agree with Mr. Trump. We agree." They're very
smart people.
The people that voted for me lots of people are saying they saw things happen. I heard
stories also. But you're not talking about millions. But it's a small little segment. I will tell you,
it's a good thing that we're doing because at the end we're gonna have an idea as to what's
going on. Now, you're telling me Pew report has all of a sudden changed. But you have other
reports and you have other statements. You take a look at the registrations, how many dead
people are there? Take a look at the registrations as to the other things that I already
presented.
DAVID MUIR: And you're saying ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And you're gonna find ...
DAVID MUIR: ... those people who are on the rolls voted, that there are millions of illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I didn't say there are millions. But I think there could very well be millions
of people. That's right.
DAVID MUIR: You tweeted though ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I also say this ...
DAVID MUIR: ... you tweeted, "If you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally, I won
the popular vote."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, and I also say this, if I was going for the popular vote I would've won
easily. But I would've been in California and New York. I wouldn't have been in Maine. I
wouldn't have been in Iowa. I wouldn't have been in Nebraska and all of those states that I had
to win in order to win this. I would've been in New York, I would've been in California. I never
even went there.
DAVID MUIR: Let me just ask you, you did win. You're the president. You're sitting ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thats true.
DAVID MUIR: ... across from me right now.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That's true.
DAVID MUIR: Do you think that your words matter more now?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, very much.
DAVID MUIR: Do you think that that talking about millions of illegal votes is dangerous to this
country without presenting the evidence?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not at all.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not at all because many people feel the same way that I do. And ...
DAVID MUIR: You don't think it undermines your credibility if theres no evidence?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not at all because they didn't come to me. Believe me. Those were
Hillary votes. And if you look at it they all voted for Hillary. They all voted for Hillary. They didn't
vote for me. I don't believe I got one. Okay, these are people that voted for Hillary Clinton. And
if they didn't vote, it would've been different in the popular.
Now, you have to understand I I focused on those four or five states that I had to win. Maybe
she didn't. She should've gone to Michigan. She thought she had it in the bag. She should've
gone to Wisconsin, she thought she had it because you're talking about 38 years of, you know,
Democrat wins. But they didn't. I went to Michigan, I went to Wisconsin. I went to Pennsylvania
all the time. I went to all of the states that are Florida and North Carolina. That's all I focused
on.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, it does strike me though that we're relitigating the presidential
campaign, the election ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no. We're looking at it for the next time. No, no, you have to
understand, I had a tremendous victory, one of the great victories ever. In terms of counties I
think the most ever or just about the most ever. When you look at a map it's all red. Red
meaning us, Republicans.
One of the greatest victories ever. But, again, I ran for the electoral college. I didn't run for the
popular vote. What I'm saying is if there are these problems that many people agree with me
that there might be. Look, Barack Obama if you look back eight years ago when he first
ran he was running for office in Chicago for we needed Chicago vote.
And he was laughing at the system because he knew all of those votes were going to him. You
look at Philadelphia, you look at what's going on in Philadelphia. But take a look at the tape of
Barack Obama who wrote me, by the way, a very beautiful letter in the drawer of the desk.
Very beautiful. And I appreciate it. But look at what he said, it's on tape. Look at what he said
about voting in Chicago eight years ago. It's not changed. It hasn't changed, believe me.
Chicago, look what's going on in Chicago. It's only gotten worse.
But he was smiling and laughing about the vote in Chicago. Now, once he became president he
didn't do that. All of a sudden it became this is the foundation of our country. So, here's the
point, you have a lot of stuff going on possibly. I say probably. But possibly. We're gonna get to
the bottom of it.
And then we're gonna make sure it doesn't happen again. If people are registered wrongly, if
illegals are registered to vote, which they are, if dead people are registered to vote and voting,
which they do. There are some. I don't know how many. We're gonna try finding that out and
the other categories that we talk about, double states where they're registered in two states,
we're gonna get to the bottom of it because we have to stop it. Because I agree, so important.
But the other side is trying to downplay this. Now, I'll say this I think that if that didn't
happen, first of all, would would be a great thing if it didn't happen. But I believe it did
happen. And I believe a part of the vote would've been much different.
DAVID MUIR: And you believe millions of illegal votes ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you this ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna find out. And and, by the way, when I say you're gonna find
out. You can never really find, you know, there are gonna be no matter what numbers we
come up with there are gonna be lots of people that did things that we're not going to find out
about. But we will find out because we need a better system where that can't happen.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I just have one more question on this. And it's it's bigger picture.
You took some heat after your visit to the CIA in front of that hallowed wall, 117 stars of
those lost at the CIA. You talked about other things. But you also talked about crowd size at the
inauguration, about the size of your rallies, about covers on Time magazine. And I just wanna
ask you when does all of that matter just a little less? When do you let it roll off your back now
that you're the president?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: OK, so I'm glad you asked. So, I went to the CIA, my first step. I have great
respect for the people in intelligence and CIA. I'm I don't have a lot of respect for, in particular
one of the leaders. But that's okay. But I have a lot of respect for the people in the CIA.
That speech was a home run. That speech, if you look at Fox, OK, I'll mention you we see
what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches. They showed the people applauding
and screaming and and they were all CIA. There was somebody was asking Sean "Well,
were they Trump people that were put " we don't have Trump people. They were CIA people.
That location was given to me. Mike Pence went up before me, paid great homage to the wall. I
then went up, paid great homage to the wall. I then spoke to the crowd. I got a standing
ovation. In fact, they said it was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won
the Super Bowl and they said it was equal. I got a standing ovation. It lasted for a long period of
time. What you do is take take out your tape you probably ran it live. I know when I do
good speeches. I know when I do bad speeches. That speech was a total home run. They loved
it. I could've ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... gotten ...
DAVID MUIR: You would give the same speech if you went back ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: ... in front of that wall?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: People loved it. They loved it. They gave me a standing ovation for a long
period of time. They never even sat down, most of them, during the speech. There was love in
the room. You and other networks covered it very inaccurately. I hate to say this to you and you
probably won't put it on but turn on Fox and see how it was covered. And see how people
respond to that speech.
That speech was a good speech. And you and a couple of other networks tried to downplay that
speech. And it was very, very unfortunate that you did. The people of the CIA loved the speech.
If I was going to take a vote in that room, there were, like, 300, 350 people, over 1,000 wanted
to be there but they couldn't. They were all CIA people. I would say I would've gotten 350 to
nothing in that room. That's what the vote would've been. That speech was a big hit, a big
success success. And then I came back and I watched you on television and a couple of
others.
DAVID MUIR: Not me personally.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And they tried to demean. Excuse me?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not you personally but your network and they tried to demean the
speech. And I know when things are good or bad. A poll just came out on my inauguration
speech which was extraordinary that people loved it. Loved and liked. And it was an
extraordinary poll.
DAVID MUIR: I guess that's what I'm getting at. You talked about the poll, the people loving
your inaugural speech and the size of your ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, because you bring it up.
DAVID MUIR: I'm asking, well, on day one you ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you just brought it up. I didn't bring it up. I didn't wanna talk about
the inauguration speech. But I think I did a very good job and people really liked it. You saw the
poll. Just came out this morning. You bring it up. I didn't bring it up.
DAVID MUIR: So, polls and crowd size and covers on Time, those still matter now that you're
here as president.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you keep bringing it up. I had a massive amount of people here. They
were showing pictures that were very unflattering, as unflattering from certain angles that
were taken early and lots of other things. I'll show you a picture later if youd like of a massive
crowd.
In terms of a total audience including television and everything else that you have we had
supposedly the biggest crowd in history. The audience watching the show. And I think you
would even agree to that. They say I had the biggest crowd in the history of inaugural speeches.
I'm honored by that. But I didn't bring it up. You just brought it up.
DAVID MUIR: See, I I'm not interested in the inaugural crowd size. I think the American
people can look at images side by side and decide for themselves. I am curious about the first
full day here at the White House, choosing to send the press secretary out into the briefing
room, summoning reporters to talk about the inaugural crowd size. Does that send a message
to the American people that that's that's more important than some of the very pressing
issues?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Part of my whole victory was that the men and women of this country who
have been forgotten will never be forgotten again. Part of that is when they try and demean me
unfairly 'cause we had a massive crowd of people. We had a crowd I looked over that sea of
people and I said to myself, "Wow."
And I've seen crowds before. Big, big crowds. That was some crowd. When I looked at the
numbers that happened to come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest
audience in the history of inaugural speeches. I said the men and women that I was talking to
who came out and voted will never be forgotten again. Therefore I won't allow you or other
people like you to demean that crowd and to demean the people that came to Washington,
D.C., from faraway places because they like me. But more importantly they like what I'm saying.
DAVID MUIR: I just wanna say I didn't demean anyone who was in that crowd. We did coverage
for hours ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I think youre demeaning by talking the way you're talking. I think
you're demeaning. And that's why I think a lot of people turned on you and turned on a lot of
other people. And that's why you have a 17 percent approval rating, which is pretty bad.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. Trump, let's talk about many of the things that have happened this week.
Chicago. Last night you tweeted about the murder rate in Chicago saying, "If Chicago doesn't fix
the horrible carnage going on I will send in the feds."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right.
DAVID MUIR: You will send in the feds? What do you mean by that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It's carnage. You know, in my speech I got tremendous from certain
people the word carnage. It is carnage. It's horrible carnage. This is Afghanistan is not like
what's happening in Chicago. People are being shot left and right. Thousands of people over a
period over a short period of time.
This year, which has just started, is worse than last year, which was a catastrophe. They're not
doing the job. Now if they want help, I would love to help them. I will send in what we have to
send in. Maybe they're not gonna have to be so politically correct. Maybe they're being overly
political correct. Maybe there's something going on. But you can't have those killings going on
in Chicago. Chicago is like a war zone. Chicago is worse than some of the people that you report
in some of the places that you report about every night ...
DAVID MUIR: So, I will send ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... in the Middle East.
DAVID MUIR: ... you mentioned federal assistance. There's federal assistance and then there's
sending in the feds. I'm just curious would you take action on your own?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I want them to fix the problem. You can't have thousands of people being
shot in a city, in a country that I happen to be president of. Maybe it's okay if somebody else is
president. I want them to fix the problem. They have a problem that's very easily fixable.
They're gonna have to get tougher and stronger and smarter. But they gotta fix the problem. I
don't want to have thousands of people shot in a city where essentially I'm the president. I love
Chicago. I know Chicago. And Chicago is a great city, can be a great city.
DAVID MUIR: And if theyre unable to fix it?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It can't be a great city. Excuse me. It can't be a great city if people are shot
walking down the street for a loaf of bread. Can't be a great city.
DAVID MUIR: And if they are unable to fix it, that's when you would send in the feds?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, so far they have been unable. Its been going on for years. And I
wasn't president. So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech,
very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They weren't shot at the speech. But they were shot in the city of Chicago
during his speech. What what's going on? So, all I'm saying is to the mayor who came up to
my office recently I say, "You have to smarten up and you have to toughen up because you
can't let that happen. That's a war zone."
DAVID MUIR: So, this is an "or else." This is a warning?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I want them to straighten out the problem. It's a big problem.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you about a new report that you were poised to lift a ban on so called
CIA black sites of prisons around the world that have been used in the past. Is that true?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I'll be talking about that in about two hours. So, you'll be there and
you'll be able to see it for yourself.
DAVID MUIR: Are you gonna lift the ban?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You're gonna see in about two hours.
DAVID MUIR: The last president, President Obama, said the U.S. does not torture. Will you say
that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have a general who I have great respect for, General Mattis, who
said I was a little surprised who said he's not a believer in torture. As you know, Mr.
Pompeo was just approved, affirmed by the Senate. He's a fantastic guy, he's gonna be the
head of the CIA.
And you have somebody fabulous as opposed to the character that just got out who didn't
was not fabulous at all. And he will I think do a great job. And he is you know, I haven't gone
into great detail. But I will tell you I have spoken to others in intelligence. And they are big
believers in, as an example, waterboarding.
DAVID MUIR: You did tell me ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Because they say it does work. It does work.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, you ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, you told me during one of the debates that you would bring back
waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would do ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would do I wanna keep our country safe. I wanna keep our country safe.
DAVID MUIR: What does that mean?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: When they're shooting when they're chopping off the heads of our
people and other people, when they're chopping off the heads of people because they happen
to be a Christian in the Middle East, when ISIS is doing things that nobody has ever heard of
since Medieval times, would I feel strongly about waterboarding?
As far as I'm concerned we have to fight fire with fire. Now, with that being said I'm going with
General Mattis. I'm going with my secretary because I think Pompeo's gonna be phenomenal.
I'm gonna go with what they say. But I have spoken as recently as 24 hours ago with people at
the highest level of intelligence. And I asked them the question, "Does it work? Does torture
work?" And the answer was, "Yes, absolutely."
DAVID MUIR: You're now the president. Do you want waterboarding?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don't want people to chop off the citizens or anybody's heads in the
Middle East. Okay? Because they're Christian or Muslim or anything else. I don't want look,
you are old enough to have seen a time that was much different. You never saw heads chopped
off until a few years ago.
Now they chop 'em off and they put 'em on camera and they send 'em all over the world. So we
have that and we're not allowed to do anything. We're not playing on an even field. I will say
this, I will rely on Pompeo and Mattis and my group. And if they don't wanna do, that's fine. If
they do wanna do, then I will work for that end.
I wanna do everything within the bounds of what you're allowed to do legally. But do I feel it
works? Absolutely I feel it works. Have I spoken to people at the top levels and people that
have seen it work? I haven't seen it work. But I think it works. Have I spoken to people that feel
strongly about it? Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: So, you'd be okay with it as ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I wanna keep ...
DAVID MUIR: ... president?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... no, I wanna I will rely on General Mattis. And I'm gonna rely on those
two people and others. And if they don't wanna do it, it's 100 percent okay with me. Do I think
it works? Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I wanna ask you about refugees. You're about to sign a sweeping
executive action to suspend immigration to this country.
DAVID MUIR: Who are we talking about? Is this the Muslim ban?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're talking about no it's not the Muslim ban. But it's countries that
have tremendous terror. It's countries that we're going to be spelling out in a little while in the
same speech. And it's countries that people are going to come in and cause us tremendous
problems. Our country has enough problems without allowing people to come in who, in many
cases or in some cases, are looking to do tremendous destruction.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You look at what's happening ...
DAVID MUIR: Which countries are we talking about?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you'll be hearing about it in two hours because I have a whole list. You'll
be very thrilled. You're looking at people that come in, in many cases, in some cases with evil
intentions. I don't want that. They're ISIS. They're coming under false pretense. I don't want
that.
I'm gonna be the president of a safe country. We have enough problems. Now I'll absolutely do
safe zones in Syria for the people. I think that Europe has made a tremendous mistake by
allowing these millions of people to go into Germany and various other countries. And all you
have to do is take a look. It's it's a disaster what's happening over there.
I don't want that to happen here. Now with that being said, President Obama and Hillary
Clinton have, and Kerry have allowed tens of thousands of people into our country. The FBI is
now investigating more people than ever before having to do with terror. They and it's from
the group of people that came in. So look, look, our country has a lot of problems. Believe me. I
know what the problems are even better than you do. They're deep problems, they're serious
problems. We don't need more.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you about some of the countries that won't be on the list, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Why are we going to allow people to come into this country ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You're going to see you're going to see. We're going to have extreme
vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we're not letting people in if we think there's even
a little chance of some problem.
DAVID MUIR: Are you at all ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We are excluding certain countries. But for other countries we're gonna
have extreme vetting. It's going to be very hard to come in. Right now it's very easy to come in.
It's gonna be very, very hard. I don't want terror in this country. You look at what happened in
San Bernardino. You look at what happened all over. You look at what happened in the World
Trade Center. Okay, I mean, take that as an example.
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... concerned are you at all concerned it's going to cause more anger among
Muslims ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Anger?
DAVID MUIR: ... the world?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's plenty of anger right now. How can you have more?
DAVID MUIR: You don't think it'll ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Look, David ...
DAVID MUIR: ... exacerbate the problem?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... David, I mean, I know you're a sophisticated guy. The world is a mess.
The world is as angry as it gets. What? You think this is gonna cause a little more anger? The
world is an angry place. All of this has happened. We went into Iraq. We shouldn't have gone
into Iraq. We shouldn't have gotten out the way we got out.
The world is a total mess. Take a look at what's happening with Aleppo. Take a look what's
happening in Mosul. Take a look what's going on in the Middle East. And people are fleeing and
they're going into Europe and all over the place. The world is a mess, David.
DAVID MUIR: You brought up Iraq and something you said that could affect American troops in
recent days. You said, "We should've kept the oil but okay maybe we'll have another chance."
What did you mean by that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we should've kept the oil when we got out. And, you know, it's very
interesting, had we taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS because they fuel themselves with the
oil. That's where they got the money. They got the money from leaving when we left, we left
Iraq, which wasn't a government. It's not a government now.
And by the way, and I said something else, if we go in and do this. You have two nations, Iraq
and Iran. And they were essentially the same military strength. And they'd fight for decades and
decades. They'd fight forever. And they'd keep fighting and it would go it was just a way of
life. We got in, we decapitated one of those nations, Iraq. I said, "Iran is taking over Iraq." That's
essentially what happened.
DAVID MUIR: So, you believe we can go in and take the oil.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We should have taken the oil. You wouldn't have ISIS if we took the oil.
Now I wasn't talking about it from the standpoint of ISIS because the way we got out was
horrible. We created a vacuum and ISIS formed. But had we taken the oil something else
would've very good happened. They would not have been able to fuel their rather unbelievable
drive to destroy large portions of the world.
DAVID MUIR: You've heard the critics who say that would break all international law, taking the
oil. But I wanna get to the words ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... that you ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait, wait, can you believe that? Who are the critics who say that? Fools.
DAVID MUIR: Let, let me ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don't call them critics. I call them fools.
DAVID MUIR: ... let me talk about your words ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We should've kept excuse me. We should've taken the oil. And if we took
the oil you wouldn't have ISIS. And we would have had wealth. We have spent right now $6
trillion in the Middle East. And our country is falling apart.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Our roads excuse me. Our roads, our bridges, our schools, it's falling
apart. We have spent as of one month ago $6 trillion in the Middle East. And in our country we
can't afford to build a school in Brooklyn or we can't afford to build a school in Los Angeles. And
we can't afford to fix up our inner cities. We can't afford to do anything. Look, it's time. It's
been our longest war. We've been in there for 15, 16 years. Nobody even knows what the date
is because they don't really know when did we start. But it's time. It's time.
DAVID MUIR: What got my attention, Mr. President, was when you said, "Maybe we'll have
another chance."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, don't let it get your attention too much because we'll see what
happens. I mean, we're gonna see what happens. You know, I told you and I told everybody
else that wants to talk when it comes to the military I don't wanna discuss things.
I wanna let I wanna let the action take place before the talk takes place. I watched in Mosul
when a number of months ago generals and politicians would get up and say, "We're going into
Mosul in four months." Then they'd say, "We're going in in three months, two months, one
month. We're going in next week."
Okay, and I kept saying to myself, "Gee, why do they have to keep talking about going in?" All
right, so now they go in and it is tough because they're giving the enemy all this time to
prepare. I don't wanna do a lot of talking on the military. I wanna talk after it's finished, not
before it starts.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, Mr. President, about another promise involving Obamacare to
repeal it. And you told The Washington Post that your plan to replace Obamacare will include
insurance for everybody. That sounds an awful lot like universal coverage.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It's going to be what my plan is is that I wanna take care of everybody.
I'm not gonna leave the lower 20 percent that can't afford insurance. Just so you understand
people talk about Obamacare. And I told the Republicans this, the best thing we could do is
nothing for two years, let it explode. And then we'll go in and we'll do a new plan and and the
Democrats will vote for it. Believe me.
Because this year you'll have 150 percent increases. Last year in Arizona 116 perecent increase,
Minnesota 60 some odd percent increase. And I told them, except for one problem, I wanna get
it fixed. The best thing I could do as the leader of this country but as wanting to get something
approved with support of the Democrats, if I didn't do anything for two years they'd be begging
me to do something. But I don't wanna do that. So just so you unders Obamacare is a disaster.
It's too expensive. It's horrible health care. It doesn't cover what you have to cover. It's a
disaster. You know it and I know it. And I said to the Republican folks and they're terrific folks,
Mitch and Paul Ryan, I said, "Look, if you go fast and I'm okay in doing it because it's the right
thing to do. We wanna get good coverage at much less cost." I said, "If you go fast we then own
Obamacare. They're gonna put it on us. And Obamacare is a disaster waiting to explode. If you
sit back and let it explode it's gonna be much easier." That's the thing to do. But the right thing
to do is to get something done now.
DAVID MUIR: But you ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I wanna make sure that nobody's dying on the streets when I'm
president. Nobody's gonna be dying on the streets. We will unleash something that's gonna be
terrific. And remember this, before Obamacare you had a lot of people that were very, very
happy with their health care.
And now those people in many cases don't even have health care. They don't even have
anything that's acceptable to them. Remember this, keep your doctor, keep your plan, 100
percent. Remember the $5 billion website? Remember the website fiasco. I mean, you do admit
that I think, right? The website fiasco.
Obamacare is a disaster. We are going to come up with a new plan ideally not an amended plan
because right now if you look at the pages they're this high. We're gonna come up with a new
plan that's going to be better health care for more people at a lesser cost.
DAVID MUIR: Last question because I know you're gonna show me around the White House.
Last question on this. You've seen the estimate that 18 million Americans could lose their
health insurance if Obamacare is repealed and there is no replacement. Can you assure those
Americans watching this right now that they will not lose their health insurance or end up with
anything less?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So nobody ever deducts all the people that have already lost their health
insurance that liked it. You had millions of people that liked their health insurance and their
health care and their doctor and where they went. You had millions of people that now aren't
insured anymore.
DAVID MUIR: I'm just asking about the people ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no.
DAVID MUIR: ... who are nervous and watching ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We ...
DAVID MUIR: ... you for reassurance.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... here's what I can assure you, we are going to have a better plan, much
better health care, much better service treatment, a plan where you can have access to the
doctor that you want and the plan that you want. We're gonna have a much better health care
plan at much less money.
And remember Obamacare is ready to explode. And you interviewed me a couple of years ago.
I said '17 right now, this year, "'17 is going to be a disaster." I'm very good at this stuff. "'17 is
going to be a disaster cost wise for Obamacare. It's going to explode in '17."
And why not? Obama's a smart guy. So let it all come do because that's what's happening. It's
all coming do in '17. We're gonna have an explosion. And to do it right, sit back, let it explode
and let the Democrats come begging us to help them because it's on them. But I don't wanna
do that. I wanna give great health care at a much lower cost.
DAVID MUIR: So, no one who has this health insurance through Obamacare will lose it or end
up ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, when you ...
DAVID MUIR: ... with anything less?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... say no one I think no one. Ideally, in the real world, youre talking about
millions of people. Will no one. And then, you know, knowing ABC, you'll have this one person
on television saying how they were hurt. Okay. We want no one. We want the answer to be no
one.
But I will say millions of people will be happy. Right now you have millions and millions and
millions of people that are unhappy. It's too expensive and it's no good. And the governor of
Minnesota who unfortunately had a very, very sad incident yesterday 'cause he's a very nice
guy but a couple of months ago he said that the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable.
He's a staunch Democrat. Very strong Democrat. He said it's no longer affordable. He made that
statement. And Bill Clinton on the campaign trail and he probably had a bad night that night
when he went home but he said, "Obamacare is crazy. It's crazy." And you know what, they
were both right.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, thank you.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Pasted from <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript abc news anchor david muir interviews president/story?id=
45047602>
Complaint
Exhibit 7
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 2 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
2 of
2 of
1010
#: 22
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

January 27, 2017
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST

ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the

Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to
protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign
nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a

crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and
stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no
instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented
consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa
applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on
to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance
process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks
to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these
measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were
admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or

implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001,
including foreign nationals who entered the United States after
receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered
through the United States refugee resettlement program.
Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war,
strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that
terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United
States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 3 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
3 of
3 of
1010
#: 23
issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission

do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to
terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must

ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile
attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United
States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support
the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies
over American law. In addition, the United States should not
admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including
"honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the
persecution of those who practice religions different from their
own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender,
or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to

protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit
terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the
admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United
States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other

Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular
Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of
National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to
determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate
any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA
(adjudications) in order to determine that the individual
seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is
not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation

with the Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the
results of the review described in subsection (a) of this
section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's
determination of the information needed for adjudications and a
list of countries that do not provide adequate information,
within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on

relevant agencies during the review period described in
subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 4 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
4 of
4 of
1010
#: 24
maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of

foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are
established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or
criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant
entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred
to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would
be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I
hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and
nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this
order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic
visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for
travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in

subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed
for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all
foreign governments that do not supply such information to start
providing such information regarding their nationals within
60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of

this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the
President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a
Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of
foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling
on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas,
C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3,
and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the
information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section
until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in

subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the
names of any additional countries recommended for similar
treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection

(c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation
described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and
when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits
are otherwise blocked.
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 5 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
5 of
5 of
1010
#: 25
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall

submit to the President a joint report on the progress in
implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this
order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order,
a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a
fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All

Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the
adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify
individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent
basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of
causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will
include the development of a uniform screening standard and
procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity
documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate
documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended
application forms that include questions aimed at identifying
fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure
that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process
to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively
contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to
make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to
assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit
criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction

with the Secretary of State, the Director of National
Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report
on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of
this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this
order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this
order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program

for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120
days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall
review the USRAP application and adjudication process to
determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure
that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 6 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
6 of
6 of
1010
#: 26
to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall

implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who
are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the
initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the
date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the
Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for
nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National
Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional
procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of
the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary

of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent
permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by
individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution,
provided that the religion of the individual is a minority
religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where
necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would
assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria
as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States
and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have
determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP
to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with
the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000
refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry
until such time as I determine that additional admissions would
be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed

pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit
individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case
basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine
that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the
national interest -- including when the person is a religious
minority in his country of nationality facing religious
persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 7 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
7 of
7 of
1010
#: 27
States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international

agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying
admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a
risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President

an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection
(b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by
individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within
100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second
report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the
extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local
jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining
the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens
eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To
that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine
existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with
applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater
involvement in the process of determining the placement or
resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall
devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to

the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the
Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority
in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the
terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related
implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit

Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-
exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as
recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the

President periodic reports on the progress of the directive
contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report
shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a
second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of
this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365
days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall
submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is
fully deployed and operational.
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 8 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
8 of
8 of
1010
#: 28
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of

State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver
Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a
nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to
specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the

availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall
immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by
substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or
making permanent the period of service, and making language
training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows
for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic
ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times
are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State

shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to
ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification,
truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity
period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a
country does not treat United States nationals seeking
nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of
State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or
other treatment to match the treatment of United States
nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To

be more transparent with the American people, and to more
effectively implement policies and practices that serve the
national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with
applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly
available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign

nationals in the United States who have been charged
with terrorism-related offenses while in the United
States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while
in the United States; or removed from the United
States based on terrorism-related activity,
affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-
related organization, or any other national security
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 9 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
9 of
9 of
1010
#: 29
reasons since the date of this order or the last

reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign

nationals in the United States who have been
radicalized after entry into the United States and
engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have
provided material support to terrorism-related
organizations in countries that pose a threat to the
United States, since the date of this order or the
last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of

acts of gender-based violence against women, including
honor killings, in the United States by foreign
nationals, since the date of this order or the last
reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety

and security as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including
information on the immigration status of foreign
nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the

date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term
costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order

shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive

department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with

applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-11-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
01/30/17
Page 10Page
ofPage
1010
PageID
10
of of
1010
#: 30
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 27, 2017.
# # #
Complaint
Exhibit 8
Watch About/Follow
Watch About/Follow
Watch About/Follow
Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians

Will Be Given Priority As Refugees
blogs
thebrodyfile

01-27-2017
David Brody
Share Tweet Email
+121
http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file-exclusive-president-trum... 1/30/2017
In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, President Donald Trump says persecuted
Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States.
We are going to help them, President Trump tells CBN News. Theyve been horribly treated.
Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the
United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they
were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very,
very unfair.
The Brody File conducted the interview Friday morning in the Blue Room at The White House.
More newsworthy clips are coming soon. The entire interview can be seen this Sunday at 11pm
on Freeform (cable TV, formerly ABC Family Channel) during our special CBN News show.
This is just the third interview President Trump has done from The White House and it will be the
only interview that will air in its entirety this weekend.
MANDATORY VIDEO AND COURTESY: CBN NEWS/THE BRODY FILE
DAVID BRODY: Persecuted Christians, weve talked about this, the refugees overseas. The
refugee program, or the refugee changes youre looking to make. As it relates to persecuted
Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.
DAVID BRODY: You do?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Theyve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in
Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim
you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was
so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of
everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to
help them.
While you are here...
We'd like to ask for your help. At CBN News, we strive to bring you the most current,
pertinent and reliable news possible. We are able to bring you this important news from a
Christian perspective because of the help of friends like you who know how vital it is to
have an alternative to the news you hear from major media outlets. Would you help ensure
that we can continue to provide this important service to you and our country by considering
a special gift today? Or would you become a monthly partner so we know we can count on
the resources we need to bring you the best news possible?
Thanks for being a part of the dynamic future of CBN News, as well as helping The
Christian Broadcasting Network share the love of Jesus with hurting people everywhere.
Become a Partner Give a special gift
Complaint
Exhibit 9
Trump signs order limiting refugee entry, says he will prioritize Christian refugees - The ...
Acts of Faith
Trump signs order

limiting refugee entry,
says he will prioritize
Christian refugees
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey January 27
President Trump signed an executive order Friday instituting extreme vetting of refugees, aimed at keeping
out radical Islamic terrorists.
Im establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of
America, Trump said during his signing of the order. We dont want them here. We want to make sure we
are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.
According to drafts of the executive action, the order bars people from the Muslim-majority countries of Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen from entering the United States for 30 days and suspends the
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days. The program will be reinstated only for nationals of
countries for whom members are vetted by Trumps administration.
In an interview Friday with the Christian Broadcast Network, Trump said he plans to help persecuted
Christians.
Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United
States? Trump said. If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were
chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/27/we-dont-want-them-th... 1/30/2017
In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union declared Trumps action just a euphemism for
discrimination against Muslims.
From both legal and historical perspectives, the plan to ban refugees from specific countries is within the
powers granted to the president under current law and historical precedent, according to Charles Haynes,
vice president of the Newseum Institutes Religious Freedom Center. However, whether the president can
limit the ban to one religious group is another question.
Many Muslims, especially Shiites, are among the religious minorities under attack, Haynes said. This raises
moral and humanitarian concerns about excluding them from entrance to the U.S. while permitting people of
other faiths, he said. Whether this policy rises to the level of a constitutional violation is uncertain and will
be debated by constitutional scholars in the coming weeks.
Issues related to the Constitution and religion are usually associated with matters of sex, such as
contraceptives and LGBT discrimination, but some observers said they expect Trumps actions on
immigration to raise new challenges for religious freedom, according to Chelsea Langston Bombino of the
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance at the Center for Public Justice. Several organizations, she noted,
are speaking out against orders that will hurt the very people that their organizations were established, out
of a religious calling, to serve, she said.
Trumps actions have been decried by several religious groups this week. The expected cutbacks to U.S.
refugee programs and funding will compromise our ability to do this work and the infrastructure needed to
serve refugees in the years to come, evangelical ministry World Relief said in a statement.
Acts of Faith newsletter

Sign up
Conversations about faith and values.
And in a strongly worded statement, Rabbi Jack Moline, the Interfaith Alliance president, noted that
this decision was announced on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
For decades, the United States has prided itself as a safe bastion for refugees around the globe escaping war
and persecution, he said. President Trump is poised to trample upon that great legacy with a de facto
Muslim ban.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations will on Monday announce a federal lawsuit on behalf of more
than 20 people challenging the constitutionality of the executive order.
There is no evidence that refugees the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation are a
threat to national security, said CAIR national litigation director Lena F. Masri. This is an order that is
based on bigotry, not reality.
This post has been updated.
Sarah Pulliam Bailey is a religion reporter, covering how faith intersects with politics, culture
and...everything. Follow @spulliam
The Post Recommends
An America first philosophy? During Mays

visit, its more like Trump first.
The new presidents view of the world seems to revolve around
him and his personal relationships.
Facing criticism, Trump administration has

no regrets about leaving out Jews in
Holocaust statement
What might have been seen as an oversight was confirmed by
White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks to have been an
intentional decision.
Trump orders Pentagon to draft ISIS

strategy, restructuring of security council
New rules concerning lobbying are also among executive orders
signed Saturday.
PAID PROMOTED STORIES Recommended by
This page has been intentionally left blank
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants (Receipt #
2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 114
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court For the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXTPAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

SAE OF WASHINGTON DONALD TRUMP; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
JOHN F. KELLY; TOM SHANNON; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
C Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
800 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2000 SEATTLE, WA 98104
206-464-7744
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X' in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Boxfor Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
L 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation O6 6

Foreign Country
TV_ NATTTRF. OF CTTTT mi.,,o.,n "rr" i., n.,o tt.,,- n.,l,d Click here for' Nattue of Suit Code Descrintions
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal O 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability O 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation
Student Loans O 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders' Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
O 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts
O 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CTVIL'RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation X 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict O 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not c reJarisdictional statutes unless diversy
' ~
d
CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, INA, FARRA, RFRA and APA
VI. Brief description of cause:
Constitutional Challenge to Executive Order dated January 27, 2017
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
01/30/2017
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

CIVIL COVER SHEET re 1 Complaint, ; filed by Plaintiff State of Washington. (Purcell,
// PAGE 2
Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , filed by Plaintiff State of Washington.
// PAGE 1
Attorney General
2 WSBA #26004
NOAH G. PURCELL
3 WSBA #43492
Solicitor General
4 COLLEEN M. MELODY
WSBA #42275
Seattle, WA 98104
7 206-464-7744

9
10
Plaintiff,
11 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
v. RESTRAINING ORDER
12
13 capacity as President of the United Motion Noted: January 30, 2017
14 HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F.
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
24 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

RESTRAINING ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
25 206-464-774
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................2
4 III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................4
5 A. Standard for Granting Temporary Relief ...........................................................4
6 B. The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits Because the Executive Order is
Illegal in Many Respects ....................................................................................5
7
1. The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits of Its Claim that the
8 Executive Order Violates the Equal Protection Clause ..............................5
9 a. Standard of Review .............................................................................5
10 b. Strict scrutiny applies ..........................................................................6
11 c. The Executive Order fails strict scrutiny ............................................8
12 d. Even Under rational basis review, the Executive Order fails .............9
13 2. The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits of Its Claim that the
Executive Order Violates the Establishment Clause ................................11
14
15 Executive Order Violates Due Process .....................................................14
16 a. The denial of re-entry to and de facto travel ban on certain legal

permanent residents and visaholders violates their due process
17 rights..................................................................................................14
18 b. The blanket ban on all refugees violates their due process right to
the fair administration of congressionally enacted policies and
19 procedures .........................................................................................18
Executive Order Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act ..............19
21
22

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY i
24 RESTRAINING ORDER
1125 Washington Street SE
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 C. The State, its Residents, and its Businesses Are Suffering and Will Continue
to Suffer Irreparable Harm Due to the Executive Order ..................................21
2
D. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Sharply Favor Preliminary
3 Relief ................................................................................................................23
4 II. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................24
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ii
PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Federal courts have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against
irrational, discriminatory conduct. Over the last 48 hours, federal courts across the country
3
have exercised this role, ordering President Trumps administration to release individuals
4
who were detained pursuant to the Presidents Executive Order on immigration and refugees
5
issued late on Friday, January 27. Each of those courts found a significant likelihood that the
6 Executive Order violates federal law. Today, the State of Washington asks this Court to make
7 the same finding and to enter a nationwide temporary restraining order barring enforcement
8 of portions of the order. This relief is necessary to protect the State, its residents, and its
businesses from ongoing irreparable harm, and is overwhelmingly in the public interest.
9
President Trumps Executive Order bans all refugees from entering the country for
10
120 days, and bans all refugees from Syria indefinitely, whether they be infants,
11
schoolchildren, or grandmothers. Washington families waiting to be reunited with their loved
12 ones have had their dreams of reunification destroyed, as their refugee relatives around the
13 world were taken off airplanes or told they are no longer welcome.
14 The Order also bans nationals from seven countries from entering the United States
for 90 days. Though the administrations interpretation of the Order has changed repeatedly
15
over the last 48 hours, it has applied the Order to block longtime legal permanent residents
16
from returning to this country, and the Orders text purports to grant the administration
17
authority to continue denying entry to such residents. This entry ban is harming legal
18 permanent residents who live in Washington, Washington businesses that employ residents
19 from the listed countries, and Washington families whose loved ones are trying to visit them.
20 In addition to suffering these irreparable harms, the State has a strong likelihood of
success on its claims. The Executive Order has both the intent and effect of discriminating
21
based on national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution. Strict scrutiny applies,
22

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 1
PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 and the order fails utterly. Even if rational basis review applied, the Order would fail because
2 it is motivated by discriminatory animus and bears no relationship to its purported ends.
While preventing terrorist attacks is an important goal, the order does nothing to further that
3
purpose by denying admission to children fleeing Syrias civil war, to refugees who valiantly
4
assisted the U.S. military in Iraq, or to law-abiding high-tech workers who have lived in
5
Washington for years. The Order also violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.
6 In short, the Order is illegal, is causing and will continue to cause irreparable harm in
7 Washington, and is contrary to the public interest. The Court should fulfill its constitutional
8 role as a check on executive abuse and temporarily bar enforcement of the Order nationwide.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9
Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would ban Muslims from entering
10
the United States. Compl. For Decl. & Inj. Relief (Compl.) 28, ECF No. 1. On December
11
7, 2015, he issued a press release calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
12 entering the United States. Compl. 29. Over the next several months, he defended and
13 reiterated this promise. Compl. 30-32. On August 15, 2016, Trump proposed an
14 ideological screening test for immigration applicants, which he referred to as extreme
vetting. Compl. 33.

15
Following his inauguration, President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to extreme
16
vetting. Compl. 34. Within one week of taking office, President Trump signed an order
17
entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. Compl.
18 35. The Order directs a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens
19 may obtain admission to the United States. Id. Among other things, it imposes a 120-day
20 moratorium on the refugee resettlement program as a whole; indefinitely suspends the entry
of Syrian refugees; and suspends for 90 days entry of all immigrants and nonimmigrants
21
from seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 Compl. 36-38. President Trump subsequently stated that the purpose of the Executive
2 Order was to establish new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the
United States. Compl. 40. He also confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the
3
Middle East for admission as refugees. Compl. 39.
4
The Executive Order has had immediate and significant effects in Washington. Most
5
urgently, the Order is tearing Washington families apart. Husbands are separated from wives,
6 brothers are separated from sisters, and parents are separated from their children. Compl.
7 20-22. Some who have waited decades to see family members had that reunion taken
8 without warning or reason. Compl. 20. While the anecdotal stories are heartbreaking, Decl.
of E. Chiang 11-13, the sheer number of people affected is also notable. Over 7,000
9
noncitizen immigrants from the affected countries reside in Washington. Compl. 10; Decl.
10
of N. Purcell 7; Ex. A. These Washingtonians now face considerable uncertainty about
11
whether and when they may travel. Compl. 21. Additionally, an unknown but large number
12 of Washington residents are originally from these countries but are now U.S. citizens, who
13 wish to be able to receive visits from overseas relatives or see them move here as refugees or
14 otherwise.
Washingtons businesses and economy are also impacted. Washington-based travel

15
company Expedia is incurring costs to assist its customers who are now banned from travel
16
to the United States. Decl. of R. Dzielak 12-14, 20. Washington companies Amazon,
17
Expedia, and Microsoft depend on skilled immigrants to operate and grow their businesses.
18 Compl. 11-12, 14-16; Decl. of A. Blackwell-Hawkins 3-4; Decl. of R. Dzielak 7, 9.
19 At least 76 Microsoft employees are originally from the affected countries and hold
20 temporary work visas. Compl. 14. As a result of the Executive Order, such employees may
be banned from reentering the United States if they travel overseas. Id. The Executive Order
21
will affect these companies ability to recruit and retain talented workers, to the detriment of
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 Washingtons economy and tax base. Compl. 13; Decl. of R. Dzielak 7, 21; see also
2 Decl. of A. Blackwell-Hawkins 4, 11.
The Executive Order is also harming Washingtons educational institutions. More

3
than 95 immigrants from the affected countries attend the University of Washington. Compl.
4
17; Decl. of J. Riedinger 5. More than 130 attend Washington State University. Decl. of
5
A. Chaudhry 5. The Executive Order is already disrupting students personal and
6 professional lives, preventing travel for research and scholarship, and harming the
7 universities missions. Decl. of J. Riedinger 6-8; Decl. of A. Chaudhry 6-9.
8 As long as the Executive Order is in place, it will continue to have these serious,
pointless effects on Washingtons families, businesses, and educational institutions.

9
III. ARGUMENT
10
A. Standard for Granting Temporary Relief
11
To obtain a temporary restraining order, the State must establish 1) a likelihood of
12 success on the merits; 2) that irreparable harm is likely in the absence of preliminary relief;
13 3) that the balance of equities tips in the States favor; and 4) that an injunction is in the
14 public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L.
Ed. 2d 249 (2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1); Stuhlbarg Intl Sales Co. v. John D. Brush &
15
Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). And while the State can establish all of these
16
factors, [h]ow strong a claim on the merits is enough depends on the balance of harms: the
17
more net harm an injunction can prevent, the weaker the plaintiffs claim on the merits can
18 be while still supporting some preliminary relief. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632
19 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. John
20 Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009)). Thus, while the States claims on
the merits are extremely strong, temporary relief would be appropriate even if they were less
21
clearly meritorious given how sharply the balance of harms tips in the States favor.
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
Illegal in Many Respects
2 The Executive Order violates multiple provisions of the Constitution and federal
3 statutes. As demonstrated below, the State is highly likely to prevail on the merits.
Executive Order Violates the Equal Protection Clause
5
a. Standard of review
6 The Fifth Amendment has an equal protection component, Harris v. McRae, 448
7 U.S. 297, 297 (1980), and noncitizens com[e] within the ambit of the equal protection
component of the Due Process Clause, Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 974
8
(9th Cir. 2004). In equal protection analysis, the court first decides whether a challenged
9
classification burdens a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Ball v. Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 823
10
(9th Cir. 2001). If the statute employs a suspect class (such as race, religion, or national
11 origin) or burdens the exercise of a constitutional right, then courts must apply strict scrutiny,
12 and ask whether the statute is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
13 Id. [C]lassifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently
suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372
14
(1971) (footnotes omitted); see also City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976)
15
(religion is an inherently suspect distinction). If no suspect classification is implicated, the
16
court applies rational basis review, and determines whether the statute is rationally related to
17 a legitimate governmental interest. Ball, 254 F.3d at 823.
18 While courts generally give more latitude to the political branches in the immigration
19 context, see, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001), this does not mean that the
political branches can act with impunity. In protecting its borders, this country does not set
20
aside its values or its Constitution. Id. (the political branches power is subject to important
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 constitutional limitations); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 941-42 (1983) (Congress must
2 choose a constitutionally permissible means of implementing its power over immigration).
Here, the Executive Order cannot pass muster under any standard of review. Its
3
blunderbuss approachprompted by irrational fear and blind animusis at odds with the
4
fundamental American promise that all are entitled to equal protection under the law.
5
b. Strict scrutiny applies
6 The Court should apply strict scrutiny to the Executive Order. While courts often
7 defer to the political branches reasoned judgments on immigration policy, they do not give a
8 blank check to ignore the law. Here, the State challenges not an act of Congress or a carefully
formulated regulation, but an Executive Order that was written largely by the Presidents
9
political advisers without consultation of legal experts or the National Security Council and
10
that flatly discriminates on the basis of national origin and religion, in at least three ways.
11
First, the executive order discriminates based on national origin by singling out
12 people from seven countries for an outright ban on admission to the United States. Notably,
13 the Executive Order on its face applies to lawful permanent residents from the listed
14 countries who live in the United States.1 Lawful permanent residents are accorded the same
constitutional protections as United States citizens. See Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344
15
U.S. 590, 596 (1953); see also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) ([O]nce an alien
16
lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by
17
the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the
18 First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth
19 Amendment.). The Orders blatant distinction between green-card holders currently residing
20 in the United States on the basis of national origin demands strict scrutiny. [C]lassifications
21 1
Although administration officials have since suggested that, despite the plain language of the
Executive Order, the ban might not be fully implemented against lawful permanent residents, the text of the
22 Executive Order remains in effect regardless of the ever-changing instructions from Defendants.

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 . . . based on nationality . . . are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny,
2 Graham, 403 U.S at 372, and are odious to a free people whose institutions are founded
upon the doctrine of equality. Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 646 (1948) (quoting
3
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943)).
4
Second, the executive order singles out refugees from Syria for differential treatment,
5
indefinitely suspending their entry whether they be toddlers or grandmothers. Syrian-
6 American families in Washington and across the country awaiting their refugee relatives are
7 left with no idea when their relatives will be allowed to come, solely based on nationality.
8 Third and finally, as discussed in more detail in Part B.2, the Executive Order
discriminates based on religion. On its face, the Executive Order requires immigration
9
officials to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based
10
persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the
11
individuals country of nationality. Sec. 5(b). As detailed below, comments by President
12 Trump and his advisers make clear that the intent of this provision is to give preference to
13 Christian refugees while disadvantaging Muslim refugees.2 Compl. 39; Ex. 8. Importantly,
14 the State need not show that intent to discriminate against Muslims was the sole purpose of
the challenged action, but only that it was a motivating factor. Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d
15
968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429
16
U.S. 252, 26566 (1977)). That standard is plainly met here based on the evidence presented.
17
There thus can be no dispute that the executive order uses suspect classifications. And
18 it does so not in furtherance of a congressionally authorized purpose, but rather in direct
19 violation of federal law (as discussed in Part B.4), which prohibits discrimination in the
20 issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons . . . nationality. 8 U.S.C.
21
2
See, e.g., https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858;
22 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/index.html; Compl. 29.

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 1152(a)(1)(A). In short, this is an extraordinary case that falls well outside the run-of-the-
2 mill immigration context in which deference to the political branches applies. The
Presidents decision to adopt suspect classifications in violation of federal law deserves strict
3
scrutiny.
4
c. The Executive Order fails strict scrutiny
5
The Executive Order cannot withstand strict scrutiny. Neither the temporary ban on
6 admission of aliens from certain countries nor the barring of refugees is narrowly tailored to
7 further a compelling government interest.
8 The order cites three rationales to support its temporary ban on admission of nationals
of seven countries: To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies . . . , to

9
ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of
10
foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration
11
by foreign terrorists or criminals. Sec. 3(c). The first rationaleessentially a desire to
12 conserve resources by discriminatingis not compelling,3 and in any case the order is not
13 narrowly tailored to achieve any of these goals.
14 To begin with, the Order is profoundly overbroad. Section 3(c) bans those from
disfavored countries without any evidence that any individual poses a threat of terrorism. It
15
sweeps within its ambit infant children, the disabled, long-time U.S. residents, those fleeing
16
terrorism, those who assisted the United States in conflicts overseas, and many others who
17
the government has no reason to suspect are terrorists. The government simply cannot
18 establish any factual basis for presuming that all people from a given country pose such a
19 great risk that an outright entry banrather than less extreme measuresis warranted.
20
21 3
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 263 (1974) (a state may not protect the public
fisc by drawing an invidious distinction between classes of people); Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d
22 1101, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (simply saving money is not a compelling interest).

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 At the same time, the order is also underinclusive to achieve its purported ends. By
2 way of example, the Executive Order recites the tragic events of September 11, 2001, but
imposes no entry restrictions on people from the countries whose nationals carried out those
3
attacks (Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). Decl. N. Purcell 8;
4
Ex. B. As to admission of refugees, the order claims that a temporary prohibition is necessary
5
to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for
6 refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States. Sec.
7 5. Citing no evidence at all, the Order declares that the entry of nationals of Syria as
8 refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States. Sec. 5(c). But assertion is not
evidence, and there is no evidence that refugees pose any unique risk to the United States.4
9
[S]trict scrutiny requires a direct rather than approximate fit of means to ends.
10
Hunter ex rel. Brandt v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 190 F.3d 1061, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
11
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has emphasized that equal protection
12 guards against sweeping generalizations about categories of people based on traits such as
13 national origin or religion.5 Here, there is no fit between the rationales advanced to support
14 the Executive Order and the means used to further those rationales.
15 d. Even under rational basis review, the Executive Order fails

The State is also likely to prevail on the merits of its equal protection claim should the
16
Court employ rational basis review.
17
18
19 4
A recent and exhaustive study concluded that the chance of an American being killed by a refugee in
a terrorist attack is 1 in 3.64 billion a year. Alex Nowrasteh, Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis, at 2,
20 Cato Institute (Sept. 13, 2016) (Cato Institute).
5
See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 647 (1993) (striking down racial gerrymander because [i]t
21 reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group . . . think alike, share the same political
interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls); City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469,
493 (1989) (strict scrutiny ensures that the means chosen fit [a purported] compelling goal so closely that
22 there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate . . . prejudice or stereotype).

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 There are two versions of the rational basis testtraditional rational basis review
2 and a more rigorous rational basis standard. United States v. Wilde, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1092,
1096 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Where a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a
3
suspect class, the classification must be upheld so long as it bears a rational relation to
4
some legitimate end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). When a classification does,
5
in fact, adversely affect[ ] an unpopular group, courts apply a more searching rational basis
6 review. Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
7 (citing Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2011)).
8 The Constitutions guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare
[legislative] desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment
9
of that group. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (quoting Dept of
10
Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534-35 (1973)). Thus, courts cast a more skeptical eye
11
toward legislation that has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated
12 disability on a single named group. Romer, 517 U.S. at 632. Accordingly, when legislation
13 seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects[,] it lacks a rational
14 relationship to legitimate state interests. Id. Likewise, the government has no legitimate
interest in catering to mere negative attitudes, or fears that some residents may have
15
against a disfavored minority. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.
16
432, 448 (1985). Simply put, the government may not avoid the strictures of [equal
17
protection] by deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic. Id.
18 There is little doubt that the Executive Order is prompted by animus to those of the
19 Islamic faith, which was one of the pillars of President Trumps campaign. On December 7,
20 2015, President Trumps Campaign released a statement indicating that Donald J. Trump is
calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. See
21
Compl. 29; Ex. 1. The Campaigns spokesperson thereafter defended President Trump
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 against criticism as follows: So what? Theyre Muslim. See Decl. of N. Purcell 9; Ex. C.
2 In the face of significant criticism, President Trump announced that he would expand his
proposed blanket ban to any nation that has been compromised by terrorism but use
3
different words to describe it:
4
I actually dont think its a rollback. In fact, you could say its an
5 expansion. . . . Im looking now at territory. People were so upset when
I used the word Muslim. Oh, you cant use the word Muslim.
6 Remember this. And Im OK with that, because Im talking territory
instead of Muslim.
7 Comp. 32; Ex. 4. Even after issuing the order, President Trumps statements confirm that it
8 is designed to disfavor Muslims. Compl. 39; Ex. 8. The bottom line is that the Executive
Order is designed to adversely affect[ ] an unpopular group, calling for the court [ to]
9
apply a more searching rational basis review. Golinski, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 996 (citing
10
Diaz, 656 F.3d at 1012).
11
Even assuming the absence of animus and the application of ordinary rational basis
12 review, the Executive Order bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental
13 purpose. Romer, 517 U.S. at 635. There is simply no basis to conclude that existing
14 screening procedures are uniquely failing as to individuals from the listed countries or as to
refugees. Instead, the Executive Order panders to irrational fears about Muslims and
15
refugees, and bears no rational relationship to any government interest.
16
17 Executive Order Violates the Establishment Clause
The Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
18
because both its purpose and effect are to favor one religion over another. The clearest
19
command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially
20
preferred over another. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). Thus, where a law
21 grant[s] a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as
22 suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality. Id. at 246. In

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 Larson, the law at issue did not mention any religious denomination by name, but drew a
2 distinction between religious groups based on the percentage of their revenue received from
non-members, which had the effect of harming certain religious groups. Id. at 231-32.
3
Because the law was focused on religious entities and had the effect of distinguishing
4
between them in a way that favored some, the Court applied strict scrutiny. Id. at 246-47.
5
The Court should apply the Larson approach here. The Executive Orders refugee
6 provisions explicitly distinguish between members of religious faiths, granting priority to
7 refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution only if the
8 religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individuals country of nationality.
Section 5(b). President Trump and his advisers have made clear that the very purpose of this
9
order is to tilt the scales in favor of Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims. Compl.
10
39; Ex. 8. This case thus involves just the sort of discrimination among denominations that
11
failed strict scrutiny in Larson, and the Executive Order should likewise be invalidated.
12 Even if the Executive Order did not explicitly distinguish between denominations, the
13 Court would still need to apply the three-part Lemon test to determine whether the
14 government has violated the Establishment Clause. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary
15
effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not
16
foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Id. at 612. While the
17
government must satisfy all three prongs, here it can satisfy none.
18 First, the Executive Orders purpose is not secular because President Trumps
19 purpose in issuing this Orderas confirmed by his own public statementsis to endorse or
20 disapprove of religion. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 75-76 (1985). In analyzing
government purpose, it is the duty of the courts to distinguish a sincere secular purpose
21
from one that is either a sham or that is secondary to a predominantly religious
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 purpose. McCreary Cty., Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 865 (2005)
2 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This duty requires a Court to scrutinize all
probative evidence, to exercise common sense, and to refuse to turn a blind eye to the
3
context in which [the] policy arose. Id. at 866 (alteration in original). In so doing, a court
4
looks carefully at both the historical context of the governments action and the specific
5
sequence of events leading to [its] passage. Id. (alteration in original). As the Supreme
6 Court has explained, this inquiry into purpose at times requires invalidation of an action that
7 otherwise would have been constitutional: One consequence of taking account of the
8 purpose underlying past actions is that the same government action may be constitutional if
taken in the first instance and unconstitutional if it has a sectarian heritage. Id. at 866 n.14.
9
In short, given that President Trumps actual purpose in issuing this Order is to endorse or
10
disapprove of religion, Wallace, 472 U.S. at 75-76, the Order violates the first prong of the
11
Lemon test.
12 The Order also violates Lemons second prong, which requires that the principal or
13 primary effect . . . be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Governmental action
14 violates this prong if it is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling
denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their

15
individual religious choices. Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1256 (9th Cir.
16
2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court analyzes this prong from the point of
17
view of a reasonable observer who is informed . . . [and] familiar with the history of the
18 government practice at issue. See id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
19 omitted). Thus, the question here is whether an informed, reasonable observer would
20 perceive this Executive Order as an endorsement of one religion, as disapproval of another,
or both? In light of the evidence cited above, there is little question that the answer to this
21
question is in the affirmative.
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 As to the third prong, the Order foster[s] an excessive governmental entanglement
2 with religion by favoring one religious group over another, which engender[s] a risk of
politicizing religion. Larson, 456 U.S. at 252-53. Selectively burdening those of the Muslim
3
faith and favoring those of the Christian faith creates improper entanglement with religion.
4
In short, because the Executive Order fails the Larson test and every prong of the
5
Lemon test, it emphatically violates the Establishment Clause.
Executive Order Violates Due Process
7
The Executive Order violates the procedural due process rights of immigrants and
8
non-immigrants from the seven impacted countries, including those who reside and work in
9 Washington, are professors and students at Washington universities, and want to travel to
10 Washington to visit their families. First, due process requires that the United States at a
11 minimum provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before denying re-entry to legal
permanent residents or visaholders with longer term residency rights such as under an H-1B
12
visa (workers) and f visas (students). Moreover, the United States must provide due process
13
before restricting their vital liberty interests in travelling across United States borders.
14
Second, Congresss grant of a statutory right to seek asylum or protection under the
15 Convention Against Torture requires that the United States administer those policies and
16 procedures consistent with due process. The Orders blanket prohibition on all refugees for
17 120 days and on Syrian refugees indefinitely contravenes refugees due process rights.

permanent residents and visaholders violates their due process
rights
19
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order denies entry to the United States to all persons
20
from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, including visaholders and legal
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 permanent residents with the legal right to leave and re-enter the United States.6 Under that
2 policy, legal permanent residents and visaholders travelling abroad will be deported if they
attempt to re-enter the United States, and those who remain will be forced to refrain from
3
international travel to avoid that devastating result. This draconian restriction violates the due
4
process rights of those individuals.
5
The Fifth Amendment protects all persons who have entered the United States from
6 deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Mathews v. Diaz, 426
7 U.S. 67, 69, 77 (1976) (internal citation omitted). This protection applies to all persons
8 within our borders, regardless of immigration status. Id. (Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment extends even to those whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary,
9
or transitory); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001); United States v. Raya-Vaca,
10
771 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2014). There is no exception to this rule. Id., 771 F.3d at
11
1203.
12 A temporary absence from our shores does not deprive visaholders and legal
13 permanent residents of their right to due process. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei,
14 345 U.S. 206, 213 (1953) (citing Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 601 (1953)
(holding that denial of re-entry to legal permanent resident must comport with due process
15
where resident had spent four months abroad); Ricketts v. Simonse, No. 16 CIV. 6662 (LGS),
16
2016 WL 7335675, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (legal permanent resident who had
17
spent a few weeks abroad and was caught with drugs upon re-entry entitled to due process).
18 Due process requires that legal permanent residents and visaholders not be denied re-
19 entry to the United States without at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to respond.
20
6
The Executive Order excludes from this restriction only those foreign nationals traveling
21 on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United
Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). Executive Order Sec. 3(c). This group is limited
22 essentially to diplomatic visas.

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d at 1204. Aliens who have entered the United Stateswhether legally
2 or illegallycannot be expelled without the government following established procedures
consistent with the requirements of due process. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927 (9th
3
Cir. 2004) (citing Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212). Specifically, due process guarantees that
4
individuals denied re-entry be provided a full and fair hearing of his [or her] claims and a
5
reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his [or her] behalf. Colmenar v. INS, 210
6 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000); Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011)
7 (same). Although Congress has prescribed certain circumstances under which an individual
8 may be denied re-entry to the United States, those procedures must comport with due
process. See, e.g., Pantoja-Gayton v. Holder, 366 F. Appx 739, 741 (9th Cir. 2010) (legal
9
permanent resident deemed inadmissible upon re-entry for child smuggling, but entitled to a
10
full hearing before an immigration judge to contest that finding).
11
The denial of re-entry to all visaholders and legal permanent residents from the
12 impacted countries, without an opportunity to be heard, is a prima facie violation of those
13 due process principles. The Executive Order provides that all individuals from the impacted
14 countries be denied entry to the United States, irrespective of their immigration status. On its
face, the Order bars legal permanent residents from impacted countries from reentry into the
15
United States if they travel aboard. The Order also denies the rights of H-1B visa holders
16
from re-entry if they travel abroad. As noted, there are a significant number of workers at
17
Washington businesses and students at Washington universities impacted. Similarly, the
18 Order on its face denies the rights to students here on f visas to reenter if they leave the
19 country at any time during their studies. The denial of re-entry to legal permanent residents
20 and such visaholders absent an opportunity to be heard, much less proceedings conforming
to . . . due process of law, is patently unconstitutional. Shaughnessy, 345 U.S. at 212.

21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 The Orders impact on the right to travel also violates due process. In determining
2 whether a new policy such as the Order violates due process, courts must consider the
interest at stake for the individual, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through
3
the procedures used as well as the probable value of additional or different procedural
4
safeguards, and the interest of the government in using the current procedures rather than
5
additional or different procedures. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982) (citing
6 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)). Here, the Executive Order deprives
7 noncitizens of the right to travel, a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Kent v. Dulles,
8 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958) (holding that Secretary of State could not deny passports to
Communists on the basis that right to travel abroad is a constitutionally protected liberty
9
interest). The right to travel may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of
10
what he eats, or wears, or reads, and is basic in our scheme of values. Id. at 126. And for
11
many noncitizens residing in Washington pursuant to H-1B visas, international travel is a
12 central component of their work. See id. (noting that [t]ravel abroad, like travel within the
13 country, may be necessary for a livelihood). For visaholders or legal permanent residents
14 with family abroad, the de facto travel ban also denies the right to connect with their families,
a right that ranks high among the interests of the individual. Id. In contrast to these vital
15
liberty interests, the denial of re-entry to noncitizens with lawful immigration status does
16
nothing to advance the governments interest in the efficient administration of the
17
immigration laws at the border. Landon, 459 U.S. at 34. The denial of re-entry to all persons
18 from the seven affected countries, irrespective of immigration status, and resulting travel ban
19 violate the due process rights of legal permanent residents and visaholders.
20
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
2 procedures
Congress has created a statutory right whereby persons persecuted in their own
3
country may petition for asylum in the United States. U.S.C. 1158(a)(1) ([a]ny alien who
4
is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States. . . irrespective of
5 such aliens status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section). Federal law
6 prohibits the return of a noncitizen to a country where he may face torture or persecution. See
7 8 U.S.C. 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), implemented in
the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title
8
XXII, 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. 1231).
9
Congress has established procedures to implement those statutory rights, which includes
10
providing refugees the right to present evidence in support of a claim for asylum or CAT
11 protection, to move for reconsideration of an adverse decision, and to seek judicial review of
12 a final order denying their claims. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927 (9th Cir. 2004).
13 In enacting these statutory rights, Congress created, at a minimum, a constitutionally
protected right to petition our government for political asylum. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v.
14
Smith, 676 F.2d 1023, 1038 (5th Cir. 1982). The constitutionally protected right to petition
15
for asylum invoke[s] the guarantee of due process. Id. at 1039; Andriasian v. I.N.S., 180
16
F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Lanza, 389 F.3d at 927 (The due process afforded
17 aliens stems from those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that minimum
18 due process rights attach to statutory rights.) (internal marks and quotation omitted). Due
19 process requires at a minimum that refugees seeking asylum receive a full and fair hearing.
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010). It also requires that refugees have the
20
opportunity to consult with an attorney.
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 The Executive Order violates the due process rights of refugees because it provides
2 no avenue for refugees to have their asylum claims heard. Instead, it explicitly states that the
United States will not entertain asylum claims from certain groups for a specified period of
3
time, regardless of the merits of individual asylum claims. This contravenes the due process
4
requirement that refugees receive a full and fair hearing on their claims for relief. Zetino,
5
622 F.3d at 1013. It also denies refugees their constitutionally protected right to the effective
6 assistance of counsel. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004).
7 Moreover, the denial of refugees constitutionally protected right to petition for
8 asylum does nothing to advance the governments interest in the efficient administration of
the immigration laws at the border. Landon, 459 U.S. at 34. That interest is satisfied by the
9
rigorous procedures already in place to vet requests for asylum. Refugees are subject to the
10
highest level of background and security checks of any category of traveler to the United
11
States, in a process that often takes years to complete.7 Accordingly, the ban on refugees
12 violates the due process rights of refugees seeking asylum within the United States.
Executive Order Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
14
The State is also likely to establish that Sections 3(c) and 5(c) of the Executive Order
15 violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Enacted in 1965, 8 U.S.C.
16 1152(a)(1)(A) clearly states, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be
17 discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons race, sex,
nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. By suspending entry of refugees from Syria
18
indefinitely, and immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, for
19
20 7
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, USCIS, Refugee Processing and Security Screening (2015),
available at https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening; see also White House, President Barack Obama,
21 Infographic: The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States (Nov. 2015), available at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-
states (noting that [r]efugees undergo more rigorous screening than anyone else we allow into the United
22 States and are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler).

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 90 days, the Executive Order squarely violates the INA. See U.S. v. Ron Pair Enterprises,
2 Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026 (1989) (holding the plain meaning of legislation
should be conclusive). While the INA refers only to discrimination in the issuance of an
3
immigrant visa, the statute would be rendered meaningless if it did not equally prohibit
4
attempts, like President Trumps, to deny an immigrants entry into the country altogether.
5
See Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dept of State,, 45 F.3d 469 (D.C.
6 Cir. 1995) (holding that Congress, in enacting section 1152, unambiguously directed that no
7 nationality-based discrimination shall occur).
8 Defendants may argue the President has power to suspend the entry of any class of
aliens when their entry is detrimental to the interests of the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
9
1182(f). Such an argument, however, is unavailing. Congress enacted Section 1182 in
10
1952, well before it passed section 1152. Whatever section 1182 meant when it was adopted,
11
the enactment of the INA amendments in 1965, including section 1152, marked a profound
12 change in the law by abolishing the national origin quota system, establishing a uniform
13 quota system, and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Olsen v.
14 Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) (citingPub. L. No. 89-236). Passed alongside the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the legislative history of the
15
INA Amendments of 1965 is replete with the bold anti-discriminatory principles of the Civil
16
Rights Era. Olsen, 990 F.Supp. at 37. It is inconceivable that, in enacting anti-discrimination
17
provisions in 1965, Congress intended to leave the President with the ability to adopt the
18 same sort of overtly discriminatory measures Congress was outlawing. Accepting the
19 Presidents approach would take us back to a period in our history when distinctions based
20 on national origin were accepted as the natural order of things, rather than outlawed as the
pernicious discrimination that they are. Cf. Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 595, 606
21
(1889) (sustaining the Chinese Exclusion Act because the Chinese remained strangers in the
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 land, constituted a great danger [to the country] unless prompt action was taken to
2 restrict their immigration, and were dangerous to [the countrys] peace and security).
3 C. The State, its Residents, and its Businesses Are Suffering and Will Continue to
Suffer Irreparable Harm Due to the Executive Order
4 To obtain preliminary relief, the State must show that irreparable harm is likely
5 before a decision on the merits can be issued. The State meets this test on several grounds.
First, because the State has shown a likelihood of success on its Establishment Clause
6
claim, harm is presumed. See, e.g., Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454
7
F.3d 290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ([W]here a movant alleges a violation of the Establishment
8
Clause, this is sufficient, without more, to satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purposes of
9 the preliminary injunction determination.); Parents Assn of P.S. 16 v. Quinones, 803 F.2d
10 1235, 1242 (2d Cir. 1986) (applying same rule).
11 Second, even aside from the Establishment Clause claim, the States complaint,
motion, and supporting evidence demonstrate overwhelming irreparable harm. Irreparable

12
harm is harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.
13
Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuits
14
decision in Arizona Dream Act provides a directly applicable example. Undocumented
15 persons who qualified for the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program
16 (DACA) sought a preliminary injunction against Arizonas policy of denying drivers
17 licenses to DACA recipients. Id. at 1057-58. The Ninth Circuit held that irreparable harm
existed because the lack of a drivers license stopped immigrants from getting to work,
18
thereby hurting their ability to pursue their chosen professions. Id. at 1068. The same harm is
19
experienced by workers or students prevented from entering or returning to the United States.
20
[A] delay, even if only a few months, pending trial represents . . . productive time
21 irretrievably lost. Id. (second alteration in original).
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 The injuries to Washington residents and families are not merely professional and
2 financial, but also profound and irreparable psychological injuries. As detailed in the attached
declarations, the Order is resulting in longtime Washington residents being separated from or
3
kept apart from their families, often in heartbreaking situations. Decl. E. Chiang 5-7, 11-
4
13.
5
Washington businesses are also suffering irreparable injuries. Immigrant and refugee-
6 owned businesses employ 140,000 people in Washington. Washingtons technology industry
7 relies heavily on the H-1B visa program. Nationwide, Washington ranks ninth in the number
8 of applications for high-tech visas. Microsoft, which is headquartered in Washington,
employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington companies, including
9
Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders. Loss of highly
10
skilled workers puts Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage with global
11
competitors. [I]ntangible injuries, such as damage to ongoing recruitment efforts and
12 goodwill, qualify as irreparable harm. Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Tel. Appliance Rental,
13 Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991).
14 The Executive Order is also causing irreparable harm to Washingtons college
students and universities. At the University of Washington, more than ninety-five students
15
are immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen. Decl. of J.
16
Riedinger 5. The number at Washington State University is over 135. Decl. J. Riedinger
17
6-8; Decl. of A. Chaudry 6-10. Because of the Executive Order, these students are missing
18 out on research and educational opportunities, travel to visit their families, study abroad, and
19 other irreplaceable activities that cannot be compensated through money damages. [cite decs]
20 The universities also risk losing current and future students, a harm that cannot be remedied
with monetary damages. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 747 F.2d 511, 519-
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 20 (9th Cir. 1984) (loss of ability to recruit athletes, loss of national ranking, and dissipation
2 of alumni goodwill are irreparable harm).
3 D. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Sharply Favor Preliminary Relief
The Court must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect
4
on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
5
Since this case involves the government, the balance of equities factor merges with the fourth
6 factor, public interest. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013).
7 The balance tips sharply in favor of the State. The balance of equities and public
8 interest always favor prevent[ing] the violation of a partys constitutional rights. Melendres
v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition,
9
the State has shown irreparable, concrete harm to Washington residents, businesses, students,
10
and universities. Meanwhile, as detailed above, the overbreadth and underbreadth of the
11
order mean that it does little if anything to further its alleged purpose of preventing terrorism.
12 And the requested relief is narrowly tailored to affect only those parts of the Order causing
13 the State harm. While the State seeks a nationwide injunction, that relief is appropriate for
14 two reasons: (1) Congress and the courts have emphasized the importance of uniformity in
applying immigration policies nationwide; and (2) nationwide relief is necessary to ensure
15
that State residents and those traveling to meet them are not stopped at other ports of entry
16
around the country or interfered with by officials in Washington, DC, on their way to
17
Washington State. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 768-69 (5th Cir. 2015)
18 (affirming nationwide injunction to ensure uniformity and provide full relief).
19
20
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200
1 II. CONCLUSION
Sometimes federal courts are the only entities that can immediately halt abuses by the
2
executive branch. This is such a case. The State asks this Court to play its constitutional role
3
and grant a nationwide temporary restraining order until such time as the Court can further
4
consider the merits.
6
Respectfully submitted,
7
8 s/ Robert W. Ferguson
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
9 WSBA #26004
NOAH G. PURCELL
10 WSBA #43492
Solicitor General
11 COLLEEN M. MELODY
WSBA #42275
13 Seattle, WA 98104
206-464-7744
14 noahp@atg.wa.gov
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

PO Box 40100
25 (360) 753-6200

9
10
Plaintiff,
11 [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY
ri RESTRAINING ORDER
12
18 Defendants.
19
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
20
This matter came before the Court on a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
21
brought by the Attorney General of the State of Washington. The Court has considered the
22
motion and documents filed therewith, including declarations, the exhibits attached thereto, the
23
State of Washington's Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and the arguments of
24
counsel provided at an emergency hearing held , at a.m./ p.m. in open
25
26
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING I ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

ORDER Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
1
court. Having considered the foregoing, the Court hereby enters the following findings of fact
2
and conclusions of law.
3
4
FINDINGS OF FACT
5
1. Plaintiff took the following steps to provide sufficient notice to Defendants:
6
a. Delivered a copy of the Complaint, the motion, declarations, and exhibits, to the
7
United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington;
8
b. Sent a copy of the same by certified mail to the Attorney General of the United
9
States at Washington D.C.; and
10
c. Called the offices of the United States Attorney for the Western District of
11
Washington at 8:30 a.m. to notify the office of Plaintiff's intention to file the
12
motion today.
13
2. Plaintiff faces an immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and
14
implementation of this Executive Order. The Executive Order affects Plaintiff's
15
residents in areas of employment, education, business, and travel, and affects the State
16
itself through harm to its employees, students, and tax revenue.
17
3. These harms are ongoing and significant.
18
4. A temporary restraining order against Defendants, as provided below, is necessary until
19
a determination of the merits of Plaintiff s claims can be held.
20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
21
5. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter of this action.
22
6. Plaintiffs efforts to contact Defendants reasonably and substantially complied with the
23
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
24
7. The Court deems no security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25
65(c).
26
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1
8. To obtain a temporary restraining order, the Plaintiff must establish 1) a likelihood of
2
success on the merits; 2) that irreparable harm is likely in the absence of preliminary
3
relief; 3) that the balance of equities tips in the Plaintiff's favor; and 4) that an
4
injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
5
20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).
6
9. Based on the Findings of Fact set forth above, there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiff
7
will succeed on the merits of its claim and irreparable injury is likely if the requested
8
restraining order is not issued.
9
10. The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff and the public interest weighs in favor
10
of entering temporary relief.
11
12
Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
13
1. Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys,
14
and persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of
15
this order are hereby fully enjoined from the following:
16
a. Enforcing Section 3(c) of the Executive Order;
17
b. Enforcing Section 5(a) of the Executive Order;
18
c. Enforcing Section 5(b) of the Executive Order, or proceeding with any action
19
that prioritizes only the refugee claims of certain religious minorities; and
20
d. Enforcing Section 5(c) of the Executive Order;
21
e. Enforcing Section 5(e) of the Executive Order, to the extent Section 5(e)
22
purports to prioritize only the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.
23
2. This injunction is granted nationwide, and prohibits enforcement of Sections 3(c),
24
5(a)-(c), and 5(e) at all United States borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of
25
visas, pending further orders from this Court.
26
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL of WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1
3. Defendants shall remain enjoined until an expedited hearing can be held at
2
a.m./p.m. on day of 2017.
3
4 DATED this day of January, 2017, at a.m./p.m.

5
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE [or UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE]
8
10
11
Presented by:
12
13
14 NOAH G. PURCELL
WSBA #43492
15
Solicitor General
(206) 464-7744
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , filed by Plaintiff State of Washington.
// PAGE 33
DECLARATION OF NOAH PURCELL re 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order
// PAGE 1
WSBA #26004
2 Attorney General
3 NOAH G. PURCELL
WSBA #43492
4 Solicitor General
COLLEEN M. MELODY
5 WSBA #42275

Seattle, WA 98104
8 206-464-7744

10
11
Plaintiff,
12 DECLARATION OF NOAH G.
v. PURCELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
13 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
DONALD TRUMP, in his official ORDER
Homeland Security; TOM
17 SHANNON, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of State; and the
18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
19 Defendants.
20
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), I, Noah G. Purcell, hereby declare as follows:
21
1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify.
22
2. I am the Solicitor General for the State of Washington. I make this declaration as a
23
representative of the State of Washington (State) in support of the Motion for
24
Temporary Restraining Order filed concurrently herewith.
25
26

Civil Rights Unit
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 442-4492
1
3. Pursuant to Western District of Washington Local Rule 65(b)(1), on January 30, 2017, I
2
caused an attorney on my staff to call the offices of the United States Attorney for the
3
Western District of Washington to provide notice of the States intent to file a Motion
4
for Temporary Restraining Order later that afternoon, and to note it for hearing on
5
January 30, 2017, the same day.
6
4. Counsel for the State spoke with Kerry Keef, Civil Chief, United States Attorneys
7
Office, Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220, Seattle,
8
Washington 98101, (206) 553-7970.
9
5. Ms. Keef advised that Defendants will be represented by attorneys within the Federal
10
Programs Division of the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.
11
6. No one from the Federal Programs Division has contacted counsel for the State.
12
7. A member of my staff queried and downloaded publicly available data from the U.S.
13
Census website regarding the number of non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya,
14
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (the seven (7) countries listed in the Presidents
15
Executive Order on immigration) residing in the State of Washington. Attached hereto
16
as Purcell Declaration Exhibit A is a table prepared by my staff member reflecting
17
that data.
18
8. Attached hereto as Purcell Declaration Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an
19
online printout of a news article from NPR dated January 27, 2017 titled Trumps
20
Immigration Freeze Omits Those Linked To Deadly Attacks in U.S.
21
9. Attached hereto as Purcell Declaration Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an
22
online printout of a news article dated December 9, 2015 titled Trump spokeswoman:
23
So What? Theyre Muslim.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
25
26 ///

Civil Rights Unit
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 442-4492
1
///
2
3 ///
Executed this 30th day of January, 2017.
4
5 s/ _Noah G. Purcell __________

Noah G. Purcell, WSBA #43492
6 Solicitor General
8 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Civil Rights Unit
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 442-4492
Purcell
Declaration
Exhibit A
Non-Citizen Immigrants in the State of Washington

From
Countries Listed in Presidents Executive Order
Country of Birth # of Non-Citizen Immigrants

Iran 1,409
Iraq 2,275
Libya 360
Somalia 2,883
Sudan 165
Syria 187
Yemen 0
Total 7,279
Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates, 2011-2015

Purcell
Declaration
Exhibit B
Trump's Immigration Freeze Omits Those Linked To

Deadly Attacks In U.S.
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Email
January 27, 20171:32 PM ET
Greg Myre
Facebook Twitter
'tom.
ClrRj
s
Enlarge this image
Protesters hold signs near the White House during a protest about President Donald Trump's
immigration policies on Wednesday. A proposed presidential action would freeze immigration from
seven mostly Muslim countries for security reasons. But the list does not include any of the countries
whose nationals have killed Americans in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. Alex Brandon/AP hide
caption
toggle caption
Alex Brandon/AP
Protesters hold signs near the White House during a protest about President Donald Trump's
immigration policies on Wednesday. A proposed presidential action would freeze immigration from
seven mostly Muslim countries for security reasons. But the list does not include any of the countries
whose nationals have killed Americans in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.
Alex Brandon/AP
Updated 2 p.m. ET
President Trump's freeze on immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries cites the potential
threat of terrorism. But here's the twist it doesn't include any countries from which radicalized
Muslims have actually killed Americans in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.
The president's executive action, which he signed Friday at the Pentagon, applies to these countries:
Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Sudan.
Yet no Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more
than two decades.
In contrast, here are the countries of origin of radicalized Muslims who carried out deadly attacks in
the U.S., beginning on Sept. 11, 2001: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates,
Pakistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.
The two lists are completely distinct, raising questions about the reasoning behind the White House
plan.
"These seven countries were identified by the Obama Administration as needing further travel
scrutiny," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Sunday on ABC's This NTeek. "There are 46
other countries with Muslim populations that are not part of this and I think that's an important
thing to note."
Article continues after sponsorshipBut there were many critics.
"I think this is an overreaction," says Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of
North Carolina, who has tracked Muslim extremism in the U.S. for years.
"We just haven't seen a large number of Muslim-Americans answering the call to revolutionary
violence that the self-proclaimed Islamic State and other groups have been pitching at them," he
adds.
The nations on the White House list include several mired in civil wars, as well as those that host
extremist groups. All have had fraught relations with the U.S. American drones or warplanes have
conducted airstrikes in five of the seven.
The executive action read: "Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster,
and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter our
country."
Existing visa restrictions
Citizens from the seven nations in Trump's order already faced great difficulty in obtaining visas,
gaining refugee status or immigrating to the U.S.
"The U.S. immigration vetting system is extremely thorough. That is perhaps why we've seen so little
violence by immigrants and refugees in the United States," said Kurzman. "As someone who brings
over international students, international scholars for conferences and training programs, I know
how hard it is to get even extremely upright folks through that system."
The ig terrorists on the hijacked planes used in the Sept. 11 attacks were from four countries not on
the new White House list Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.
Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 4-2 Filed
PIAM
01/30/17 Page 5 of 5
Since then, radicalized Muslims have carried out a number of deadly attacks in the.U.S. The precise
count varies among groups that track the terror threat, but most groups cite fewer than 10 lethal
attacks and fewer than loo deaths, including New America, a non-partisan think tank in
Washington.
The deadliest single attack was at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last June, which left 49 dead. The
man responsible was Omar Mateen, whose parents were from Afghanistan, though he was born New
York. Afghanistan is not on the White House list.
In a few cases, foreign-born nationals have carried out lethal attacks.
They include Tashfeen Malik, who, along with her husband, was responsible for the San Bernardino,
Ca., shooting that claimed 14 lives in December 2015. She was born in Pakistan, but spent most of
her life in Saudi Arabia until she came to the U.S. in 2014 on a fiancee visa to marry Syed Rizwan
Farook. He was born in Chicago, to a family originally from Pakistan. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi
Arabia are on the White House list.
Similarly, the Boston Marathon bombing was carried out by two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokar
Tsarnaev. Tamerlan was born in the Soviet Union (now southern Russia), and Dzhokar was born in
Krygyzstan. Those countries are not on the White House list.
Here's a list of attacks linked to radicalized Muslims in the U.S. since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:
2016 Omar Mateen shot dead 49 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. His parents were originally from Afghanistan. He
was born in New York.
2015 Syed Rizwan Farook'and his wife Tashfeen Malik shot dead 14 people at an office in San Bernardino, Ca., before
they were killed. He was born in Chicago to parents from Pakistan. She was born in Pakistan and raised mostly in
Saudi Arabia.
2015 Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire at two military recruiting centers in Chattanooga, Tenn., killing five U.S.
military personnel. He was a naturalized American who was born in Kuwait to parents who were Jordanian and
Palestinian.
2013 Two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three.
Tamerlan was born in the Soviet Union (now southern Russia), and Dzokhar was born in Kyrgyzstan.
2009 Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, shot dead 13 in Ft. Hood, Texas. Hasan, who was born in Virginia to Palestinian parents
who had immigrated from the West Bank, has been sentenced to the death penalty.
2009 Abdulhakim Muhammad shot and killed an Army private at a recruiting center in Little Rock. He was born in
Memphis to a Christian family, but converted to Islam and changed his name from Carlos Bledsoe.
2002 Egyptian national Hesham Hadayet shot dead two Israelis at the El AI airline ticket counter at the Los Angeles
Airport before being killed.
Sources: New America, Charles Kurzman, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism
Purcell
Declaration
Exhibit C
Trump spokeswoman: 'So what? They're Muslim' | TheHill Page 1 of 2
Trump spokeswoman: 'So what

They're Muslim'
BY JESSE BYRNES - 12/09/15 09:36 AM EST
1,816 SHARES SHARE (1.8K) TWEET PLUS
Just In...
Schumer announces
opposition to top Trump
nominees
FLOOR ACTION 3M 2S AGO
CNN Anchor Carol

Costello moving to HLN
MEDIA 7M 54S AGO
Governor Phil Bryant:

DeVos good for
Mississippi schools,
good for US
CONTRIBUTORS 15M AGO
Leahy to vote against

Sessions for attorney
A spokeswoman for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on
general
FLOOR ACTION 18M 5S AGO
Tuesday sought to defend his plan to bar Muslims from entering the
United States.
Trump's chief
"So what? They're Muslim," Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said
antagonist is nuance of
bureaucracy during an exchange with conservative commentator S.E. Cupp on CNN's
CONTRIBUTORS 36M AGO "The Lead."
Pierson argued that that "there's no constitutional requirement to allow

Emirates changes US
anyone to immigrate to the United States" and Trump's proposal "is really
flight crews to comply
with Trump order nothing new."
TRANSPORTATION
37M 27S AGO
SPONSORED CONTENT
Do Christian critics of
refugee ban hate How Boston Grads Are Disrupting The
America? Auto Insurance Industry
CONTRIBUTORS 39M AGO By EverQuote Insurance Quotes
This small team of data scientists has made an
Auto dealers want algorithm that is turning a giant 19 billion dollar
industry up-side-down. Read More
Trump to weaken car
emissions rules
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
45M 4S AGO
There really is something new to the idea of banning an entire religious

VIEW ALL group from entering the country," Cupp countered during the segment.
Pierson argued that the U.S. has never allowed insurgents to come
across these borders."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262597-trump-spokeswoman-so-what-th... 1/30/2017
Trump spokeswoman: 'So what? They're Muslim' | TheHill Page 2 of 2
"No one's talking about allowing insurgents," Cupp responded. "You're

talking about not allowing regular Muslims, that's what you're talking
about. No one's talking about insurgents."
"Yes, from Arab nations, Pierson interjected. "You know what, so what?
Related News by They're Muslim."
Trump himself defended his proposal during a round of interviews

Tuesday, amid near universal condemnation from Republicans,
Democrats and leaders from other countries.
Obama: Clinton would

TAGS DONALD TRUMP KATRINA PIERSON 2016 GOP PRIMARY MUSLIM BAN
have won in a landslide
SHARE (1.8K) TWEET PLUS ONE
Hawaii restaurant tells

Trump voters to eat
Michael Moore tells

Trump and 'Pencey
Ivanka Trump quoted in

'06 as saying: 'If he
THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE 2017 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262597-trump-spokeswoman-so-what-th... 1/30/2017
DECLARATION OF NOAH PURCELL re 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order
// PAGE 15

9
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
11 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ASIF
CHAUDHRY
12 v.
13 DONALD TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States;
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his
15 official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; TOM
16 SHANNON, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of State; and the
18 Defendants.
19
20 I, Asif Chaudhry, hereby declare and affirm:
21 1. I am the Vice President for International Programs at Washington State
22 University (WSU), Washington States land grant institution and the second largest public
23 research university in the Pacific Northwest. I have held this position since June 2015. Prior to
24 my current role at WSU, I spent my career working for the United States Government as a Senior
25 Foreign Service Officer, holding numerous leadership positions in the Departments of State,
26 Defense, and Agriculture. These positions included Vice President of the Commodity Credit
DECLARATION OF ASIF CHAUDHRY 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

332 French Administration Building
PO Box 641031
Pullman, WA 99164-1031
(509) 335-2636
1 Corporation, Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chief of the United States Navy at the Pentagon, and
2 U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
3 in this declaration, and I am competent to testify about them.
4 2. As Vice President for International Programs at WSU, I have responsibility for
5 WSUs international research activities, study abroad programs, international students, and
6 student and faculty exchanges. I am the chief international relations officer at WSU and am
7 responsible for the role of International Programs in carrying out WSUs mission of global
8 engagement, which is To apply knowledge through local and global engagement that will
9 improve quality of life and enhance the economy of the state, nation, and world. I also manage
10 WSUs programs focusing on establishing strategic partnerships with governments and
11 educational institutions across the globe.
12 3. WSUs global presence includes active research programs in dozens of countries
13 worldwide and study abroad programs in over 70 countries worldwide. The University also has
14 matriculated undergraduate, graduate, and professional students and visiting scholars from many
15 countries worldwide.
16 4. I have reviewed the Executive Order entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign
17 Terrorist Entry Into the United States, which temporarily bars entry into this country of any
18 person who is a citizen of any one of seven countriesSyria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya,
19 and Yemen.
20 5. WSU currently has approximately 136 undergraduate and graduate students who
21 are citizens of these listed countries. These students are here under valid student visas. I believe
22 that the presence of these students, scholars, and faculty on our campus serves to build
23 international understanding among all the members of our community. Their presence also
24 enriches the educational experience of all WSU students.
25 6. The implementation of the Executive Order has already had a negative impact on
26 the lives of students and faculty from the listed countries. The fact that they will not be able to

PO Box 641031
(509) 335-2636
1 travel outside of the U.S. will affect both their personal and professional lives. It will also
2 negatively impact WSU by limiting the scope of academic activities in which these members of
3 the WSU community will be able to engage.
4 7. There are many specific examples of the immediate impact the Executive Order
5 has already had on WSU students and faculty. One of many examples includes graduate students
6 doing atmospheric research, who need to travel outside the U.S. in order to conduct critical
7 fieldwork and attend conferences. These students, like many others, are working hard on
8 projects to improve peoples lives in the U.S., their home countries, and other countries. By
9 denying them re-entry into the U.S., the Executive Order restricts their ability to fully participate
10 in their programs of study and also negatively impacts the academic program and unit as a whole,
11 which is dependent on their research.
12 8. Another example over this past weekend is a student who was heading to WSU
13 to work with faculty on irrigation water conservation research. She had gone through an
14 11-month approval process but was turned away in Amsterdam because of the Executive Order.
15 Not only was the student heartbroken, but her important research has been put on hold.
16 9. The Executive Order also impacts major university-wide initiatives. Like other
17 peer institutions nation-wide, WSU has been working on expanding its international student
18 population to increase diversity and enrich the experience of all students. In fact, WSU recently
19 launched a major initiative to do so, partnering with other entities to create a new international
20 student center. The success of this enterprise is dependent on the ability of students from many
21 countries world-wide to travel to the U.S. and to WSU.
22 10. These are only a few examples of the difficulties being faced by the WSU
23 community as a result of the Executive Order. Based on my experience in international
24 education and research, I am concerned that the Executive Order will have a significant negative
25 effect on the willingness of students, scholars, and faculty from other majority Muslim countries
26

PO Box 641031
(509) 335-2636
1 to apply to come to a U.S. university to advance their scholarship and their academic careers.
2 The cumulative effects of these restrictions will have a significant impact on WSU.
3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
4 foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
5
Dated this 30th day of January, 2017.
6
7 __________________________________
Asif Chaudhry, Ph.D.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

PO Box 641031
(509) 335-2636
DECLARATION OF ASIF CHAUDHRY of Asif Chaudhry re 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary
// PAGE 5
2
3
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF AYESHA

BLACKWELL-HAWKINS, ESQ.
9 v.

capacity as President of the United
11 States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F.
12 KELLY, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of
13 Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON,
in his official capacity as Acting
14 Secretary of State; and the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
15
Defendants.
16
17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), Ayesha Blackwell-Hawkins hereby declares as
follows:
18
1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify.
19
2. I am Senior Manager of Mobility and Immigration at Amazon.com, Inc. and its
20
subsidiaries ("Amazon"). I manage the team that is responsible for providing
21 immigration supp01t for employees and their dependent families and ensuring lawful
22
DECLARATION OF 1
AYESHA BLACKWELL
1
immigration to and from the various countries in which Amazon operates. I have
2 been employed in this capacity since 2009.
3 3. Amazon employs more than 40,000 employees in the State of Washington and more
4 than 180,000 employees in the United States. Our employees come to us from every
comer of the United States and every comer of the world.

5
4. From the very beginning, Amazon has been committed to equal rights, tolerance, and
6
diversity - and we always will be. As we've grown the company, we' ve worked hard
7
to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the
8 things that makes Amazon great - a diverse workforce helps us build better products
9 for customers.
10 5. The Executive Order, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign TelTorist Entry into the
United States, signed by President Trump on January 27, 2017 (the "Executive
11
Order") immediately - and negatively - impacted employees, dependents of
12
employees, and candidates for employment with Amazon.
13
6. Because the Executive Order suspends entry into the United States of "aliens from
14 countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)" it is
15 unclear whether it applies to only citizens of identified countries or anyone born in
16 those countries irrespective of their culTent citizenship or visa status. It is also unclear
whether the suspension applies to employees with dual citizenship (in both an
17
identified and non-identified counhy). In order to comply with the order and to
18
ensure the safety of our employees, we assume the Executive Order covers both
19
scenarios.
20 7. Amazon is currently aware of 49 employees born in one of the countries identified in
21 the Executive Order. 47 in that group currently have citizenship in another country.
22 The remaining two employees hold pe1manent residence in another country. These
DECLARATION OF 2
AYESHA BLACKWELL
1
employees work in the United States lawfully pursuant to Jl, H-lB, E-3, TN, LPR
2 and L-1 A visas.
3 8. One example of an impacted employee is a senior Amazon lawyer who was born in
4 Libya but has been a UK citizen for many years. This employee had plans to travel to
the United States for business during the month of February. We have instructed the
5
employee to cancel her plans and remain in the UK rather than risk being denied
6
entry to the United States.
7
9. Amazon is also currently aware of 10 dependents of Amazon employees born in one
8 of the countries identified in the Executive Order. These dependents live in the
9 United States lawfully pursuant to H-lB, L-lB, E-3, LPR, F-1 OPT, and TN visas.
10 10. We reached out to impacted Amazon employees and dependents and recommended
that they refrain from travel outside of the United States until further notice. Fmiher,
11
we have advised any such individuals who are living outside of the United States,
12
with current plans to visit the US for business or personal reasons, to cancel those
13
plans until the entry restrictions are lifted.
14 11. Amazon is also currently aware of 7 candidates for employment who have received
15 offers for employment with Amazon. All of these candidates were born in Iran, but
16 are currently citizens of Ge1many, Canada, and Australia. We are currently assessing
alternatives that could include placement in countries other than the United States.
17
12. The Executive Order has impacted more than just Amazon employees, dependents,
18
and candidates. Asghar Farhadi, the Iranian director of the film, The Salesman, is
19
similarly prohibited under the language of the Executive Order from attending the
20 Academy Awards in Los Angeles, where his film is a nominee for Best Foreign Film.
21 Amazon's subsidiary, Amazon Studios, is the distributor of the film.
22
DECLARATION OF 3
AYESHA BLACKWELL
1
13. Finally, my team is continuing to receive of inquiries from employees who are not
2 immediately impacted, but who are seriously concerned about their ability to travel
3 and the potential expansion of the Executive Order.
4 I declare under penalty of pe1jury that the foregoing is true and correct.
5 Ill
6 Ill
7 Ill
Executed this January, 2017.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DECLARATION OF 4
AYESHA BLACKWELL
DECLARATION AYESHA BLACKWELL-HAWKINS of Ayesha Blackwell-Hawkins, ESQ. re 3 Emergency
// PAGE 5
DECLARATION OF ROBERT DZIELAK of Robert Dzielak re 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary
// PAGE 6

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 AT SEATTLE
8
lI STATE OF WASHINGTON
9 No.
Plaintiff,
10 DECLARATION OF EMILY
V.
CHIANG
11
14 Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; TOM SHANNON, in his
15 official capacity as Acting Secretary of
State; and the {?JNITED STATES OF
16 AMERICA
17 Defendants.
18
I, Emily Chiang, declare as follows:
19
1. I am over the age of eighteen, am competent to testify to the matters below, and
20
declare based on personal knowledge.
21
2. I am the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
22
("ACLU-WA").
23
DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - l AMERICAN Civn. LIBERTIES UNION OF

WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
901 F?FTHAVENtJE#630
SEATTLE, WA 98164
(206) 624-2184
l 3. IoverseeandadministertheLegalDepartmentoftheACLU-WA,includingall
2 l l active litigation and intake.
3 4. SincePresidentDonaldTrumpsignedhisExecutiveOrderonJanuary27,2017,
4 l l ?Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,? our office has
s ll received numerous calls and emails from affected individuals requesting assistance.
6 s. We have been contacted by people who are ell route to the United States who are
7 ll concerned that they or their friends and family members will be detained or not permitted to
B l l enter the country.
9 6. We have been contacted by people who have themselves been detained at one of
10 ll Washington State's borders or told that entry into the United States would not be permitted.
11 7. We have been contacted by people living in Washington whose families have
12 II been separated because of the ban on refugee admissions. These individuals have vulnerable
13 l i family members who may have been approved entry prior to the Executive Order but are
l4 il currently barred from entering the country due to the Executive Order.
15 8. We have been contacted by people with lawful status who are citizens of the
l O l l impacted countries with plans to travel internationally in the future and are uncertain whether
17 l l they will be allowed to reenter the country after they travel abroad.
18 9. We have been contacted by people who have decided to stay overseas rather than
19 l l risk ending up in the United States immigration detention system.
20 10. AwomanfromafamilyofSyrianrefugeescontactedus.Herfamilyhadrecently
21 I I filed a family reunification petition that would have allowed her mother, father, and three
22 l i siblings to come to Washington State from Jordan. The complainant was also going to visit her
23 l l family in Jordan but is now afraid to leave the United States out of fear that she will not be
DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF

901 FIFTH AVENUE #630
SEATTLE, WA 98164
(206) 624-2184
1 l l allowed to return and would therefore be separated from her family members already in
2 l l Washington State.
3 11. WewerecontactedbyamanwhohaslivedinWashingtonStatesincel996and
4 ll whose parents have lived here since 2011. His mother is a Syrian national and was returning
s l l from a trip to see her father (his grandfather), who was recently diagnosed with cancer. Her
0 ll return date is January 30, 2017. Out of concern that she might be refused entry into the country
7 ll or detained, her flight destination was changed from Los Angeles, California to Vancouver, B.C..
B ll The complainant was concerned that his mother would not be allowed to enter the country at the
9 ll border crossing in Blaine, Washington. Because his mother is 75 years old, he is planning on a
10 ll long tertn stay in Vancouver if she is not allowed entry. However, he has a young son and
ll?? family that he would be separated from during that time and employment that will not
12 l l accommodate long-term telecommuting.
13 12. WewerecontactedbyanIraqirefugeewhohaslivedinWashingtonStatefortwo
14 ll years. When President Trump signed the Executive Order she was distraught because she had
15 l l planned to travel in March to visit her fianc6-who she has not seen in over two years. Even
16 l l though her trip was planned a long time ago, she is now concerned that she may not be able to
17 l l reenter the country if she goes to see him.
18 13. AnIranianwomancontactedusbecauseshewasexpectingavisitfromher
1 g ll mother in three weeks. The process of getting a visa for her mother who lives in Iran was long
20 l l and arduous. It took six months to get an appointment with the embassy. Her appointment was
21 l l in August and she finally received her visa in early January. The complainant was excited to
22 i l have her mother visit her in Washington State-a visit that will no longer be possible because of
23 I I the Executive Order. She was also planning to visit her elderly grandmother in Iran this summer
DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 3 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNI0'N OF
901 FIFTHAVENUE#630
SEATTLE, WA 98164
(206) 624-2184
1 ll but now she is afraid to leave the country out of fear that, even though she is a lawful permanent
2 i l resident, she might not be allowed reentry.
3 14. OnJanuary28,2017,theACLUofWashingtonwiththeNorthwestImmigrant
4 li Rights Project filed an emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of two individuals who
s l l were detained at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Judge Thomas Zilly ordered their
0 l l immediate release. Exhibit A.
7 l l I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is tme
3 li and correct.
9 li EXECUTED on 30th day of January, 2017.
10 ff
Emily Chiang, VSBA No. 50:
50517
11 ACLU of Washington Founidati6n
12 Seattle, Washington 98164
Telephone: 206-624-2184
13 echiang@aclu-wa.org
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 4 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES U'sxos op

WASmNGTON FOUNDATION
901 FIFTH AVENUE #630
SEATTLE, WA 98164
(206) 624-2184
Chiang
Declaration
Exhibit A
Case 2:17-cv-00126-TSZ
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 8
5 Filed 01/30/17
01/28/17 Page 6
1 of 7
2
Matt Adams
1
Glenda Aldana Madrid
2 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
3 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98104
4 (206) 957-8611
5
UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT
6
7 AT SEATTLE
8
_______________________________________
9 John DOE 1, John DOE 2 )
10 )
Petitioners, )
11 v. )
12 ) Case No.: C17-126
Donald TRUMP; President of the United States )
13 of America; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the ) Agency No. A
14 Department of Homeland Security; )
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ) ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY
15 MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting )
16 Commissioner of Customs and Border )
Protection; CUSTOMS AND BORDER )
17 )
PROTECTION; and the UNITED STATES OF
18 )
AMERICA, )
19 )
Respondents. )
20
)
21 )
)
22
23
ORDER- 1 - North west Immi grant Ri ght s Proj ect
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400
Tel: 206 957 -8611
25
26
27
28
Case 2:17-cv-00126-TSZ
2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 8
5 Filed 01/30/17
01/28/17 Page 7
2 of 7
2
1
2 THIS MATTER HAVING COME TO THE COURT UPON PETITIONERS
3 EMERGENCY ORDER FOR STAY OF REMOVAL, AND THE COURT HAVING

4
CONSIDERED THE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
5
DOCKET NO. 1, AND THE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY, DOCKET NO. 2,
6
7 HEREBY GRANTS THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
8
1. THE COURTS GRANTS A STAY OF REMOVAL.
9
10 2. DEFENDANTS ARE ENJOINED FROM REMOVING JOHN DOE I AND
11
JOHN DOE II FROM THE UNITED STATES PENDING FURTHER ORDER
12
OF THE COURT.
13
14 3. The Court SETS a hearing for 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 3, 2017, to
15 determine whether to lift the stay.
17
18
19
20
A
Thomas S. Zilly
United States District Judge
21
22
23
ORDER- 2 - North west Immi grant Ri ght s Proj ect
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400
Tel: 206 957 -8611
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG of Emily Chiang re 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining
// PAGE 8
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY RIEDINGER of Jeffrey Riedinger re 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary
// PAGE 5
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiff State of Washington (Attachments: # 1 Summons
// PAGE 1
Case(Revised
WAWD - Praecipe 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2/13/13) Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 1
1
6
9 State of Washington
Plaintiff(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
10
v.
PRAECIPE
12 States; Et al.
Defendant(s).
13
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
14
You will please:
15 Plaintiff State of Washington respectfully requests that the clerk of Court issue the [Proposed] Summonses,
attached hereto, in the above-captioned case.
16
17
18
19
20
21 January 31, 2017 s/ Noah G. Purcell

Dated Sign or use an "s/" and your name
22
Noah G. Purcell, WSBA # 43492
23 Solicitor General
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
25
Name, Address, and Phone Number of Counsel or Pro Se
26
PRAECIPE Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendants name and address)
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address


for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address


for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address


for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
Other (specify):
.
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address

PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiff State of Washington (Attachments: # 1 Summons
// PAGE 13
Summonses electronically issued as to defendant(s) John F. Kelly, Tom Shannon, Donald
// PAGE 1
Summonses electronically issued as to defendant(s) John F. Kelly, Tom Shannon, Donald
// PAGE 12

8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
9
Plaintiff,
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11
17 Defendants.
18
I, Chamene Woods, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
19
Washington and of the United States of America that I am a resident of the State of
20
Washington, over the age of eighteen (18) years, not a party to the above-entitled action, and
21
competent to be a witness herein.
22
23 On January 30, 2017, I caused a copy of the following documents:
24 1. Civil Cover Sheet

25 2. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
1 3. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

2 4. [Proposed] Temporary Restraining Order
3
5. Declaration of Noah Purcell in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining
4
Order, with attached Exhibits A C
5
6. Declaration of Jeffery Riedinger
6
7 7. Declaration of Asif Chaudhry
8 8. Declaration of Ayesha Blackwell-Hawkins
9' 9. Declaration of Robert Dzielak

10 10. Declaration of Emily Chiang, with attached Exhibit A
11'
to be served by a person on my staff upon the United States of America by hand delivery at
12'
approximately 4:57 p.m. upon:
13
Patricia L. Petrut
14
United States Attorney's Office
15 Western District of Washington
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
16 Seattle, WA 98101-1271
17 On January 31, 2017, I caused a copy of the following documents:
18 1. Civil Cover Sheet
19 2. Summons
20 3. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

21
4. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
22
5. [Proposed] Temporary Restraining Order
23
6. Declaration of Noah Purcell in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining
24
Order, with attached Exhibits A C
25
26 7. Declaration of Jeffery Riedinger

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
1 8. Declaration of Asif Chaudhry

2 9. Declaration of Ayesha Blackwell-Hawkins
3
10. Declaration of Robert Dzielak
4
11. Declaration of Emily Chiang, with attached Exhibit A
5
12. Praecipe with attached Exhibits 1-5
6
7 to be served upon the United States of America, the United States Department of Homeland
8 Security, and the federal officer defendants via certified mail, addressed as follows:
9
Civil-Process Clerk Attorney General of the United States
10 United States Attorney's Office U.S. Department of Justice
Western District of Washington 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
11
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Washington, DC 20530-0001
12 Seattle, WA 98101-1271
13
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Donald Trump
14 245 Murray Lane SW President of the United States
Washington, DC 20528-0075 The White House
15 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
16
John F. Kelly Tom Shannon
17
Secretary of Homeland Security Acting Secretary of State
18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of State
245 Murray Lane SW 2201 C Street NW
19 Washington, DC 20528-0075 Washington, DC 20520
20
21 On January 31, 2017, I served a copy of the following document:

22 1. Praecipe with attached Exhibits 1-5
23 2. Summons
24 upon the United States of America by hand delivery at approximately 3:05 p.m. upon:
25
26

Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 464-7744
1 Sandra Zuber-Bowers
Linda Seilinger
2 United States Attorney's Office
3 Western District of Washington
700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220
4 Seattle, WA 98101-1271
6 DATED this 31't day of January, 2017, at Seattle, Washington.
7
8
9 CHAMENE WOODS Lead Support
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
AFFIDAVIT of Mailing of Summons and Complaint to Defendants on 1/31/2017, filed by
// PAGE 5
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Anne Elizabeth Egeler on behalf of Plaintiff State
// PAGE 1
5 THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

6
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
10
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
11
Plaintiff, NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
12
v. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
13
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity
14 as President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
15 SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the
16 Department of Homeland Security; TOM
SHANNON, in his official capacity as
17 Acting Secretary of State; and the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
20 TO: COUNSEL OF RECORD
21 AND TO: CLERK OF THE COURT
22
23 YOU AND EACH OF YOU, WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Anne E. Egeler,
24 Deputy Solicitor General, hereby enters her notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff State of
25 Washington, in the above-entitled action, and request that notice of any and all further
26
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
206-464-774
1 proceedings in said action, except original process, be served upon the undersigned attorney at
2 the address below stated.
3 DATED this 31st day of January 2017.
4
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
5
Attorney General of Washington
6 NOAH G. PURCELL, WSBA 43492
Solicitor General
7
8 s/ Anne E. Egeler
ANNE E. EGELER, WSBA 20258
9 Deputy Solicitor General
PO Box 40100
11 Olympia, Washington 98504-0100
(360) 753-7085
12 AnneE1@atg.wa.gov
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
206-464-774

6
8
10
11
12
v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13
STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21 I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington, that I
22 electronically filed a true and correct copy of the following:
23 Notice of Appearance for Anne E. Egeler;

Notice of Appearance for Marsha Chien;
24 Notice of Appearance Patricio Marquez
25
26

No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Seattle, WA 98104
206-464-774
1 The above-listed documents were electronically filed with the United States District
2 Court ECF system, which will send notification to all attorneys of record. True and correct
3 copies were deposited in the U.S. Mail, First Class postage paid, addressed to the following:
4
5 United State Attorneys Office U.S. Department of Justice
6 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Washington, DC 20530-0001
7
Donald Trump John F. Kelly
8 President of the United States Secretary of Homeland Security
The White House U.S. Department of Homeland Security
9 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 245 Murray Lane SW
Washington, D.C. 20500 Washington, DC 20528-0075
10
Tom Shannon U.S. Department of Homeland Security
11 Acting Secretary of State 245 Murray Lane SW
U.S. Department of State Washington, DC 20528-0075
12 2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
13
14
DATED this 31st day of January 2017, at Olympia, Washington.
15
16 s/ Kristin D. Jensen
KRISTIN D. JENSEN
17 Confidential Secretary
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

206-464-774
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Anne Elizabeth Egeler on behalf of Plaintiff State
// PAGE 6
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Patricio A. Marquez on behalf of Plaintiff State
// PAGE 1

6
8
10
STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
22
23 YOU AND EACH OF YOU, WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Patricio A.
24 Marquez, Assistant Attorney General, hereby enters his notice of appearance on behalf of
25 Plaintiff State of Washington, in the above-entitled action, and request that notice of any and all
26

206-464-774
1 further proceedings in said action except original process be served upon the undersigned
2 attorney at the address below stated.
4
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
5
Solicitor General
7
8 s/ Patricio A. Marquez
PATRICIO A. MARQUEZ, WSBA 47693
9 Assistant Attorney General
(206) 464-7744
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

206-464-774

6
8
10
11
12
13
STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
20

25
26

206-464-774
4
7
10
12 2201 C Street NW
13
14
15
KRISTIN D. JENSEN
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

206-464-774
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Patricio A. Marquez on behalf of Plaintiff State
// PAGE 6
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Marsha J. Chien on behalf of Plaintiff State of Washington.
// PAGE 1

6
8
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
22
23 YOU AND EACH OF YOU, WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Marsha Chien,
24 Assistant Attorney General, enters her notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff State of
25 Washington, in the above-entitled action, and request that notice of any and all further
26

206-464-774
1 proceedings in said action except original process be served upon the undersigned attorney at
2 the address below stated.
4
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
5
Solicitor General
7
8 s/ Marsha Chien
MARSHA CHIEN, WSBA 47020
9 Assistant Attorney General
(206) 464-7744
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

206-464-774

6
8
10
11
12
13
STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
20

25
26

206-464-774
4
7
10
12 2201 C Street NW
13
14
15
KRISTIN D. JENSEN
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

206-464-774
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Marsha J. Chien on behalf of Plaintiff State of Washington.
// PAGE 6
SUPPLEMENT BRIEF RE STANDING by Plaintiff State of Washington (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
// PAGE 1

8
9
10
v. PLAINTIFF STATE OF
11 WASHINGTONS
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
12 as President of the United States; U.S. REGARDING STANDING
STATES OF AMERICA,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

STANDING Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
3
II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................1
4
A. Washington Is Suffering Injuries From the Order .............................................1
5
1. Washington is Suffering Injuries to its Proprietary Interests ..................... 2
6
2. Washington Is Suffering Injury As Parens Patriae ...................................3
7
B. Causation and Redressability Are Clear ............................................................ 5
8
III. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING i ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 The State of Washington has standing to challenge the Executive Order on at least two
3 independent grounds. First, the State has standing to sue to redress injuries to its proprietary
4 interests. The Order will reduce state tax revenue, harm the educational mission of state
5 universities, make it impossible for state employees and students to travel, and impose
6 significant costs on state agencies. The State also has standing to sue to protect the well-being
7 of its residents. Washington has a profound interest in protecting its residents from the harms
8 caused by the irrational discrimination embodied in the Order. The Order is causing these
9 harms, and invalidating the portions challenged here will redress them. The State has standing.
10 II. ARGUMENT
11 To have standing, a plaintiff must generally show (1) an injury in fact that is concrete
12 and particularized and actual or imminent; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the
13 challenged action; and (3) that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan
14 v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The State can show all three.1
15 A. Washington Is Suffering Injuries From the Order
16 In proving injury, states are not normal litigants. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S.
17 497, 518 (2007). Like any party, states can invoke federal jurisdiction to protect proprietary
18 interests. Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601-02
19 (1982) (explaining proprietary interests); Davis v. EPA, 348 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 2003). But
20 States also have broad authority to sue as parens patriae to protect quasi-sovereign interests,
21 including interests in the well-being of residents. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 602-04. Washington has
22 standing here on both independent grounds.
23
24 1
To the extent the Court addresses Washingtons standing as a jurisdictional issue, at this early stage in
the proceedings all plausible allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences
25
drawn in the States favor. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2015). For
purposes of its underlying TRO motion, Washington must show a substantial likelihood of standing. Id. As set
26 out herein, Washington amply demonstrates a substantial likelihood of establishing standing.
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 1. Washington is Suffering Injuries to its Proprietary Interests

2 Washington is currently suffering concrete, adverse impacts to its proprietary interests
3 from the Order that will continue in the absence of the requested relief.
4 As an initial matter, the level of economic injury necessary to establish a States
5 proprietary standing is low. Courts have repeatedly found that any non-trivial economic
6 impacts constitute a concrete, particularized injury sufficient to show standing. For example, in
7 Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit held that Texas could
8 challenge a federal immigration directive based solely on the cost of issuing drivers licenses to
9 the beneficiaries (approximately $130 per license).2 Id. at 748. The Ninth Circuit found a
10 sufficient economic interest for proprietary standing in lost tourist revenues caused by
11 aesthetic damage from increased traffic. City of Sausalito v. ONeill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1199
12 (9th Cir. 2004).
13 Here, the harms to Washingtons proprietary interests are significant and wide-ranging.
14 First, Washington will lose significant tax revenue because of the Order. Washington
15 receives substantial sales tax revenue every year from travelers from the countries impacted by
16 the Orders travel ban. Ex. A, 3-8 (Decl. of Oline). Washington also stands to lose tax
17 revenue from Washington businesses harmed by the Order, id. 6; ECF No. 7, 9, 11-12
18 (Decl. of Dzielak), as well as revenue from legal, non-citizen residents who are being
19 prevented from returning to their homes and jobs, see ECF No. 8, 6-14 (Decl. of Chiang).
20 Losing these tax revenues is a real, tangible, and immediate harm, even putting aside the
21 Orders longer-term consequences for Washingtons economy. Amended Comp. 12-17, 24-
22 25.
23 Washington also operates several world-class public universities that are suffering
24 adverse impacts from the Order. Several hundred faculty, staff, and students at state higher
25
2
For purposes of the standing inquiry, the Court also flatly declined to weigh any countervailing
26 economic benefits created by the challenged program that might offset injury. Texas, 787 F.3d at 750.

(206) 464-7744
1 education institutions are here on visas from the listed countries, while others are long-term
2 permanent residents from the affected countries. See ECF No. 9, 5, 7-8 (Decl. of Riedinger);
3 ECF No. 5, 5 (Decl. of Chaudhry); Ex. B, 4-10 (Second Decl. of Riedinger); Ex. C, 4, 6
4 (Decl. of Boesenberg). The order has stranded a member of the WSU faculty overseas, Ex. D,
5 6 (Second Decl. of Chaudhry), and will prevent a member of the UW faculty from serving as
6 the keynote speaker at a conference overseas. Ex. B, 5. Both universities have expended
7 significant resources to sponsor scholars from the affected countries to perform research and
8 teaching, and the Order will prevent several of those individuals from coming to the
9 universities or staying there. Ex. B, 9-10; Ex. D, 7. Students and faculty from the listed
10 countries will be prevented from participating in planned travel outside the country to conduct
11 research and attend conferences. ECF No. 7; Ex. D, 3-4; Ex. B, 6, 8. These harms to
12 faculty, staff, and students damage the universities missions and reduce their attractiveness to
13 international students. ECF No. 5, 2, 9-10.3
14 In sum, these (and other4) direct impacts cement the injury-in-fact required for
15 proprietary standing. Far from being speculative, these impacts are occurring now. Indeed, the
16 impacts shown here likely understate the States proprietary harm, as they reflect only what the
17 State has been able to document in the three business days since the Order was issued. See,
18 e.g., Ex. B, 7.
19 2. Washington Is Suffering Injury As Parens Patriae
20 Washingtons interests go beyond the proprietary. Under the doctrine of parens patriae,
21 States have standing to protect quasi-sovereign interests, including the health and well-
22 3
See also, e.g., Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1487 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that
23 school had standing to challenge harm to students that impacted school); Ohio Assn of Indep. Schs. v. Goff, 92
F.3d 419, 422 (6th Cir. 1996) (same). It is irrelevant that the suit might also benefit some other than Washington
24 and its residents. See, e.g., Sprint Commcns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc, 554 U.S. 269, 287 (2008) ([F]ederal courts
routinely entertain suits which will result in relief for parties that are not themselves directly bringing suit.).
4
For example, the State expects the Order to reduce its ability to recruit employees for key positions in
25
the State workforce. Ex. E, 7-8 (Decl. of Schumacher). The State also expects the Order to increase costs in its
child welfare system by needlessly separating children from their parents and making it more difficult for the
26 State to reunify families. Ex. F, 6-19 (Decl. of Strus).

(206) 464-7744
1 being of their residents, whether physical [or] economic. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 607. To invoke
2 parens jurisdiction, a state must articulate a quasi-sovereign interest, identify an interest
3 apart from those of particular private parties, and allege injury to a sufficiently substantial
4 segment of its population. Snapp, 485 U.S. at 593. That standard is met here.5
5 First, the health and well-being of residents is a quasi-sovereign interest. Snapp, 458
6 U.S. at 607. There can be no question that many state residents are suffering grievous harms to
7 their well-being, including those originally from the listed countries who: were temporarily
8 overseas at the time of the ban and are being prevented from returning to their homes, jobs, and
9 families in Washington; live here and wish to travel overseas for work or to visit family; or live
10 here and are unable to receive visits from their friends and family. ECF No. 8, 6-14;
11 Amended Complaint 18-23, 31-36. The ban is also affecting those who live here as refugees
12 and whose family members are now being barred from joining them, as well as religious
13 nonprofits here that serve refugees as part of their religious mission and are being denied that
14 ability. Id. 11, 18, 21, 23, 31, 33, 36.
15 Washingtons goal in ending these harms extends well beyond those of a nominal
16 party. Washington has a profound interest in preventing the very real harmsboth physical
17 and economiccaused by discriminatory treatment. This interest is uniquely represented by
18
19 5
Washington anticipates that the United States may assert that Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447
(1923), bars parens patriae actions against the federal government. This argument fails for two reasons. First,
20 Mellons supposed bar on parens actions was all but eradicated by the Supreme Courts Massachusetts v. EPA
decision. There, the Court affirmed States special solicitude in matters of standing and rebuffed the dissents
21 Mellon arguments by pointing out the long development of cases permitting States to litigate as parens patriae
to protect quasi sovereign interests . . . . Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 520 & n.17. The Court also stated
22 that Mellon itself disavowed any such broad reading, because it expressly noted it had not been called upon to
determine whether claims involving quasi-sovereign interests were barred. Id., 549 U.S. at 520 n.17. In rejecting
23 the federal governments argument based on Mellon just months ago, the Eastern District of Washington held that
it cannot ignore Massachusetts v. EPAs rebuff of Mellon. See Hanford Challenge v. Moniz, __ F.Supp.3d __,
24 2016 WL 6902416, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 3, 2016). Second, even if Mellon would otherwise apply, its
limitations on standing are prudential only and can be overridden by Congress. Maryland Peoples Counsel v.
F.E.R.C., 760 F.2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Here, Washingtons claims include two statutory causes of action
25
expressly allowing States to sue the federal government. See Amended Comp. 91-105; 5 U.S.C. 702
(granting the right to sue the United States based on adverse agency actions); 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a) (granting
26 the right to sue the United States based upon alleged burdens on the exercise of religion).

(206) 464-7744
1 the State, which has a strong state interest in securing residents from the harmful effects of
2 discrimination. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 609; see also Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.010 (The legislature
3 hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because
4 of race, creed, color, [or] national origin . . . are a matter of state concern, that such
5 discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces
6 the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.); People v. Peter & Johns Pump
7 House, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 809, 813 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
8 Finally, the impacts here are sufficiently broad to support parens standing. There are no
9 definitive limits on the proportion of the population that a state must allege to be adversely
10 affected. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 607. And states can establish sufficient impacts by reference to the
11 indirect effects of the injury implicating a group broader than just those residents directly
12 involved.6 See id. Here, the Orders impacts are extremely broad. Washington is home to
13 thousands of immigrants from the affected countries and refugees. Amended Comp. 11, 31.
14 The Order affects not just those individuals, but also their friends, families, neighbors, and
15 employers. Id. 15-17, 21-23, 31-36. It also affects all Washingtonians, who have
16 emphatically rejected the discrimination embodied in the Order. See, e.g.,Wash. Rev. Code
17 49.60.010.
18 B. Causation and Redressability Are Clear
19 There can be no meaningful dispute that the harms described above are being caused by
20 the Executive Order. It is because of the violations of the equal protection, due process, and
21 establishment clauses, as well as the statutory violations, embodied in that Order that
22 Washington is suffering these harms. The harms cannot be traced to any other source.
23
24
6
This is especially true in cases of discrimination. See, e.g., Commonwealth of Mass. v. Bull HN Info.
25
Sys., Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 90, 98 (D. Mass. 1998) (Discrimination of any kind . . . corrodes the social fabric and
fosters intolerance and inequality.); Peter & Johns Pump House, 914 F. Supp. at 813 (finding jurisdiction where
26 [t]he State alleges discrimination that has a destructive societal effect).

(206) 464-7744
1 There can also be no meaningful dispute that this Court has power to redress these
2 harms. Invalidating the challenged aspects of the Executive Order would restore the status quo,
3 allowing State residents to return home, travel for work and to visit family, and reunite with
4 loved ones, and would prevent the ongoing proprietary harms the State is suffering. See, e.g.,
5 Natl Audubon Socy, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 849 (9th Cir. 2010) (restoration of status quo
6 establishes causation and redressability elements of standing).
7 III. CONCLUSION
8 Washington has established standing. The State is suffering harm to its proprietary
9 interests and as parens patriae. The Order is causing the harm. This Court can redress it. The
10 State respectfully asks this Court to enjoin this harm as soon as possible.
11 DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.
12
13
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
15 Attorney General
WSBA #26004
16 NOAH G. PURCELL
WSBA #43492
COLLEEN M. MELODY
18 WSBA #42275
206-464-7744
21
22
23
24
25
26

(206) 464-7744
Supplemental
Brief
Exhibit A
Supplemental
Brief
Exhibit B
Supplemental
Brief
Exhibit C
Supplemental
Brief
Exhibit D

9
11 Plaintiff, SECOND DECLARATION OF
ASIF CHAUDHRY
12 v.
capacity as President of the United States;
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
Acting Secretary of State; and the
18 Defendants.
19
20 I, Asif Chaudhry, hereby declare and affirm:
21 1. I am the Vice President for International Programs at Washington State
22 University (WSU), Washington States land grant institution and the second largest public
23 research university in the Pacific Northwest. I submit this declaration to supplement and provide
24 additional information regarding the matters in my declaration dated January 30, 2017. I have
25 personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and I am competent to testify about
26 them.
SECOND SECOND DECLARATION OF 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

ASIF CHAUDHRY PO Box 641031
(509) 335-2636
1 2. As noted in my prior declaration, WSU has 136 matriculated undergraduate and

2 graduate students from the countries targeted in the Executive Order entitled Protecting the
3 Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. Many of these graduate students
4 also hold paid appointments as teaching or research assistants at WSU. Because of the Executive
5 Order, all of these individuals are constrained from traveling abroad for personal or academic
6 research-related reasons.
7 3. One graduate student, who holds a paid, grant-funded research assistantship with
8 WSU, works on a team that conducts atmospheric research, which is dependent on field
9 experiments and collaborations world-wide. She was scheduled to participate in experiments
10 and equipment maintenance in Greenland, which is a standard expectation of research assistants
11 in this laboratory, but is now unable to do so. This individual also was planning to attend a
12 summer institute in Canada and now likely will be unable to do so. These types of activities are
13 not only directly related to her development as a scientist but are also critical to the research
14 program as a whole. The negative impact of the Executive Order on this individual and the
15 research program is significant.
16 4. Other WSU research assistants from targeted countries have had to forego job
17 interviews in Canada for fear of being unable to return and have canceled plans to attend major
18 conferences outside the U.S., one of which is scheduled for February 5, 2017. By preventing
19 these individuals from participating in these activities, the Executive Order is having a
20 significant negative impact on their career opportunities.
21 5. There also are nine (9) active faculty members at WSU from the countries
22 targeted in the Executive Order. These individuals include instructors and researchers. Areas
23 of research conducted by these individuals include research on teaching in STEM, sustainable
24 design, using large-scale data sets for social science and educational research, molecular genetics
25 of plant disease, thermal and fluid systems, transportation systems and traffic safety, crop
26 phenotyping, and plant physiology. Many of these are areas of research that are directly related

(509) 335-2636
1 to WSUs primary mission as the states land grant institution. Because of the Executive Order,
2 all of these individuals are constrained from traveling abroad for personal or academic research-
3 related reasons.
4 6. WSU has at least one faculty member who is currently unable to return to WSU.
5 She is a research associate from an affected country who is paid from a National Science
6 Foundation Project. She traveled to Germany in January to defend her Ph.D. at another
7 university and was scheduled to return to WSU on February 11, 2017, to continue her scientific
8 research and faculty position. The Executive Order will prevent her from being able to do so,
9 and the research on this project has been put on hold until she can return.
10 7. In addition to students and faculty, WSU has two (2) visiting scholars from the
11 targeted countries who currently are unable to come to WSU. As clarification, the individual
12 mentioned in my prior declaration who was turned away in Amsterdam due to the Executive
13 Order was a student at another university but was coming to WSU as a visiting scholar to do
14 collaborative research. WSUs typical practice is to appoint visiting scholars as adjunct faculty.
15 The other visiting scholar has been in the visa application process and now has been informed
16 he likely will be unable to obtain a visa.
17 8. As noted in my prior declaration, global engagement is a critical component of
18 WSUs mission, which is To apply knowledge through local and global engagement that will
19 improve quality of life and enhance the economy of the state, nation, and world. In addition to
20 the impact of the Executive Order on individual lives of WSU students and employees, the
21 cumulative effect of these restrictions will be to negatively impact WSUs ability to fulfill its
22 mission as the states land grant university.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
24 foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
25
26

(509) 335-2636
1 Dated this 1st day of February, 2017.

2
3
__________________________________
4 Asif Chaudhry, Ph.D.
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(509) 335-2636
Supplemental
Brief
Exhibit E
Supplemental
Brief
Exhibit F
7 The Honorable James L. Robart

9
10
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF
11 JENNIFER STRUS
12
18 Defendants.
19
20 I, Jennifer Strus, hereby declare and affirm:
21 1. I am the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services
22 (DSHS) Children's Administration. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
23 declaration, and I am competent to testify about them.
24 2. As Assistant Secretary, I have a leadership and administrative responsibility for
25 the DSHS Children's Administrationthe public child welfare agency for Washington State.
26
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER STRUS I ATTORNEY GENERAL of WASHINGTON

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
1 3. I have reviewed the Executive Order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign
2 Terrorist Entry Into the United States," and I am aware that the Order purports to temporarily bar
3 entry into this country of any person who is a citizen of any one of seven countriesSyria, Iraq,
4 Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemenregardless of whether there is any evidence that the
5 individual in question had any connection with any terrorist organization or activity.
6 4. DSHS is the agency charged by the State Legislature to protect and care for
7 abused and neglected children. The Children's Administration is the entity within DSHS that
8 receives reports of abuse or neglect; conducts investigations and assessments; seeks removal of
9 children from their homes when children are not safe; provides placements for children placed
10 in DSHS's custody; purchases care for children placed in DSHS's custody; provides remedial
11 services to parents to prevent removal of children and to facilitate reunification of the family;
12 pays for care of children in foster care; and achieves permanency for foster children.
13 5. The Children's Administration serves over 233,000 clients statewide each year,
14 receives over 98,000 reports of abuse or neglect annually, and provides care and supervision of
15 over 10,800 foster children who are under the placement and care authority of the state.
16 6. The Children's Administration has served families in which the parents
17 immigrated or were visiting from Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran. In addition, the Children's
18 Administration has served families in which the parents lived in, or immigrated or visited from,
19 many other countries and areas within countries where there is great civil unrest and/or very little
20 infrastructure.
21 7. The Children's Administration does not currently have administrative data
22 indicating whether children or families receiving services are from the seven countries identified
23 in the Executive Order. However, it does have administrative data indicating children and parents'
24 preferred language. The Children's Administration's data system contains individuals who speak
25 the following languages: Arabic, Farsi, Somali, and Sudanese. According to the United States
26 1 Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER STRUS 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
I publications/resources/the-world-factbook/ (last visited 1/31/17), these languages are spoken in
2 the seven affected countries. The Children's Administration's data system identifies 231 active
3 participants in open child welfare cases whose preferred language is Arabic, Farsi, Somali, or
4 Sudanese. Of the 231 individuals, 29 are identified as U.S. citizens. Thus, 202 of these individuals
5 are identified as either non U.S. citizens or having unknown citizenship. When the Arabic
6 language (which is spoken in other countries than the seven identified in the Executive Order) is
7 removed from the analysis, the data system identifies 173 individuals whose preferred language is
8 Farsi, Somali or Sudanese, which are identified by the CIA Factbook as the languages primarily
9 spoken in Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. Of these 173 individuals, 28 are identified as U.S. citizens
10 and 145 are identified as either non U.S. citizens or having unknown citizenship. When the
11 Arabic and Farsi languages are removed from the analysis, the data system identifies 161
12 individuals whose preferred language is Somali or Sudanese. Of these 161 individuals, 25 are
13 identified as U.S. citizens and 136 are identified as either non U.S. citizens or having unknown
14 citizenship.
15 8. Washington State spends approximately $15,000 per year to provide foster care
16 and related services to one foster child. This estimate does not include the cost of employing
17 Children's Administration social services specialists who provide case management services for
18 these children. The state has budgeted over $116 million for foster care services for state fiscal
19 year 2017 (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017), which includes payments to support the cost of
20 placements and related care, therapy, transportation, parent-child and sibling visits, and more.
21 9. Pursuant to RCW 74.13.031(3), the Children's Administration must investigate a
22 complaint of a recent failure to act by a parent or caretaker that results in "serious risk of
23 imminent harm," and must, in response, offer social services including out-of-home care and case
24 management, and/or bring the matter to the attention of an appropriate court. Thus, even if a
25 parent, due to no fault of their own but merely because he or she has been detained or deported by
26 1 the United States government, cannot arrange for a safe home for their child, DSHS would be

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
I required to respond in order to provide child welfare services, and/or bring the matter to the
2 attention of the appropriate court.
3 10. If a child of an individual who is barred from the country is located in Washington
4 and cannot be safely cared for by a parent, DSHS would be required to offer social services
5 including out-of-home care and case management, and/or bring the matter to the attention of the
6 courts through a dependency proceeding. DSHS has no authority to independently remove
7 children from their homes, or to retain children for longer than 72 hours if they were removed by
g a law enforcement officer or hospital administrators, without initiating a dependency proceeding.
9 11. When DSHS initiates a dependency proceeding, parents must be served with
10 notice as provided in RCW 13.34.070. For parents located outside Washington State, service may
11 be accomplished through personal service, certified mail, or in some circumstances, publication.
12 12. Thus, if a child of a parent who is barred from the country is placed in DSHS's
13 custody and DSHS must initiate a dependency proceeding in order to have authority to retain the
14 child in its care, DSHS would also be required to attempt to serve the parent with notice of the
15 proceeding. DSHS would be required to exercise due diligence to locate the parent in order to
16 serve him or her with notice of the proceeding. This is especially difficult when a parent has been
17 deported to a country or area that is unstable due to civil unrest and/or to an extremely remote
18 location because there is limited or no infrastructure. As a result, the mechanisms by which DSHS
19 can achieve actual service or service by certified mail of a parent in such a country are likely
20 limited or nonexistent, depending on the country and the location of the parent.
21 13. When children are placed in DSHS custody, state and federal law require DSHS to
22 make reasonable efforts to provide remedial services to remedy parental deficiencies. For a parent
23 residing outside the United States, the services are provided by coordinating with the child welfare
24 agency located where the parent resides. It is particularly difficult to coordinate the provision of
25 remedial services to a parent who has been deported to a country that is unstable due to civil
26

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
I unrest and/or to an extremely remote location because there is limited or no infrastructure. As a
2 result, such a country often lacks the capacity to coordinate and provide these services.
3 14. When a parent has remedied parental deficiencies, a child may be returned to
4 him/her if doing so is in the child's best interests. Before reunification, the safety of the parent's
5 home and the parent's ability to safely care for the child in their home must be evaluated.
6 15. For a parent who resides outside the United States, reunification is accomplished
7 by coordinating with the child welfare agency in the country where the parent resides. It is
8 particularly difficult to coordinate the evaluation of the safety of a parent and his/her home when
9 the parent has been deported to a country or area that is unstable due to civil unrest and/or to an
10 extremely remote location because there is limited or no infrastructure. As a result, such a country
11 often lacks the capacity to coordinate an evaluation of the parent and his/her home. Further, if the
12 parent has been deported to a war-torn country that was unsafe for the family in the first place,
13 there is little chance the child would be safe if returned there, as well.
14 16. If a child cannot be safely reunified with a parent, DSHS must seek an alternate
15 permanent home for the childthrough adoption, guardianship, or custodianship. If a suitable
16 relative is not available, DSHS must identify a non-relative adoptive home. All parental rights
17 must be terminated prior to adoption. To terminate parental rights, a proceeding must be initiated,
18 which again requires service of notice to the parents.
19 17. Service of notice of the parental rights termination proceeding is especially
20 difficult for a parent deported to an unstable country or remote area that lacks infrastructure.
21 18. Children who await permanency are in the limbo of temporary foster care while
22 the state attempts to complete the legally required steps to achieve permanency. During this time,
23 the State of Washington incurs the expense associated with providing on-going case management,
24 and foster care and social services to the child.
25 19. Washington State has declared that "the family unit is a fundamental resource of
26 American life which should be nurtured." RCW 13.34.020. Barring legal immigrants from
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER STRUS 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL of WASHINGTON

Seattle, WA 98t04
(206)464-7744
1 returning home to their children could result in families being permanently torn apart, and an
2 increased burden on Washington State's foster care system.
3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
4 is true and correct.
6 DATED this day of February 2017, at Washington.
8
STRUS, Secretary
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Seattle, WA 98104
(206)464-7744
SUPPLEMENT BRIEF RE STANDING by Plaintiff State of Washington (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
// PAGE 44
AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by State of Washington.
// PAGE 1

ROBERT W. FERGUSON
2 WSBA #26004
Attorney General
3
NOAH G. PURCELL
4 WSBA #43492
Solicitor General
5 COLLEEN M. MELODY
WSBA #42275
7
8 Seattle, WA 98104
206-464-7744
9

11
STATE OF WASHINGTON and CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
12 STATE OF MINNESOTA,
13 Plaintiffs,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
14 v. FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F.
STATES OF AMERICA,
20
Defendants.
21
I. INTRODUCTION
22
1. The States of Washington and Minnesota (States) bring this action to protect
23
the Statesincluding their residents, employers, and educational institutionsagainst illegal
24
actions of the President and the federal government. The Presidents Executive Order of
25
January 27, 2017 (the Executive Order), is separating families, harming thousands of the
26
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 States residents, damaging the States economies, hurting State-based companies, and
2 undermining both States sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants
3 and refugees. The Court should invalidate the portions of the Executive Order challenged here.
4 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 2. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 2201(a).
6 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and
7 1391(e)(1). Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities.
8 The State of Washington is a resident of this judicial district and a substantial part of the events
9 or omissions giving rise to this First Amended Complaint occurred within the Western District
10 of Washington.
11 4. The States bring this action to redress harms to their proprietary interests and
12 their interests as parens patriae, as well as under their authority pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702 and
13 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a).
14 III. PARTIES
15 PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON

16 5. The Governor is the chief executive officer of the State of Washington. The
17 Governor is responsible for overseeing the operations of the State of Washington and ensuring
18 that its laws are faithfully executed.
19 6. The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the State of Washington. The
20 Attorney Generals powers and duties include acting in federal court on matters of public
21 concern.
22 7. Washington has declared that practices that discriminate against any of its
23 inhabitants because of race, creed, color, or national origin are matters of public concern that
24 threaten the rights and proper privileges of the State and harm the public welfare, health, and
25 peace of the people. See Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.010.
26

(206) 464-7744
1 8. Washingtons interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its
2 residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is
3 a quasi-sovereign interest.
4 9. Washington also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded
5 from the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and
6 privileges provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
7 10. Washingtons interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the publics
8 health, safety, and well-being extends to all of Washingtons residents, including individuals
9 who suffer indirect injuries and members of the general public.
10 11. According to the most current American Community Survey data from the U.S.
11 Census Bureau, as of 2015, approximately 7,280 non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria,
12 Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen reside in Washington1,409 Iranian immigrants, 2,275
13 Iraqi immigrants, 360 Libyan immigrants, 2,883 Somalian immigrants, 165 Sudanese
14 immigrants, and 187 Syrian immigrants.
15 12. Immigration is an important economic driver in Washington. Many workers in
16 Washingtons technology industry are immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are
17 from Muslim-majority countries. Immigrant and refugee-owned businesses employ 140,000
18 people in Washington. Many companies in Washington are dependent on foreign workers to
19 operate and grow their businesses.
20 13. The technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program, through
21 which highly skilled workers like software engineers are permitted to work in the United
22 States. Washington ranks ninth in the U.S. by number of applications for high-tech visas.
23 Microsoft, a corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, is the States top employer
24 of H-1B visa holders and employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other
25 Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands
26 of H-1B visa holders.

(206) 464-7744
1 14. The market for highly skilled workers and leaders in the technology industry is
2 extremely competitive. Changes to U.S. immigration policy that restrict the flow of people may
3 inhibit these companies ability to adequately staff their research and development efforts and
4 recruit talent from overseas. If recruiting efforts are less successful, these companies abilities
5 to develop and deliver successful products and services may be adversely affected.
6 15. Microsofts U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest
7 workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan,
8 Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas. There may be other employees with
9 permanent-resident status or green cards. These employees may be banned from re-entering the
10 U.S. if they travel overseas or to the companys offices in Vancouver, British Columbia.
11 16. Seattle-based company Amazon also employs workers from every corner of the
12 world. Amazons employees, dependents of employees, and candidates for employment with
13 Amazon have been impacted by the Executive Order that is the subject of this First Amended
14 Complaint. Amazon has advised such employees currently in the United States to refrain from
15 travel outside the United States.
16 17. Bellevue-based company Expedia operates a domestic and foreign travel
17 business. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Expedia had approximately 1,000
18 customers with existing flight reservations in or out of the United States who hold passports
19 from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen. The Executive Order will restrict
20 business, increase business costs, and impact current employees and customers.
21 18. Washington is also home to individuals and nonprofit religious organizations
22 that, as part of their religious beliefs and/or mission, provide services to refugees and
23 immigrants in Washington and throughout the world.
24 19. Up to 13 individuals were detained at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
25 (Sea-Tac Airport) one day after President Trump issued the Executive Order that is the
26 subject of this First Amended Complaint.

(206) 464-7744
1 20. An unknown number of Washington residents from the affected countries may
2 have been prevented from, or may now be prevented from, traveling to Washington through
3 air, land, and sea ports of entry across the United States. It is unknown how many additional
4 Washington residents will reach United States ports across the country and be prevented from
5 returning to Washington while the Executive Order remains in effect.
6 21. As a result of the Executive Order, Washington residents have been separated
7 from their families. One Somali refugee, who has lived in Seattle for 12 years, went to Sea-Tac
8 Airport to pick up her husband who was flying from Somalia through Vienna, but never saw
9 him before he was sent back on a flight to Vienna. Another individual who was detained is
10 related to a Sea-Tac Airport worker. A third detainee, the sister of a blind Iraqi man who lives
11 in Seattle, was prevented from seeing him after 15 years apart.
12 22. Other Washington residents will be unable to travel to Canada to visit family.
13 An Iraqi-born software engineer, who works in Facebooks Seattle office and was in Canada
14 watching his little brother perform in a high school play, received a phone call from his
15 immigration attorney shortly before the Executive Order took effect, advising him to rush back
16 across the border.
17 23. Still other Washington residents will be prevented from being reunited with
18 family members. One Syrian family who recently resettled in Seattle is waiting for an older
19 child still in a refugee camp who was set to arrive next week, but for the Executive Order.
20 24. In addition to affecting Washington residents, families, and businesses, the
21 Executive Order harms Washingtons proprietary interests.
22 25. In 2015, travelers from the Middle East spent approximately $96 million in
23 Washington. This spending generated more than $6 million in State tax revenue and more than
24 $2 million in local tax revenue.
25 26. Washington also has a proprietary interest in securing the best possible
26 employees. Washington agencies and institutions of higher education (including the University

(206) 464-7744
1 of Washington and Washington State University) employ a number of people from the affected
2 countries who are here on visas and will be affected by the Executive Order. These employees
3 were hired because of their specialized skills and qualifications.
4 27. Washington expends time and funds to sponsor H-1B employees. Washington
5 wastes that time and money, and loses the value of employee labor, if employees are not able
6 to fully work and travel due to the Executive Order.
7 28. The University of Washington and Washington State University are the two
8 largest public universities in the State. More than 95 students from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia,
9 Sudan, Libya, and Yemen attend the University of Washington, based in Seattle. More than
10 135 students from those countries attend Washington State University, based in Pullman.
11 Affected students also attend Washington colleges, community colleges, and technical
12 colleges.
13 29. The Executive Order prohibits these students from traveling abroad for research
14 or scholarship, and may cause some to leave the universities. Future students from these
15 countries may be prevented from enrolling. These harms damage the educational mission of
16 Washingtons institutions of higher education.
17 PLAINTIFF STATE OF MINNESOTA
18 30. Lori Swanson is the chief legal officer of the State of Minnesota. Her powers
19 and duties include filing lawsuits in federal court on behalf of the State of Minnesota.
20 31. The Executive Order has had immediate and significant effects in Minnesota.
21 According to the American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2015,
22 over 400,000 of Minnesotas approximately 5.4 million residents were born outside the United
23 States, including more than 30,000 from Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. These
24 Minnesotans now face considerable uncertainty about whether they may travel overseas or
25 whether relatives may visit or move here.
26

(206) 464-7744
1 32. The Executive Order is also harming Minnesotas educational institutions. For
2 example, at the University of Minnesota, the States largest public research university,
3 immigrants have been a vital part of the Universitys student body, faculty and staff, research,
4 scholarship, and innovation. Currently, across the five campuses, there are approximately 120
5 students and international scholars from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or
6 Yemen. These individuals are now restricted from traveling outside the United States for
7 research and academic collaborations or other personal reasons, since they have no reasonable
8 expectation of being able to return to continue their studies. Several of these individuals were
9 anticipating the arrival of their families for various reasons this spring, among them the
10 celebration of graduations, which may no longer be possible due to the Executive Order.
11 33. The University of Minnesota student-body, faculty, and staff also includes
12 refugees who have expressed concern about reunifying with family members. Others who
13 immigrated to the United States years ago and still maintain close ties to families and friends in
14 their home countries have also expressed concern.
15 34. Likewise, at Macalester College, a nationally ranked liberal arts college in
16 St. Paul, Minnesota, the executive order has negatively affected students from Syria and Libya,
17 as well as domestic students from Somalia, who may be unable to visit family and friends or
18 participate in study abroad programs.
19 35. Minnesotas businesses and economy are also impacted. For example, the Mayo
20 Clinic, an internationally-known healthcare institution that treats patients who travel to it for
21 healthcare services from around the world, has publicly stated that approximately 80 staff,
22 physicians, and scholars have ties to the affected countries.
23 36. Many travel plans to and from Minnesota have been disrupted. For example, a
24 4-year-old Somali girl, who was separated from her mother and two sisters shortly after being
25 born in a refugee camp in Uganda, was scheduled to arrive on January 30, 2017. Her mother
26 had received visas for herself and her other two daughters, but she was pregnant when they

(206) 464-7744
1 were approved, so her newborn was not covered. She was told that her whole family would
2 have to start the visa process over if she tried to get one for her youngest daughter or she could
3 move to the United States and apply for reunification which would take less than one year.
4 Four years later, the youngest daughter finally received a visa to come to the United States.
5 The young girl was at the airport in Uganda on January 30, 2017, ready to board the plane, but
6 she was not allowed due to the Executive Order.
7 DEFENDANTS
8 37. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and issued the
9 January 27, 2017, Executive Order on which Defendants rely for authority to detain, remove,
10 or refuse admission to non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya,
11 and Yemen who are traveling or returning to the States via air, land, and sea ports across the
12 United States, including Sea-Tac Airport and Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. He is
13 sued in his official capacity.
14 38. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a federal cabinet
15 agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act
16 (INA). DHS is a Department of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, and is an
17 agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(f). The U.S. Customs and Border Protection is an
18 Operational and Support Component agency within DHS. The U.S. Customs and Border
19 Protection is responsible for detaining and/or removing non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq,
20 Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen arriving at air, land, and sea ports across the United
21 States, including Sea-Tac Airport and Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
22 39. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
23 Security. He is responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA, and oversees the U.S.
24 Customs and Border Protection. He is sued in his official capacity.
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 40. Defendant Tom Shannon is the Acting Secretary of State. The Secretary of State
2 has authority to determine and implement certain visa procedures for non-citizens. He is sued
3 in his official capacity.
4 41. Defendant the United States of America includes all government agencies and
5 departments responsible for the implementation of the INA and responsible for the admission,
6 detention, removal of non-citizen immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya,
7 and Yemen who are traveling to or returning to the States via air, land, and sea ports across the
8 United States, including Sea-Tac Airport and Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
9 IV. ALLEGATIONS
10 42. Prior to his election, Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would
11 ban Muslims from entering the United States.
12 43. On December 7, 2015, candidate Trump issued a press release calling for a
13 total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. As of the date of this
14 filing, the press release remains available on Trumps campaign website and is attached hereto
15 as Exhibit 1.
16 44. In defending his decision shortly thereafter, candidate Trump compared the
17 Muslim ban to former President Franklin Roosevelts decision to intern Japanese Americans
18 during World War II, and stated, This is a president highly respected by all, [Roosevelt] did
19 the same thing. A media report of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
20 45. On June 14, 2016, candidate Trump reiterated his promise to ban all Muslims
21 entering this country until we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen
22 those people coming into our country. A transcript of this speech is attached hereto as Exhibit
23 3.
24 46. Asked during a July 24, 2016, interview about whether he was backing off on
25 his Muslim ban[], candidate Trump stated, I actually dont think its a pull-back. In fact, you
26 could say its an expansion. A transcript of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

(206) 464-7744
1 47. In a foreign policy speech delivered on August 15, 2016, candidate Trump
2 noted that the United States could not adequate[ly] screen[] immigrants because it admits
3 about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year. Trump proposed
4 creating an ideological screening test for immigration applicants, which would screen out any
5 who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles or who believe that Sharia
6 law should supplant American law. During the speech, he referred to his proposal as
7 extreme, extreme vetting. A copy of the prepared remarks is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. A
8 video link to the delivered speech is available at: https://www.c-span.org/video/?413977-
9 1/donald-trump-delivers-foreign-policy-address (quoted remarks at 50:46).
10 48. On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President of the
11 United States. In his first television interview as President, he again referred to his plan for
12 extreme vetting. A transcript of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
13 49. On January 27, 2017, one week after being sworn in, President Trump signed an
14 executive order entitled, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United
15 States. The Executive Order directs a series of changes to the manner in which non-citizens
16 may seek and obtain entry to the United States. The Executive Order is attached hereto as
17 Exhibit 7.
18 50. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that entry of immigrants and
19 nonimmigrants from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and
20 Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), i.e., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and
21 Yemen, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The Executive Order
22 suspend[s] entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for
23 90 days from the date of this order.
24 51. Sections 5(a)(b) of the Executive Order suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions
25 Program in its entirety for 120 days and then, upon its resumption, direct the Secretary of State
26

(206) 464-7744
1 to prioritize refugees who claim religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the
2 individual is a minority religion in the individuals country of nationality.
3 52. Section 5(c) of the Executive Order proclaims that entry of Syrian refugees is
4 detrimental to the interests of the United States and suspends their entry indefinitely.
5 53. In a January 27, 2017, interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network,
6 President Trump confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the Middle East for admission
7 as refugees. A copy of the transcript of this interview is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
8 54. During a signing ceremony for the Executive Order on January 27, 2017,
9 President Trump stated that the purpose of the Executive Order was to establish[] new vetting
10 measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. He continued,
11 We dont want them here. A media report of these statements is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
12 55. That same day, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services at the U.S.
13 Department of State, Edward J. Ramotowski, issued a letter which, subject to limited
14 exceptions, provisionally revoke[d] all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals
15 of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The letter is attached hereto as
16 Exhibit 10.
17 56. Also that day, the U.S. Department of State and some U.S. embassies and
18 consulates abroad posted a notice online advising immigrant visa applicants that visa issuance
19 had been suspended and visa interviews cancelled. The online notice is attached hereto as
20 Exhibit 11. A copy of the notice posted in the U.S. embassy in Iraq is attached hereto as
21 Exhibit 12.
22 57. On January 28, 2017, a spokeswoman for DHS stated that lawful permanent
23 residents, or green card holders, would be barred from entry pursuant to the Executive Order.
24 A media report of these statements is attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 58. On January 29, 2017, DHS reversed its decision through a statement by
2 Secretary Kelly that purported to exempt lawful permanent residents from the Executive Order.
3 The statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
4 59. Two days later, however, on January 31, 2017, the U.S. Customs and Border
5 Protection, a DHS sub-agency, issued a statement entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign
6 Terrorist Entry into the United States. Although it repeated Secretary Kellys earlier
7 statement, it also confirmed in its Questions and Answers section that the Executive Order
8 applies to lawful permanent residents and that their entry would depend on receipt of a
9 national interest waiver[] consistent with the provisions of the Executive Order. The
10 statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
11 60. On January 29, 2017, President Trump issued a statement defending the
12 Executive Order, stating [t]his is not a Muslim ban. The statement is attached hereto as
13 Exhibit 16.
14 61. President Trumps statement conflicts with the statement made by his
15 cybersecurity advisor the day before. In an interview with Fox News on January 28, 2017,
16 Rudolph Giuliani confirmed that the Executive Order was crafted to be a legal ban on
17 Muslims. Specifically, Giuliani stated that Trump asked him for a Muslim ban and instructed
18 Giuliani to put a commission together to show [Trump] the right way to do it legally. A
19 media report of Giulianis statements is attached hereto as Exhibit 17. A video of Giulianis
20 statements is also available at: https://youtu.be/l9GKL6i38pI.
21 V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fifth Amendment Equal Protection)
22
62. The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each
23
of the preceding paragraphs of this First Amended Complaint.
24
25
government from denying equal protection of the laws.
26

(206) 464-7744
2 Defendants concerning their intent and application, target individuals for discriminatory
3 treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion, without lawful justification.
4 65. The Executive Order was motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular
5 group.
6 66. The discriminatory terms and application of the Executive Order are arbitrary
7 and cannot be sufficiently justified by federal interests.
8 67. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the equal protection
9 guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
10 68. Defendants violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.
11 VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(First Amendment Establishment Clause)
12
13
14
70. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the federal
15
government from officially preferring one religion over another.
16
17
Defendants concerning their intent and application, are intended to disfavor Islam and favor
18
Christianity.
19
72. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the Establishment
20
Clause of the First Amendment.
21
73. Defendants violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents.
22
VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process)
24 74. The States reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each
25 of the preceding paragraphs of this First Amended Complaint.
26

(206) 464-7744
1 75. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal
2 government from depriving individuals of their liberty interests without due process of law.
3 76. Where Congress has granted statutory rights and authorized procedures
4 applicable to arriving and present non-citizens, minimum due process rights attach to those
5 statutory rights.
6 77. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order conflict with the statutory rights and
7 procedures directed by Congress. In issuing and implementing the Executive Order,
8 Defendants have violated the procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
10 VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Immigration and Nationality Act Discriminatory Visa Procedures)
11
12
13
80. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), prohibits
14
discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of
15
birth, or place of residence.
16
17
Defendants concerning their intent and application, discriminate on the basis of race,
18
nationality, place of birth, and/or place of residence in the issuance of visas, in violation of the
19
Immigration and Nationality Act.
20
21
IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Immigration and Nationality Act Denial of Asylum and Withholding of Removal)
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 84. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158 and 1231(b)(3), entitles
2 certain non-citizens arriving at the States ports of entry to apply for asylum and withholding
3 of removal.
4 85. As implemented, the Executive Order suspends all immigrant and
5 nonimmigrant entry into the States by individuals from seven countries and forecloses their
6 ability to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
8 X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act Denial of Convention Against Torture
9 Relief)
12 88. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 8 U.S.C. 1231
13 note, implements the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the United States
14 ratified in 1994. Pub. L. 105-277, div. G, subdiv. B, title XXII, 2242. Under the Convention
15 Against Torture, the United States may not involuntarily return any person to a country where
16 there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to
17 torture.
18 89. As implemented, the Executive Order suspends all immigrant and
19 nonimmigrant entry into the States by individuals from seven countries and forecloses their
20 ability to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
22 XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Religious Freedom Restoration Act)
23
24
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 92. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a), prohibits the
2 federal government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, even if the burden
3 results from a rule of general applicability.
4 93. Section 3 of the Executive Order, if implemented, will result in substantial
5 burdens on the exercise of religion by non-citizen immigrants by, for example, preventing
6 them from exercising their religion while in detention, returning to their religious communities
7 in the States, and/or taking upcoming, planned religious travel abroad. Such burdens on
8 religion violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
9 94. Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order also will result in substantial burdens
10 on the exercise of religion by individuals and religious organizations in Washington that
11 provide services to refugees and immigrants as part of their religious beliefs/mission.
13 XII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Procedural Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act)
14
15
16
97. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 and 706(2)(D), requires that
17
federal agencies conduct formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive
18
rights.
19
98. In implementing Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, federal agencies have
20
changed the substantive criteria by which individuals from affected countries may enter the
21
United States. Federal agencies did not follow the procedures required by the Administrative
22
Procedure Act before taking action impacting these substantive rights.
23
99. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the Administrative
24
Procedure Act.
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 XIII. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Substantive Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act)
2
3
4
102. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2), prohibits federal agency
5
action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute.
6
7
taken unconstitutional and unlawful action, as alleged herein, in violation of the Administrative
8
Procedure Act.
9
10
applied provisions arbitrarily, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
11
12
XIV. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Tenth Amendment)
16 107. The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not enumerated in the Constitution
17 to the states and prohibits the federal government from commandeering state legislative
18 processes.
19 108. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from directly
20 compelling states to enact and enforce federal law.
22 Defendants concerning their intent and application, target individuals for discriminatory
23 treatment based on their country of origin and/or religion, without lawful justification.
24 110. The States and their employers, housing providers, and businesses have long
25 been prohibited by their States laws from discriminating against people based on national
26 origin and religion in employment, housing, and in places of public accommodation.

(206) 464-7744
1 111. The Executive Order effectively mandates that the States engage in
2 discrimination based on national origin and/or religion, thereby rescinding the States historic
3 protection of civil rights and religious freedom.
4 112. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the Tenth Amendment.
5 113. Defendants violation causes ongoing harm to the States.
6 XV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7 114. Wherefore, the States pray that the Court:
8 a. Declare that Sections 3(c), 5(a)(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order are
9 unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United
10 States;
11 b. Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a)
12 (c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, including at all United States
13 borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas, pending further
14 orders from this Court;
15 c. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), set an expedited
16 hearing within fourteen (14) days to determine whether the Temporary
17 Restraining Order should be extended; and
18 d. Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(206) 464-7744
I DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

2 y fabNi
3
5 Noah G. PBbrcell, WSI)A #f3492

6
Colleen M. Melody-,-WSB #42275
Anne E. Egeler, WSBA #202 8"
8 Deputy Solicitor `~
Marsha Chien, WSBA #47020
9 Patricio A. Marquez, WSBA #47693
Assistant Attorneys General
Seattle, WA 98104
12 (206) 464-7744
Noahp@atg.wa.gov
13
LORI SWANSON
14 Attorney General
State of Minnesota
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(206)464-7744
First Amended Complaint

Exhibit 1
INSTAGRAM FACEBOOK TWITTER
NE WS G E T IN V O L V ED GALLERY ABOUT US SHOP CO N TRI BU T E
- DECEMBER 07, 2015 - CATEGORIES
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON VIEW ALL

PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
STATEMENTS
(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's ANNOUNCEMENTS
representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research,
ENDORSEMENTS
among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the
Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security
ADS
Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against
Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51%
of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being
governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder
against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts
ARCHIVE
that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to NOVEMBER 2016
anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and
OCTOBER 2016
why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this
problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of SEPTEMBER 2016
horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of
reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to AUGUST 2016
Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump
JULY 2016
JUNE 2016
Next Release: Donald J. Trump Announces State Directors in Massachusetts and MAY 2016
Mississippi
APRIL 2016
Previous Release: Donald J. Trump Announces Statewide Leadership Team in
Oklahoma MARCH 2016
FEBRUARY 2016
JANUARY 2016
DECEMBER 2015
NOVEMBER 2015
OCTOBER 2015
SEPTEMBER 2015
AUGUST 2015
JULY 2015
JUNE 2015
MAY 2015
APRIL 2015
MARCH 2015
Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Contact The Campaign - Privacy Policy - Tel: 646-736-1779

*By entering your mobile number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
Message and data rates may apply. Text "STOP" to opt-out. T&C/Privacy Policy: sms-terms/88022

Exhibit 2
Post Politics
Donald Trump says he is

not bothered by
comparisons to Hitler
By Jenna Johnson December 8, 2015
Editor's note: This story is from 2015.
The comparison between Donald Trump and Hitler is being made more and more frequently -- including on
the cover of Tuesday's Philadelphia Daily News -- but the Republican front-runner said Tuesday that the
comparison doesn't bother him.
"You're increasingly being compared to Hitler," ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said during an interview
with Trump on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. "Does that give you any pause at all?"
"No," Trump responded, "because what I am doing is no different than what FDR -- FDR's solution for
Germans, Italians, Japanese, you know, many years ago."
Stephanopoulos jumped in as Trump kept talking: "So you're for internment camps?"
"This is a president who is highly respected by all," Trump said of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "He did the
same thing -- if you look at what he was doing, it was far worse."
[ This is what happens when Donald Trump attacks a private citizen on Twitter]
Trump's answer was confusing and meandering but he seemed to be making the point that during times of
war, more extreme measures must be used.
"We are now at war," Trump said. "We have a president that doesn't want to say that, but we are now at war."
"I've got to press you on that, sir,"Stephanopoulos said. "So you're praising FDR there, I take it you're
praising the setting up of internment camps for Japanese during World War II?"
Local Politics Alerts

Sign up
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
"No, I'm not," Trump responded. "No, I'm not. No, I'm not."
Trump then rattled off the numbers of some of the presidential proclamations Roosevelt issued "having to do
with alien Germans, alien Italians, alien Japanese."
"They went through a whole list of things -- they couldn't go five miles from their homes, they weren't
allowed to use radios, flashlights," Trump said. "Take a look at what FDR did many years ago, and he's one of
the most highly respected presidents... They named highways after him."
Stephanopoulos responded: "You want to bring back policies like that?"
After a pause, Trump responded: "No, I don't to bring it back, George. At all. I don't like doing it at all. It's a
temporary measure until our representatives, many of whom are grossly incompetent, until our
representatives can figure out what's going on."
Jenna Johnson is a political reporter who covers the White House. She spent more than than a
year writing about Donald Trump's presidential campaign, traveling to 35 states to attend more
than 170 political rallies and interview hundreds of Trump supporters. Follow @wpjenna

Exhibit 3
Trump Pushes Muslim Ban After Orlando Shooting
DONALD TRUMP

Ryan Teague Beckwith
Updated: Jun 13, 2016 8:36 PM Pacific
Donald Trump addressed the shooting at a gay club in Orlando in a prepared speech
Monday, calling for suspending immigration from countries with a history of terrorism.
Here is a full transcript of his remarks, as given.
TRUMP: (OFF-MIKE) This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and all of the bad things
and we all know what's going on, and especially how poor she'd do as president in these very,
very troubled times of radical Islamic terrorism.
TRUMP: Even her former Secret Service agent, who's seen her under pressure and in times of

stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be our president. There will be
plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that
speech very, very soon.
But today, there's only one thing to discuss, the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders.
The attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was the worst terror strike on our soil since
September 11th, and the worst mass shooting in our country's history.
So many people -- it's just hard to believe, but just so many people dead, so many people gravely
injured, so much carnage, such a disgrace. The horror is beyond description. The families of these
wonderful people are totally devastated, and they will be forever. Likewise, our whole nation and
indeed the whole world is devastated.
We express our deepest sympathies to the victims, the wounded, and their families. We mourn as
one people for our nation's loss, and pledge our support to any and all who need it. I would like to
ask now that we all observe a moment of silence for the victims of this attack.
Thank you. Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT
community. They have been through something that nobody could ever experience. This is a very
dark moment in America's history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only
because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens, because of
their sexual orientation.
It's a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It's an assault on the ability of free
people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity. It's an attack on the right
of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.
We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people, with force, purpose, and
determination. But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and to think
and act clearly. We're not acting clearly, we're not talking clearly, we've got problems.
If we don't get tough, and if we don't get smart, and fast, we're not going to have our country
anymore. There will be nothing, absolutely nothing, left. The killer, whose name I will not use, or
ever say, was born in Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.
His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don't
share its radical views, and they murdered plenty. The father even said he was running for
president of Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the
first place, was because we allowed his family to come here.
That is a fact, and it's a fact we need to talk about. We have a dysfunctional immigration system,
which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect
our citizens properly. We have an incompetent administration.
And if I'm elected president, that will not change, I will tell you, that will not change over the next
four years. We have an administration that will not change. But if I get in there, it's going to
change, and it's going to change quickly. We're going from totally incompetent to just the
opposite, believe me.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.

With 50 people dead and perhaps more ultimately and dozens more wounded, we cannot afford to
talk around issues anymore. We have to address these issues head-on. I called for a ban after San
Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger but now many years and I have to say many
years but many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary we must
find out what is going on. We have to do it.
It will be lifted -- this ban -- when and as a nation we're in a position to properly and perfectly
screen these people coming into our country. They're pouring in and we don't know what we're
doing. The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into
the country of any class of persons. Now, any class -- it really is determined and to be determined
by the president for the interests of the United States. And it's as he or she deems appropriate.
Hopefully it's he in this case.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. I will use this power to protect the American people. When I'm elected I will suspend
immigration from areas of the world where there's a proven history of terrorism against the United
States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats. After a full ...
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
And by the way we have no choice. After a full and partial and long -- really long overdue
security assessment we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and
values of America.
(APPLAUSE)
We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country many
of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of radical
Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.
(APPLAUSE) Remember this, radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti- American.
(APPLAUSE)
I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people
are targets of persecution and intimation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.
(APPLAUSE)
This is not just a national security issue. It's a quality of life issue. If we want to protect the quality
of life for all Americans -- women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all
people then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam and we need to do it now.
(APPLAUSE)
We need to tell the truth also about how radical Islam is coming to our shores. And it's coming ...
(APPLAUSE)
With these people, folks, it's coming. We're importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West
through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our
president. Even our own FBI director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the
backgrounds of people we're letting into America. All of the September 11th hijackists were
issued visas. Large numbers of Somali refugees in Minnesota have tried to join ISIS.

The Boston bombers came here through political asylum. The male shooter in San Bernardino
again whose name I will not mention was the child of immigrants from Pakistan and he brought
his wife, the other terrorist from Saudi Arabia through another one of our easily exploited visa
programs.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five fold --
five fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99 percent of the people in Afghanistan
support oppressive sharia law. We admit many more, and that's just the way it is. We admit many
more from other countries in the region.
And I'll tell you what: They share these oppressive views and values. We want to remain a free
and open society. Then, and if we do, then we have to control our borders. We have to control,
and we have to control them now, not later. Right now.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Yet Hillary Clinton, for months, and despite so many attacks, repeatedly refused to even say the
words radical Islam until I challenged her yesterday. And, guess what, she will probably say them.
She sort of has said them, but let's see what happens. She really has no choice, but she doesn't
want to.
However, she's really been forced, and she has been forced to say these words. She supports, and
the reason is, she supports so much of what is wrong, and what is wrong with this country, and
what's going wrong with our country and our borders. She has no clue, in my opinion, what
radical Islam is and she won't speak honestly about it if she does, in fact, know. She's in total
denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the
entire world -- true weakness.
I don't know if you know this, but just a few weeks before San Bernardino, the slaughter, that's all
it was was a slaughter, Hillary Clinton explained her refusal to say the words "radical Islam."
Here is what she said, exact quote, "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorism." That is Hillary Clinton.
So, she says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France which has among the toughest
gun laws anywhere in the world, and 130 people were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in
cold blood. Her plan is to disarm law abiding Americans, abolishing the Second Amendment, and
leaving only the bad guys and terrorists with guns. No good. Not going to happen, folks. Not
going to happen. Not going to happen. (APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
She wants to take away American's guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us.
Let them come into the country, we don't have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun
they want.
I will be meeting with the NRA, which has given me their earliest endorsement in a presidential
race, to discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of
terror. I will be always defending the Second Amendment.

(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you.
The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into
American and allow it to grow oversees, and it is growing. In fact, Hillary Clinton's catastrophic
immigration plan will bring vastly more radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening
not only our society but our entire way of life. When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism,
ignorance is not bliss. It's deadly -- totally deadly.
The Obama administration, with the support of Hillary Clinton and others, has also damaged our
security by restraining our intelligence gathering and we have, just, no intelligence gathering
information. We need this information so badly, and he stopped it. We don't have the support. We
don't have the support of the law enforcement system because Obama is not letting them do their
job. They are not being allowed to do their job. And, they can do it well -- better than anybody.
We need a new leader. We need a new leader fast.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Thank you.
They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else. I
refuse to be politically correct.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to do the right thing. I want to straighten things out and I want to make America great
again.
(APPLAUSE)
The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon if I'm elected. As president I will
give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools they need to prevent
terrorist attacks. They don't have those tools now.
(APPLAUSE)
We need an intelligence gathering system second to none. Second to none. That includes better
cooperation between state, local and federal officials, and with our allies, very importantly. I will
have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence and a Secretary of Defense who'll
know how to fight a war on radical Islamic terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
And they will have the support that they need to get the job done right, not like it is right now. It's
not right.
(APPLAUSE)
We also must ensure the American people are provided the information they need to understand
the threat. The Senate subcommittee on Immigration has already identified hundreds of
immigrants charged with terrorist activities inside the United States since September 11th. Nearly
a year ago, the Senate Subcommittee asked President Obama's Department of Justice, State and
Homeland Security to provide the immigration history of all terrorists inside the United States.
These Departments refused to comply. Nobody even knows why. They refused to comply.
President Obama must release the full and complete immigration histories of all individuals

implicated in terrorist activities of any kind since September 11th. So important. The public has a
right to know how these people got here, how they came on to this great land, why are they here?
(APPLAUSE)
We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with or supporting radical
groups and beliefs, very simple. We have to control the amount of future immigration into this
country and we have to prevent large pockets of radicalization from forming inside America. Not
complicated.
(APPLAUSE)
Every - and just think of this. Take a look. Every single event, even a single individual can be
devastating, and all you have to do is take a look at what happened in Orlando and what happened
in other cases. Just a single event. And just one person. Can you imagine what they'll do in large
groups, which we're allowing now to come here.
Truly our President doesn't know what he's doing. He's failed us and he's failed us badly. Under
his leadership this situation will not get any better, it will only get worse. And I've been saying
that for a long time. Each year the United States permanently admits 100,000 immigrants from the
Middle East and many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East. Our government
has been admitting ever- growing numbers, year after year, without any effective plan for our own
security.
In fact, Clinton's State Department was in charge of admissions and the admissions process for
people applying to enter from overseas. Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans
to massively increase admissions without a screening plan including a 500 percent increase in
Syrian refugees coming into our country. Tell me, tell me - how stupid is that?
This could be a better, bigger, more horrible version than the legendary Trojan Horse ever was.
Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you'd be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the
Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of the children and their
children. Not only their children, by the way, they're trying to take over our children and convince
them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is and we don't know what's happening.
TRUMP: The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these
dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to really to screen. We're
not screening people.
So why don't we have an effective screening system? We don't. We're being laughed at all over
the world. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our
country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans. The burden is on
Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it, her plan will cost hundreds of billions of dollars
long term.
Wouldn't this be money better spent rebuilding America for our current population including the
many poor people already living here. We have cities, we have inner cities...
(APPLAUSE)
We have poverty all over and this is how we're spending billions of dollars. We have to stop the
tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United States. We don't know who they are, they

have no documentation and we don't know what they're planning and we won't unless we have
proper supervisor and proper leadership in which case they're out of here. What I want...
(APPLAUSE)
What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration policy that promotes American
values. That's a choice I put before the American people. A mainstream immigration policy
designed to benefit America or Hillary Clinton's radical immigration policy designed to benefit
politically correct special interests. That's all it is. We've got to get smart and tough and vigilant
and we've got to do it now because later is too late -- going to be too late for our country.
The media talks about home grown terrorism but Islamic radicalism and that's a very, very
important term -- a term that the president refuses to use and the networks that nurture it are
imports from overseas whether you like it or whether you don't like it. Yes, there are many
radicalized people already inside our country as a result of poor policies of the past.
But the whole point is that we will be much, much and it will be easier to deal with our current
problem if we don't keep on bringing people who add to the problem. And that's what they're
doing. We're letting all of these people -- hundreds of thousands of people come in and all they're
doing is adding to this incredible problem we have.
For instance, the controversial mosque attended by the Boston bombers had at its founder and as
its founder an immigrant from overseas charged in an assassination plot. This shooter and
amazingly in Orlando was the child of an immigrant father who supported one of the most
repressive regimes on earth. Why would we admit people who support violent hatred?
Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to
support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country and who suppress
women, gays and anyone who doesn't share their views or values.
(APPLAUSE)
She can't have it both ways. She can't claim to be supportive of these communities while trying to
increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress these same communities. How does
this kind of immigration make our lives better? How does this kind of immigration make our
country better? Why does Hillary Clinton want to bring people in in vast numbers who reject our
values? Why? Explain.
Ask yourself who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with
actions or Hillary Clinton with her words?
TRUMP: I will tell you who the better friend is and some day I believe that will be proven out
bigly (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
And by the way the LGBT community is just -- what's happened to them is just so sad and to be
thinking about where their policies are currently with this administration is a disgrace to that
community, I will tell you right now.
Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country. They enslave women,
and they murder gays. I don't want them in our country.
(APPLAUSE)

Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn't support our
communities. All of our communities, every single one of them. Americans already admitted four
times more immigrants than any country on Earth, anybody in the world. Four times more. At
least, because we don't even know who's coming in. And we continue to admit millions more with
no real checks or scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven't budged. In almost 20 years. You wonder why we
get the crowds, you wonder why we get this tremendous support, you wonder why I've gotten
more votes than any Republican in any primary in the history of the Republican Party? Take a
look at that. Take a look at your security, take a look at the wages. For 18 years they've been
stagnant, they've even gone down.
So whether it's a matter of national security, or financial security, we can't afford to keep on going
like this. Cannot afford it. We owe $19 trillion in debt. And no longer have any options. Our
communities from all backgrounds are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against
anyone. It's really an act of defense. I want us all, all of us, to work together. We have to form a
partnership, with our Muslim communities. We have Muslim communities in this country that are
great, and we have to form that partnership.
Now, the Muslim community, so important. They have to work with us. They have to cooperate
with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad. They know it. And they have
to do it, and they have to do it forthwith. I want to fix our schools. I want to fix our bridges. And
our jobs market, we're going to have it rocket again, we're going to make great trade deals. But I
want every American to succeed including Muslims.
But the Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what's going on.
They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know
what? They didn't turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.
Hillary Clinton wants to empty out the Treasury to bring people into the country that include
individuals who preach hate against our citizens. I want to protect our citizens, all of our citizens.
The terrorist attack on Pulse nightclub demands a full and complete investigation into every single
aspect of the assault. In San Bernardino, as an example, people who knew what was going on,
they knew exactly, but they used the excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it. They said oh,
"We thought so but we didn't want to use racial profiling." Which was probably an excuse given
to them by their lawyer, so they don't get in trouble.
We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and associates. We
need to know if he was affiliated with any radical mosques or radical activists and what, if any, is
their immigration status. We have to know, and we have to know fast. We need to know if he
traveled anywhere and who he traveled with. We need to know, and we need to make sure, every
single last person involved in this plan, including anyone who knew something but didn't tell us, is
brought to justice, so when people know what's going on and they don't tell us, and we have an
attack, and people die, these people have to have consequences. Big consequences.
(APPLAUSE)
America must do more -- much more -- to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential

victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientation, as you just saw in Orlando.
TRUMP: It also means we must change our foreign policy. The decision to overthrow the regime
in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans
for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow like nobody has ever seen
before.
These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in
partnership with our Muslim allies in the region. That is why our new goal must be to defeat
Islamic terrorism not nation building. No more nation building. It's never going to work.
And by the way we've spent almost $5 trillion over the years on trying to nation build in the
Middle East and it has been complete and total disaster. We're further away now than we were 15
years ago. For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That
mission helped to unleash ISIS on a new continent.
I've said NATO need to change its focus and stop terrorism. We have to focus on terrorism and
we have to stop terrorism. Since I've raised that criticism and it's OK. I've gotten no credit for it
but these are minor details -- NATO has since announced a new initiative -- front page of the Wall
Street Journal four days ago focused on just that. America must unite the whole civilized world in
the fight against Islamic terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
Pretty much like we did with communism during the Cold War. We tried it President Obama's
way, doesn't work. He gave the world his apology tour. We got ISIS and many other problems in
return. That's what we got. Remember the famous apology tour. We're sorry for everything.
I'd like to conclude my remarks today by again expressing our solitarily with the people of
Orlando who have come under this horrific attack. When I'm president I pledge to protect and
defend all Americans who live inside our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were
born, I don't care. All Americans living here and following our laws not other laws will be
protected.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you. We're going to be tough and we're going to be smart and we're going to do
it right. America will be a tolerant and open society. America will also be a safe society. We will
protect our borders at home. We will defeat ISIS overseas. We have no choice. We will ensure
every parent can raise their children in peace and safety. We will make America rich again. We
will make America safe again. We will make America great again. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you.
SPONSORED STORIES
by


Exhibit 4
MEET THE PRESS JUL 24 2016, 11:47 AM ET

CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday, the Democratic National Convention gets underway here in Philadelphia, after a raucous and unpredictable Republican
convention. That ended with the nomination of Donald Trump.
DONALD TRUMP:
I am with you, I will fight for you, and I will win for you.
CHUCK TODD:
This morning, my sit-down with Donald Trump on his convention speech.
DONALD TRUMP:
The only negative reviews were a little dark.
CHUCK TODD:
On whether he's backing off on his Muslim band.
DONALD TRUMP:
I actually don't think it's a pull-back. In fact, you could say it's an expansion.
CHUCK TODD:
And on Hillary Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine.
DONALD TRUMP:
Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders.
CHUCK TODD:
Plus Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine hit the road in Florida.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Tim Kaine is everything Donald Trump and Mike Pence are not.
CHUCK TODD:
But some Bernie Sanders supporters are criticizing the Kaine pick as a sellout to moderates. I'll talk to Sanders and get his reaction to
that and to the DNC Wikileaks e-mail release. Joining me for insight and analysis are MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, former chairman of
the RNC, Michael Steele, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, and host of Hardball and Philadelphia
hometown boy, Chris Matthews. Trump, Sanders and reactions to the new Democratic ticket. Welcome to Sunday, in a special edition
of Meet the Press at the Democratic National Convention.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. We are at the Wells Fargo Center here in South Philadelphia, home of the NBA 76ers and the NHL Broad
Street Bullies, the Fliers. Democrats have begun to arrive, along with a pretty bad heat wave. And beginning tomorrow, they will gather
to officially nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate.
Yesterday in Miami, Clinton was joined by her new running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, in an upbeat event that was notable
simply by the contrast to the disorganized rollout of Donald Trump's running mate a week earlier, Mike Pence.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Hillary Clinton, she doesn't insult people, she listens to them. What a novel concept, right? She doesn't trash our allies, she respects
them. And she'll always have our backs, that is something I am rock solid sure of.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
We will get to reaction to the new Democratic ticket later in the show, including my interview with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
in a moment. But first, we're going to talk also about Sanders, about those Wikileaks emails and what they may say about DNC
favoritism towards Hillary Clinton. But we begin with the man who has now taken control of the Republican Party. It's nominee Donald
Trump.
I traveled to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, sort of his weekend getaway, last night for a face-to-face interview
since dropping the word "presumptive," it's his first one, from the nominee title. We touched on so much: Tim Kaine, Trump's tax
returns, his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration and why he says he alone can fix the country's problems. But I began by
asking him how it feels to be the Republican nominee for president of the United States.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it really feels great. And we really have a very unified party, other than a very small group of people that, frankly, lost. And we
have a very unified party. You saw that the other night with the love in the room, and the enthusiasm in the room. The enthusiasm,
there are people that say they have never seen anything like what was going on in that room, especially Thursday night.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me tell you, you bring up Thursday night, I've got to ask you about your entrance. Before we get serious here. That Monday night
entrance was something else. I know you've gotten a lot of feedback on it. How'd you come up with it?
DONALD TRUMP:
I think I'm a little bit lucky, and a couple of people had that idea and I went along with the idea. And everything just worked right. And it
was so good that they wanted to do it on Thursday night. I said, "Never in a million years, because you'll never get it that way again."
CHUCK TODD:
I don't think I've seen that even on WWE.
DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, I know. Well, Vince is a good friend of mine. He called me, he said, "That was a very, very good entrance." But I didn't want to
do it a second time, because, you know, it never works out the second time.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let's go into the speech. I want to put some meat on the bones. But first, let's talk about, you've seen some of the positive
reviews, some of the negative reviews. Some of the negative has been that it was a little dark--
DONALD TRUMP:
That's the only thing that--
CHUCK TODD:
--that there wasn't enough optimism in it. What would you say? It's not Morning in America.
DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
What would you say to that?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think the only negativity, and, you know, the hate, I call them the haters, and that's fine. But the only negative reviews were, "A
little dark." And the following day, they had another attack, and then today you see what happened in Afghanistan with many, many
people killed.
They have no idea how many, so many killed. Yesterday it was Munich. And you know, I know they're saying, "Maybe it wasn't
terrorism. Maybe it was just a crazy guy." But in the meantime he's screaming, "Allahu Akbar," as he's shooting people, so, you know,
we'll see how that turns out. And all of a sudden people are saying, "Maybe it wasn't dark at all." But the only thing that some people
said, "It was a little dark. It was a little bit tough."
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think it was a little dark?
DONALD TRUMP:
No, oh, I thought it was very optimistic. To me, it was an optimistic speech, because--
CHUCK TODD:
What makes it optimistic in your view?
DONALD TRUMP:
Because we're going to stop the problems. We're going to stop the problems. In other words, sure, I talk about the problems, but we're
going to solve the problems.
CHUCK TODD:
One of the phrases you used, "I alone can fix it." And to some people, that sounded almost too strong-mannish for them. Do you
understand that criticism and what do you make of it?
DONALD TRUMP:
I'll tell you, part of it was I'm comparing myself to Hillary. And we know Hillary, and we look at her record. Her record has been a
disaster. And I am running against Hillary. It's not like I'm running against the rest of the world. I know people that are very, very
capable that could do a very good job, but they could never get elected.
I can tell you right now. I can give you ten names of people that would do an extraordinary job, but there's no way they could ever get
elected. They wouldn't know where to begin. It wouldn't be for them. But for governing, they would be good. I'm running and, you
know, against one person.
CHUCK TODD:
You said there would be consequences for any company that tried to move a factory out. What--
DONALD TRUMP:
Absolutely, so simple--
CHUCK TODD:
--what is the consequence? Let's start with, you bring up Carrier a lot.
DONALD TRUMP:
It's so simple--
(OVERTALK)
CHUCK TODD:
Right, I understand that. But explain the consequences--
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, here's the consequence--
CHUCK TODD:
What would it be?
DONALD TRUMP:
So Carrier comes in, they announce they're moving to Mexico, they fire all their people in Indiana, and they say, "Hi, well, here we are
in Mexico, you know, enjoy your plant, enjoy the rest of your life," and you hire people from Mexico, okay? Now they make their
product and they put it into the United States.
Well, we will have a very strong border, by the way, but they put it into the United States and we don't charge them tax. There will be a
tax to be paid. If they're going to fire all their people, move their plant to Mexico, build air conditioners, and think they're going to sell
those air conditioners to the United States, there's going to be a tax.
CHUCK TODD:
What kind of tax are you thinking?
DONALD TRUMP:
It could be 25 percent. It could be 35 percent. It could be 15 percent. I haven't determined. And it could be different for different
companies. We have been working on trying to stop this government, because we don't know what we're doing. And not only Obama,
they've been trying to stop this from before Obama. But they don't know. You know, they've done, they've tried lower interest loans,
they've tried zero interest loans, these guys--
CHUCK TODD:
Well, some of these things aren't going to get through the World Trade Organization. There's--
DONALD TRUMP:
It doesn't matter. Then we're going to renegotiate or we're going to pull out. These trade deals are a disaster, Chuck. World Trade
Organization is a disaster.
CHUCK TODD:
You know the concern on some of this--
DONALD TRUMP:
NAFTA is a disaster--
CHUCK TODD:
-- is that it would rattle the world economy. Look what Brexit did to the world economy. Investors got rattled.
DONALD TRUMP:
What did it do? What did it do?
CHUCK TODD:
Now you--
DONALD TRUMP:
The stock market's higher now than it was when it happened. And by the way, I'm the only one of all of these people at the higher level
of the wonderful world of politics, I'm the only one that said, "Brexit's going to happen." Remember, I was asked the question. I said,
"Yeah, I think they're going to approve it. I think they want independence. I don't think they want people pouring into their country." And
I was--
CHUCK TODD:
You're not worried about, you think a fractured Europe is good for America?
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. But we're spending a lot of money on Europe. Don't forget, Europe got together, why, primarily did they get together? So that
they could beat the United States when it comes to making money, in other words, foreign trade--
CHUCK TODD:
Economic--
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay? And now we talk about Europe like it's so wonderful. Hey, I love Europe, I have property in Europe. I'm just saying, the reason
that it got together was like a consortium so that it could compete with the United States--
CHUCK TODD:
So what you're saying is all this stuff is good for America, even if it's not good for Europe?
DONALD TRUMP:
Look, you take a look at Airbus. They make more planes now than Boeing, okay? They got together, all of these countries got together
so that they could beat the United States. Okay, so we're in competition. So you know, we're in competition in one way, we're helping
them in another way. It is so messed up.
CHUCK TODD:
The Muslim ban. I think you've pulled back from it, but you tell me.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting
mechanisms have been put in place.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
This feels like a slight rollback--
DONALD TRUMP:
I don't think that's--
CHUCK TODD:
Should it be interpreted--
DONALD TRUMP:
I don't think so. I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were
so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm okay with that, because I'm
talking territory instead of Muslim.
But just remember this: Our Constitution is great. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a
religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that's great. And that's the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it
differently.
Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that? But you know what? I live with our Constitution. I love our Constitution. I
cherish our Constitution. We're making it territorial. We have nations and we'll come out, I'm going to be coming out over the next few
weeks with a number of the places. And it's very complex--
CHUCK TODD:
Well I was just going to say--
DONALD TRUMP:
--we have problems in Germany and we have problems with France--
CHUCK TODD:
I was just going to ask that. Will this limitt--
DONALD TRUMP:
You know, so it's not just the countries with--
CHUCK TODD:
--would this limit immigration from France?
DONALD TRUMP:
What we're going to have is a thing called--
CHUCK TODD:
They've been compromised by terrorism.
DONALD TRUMP:
They have totally been. And you know why? It's their own fault. Because they allowed people to come into their territory--
CHUCK TODD:
So you would toughen up. You're basically saying, "Hey, if the French want to come over here, you've got to go through an extra
check."
DONALD TRUMP:
It's their own fault, because they've allowed people over years to come into their territory. And that's why Brexit happened, okay?
Because the U.K. is saying, "We're tired of this stuff, what's going on, we're tired of." But listen to this--
CHUCK TODD:
You could get to the point where you're not allowing a lot of people to come into this country from a lot of places.
DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe we get to that point. Chuck, look what's happening. Look at what just took place in Afghanistan, where they blow up a whole
shopping center with people, they have no idea how many people were even killed. Happened today. So we have to be smart and we
have to be vigilant and we have to be strong. We can't be the stupid people--
CHUCK TODD:
So France, Germany, Spain--
DONALD TRUMP:
Here's my plan--
CHUCK TODD:
--places that have been compromised?
DONALD TRUMP:
--here is what I want: Extreme vetting. Tough word. Extreme vetting.
CHUCK TODD:
What does that look like?
DONALD TRUMP:
Tough. We're going to have tough standards. And if a person can't prove--
CHUCK TODD:
Give me one.
DONALD TRUMP:
--that they're from an area, and if a person can't prove what they have to be able to prove, they're not coming into this country. And I
would stop the Syrian migration and the Syrian from coming into this country in two seconds. Hillary Clinton wants to take 550 percent
more people coming in from that area than Barack Obama. I think she's crazy. I think she's crazy. We have no idea who these people
are for the most part, and you know, because I've seen them on different shows--
CHUCK TODD:
All right.
DONALD TRUMP:
--but more importantly, I've read about it. I study it. There is no way that you can vet some of these people. There is no way. Law
enforcement officials, I've had them in my office. I've talked to them.
CHUCK TODD:
You realize some of these folks have nowhere to go? They're truly victims of this civil war, what do you do with them?
DONALD TRUMP:
We will help them and we will build safe havens over in Syria, and we will get Gulf States--
CHUCK TODD:
We, the United States are going to build these safe havens?
DONALD TRUMP:
We, the United States, we'll get Gulf States to pay for it, because we right now, we're going to have $21 trillion very soon, trillion, in
debt. We will do safe havens and safe zones in Syria and we will get nations that are so wealthy that are not doing anything. They're
not doing much. They have nothing but money. And you know who I'm talking about, the Gulf States. And we will get them to pay for it.
We would lead it. I don't want to pay because our country is going down the tubes. We owe too much money.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Let me move to something with NATO. Mitch McConnell said this about your NATO remarks in the New York Times. He said
it was a rookie mistake, and that once you, let me finish the comment here. "It's a rookie mistake, and it proves that Trump needs
people like us around to help steer him in the right direction on some basic things."
DONALD TRUMP:
He's 100 percent wrong. Okay? He's 100 percent wrong if he said that. I didn't hear he said that--
CHUCK TODD:
He did say it.
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, fine, fine--
CHUCK TODD:
New York Times--
DONALD TRUMP:
If he said that, he's 100 percent wrong. And frankly it's sad. We have NATO, and we have many countries that aren't paying for what
they're supposed to be paying, which is already too little, but they're not paying anyway. And we're giving them a free ride or giving
them a ride where they owe us tremendous amounts of money. And they have the money. But they're not paying it. You know why?
Because they think we're stupid--
CHUCK TODD:
So Estonia is paying, and if they get invaded by Russia, you're there?
DONALD TRUMP:
I feel differently. I feel very differently--
CHUCK TODD:
But if a country's not doing -- Britain hasn't done the two percent.
DONALD TRUMP:
We have countries that aren't paying. Now, this goes beyond NATO, because we take care of-- we take care of Japan, we take care of
Germany, we take care of South Korea, we take care of Saudi Arabia, and we lose on everything. We lose on everything. If Mitch
McConnell says that, then he's wrong.
So all I'm saying is they have to pay. Now, a country gets invaded, they haven't paid, everyone says, "Oh, but we have a treaty." Well,
they have a treaty too. They're supposed to be paying. We have countries within NATO that are taking advantage of us. With me, I
believe they're going to pay. And when they pay, I'm a big believer in NATO.
But if they don't pay, we don't have, you know, Chuck, this isn't 40 years ago. This isn't 50 years ago. It's not 30 years ago. We're a
different country today. We're much weaker, our military is depleted, we owe tremendous amounts of money. We have to be
reimbursed. We can no longer be the stupid country.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, what Donald Trump says about David Duke, Bernie Sanders, and whether he really plans to spend millions for
the sole purpose of defeating Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Sanders about Trump and about his reaction to Tim Kaine becoming Hillary
Clinton's running mate. We're in Philadelphia, site of the Democratic National Convention. Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Such a beautiful city here. Welcome back. More now of my interview with Donald Trump at The Trump National Golf Club in
Bedminster, New Jersey. And since we had a limited amount of time, I ended up speeding things up by asking Trump for some quick
reaction to simply some very prominent names in the news.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
I'm just going to literally throw out a name and you'll know the question I'm asking. Bernie Sanders.
DONALD TRUMP:
Great respect for what he's done. He is being taken advantage of, and frankly, the system was rigged, and I'm the first one to say it
was rigged against him. And by the way--
CHUCK TODD:
You took after him. You took after him. You said for supporting Hillary Clinton, you think he needs to--
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders. But I am a fan of one thing that he talks about: Trade. He is the only one on that side that
understands trade. Now, he can't do anything about it because that's not his thing. But he has been gamed. He has been, it's a rigged
system against him. And what happened with the choice of Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to Bernie Sanders and everybody. I was
shocked. I love it from my standpoint, I love--
CHUCK TODD:
Why do you love the Kaine pick?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, first of all, he took over $160,000 of gifts. And they said, "Well, they weren't really gifts, they were suits and trips and lots of
different things," all for 160--
CHUCK TODD:
Legal, legal in the state of Virginia.
DONALD TRUMP:
Bob McDonnell-- I believe it was Bob McDonnell, in the meantime, he had to go to the United States Supreme Court to get out of going
to jail--
CHUCK TODD:
Well, they proved to quid pro quo--
DONALD TRUMP:
--for taking a fraction of what--
CHUCK TODD:
They proved quid pro quo on that one.
DONALD TRUMP:
Excuse me, Bob McDonnell took a fraction of what Kaine took. And I think, to me, it's a big problem. Now, how do you take all these
gifts? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. The other thing about him, he's bought and owned by the banks. And the third thing, he's in
favor of TPP and every other trade deal that he's ever looked at. And that means he wants people not to work.
Now, he's going to change his tune. And I understand he's now going to say, "I'm against TPP." Hillary Clinton was totally in favor of
TPP, which is the job killer, right? So was he. When she watched me on your show and other shows, all of a sudden she changed,
because she knows she can't win that in a debate.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Ted Cruz, I'm going to amend it, are you really going to fund a super PAC to help defeat him--
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it's not the number one thing on my mind. Look, what's on my mind is beating Hillary Clinton. What's on my mind is winning for
the Republican Party. With that being said, yeah, I'll probably do a super PAC, you know, when they run against Kasich, for $10 million
to $20 million, against Ted Cruz. And maybe one other person that I'm thinking about--
CHUCK TODD:
Who's that other one person?
DONALD TRUMP:
--but I won't tell you that. I mean, he's actually such a small person, I hate to give him the publicity. But yes, I will probably do that at
the appropriate at time. But I'm not going to do that until--
CHUCK TODD:
Oh, give me the small person here.
DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, don't worry about it. We'll give it to you another time.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, let me ask you about this one. David Duke announced his Senate candidacy claiming your agenda for his own, or essentially
saying, "Glad that you spoke out."
DONALD TRUMP:
Are you ready, before you ask the question?
CHUCK TODD:
Newt Gingrich said, "Every Republican should repudiate this guy no matter what it takes"--
DONALD TRUMP:
I did. And I do. Are you ready? I want--
CHUCK TODD:
Would you support a Democrat over David Duke if that was what was necessary to defeat him?
DONALD TRUMP:
I guess, depending on who the Democrat, but the answer would be yes. Look, the answer is, as quick as you can say it. In fact, I went
to answer you before you--
DONALD TRUMP:
Because last time with another person in your position, I did it very quickly. And they said, "He didn't do it fast enough." Rebuked. Is
that okay? Rebuked, done--
CHUCK TODD:
Rebuked, done. Okay. Tax returns. A lot of conspiracy theories are being out there about why-- what's in your tax returns. You would
get rid of all these conspiracy theories tomorrow--
DONALD TRUMP:
Let me tell you--
CHUCK TODD:
Probably make people look silly--
DONALD TRUMP:
Let me tell you. Let me give you a little lesson on tax returns. First of all, you don't learn very much from a tax return. I put in to the
federal elections group 100 and some-odd pages of my financials. It showed, as you know, that I'm much wealthier than anybody even
understood, okay? Tremendous cash, tremendous assets, tremendous all that stuff. Okay, that's it. I'm going through a routine audit.
Just a routine audit, and I've had it for I think 14 years, 13 years--
CHUCK TODD:
Why?
DONALD TRUMP:
Every year they audit me. It's routine government. I would never give my tax returns until the audit's finished. But remember this: Mitt
Romney, four years ago, was under tremendous pressure to give his tax returns. And he held it and held it and held it, and he fought it,
and he, you know, he didn't do too well, okay? But he didn't do anything wrong on his taxes. When he gave his tax returns, people
forget, not now. He gave them in September, before the election--
CHUCK TODD:
So you still might release them--
DONALD TRUMP:
No, wait a minute, wait a minute. When he did, and his tax returns are a tiny peanut compared to mine, they went through his tax
returns. And they found one little sentence, another little-- there was nothing wrong. And they made him look bad. In fact I think he lost
his election because of that.
CHUCK TODD:
Because of the tax returns?
DONALD TRUMP:
I think he lost. And I'll tell you why: He didn't do anything wrong. Mitt Romney did nothing wrong. But they would take out of, his
weren't too big. Have you ever seen mine with the picture, they're like this high?
CHUCK TODD:
I have seen that picture, yes.
DONALD TRUMP:
Okay, so they took his tax return and they found a couple of little things. Nothing wrong, just standard. And they made him look very
bad, very unfair. But with all that said, I'd love to give them, but I'm under audit. When the audit's finished I'll give them.
CHUCK TODD:
Finally, Roger Ailes. Is he helping you? Is he advising you?
DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don't want to comment. But he's been a friend of mine for a long time, and I can tell you that some of the women that are
complaining, I know how much he's helped them. And even recently, and when they write books that are fairly recently released, and
they say wonderful things about him.
And now all of a sudden they're saying these horrible things about him. It's very sad. Because he's a very good person. I've always
found him to be just a very, very good person. And by the way, a very, very talented person. Look what he's done. So I feel very badly.
But a lot of people are thinking he's going to run my campaign.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, well--
DONALD TRUMP:
My campaign's doing pretty well.
CHUCK TODD:
Mr. Trump, until we meet again.
DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much--
CHUCK TODD:
Thank you for your time, sir, appreciate it.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Up next, the man who had hoped to be the candidate being nominated by Democrats right here in Philadelphia this week, Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont. What does he think of those leaked DNC e-mails? We'll get his first comments since it happened. We're
going to be right back in just a minute.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Tremendous shots there of a beautiful city. Welcome back. It's not the kind of thing you want happening days before your convention.
This weekend, Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 emails sent and received by members of the Democratic National Committee, some
of which seem to confirm what a lot of people had suspected, that the DNC was playing favorites with Hillary Clinton over Bernie
Sanders.
It appears Wikileaks either stole these emails or got them from a source. Remember, the DNC was hacked a few months ago. Among
the emails was one from the DNC's Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall that was looking ahead to the contests in Kentucky and West
Virginia in early May. While not mentioning Sanders specifically by name, the email appeared to question Sanders' faith.
He wrote this, quote: "Does he believe in a god? I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my
peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist." Well, Sanders has long believed that
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in Clinton's corner the whole campaign. Well, he joins me now. Senator Sanders,
welcome back to Meet the Press.
And I should note that you talked about your belief in God last fall in an interview, I think, with your hometown paper there, so want to
get that out of the way. So let me start with this question questioning your faith. Brad Marshall apologized on Facebook. Has anyone
apologized to you personally? And what is your response to this entire discussion?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, no, nobody has apologized to me. And as you just mentioned, this really does not come as a shock to me or my supporters.
There is no question but the DNC was on Secretary Clinton's side from day one. We all know that. And I think, as I have said a long
time ago, that the time is now for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step aside, not only for these issues.
We need a Democratic Party that is open, that's going to bring young people and working people into it, that is going to stand up and
take on the big money interests and fight for working families. I don't think Debbie has been that type of leader. So I would hope, and I
said this many months ago, that she would--
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
BERNIE SANDERS:
--step aside, we would have new leadership.
CHUCK TODD:
And do you think it needs to happen now, today, before the start of the convention?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well--
CHUCK TODD:
Would that help calm some of your supporters down?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think what is already happening is that it's clear she is not going to be speaking to the convention. That is the right thing. I think
right now what we have got to focus on as Democrats is defeating perhaps the worst Republican candidate that I have seen in my
lifetime. Donald Trump would be a disaster for this country. He must be defeated.
We've got to elect Secretary Clinton on every single issue: fighting for the middle class on health care, on climate change, is a far, far
superior candidate to Trump. That's where I think the focus has got to be.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you believe that the DNC's apparent favoritism cost you this race?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think you-- there are a lot of reasons why one loses. We started off 50 points behind Secretary Clinton. We had the opposition
of virtually the entire Democratic leadership in every state in this country. And by the way, in terms of media, we did not get the kind of
media attention that somebody like a Donald Trump got, because media is not necessarily interested in the issues facing the middle
class, more interested in attacks in personality. So I think there were a lot of reasons.
But I will tell you this, Chuck, from the bottom of my heart, I am extraordinarily proud of the campaign that we ran. The issues that we
raised, the fact that we got 13 million Americans to vote for a political revolution. People who know the economy is rigged in favor of
big money, people who know that our middle class continues to decline and we have to go outside of establishment politics and
economics, people who know that we need to reform a broken criminal justice system and we need comprehensive immigration
reform.
The people-- what we did in our campaign is bring people together to say, "You know what? This country, our government, belongs to
all of us and not just a few." So I am very proud of the campaign we ran and the supporters that came on board.
CHUCK TODD:
So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?
BERNIE SANDERS:
No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuck, I know media is
not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of
this country, people who are working longer hours for lower wages, people who do not have health care or are underinsured.
Hillary Clinton and I have worked together on a higher education proposal which will guarantee free tuition in public colleges and
universities for every family in this country making $125,000 a year or less. We're going to fight for paid family and medical leave.
Those are the issues that the American people want to hear discussed, and I'm going to go around the country discussing them and
making sure that Hillary Clinton is elected president.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, The Green Party presumptive nominee, Jill Stein, put out a release yesterday about the emails. And she said this:
"Democratic Party elites have been caught red-handed, sabotaging a grassroots campaign that tried to bring huge numbers of young
people, independents and non-voters into their party. Instead, they have shown exactly why America needs a new major party, a truly
democratic party for the people." Are you going to urge your supporters not to support Jill Stein and try to thwart her efforts to recruit
your supporters?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, you know, let me just say this. As the longest serving Independent in the history of the United States Congress, as somebody
who came into office by defeating an incumbent Democratic mayor in Burlington, Vermont, I know something about third party politics.
And I respect Jill.
But right now, the focus, to my mind, is to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States. I think by
temperament he is unqualified to be president. I think his views-- you have a guy who's running for president who rejects science,
doesn't even believe climate change is real, let alone wants to do something about it, wants to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
breaks to the top two-tenths of one percent.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you--
BERNIE SANDERS:
So my job right now is to see that Donald Trump is defeated, Hillary Clinton is elected.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, he makes a big deal out of the fact that you and he agree on one big issue, and that is trade deals, that these trade deals
have been bad for the country. And he basically says that Clinton and Kaine, as a ticket, aren't-- that their opposition, for instance, the
TPP as sort of Johnny-come-lately, that it can't be trusted, and that Sanders supporters should support Trump if they care about trade.
What do you say to that?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think in terms of who can be trusted, I think the evidence is clear that there has been no candidate that I have ever seen who
lies more often than does Donald Trump. I mean and that's just not me saying it, that's what any independent media analysis has
shown. So in terms of trust, you really can't trust a word, I think, that Mr. Trump has to say.
In terms of the TPP, it is no secret. I think our trade policies, for many, many years, have been a disaster. They have benefited
corporate America at the expense of working people. Secretary Clinton has come out in opposition to the TPP, does not want to see it-
-
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
BERNIE SANDERS:
--appear in the lame duck Congress. That's my view, as well.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, some of your supporters are disappointed in the pick of Tim Kaine, that he's not progressive enough. I know Tim Kaine
called you after he was picked. Do you consider Tim Kaine a progressive? And are you happy with this pick?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Look, you know, the pick is Secretary Clinton's. I've known Tim Kaine for a number of years. We've served in the Senate together,
obviously. Tim is a very, very smart guy. He's a very nice guy. His political views are not my political views. He is more conservative
than I am. Would I have preferred to see somebody like an Elizabeth Warren selected by Secretary Clinton? Yes, I would have.
CHUCK TODD:
And then finally, do you feel as if, that you, when you got Glass-Steagall, I wanted to ask about this, because it looks like the one thing
that both parties may agree on in their platforms is putting-- is being in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Does this mean we will see
that happen in the next Congress?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I'm going to do everything that I can to make it happen. You know, when we talk about our campaign, one of the things that we
have been able to do, Chuck, is create the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of the Democratic Party, and that
includes breaking up the large Wall Street banks and reestablishing Glass-Steagall.
I think the American people understand that we cannot continue to have a handful of reckless, irresponsible banks often acting
illegally, that something has to happen. They have to be broken up.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Senator Bernie Sanders. The big speech is tomorrow night. We'll be waiting for you here in a very, very hot Philadelphia, over
100 degrees.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Okay.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Sanders, thanks for coming on. Good to see you, sir.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Thank you very much.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, reaction to Hillary Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine as a running mate, who showed why he might have appeal,
unique appeal, to a very important voting bloc.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Aprendilo valores de mi pueblo--faith, familia, y trabajo.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD
And we'll be back in a moment from Philadelphia with this great panel. Rachel Maddow, Michael Steele, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
And we'll be back in a moment from Philadelphia with this great panel, Rachel Maddow, Michael Steele, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris
***COMMERCIAL TAPE***
CHUCK TODD:
We are back. So much to talk about already. Our panel is here, Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC,
former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, he's sort of the fish out of water here in Philadelphia. Andrea
Mitchell, NBC News, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, host, of course, of Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC. And a Philadelphia
native himself, Mr. Brotherly Love Chris Matthews, host of Hardball--
RACHEL MADDOW:
Mr. Brotherly Love?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
And sisterly affection.
CHUCK TODD:
--Sisterly affection here for the Penn grad.
CHUCK TODD:
And-- this morning by the way we have new pictures of Tim Kaine walking into church this morning in Richmond, Virginia. He now
realizes, and now his parish is realizing, what it's like to have Secret Service following around a member of the parish there. All right.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Know what his Secret Service name is going to be yet?
CHUCK TODD:
What do we think the code name should be?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But we're not sure--
RACHEL MADDOW:
Well, the big joke was that if you're boring enough, your Secret Service name is Tim Kaine.
CHUCK TODD:
Ooh.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Right? That--
CHUCK TODD:
Those are old Johnny Carson and Jay Leno, Al Gore jokes--
CHUCK TODD:
All right, you guys are having already too much fun.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Sorry, sorry.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me just throw it out here. We heard what Bernie Sanders said about Tim Kaine. It was, that was tougher than I expected.
RACHEL MADDOW:
"His politics are not my politics."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
That's really --
RACHEL MADDOW:
"He does not share my political views." That's an aggressive take from Bernie. I'm not surprised. Bernie's an aggressive politician. And
I think when Senator Sanders speaks at the DNC, I think everybody's going to be on the edge of their seat. I think that he is not going
to pull a Ted Cruz because he's already made an endorsement.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, he said, "I'm for Hillary," and he was tough on Trump.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah. And but he doesn't relish going after Trump. He likes going after the Democratic Party to try to move the Democratic Party.
That's his target, always has been.
MICHAEL STEELE:
It's still obvious, he's not 'Feeling the Bern' for Hillary. And that was very obvious. And when you asked about the trust question, he
didn't say he trusted Hillary Clinton. He said he didn't trust Donald Trump. So the reality of it is there's still some tension there that
Bernie is reflecting among his supporters. And it was evident there. I mean--
RACHEL MADDOW:
He's got a mission that's bigger than one election. He always has.
MICHAEL STEELE:
That's true.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And in fact, he could quiet the march that is planned to go from the center of Center City, and Rittenhouse Square all the way down at
Independence Hall. This march is going to disrupt the city today, no matter how peaceful, because this is a city, in 100-degree heat,
that is planning for a convention. And it's going to be a very large outpouring. He also said--
CHUCK TODD:
And by the way, the hotter it is, the crankier people will be.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah. And he also says that Tim Kaine doesn't share his politics, not only that, but that he would have preferred Elizabeth Warren. He
made it very clear; Tim Kaine is a nice guy, but he's not endorsing or embracing someone who Hillary Clinton --
CHUCK TODD:
There's a painful look in your face, Chris.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
--called Tim Kaine a progressive.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
He didn't get to pick. Hillary Clinton did. And I've watched Hillary Clinton. I've watched a lot of politicians over the years. You can tell
when they're actually happy, not when they fake the laugh or anything else. She looked delighted during his speech yesterday. And I
haven't seen her that delighted in a long time. She had found her guy to be her running mate. I think she loved it.
And I think one thing we're getting all excited about, I understand why the progressives are upset. But one thing historically we all
know is the selection of a vice president is a poor predictor of the direction of that administration.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
FDR picked John Nance Garner--
RACHEL MADDOW:
It's not a policy pick.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Kennedy picked another conservative from the south, Lyndon Johnson, relatively conservative. And then we got the New Deal out of
that and we got the Great Society we got the New Frontier. It's a poor predictor. Now, if this is about spoils, they've got an argument.
They wanted a piece of the action. But there's differences between spoils and direction.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to throw out the one thing that Trump's trying to hit Kaine on, well, two things. But the one big one is the gifts in Virginia.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I only throw it out there is that I heard Ed Rendell ask to defend it. And he struggled, Andrea. He said, "Well, it's illegal in
Pennsylvania."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Virginia--
CHUCK TODD:
Okay. And it's legal in Virginia. That wasn't exactly a resounding defense.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah. Virginia has a very strange, let's face it, strange gift law. The difference with Bob McDonnell, who was convicted, and then the
Supreme Court overturned it, is there was no quid pro quo. He declared it. That was the main thing. He declared everything, put it
down, in fact, computed higher numbers to staying in friends' houses. He put everything down. He was meticulous about it.
So they don't think there's a big ethics thing. Just on his progressivity or lack of it, he has this civil rights background. I mean I was in
the room. And what you saw on T.V. yesterday in Miami, in that largely Hispanic campus, that wonderful campus in Miami, it was
extraordinary. The enthusiasm for him and the affection. And having watched her all of these years, you're absolutely right, Chris--
CHUCK TODD:
You know--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
--she found her guy. She was a happy camper.
RACHEL MADDOW:
He's not a progressive, but they will tell a very progressive story about his history. The party has moved to the left while he sort of
always been a solid liberal.
CHUCK TODD:
Both of them are trying to--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I feel like both Clinton and Kaine are trying to catch up to the party's movement.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
That's so true.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, on guns he was always there. He was heroic in Virginia on gun laws.
CHUCK TODD:
That they're moving-- and Michael, let me ask you this. The Trump camping says, "We love the Kaine pick." And here's their
reasoning. They love the Kaine pick because it reinforces that they're the political professionals, that here's Tim Kaine, and all he's
done in life, is been in office for the last 25 years.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHUCK TODD:
And the whole point of Trump is Trump's Mr. "I'm the total outsider." If they want to double down on that, fine, go ahead. What do you
say?
RACHEL MADDOW:
Except Mike Pence
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right, right, right.
CHUCK TODD:
They pay no attention to that. I brought that brought to them. I said, "What about Pence?" And they're like, "Well, it's the top of the
ticket."
MICHAEL STEELE:
"Ignore that man behind the curtain."
CHUCK TODD:
What do you say to that? Did they have a point or not?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, they'll have a-- I think the broader point, is an interesting one. Because what he's comparing himself-- he's comparing himself,
Trump, to Kaine--
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
MICHAEL STEELE:
--and Clinton. So it's me and against them.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Pence is not a part of that equation, necessarily.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
So when he's talking about the maverick, the outsider, he's-- he's assuming his ticket is total that.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, Pence wasn't even a part of his own rollout.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
If you remember. And that was--
RACHEL MADDOW:
He couldn't get a word in edgewise.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Hillary Clinton spoke about Tim Kaine--
MICHAEL STEELE:
I think their strength, Chuck, is gonna be on the argument-- this notion that Tim Kaine is progressive is just not believable. And for a
whole host of reasons. I think that's an opening for a lot of folks on Trump's side.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You can, there are element of his record that are not progressive, but on balance, I would argue that he is.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
I would argue that too.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
But one thing, the guy's two doors from you, if you're president. Look at the structure of the West Wing now. It's not some guy that
goes back to Maine like Lincoln's first vice president. He or she is right with you.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
You want a good person two doors for you, somebody who has values. And it's not just smart politics. I think what Hillary Clinton's
going to love having is a guy who's a true blue good guy. And I think he is a progressive on all the moral issues--
CHUCK TODD:
Let's sneak in a break here. When we come back, I want to get into the DNC e-mail situation. And I also want to get your guys'
reaction to some interesting comments from Donald Trump. Yeah, you know that guy that was at the start of the show. We'll be right
back.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back, panelists here. Before we jump to Trump, the DNC email leaks, Cleveland, we expected rowdiness, Never Trumpsters,
and all that stuff. We expect order here. But I wonder, Rachel, if-- look, I'm hearing from the Bernie bros. I'm in one of the emails just--
I'm the complaint department here sometimes at NBC. Somebody was complaining about coverage. And I said, "Okay, let's talk on the
phone," or whatever. But we didn't do anything about it, because I get complaints about coverage every hour, every day.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
But I think Bernie supporters may like this place, at least outside. They may be upset, and they may do something about it.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah. I mean and, you know, there will be that big protest that Andrea was talking about today, to start things off. And there will be a
lot, there will be hundreds of Bernie delegates insides the room. Now honestly, from the top, down, he said, "We've got to elect Hillary
Clinton." He's been unequivocal about that, that's the most important thing.
It'll be interesting to see whether the rules fights and the platform fights end up, in the end, when there's need to get nailed down with
those votes, there is some dissent and chaos there. There might be.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
One thing is--
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to get out now?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Well, look--
CHUCK TODD:
Not even gavel it in?
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
This is not a mystery story. This isn't Colombo.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
We knew from the beginning, watching the debate schedule, put together by the DNC--
CHUCK TODD:
Sure.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
--that they were tilting the scales to Hillary Clinton. Middle of the night debates, Sunday morning -- it was an absurd debate schedule.
And it just said, "We're for Hillary, we don't want the new guy to get all the attention."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And what Bernie said to you is that she's not going to be giving a speech. When does the party chair not give a speech at the
convention? And apparently that is the case.
CHUCK TODD:
And then right now, though, they will gavel in.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Thank god we haven't-- her quitting right now before -- I mean, the DNC's gonna be running a big part of the ground game for the
whole--
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You know, you don't--
CHUCK TODD:
But I tell you, this--
RACHEL MADDOW:
It would be suicide for the chair to jump out now--
CHUCK TODD:
This doesn't help her own fight for reelection, which I still think she's going to be okay.
RACHEL MADDOW:
No, but--
CHUCK TODD:
It's a district that she knows very well. But--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But Bernie endorsed her opponent.
RACHEL MADDOW:
But her reelection fight is in her district.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Right.
RACHEL MADDOW:
It's not to be the chair of the DNC, that's next year.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Michael Steele, what'd you hear from Donald Trump? Did it make you feel better or worse about his chances?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, I think Donald Trump did a couple of things he needed to do. One was, and you could see it in the room that night, people began
to say, "Okay, I can get there." The speech that he gave, when you read it, seemed a lot darker and harsher than when he delivered it.
He delivered it in a way--
RACHEL MADDOW:
I thought the opposite.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yeah, yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
When reading it, I wasn't freaked out.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yeah.
RACHEL MADDOW:
And then, when I saw him give it, I pulled the covers up.
MICHAEL STEELE:
No, for me, it was the reverse. Because the reaction. I'm sitting in the room and I'm getting the reaction from the crowd.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Mmm.
MICHAEL STEELE:
And the reaction from the crowd was, "This guy is going to be a fighter." And I think that's a strong message for him coming out of this
convention.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Rachel, you have never pulled the covers up.
RACHEL MADDOW:Oh no, I meant proverbially
CHUCK TODD:There's a lot of personal information here. Woah, it's Sunday morning, guys.
MICHAEL STEELE:
I thought he did what he needed to do, Chuck. I do.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Standing under those 15-foot-tall letters with Trump, and then his head comes up there. And then he spent 76 minutes screaming, red
faced, about terrorism and death and destruction and "I'm the only one who can fix it"--
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I think that was technical. I don't think he knew how to read a script like that. I don't think he had the ability to-- his daughter knew how
to do it. It's tough to read a script in a conversational manner. So you end up doing this sort of scream thing.
RACHEL MADDOW:
But it takes an ego to turn a 30 minute script into a 78 minute rant.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But he said that he was the person who would fix everything. And they're focusing on that. But, you know, Kaine was focusing on that.
You know, it is the "we" not the I. They're comparing him to a dictator.
MICHAEL STEELE:
But the--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It is the language and the delivery, Michael--
MICHAEL STEELE:
Don't lose sight of the fact that a lot of Americans out there are saying it is the "we" who screwed us up to this point.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
MICHAEL STEELE:
It is the we who've gotten us into this mess.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It's a different way of defining democracy, Michael.
MICHAEL STEELE:
So they're looking for the I, someone who's going to step forward as a leader, to get us through this mess. This is the bifurcation of the
of the population, the voting population right now. And it's going to be interesting to see which one of these arguments win--
RACHEL MADDOW:
Is this about the hunger for a strong man, is that what you're talking about?
MICHAEL STEELE:Yeah no, there really is Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW:We've seen this around the world, it's not supposed to be us.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I've heard Bernie make your point.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Yes!
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
It's that we have to reach outside the establishment to get the solution to these really bad economic problems affecting the working
people of this country.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Same message. Different sides.
MICHAEL STEELE:Same message.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Same message. The question is whether or not one man is supposed to deliver salvation for the country. We're not supposed to be
that kind of country.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to throw one more. He seemed, at least in the interview with me, he goes after Mitch McConnell, goes after Ted Cruz, goes
after John Kasich.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He is fearless in that regard.
CHUCK TODD:He really is.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He is not going to moderate himself.
RACHEL MADDOW:
You didn't even ask about Kasich. And he's bringing it up
CHUCK TODD:
No, exactly. He brought Kasich up himself.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And another player to be named player, who, you know, remain -- could be one of the senators like Jeff Flake. Look, the fact is that he
is not playing by anybody's ground rules except Donald Trump's. What he said about N.A.T.O. was extraordinary because he doubled
down on that. And the whole system of collect your security in Europe, if you're in Poland today, you are not reassured--
CHUCK TODD:
What's amazing is the Trump campaign tried to walk it back all last week on the N.A.T.O. stuff. And he's basically saying, "Don't walk it
back."
RACHEL MADDOW:
Even beyond N.A.T.O. to talk about Europe as a threat to America is what's good for Europe is bad for America and we have an
interest in Europe being weak and divided, they only got together to screw us? Like, hold on a second.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah, it'll play in Scranton. It'll play up there in the Eerie, Pennsylvania it'll play.
RACHEL MADDOW:
The European Union-- came out of the way to try to not have World War III.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Because people think we're being shoved around and exploited and he's saying, "I'm going to shove back."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They are our markets-- markets, allies--
CHUCK TODD:
You guys great. I'm going to try to get another half hour. But let me sneak in this. We'll be back in a moment with our-- we'll call it
halftime segment. No, it's Endgame Segment. And we'll look at Hillary Clinton's popularity compared to other Democratic nominees on
the eve of their conventions.
CHUCK TODD:
The panel never stops interacting here. Seriously we just went to a commercial break--
RACHEL MADDOW:
--wants more with France!
CHUCK TODD:
It's endgame time. Look, I want to show you here very quickly some numbers, because it will help us judge whether this is a successful
convention for Hillary Clinton. These are favorable ratings, personal favorable ratings, whether you're right side up or upside down,
from our NBC Wall Street Journal poll, for every Democrat going back to '92. And as you can see, Hillary Clinton in the worst shape of
any presumptive nominee going into their convention.
Now, let me show you what everybody else came through after their convention. So successful convention for Bill Clinton, successful
one for Al Gore. Flat for John Kerry, successful, Barack Obama. Obviously, we'll find out, for Hillary Clinton, what does she need to--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, what they are going to do is they're going to have gauzy films, the same kind of films you saw in 1992, the same producers--
CHUCK TODD:
And JFK?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to have all of these films, biography, rsum. They know that her rsum is not resonating with millennials. People know
what she did, they don't know-- they know the list of what she was. They don't know what she actually did, what she accomplished.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Yeah.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to do all of that. The balance is going to be very different.
RACHEL MADDOW:
--because T.V. networks don't always take the movies anymore--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, they're going to have to validators.
RACHEL MADDOW:
Yeah.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're going to have people on that podium behind it who are going to talk about things she has done for them. And it's going to be
very much all about her and much less about taking down Trump
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
I think the magic moment in this convention's going to be Thursday night. And a lot of women, and a lot of men, too, are going to see
Hillary Clinton as the first party nominee, who's probably going to be like the president. She has the advantage right now. And there
are going to be misty eyes all across the country.
And any men at that moment who make a wisecrack are going to be guaranteeing another vote for Hillary Clinton. I think it's a very
emotional moment for people. They've haven't quite got to it because of all is mishegas that's gone on this year. I think it's going to be
magical. And if Hillary Clinton just stands there with a little emotion, this is an amazing historic moment.
CHUCK TODD:
Michael was the Republican convention too anti-Clinton and not enough pro-Trump?
MICHAEL STEELE:
No. The Republican convention had to go anti-Clinton--
CHUCK TODD:
Had to do that?
MICHAEL STEELE:
--because of the Trump issues.
CHUCK TODD:
What about this one?
MICHAEL STEELE:
This one? I was thinking, as you guys were talking about Barack Obama and talking about Hillary Clinton being likable enough, this is
going to be a convention in which they're going to showcase her so you can like her. Because people, those numbers show, don't like
her. So it's going to be everything you just said, Chris, plus more. The problem is what happens afterwards. And that's where Hillary
Clinton's going to have to contine .
CHUCK TODD:
Here's an out question for all of you. Besides Hillary Clinton's speech, what will be the other buzziest speech or speaker when we walk
away from this convention?
RACHEL MADDOW:
We're going to have a huge one on night one. Bernie is a big deal.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Bernie.
RACHEL MADDOW:
The Democratic Party is going through a transformation. Liberals are having their moment. And this convention has to reflect it.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Every Democratic convention I can remember, going back to, God, '64, the best speech was never given by the nominee, whether it's
Bobby Kennedy or it's Jesse Jackson, or it's Mario Cuomo.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Right.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
The candidates never have been able to deliver the best speech. So I would bet on Bernie.
RACHEL MADDOW:
It was Trump Jr. last week.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
Bernie or President Obama.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Michelle Obama and Barack Obama on day two.
CHUCK TODD:
I think it's Barack Obama on Wednesday night. I think it's going to be to Hillary Clinton what Bill Clinton was to Barack Obama four
years ago. All right. That's all for this Sunday morning.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:
We agree.
CHUCK TODD:
I'll be hosting a special edition of Meet the Press Daily tonight at 5:00 Eastern on MSNBC. I know that's what everybody on this table
will be watching. And then, throughout the week, I'll be joined by my colleagues Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie right here at The
Wells Fargo Center for convention coverage on the network beginning at 10:00 Eastern, 7:00 Pacific. If you missed it last week, you
should be regretting it. Watch us this week. And of course we'll be back next Sunday. Because if it is Sunday, Meet the Press.

Exhibit 5
Understanding The Threat: Radical Islam And The Age Of Terror

Thank you. It is great to be with you this afternoon.
Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.
In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and
Communism.
Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic Terrorism.
This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war
zones of the Middle East every 84 hours. 1 2
Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.
13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood. 3 4
The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people, 5
and ultimately left five dead including 2 police officers. 6
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, five unarmed marines were shot and killed
at a military recruiting center. 7
Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office
party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured. 8
1
(Tim Lister, 'One ISIS Attack Every 84 Hours' Spurs Dread And Anger In Europe, CNN, 7/31/16)
2
(Tim Lister, Ray Sanchez, Mark Bixler, Sean O'Key, Michael Hogenmiller and Mohammed Tawfeeq, ISIS Goes
Global: 143 Attacks In 29 Countries Have Killed 2,043, CNN, 12/17/15)
3
(Jim Garamone, President, Top Leaders to Attend Fort Hood Service, United States Department of Defense,
11/9/09)
4
(Ted Rowlands and Michael Cary, Army Honors Dead, Searches For Motive In Fort Hood Shootings, CNN,
11/7/09)
5
(Scott Malone, Boston Officials Say 264 Injured In Marathon Bombing, Reuters, 4/23/13)
6
(Bob Salsberg, Officer Who Died Year After Boston Marathon Shootout Honored, Associated Press, 10/18/15)
7
(Lindsay Ellis, Devlin Barrett And Arian Campo-Flores, Navy Sailor Shot in Chattanooga Attack Dies, Bringing
Death Toll to Five, The Wall Street Journal, 7/22/15)
8
(San Bernardino Shooting: 22nd Injured Victim Steps Forward, FBI Says, The Press Enterprise, 12/9/15)
1
In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando,

and another 53 were injured. 9 It was the worst mass shooting in our
history, and the worst attack on the LGBTQ community in our history.
In Europe, we have seen the same carnage and bloodshed inflicted
upon our closest allies.
In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was
attacked for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve
were killed, including two police officers, and 11 were wounded. 10 Two
days later, four were murdered in a Jewish Deli. 11
In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris
that slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. 12 France is
suffering gravely, and the tourism industry is being massively affected
in a most negative way. 13
In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels
airport, killing 32 and injuring 340. 14
This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck
into an instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men,
women and children 15 and wounding another 308. 16 Among the
dead were 2 Americans a Texas father, and his 11-year-old son. 17
9
(Lizette Alvarez, Richard Perez-Pena and Christine Hauser, Orlando Gunman Was Cool and Calm After
Massacre, Police Say, The New York Times, 6/13/16)
10
(Cassandra Vinograd, Alastair Jamieson, Florence Viala And Alexander Smith, Charlie Hebdo Shooting: 12 Killed
at Muhammad Cartoons Magazine in Paris, NBC News, 1/7/15)
11
(Yamiche Alcindor and Elena Berton, Four Killed At Paris Grocery Store Were All Jewish, USA Today, 1/11/15)
12
(France Attacks, Associated Press, Accessed 8/13/16)
13
(Tara Patel, French Tourism Slumps as Terror Attacks Spook Foreign Travelers, Bloomberg, 8/7/16)
14
(Aurelien Breeden, More Suspects in Brussels Attacks Arrested in Belgium, The New York Times, 4/8/16)
15
(Steve Visser, Death Toll Rises to 85 in Bastille Day Attack in Nice, CNN, 8/5/16)
16
(Alissa J. Rubin and Lilia Blaise, A Third of Nice Truck Attacks Dead Were Muslim, Group Says, The New York
Times, 7/19/16)
17
(Mary Hui, Lindsey Bever and Cleve R. Wootson Jr, Texas Father And His 11-Year-Old Son Among The Dead In
Nice Attack; California Student Missing, The Washington Post, 7/15/16)
2
A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded

five people in a gruesome train attack. 18
Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy
France, forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat
before his congregation. 19
Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another.
Children slaughtered, 20 girls sold into slavery, 21 22 men and women
burned alive. 23 Crucifixions, 24 beheadings 25 and drownings. 26 Ethnic
minorities targeted for mass execution. Holy sites desecrated.
Christians driven from their homes and hunted for extermination. ISIS
rounding-up what it calls the nation of the cross in a campaign of
genocide. 27 28
We cannot let this evil continue.
Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam its oppression of
women, gays, children, and nonbelievers be allowed to reside or
spread within our own countries.
We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated
every threat we have faced in every age before.
18
(Melissa Eddy, Afghan Teenager Spoke of Friends Death Before Ax Attack in Germany, The New York Times,
7/19/16)
19
(Noemie Olive, Islamists Attack French Church, Slit Priest's Throat, Reuters, 7/27/16)
20
(Malia Zimmerman, 74 Children Executed By ISIS For 'Crimes' That Include Refusal To Fast, Report Says, FOX
News, 7/2/15)
21
(Arwa Damon, Hamdi Alkhshali, and Bryony Jones, Meet The Man Saving Yazidi Slaves From ISIS, CNN, 6/2/16)
22
(Rukmini Callimachi, To Maintain Supply of Sex Slaves, ISIS Pushes Birth Control, The New York Times, 3/12/16)
23
(19 Yazidi Girls Burned Alive For Refusing To Have Sex With Their ISIS Captors, FOX News, 6/6/16)
24
(Steve Almasy, Group: ISIS 'Crucifies' Men In Public In Syrian Towns, CNN, 6/30/14)
25
(Rukmini Callimachi, The Horror Before the Beheadings, The New York Times, 10/25/14)
26
(Joe Tacopino, ISIS Slowly Drowns Prisoners In A Cage, New York Post, 6/24/15)
27
(Jamie Dean, The ISIS War Against 'The People Of The Cross', WNG, 2/17/15)
28
(Michael Lipka, Muslims and Islam: Key Findings In The U.S. And Around the World, PewResearchCenter,
7/22/16)
3
But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.

Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country.
Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of
Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.
The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by
President Obama and Secretary Clinton
Lets look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before
the Obama-Clinton Administration took over.
Libya was stable. 29 30
Syria was under control. 31 32
Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.
33 34 35
Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence. 36 The group that would

become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished. 37 38 39
Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions. 40 41
29
(Jeff Bachman, Revisiting the Humanitarian Intervention in Libya, The Huffington Post, 3/14/16)
30
(Priyanka Boghani, Regrets Of A Revolution? Libya After Qaddafi, PBS, 11/29/15)
31
(William R. Polk, Understanding Syria: From Pre-Civil War To Post-Assad, The Atlantic, 12/10/13)
32
(Hassan M. Fattah And Graham Bowley, Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader, The New York Times, 4/4/07)
33
(Brad Plumer, The U.S. Gives Egypt $1.5 Billion A Year In Aid. Heres What It Does, The Washington
Post, 7/9/13)
34
(Ashraf Khalil, Mubarak Meets Obama To Patch Up US-Egypt Relationship, The Christian Science
Monitor, 8/18/09)
35
(President George W. Bush, Joint Press Conference At The Presidents Ranch In Texas, White House, 4/12/04)
36
(David Petraeus, How We Won In Iraq, Foreign Policy, 10/29/13)
37
(Cameron Glenn, Timeline: Rise and Spread of the Islamic State, Wilson Center, 7/5/16)
38
(Jennifer Griffin and Lucas Tomlinson, Army Chief Odierno, In Exit Interview, Says US Could Have Prevented
ISIS Rise, FOX News, 7/22/15)
39
(David Ignatius, How ISIS Spread in the Middle East, The Atlantic, 10/29/15)
40
(Uri Berliner, Crippled By Sanctions, Iran's Economy Key In Nuclear Deal, NPR, 11/25/13)
41
(Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright, Iran Sanctions Are Meant to Prevent War, Bush Aides Say, The
4
Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton

produced?
Libya is in ruins, 42 our ambassador and three other brave Americans
are dead, 43 and ISIS has gained a new base of operations. 44 45
Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. 46 ISIS controls large
portions of territory. 47 A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the
United States. 48
In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the
Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world. 49
Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose. 50
ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS
was operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18
countries with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 51 and
many believe it is even more than that. The situation is likely worse
than the public knows: a new Congressional report reveals that the
Administration has downplayed the growth of ISIS, with 40% of
surveyed analysts saying they had experienced efforts to manipulate
their findings. 52 53
42
(Roula Khalaf, Misplaced Nostalgia For Libyas Colonel Gaddafi, Financial Times, 4/29/15)
43
(David D. Kirkpatrick and Steven Lee Myers, Libya Attack Brings Challenges For U.S., The New York Times,
9/12/12)
44
(Ahmed Elumani And Aidan Lewis, U.S. Air Raid Hits Islamic State In Libya, 43 Dead, Reuters, 2/19/16)
45
(Paul Cruickshank, Nic Robertson, Tim Lister and Jomana Karadsheh, ISIS Comes To Libya, CNN, 11/18/14)
46
(Hugh Naylor, Death By Siege In Syrias Civil War: Hundreds Of Thousands At Risk, The Washington Post,
1/23/16)
47
(Liam Stack, How ISIS Expanded Its Threat, The New York Times, 11/14/15)
48
(AFP, "Kerry: Refugee Crisis A Near Existential Threat To Europe, The Times of Israel, 2/13/16)
49
(Andrew Roth, Russia Confirms Sinai Plane Crash Was The Work Of Terrorists, The Washington Post, 11/17/15)
50
(Tim Arango, Days of Chaos in Baghdad: Protest or Meltdown?, The New York Times, 5/2/16)
51
(William Arkin, Robert Windrem, and Cynthia McFadden, New Counterterrorism 'Heat Map' Shows ISIS
Branches Spreading Worldwide, NBC News, 8/3/16)
52
(Barbara Starr, House Intel Committee Blasts Pentagon Over ISIS Files, CNN, 2/25/16)
53
(Nacy A. Youssef, House Probe: CENTCOMs ISIS Intel Cooked, The Daily Beast, 8/11/16)
5
At the same time, ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into Europe
and the United States. 54
Iran, the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with
$150 billion in cash released by the United States plus another $400
million in ransom. 55 Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the
number one state sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to
nuclear weapons. 56 57
In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS,
destabilized the Middle East, and put the nation of Iran which chants
Death to America 58 in a dominant position of regional power and, in
fact, aspiring to be a dominant world power. 59
It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obamas
global Apology Tour. 60
In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as
arrogant, dismissive derisive 61 and a colonial power. 62 He
informed other countries that he would be speaking up about
Americas past errors. 63 He pledged that we would no longer be a
senior partner, that sought to dictate our terms. He lectured CIA
54
(CIA Director Brennan, Statement by Director Brennan as Prepared for Delivery Before the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 6/16/16)
55
(Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed, The Wall Street Journal,
8/3/16)
56
(George Jahn, AP Exclusive: Document Shows Less Limits On Iran Nuke Work, Associated Press, 7/18/16)
57
(Nasser Karimi, Iran's FM Extolls Country's Ability To Restore Nuke Program, Associated Press, 7/19/16)
58
(Ali Arouzi, Iran Marks Revolution With 'Death to America' Chants, NBC News, 2/11/16)
59
(Jay Solonon and Laura Meckler, Hillary Clinton Opened Door to Key U.S. Shift Toward Iran Nuclear Deal, The
Wall Street Journal, 9/8/15)
60
(Karl Rove, The President's Apology Tour, The Wall Street Journal, 4/23/09)
61
(President Obama, Remarks by President Obama at Strasbourg Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, The White
House, 4/3/09)
62
(President Obama, Obama's Interview With Al Arabiya, Al Arabiya News, 1/27/09)
63
(President Obama, Remarks By The President At The Summit Of The Americas Opening Ceremony, Port of
Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, The White House, 4/17/09)
6
officers of the need to acknowledge their mistakes, 64 and described

Guantanamo Bay as a rallying cry for our enemies. 65
Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obamas
speech to the Muslim World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009. 66
In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted
the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the
Evil Empire. 67
Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such
moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression
of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic
violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism,
President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human
rights record and theirs.
His nave words were followed by even more nave actions.
The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and
the election-driven timetable for withdrawal, 68 surrendered our gains
in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS. 69
The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clintons disaster in
Libya. President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst
mistake. 70 According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the
64
(President Obama, Remarks By The President To CIA Employees At CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, The
White House, 4/20/09)
65
(President Obama, Remarks By The President On National Security, Washington, D.C., The White House,
5/21/09)
66
(President Obama, Remarks by the President at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, The White House, 6/4/09)
67
(President Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, Orlando,
Florida, 3/8/83)
68
(Scott Wilson, President Obama Took Credit In 2012 For Withdrawing All Troops From Iraq. Today He Said
Something Different, The Washington Post, 6/19/14)
69
(Mark Moyar, Where We Went Wrong, From Afghanistan To ISIS, Newsweek, 2/21/16)
70
(Alexander Mallin, What Obama Says Is His 'Worst Mistake' as President, ABC News, 4/10/16)
7
invasion of Libya was nearly a split decision, but Hillary Clintons

forceful advocacy for the intervention was the deciding factor. 71
With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clintons
policies launched ISIS onto the world. 72
Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out
well for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income
while she was Secretary of State. 73 74 75 76
Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the
judgement, the temperament and the moral character to lead this
nation. Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to
take on ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face not only in
terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to
turn this country around.
It is time for a new approach
Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven
failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and
thrive. 77
I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning a major
difference between me and my opponent.
Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such
matters was not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private
doubts about the invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in
71
(Jo Becker and Scott Shane, Hillary Clinton, Smart Power and a Dictators Fall, The New York Times, 2/27/16)
72
(A Conversation With Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Strategic Interests, Values, and Hard
Choices, Council on Foreign Relations, 6/12/14)
73
74
75
76
77
(Nada Bakos, Terrorist Group Fills Power Vacuum Among Syria Rebels, CNN, 1/9/13)
8
an interview with Neil Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a

speedy recovery, that perhaps [we] shouldn't be doing it yet, and that
the economy is a much bigger problem. 78
In August of 2004, very early in the conflict, I made a detailed
statement to Esquire magazine. 79 Here is the quote in full:
"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never
have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is
going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run
down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the
winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon.
Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and
the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over.
And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't
have.
"What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and

hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people
coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other
side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns
out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All
this for nothing."
So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in.
But I have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake
Hillary Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in
which they pulled out.
78
(Donald J. Trump, Interview on Your World with Neil Cavuto, FOX News, 1/28/03)
79
(Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump: How I'd Run the Country (Better), Esquire Magazine, 8/04)
9
After we had made those hard-fought sacrifices and gains, 80 81 82 we

should never have made such a sudden withdrawal on a timetable
advertised to our enemies. 83 Al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated,
and Obama and Clinton gave it new life and allowed it to spread across
the world.
By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never
have attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, 84 to push for immediate
regime change in Syria, 85 86 or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in
Egypt. 87
One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the
oil in Iraq another area where my judgement has been proven
correct. According to CNN, ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales
in 2014 alone, fueling and funding its reign of terror. 88 If we had
controlled the oil, we could have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq
both by cutting off a major source of funding, 89 and through the
presence of U.S. forces necessary to safeguard the oil and other vital
infrastructure. 90 91 I was saying this constantly and to whoever would
listen: keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, I said dont let someone
else get it.
80
(Tom Bowman, After 15 Years, The State Of The War In Afghanistan, NPR, 7/5/16)
81
(Daniel Trotta, Iraq War Costs U.S. More Than $2 Trillion: Study, Reuters, 3/14/13)
82
(Conflict Casualties, Defense Manpower Data Center, Accessed 7/20/16)
83
(Mark Landler, U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Years End, Obama Says, The New York Times, 10/21/11)
84
(Corbett Daly, Clinton on Qaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died, CBS News, 10/20/11)
85
(Rebecca Kaplan, Hillary Clinton Still Wouldn't Give Up On Training Syrian Rebels, CBS News, 9/22/15)
86
(Michael D. Shear, Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt, Obama Administration Ends Effort to Train Syrians to
Combat ISIS, The New York Times, 10/9/15)
87
(Tom Curry, Clinton Urges Transition To A Democratic Regime in Egypt, NBC News, 1/30/11)
88
(Jose Pagliery, Inside The $2 Billion ISIS War Machine, CNN Money, 12/11/15)
89
(Kellan Howell, Islamic State Earns $50 Million Per Month On Oil Sales, The Washington Times, 10/24/15)
90
(Erika Solomon, Robin Kwong and Steven Bernard, Inside Isis Inc: The Journey Of A Barrel Of Oil, Financial
Times, Accessed 8/13/16)
91
(Matthew Philips, Islamic State Loses Its Oil Business, Bloomberg, 10/14/14)
10
If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic

benefits of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the
wounded soldiers and families of those who died and thousands of
lives would have been saved.
This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to
guard our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor
belonged the spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq and our adventures
in the Middle East was death, destruction and tremendous financial
loss.
But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new
course.
If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our
new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our
allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt
the spread of Radical Islam.
All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which
shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends,
but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.
As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this
goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East,
including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of
Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this
ideology of death that must be extinguished.
We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had
previously said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal
adequately with terrorism; since my comments they have changed their
policy and now have a new division focused on terror threats.
11
I also believe that we could find common ground with Russia in the
fight against ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria,
and have had their own battles with Islamic terrorism.
My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military
operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut-
off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to
disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow
the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by
our enemy we must shut down their access to this form of
communication, and we must do so immediately.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless
handling of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph
exact military plans to the enemy. I have often said that General
MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were
alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to
recklessly announce their every move before it happens like they did
in Iraq so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.
The fight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we
will seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We
can use existing UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.
Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling
Islamic terrorism.
But we must use ideological warfare as well.
Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of
communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on
the ideology of Radical Islam.
While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation
donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by
12
prison or death, 92 93 my Administration will speak out against the

oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. 94 95
Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in
the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.
This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor
killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing,
marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings. 96 97
Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor
killings by their relatives each year. 98 Recently, a prominent Pakistani
social media star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge
of dishonoring the family. 99 In his confession, the brother took pride in
the murder and said: Girls are born to stay home and follow
traditions.
Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.
One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34
years in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become
too Westernized. 100
To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a
hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and
terrorism to grow.
92
(Clinton Foundation, Accessed 8/13/16)
93
(Stars Step Up Protest Against Anti-Gay Owner Of Beverly Hills Hotel, CBS News,2/6/15
94
(Country Reports On Human Rights Practices For 2012: Saudi Arabia, United States State Department, 4/19/13)
95
(William La Jeunesse, Rights Groups Silent As Clinton Foundation Takes Millions From Countries That Imprison
Gays, FOX News, 6/17/16)
96
(Pregnant Pakistani Woman Stoned To Death By Family, Associated Press in Lahore, 5/28/14)
97
(Perry Chiaramonte, Texas 'Honor Killing' Suspect Yaser Said Could Be Hiding In Plain Sight As NYC Cabbie,
Private Investigator Says, FOX News, 5/29/12)
98
(Pakistan Honour Killings On The Rise, Report Reveals, BBC, 4/1/16)
99
(Juliet Perry and Sophia Saifi, Brother Of Pakistan's Qandeel Baloch Charged With Crime Against State, CNN,
7/19/16)
100
(Iraqi Immigrant Gets 34 Years For Killing 'Too Westernized' Daughter, CNN, 4/16/11)
13
A new immigration policy is needed as well

The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have
recently occurred on our soil 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, 101 the
Boston Bombing, 102 the San Bernardino attack, 103 the Orlando attack
104 is that they have involved immigrants or the children of
immigrants.
Clearly, new screening procedures are needed.
A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identified
380 foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorism-
related offenses between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.
105
We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the
country as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in
Minnesota. 106
Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have
brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them. 107
In Cologne, Germany, on New Years Eve, we have seen the reports of
sexual violence and assault. 108
101
(Army Major Kills 13 People In Fort Hood Shooting Spree, History, Accessed 8/13/16)
102
(Peter Finn, Carol D. Leonnig and Will Englund, Tsarnaev Brothers Homeland Was War-Torn Chechnya, The
103
(Salman Masood and Declan Walsh, Tashfeen Malik, San Bernardino Suspect, Attended Conservative Religious
School in Pakistan, The New York Times, 12/7/15)
104
(Jonathan Landay and Yeganeh Torbati, Father Of Orlando Shooter Hosted Political Show On Afghan-Pakistan
105
(Subcommittee On Immigration And The National Interest, At Least 580 Individuals Convicted In Terror Cases
Since 9/11, At Least 380 Are Foreign-Born, U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, 6/22/16)
106
(Jamie Yuccas, Minneapolis Community Struggles With ISIS Recruiting Tactics, CBS News, 9/19/15)
107
(Matt Hadro, Anti-Semitism Threatens Frances Jewish Communities, The Washington Times, 1/18/16)
108
(Jessica Durando, Report: 1,200 Women Assaulted On New Year's Eve In German Cities, USA Today, 7/11/16)
14
Pew polling shows that in many of the countries from which we draw
large numbers of immigrants, extreme views about religion such as
the death penalty for those who leave the faith are commonplace. 109
A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern
all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this
country those who share our values and respect our people.
In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. 110 The time is
overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist
groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes
towards our country or its principles or who believe that Sharia law
should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry
and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
Only those who we expect to flourish in our country and to embrace
a tolerant American society should be issued immigration visas.
To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily
suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile
regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.
As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the
Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where
adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas
from those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based
on new circumstances or new procedures.
109
(The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society, PewResearchCenter, 4/30/13)
110
(James R. Edwards Jr., Keeping Extremists Out: The History of Ideological Exclusion and the Need for Its
Revival, Center for Immigration Studies, 9/05)
15
The size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform
adequate screening. 111
We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East
every year. 112 Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of
temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. 113 If we dont
control the numbers, we cant perform adequate screening.
By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the flow of Syrian refugees
by 550% percent. 114
The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that
Hillary Clintons plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all
current refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to
other refugee programs. This would be additional to all other non-
refugee immigration. 115
The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of
roughly $400 billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare,
housing, schooling, and all other entitlement benefits that are excluded
from the State Departments placement figures.
In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be Americas Angela Merkel, and you
know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany
and the people of Germany crime has risen to levels that no one
111
(Nations Top Security Officials Concerns On Refugee Vetting, Homeland Security Committee, 11/19/15)
112
(Caroline May, Since 9/11 U.S. Has Accepted Over 2 Million Migrants from Majority Muslim Nations, Breitbart,
11/16/15)
113
(Julia Hahn, Congress Votes To Fund Nearly 300,000 Visas For Muslim Migrants In One Year, Breitbart,
12/18/15)
114
(C. Eugene Emery Jr. Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton Wants To Let 500 Percent More Syrians Into The U.S.,
Politifact, 6/13/16)
115
(Subcommittee On Immigration And The National Interest, Clinton Refugee Plan Could Bring In 620,000
Refugees In First Term At Lifetime Cost Of Over $400 Billion, U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, 6/27/16)
16
thought would they would ever see. 116 We have enough problems in
our country, we dont need another one.
Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security
procedures
Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our
soil is that warning signs were ignored.
The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications. 117
The Russians warned us about the Boston Bombers, 118 here on political
asylum, 119 and the attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.
120 121
The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a fianc visa from Saudi
Arabia, 122 wrote of her support for Jihad online. 123 124 A neighbor saw
suspicious behavior but didnt warn authorities, because said they
didnt want to be accused of racially profiling 125 now many are dead
and gravely wounded.
116
(Michelle Martin, Migrants Linked To 69,000 Would-Be Or Actual Crimes In Germany In First Three Months Of
2016: Police, Reuters, 6/8/16)
117
(Martha Raddatz, State Dept. Lapses Aided 9/11 Hijackers, ABC News, 10/23/02)
118
(Josh Gerstein, FBI Knew Earlier Of Boston Bombing Suspect, Politico, 6/15/13)
119
(Phil Marringly, Mike Dorning, and Julie Bykowica, Boston Bombing Suspect Apprehended at Watertown
Home, Bloomberg, 4/20/13)
120
In January 2011, two counterterrorism agents from the bureaus Boston field office interviewed Tamerlan and
family members.. (Eric Schmitt, Michael S. Schmidt and Ellen Barry, Bombing Inquiry Turns to Motive and Russian
Trip, The New York Times, 4/20/13)
121
In response to this [March] 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information
to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the
promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education
history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family member. (FBI National Press Office, 2011
Request for Information on Tamerlan Tsarnaev from Foreign Government, FBI, 4/19/13)
122
(Brian Bennett and Richard A. Serrano, Scrutiny Of Tashfeen Malik's Fiancee Visa Fell Short, Congressional
Investigators Say, The Los Angeles Times, 12/18/15)
123
(Evan Perez and Dana Ford, San Bernardino Shooters Social Media Posts on Jihad Were Obscured, CNN,
12/14/15)
124
(Richard A. Serrano, Tashfeen Malik Messaged Facebook Friends About Her Support For Jihad, Los Angeles
Times, 12/14/15)
125
(Christian Datoc, Shooters Neighbor Didnt Report Suspicious Activity For Fear of Being Labeled Racist, The
Daily Caller, 12/3/15)
17
The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after

9/11. 126 He too was interviewed by the FBI. 127 His father, a native of
Afghanistan, 128 supported the oppressive Taliban regime, 129 and
expressed anti-American views 130 and by the way, was just seen
sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a big smile on his face all the way
through her speech. He obviously liked what she had to say.
The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental
health experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red flag
after another. 131 He even proclaimed that we love death more than
you love life!
These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has
replaced common sense in our society
That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a
Commission on Radical Islam which will include reformist voices in the
Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build
bridges and erase divisions.
The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the
American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to
identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks
in our society that support radicalization.
126
(Hunter Walker and Jason Sickles, Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen Was Suspended For Cheering 9/11 And
Beating Another Student In High School, Yahoo, 6/16/16)
127
(Mark Mazzetti, Eric Lichtblau and Alan Blinder, Omar Mateen, Twice Scrutinized by F.B.I., Shows Threat of
Lone Terrorists, The New York Times, 6/13/16)
128
(Jonathan Landay and Yeganeh Torbati, Father of Orlando Shooter Hosted Political Show on Afghan-Pakistan
129
(Tim Craig, Max Bearak and Lee Powell, Shooter Omar Mateens Father Says Hes Saddened By Massacre, Calls
Gunman A Good Son, The Washington Post, 6/13/16)
130
(Tucker Reals, "What Has the Orlando Gunman's Father Said?," CBS News, 6/13/16)
131
(Dana Priest, Fort Hood Suspect Warned Of Threats Within The Ranks, The Washington Post, 11/10/09)
18
This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police
officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.
We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed
emphasis on human intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our
strategy, but we will also seek to capture high-value targets to gain
needed information to dismantle their organizations. Foreign
combatants will be tried in military commissions.
Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges
against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the
effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of
every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.
To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks
for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one
by one.
Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who
are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return
home.
To Make America Safe Again, We Must Work Together Again
Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international
consensus. That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic
terrorism.
But just like we couldnt defeat communism without acknowledging
that communism exists or explaining its evils we cant defeat Radical
Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.
This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own
way of life and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.
19
Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by
parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.
Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.
Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the
world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.
This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together
as a country.
Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our
country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common not
what pulls us apart.
This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be
your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is
treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject
bigotry and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on
our common culture and values as one American people.
Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again For
Everyone.
Thank you.
20

Exhibit 6
On Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC News "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir interviewed
President Donald Trump in the White House. The following is a transcript of the interview:
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, it's an honor to be here at the White House.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much, David.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, has the magnitude of this job hit you yet?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It has periodically hit me. And it is a tremendous magnitude. And where
you really see it is when you're talking to the generals about problems in the world. And we do
have problems in the world. Big problems. The business also hits because the the size of it.
The size.
I was with the Ford yesterday. And with General Motors yesterday. The top representatives,
great people. And they're gonna do some tremendous work in the United States. They're gonna
build plants back in the United States. But when you see the size, even as a businessman, the
size of the investment that these big companies are gonna make, it hits you even in that regard.
But we're gonna bring jobs back to America, like I promised on the campaign trail.
DAVID MUIR: And we're gonna get to it all right here.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I want to start we're five days in. And your campaign promises. I
know today you plan on signing the order to build the wall.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Correct.
DAVID MUIR: Are you going to direct U.S. funds to pay for this wall? Will American taxpayers
pay for the wall?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Ultimately it'll come out of what's happening with Mexico. We're gonna be
starting those negotiations relatively soon. And we will be in a form reimbursed by Mexico
which I will say ...
DAVID MUIR: So, they'll pay us back?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, absolutely, 100 percent.
DAVID MUIR: So, the American taxpayer will pay for the wall at first?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: All it is, is we'll be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction we
make from Mexico. Now, I could wait a year and I could hold off the wall. But I wanna build the
wall. We have to build the wall. We have to stop drugs from pouring in. We have to stop people
from just pouring into our country. We have no idea where they're from. And I campaigned on
the wall. And it's very important. But that wall will cost us nothing.
DAVID MUIR: But you talked often about Mexico paying for the wall. And you, again, say
they'll pay us back. Mexico's president said in recent days that Mexico absolutely will not pay,
adding that, "It goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as Mexicans." He says ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, he has to say that. He has to say that. But I'm just telling you there
will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form. And you have to understand
what I'm doing is good for the United States. It's also going to be good for Mexico.
We wanna have a very stable, very solid Mexico. Even more solid than it is right now. And they
need it also. Lots of things are coming across Mexico that they don't want. I think it's going to
be a good thing for both countries. And I think the relationship will be better than ever before.
You know, when we had a prisoner in Mexico, as you know, two years ago, that we were trying
to get out. And Mexico was not helping us, I will tell you, those days are over. I think we're
gonna end up with a much better relationship with Mexico. We will have the wall and in a very
serious form Mexico will pay for the wall.
DAVID MUIR: What are you gonna say to some of your supporters who might say, "Wait a
minute, I thought Mexico was going to pay for this right at the start."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I'd say very simply that they are going to pay for it. I never said
they're gonna pay from the start. I said Mexico will pay for the wall. But what I will tell my
supporters is, "Would you like me to wait two years or three years before I make this deal?"
Because we have to make a deal on NAFTA. We have to make a new trade deal with Mexico
because we're getting clobbered.
We have a $60 billion trade deficit. So, if you want, I can wait two years and then we can do it
nice and easily. I wanna start the wall immediately. Every supporter I have I have had so many
people calling and tweeting and and writing letters saying they're so happy about it. I wanna
start the wall. We will be reimbursed for the wall.
DAVID MUIR: When does construction begin?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: As soon as we can. As soon as we can physically do it. We're ...
DAVID MUIR: Within months?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would say in months. Yeah, I would say in months. Certainly planning is
starting immediately.
DAVID MUIR: People feel ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We'll be having some really good, really solid plans within a short period of
time.
DAVID MUIR: When people learn of the news of this wall today there are gonna be a lot of
people listening to this. And I wanna ask about undocumented immigrants who are here in
this country. Right now they're protected as so called dreamers the children who were
brought here, as you know, by their parents. Should they be worried that they could be
deported? And is there anything you can say to assure them right now that they'll be allowed to
stay?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They shouldn't be very worried. They are here illegally. They shouldn't be
very worried. I do have a big heart. We're going to take care of everybody. We're going to have
a very strong border. We're gonna have a very solid border. Where you have great people that
are here that have done a good job, they should be far less worried. We'll be coming out with
policy on that over the next period of four weeks.
DAVID MUIR: But Mr. President, will they be allowed to stay?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm gonna tell you over the next four weeks. But I will tell you, we're
looking at this, the whole immigration situation, we're looking at it with great heart. Now we
have criminals that are here. We have really bad people that are here. Those people have to be
worried 'cause they're getting out. We're gonna get them out. We're gonna get 'em out fast.
General Kelly is I've given that as his number one priority.
DAVID MUIR: Senator Jeff Sessions, your pick for attorney general, as you know during his
confirmation hearing said that ending DACA, this is President Obama's policy protecting the
dreamers that, "Ending it certainly would be constitutional." That you could end the
protection of these dreamers. Is that a possibility?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna be talking with attorney general. He will soon be the
attorney general. He's done fantastically well. We're all very proud of him. I thought he was
treated very, very unfairly. He's a brilliant man and he's a very good man. He'll do a fantastic
job. I'll be speaking to him as soon as he's affirmed.
DAVID MUIR: So, it's a possibility.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We will be talking to the attorney general.
DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White
House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the
presidential election with them telling them that you lost the popular vote because of
millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in
American history. Where is the evidence of that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed
to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon
as you but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do and I'm very ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... and I mean it. But just so you it was supposed to be a confidential
meeting. They turned it into not a con... Number two, the conversation lasted for about a
minute. They made it somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the ... It wasn't. It was hardly
even discussed.
I said it. And I said it strongly because what's going on with voter fraud is horrible. That's
number one. Number two, I would've won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the
popular vote. I would've gone to California where I didn't go at all. I would've gone to New York
where I didn't campaign at all.
I would've gone to a couple of places that I didn't go to. And I would've won that much easier
than winning the electoral college. But as you know, the electoral college is all that matters. It
doesn't make any difference. So, I would've won very, very easily. But it's a different form of
winning. You would campaign much differently. You would have a totally different campaign.
So, but ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you're just asking a question. I would've easily won the popular vote,
much easier, in my opinion, than winning the electoral college. I ended up going to 19 different
states. I went to the state of Maine four times for one. I needed one.
I went to M I got it, by the way. But it turned out I didn't need it because we ended up winning
by a massive amount, 306. I needed 270. We got 306. You and everybody said, "There's no way
you get to 270." I mean, your network said and almost everybody said, "There's no way you can
get to ..." So, I went to Maine four times. I went to various places. And that's the beauty of the
electoral college. With that being said, if you look at voter registration, you look at the dead
people that are registered to vote who vote, you look at people that are registered in two
states, you look at all of these different things that are happening with registration. You take a
look at those registration for you're gonna s find and we're gonna do an investigation on
it.
DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: But ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we're gonna find out.

(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: In fact, I heard one of the other side, they were saying it's not 3 to 5. It's
not 3 to 5. I said, "Well, Mr. Trump is talking about registration, tell " He said, "You know we
don't wanna talk about registration." They don't wanna talk about registration.
You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states. You
have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey. They
vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion. Now ...
DAVID MUIR: But again ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'm doing an ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... investigation. David, David, David ...
DAVID MUIR: Youre now, youre now president of the United States when you say ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Of course, and I want the voting process to be legitimate.
DAVID MUIR: But what I'm asking ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: The people that ...
DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes,
that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free
election.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure.
DAVID MUIR: You say you're gonna launch an investigation.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure, done.
DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... false.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports.
DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found
no evidence of voter ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me, then why did he write the report?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: According to Pew report, then he's then he's groveling again. You know, I
always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something that you wanna
hear but not necessarily millions of people wanna hear or have to hear.
DAVID MUIR: So, youve launched an investigation?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna launch an investigation to find out. And then the next time
and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of 'em come to me. None of 'em come to me. They
would all be for the other side. None of 'em come to me. But when you look at the people that
are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states we have a lot
to look into.
DAVID MUIR: House Speaker Paul Ryan has said, "I have seen no evidence. I have made this
very, very clear." Senator Lindsey Graham saying, "It's the most inappropriate thing for a
president to say without proof. He seems obsessed with the idea that he could not have
possibly lost the popular vote without cheating and fraud." I wanna ask you about something
bigger here. Does it matter more now ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's nothing bigger. There's nothing bigger.
DAVID MUIR: But it is important because ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you know what's important, millions of people agree
with me when I say that if you wouldve looked on one of the other networks and all of the
people that were calling in they're saying, "We agree with Mr. Trump. We agree." They're very
smart people.
The people that voted for me lots of people are saying they saw things happen. I heard
stories also. But you're not talking about millions. But it's a small little segment. I will tell you,
it's a good thing that we're doing because at the end we're gonna have an idea as to what's
going on. Now, you're telling me Pew report has all of a sudden changed. But you have other
reports and you have other statements. You take a look at the registrations, how many dead
people are there? Take a look at the registrations as to the other things that I already
presented.
DAVID MUIR: And you're saying ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And you're gonna find ...
DAVID MUIR: ... those people who are on the rolls voted, that there are millions of illegal votes?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I didn't say there are millions. But I think there could very well be millions
of people. That's right.
DAVID MUIR: You tweeted though ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I also say this ...
DAVID MUIR: ... you tweeted, "If you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally, I won
the popular vote."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, and I also say this, if I was going for the popular vote I would've won
easily. But I would've been in California and New York. I wouldn't have been in Maine. I
wouldn't have been in Iowa. I wouldn't have been in Nebraska and all of those states that I had
to win in order to win this. I would've been in New York, I would've been in California. I never
even went there.
DAVID MUIR: Let me just ask you, you did win. You're the president. You're sitting ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thats true.
DAVID MUIR: ... across from me right now.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That's true.
DAVID MUIR: Do you think that your words matter more now?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, very much.
DAVID MUIR: Do you think that that talking about millions of illegal votes is dangerous to this
country without presenting the evidence?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not at all.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not at all because many people feel the same way that I do. And ...
DAVID MUIR: You don't think it undermines your credibility if theres no evidence?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not at all because they didn't come to me. Believe me. Those were
Hillary votes. And if you look at it they all voted for Hillary. They all voted for Hillary. They didn't
vote for me. I don't believe I got one. Okay, these are people that voted for Hillary Clinton. And
if they didn't vote, it would've been different in the popular.
Now, you have to understand I I focused on those four or five states that I had to win. Maybe
she didn't. She should've gone to Michigan. She thought she had it in the bag. She should've
gone to Wisconsin, she thought she had it because you're talking about 38 years of, you know,
Democrat wins. But they didn't. I went to Michigan, I went to Wisconsin. I went to Pennsylvania
all the time. I went to all of the states that are Florida and North Carolina. That's all I focused
on.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, it does strike me though that we're relitigating the presidential
campaign, the election ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no. We're looking at it for the next time. No, no, you have to
understand, I had a tremendous victory, one of the great victories ever. In terms of counties I
think the most ever or just about the most ever. When you look at a map it's all red. Red
meaning us, Republicans.
One of the greatest victories ever. But, again, I ran for the electoral college. I didn't run for the
popular vote. What I'm saying is if there are these problems that many people agree with me
that there might be. Look, Barack Obama if you look back eight years ago when he first
ran he was running for office in Chicago for we needed Chicago vote.
And he was laughing at the system because he knew all of those votes were going to him. You
look at Philadelphia, you look at what's going on in Philadelphia. But take a look at the tape of
Barack Obama who wrote me, by the way, a very beautiful letter in the drawer of the desk.
Very beautiful. And I appreciate it. But look at what he said, it's on tape. Look at what he said
about voting in Chicago eight years ago. It's not changed. It hasn't changed, believe me.
Chicago, look what's going on in Chicago. It's only gotten worse.
But he was smiling and laughing about the vote in Chicago. Now, once he became president he
didn't do that. All of a sudden it became this is the foundation of our country. So, here's the
point, you have a lot of stuff going on possibly. I say probably. But possibly. We're gonna get to
the bottom of it.
And then we're gonna make sure it doesn't happen again. If people are registered wrongly, if
illegals are registered to vote, which they are, if dead people are registered to vote and voting,
which they do. There are some. I don't know how many. We're gonna try finding that out and
the other categories that we talk about, double states where they're registered in two states,
we're gonna get to the bottom of it because we have to stop it. Because I agree, so important.
But the other side is trying to downplay this. Now, I'll say this I think that if that didn't
happen, first of all, would would be a great thing if it didn't happen. But I believe it did
happen. And I believe a part of the vote would've been much different.
DAVID MUIR: And you believe millions of illegal votes ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you this ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna find out. And and, by the way, when I say you're gonna find
out. You can never really find, you know, there are gonna be no matter what numbers we
come up with there are gonna be lots of people that did things that we're not going to find out
about. But we will find out because we need a better system where that can't happen.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I just have one more question on this. And it's it's bigger picture.
You took some heat after your visit to the CIA in front of that hallowed wall, 117 stars of
those lost at the CIA. You talked about other things. But you also talked about crowd size at the
inauguration, about the size of your rallies, about covers on Time magazine. And I just wanna
ask you when does all of that matter just a little less? When do you let it roll off your back now
that you're the president?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: OK, so I'm glad you asked. So, I went to the CIA, my first step. I have great
respect for the people in intelligence and CIA. I'm I don't have a lot of respect for, in particular
one of the leaders. But that's okay. But I have a lot of respect for the people in the CIA.
That speech was a home run. That speech, if you look at Fox, OK, I'll mention you we see
what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches. They showed the people applauding
and screaming and and they were all CIA. There was somebody was asking Sean "Well,
were they Trump people that were put " we don't have Trump people. They were CIA people.
That location was given to me. Mike Pence went up before me, paid great homage to the wall. I
then went up, paid great homage to the wall. I then spoke to the crowd. I got a standing
ovation. In fact, they said it was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won
the Super Bowl and they said it was equal. I got a standing ovation. It lasted for a long period of
time. What you do is take take out your tape you probably ran it live. I know when I do
good speeches. I know when I do bad speeches. That speech was a total home run. They loved
it. I could've ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... gotten ...
DAVID MUIR: You would give the same speech if you went back ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: ... in front of that wall?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: People loved it. They loved it. They gave me a standing ovation for a long
period of time. They never even sat down, most of them, during the speech. There was love in
the room. You and other networks covered it very inaccurately. I hate to say this to you and you
probably won't put it on but turn on Fox and see how it was covered. And see how people
respond to that speech.
That speech was a good speech. And you and a couple of other networks tried to downplay that
speech. And it was very, very unfortunate that you did. The people of the CIA loved the speech.
If I was going to take a vote in that room, there were, like, 300, 350 people, over 1,000 wanted
to be there but they couldn't. They were all CIA people. I would say I would've gotten 350 to
nothing in that room. That's what the vote would've been. That speech was a big hit, a big
success success. And then I came back and I watched you on television and a couple of
others.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And they tried to demean. Excuse me?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not you personally but your network and they tried to demean the
speech. And I know when things are good or bad. A poll just came out on my inauguration
speech which was extraordinary that people loved it. Loved and liked. And it was an
extraordinary poll.
DAVID MUIR: I guess that's what I'm getting at. You talked about the poll, the people loving
your inaugural speech and the size of your ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, because you bring it up.
DAVID MUIR: I'm asking, well, on day one you ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you just brought it up. I didn't bring it up. I didn't wanna talk about
the inauguration speech. But I think I did a very good job and people really liked it. You saw the
poll. Just came out this morning. You bring it up. I didn't bring it up.
DAVID MUIR: So, polls and crowd size and covers on Time, those still matter now that you're
here as president.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you keep bringing it up. I had a massive amount of people here. They
were showing pictures that were very unflattering, as unflattering from certain angles that
were taken early and lots of other things. I'll show you a picture later if youd like of a massive
crowd.
In terms of a total audience including television and everything else that you have we had
supposedly the biggest crowd in history. The audience watching the show. And I think you
would even agree to that. They say I had the biggest crowd in the history of inaugural speeches.
I'm honored by that. But I didn't bring it up. You just brought it up.
DAVID MUIR: See, I I'm not interested in the inaugural crowd size. I think the American
people can look at images side by side and decide for themselves. I am curious about the first
full day here at the White House, choosing to send the press secretary out into the briefing
room, summoning reporters to talk about the inaugural crowd size. Does that send a message
to the American people that that's that's more important than some of the very pressing
issues?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Part of my whole victory was that the men and women of this country who
have been forgotten will never be forgotten again. Part of that is when they try and demean me
unfairly 'cause we had a massive crowd of people. We had a crowd I looked over that sea of
people and I said to myself, "Wow."
And I've seen crowds before. Big, big crowds. That was some crowd. When I looked at the
numbers that happened to come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest
audience in the history of inaugural speeches. I said the men and women that I was talking to
who came out and voted will never be forgotten again. Therefore I won't allow you or other
people like you to demean that crowd and to demean the people that came to Washington,
D.C., from faraway places because they like me. But more importantly they like what I'm saying.
DAVID MUIR: I just wanna say I didn't demean anyone who was in that crowd. We did coverage
for hours ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I think youre demeaning by talking the way you're talking. I think
you're demeaning. And that's why I think a lot of people turned on you and turned on a lot of
other people. And that's why you have a 17 percent approval rating, which is pretty bad.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. Trump, let's talk about many of the things that have happened this week.
Chicago. Last night you tweeted about the murder rate in Chicago saying, "If Chicago doesn't fix
the horrible carnage going on I will send in the feds."
DAVID MUIR: You will send in the feds? What do you mean by that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It's carnage. You know, in my speech I got tremendous from certain
people the word carnage. It is carnage. It's horrible carnage. This is Afghanistan is not like
what's happening in Chicago. People are being shot left and right. Thousands of people over a
period over a short period of time.
This year, which has just started, is worse than last year, which was a catastrophe. They're not
doing the job. Now if they want help, I would love to help them. I will send in what we have to
send in. Maybe they're not gonna have to be so politically correct. Maybe they're being overly
political correct. Maybe there's something going on. But you can't have those killings going on
in Chicago. Chicago is like a war zone. Chicago is worse than some of the people that you report
in some of the places that you report about every night ...
DAVID MUIR: So, I will send ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... in the Middle East.
DAVID MUIR: ... you mentioned federal assistance. There's federal assistance and then there's
sending in the feds. I'm just curious would you take action on your own?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I want them to fix the problem. You can't have thousands of people being
shot in a city, in a country that I happen to be president of. Maybe it's okay if somebody else is
president. I want them to fix the problem. They have a problem that's very easily fixable.
They're gonna have to get tougher and stronger and smarter. But they gotta fix the problem. I
don't want to have thousands of people shot in a city where essentially I'm the president. I love
Chicago. I know Chicago. And Chicago is a great city, can be a great city.
DAVID MUIR: And if theyre unable to fix it?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It can't be a great city. Excuse me. It can't be a great city if people are shot
walking down the street for a loaf of bread. Can't be a great city.
DAVID MUIR: And if they are unable to fix it, that's when you would send in the feds?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, so far they have been unable. Its been going on for years. And I
wasn't president. So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech,
very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They weren't shot at the speech. But they were shot in the city of Chicago
during his speech. What what's going on? So, all I'm saying is to the mayor who came up to
my office recently I say, "You have to smarten up and you have to toughen up because you
can't let that happen. That's a war zone."
DAVID MUIR: So, this is an "or else." This is a warning?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I want them to straighten out the problem. It's a big problem.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you about a new report that you were poised to lift a ban on so called
CIA black sites of prisons around the world that have been used in the past. Is that true?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I'll be talking about that in about two hours. So, you'll be there and
you'll be able to see it for yourself.
DAVID MUIR: Are you gonna lift the ban?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You're gonna see in about two hours.
DAVID MUIR: The last president, President Obama, said the U.S. does not torture. Will you say
that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have a general who I have great respect for, General Mattis, who
said I was a little surprised who said he's not a believer in torture. As you know, Mr.
Pompeo was just approved, affirmed by the Senate. He's a fantastic guy, he's gonna be the
head of the CIA.
And you have somebody fabulous as opposed to the character that just got out who didn't
was not fabulous at all. And he will I think do a great job. And he is you know, I haven't gone
into great detail. But I will tell you I have spoken to others in intelligence. And they are big
believers in, as an example, waterboarding.
DAVID MUIR: You did tell me ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Because they say it does work. It does work.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, you ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, you told me during one of the debates that you would bring back
waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would do ...
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would do I wanna keep our country safe. I wanna keep our country safe.
DAVID MUIR: What does that mean?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: When they're shooting when they're chopping off the heads of our
people and other people, when they're chopping off the heads of people because they happen
to be a Christian in the Middle East, when ISIS is doing things that nobody has ever heard of
since Medieval times, would I feel strongly about waterboarding?
As far as I'm concerned we have to fight fire with fire. Now, with that being said I'm going with
General Mattis. I'm going with my secretary because I think Pompeo's gonna be phenomenal.
I'm gonna go with what they say. But I have spoken as recently as 24 hours ago with people at
the highest level of intelligence. And I asked them the question, "Does it work? Does torture
work?" And the answer was, "Yes, absolutely."
DAVID MUIR: You're now the president. Do you want waterboarding?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don't want people to chop off the citizens or anybody's heads in the
Middle East. Okay? Because they're Christian or Muslim or anything else. I don't want look,
you are old enough to have seen a time that was much different. You never saw heads chopped
off until a few years ago.
Now they chop 'em off and they put 'em on camera and they send 'em all over the world. So we
have that and we're not allowed to do anything. We're not playing on an even field. I will say
this, I will rely on Pompeo and Mattis and my group. And if they don't wanna do, that's fine. If
they do wanna do, then I will work for that end.
I wanna do everything within the bounds of what you're allowed to do legally. But do I feel it
works? Absolutely I feel it works. Have I spoken to people at the top levels and people that
have seen it work? I haven't seen it work. But I think it works. Have I spoken to people that feel
strongly about it? Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: So, you'd be okay with it as ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I wanna keep ...
DAVID MUIR: ... president?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... no, I wanna I will rely on General Mattis. And I'm gonna rely on those
two people and others. And if they don't wanna do it, it's 100 percent okay with me. Do I think
it works? Absolutely.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I wanna ask you about refugees. You're about to sign a sweeping
executive action to suspend immigration to this country.
DAVID MUIR: Who are we talking about? Is this the Muslim ban?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're talking about no it's not the Muslim ban. But it's countries that
have tremendous terror. It's countries that we're going to be spelling out in a little while in the
same speech. And it's countries that people are going to come in and cause us tremendous
problems. Our country has enough problems without allowing people to come in who, in many
cases or in some cases, are looking to do tremendous destruction.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You look at what's happening ...
DAVID MUIR: Which countries are we talking about?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... you'll be hearing about it in two hours because I have a whole list. You'll
be very thrilled. You're looking at people that come in, in many cases, in some cases with evil
intentions. I don't want that. They're ISIS. They're coming under false pretense. I don't want
that.
I'm gonna be the president of a safe country. We have enough problems. Now I'll absolutely do
safe zones in Syria for the people. I think that Europe has made a tremendous mistake by
allowing these millions of people to go into Germany and various other countries. And all you
have to do is take a look. It's it's a disaster what's happening over there.
I don't want that to happen here. Now with that being said, President Obama and Hillary
Clinton have, and Kerry have allowed tens of thousands of people into our country. The FBI is
now investigating more people than ever before having to do with terror. They and it's from
the group of people that came in. So look, look, our country has a lot of problems. Believe me. I
know what the problems are even better than you do. They're deep problems, they're serious
problems. We don't need more.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you about some of the countries that won't be on the list, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Why are we going to allow people to come into this country ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You're going to see you're going to see. We're going to have extreme
vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we're not letting people in if we think there's even
a little chance of some problem.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We are excluding certain countries. But for other countries we're gonna
have extreme vetting. It's going to be very hard to come in. Right now it's very easy to come in.
It's gonna be very, very hard. I don't want terror in this country. You look at what happened in
San Bernardino. You look at what happened all over. You look at what happened in the World
Trade Center. Okay, I mean, take that as an example.
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... concerned are you at all concerned it's going to cause more anger among
Muslims ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Anger?
DAVID MUIR: ... the world?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: There's plenty of anger right now. How can you have more?
DAVID MUIR: You don't think it'll ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Look, David ...
DAVID MUIR: ... exacerbate the problem?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... David, I mean, I know you're a sophisticated guy. The world is a mess.
The world is as angry as it gets. What? You think this is gonna cause a little more anger? The
world is an angry place. All of this has happened. We went into Iraq. We shouldn't have gone
into Iraq. We shouldn't have gotten out the way we got out.
The world is a total mess. Take a look at what's happening with Aleppo. Take a look what's
happening in Mosul. Take a look what's going on in the Middle East. And people are fleeing and
they're going into Europe and all over the place. The world is a mess, David.
DAVID MUIR: You brought up Iraq and something you said that could affect American troops in
recent days. You said, "We should've kept the oil but okay maybe we'll have another chance."
What did you mean by that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we should've kept the oil when we got out. And, you know, it's very
interesting, had we taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS because they fuel themselves with the
oil. That's where they got the money. They got the money from leaving when we left, we left
Iraq, which wasn't a government. It's not a government now.
And by the way, and I said something else, if we go in and do this. You have two nations, Iraq
and Iran. And they were essentially the same military strength. And they'd fight for decades and
decades. They'd fight forever. And they'd keep fighting and it would go it was just a way of
life. We got in, we decapitated one of those nations, Iraq. I said, "Iran is taking over Iraq." That's
essentially what happened.
DAVID MUIR: So, you believe we can go in and take the oil.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We should have taken the oil. You wouldn't have ISIS if we took the oil.
Now I wasn't talking about it from the standpoint of ISIS because the way we got out was
horrible. We created a vacuum and ISIS formed. But had we taken the oil something else
would've very good happened. They would not have been able to fuel their rather unbelievable
drive to destroy large portions of the world.
DAVID MUIR: You've heard the critics who say that would break all international law, taking the
oil. But I wanna get to the words ...
(OVERTALK)
DAVID MUIR: ... that you ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait, wait, can you believe that? Who are the critics who say that? Fools.
DAVID MUIR: Let, let me ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don't call them critics. I call them fools.
DAVID MUIR: ... let me talk about your words ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We should've kept excuse me. We should've taken the oil. And if we took
the oil you wouldn't have ISIS. And we would have had wealth. We have spent right now $6
trillion in the Middle East. And our country is falling apart.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Our roads excuse me. Our roads, our bridges, our schools, it's falling
apart. We have spent as of one month ago $6 trillion in the Middle East. And in our country we
can't afford to build a school in Brooklyn or we can't afford to build a school in Los Angeles. And
we can't afford to fix up our inner cities. We can't afford to do anything. Look, it's time. It's
been our longest war. We've been in there for 15, 16 years. Nobody even knows what the date
is because they don't really know when did we start. But it's time. It's time.
DAVID MUIR: What got my attention, Mr. President, was when you said, "Maybe we'll have
another chance."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, don't let it get your attention too much because we'll see what
happens. I mean, we're gonna see what happens. You know, I told you and I told everybody
else that wants to talk when it comes to the military I don't wanna discuss things.
I wanna let I wanna let the action take place before the talk takes place. I watched in Mosul
when a number of months ago generals and politicians would get up and say, "We're going into
Mosul in four months." Then they'd say, "We're going in in three months, two months, one
month. We're going in next week."
Okay, and I kept saying to myself, "Gee, why do they have to keep talking about going in?" All
right, so now they go in and it is tough because they're giving the enemy all this time to
prepare. I don't wanna do a lot of talking on the military. I wanna talk after it's finished, not
before it starts.
DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, Mr. President, about another promise involving Obamacare to
repeal it. And you told The Washington Post that your plan to replace Obamacare will include
insurance for everybody. That sounds an awful lot like universal coverage.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It's going to be what my plan is is that I wanna take care of everybody.
I'm not gonna leave the lower 20 percent that can't afford insurance. Just so you understand
people talk about Obamacare. And I told the Republicans this, the best thing we could do is
nothing for two years, let it explode. And then we'll go in and we'll do a new plan and and the
Democrats will vote for it. Believe me.
Because this year you'll have 150 percent increases. Last year in Arizona 116 perecent increase,
Minnesota 60 some odd percent increase. And I told them, except for one problem, I wanna get
it fixed. The best thing I could do as the leader of this country but as wanting to get something
approved with support of the Democrats, if I didn't do anything for two years they'd be begging
me to do something. But I don't wanna do that. So just so you unders Obamacare is a disaster.
It's too expensive. It's horrible health care. It doesn't cover what you have to cover. It's a
disaster. You know it and I know it. And I said to the Republican folks and they're terrific folks,
Mitch and Paul Ryan, I said, "Look, if you go fast and I'm okay in doing it because it's the right
thing to do. We wanna get good coverage at much less cost." I said, "If you go fast we then own
Obamacare. They're gonna put it on us. And Obamacare is a disaster waiting to explode. If you
sit back and let it explode it's gonna be much easier." That's the thing to do. But the right thing
to do is to get something done now.
DAVID MUIR: But you ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I wanna make sure that nobody's dying on the streets when I'm
president. Nobody's gonna be dying on the streets. We will unleash something that's gonna be
terrific. And remember this, before Obamacare you had a lot of people that were very, very
happy with their health care.
And now those people in many cases don't even have health care. They don't even have
anything that's acceptable to them. Remember this, keep your doctor, keep your plan, 100
percent. Remember the $5 billion website? Remember the website fiasco. I mean, you do admit
that I think, right? The website fiasco.
Obamacare is a disaster. We are going to come up with a new plan ideally not an amended plan
because right now if you look at the pages they're this high. We're gonna come up with a new
plan that's going to be better health care for more people at a lesser cost.
DAVID MUIR: Last question because I know you're gonna show me around the White House.
Last question on this. You've seen the estimate that 18 million Americans could lose their
health insurance if Obamacare is repealed and there is no replacement. Can you assure those
Americans watching this right now that they will not lose their health insurance or end up with
anything less?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So nobody ever deducts all the people that have already lost their health
insurance that liked it. You had millions of people that liked their health insurance and their
health care and their doctor and where they went. You had millions of people that now aren't
insured anymore.
DAVID MUIR: I'm just asking about the people ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, no.
DAVID MUIR: ... who are nervous and watching ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We ...
DAVID MUIR: ... you for reassurance.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... here's what I can assure you, we are going to have a better plan, much
better health care, much better service treatment, a plan where you can have access to the
doctor that you want and the plan that you want. We're gonna have a much better health care
plan at much less money.
And remember Obamacare is ready to explode. And you interviewed me a couple of years ago.
I said '17 right now, this year, "'17 is going to be a disaster." I'm very good at this stuff. "'17 is
going to be a disaster cost wise for Obamacare. It's going to explode in '17."
And why not? Obama's a smart guy. So let it all come do because that's what's happening. It's
all coming do in '17. We're gonna have an explosion. And to do it right, sit back, let it explode
and let the Democrats come begging us to help them because it's on them. But I don't wanna
do that. I wanna give great health care at a much lower cost.
DAVID MUIR: So, no one who has this health insurance through Obamacare will lose it or end
up ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, when you ...
DAVID MUIR: ... with anything less?
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: ... say no one I think no one. Ideally, in the real world, youre talking about
millions of people. Will no one. And then, you know, knowing ABC, you'll have this one person
on television saying how they were hurt. Okay. We want no one. We want the answer to be no
one.
But I will say millions of people will be happy. Right now you have millions and millions and
millions of people that are unhappy. It's too expensive and it's no good. And the governor of
Minnesota who unfortunately had a very, very sad incident yesterday 'cause he's a very nice
guy but a couple of months ago he said that the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable.
He's a staunch Democrat. Very strong Democrat. He said it's no longer affordable. He made that
statement. And Bill Clinton on the campaign trail and he probably had a bad night that night
when he went home but he said, "Obamacare is crazy. It's crazy." And you know what, they
were both right.
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, thank you.
(OVERTALK)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Pasted from <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript abc news anchor david muir interviews president/story?id=
45047602>

Exhibit 7
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
2 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
2 of2 10
of 10
#: 22
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

January 27, 2017
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST

ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the

Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to
protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign
nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a

crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and
stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no
instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented
consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa
applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on
to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance
process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks
to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these
measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were
admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or

implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001,
including foreign nationals who entered the United States after
receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered
through the United States refugee resettlement program.
Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war,
strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that
terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United
States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
3 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
3 of3 10
of 10
#: 23
issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission

do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to
terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must

ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile
attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United
States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support
the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies
over American law. In addition, the United States should not
admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including
"honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the
persecution of those who practice religions different from their
own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender,
or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to

protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit
terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the
admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United
States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other

Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular
Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of
National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to
determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate
any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA
(adjudications) in order to determine that the individual
seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is
not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation

with the Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the
results of the review described in subsection (a) of this
section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's
determination of the information needed for adjudications and a
list of countries that do not provide adequate information,
within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the
Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on

relevant agencies during the review period described in
subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
4 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
4 of4 10
of 10
#: 24
maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of

foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are
established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or
criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant
entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred
to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would
be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I
hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and
nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this
order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic
visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for
travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in

subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed
for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all
foreign governments that do not supply such information to start
providing such information regarding their nationals within
60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of

this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the
President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a
Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of
foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling
on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas,
C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3,
and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the
information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section
until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in

subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the
names of any additional countries recommended for similar
treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection

(c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation
described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and
when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits
are otherwise blocked.
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
5 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
5 of5 10
of 10
#: 25
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall

submit to the President a joint report on the progress in
implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this
order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order,
a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a
fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All

Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National
Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the
adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify
individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent
basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of
causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will
include the development of a uniform screening standard and
procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity
documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate
documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended
application forms that include questions aimed at identifying
fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure
that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process
to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively
contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to
make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to
assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit
criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction

with the Secretary of State, the Director of National
Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report
on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of
this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this
order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this
order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program

for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120
days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall
review the USRAP application and adjudication process to
determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure
that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
6 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
6 of6 10
of 10
#: 26
to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall

implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who
are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the
initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the
date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the
Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for
nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National
Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional
procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of
the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary

of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent
permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by
individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution,
provided that the religion of the individual is a minority
religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where
necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would
assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria
as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States
and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have
determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP
to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with
the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.

1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000
refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry
until such time as I determine that additional admissions would
be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed

pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit
individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case
basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine
that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the
national interest -- including when the person is a religious
minority in his country of nationality facing religious
persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
7 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
7 of7 10
of 10
#: 27
States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international

agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying
admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a
risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President

an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection
(b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by
individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within
100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second
report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the
extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local
jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining
the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens
eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To
that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine
existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with
applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater
involvement in the process of determining the placement or
resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall
devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to

the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the
Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority
in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the
terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related
implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit

Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-
exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as
recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the

President periodic reports on the progress of the directive
contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report
shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a
second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of
this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365
days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall
submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is
fully deployed and operational.
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
8 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
8 of8 10
of 10
#: 28
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of

State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver
Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a
nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to
specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the

availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall
immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by
substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or
making permanent the period of service, and making language
training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows
for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic
ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times
are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State

shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to
ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification,
truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity
period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a
country does not treat United States nationals seeking
nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of
State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or
other treatment to match the treatment of United States
nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To

be more transparent with the American people, and to more
effectively implement policies and practices that serve the
national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with
applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly
available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign

nationals in the United States who have been charged
with terrorism-related offenses while in the United
States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while
in the United States; or removed from the United
States based on terrorism-related activity,
affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-
related organization, or any other national security
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
9 of
Page
10
Page
PageID
9 of9 10
of 10
#: 29
reasons since the date of this order or the last

reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign

nationals in the United States who have been
radicalized after entry into the United States and
engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have
provided material support to terrorism-related
organizations in countries that pose a threat to the
United States, since the date of this order or the
last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of

acts of gender-based violence against women, including
honor killings, in the United States by foreign
nationals, since the date of this order or the last
reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety

and security as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including
information on the immigration status of foreign
nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the

date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term
costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order

shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive

department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with

applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
Case
Case
Case
1:17-cv-00480
2:17-cv-00141-JLR
2:17-cv-00126
Document
Document
Document
2 Filed
1-1
18-7
01/28/17
Filed
Filed
01/28/17
Page
02/01/17
10Page
ofPage
1010
PageID
10
of 10
of 10
#: 30
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 27, 2017.
# # #

Exhibit 8
Watch About/Follow
Watch About/Follow
Watch About/Follow

blogs
thebrodyfile

01-27-2017
David Brody
Share Tweet Email
+121
In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, President Donald Trump says persecuted
Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States.
We are going to help them, President Trump tells CBN News. Theyve been horribly treated.
Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the
United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they
were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very,
very unfair.
The Brody File conducted the interview Friday morning in the Blue Room at The White House.
More newsworthy clips are coming soon. The entire interview can be seen this Sunday at 11pm
on Freeform (cable TV, formerly ABC Family Channel) during our special CBN News show.
This is just the third interview President Trump has done from The White House and it will be the
only interview that will air in its entirety this weekend.
MANDATORY VIDEO AND COURTESY: CBN NEWS/THE BRODY FILE
DAVID BRODY: Persecuted Christians, weve talked about this, the refugees overseas. The
refugee program, or the refugee changes youre looking to make. As it relates to persecuted
Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.
DAVID BRODY: You do?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Theyve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in
Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim
you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was
so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of
everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to
help them.
While you are here...
We'd like to ask for your help. At CBN News, we strive to bring you the most current,
pertinent and reliable news possible. We are able to bring you this important news from a
Christian perspective because of the help of friends like you who know how vital it is to
have an alternative to the news you hear from major media outlets. Would you help ensure
that we can continue to provide this important service to you and our country by considering
a special gift today? Or would you become a monthly partner so we know we can count on
the resources we need to bring you the best news possible?
Thanks for being a part of the dynamic future of CBN News, as well as helping The
Christian Broadcasting Network share the love of Jesus with hurting people everywhere.
Become a Partner Give a special gift

Exhibit 9
Acts of Faith
Trump signs order

limiting refugee entry,
says he will prioritize
Christian refugees
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey January 27
President Trump signed an executive order Friday instituting extreme vetting of refugees, aimed at keeping
out radical Islamic terrorists.
Im establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of
America, Trump said during his signing of the order. We dont want them here. We want to make sure we
are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.
According to drafts of the executive action, the order bars people from the Muslim-majority countries of Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen from entering the United States for 30 days and suspends the
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days. The program will be reinstated only for nationals of
countries for whom members are vetted by Trumps administration.
In an interview Friday with the Christian Broadcast Network, Trump said he plans to help persecuted
Christians.
Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United
States? Trump said. If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost
impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were
chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair.
In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union declared Trumps action just a euphemism for
discrimination against Muslims.
From both legal and historical perspectives, the plan to ban refugees from specific countries is within the
powers granted to the president under current law and historical precedent, according to Charles Haynes,
vice president of the Newseum Institutes Religious Freedom Center. However, whether the president can
limit the ban to one religious group is another question.
Many Muslims, especially Shiites, are among the religious minorities under attack, Haynes said. This raises
moral and humanitarian concerns about excluding them from entrance to the U.S. while permitting people of
other faiths, he said. Whether this policy rises to the level of a constitutional violation is uncertain and will
be debated by constitutional scholars in the coming weeks.
Issues related to the Constitution and religion are usually associated with matters of sex, such as
contraceptives and LGBT discrimination, but some observers said they expect Trumps actions on
immigration to raise new challenges for religious freedom, according to Chelsea Langston Bombino of the
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance at the Center for Public Justice. Several organizations, she noted,
are speaking out against orders that will hurt the very people that their organizations were established, out
of a religious calling, to serve, she said.
Trumps actions have been decried by several religious groups this week. The expected cutbacks to U.S.
refugee programs and funding will compromise our ability to do this work and the infrastructure needed to
serve refugees in the years to come, evangelical ministry World Relief said in a statement.
Acts of Faith newsletter

Sign up
Conversations about faith and values.
And in a strongly worded statement, Rabbi Jack Moline, the Interfaith Alliance president, noted that
this decision was announced on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
For decades, the United States has prided itself as a safe bastion for refugees around the globe escaping war
and persecution, he said. President Trump is poised to trample upon that great legacy with a de facto
Muslim ban.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations will on Monday announce a federal lawsuit on behalf of more
than 20 people challenging the constitutionality of the executive order.
There is no evidence that refugees the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation are a
threat to national security, said CAIR national litigation director Lena F. Masri. This is an order that is
based on bigotry, not reality.
This post has been updated.
Sarah Pulliam Bailey is a religion reporter, covering how faith intersects with politics, culture
and...everything. Follow @spulliam
The Post Recommends
An America first philosophy? During Mays

visit, its more like Trump first.
The new presidents view of the world seems to revolve around
him and his personal relationships.
Facing criticism, Trump administration has

no regrets about leaving out Jews in
Holocaust statement
What might have been seen as an oversight was confirmed by
White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks to have been an
intentional decision.
Trump orders Pentagon to draft ISIS

strategy, restructuring of security council
New rules concerning lobbying are also among executive orders
signed Saturday.

Exhibit 10
Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
1:17-cv-10154-NMG Document
Document18-10
23-1 Filed 01/31/17
02/01/17 Page 1
2 of 1
2
United States Department of State
Deputy Assistant Secretcuy

for Visa Services
Washington, D. C. 20520
January 27, 2017
Upon request of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and pursuant to

sections 212() and 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 22 CFR
41.122 and 42.82, and in implementation of'section 3(c) of the Executive Order on
Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, I hereby
provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of
'
Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, subject to the exceptions
discussed below.
The revocation does not apply to visas in the following nonimmigrant

classifications: A-1, A-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO, C-2, or certain diplomatic
visas.
The revocation also does not apply to any visa exempted on the basis of a
determination made by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Secmity pursuant to
section 3(g) of the Executive Order on a case-by-case basis, and when in the
national interest.
This document is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the
United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
Edward J. Ramotowski
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Department of State

Exhibit 11
Urgent Notice: Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Forei... Page 1 of 1
U.S. Passports & International Parental Find U.S. Embassies

travel.state.gov
International Travel
Students Abroad U.S. Visa Intercountry Adoption
Child Abduction | Contact Us
& Consulates
travel.state.gov > Visas > Visa Newsroom > Urgent Notice: Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign
Nationals
Print Email
Newsroom
Urgent Notice: Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by
Foreign Nationals
JANUARY 27, 2017
Urgent Notice
Per the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals signed on January 27, 2017, visa
issuance to nationals of the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective
immediately until further notification. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or
pay any visa fees at this time. If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND. You will not be permitted
entry to the Embassy/Consulate. We will announce any other changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that
information is available.
About Us Find a U.S. Embassy or STAY CONNECTED

Consulate
Visa Newsroom Dipnote Blog @travelgov
Contact Us
Reports and Statistics Facebook Youtube
Careers
Law and Policy
Consular Notification and Access Flickr RSS
U.S. Passports & International Parental

travel.state.gov Students Abroad U.S. Visa Intercountry Adoption
International Travel Child Abduction
Privacy Copyright & Disclaimer FOIA No FEAR Act Data Office of the Inspector General USA.gov GobiernoUSA.gov
This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/news/executive-order-on-protecting-the-nation-from... 2/1/2017

Exhibit 12
2017 Statements and Press Releases | Baghdad, Iraq - Embassy of the United States Page 1 of 1
Baghdad, Iraq - Embassy of the United States

2 017 ST ATEMENT S AND PRES S RELEASES
Executive Order Affecting Visa Travel to the United States
January 28, 2017
President Trump signed an Executive Order on January 27th temporarily suspending

entry into the United States of foreign nationals from seven countries under section
212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Executive Order imposes on
nationals of certain designated countries a 90-day bar on entry into the United
States. This bar also includes a 90-day prohibition on visa issuance. These
countries, as designated by Congress or the Secretary of Homeland Security, are:
Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. We will announce
any other changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that
information is available.
Beginning January 27, 2017, travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of
one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States
or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa. Those nationals or dual nationals
holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the
United States during this period.
The Executive Order does not apply to U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens, although they
might also have another nationality, are required to use their U.S. passport when
entering and departing the United States.
Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries
during this period. If you are a national, or dual national, of one of these countries,
please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time. If you
already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your appointment
as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview. Please note that certain
travel for official governmental purposes, related to official business at or on behalf
of designated international organizations, on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to this suspension.
Please continue to monitor the Embassy Baghdad website

https://iraq.usembassy.gov/ andwww.travel.state.gov for further updates.
https://iraq.usembassy.gov/pr_012817.html 2/1/2017

Exhibit 13
2/1/2017 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document
Green card holders 18-13
will need additional Filed
screening: 02/01/17
White House | ReutersPage 2 of 4
DAY 13 LIVE: Senate panel voted to conrm Price and Mnuchin, Democrats boycott the vote VIEW MORE
EDITION: UNITED STATES
Business Markets World Politics Tech Commentary Breakingviews Money Life
WORLD NEWS | Sun Jan 29, 2017 | 2:39pm EST
Green card holders will need

additional screening: White House
TRENDING STORIES
1 Covering Trump the Reuters Way
A TSA security ofcer and his dog scan departing passengers at Lindbergh Field airport in San Diego, California,
U.S. July 1, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Blake
2 Trump Supreme Court nominee
Gorsuch seen in the mold of Scalia
3 Trump picks conservative judge

Gorsuch for Supreme Court
U.S. green card holders will require additional screening before they can return to the
United States, the White House said on Saturday. 4 Exclusive: A third of Americans think
Trump's travel ban will make them
safer
Earlier, a Department of Homeland Security ofcial said people holding green cards,
making them legal permanent U.S. residents, were included in President Donald
Trump's executive action temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority 5 The Art of the Deal: Why Putin needs
one more than Trump
countries from entering the United States.
"It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland
PICTURES
Security spokeswoman, said in an email.
A senior White House ofcial later sought to clarify the situation, saying green card
holders who had left the United States and wanted to return would have to visit a U.S.
embassy or consulate to undergo additional screening.
"You will be allowed to re-enter the United States pending a routine rescreening," the
ofcial said.
(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Alan Crosby and Paul Tait)

Violence erupts as Israeli settlers removed
from illegal West Bank outpost
NEXT IN WORLD NEWS
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX 1/3
screening: 02/01/17
The Art of the Deal: DAY 13 LIVE: Senate panelTrump's defense
voted to conrm Pricechief
and Mnuchin, Democrats boycott the vote VIEW MORE
Why Putin needs one heads to Asia, eying
more than Trump China, North Korea
MOSCOW In his book, 'Art of the Deal,' Donald threat
Trump said the best deals were ones where both WASHINGTON/TOKYO President Donald Trump's
sides got something they wanted. His credo, defense secretary is expected to underscore U.S.
applied to a potential U.S.-Russia deal, ags an security commitments to key allies South Korea
awkward truth for Vladimir Putin: He wants more and Japan on his debut trip to Asia this week as
from Trump than vice versa. concerns mount over North Korea's missile
program and tensions with China.
MORE FROM REUTERS SPONSORED CONTENT
Trump says U.S. will resume issuing visas to Time to consider copper? Explore how base SPONSORED TOPICS
all countries over next 90 days metals fared post-election Global X Funds
Before Applying For A CreditCard, Check If
Homeowners Must Claim Their $4272 Early You Pre-Qualify Citi
in 2017 Innovative Metrics
Michigan man whose sentence was Motley Fool Releases Rare Triple-Buy Alert
commuted by Obama killed: media Is the Trump Bump about to turn into a The Motley Fool
stock market crash? Money and Markets
The U.S. expansion is getting old, but age is
Before Applying For A CreditCard, Check If just a number. Capital Ideas
U.S. judges limit Trump immigration order; You Pre-Qualify Citi Time to consider copper? Explore how base
some ofcials ignore rulings metals fared post-election Global X Funds
Motley Fool Releases Rare Triple-Buy Alert
The Motley Fool Transferring Your Balance To a 21-Month 0%
Promoted byDianomi APR is a Good Plan Next Advisor
'Case by case' approach for U.S. green card
holders under Trump's new order
Fired: Trump dumps top lawyer who deed

immigration order
FROM AROUND THE WEB Promoted by Revcontent
#1 Trick to Reverse Hearing Final Photos Taken Seconds 25 Unbelievable Facts

Loss (Do This Tonight) Before Tragedy Struck About Donald Trump
Navajo Hearing Fix OMG LANE POP Hitz
Illegal Photos of Life in Itching This Part of Your Congress Gives

North Korea That Will Blow Body is a Sign of Homeowners Owing Under
Your Mind Alzheimer's $625k Once in a Lifetime
rivalshare.com Memory Repair System Mortgage
The Rebate
Mortgage Insider
Follow Reuters: Subscribe: Feeds | Newsletters | Podcasts | Apps
screening: 02/01/17
Reuters News Agency | Brand
DAYAttribution
13 LIVE: Guidelines
Senate panel voted to conrm Price and Mnuchin, Democrats boycott the vote VIEW MORE
Reuters is the news and media division of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world
news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal nance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on
Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Learn more about Thomson Reuters products:
EIKON ELEKTRON WORLD-CHECK WESTLAW ONESOURCE CHECKPOINT

Information, analytics and Everything you need to Screen for heightened risk Build the strongest The most comprehensive The industry leader for
exclusive news on empower your workow individual and entities argument relying on solution to manage all online information for tax,
nancial markets - and enhance your globally to help uncover authoritative content, your complex and ever- accounting and nance
delivered in an intuitive enterprise data hidden risks in business attorney-editor expertise, expanding tax and professionals
desktop and mobile management relationships and human and industry dening compliance needs
interface networks technology
All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays.
2017 Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Site Feedback Corrections Advertising Guidelines Cookies Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Exhibit 14
2/1/2017 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Statement Document
By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful18-14 Filed 02/01/17
Permanent Residents Into The United Page 2 of 3Security
States | Homeland
Official website of the Department of Homeland Security Contact Us Quick Links Site Map A-Z Index
Statement By Secretary
John Kelly On The Entry
Of Lawful Permanent
Residents Into The
United States
Release Date: January 29, 2017

Ofce of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010
WASHINGTON In applying the provisions of the president's

executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent
residents to be in the national interest.
Accordingly, absent the receipt of signicant derogatory

information indicating a serious threat to public safety and
welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive
factor in our case-by-case determinations.
###
Topics: International (/topics/international)

Keywords: international (/keywords/international) , Legal Permanent Residents
(/keywords/legal-permanent-residents)
Last Published Date: January 29, 2017
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states 1/2
2/1/2017 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Statement Document
By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful18-14 Filed 02/01/17
Permanent Residents Into The United Page 3 of 3Security
States | Homeland
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states 2/2

Exhibit 15
2/1/2017 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Protecting the Nation from ForeignDocument 18-15
Terrorist Entry into Filed
the United States |02/01/17
U.S. Customs andPage 2 of 3
Border Protection
Official website of the Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Customs and

Border Protection
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states 1/2
2/1/2017 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Protecting the Nation from ForeignDocument 18-15
Terrorist Entry into Filed
the United States |02/01/17
U.S. Customs andPage 3 of 3
Border Protection
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states 2/2

Exhibit 16
President Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Ext...
President Donald J. Trump

Statement Regarding Recent
Executive Order Concerning
Extreme Vetting
America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion
to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and
border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We
will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy
is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees
from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the
same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of
terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is
not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over
40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by
this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have
reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have
tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in
Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as
President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.
HOME BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN
USA.gov Privacy Policy Copyright Policy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/29/president-donald-j-trump-stateme... 2/1/2017

Exhibit 17
Trump asked for a Muslim ban, Giuliani says and ordered a commission to do it leg...
The Fix
Trump asked for a

Muslim ban, Giuliani
says and ordered a
commission to do it
legally
By Amy B Wang January 29
Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a Muslim ban and requested he
assemble a commission to show him the right way to do it legally.
Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new
administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order
temporarily banning refugees came together.
Trump signed orders on Friday not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120
days but also to implement new vetting measures to screen out radical Islamic terrorists. Refugee entry
from Syria, however, would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen is suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give
priority to Christian refugees over those of other religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting
Network.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
How did the president decide the seven countries? she asked. Okay, talk to me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-b... 2/1/2017
I'll tell you the whole history of it, Giuliani responded eagerly. So when [Trump] first announced it, he
said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it
legally.' "
Giuliani said he assembled a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this, including former U.S.
attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).
And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger the areas of the world that create
danger for us, Giuliani told Pirro. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly
sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are
substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.
It was unclear when the phone call Giuliani took place and when the commission began working. An email
to the White House press office was not immediately returned Sunday.
Clips of the exchange between Giuliani and Pirro quickly went viral Saturday night, with some claiming that
Giuliani's statement amounted to admitting Trump's intent had been to institute a ban based on religion.
Others, including Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus,
have insisted it is not a ban on Muslims, but rather one based on countries from which travel was already
restricted under Barack Obama's administration.
Priebus appeared on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday morning to say it was possible Trump would expand
the list of countries included in the travel ban.
You can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others, Priebus told host
John Dickerson. Perhaps we need to take it further.
Priebus also said there had been weeks of work and plenty of communication between the White House,
the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security regarding the ban.
We didn't just type this thing up in an office and sign up, he told Dickerson.
Later on the same program, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) called out Giuliani's interview with Pirro from the
night before.
They can't deny that this is a Muslim ban, Ellison told Dickerson. On the campaign trail, [Trump] said he
wanted a Muslim ban. ... Rudolph W. Giuliani who helped him write it said that they started out with the
intention of a Muslim ban and then they sort of 'languaged' it up so to try to avoid that label, but it is a
religiously based ban.
Senate Democrats vowed to draft legislation to block the travel ban.
Were demanding the president reverse these executive orders that go against what we are, everything we
have always stood for, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a news conference
Sunday morning, noting later that his middle name, Ellis, was originally inspired by Ellis Island.
It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it will only serve to
embolden and inspire those around the globe those that will do us harm, Schumer added of the ban. It
must be reversed immediately.
Trump's executive order sparked massive protests at airports around the country Friday and Saturday, as
reports surfaced that dozens of travelers from the affected countries, including green-card holders, were
being detained.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Saturday morning challenging Trumps order after two
Iraqi men with immigrant visas were barred from entering the United States at New York's John F.
Kennedy International Airport.
As Giuliani was speaking, Fox News simultaneously aired an alert that noted federal judge Ann M.
Donnelly had issued a stay to stop the deportations nationwide.
Donnelly wrote that there was a strong likelihood the order had violated the petitioners' rights to due
process and equal protection by the Constitution.
There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury
to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive
Order, Donnelly wrote.
The ACLU hailed the victory.
Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful
visitors to this country, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. Our courts today
worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On
week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.
On Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it did not plan to back off
enforcing Trump's orders.
President Trumps Executive Orders remain in place prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the
U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public
safety, the statement read. President Trumps Executive Order affects a minor portion of international
travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The department said that less than 1 percent of daily international air travelers to the United States had
been inconvenienced on Saturday.
Matthew Kolken, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo said there has been a systemic bias against
individuals from Muslim countries in the U.S. immigration departments for years, including under the
Obama administration.
This isn't unprecedented, Kolken told The Washington Post by phone Sunday. The unfortunate reality is
the executive branch does have vast discretionary authority to determine who they are going to [allow in or
not].
5-Minute Fix newsletter

Sign up
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Still, Kolken said, he believes Trump has gone a step further without a doubt in including even people who
are lawful permanent residents and suspending all immigration applications from people from the seven
countries on the banned list.
If there was evidence of disparate treatment of individuals from the same country if there were anecdotal
evidence of, for example, a Syrian family of one religious background allowed to enter over that of another
religious background then that is where lawsuits could come into play, he said.
The question becomes whether they're trying to do an end-around by couching the ban as a country-
specific ban based on a security-related issues when in reality it's a religious ban, Kolken said.
Read more:
Fact Checker: What you need to know about terror threat from foreigners and Trumps executive order
I am heartbroken: Malala criticizes Trump for closing the door on children fleeing violence
A ship full of refugees fleeing the Nazis once begged the U.S. for entry. They were turned back.
Trumps travel ban could make Rex Tillersons potential job harder, a former defense secretary says
Amy B Wang is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. Follow @amybwang
Do you like game

shows? Do you like
politics? Whatever,
youll LOVE The
Ciquizza anyway.
Listen on iTunes.
Listen on Stitcher.
AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by State of Washington.
// PAGE 143
AMENDMENT TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER to 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining
// PAGE 1

6

9
STATE OF WASHINGTON and NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
10 STATE OF MINNESOTA,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDED
CITATIONS
13 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States; U.S.
14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
Acting Secretary of State; and the UNITED
18 Defendants.
19
20 Plaintiff State of Washington hereby provides notice of amended citations in the
21 attached Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Amended Motion for
22 Temporary Restraining Order is amended solely to add the case information and conform the
23 paragraph citations to the correct paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint for Declaratory
24 and Injunctive Relief filed February 1, 2017. No other changes have been made.
25
26
NOTICE OF AMENDED CITATIONS 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 Respectfully submitted,
2
s/ Noah G. Purcell___________
WSBA #26004
4 Attorney General
NOAH G. PURCELL
5 WSBA #43492
Solicitor General
6 COLLEEN M. MELODY
WSBA #42275
9 (206) 464-7744
noahp@atg.wa.gov
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
NOTICE OF AMENDED CITATIONS 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744

ROBERT W. FERGUSON
2 Attorney General
3 WSBA #26004
NOAH G. PURCELL
4 WSBA #43492
Solicitor General
5 COLLEEN M. MELODY
WSBA #42275
8 Seattle, WA 98104
206-464-7744
9
11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. AMENDED MOTION FOR
14 DONALD TRUMP, in his official TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN F. Motion Noted: January 30, 2017
STATES OF AMERICA,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AMENDED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 2
4 III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................4
5 A. Standard for Granting Temporary Relief ........................................................... 4
Illegal in Many Respects.................................................................................... 4
7
8 Executive Order Violates the Equal Protection Clause .............................. 5
9 a. Standard of Review .............................................................................5
10 b. Strict scrutiny applies ..........................................................................6
11 c. The Executive Order fails strict scrutiny ............................................8
12 d. Even Under rational basis review, the Executive Order fails .............9
Executive Order Violates the Establishment Clause ................................ 11
14
15 Executive Order Violates Due Process .................................................... 14

permanent residents and visaholders violates their
17 due process rights .............................................................................. 14
18 b. The blanket ban on all refugees violates their due process right to the
fair administration of congressionally enacted policies and
19 procedures ......................................................................................... 17
Executive Order Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act .............. 19
21
C. The State, its Residents, and its Businesses Are Suffering and Will Continue
22 to Suffer Irreparable Harm Due to the Executive Order ..................................20
23
D. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Sharply Favor Preliminary
24 Relief............................................................................................................ 22
25 IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................23
26
AMENDED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER i ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Federal courts have no more sacred role than protecting marginalized groups against
3 irrational, discriminatory conduct. Over the last 48 hours, federal courts across the country
4 have exercised this role, ordering President Trumps administration to release individuals who
5 were detained pursuant to the Presidents Executive Order on immigration and refugees issued
6 late on Friday, January 27. Each of those courts found a significant likelihood that the
7 Executive Order violates federal law. Today, the State of Washington asks this Court to make
8 the same finding and to enter a nationwide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of
9 portions of the order. This relief is necessary to protect the State, its residents, and its
10 businesses from ongoing irreparable harm, and is overwhelmingly in the public interest.
11 President Trumps Executive Order bans all refugees from entering the country for 120
12 days, and bans all refugees from Syria indefinitely, whether they be infants, schoolchildren, or
13 grandmothers. Washington families waiting to be reunited with their loved ones have had their
14 dreams of reunification destroyed, as their refugee relatives around the world were taken off
15 airplanes or told they are no longer welcome.
16 The Order also bans nationals from seven countries from entering the United States for
17 90 days. Though the administrations interpretation of the Order has changed repeatedly over
18 the last 48 hours, it has applied the Order to block longtime legal permanent residents from
19 returning to this country, and the Orders text purports to grant the administration authority to
20 continue denying entry to such residents. This entry ban is harming legal permanent residents
21 who live in Washington, Washington businesses that employ residents from the listed
22 countries, and Washington families whose loved ones are trying to visit them.
23 In addition to suffering these irreparable harms, the State has a strong likelihood of
24 success on its claims. The Executive Order has both the intent and effect of discriminating
25 based on national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution. Strict scrutiny applies,
26 and the order fails utterly. Even if rational basis review applied, the Order would fail because it
AMENDED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ORDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

(206) 464-7744
1 is motivated by discriminatory animus and bears no relationship to its purported ends. While
2 preventing terrorist attacks is an important goal, the order does nothing to further that purpose
3 by denying admission to children fleeing Syrias civil war, to refugees who valiantly assisted
4 the U.S. military in Iraq, or to law-abiding high-tech workers who have lived in Washington
5 for years. The Order also violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.
6 In short, the Order is illegal, is causing and will continue to cause irreparable harm in
7 Washington, and is contrary to the public interest. The Court should fulfill its constitutional
8 role as a check on executive abuse and temporarily bar enforcement of the Order nationwide.
9 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would ban Muslims from entering
11 the United States. First Am. Compl. For Decl. & Inj. Relief (FAC) 42, ECF No. 18. On
12 December 7, 2015, he issued a press release calling for a total and complete shutdown of
13 Muslims entering the United States. FAC 43. Over the next several months, he defended
14 and reiterated this promise. FAC 44-46. On August 15, 2016, Trump proposed an
15 ideological screening test for immigration applicants, which he referred to as extreme
16 vetting. FAC 47.
17 Following his inauguration, President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to extreme
18 vetting. FAC 48. Within one week of taking office, President Trump signed an order
19 entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. FAC 49.
20 The Order directs a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non-citizens may
21 obtain admission to the United States. Id. Among other things, it imposes a 120-day
22 moratorium on the refugee resettlement program as a whole; indefinitely suspends the entry of
23 Syrian refugees; and suspends for 90 days entry of all immigrants and nonimmigrants from
24 seven majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. FAC
25 50-52. President Trump subsequently stated that the purpose of the Executive Order was to
26 establish new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States.

(206) 464-7744
1 FAC 54. He also confirmed his intent to prioritize Christians in the Middle East for
2 admission as refugees. FAC 53.
3 The Executive Order has had immediate and significant effects in Washington. Most
4 urgently, the Order is tearing Washington families apart. Husbands are separated from wives,
5 brothers are separated from sisters, and parents are separated from their children. FAC 21-
6 23. Some who have waited decades to see family members had that reunion taken without
7 warning or reason. FAC 21. While the anecdotal stories are heartbreaking, Decl. of E. Chiang
8 11-13, the sheer number of people affected is also notable. Over 7,000 noncitizen
9 immigrants from the affected countries reside in Washington. FAC 11; Decl. of N. Purcell
10 7, Ex. A. These Washingtonians now face considerable uncertainty about whether and when
11 they may travel. FAC 22. Additionally, an unknown but large number of Washington
12 residents are originally from these countries but are now U.S. citizens, who wish to be able to
13 receive visits from overseas relatives or see them move here as refugees or otherwise.
14 Washingtons businesses and economy are also impacted. Washington-based travel
15 company Expedia is incurring costs to assist its customers who are now banned from travel to
16 the United States. Decl. of R. Dzielak 12-14, 20. Washington companies Amazon, Expedia,
17 and Microsoft depend on skilled immigrants to operate and grow their businesses. FAC 12-
18 13, 15-17; Decl. of A. Blackwell-Hawkins 3-4; Decl. of R. Dzielak 7, 9. At least 76
19 Microsoft employees are originally from the affected countries and hold temporary work visas.
20 FAC 15. As a result of the Executive Order, such employees may be banned from reentering
21 the United States if they travel overseas. Id. The Executive Order will affect these companies
22 ability to recruit and retain talented workers, to the detriment of Washingtons economy and
23 tax base. FAC 14; Decl. of R. Dzielak 7, 21; see also Decl. of A. Blackwell-Hawkins
24 4, 11.
25 The Executive Order is also harming Washingtons educational institutions. More than
26 95 immigrants from the affected countries attend the University of Washington. FAC 28;

(206) 464-7744
1 Decl. of J. Riedinger 5. More than 130 attend Washington State University. Decl. of A.
2 Chaudhry 5. The Executive Order is already disrupting students personal and professional
3 lives, preventing travel for research and scholarship, and harming the universities missions.
4 Decl. of J. Riedinger 6-8; Decl. of A. Chaudhry 6-9.
5 As long as the Executive Order is in place, it will continue to have these serious,
6 pointless effects on Washingtons families, businesses, and educational institutions.
7 III. ARGUMENT
8 A. Standard for Granting Temporary Relief

9 To obtain a temporary restraining order, the State must establish 1) a likelihood of
10 success on the merits; 2) that irreparable harm is likely in the absence of preliminary relief; 3)
11 that the balance of equities tips in the States favor; and 4) that an injunction is in the public
12 interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d
13 249 (2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1); Stuhlbarg Intl Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240
14 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). And while the State can establish all of these factors,
15 [h]ow strong a claim on the merits is enough depends on the balance of harms: the more net
16 harm an injunction can prevent, the weaker the plaintiffs claim on the merits can be while still
17 supporting some preliminary relief. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1133
18 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins.
19 Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009)). Thus, while the States claims on the merits are
20 extremely strong, temporary relief would be appropriate even if they were less clearly
21 meritorious given how sharply the balance of harms tips in the States favor.
22 B. The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits Because the Executive Order is Illegal
in Many Respects
23
The Executive Order violates multiple provisions of the Constitution and federal
24
statutes. As demonstrated below, the State is highly likely to prevail on the merits.
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 1. The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits of Its Claim that the Executive
Order Violates the Equal Protection Clause
2
a. Standard of review
3
The Fifth Amendment has an equal protection component, Harris v. McRae, 448
4
U.S. 297, 297 (1980), and noncitizens com[e] within the ambit of the equal protection
5
component of the Due Process Clause, Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 974
6
(9th Cir. 2004). In equal protection analysis, the court first decides whether a challenged
7
classification burdens a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Ball v. Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 823
8
(9th Cir. 2001). If the statute employs a suspect class (such as race, religion, or national
9
origin) or burdens the exercise of a constitutional right, then courts must apply strict scrutiny,
10
and ask whether the statute is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
11
Id. [C]lassifications based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are inherently
12
suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372
13
(1971) (footnotes omitted); see also City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976)
14
(religion is an inherently suspect distinction). If no suspect classification is implicated, the
15
court applies rational basis review, and determines whether the statute is rationally related to a
16
legitimate governmental interest. Ball, 254 F.3d at 823.
17
While courts generally give more latitude to the political branches in the immigration
18
context, see, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001), this does not mean that the
19
political branches can act with impunity. In protecting its borders, this country does not set
20
aside its values or its Constitution. Id. (the political branches power is subject to important
21
constitutional limitations); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 941-42 (1983) (Congress must
22
choose a constitutionally permissible means of implementing its power over immigration).
23
Here, the Executive Order cannot pass muster under any standard of review. Its
24
blunderbuss approachprompted by irrational fear and blind animusis at odds with the
25
26 fundamental American promise that all are entitled to equal protection under the law.

(206) 464-7744
1 b. Strict scrutiny applies
2 The Court should apply strict scrutiny to the Executive Order. While courts often defer
3 to the political branches reasoned judgments on immigration policy, they do not give a blank
4 check to ignore the law. Here, the State challenges not an act of Congress or a carefully
5 formulated regulation, but an Executive Order that was written largely by the Presidents
6 political advisers without consultation of legal experts or the National Security Council and
7 that flatly discriminates on the basis of national origin and religion, in at least three ways.
8 First, the executive order discriminates based on national origin by singling out people
9 from seven countries for an outright ban on admission to the United States. Notably, the
10 Executive Order on its face applies to lawful permanent residents from the listed countries who
11 live in the United States.1 Lawful permanent residents are accorded the same constitutional
12 protections as United States citizens. See Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596
13 (1953); see also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) ([O]nce an alien lawfully enters and
14 resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all
15 people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth
16 Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.). The Orders
17 blatant distinction between green-card holders currently residing in the United States on the
18 basis of national origin demands strict scrutiny. [C]lassifications . . . based on nationality . . .
19 are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny, Graham, 403 U.S at 372, and are
20 odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. Oyama
21 v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 646 (1948) (quoting Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81,
22 100 (1943)).
23
24
25 1
Although administration officials have since suggested that, despite the plain language of the Executive
Order, the ban might not be fully implemented against lawful permanent residents, the text of the Executive Order
26 remains in effect regardless of the ever-changing instructions from Defendants.

(206) 464-7744
1 Second, the executive order singles out refugees from Syria for differential treatment,
2 indefinitely suspending their entry whether they be toddlers or grandmothers. Syrian-American
3 families in Washington and across the country awaiting their refugee relatives are left with no
4 idea when their relatives will be allowed to come, solely based on nationality.
5 Third and finally, as discussed in more detail in Part B.2, the Executive Order
6 discriminates based on religion. On its face, the Executive Order requires immigration officials
7 to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution,
8 provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individuals country of
9 nationality. Sec. 5(b). As detailed below, comments by President Trump and his advisers
10 make clear that the intent of this provision is to give preference to Christian refugees while
11 disadvantaging Muslim refugees.2 FAC 53, Ex. 8. Importantly, the State need not show that
12 intent to discriminate against Muslims was the sole purpose of the challenged action, but only
13 that it was a motivating factor. Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting
14 Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 26566 (1977)). That
15 standard is plainly met here based on the evidence presented.
16
There thus can be no dispute that the executive order uses suspect classifications. And
17
it does so not in furtherance of a congressionally authorized purpose, but rather in direct
18
violation of federal law (as discussed in Part B.4), which prohibits discrimination in the
19
issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons . . . nationality. 8 U.S.C.
20
1152(a)(1)(A). In short, this is an extraordinary case that falls well outside the run-of-the-mill
21
immigration context in which deference to the political branches applies. The Presidents
22
decision to adopt suspect classifications in violation of federal law deserves strict scrutiny.
23
24
25
2
See, e.g., https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825721153142521858;
26 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/index.html; FAC 53.

(206) 464-7744
1 c. The Executive Order fails strict scrutiny
2 The Executive Order cannot withstand strict scrutiny. Neither the temporary ban on
3 admission of aliens from certain countries nor the barring of refugees is narrowly tailored to
4 further a compelling government interest.
5 The order cites three rationales to support its temporary ban on admission of nationals
6 of seven countries: To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies . . . , to
7 ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of
8 foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration
9 by foreign terrorists or criminals. Sec. 3(c). The first rationaleessentially a desire to
10 conserve resources by discriminatingis not compelling,3 and in any case the order is not
11 narrowly tailored to achieve any of these goals.
12
To begin with, the Order is profoundly overbroad. Section 3(c) bans those from
13
disfavored countries without any evidence that any individual poses a threat of terrorism. It
14
sweeps within its ambit infant children, the disabled, long-time U.S. residents, those fleeing
15
terrorism, those who assisted the United States in conflicts overseas, and many others who the
16
government has no reason to suspect are terrorists. The government simply cannot establish
17
any factual basis for presuming that all people from a given country pose such a great risk that
18
an outright entry banrather than less extreme measuresis warranted.
19
At the same time, the order is also underinclusive to achieve its purported ends. By way
20
of example, the Executive Order recites the tragic events of September 11, 2001, but imposes
21
no entry restrictions on people from the countries whose nationals carried out those attacks
22
(Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). Decl. N. Purcell 8, Ex. B. As
23
to admission of refugees, the order claims that a temporary prohibition is necessary to
24
25 3
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 263 (1974) (a state may not protect the public
fisc by drawing an invidious distinction between classes of people); Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d
26 1101, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (simply saving money is not a compelling interest).

(206) 464-7744
1 determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for
2 refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States. Sec. 5.
3 Citing no evidence at all, the Order declares that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is
4 detrimental to the interests of the United States. Sec. 5(c). But assertion is not evidence, and
5 there is no evidence that refugees pose any unique risk to the United States.4
6 [S]trict scrutiny requires a direct rather than approximate fit of means to ends. Hunter
7 ex rel. Brandt v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 190 F.3d 1061, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal
8 quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has emphasized that equal protection guards
9 against sweeping generalizations about categories of people based on traits such as national
10 origin or religion.5 Here, there is no fit between the rationales advanced to support the
11 Executive Order and the means used to further those rationales.
12
d. Even under rational basis review, the Executive Order fails
13 The State is also likely to prevail on the merits of its equal protection claim should the
14 Court employ rational basis review.
15
There are two versions of the rational basis testtraditional rational basis review and
16
a more rigorous rational basis standard. United States v. Wilde, 74 F. Supp. 3d 1092, 1096
17
(N.D. Cal. 2014). Where a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect
18
class, the classification must be upheld so long as it bears a rational relation to some
19
legitimate end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). When a classification does, in fact,
20
adversely affect[ ] an unpopular group, courts apply a more searching rational basis review.
21
22
4
23 A recent and exhaustive study concluded that the chance of an American being killed by a refugee in a
terrorist attack is 1 in 3.64 billion a year. Alex Nowrasteh, Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis, at 2, Cato
Institute (Sept. 13, 2016) (Cato Institute).
24 5
See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 647 (1993) (striking down racial gerrymander because [i]t
reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group . . . think alike, share the same political interests,
25 and will prefer the same candidates at the polls); City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493 (1989)
(strict scrutiny ensures that the means chosen fit [a purported] compelling goal so closely that there is little or
26 no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate . . . prejudice or stereotype).

(206) 464-7744
1 Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Diaz
2 v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2011)).
3 The Constitutions guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare
4 [legislative] desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of
5 that group. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (quoting Dept of
6 Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534-35 (1973)). Thus, courts cast a more skeptical eye
7 toward legislation that has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated
8 disability on a single named group. Romer, 517 U.S. at 632. Accordingly, when legislation
9 seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects[,] it lacks a rational
10 relationship to legitimate state interests. Id. Likewise, the government has no legitimate
11 interest in catering to mere negative attitudes, or fears that some residents may have against a
12 disfavored minority. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 448
13 (1985). Simply put, the government may not avoid the strictures of [equal protection] by
14 deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the body politic. Id.
15
There is little doubt that the Executive Order is prompted by animus to those of the
16
Islamic faith, which was one of the pillars of President Trumps campaign. On December 7,
17
2015, President Trumps Campaign released a statement indicating that Donald J. Trump is
18
calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. See FAC
19
43, Ex. 1. The Campaigns spokesperson thereafter defended President Trump against criticism
20
as follows: So what? Theyre Muslim. See Decl. of N. Purcell 9, Ex. C. In the face of
21
significant criticism, President Trump announced that he would expand his proposed blanket
22
ban to any nation that has been compromised by terrorism but use different words to
23
describe it:
24
I actually dont think its a rollback. In fact, you could say its an
25 expansion. . . . Im looking now at territory. People were so upset when I
used the word Muslim. Oh, you cant use the word Muslim. Remember
26

(206) 464-7744
1 this. And Im OK with that, because Im talking territory instead of

Muslim.
2
FAC 46, Ex. 4. Even after issuing the order, President Trumps statements confirm that it is
3
designed to disfavor Muslims. FAC 53, Ex. 8. The bottom line is that the Executive Order is
4
designed to adversely affect[ ] an unpopular group, calling for the court [ to] apply a more
5
searching rational basis review. Golinski, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 996 (citing Diaz, 656 F.3d at
6
1012).
7
Even assuming the absence of animus and the application of ordinary rational basis
8
review, the Executive Order bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental
9
purpose. Romer, 517 U.S. at 635. There is simply no basis to conclude that existing screening
10
procedures are uniquely failing as to individuals from the listed countries or as to refugees.
11
Instead, the Executive Order panders to irrational fears about Muslims and refugees, and bears
12
no rational relationship to any government interest.
13
2. The State is Likely to Prevail on the Merits of Its Claim that the Executive
14 Order Violates the Establishment Clause
15 The Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
16 because both its purpose and effect are to favor one religion over another. The clearest
17 command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially
18 preferred over another. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). Thus, where a law
19 grant[s] a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect
20 and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality. Id. at 246. In Larson, the
21 law at issue did not mention any religious denomination by name, but drew a distinction
22 between religious groups based on the percentage of their revenue received from non-
23 members, which had the effect of harming certain religious groups. Id. at 231-32. Because the
24 law was focused on religious entities and had the effect of distinguishing between them in a
25 way that favored some, the Court applied strict scrutiny. Id. at 246-47.
26

(206) 464-7744
1 The Court should apply the Larson approach here. The Executive Orders refugee
2 provisions explicitly distinguish between members of religious faiths, granting priority to
3 refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution only if the
4 religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individuals country of nationality.
5 Section 5(b). President Trump and his advisers have made clear that the very purpose of this
6 order is to tilt the scales in favor of Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims. FAC 53,
7 Ex. 8. This case thus involves just the sort of discrimination among denominations that failed
8 strict scrutiny in Larson, and the Executive Order should likewise be invalidated.
9 Even if the Executive Order did not explicitly distinguish between denominations, the
10 Court would still need to apply the three-part Lemon test to determine whether the
11 government has violated the Establishment Clause. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
12 First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary
13 effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster
14 an excessive government entanglement with religion. Id. at 612. While the government
15 must satisfy all three prongs, here it can satisfy none.
16
First, the Executive Orders purpose is not secular because President Trumps
17
purpose in issuing this Orderas confirmed by his own public statementsis to endorse or
18
disapprove of religion. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 75-76 (1985). In analyzing
19
government purpose, it is the duty of the courts to distinguish a sincere secular purpose
20
from one that is either a sham or that is secondary to a predominantly religious purpose.
21
McCreary Cty., Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 865 (2005) (internal
22
quotation marks and citations omitted). This duty requires a Court to scrutinize all probative
23
evidence, to exercise common sense, and to refuse to turn a blind eye to the context in
24
which [the] policy arose. Id. at 866 (alteration in original). In so doing, a court looks carefully
25
at both the historical context of the governments action and the specific sequence of events
26

(206) 464-7744
1 leading to [its] passage. Id. (alteration in original). As the Supreme Court has explained, this
2 inquiry into purpose at times requires invalidation of an action that otherwise would have been
3 constitutional: One consequence of taking account of the purpose underlying past actions is
4 that the same government action may be constitutional if taken in the first instance and
5 unconstitutional if it has a sectarian heritage. Id. at 866 n.14. In short, given that President
6 Trumps actual purpose in issuing this Order is to endorse or disapprove of religion,
7 Wallace, 472 U.S. at 75-76, the Order violates the first prong of the Lemon test.
8 The Order also violates Lemons second prong, which requires that the principal or
9 primary effect . . . be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Governmental action
10 violates this prong if it is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling
11 denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual
12 religious choices. Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1256 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal
13 quotation marks omitted). The court analyzes this prong from the point of view of a
14 reasonable observer who is informed . . . [and] familiar with the history of the government
15 practice at issue. See id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the
16 question here is whether an informed, reasonable observer would perceive this Executive
17 Order as an endorsement of one religion, as disapproval of another, or both? In light of the
18
evidence cited above, there is little question that the answer to this question is in the
19 affirmative.
20
As to the third prong, the Order foster[s] an excessive governmental entanglement
21
with religion by favoring one religious group over another, which engender[s] a risk of
22
politicizing religion. Larson, 456 U.S. at 252-53. Selectively burdening those of the Muslim
23
faith and favoring those of the Christian faith creates improper entanglement with religion.
24
In short, because the Executive Order fails the Larson test and every prong of the
25
Lemon test, it emphatically violates the Establishment Clause.
26

(206) 464-7744
Order Violates Due Process
2
The Executive Order violates the procedural due process rights of immigrants and non-
3
immigrants from the seven impacted countries, including those who reside and work in
4
Washington, are professors and students at Washington universities, and want to travel to
5
Washington to visit their families. First, due process requires that the United States at a
6
minimum provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before denying re-entry to legal
7
permanent residents or visaholders with longer term residency rights such as under an H-1B
8
visa (workers) and f visas (students). Moreover, the United States must provide due process
9
before restricting their vital liberty interests in travelling across United States borders. Second,
10
Congresss grant of a statutory right to seek asylum or protection under the Convention
11
Against Torture requires that the United States administer those policies and procedures
12
consistent with due process. The Orders blanket prohibition on all refugees for 120 days and
13
on Syrian refugees indefinitely contravenes refugees due process rights.
14
a. The denial of re-entry to and de facto travel ban on certain legal
15 permanent residents and visaholders violates their due process
rights
16
Section 3(c) of the Executive Order denies entry to the United States to all persons
17
from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, including visaholders and legal
18
permanent residents with the legal right to leave and re-enter the United States.6 Under that
19
policy, legal permanent residents and visaholders travelling abroad will be deported if they
20
attempt to re-enter the United States, and those who remain will be forced to refrain from
21
international travel to avoid that devastating result. This draconian restriction violates the due
22
process rights of those individuals.
23
24
6
The Executive Order excludes from this restriction only those foreign nationals traveling on
25 diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations,
and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). Executive Order Sec. 3(c). This group is limited essentially to
26 diplomatic visas.

(206) 464-7744
1 The Fifth Amendment protects all persons who have entered the United States from
2 deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Mathews v. Diaz, 426
3 U.S. 67, 69, 77 (1976) (internal citation omitted). This protection applies to all persons within
4 our borders, regardless of immigration status. Id. (Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
5 extends even to those whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory);
6 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001); United States v. Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195,
7 1202 (9th Cir. 2014). There is no exception to this rule. Id., 771 F.3d at 1203.
8 A temporary absence from our shores does not deprive visaholders and legal
9 permanent residents of their right to due process. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei,
10 345 U.S. 206, 213 (1953) (citing Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 601 (1953)
11 (holding that denial of re-entry to legal permanent resident must comport with due process
12 where resident had spent four months abroad); Ricketts v. Simonse, No. 16 CIV. 6662 (LGS),
13 2016 WL 7335675, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (legal permanent resident who had spent
14 a few weeks abroad and was caught with drugs upon re-entry entitled to due process).
15 Due process requires that legal permanent residents and visaholders not be denied re-
16 entry to the United States without at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to respond.
17 Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d at 1204. Aliens who have entered the United Stateswhether legally or
18 illegallycannot be expelled without the government following established procedures
19 consistent with the requirements of due process. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927 (9th
20 Cir. 2004) (citing Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212). Specifically, due process guarantees that individuals
21 denied re-entry be provided a full and fair hearing of his [or her] claims and a reasonable
22 opportunity to present evidence on his [or her] behalf. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971
23 (9th Cir. 2000); Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). Although
24 Congress has prescribed certain circumstances under which an individual may be denied re-
25 entry to the United States, those procedures must comport with due process. See, e.g., Pantoja-
26 Gayton v. Holder, 366 F. Appx 739, 741 (9th Cir. 2010) (legal permanent resident deemed

(206) 464-7744
1 inadmissible upon re-entry for child smuggling, but entitled to a full hearing before an
2 immigration judge to contest that finding).
3 The denial of re-entry to all visaholders and legal permanent residents from the
4 impacted countries, without an opportunity to be heard, is a prima facie violation of those due
5 process principles. The Executive Order provides that all individuals from the impacted
6 countries be denied entry to the United States, irrespective of their immigration status. On its
7 face, the Order bars legal permanent residents from impacted countries from reentry into the
8 United States if they travel aboard. The Order also denies the rights of H-1B visa holders from
9 re-entry if they travel abroad. As noted, there are a significant number of workers at
10 Washington businesses and students at Washington universities impacted. Similarly, the Order
11 on its face denies the rights to students here on f visas to reenter if they leave the country at any
12 time during their studies. The denial of re-entry to legal permanent residents and such
13 visaholders absent an opportunity to be heard, much less proceedings conforming to . . . due
14 process of law, is patently unconstitutional. Shaughnessy, 345 U.S. at 212.
15 The Orders impact on the right to travel also violates due process. In determining
16 whether a new policy such as the Order violates due process, courts must consider the interest
17 at stake for the individual, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest through the
18 procedures used as well as the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards,
19 and the interest of the government in using the current procedures rather than additional or
20 different procedures. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982) (citing Mathews v.
21 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)). Here, the Executive Order deprives noncitizens of the
22 right to travel, a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
23 (1958) (holding that Secretary of State could not deny passports to Communists on the basis
24 that right to travel abroad is a constitutionally protected liberty interest). The right to travel
25 may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or
26 reads, and is basic in our scheme of values. Id. at 126. And for many noncitizens residing in

(206) 464-7744
1 Washington pursuant to H-1B visas, international travel is a central component of their work.
2 See id. (noting that [t]ravel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a
3 livelihood). For visaholders or legal permanent residents with family abroad, the de facto
4 travel ban also denies the right to connect with their families, a right that ranks high among
5 the interests of the individual. Id. In contrast to these vital liberty interests, the denial of re-
6 entry to noncitizens with lawful immigration status does nothing to advance the governments
7 interest in the efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border. Landon, 459
8 U.S. at 34. The denial of re-entry to all persons from the seven affected countries, irrespective
9 of immigration status, and resulting travel ban violate the due process rights of legal permanent
10 residents and visaholders.
12 procedures
13 Congress has created a statutory right whereby persons persecuted in their own country
14 may petition for asylum in the United States. U.S.C. 1158(a)(1) ([a]ny alien who is
15 physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States. . . irrespective of
16 such aliens status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section). Federal law
17 prohibits the return of a noncitizen to a country where he may face torture or persecution. See 8
18 U.S.C. 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), implemented in the
19 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title
20 XXII, 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. 1231).
21 Congress has established procedures to implement those statutory rights, which includes
22 providing refugees the right to present evidence in support of a claim for asylum or CAT
23 protection, to move for reconsideration of an adverse decision, and to seek judicial review of a
24 final order denying their claims. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927 (9th Cir. 2004).
25 In enacting these statutory rights, Congress created, at a minimum, a constitutionally

26 protected right to petition our government for political asylum. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Smith,

(206) 464-7744
1 676 F.2d 1023, 1038 (5th Cir. 1982). The constitutionally protected right to petition for asylum
2 invoke[s] the guarantee of due process. Id. at 1039; Andriasian v. I.N.S., 180 F.3d 1033,
3 1041 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Lanza, 389 F.3d at 927 (The due process afforded aliens stems
4 from those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that minimum due process
5 rights attach to statutory rights.) (internal marks and quotation omitted). Due process requires
6 at a minimum that refugees seeking asylum receive a full and fair hearing. Zetino v. Holder,
7 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010). It also requires that refugees have the opportunity to
8 consult with an attorney.

9 The Executive Order violates the due process rights of refugees because it provides no
10 avenue for refugees to have their asylum claims heard. Instead, it explicitly states that the
11 United States will not entertain asylum claims from certain groups for a specified period of
12 time, regardless of the merits of individual asylum claims. This contravenes the due process
13 requirement that refugees receive a full and fair hearing on their claims for relief. Zetino,
14 622 F.3d at 1013. It also denies refugees their constitutionally protected right to the effective
15 assistance of counsel. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004).
16 Moreover, the denial of refugees constitutionally protected right to petition for asylum
17 does nothing to advance the governments interest in the efficient administration of the
18 immigration laws at the border. Landon, 459 U.S. at 34. That interest is satisfied by the
19 rigorous procedures already in place to vet requests for asylum. Refugees are subject to the
20 highest level of background and security checks of any category of traveler to the United
21 States, in a process that often takes years to complete.7 Accordingly, the ban on refugees
22 violates the due process rights of refugees seeking asylum within the United States.
23
7
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, USCIS, Refugee Processing and Security Screening (2015),
24
available at https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening; see also White House, President Barack Obama,
Infographic: The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States (Nov. 2015), available at
25 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
(noting that [r]efugees undergo more rigorous screening than anyone else we allow into the United States and
26 are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler).

(206) 464-7744
Order Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
2
The State is also likely to establish that Sections 3(c) and 5(c) of the Executive Order
3
violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Enacted in 1965, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A)
4
clearly states, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in
5
the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons race, sex, nationality, place of birth,
6
or place of residence. By suspending entry of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and
7
immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, for 90 days, the
8
Executive Order squarely violates the INA. See U.S. v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S.
9
235, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026 (1989) (holding the plain meaning of legislation should be
10
conclusive). While the INA refers only to discrimination in the issuance of an immigrant
11
visa, the statute would be rendered meaningless if it did not equally prohibit attempts, like
12
President Trumps, to deny an immigrants entry into the country altogether. See Legal
13
Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. Dept of State,, 45 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
14
(holding that Congress, in enacting section 1152, unambiguously directed that no nationality-
15
based discrimination shall occur).
16
Defendants may argue the President has power to suspend the entry of any class of
17
aliens when their entry is detrimental to the interests of the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
18
1182(f). Such an argument, however, is unavailing. Congress enacted Section 1182 in 1952,
19
well before it passed section 1152. Whatever section 1182 meant when it was adopted, the
20
enactment of the INA amendments in 1965, including section 1152, marked a profound
21
change in the law by abolishing the national origin quota system, establishing a uniform quota
22
system, and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Olsen v.
23
Albright, 990 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1997) (citingPub. L. No. 89-236). Passed alongside the Civil
24
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the legislative history of the INA
25
Amendments of 1965 is replete with the bold anti-discriminatory principles of the Civil
26

(206) 464-7744
1 Rights Era. Olsen, 990 F.Supp. at 37. It is inconceivable that, in enacting anti-discrimination
2 provisions in 1965, Congress intended to leave the President with the ability to adopt the same
3 sort of overtly discriminatory measures Congress was outlawing. Accepting the Presidents
4 approach would take us back to a period in our history when distinctions based on national
5 origin were accepted as the natural order of things, rather than outlawed as the pernicious
6 discrimination that they are. Cf. Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581, 595, 606 (1889)
7 (sustaining the Chinese Exclusion Act because the Chinese remained strangers in the land,
8 constituted a great danger [to the country] unless prompt action was taken to restrict their
9 immigration, and were dangerous to [the countrys] peace and security).
10 C. The State, its Residents, and its Businesses Are Suffering and Will Continue to
Suffer Irreparable Harm Due to the Executive Order
11
To obtain preliminary relief, the State must show that irreparable harm is likely before
12
a decision on the merits can be issued. The State meets this test on several grounds.
13
First, because the State has shown a likelihood of success on its Establishment Clause
14
claim, harm is presumed. See, e.g., Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d
15
290, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ([W]here a movant alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause,
16
this is sufficient, without more, to satisfy the irreparable harm prong for purposes of the
17
preliminary injunction determination.); Parents Assn of P.S. 16 v. Quinones, 803 F.2d 1235,
18
1242 (2d Cir. 1986) (applying same rule).
19
Second, even aside from the Establishment Clause claim, the States complaint, motion,
20
and supporting evidence demonstrate overwhelming irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is
21
harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages. Ariz.
22
Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuits decision
23
in Arizona Dream Act provides a directly applicable example. Undocumented persons who
24
qualified for the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program (DACA) sought a
25
preliminary injunction against Arizonas policy of denying drivers licenses to DACA
26

(206) 464-7744
1 recipients. Id. at 1057-58. The Ninth Circuit held that irreparable harm existed because the lack
2 of a drivers license stopped immigrants from getting to work, thereby hurting their ability to
3 pursue their chosen professions. Id. at 1068. The same harm is experienced by workers or
4 students prevented from entering or returning to the United States. [A] delay, even if only a
5 few months, pending trial represents . . . productive time irretrievably lost. Id. (second
6 alteration in original).
7 The injuries to Washington residents and families are not merely professional and
8 financial, but also profound and irreparable psychological injuries. As detailed in the attached
9 declarations, the Order is resulting in longtime Washington residents being separated from or
10 kept apart from their families, often in heartbreaking situations. Decl. E. Chiang 5-7, 11-13.
11 Washington businesses are also suffering irreparable injuries. Immigrant and refugee-
12 owned businesses employ 140,000 people in Washington. Washingtons technology industry
13 relies heavily on the H-1B visa program. Nationwide, Washington ranks ninth in the number of
14 applications for high-tech visas. Microsoft, which is headquartered in Washington, employs
15 nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington companies, including Amazon,
16 Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders. Loss of highly skilled
17 workers puts Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage with global competitors.
18 [I]ntangible injuries, such as damage to ongoing recruitment efforts and goodwill, qualify as
19 irreparable harm. Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Tel. Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597,
20 603 (9th Cir. 1991).
21 The Executive Order is also causing irreparable harm to Washingtons college students
22 and universities. At the University of Washington, more than ninety-five students are
23 immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen. Decl. of J. Riedinger
24 5. The number at Washington State University is over 135. Decl. of A. Chaudhry 5. Because
25 of the Executive Order, these students are missing out on research and educational
26 opportunities, travel to visit their families, study abroad, and other irreplaceable activities that

(206) 464-7744
1 cannot be compensated through money damages. Decl. J. Riedinger 6-8; Decl. of A.
2 Chaudry 6-10. The universities also risk losing current and future students, a harm that
3 cannot be remedied with monetary damages. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Am. Broad. Cos.,
4 747 F.2d 511, 519-20 (9th Cir. 1984) (loss of ability to recruit athletes, loss of national
5 ranking, and dissipation of alumni goodwill are irreparable harm).
6 D. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Sharply Favor Preliminary Relief
7 The Court must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect
8 on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
9 Since this case involves the government, the balance of equities factor merges with the fourth
10 factor, public interest. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013).
11 The balance tips sharply in favor of the State. The balance of equities and public
12 interest always favor prevent[ing] the violation of a partys constitutional rights. Melendres
13 v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition,
14 the State has shown irreparable, concrete harm to Washington residents, businesses, students,
15 and universities. Meanwhile, as detailed above, the overbreadth and underbreadth of the order
16 mean that it does little if anything to further its alleged purpose of preventing terrorism. And
17 the requested relief is narrowly tailored to affect only those parts of the Order causing the State
18 harm. While the State seeks a nationwide injunction, that relief is appropriate for two reasons:
19 (1) Congress and the courts have emphasized the importance of uniformity in applying
20 immigration policies nationwide; and (2) nationwide relief is necessary to ensure that State
21 residents and those traveling to meet them are not stopped at other ports of entry around the
22 country or interfered with by officials in Washington, DC, on their way to Washington State.
23 See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 768-69 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming nationwide
24 injunction to ensure uniformity and provide full relief).
25
26

(206) 464-7744
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Sometimes federal courts are the only entities that can immediately halt abuses by the
3 executive branch. This is such a case. The State asks this Court to play its constitutional role
4 and grant a nationwide temporary restraining order until such time as the Court can further
5 consider the merits.
6 DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.
7
8
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
10 Attorney General
WSBA #26004
11 NOAH G. PURCELL
WSBA #43492
COLLEEN M. MELODY
13 WSBA #42275
206-464-7744
16 noahp@atg.wa.gov
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(206) 464-7744
AMENDMENT TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER to 3 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining
// PAGE 29

2
3
4
5
6
8
9 STATE OF WASHINGTON and
STATE OF MINNESOTA, No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR)
10
11 Plaintiffs,
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
12 v.
13 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as

President of the United States; U.S.
14
15 SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Department of
16 Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON, in his
official capacity as Acting Secretary of State;
17 and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR) Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Tel: (202) 305-8902
1
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Michelle R. Bennett, Trial Attorney with the U.S
2
Department of Justice, hereby enters her appearance on behalf of all defendants in this matter.
3
4 DATED: February 2, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
5
CHAD A. READLER
6 Acting Assistant Attorney General
7 JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
8
9 /s/ Michelle R. Bennett
MICHELLE R. BENNETT
10 Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
11 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
12 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
13 Tel: (202) 305-8902
Fax: (202) 616-8470
14 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov
15
Attorneys for Defendants
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Tel: (202) 305-8902
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3 I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of
4 Appearance using the Courts CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all
5 counsel of record.
6
7 Dated: February 2, 2017 /s/ Michelle R. Bennett
MICHELLE R. BENNETT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Tel: (202) 305-8902
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Michelle R. Bennett on behalf of Defendants John
// PAGE 4

2
3
4
5
6
8
10
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.

14
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Tel: (202) 305-8613
1
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Arjun Garg, Trial Attorney with the U.S Department of
2
Justice, hereby enters his appearance on behalf of all defendants in this matter.
3
4 DATED: February 2, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
5
CHAD A. READLER
6 Acting Assistant Attorney General
7 JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
8
9 /s/ Arjun Garg
ARJUN GARG
10 Trial Attorney
13 Tel: (202) 305-8613
Fax: (202) 616-8470
14 Email: arjun.garg@usdoj.gov
15
Attorneys for Defendants
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Tel: (202) 305-8613
2
3 I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of
4 Appearance using the Courts CM/ECF system, causing a notice of filing to be served upon all
5 counsel of record.
6
7 Dated: February 2, 2017 /s/ Arjun Garg
ARJUN GARG
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Tel: (202) 305-8613
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Arjun Garg on behalf of Defendants John F. Kelly,
// PAGE 4

2

9 AT SEATTLE
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON
NO. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR
11
Plaintiff,
12 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
vs.
13 [Clerks Action Required]
15
Acting Secretary of State; and the UNITED
19 Defendants.
20
21 TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT

22 AND TO: All Parties and their Counsel of Record
23
YOU AND EACH OF YOU will please take notice that Angelo J. Calfo and Kristin W.
24
Silverman of Calfo Eakes & Ostrovsky PLLC hereby appear for Proposed Amicus Curiae
25
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 1 LAW OFFICES

CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
27 Case No.: 2:17-cv-00141 JLR 1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3808
TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
28
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in the above-entitled action and request
1
2
that all further papers and pleadings, exclusive of process, be served upon the undersigned
3 attorneys at the address below stated.
4 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2017.
5
6
7
By s/ Angelo J. Calfo
8
By s/ Kristin W. Silverman
9
Angelo J. Calfo, WSBA #27079
10 Kristin W. Silverman, WSBA #49421
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
11 Seattle, WA 98101-3808
Phone: (206) 407-2200
12
Fax: (206) 407-2224
13 Email: angeloc@calfoeakes.com
Email: kristins@calfoeakes.com
14
Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae Americans
15 United for Separation of Church and State
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
28
2 I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, the foregoing document was electronically
3 filed with the United States District Court CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such
4
filing to all attorneys of record.
5
s/Kristin W. Silverman
6
Kristin W. Silverman, WSBA #49421
7 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
8 Phone: (206) 407-2200
Fax: (206) 407-2224
9 Email: kristins@calfoeakes.com
10
Attorney for Proposed Amicus Curiae
11 Americans United for Separation of Church
and State
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
28
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kristin W Silverman on behalf of Amicus Americans
// PAGE 4
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Richard B. Katskee FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Amicus
// PAGE 4
1
Honorable James L. Robart
2
7
8
9 AT SEATTLE
10
11 No. 2:17-cv-00141
Plaintiff,
12
13 v.
Clerks Action Required
19 Defendants.
20
21 TO: CLERK OF THE COURT
22 AND TO: All Parties of Record

23
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of
24
Washington, without waiving any defenses or objections, hereby enters its appearance through
25
the undersigned attorneys. You are hereby notified that service of all further pleadings, notices,
26
documents or other papers, exclusive of process, may be had upon it by serving the undersigned
27
PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - 1 1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3404
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 attorneys of record at the address stated below.

3
4
5 By /s Paul J. Lawrence
Paul J. Lawrence, WSBA No. 13557
6 PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP
7
Seattle, Washington 98101
8 (206) 245-1700
paul.lawrence@pacificalawgroup.com
9
Cooperating Attorney for Amicus Curiae the
10 American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
11
12 By /s Kymberly K. Evanson
Kymberly K. Evanson, WSBA No. 39973
15 (206) 245-1700
kymberly.evanson@pacificalawgroup.com
16
18
19 By /s Alanna E. Peterson
Alanna E. Peterson, WSBA No. 46502
(206) 245-1700
22 alanna.peterson@pacificalawgroup.com
23
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
2
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of February, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
3
document with the United States District Court ECF system, which will send notification of such
4
filing to the following:
5
Robert W. Ferguson via facsimile
6 via overnight courier
Marsha J. Chien
7 Anne E. Egeler via first-class U.S. mail
Patricio A. Marquez via email service agreement
8 Colleen M. Melody via electronic court filing
Noah Guzzo Purcell via hand delivery
9 Washington State Office of the Attorney
General
10
11 PO Box 40100
12 Phone: 360.753.7085 - DD
Email: bobf@atg.wa.gov
13 Email: marshac@atg.wa.gov
Email: AnneE1@atg.wa.gov
14
Email: PatricioM@atg.wa.gov
15 Email: colleenm1@atg.wa.gov
Email: noahp@atg.wa.gov
16
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
18 Arjun Garg
Michelle R. Bennett via facsimile
19 US Department of Justice via overnight courier
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch via first-class U.S. mail
20 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW via email service agreement
Washington, DC 20530 via electronic court filing
21 Phone: 202-305-8613 via hand delivery
22 Email: Arjun.garg@usdoj.gov
Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov
23
Attorneys for Defendants Donald J. Trump,
24 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, John F.
Kelly, Tom Shannon, and United States of
25 America
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Angelo J. Calfo
Kristin W. Silverman via facsimile
2 Calfo Eakes & Ostrovsky, PLLC via overnight courier
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 via first-class U.S. mail
3 via email service agreement
4 Phone: 206-407-2200 via electronic court filing
Email: angelic@calfoeakes.com via hand delivery
6 Attorneys for Amicus Americans United for

Church and State
7
8 Signed at Seattle, Washington this 2nd day of February, 2017.
10
_____________________________
11
Katie Dillon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Paul J Lawrence on behalf of Amicus American Civil
// PAGE 5
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Amicus American Civil Liberties
// PAGE 1
1
2
5
AT SEATTLE
7
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141
9 Plaintiff,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
10 v. UNION OF WASHINGTONS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
11 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
12 President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Note on Motion Calendar:
13 SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official February 2, 2017
15
and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
16
Defendants.
17
18 I. INTRODUCTION
19
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU-WA) respectfully moves
20
for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the State of Washingtons Motion for a
21
Temporary Restraining Order. A copy of the proposed brief is attached as Exhibit A to this
22
23 motion. The parties do not oppose the filing of this amicus curiae brief.
24 I. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
25 ACLU-WA is a statewide, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of over 50,000 members,

26 dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties. ACLU-WA works in courts, legislatures, and
27
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF - 1 1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
(Cause No. 2:17-cv-00141) SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3404
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 communities to preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people by the
2 Constitution and laws of the United States. ACLU-WA frequently participates in cases
3
involving the intersection of immigration and civil liberties, including as amicus curiae.
4
Through its advocacy and community engagement work, ACLU-WA is particularly
5
aware of the impact the Presidents Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign
6
Terrorist Entry in to the United States (the Order) will have on Washington residents. ACLU-
7
8 WA supports individuals and their families detained, denied entry, or otherwise harmed by the
9 Order. ACLU-WA has become a focal point to which many people harmed by the Executive
10 Order have turned in Washington State. ACLU-WA has set-up a special email address to allow
11
persons affected by the travel ban to communicate the impacts of the ban on their lives. See
12
http://www.aclu-wa.org/. And on January 28, 2017, ACLU-WA with the Northwest Immigrant
13
Rights Project filed an emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of two individuals who
14
15 were detained at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport due to the Order.
16 II. REASONS WHY MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED
17 District courts have broad discretion to appoint amicus curiae. Skokomish Indian Tribe
18 v. Goldmark, No. C13-5071JLR, 2013 WL 5720053, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013) (quoting
19
Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982)). District courts frequently welcome
20
amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond
21
the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help
22
23 the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. NGV Gaming,
24 Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting
25 Cobell v. Norton, 246 F.Supp.2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). The classic role of amicus curiae is to
26
assist[] in a case of general public interest, supplement[] the efforts of counsel, and draw[] the
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 court's attention to law that escaped consideration. Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor &
2 Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982).
3
The Court should exercise its discretion to permit ACLU-WA to file the attached amicus
4
brief. Counsel for ACLU-WA is familiar with the scope of the arguments presented by the
5
parties and will not unduly repeat those arguments. Instead, ACLU-WA will draw upon its
6
communications with Washington residents and their families affected by the Order to illustrate
7
8 the profound, widespread, and irreparable harm it has caused and will continue to cause absent
9 Court intervention.
10 III. CONCLUSION
11
For these reasons, ACLU-WA respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to file the
12
amicus brief attached as Exhibit A.
13
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2017.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
2
By /s Paul J. Lawrence
3
4 Kymberly K. Evanson, WSBA No. 39973
(206) 245-1700
7
8 kymberly.evanson@pacificalawgroup.com
alanna.peterson@pacificalawgroup.com
9
10 Cooperating Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the

American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
11
12
By /s Emily Chiang
13 Emily Chiang, WSBA No. 50517
ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
(206) 624-2184
17
Counsel for Amicus Curiae the American Civil
18 Liberties Union of Washington
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
2
3
4
5 via facsimile
Robert W. Ferguson via overnight courier
6
Marsha J. Chien via first-class U.S. mail
7 Anne E. Egeler via email service agreement
Patricio A. Marquez via electronic court filing
8 Colleen M. Melody via hand delivery
Noah Guzzo Purcell
9 WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
10
11 PO Box 40100
12 Phone: 360.753.7085 - DD
14
16
17 Arjun Garg
18
US Department of Justice via overnight courier
19 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch via first-class U.S. mail
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW via email service agreement
20 Washington, DC 20530 via electronic court filing
Phone: 202-305-8613 via hand delivery
23 Attorneys for Defendants Donald J. Trump,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, John F.
24 Kelly, Tom Shannon, and United States of
America
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Angelo J. Calfo

Church and State
7
10
_____________________________
11
Katie Dillon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
EXHIBIT A
1
2
7
8
9 AT SEATTLE
10
11 No. 2:17-cv-00141
Plaintiff,
12
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE
13 v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF WASHINGTON
19 Defendants.
20
21
I. INTRODUCTION
22
The United States Constitution forbids the government from discriminating on the basis
23
24 of national origin or religion. And yet, on January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump (the
25 President) issued an Executive Order (the Order) that banned from entering the United
26 States all individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
27
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE AMERICAN CIVIL PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP
LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON - 1 1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Syria, and Yemenand gave preference to the processing of Christian refugees from these
2 countries over Muslim refugees. Order 3(c), 5(b). The Order also suspends indefinitely the
3
entry of all Syrian refugees. Order 5(d). The Order is driven by animus toward Muslims, as
4
confirmed by the Presidents own public statements and the lack of any rational justification for
5
the categorical exclusion of individuals from the seven identified nations, where approximately
6
96% of the citizens practice Islam.1
7
8 The Order, and its implementation by DHS, profoundly, directly, and irreparably harms
9 Washington residents. The blanket ban on all individuals from the affected countries has
10 destabilized and fundamentally altered the lives of many Washington residents and their
11
families, including those seeking to visit, study, work, or secure refuge in Washington. U.S.
12
citizens and legal permanent residents are unable to maintain and secure their relationships with
13
their families out of fear they or their families will be detained or denied entry at our borders.
14
15 Washington workers and students with valid H1-B, F-1, and J-1 visas will lose their right to live,
16 work, and study here if they travel abroad. And the ban will obstruct the resettlement and
17 reunification of refugee families.

18 In light of the substantial nature of the injuries at stake, amicus curiae the American Civil
19
Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU-WA) respectfully urges the Court to grant the States
20
motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and spare Washington residents and families from
21
further irreparable harm.
22
23
24
25
26
1
See Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, Religions, available at
27 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 II. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
2 ACLU-WA is a statewide, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of over 50,000 members,

3
dedicated to preserving civil liberties. ACLU-WAs interests in joining as amici curiae are
4
described in its concurrently filed Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae.
5
ACLU-WA has become a focal point to which many people harmed by the Executive
6
Order have turned in Washington State. ACLU-WA has set-up a special email address to allow
7
8 persons affected by the travel ban to communicate the impacts of the ban on their lives.2 ACLU-
9 WA has also reached out to ask Washingtonians to thank and support the States action in filing
10 its lawsuit to overturn the ban.3 To date, over 12,000 people have signed the thank you letter.4
11
III. ARGUMENT
12
A. The Orders Discrimination on the Basis of Religion and National Origin
13 Irreparably Harms Washington Residents.
14 Since the President issued the Executive Order on January 27, its effects have
15
reverberated across our community. Numerous individuals have contacted ACLU-WA to report
16
or seek advice on how best to curtail harm to themselves, their families, and their loved ones
17
directly impacted by the Order. Washington residents feel uncertain about the future and
18
19 question the stability of their employment, education, and right to travel freely. It is in the public
20 interest to issue interim injunctive relief to prevent this substantial and ongoing harm to
21 Washington residents and their families. See Preminger v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir.
22 2005) (courts consider the public interest in determining whether to issue interim injunctive
23
relief).
24
25
26 2
See http://www.aclu-wa.org/.
3
See https://action.aclu.org/secure/thank_bob_ferguson.
27 4
Id.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 1. The Order Affects Large and Diverse Cross-Sections of Washington Residents and
Visitors.
2
The Order is far-reaching and destructive. It impacts over 21,000 Washington
3
4 residents, including 14,953 from King County alone.5 Specifically, the Order causes direct
5 serious injury to the following categories of people:
6 U.S. citizens with family or loved ones abroad. The Order impedes the ability
7
of U.S. citizens to have friends and family from the seven affected countries come visit or live
8
with them in Washington. Under the ban, U.S. citizens cannot secure CR-1 or CR-2 visas to
9
have their spouses or stepchildren join them in the United States. Family or loved ones from the
10
11 seven affected countries cannot secure tourist, work, or student visas to come to Washington, nor
12 can they be sponsored for immigrant visas by their U.S. citizen relatives.
13 Legal permanent residents with family or loved ones abroad. The ban
14
similarly obstructs the ability of legal permanent residents to have their family or loved ones visit
15
or join them in Washington.
16
Legal permanent residents who wish to travel abroad for vacation, work,
17
study, or to reconnect with family or loved ones. Although Defendants haveas of today
18
19 officially ended application of the Order to legal permanent residents, many Washingtonians
20 were adversely affected prior to the changes, the Order has been inconsistently applied and
21 enforced as to legal permanent residents, and legal permanent residents continue to live in fear
22
that they will not be permitted to return to the country should they leave.
23
Employees of Washington companies with H-1B visas whose employment
24
requires international travel. The ban also restricts the ability of individuals working in
25
26 5
Gene Falk, More than 21,000 Washington residents are from countries banned by Trump, Seattle Times (Feb. 1,
2017), available at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/trumps-travel-ban-affects-more-than-21000-state-
27 residents/.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Washington pursuant to H-1B to travel as needed for their employment. This has a profound
2 effect on Washington companies, including Amazon and Expedia, which employ a significant
3
number of skilled workers under the H-1B visa program in positions that require international
4
travel. It also denies these H-1B visa-holders the opportunity to visit their families and loved
5
ones in the seven affected countries.
6
7 Students with F-1 visas studying at Washington schools who desire to travel
8 abroad. The ban similarly impacts the ability of F-1 visa-holders to travel abroad for study,
9 travel, or to reconnect with their families.6

10 Individuals currently participating in J-1 visa exchange visitor programs in
11
Washington. The ban also restricts the ability of individuals currently experiencing and
12
engaging with U.S. society and culture through the J-visa exchange program to travel abroad.7
13
Refugees residing in Washington who wish to reconnect with their families
14
15 abroad. The ban impedes the right of refugees residing in Washington to either have their
16 families join them or to travel abroad to reconnect with their families.

17 Refugees fleeing persecution and conflict who wish to resettle in Washington.
18
As the State asserted, it is the policy of the State of Washington to provide refuge to those
19
fleeing persecution and conflict. The blanket ban on all refugees for a period of time, on
20
refugees from the seven affected countries, and on refugees from Syria indefinitely is
21
22 inconsistent with that policy. The ban also creates uncertainty and instability for refugees
23
24 6
The F-1 visa program permits individuals to enter the United States to attend private elementary school, high
25 school, seminary, conservatory, or university or college. State Dept., U.S. Visas, Student Visa, available at
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/study-exchange/student.html.
7
For-profit, non-profit, and state and local government entities in Washington sponsor exchange visitors through
26 that program. J-1 visa-holders contribute to our communities, including as professors, research scholars, teachers,
au pairs, and physicians. State Dept., J-1 Visa: Exchange Visitor Program, available at https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-
27 content/uploads/2016/06/FactSheet_J1Visa.pdf.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 currently residing in Washington who have and are eligible for or have begun the process of
2 applying for asylum.

3
2. The Order Separates and Destabilizes Washington Families.
4
The Order harms U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have family or loved
5
ones abroad. ACLU-WA has been contacted by many Washington residents who as a result of
6
the Order are now unable to see their families and loved ones. See Declaration of Emily Chiang
7
8 (Chiang Decl.); Second Declaration of Emily Chiang (Second Chiang Decl.). The people
9 reaching out to ACLU-WA reflect the serious harm the Order has had on real people in
10 Washington State and will continue to have until and unless it is enjoined.
11
For example, one citizen residing in Washington contacted ACLU-WA to express that
12
the ban was obstructing her ability to reunite with her husband and her stepdaughter, who after
13
two years of vetting had finally obtained CR-1 and CR-2 visas to join her in Washington.8
14
15 Second Chiang Decl. 5. Her husband and stepdaughter are from Iran. Id. She fears that the
16 ban will force her to leave the United States to start a life with her family elsewhere. Id. She is
17 torn between her husband and stepdaughter, who are banned from entering the United States, and
18 her ailing mother, who is in Washington and unable to travel. Id.
19
Another individual feared for his mother, who was returning on January 30, 2017 from a
20
trip abroad to see his grandfather in light of a recent cancer diagnosis. Chiang Decl. 11. His
21
mother is a Syrian national and has lived in Washington since 2011. Id. She changed her return
22
23 flight from Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia for fear of being denied reentry due to the
24 ban. Id. Due to his mothers age, the individual saw no option but to join his mother in
25 8
A CR-1 visa provides conditional permanent resident status to foreign citizens who have been married to a U.S.
citizen for less than two years. Dept. of State, U.S. Visas, Directory of Visa Categories, available at
26 https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/immediate-relative.html. A CR-2 visa provides
conditional permanent resident status to the foreign national children or stepchildren of a U.S. citizen. Id.
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Vancouver if she is not soon permitted to re-enter the United States. Id. This would require him
2 to leave his family in Washington behind and would jeopardize his employment, which will not
3
accommodate long-term telecommuting. Id.
4
By way of further example, ACLU-WA was contacted by a U.S. citizen and her husband,
5
a Syrian citizen who holds a CR-1 visa. Second Chiang Decl. 6. The couple is currently in
6
Germany after finishing graduate education programs in Europe. Id. They had planned to return
7
8 to the United States on February 4, 2017, but now fear that they will be denied entry to the
9 United States and will be unable to reunite with their family, all of whom live in Washington.
10 Id. They are uncertain where they will work or live because their work contracts have ended and
11
they moved out of their residence in anticipation of their return to the United States. Id.
12
Another individual called seeking legal help for his brother, who had a flight from
13
Vancouver International Airport arriving at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on January 28,
14
15 2017. Second Chiang Decl. 7. His brother holds an Iranian passport but is a Canadian
16 permanent resident and had obtained a work visa to join his family in the United States. Id.
17 On January 28, a Yemeni citizen, a pharmacist, born in Saudi Arabia, who was coming to
18 visit his wife and three children in the United States was nearly deported upon his arrival. Only
19
through the legal intervention of this Court was the pharmacist able to be released to the waiting
20
arms of his wife and children.9
21
The risks imposed by the ban are heightened for legal permanent residents, who are
22
23 unable to visit family or loved ones because they rightfully fear that they will be denied entry if
24 they travel abroad and then attempt to re-enter the United States. One individual contacted
25
26 9
Nina Shapiro, I actually wept: Lawyers frantic efforts stop a plane, allow 2 men to enter U.S. at Sea-Tac,
Seattle Times (Jan. 31, 2017), available at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/frantic-effort-at-sea-tac-to-
27 stop-flight-allow-2-men-to-enter-us/.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 ACLU-WA regarding her ailing mother, who is a legal permanent resident but has been
2 undergoing cancer treatment in Iraq, where it is less expensive. Second Chiang Decl. 8. Her
3
mothers health has improved and she had hoped that her mother could rejoin her in the United
4
States. Id. She had planned to travel abroad in two weeks to visit her mother and bring her
5
home to the United States, but due to the ban she is fearful that they will be denied re-entry
6
because they were both born in Iraq. Id. Her fear is compounded by her concern for her young
7
8 daughter, who planned to stay behind in Washington and would be entirely alone if her mother
9 and grandmother were unable to return. Id.

10 A legal permanent resident from Iran contacted ACLU-WA with similar concerns.
11
Chiang Decl. 13. She was expecting a visit in three weeks from her mother, who had obtained
12
the necessary visa. Id. Her mother is now unable to visit due to the ban. Id. She was also
13
planning to visit her elderly grandmother in Iran this summer, but she is now afraid to leave the
14
15 country out of fear that, even though she is a lawful permanent resident, she might not be
16 allowed reentry. Id.
17 Refugees who have obtained refuge in Washington also fear that the ban will impede
18 their ability to have their families rejoin them. A Syrian refugee family reached out to ACLU-
19
WA to seek help for their son, daughter, and son-in-law who had obtained the necessary
20
approval to rejoin their family in Washington on January 30, 2017. Second Chiang Decl. 9.
21
They were turned away at the airport in Turkey due to the Order. Id. They had already given up
22
23 their housing and employment in anticipation of their move to the United States. Id. They are
24 from Aleppo, Syria and are afraid to return due to the conflict there, especially because the
25 daughter is pregnant. Id.

26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Another Syrian refugee was also concerned that she would be unable to reunite with her
2 family. Chiang Decl. 10. Some of her family members live in Washington but her mother,
3
father, and three siblings are currently in Jordan. Id. They have recently filed a reunification
4
petition to come to the United States. Id. She had planned to visit them in Jordan in the interim,
5
but is now afraid to leave the United States out of fear that she will not be allowed to return and
6
would therefore be separated from her family members already in Washington State. Id. The
7
8 Order is separating other Syrian refugee families as well.10 Another Iraqi refugee contacted
9 ACLU-WA who had planned to travel abroad in March to visit her fiance, who she has not seen
10 since she resettled in Washington two years ago. Chiang Decl. 12. She is now very concerned
11
that she will be denied re-entry to the United States if she leaves. Id.
12
For each of these heartbreaking stories, there are no doubt countless other families in
13
Washington being torn apart by the Order. While purporting to advance national security, the
14
15 ban in fact advances only invidious discrimination and the irreparable disruption of
16 Washingtonians lives. The States Motion for a temporary restraining order should be granted.
17 3. The Order Harms Washingtons Students and Universities.

18 As detailed in the Declarations of Asif Chaudhry and Jeffrey Reidinger, there are at least
19
232 students from the seven identified countries who are studying at the States premier public
20
universities under valid student visas. Although these students have been accepted by
21
Washingtons universities, pay their tuition, and possess lawful student visas, their rights to
22
23 travel freely have been arbitrarily rescinded by the Order. These students now face the untenable
24 choice of foregoing their rights to see their families for years, or risking that they may not be
25
26 10
Vernal Coleman, Syrian refugee couples fear came true: President Trumps ban blocks their children, Seattle
Times (Jan. 31, 2017), available at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/syrian-refugee-couples-fear-
27 came-true-president-trumps-ban-blocks-their-children/.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 able to continue their studies if they travel and are not allowed to re-enter. Their research and
2 study opportunities will be limited as they are unable to leave the country without fear of being
3
banned from returning, despite their possession of valid visas. The uncertainty and fear of these
4
Washington students is substantial and irreparable, and supports entry of a temporary restraining
5
order.
6
B. There is No Evidence That the Order Will Reduce or Prevent Terrorism.
7
8 Though the Order invokes the September 11, 2001 attacks as a justification for the ban,
9 no one from the seven identified countries was involved in those attacks. See Order 1.11
10 Indeed, no individual from the affected countries has been implicated in any terror attack on the
11
United States since.12 Moreover, the Order does not exclude individuals from the countries
12
whose citizens are known to have perpetrated the September 11 attacks, countries considered a
13
higher threat to national security by the State Department, or countries where individuals who
14
15 have in fact carried out terrorism in the United States are from. Of the ten countries with the
16 most terrorist attacks in 2015, eightAfghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Egypt, the
17 Philippines, and Bangladeshare not affected by the Order.13 Three of the countries with the
18 most active branches of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)Afghanistan,
19
Pakistan, and Egyptare also unaffected by the Order.14
20
Preventing terrorism is but a pretext for the Orders true purpose of excluding Muslims
21
from the United States. In the face of these facts, there is no countervailing public interest in
22
23
11
24 Charlez Kurzman, Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism, 2016, Dept. of Sociology, Univ. of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Jan. 26, 2017), available at
25 https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2017/01/Kurzman_Muslim-
American_Involvement_in_Violent_Extremism_2016.pdf.
12
Id.
26 13
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2015,
at *5 (June 2016), available at https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/257738.pdf.
27 14
Id. at *3.
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 national security advanced by the Order that would counsel against an injunction. To the
2 contrary, the only evidence before the Court is of the substantial public interest in restoring the
3
constitutional rights of Washingtonians and enjoining the Order.
4
IV. CONCLUSION
5
The Constitutions guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare
6
[government] desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of
7
8 that group. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013) (quoting
9 Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534535, 93 S.Ct. 2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782
10 (1973)). Here, the Executive Order violates the Constitutions guarantee of equality and
11
significantly harms a politically unpopular group: Muslims from the seven identified countries.
12
That harm is felt by hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Washington. And that harm is
13
profound and irreparable.
14
15 Accordingly, ACLU-WA respectfully requests that the Court enter a temporary
16 restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the Order to protect from irreparable harm
17 Washington residents, companies, and individuals seeking to visit, study, work, or secure refuge
18 in Washington.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
2
By /s Paul J. Lawrence
3
(206) 245-1700
7
9
10 Cooperating Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the

American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
11
12
By /s Emily Chiang
(206) 624-2184
17
Counsel for Amicus Curiae the American Civil
18 Liberties Union of Washington
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
2
3
4
5 via facsimile
Robert W. Ferguson via overnight courier
6
Marsha J. Chien via first-class U.S. mail
7 Anne E. Egeler via email service agreement
Patricio A. Marquez via electronic court filing
8 Colleen M. Melody via hand delivery
Noah Guzzo Purcell
9 WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
10
11 PO Box 40100
12 Phone: 360.753.7085 - DD
14
16
17 Arjun Garg
18
US Department of Justice via overnight courier
19 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch via first-class U.S. mail
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW via email service agreement
20 Washington, DC 20530 via electronic court filing
Phone: 202-305-8613 via hand delivery
23 Attorneys for Defendants Donald J. Trump,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, John F.
24 Kelly, Tom Shannon, and United States of
America
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Angelo J. Calfo

Church and State
7
10
_____________________________
11
Katie Dillon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Amicus American Civil Liberties
// PAGE 23
WAWD - Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice(Revised 12/26/12)
United States District Court

Western District of Washington
State of Washington
Case Number: 2;i7-cv-ooi4i JLR
Plalntiff{s)
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR

Donald Trump etal. PRO HAC VICE
Defendant(s)
Pursuant to LCR 83.1(d) of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Bradley Girard
hereby applies for permission to appear
and participate as counsel in the above entitled action on behalf of the following party or parties:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The particular need for my appearance and participation is:
Counsel is an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which intends to file a motion and
proposed amicus curiae brief in this action.
Bradley Girard
I understand that I am charged with knowing and
complying with all applicable local rules;
I have not been disbarred or formally censured by a court of record or by a state bar association;
and there are not disciplinary proceedings against me.
Date: 2/2/2017 Signature of Applicant: s/ Bradley Girard
Page 1 of3
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Bradley Girard FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Amicus
// PAGE 4

State of Washington
Case Number: 2:i7-cv-ooi4i JLR
Plalntlfffs)

Donald Trump etal. PRO HAC VICE
Defendant(s)
Pursuant to LCR 83.1(d)of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Eric Rothschild
and participate as counsel in the above entitled action on behalf ofthe following party or parties:
Eric Rothschild
understand that I am charged with knowing and
Date: 2/2/2017 Signature of Applicant: s/ Eric Rothschild
Page 1 of 3
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Eric Rothschild FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Amicus
// PAGE 4

State of Washington
Case Number: 2:i7-cv-ooi4i JLR
Plalntiff(s)

Donald Trump etal PRO HAC VICE
Defendant(s)
Kelly M.Percival hereby applies for permission to appear

and participate as counsel in the above entitied action on behalf of the following party or parties:
Kelly M.Percival
I, understand that I am charged with knowing and
Date: 2/2/2017 Signature of Applicant: s/ Kelly M.Percival
Page 1 of3
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Kelly M. Percival FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Amicus
// PAGE 4

State of Washington
Case Number: 2:i7-cv-ooi4l JLR
Plalntlff(s)

Donald Trump eta! PRO HAC VICE
Defendant(s)
Andrew Nellls
Andrew Nellis
Date: 2/2/2017 Signature of Applicant: s/ Andrew Nellis
Page 1 of 3
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Andrew Nellis FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Amicus
// PAGE 4
1
2
7
8
9 AT SEATTLE
10
11 No. 2:17-cv-00141
Plaintiff,
12
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
13 v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF WASHINGTON'S MOTION
14 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
President of the United States; U.S. CURIAE BRIEF
19 Defendants.
20
21 This matter came before the Court on the American Civil Liberties Union of
22 Washingtons (ACLU-WA) Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. [Dkt. #26]. Having been
23
fully informed, the Court GRANTS the ACLU-WAs Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief.
24
25
26
27 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AMERICAN CIVIL

LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF - 1 PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP
1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of February, 2017.
2
_______________________________________
3
James L. Robart
4 United States District Judge
5 Presented by:
6
/s Paul J. Lawrence
7
(206) 245-1700
11
13
14 Cooperating Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

15 the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
16
/s Emily Chiang
(206) 624-2184
21
Counsel for Amicus Curiae the American
22 Civil Liberties Union of Washington
23
24
25
26

1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
2
3
4
5
Marsha J. Chien
General
10
11 PO Box 40100
12 Phone: 360.753.7085 - DD
14
16
17
18 Arjun Garg
23
25 America
26

1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Angelo J. Calfo

Church and State
7
10
_____________________________
11
Katie Dillon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 26 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Lawrence,
// PAGE 5
1
2

8
9 AT SEATTLE
10
11 No. 2:17-cv-00141
12
Plaintiff,
SECOND DECLARATION OF EMILY
13 V. CHIANG
14?? DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as

15
16
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official
capacity as Secretaxy of the Department of
l7?? Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON, in his
ll official capacity as Acting Secretary of State;
18?? and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
19
Defendants.
20
21 I, Emily Chiang, declare as follows:
22 1. I am over the age of eighteen, am competent to testify to the matters below, and
23
make this declaration based on personal knowledge.
24
2. I am the Legal Director of the Arnerican Civil Liberties Union of Washington
25
("ACLU-WA?).
26
27

1191 SECOND AVENtJE
SU}TE 2000
SECOND DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - l SEATTLE, WASH[NGTON 98101-3404
TELEPHONE:(206)245.i700
FACSIMn.E:(206)245.1750
1 3. I oversee and administer the Legal Department of the ACLU-WA, including all
2 active litigation and intake.
3
4. Since the President signed his Executive Order on January 27, 2017, we have
4
received numerous calls and emails from individuals affected by the Order. Some of those
s
11 communications are described in the first declaration I filed in this matter.
6
7
s. One citizen residing in Washington contacted the ACLU-WA to express that the
g it ban was obstmcting her ability to reunite with her husband and her stepdaughter, who after two
9 ll years of vetting had obtained CR-1 and CR-2 visas to join her in Washington. Her husband and
10 stepdaughter are from Iran. She fears that the ban will force her to leave the United States to
11
start a life with her family elsewhere. She is torn between her husband and stepdaughter, who
12
are banned from entering the United States, and her ailing mother, who is unable to travel.
13
6. A United States citizen and her husband, a Syrian citizen who holds a CR-1 visa,
14
15
who are currently in Europe after finishing graduate education programs. They had planned to
161? return to the United States in early February 2017, but now fear that they will be denied entry to
17 it the United States and will be unable to reunite with their family, all of whom live in Washington.
18
They are uncertain where they will work or live because their work contracts have ended and
19
they moved out of their residence in anticipation of their return to the United States.
20
7. Another individual called seeking legal help for his brother, who had a flight from
21
Canada arriving at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport at the end of January 2017. His brother
22
23 holds an Iranian passport but is a Canadian permanent resident and had obtained a work visa to
24 11 join his family in the United States.
25 8. One individual contacted the ACLU-WA regarding her ailing mother, who is a
26
legal permanent resident but has been undergoing cancer treatment in Iraq, where it is less
27

1191 SECONDAVENUE
st.n'rp. 2000
SECOND DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 2 SEATTLE, WASH[NGTON 98101-3404
FACSIMILE:(206)245]750
l ll expensive. Her mother's health has improved and she had hoped that her mother could rejoin
2
her in the United States. She had planned to travel abroad in two weeks to visit her mother and
3
bring her home to the United States, but due to the ban she is fearful that they will be denied re-
4
entry because they were both born in Iraq. Her fear is compounded by her concern for her young
s
daughter, who planned to stay behind in Washington and would be entirely alone if her mother
6
7
and grandmother were unable to return.
8 9. A Syrian refugee family currently residing in Washington reached out to the
9 ll ACLU-WA to seek help for their son, daughter, and son-in-law who had obtained the necessary
10
approval to rejoin their family in Washington on January 30, 2017. They were turned away at
11
the airport in Turkey due to the Order. They had already given up their housing and employment
12
in anticipation of their move to the United States. They are from Aleppo, Syria and are afraid to
13
return due to the conflict there, especially given that the daughter is pregnant.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under of the laws of the state of Washington that the
16?? foregoing is tme and correct.

17 EXECUTED on the 2nd day of Febmary, 2017.
18
19
s'l-4
-Emily Chian , WSBAN . 50517
20 ACLU of Washington Foundation
(206) 624-2184
22
echiang@aclu-wa.org
23
24
25
26
27

1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
SECOND DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 3 SHATTLE, WASH[NGTON 98101-3404
FACSIM[LE:(206)245.1750
2
3
4
5
Marsha J. Chien
General
10
11 PO Box 40100
12 Phone: 360.753.7085 - DD
14
16
17
18 Arjun Garg
23
25 America
26
27
1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
SECOND DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 4 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3404
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
1 Angelo J. Calfo

Church and State
7
10
_____________________________
11
Katie Dillon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1191 SECOND AVENUE
SUITE 2000
SECOND DECLARATION OF EMILY CHIANG - 5 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3404
TELEPHONE: (206) 245.1700
FACSIMILE: (206) 245.1750
Second DECLARATION of Emily Chiang filed by Amicus American Civil Liberties Union
// PAGE 6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE
8
10 Plaintiff, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
11 v. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

14 capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON, in his
15 official capacity as Acting Secretary of State;
16
Defendant.
17
18 TO: CLERK OF COURT

19 AND TO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD
20
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that amicus curiae Service Employees International Union,
21
without waiving any defenses or objections, hereby enters its appearance through the
22
undersigned attorneys. You are hereby notified that service of all further pleadings, notices,
23
24 documents or other papers, exclusive of process, may be had upon it by serving the undersigned
25 attorneys of record.
26
27
28
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - 1
Case No. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR
1918 E IGHTH A VENUE , S UITE 3300
007000-18 934386 V1 S EATTLE , W ASHINGTON 98101
1 DATED: February 2, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
2 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
3
By /s/ Steve W. Berman
4
Steve W. Berman, WSBA #12536
5 By /s/ Andrew M. Volk
Andrew Volk, WSBA #27639
6 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP
7 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
8
Tel: (206) 623-7292
9 Fax: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
10 andrew@hbsslaw.com
11 Counsel for amicus curiae Service Employees
12 International Union
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
3 Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
4 following:
5 Michelle R. Bennett, michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov
6 Angelo J. Calfo, angeloc@calfoeakes.com
7 Marsha J. Chien, marshac@atg.wa.gov
8 Ann Elizabeth Egeler, annee1@atg.wa.gov
9 Kymberly K. Evanson, kymberly.evanson@pacificalawgroup.com
10 Robert W. Ferguson, judyg@atg.wa.gov
11 Arjun Garg, Arjun.garg@usdoj.gov
12 Bradley Girard, girard@au.org
13 Richard B. Katskee, katskee@au.org
14 Paul J. Lawrence, paul.lawrence@pacificalawgroup.com
15 Noah Guzzo Purcell, noahp@atg.wa.gov
16 Patricio A. Marquez, PatricioM@atg.wa.gov
17 Colleen M. Melody, colleenm2@atg.wa.gov
18 Kristin W. Silverman, kristins@calfoeakes.com

19
DATED: February 2, 2017
20 /s/ Steve W. Berman
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Steve W. Berman on behalf of Amicus Service Employees
// PAGE 4

AT SEATTLE
8
11 v. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

16
Defendant.
17
18 TO: CLERK OF COURT

19 AND TO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD
20
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that amicus curiae Service Employees International Union,
21
without waiving any defenses or objections, hereby enters its appearance through the
22
undersigned attorneys. You are hereby notified that service of all further pleadings, notices,
23
24 documents or other papers, exclusive of process, may be had upon it by serving the undersigned
25 attorneys of record.
26
27
28
1 DATED: February 2, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
3
4
SHAPIRO LLP
Seattle, WA 98101
8
Tel: (206) 623-7292
9 Fax: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
11 Counsel for amicus curiae Service Employees
12 International Union
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 following:

19
DATED: February 2, 2017
20 /s/Andrew M. Volk
Andrew M. Volk, WSBA #27639
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Andrew M Volk on behalf of Amicus Service Employees
// PAGE 4
Case
WAWD - Application for Leave 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
to Appear Document
Pro Hac Vice (Revised 12/26/12) 40 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 3

STATE OF WASHINGTON and STATE OF MINNESOTA

Case Number: 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
Plaintiff(s)
V.

DONALD TRUMP et al., PRO HAC VICE
Defendant(s)
Pursuant to LCR 83.1(d) of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
JACOB CAMPION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Counsel is an Assistant Attorney General with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office and counsel for Plaintiff State of
Minnesota.
JACOB CAMPION
Date: Feb 2, 2017 Signature of Applicant: s/ JACOB CAMPION
Page 1 of 3
Pro Hac Vice Attorney

Applicant's Name: JACOB CAMPION
Law Firm Name: Attorney General of Minnesota
Street Address 1: 445 Minnesota Street, suite 1100
Address Line 2:
City: St. Paul State: Minnesota Zip: 55101-2128
Phone Number w/ Area Code (651) 757-1459 Bar # 0391274 State Minnesota
Primary E-mail Address: Jacob.Campion@ag.state.mn.us Secondary E-mail Address:
STATEMENT OF LOCAL COUNSEL
I am authorized and will be prepared to handle this matter, including trial, in the event the
applicant JACOB CAMPION is unable to be present upon any date
assigned by the court.
Date: Feb 2, 2017 Signature of Local Counsel: s/ Noah Purcell
Bar # 43492
Local Counsel's Name: Noah Purcell
Law Firm Name: Attorney General of Washington
Street Address 1: 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Address Line 2:
City: Seattle State: Washington Zip: 98101-3188
Phone Number w/ Area

(206) 389-2771
Code Example: 999-999-9999
Page 2 of 3
Electronic Case Filing Agreement
By submitting this form, the undersigned understands and agrees to the following:
1. The CM/ECF system is to be used for filing and reviewing electronic documents, docket sheets, and
notices.
2. The password issued to you by the court, combined with your login, serves as your signature under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Therefore, you are responsible for protecting and securing this
password against unauthorized use.
3. If you have any reason to suspect that your password has been compromised in any way, you are
responsible for immediately notifying the court. Members of the court's systems staff will assess the
risk and advise you accordingly.
4 By signing this Registration Form, you consent to receive notice electronically, and to waive your
right to receive notice by personal service or first class mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5(b)(2)(C), except with regard to service of a complaint and summons. This provision does include
electronic notice of the entry of an order or judgment.
5. You will continue to access court information via the Western District of Washington's internet site
or through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. You will continue to need a
PACER login, in addition to the court-issued password. You can register for PACER at their web site:
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov.
6. By this registration, the undersigned agrees to abide by the rules and regulations in the most
recent General Order, the Electronic Filing Procedures developed by the Clerk's Office, and any
changes or additions that may be made to such administrative procedures in the future.
s/ Jacob Campion Feb 2, 2017

Signature (use an "s/" and type your name) Date Signed
Page 3 of 3
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Jacob Campion FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff
// PAGE 4
MOTION for Leave to File Service Employees Internationsl Union's Motion for Leave
// PAGE 1

AT SEATTLE
8
9
Plaintiff, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
10
11 v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNIONS
12 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
President of the United States, U.S. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
14 capacity as Secretary of the Department of February 2, 2017
17 Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SEIU MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR 1918 E IGHTH A VENUE , S UITE 3300
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
4 II. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
5 A. Federal District Courts Have Broad Discretion To Allow The Participation

Of Amici Curiae .......................................................................................................1
6
B. Service Employees International Union Has the Requisite Interest ........................2
7
C. SEIU Can Provide Helpful Information To The Court That Will Not Duplicate
8 Arguments Presented By The Parties ......................................................................2
9 D. The State of Washington Has Consented To SEIUs Filing An Amicus Brief

In This Case .............................................................................................................3
10
E. The Amicus Brief Is Timely ....................................................................................3
11
III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................4
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF- i
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) respectfully moves for leave to file
3 an amicus curiae brief in support of the State of Washingtons Motion for a Temporary
4 Restraining Order. A copy of the proposed brief is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. The
5 State of Washington does not oppose the filing of this amicus curiae brief. As of the filing of this
6 motion, the United States has not responded to counsels request for consent.
7 II. ARGUMENT
8 A. Federal District Courts Have Broad Discretion To Allow The Participation Of
Amici Curiae
9
10 District courts have inherent authorityderived from Federal Rule of Appellate
11 Procedure 29to grant participation by an amicus curiae. See Skokomish Indian Tribe v.
12 Goldmark, 2013 WL 5720053, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013). This Court has broad
13 discretion to determine whether to permit an amicus brief, Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260
14 (9th Cir. 1982), and amicus status is generally allowed when the information offered is timely
15 and useful. Ellsworth Assocs. v. U.S., 917 F. Supp. 841, 846 (D.D.C. 1996). Amicus
16 participation is especially appropriate where the ramifications of the decision extend beyond the
17 current parties. Sierra Club v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124269, at *5 (W.D. Wash.
18 Sept. 13, 2016).
19 Specifically, courts normally allow an amicus brief when the amicus has unique
20 information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties
21 are able to provide. Youming Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 137 (D.D.C.
22 2008) (citing Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commn, 125 F. 3d 1062, 10564 (7th Cir.
23 1997)); Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003) (same). This assistance to the
24 court may take many forms, including ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts or data that are
25 not to be found in the parties briefs. See N. Mariana Isls. v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist.
26 LEXIS 125427, at *3-4 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2009).
27 This Court has granted participation by an amicus in a variety of cases, including those
28 involving challenges to agency action. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States EPA,

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF- 1
1 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20623, at *30 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2014). The Court has also granted
2 leave to participate as amici to non-profit organizations, where those organizations had a
3 particular perspective that may not otherwise be before the court. Microsoft Corp. v. United
4 States DOJ, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115867, at *27 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2016).
5 B. Service Employees International Union Has the Requisite Interest
6 The Service Employees International Union is an international labor organization

7 representing approximately two million working men and women in the United States and
8 Canada employed in the private and public sectors. In the State of Washington alone, SEIUs
9 local-union membership exceeds 126,000. Members include public school teachers, janitors,
10 security officers, nurses, and long-term care workers who provide quality healthcare, education,
11 and building services to Washington residents. Many of SEIUs Washington-resident members
12 are foreign-born U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or immigrants authorized to work in
13 the United States. And many of SEIUs Washington-resident members have mixed-status
14 families.
15 C. SEIU Can Provide Helpful Information To The Court That Will Not Duplicate
Arguments Presented By The Parties
16
The accompanying amicus brief from SEIU provides additional information showing
17
why the State of Washington has standing to challenge President Donald J. Trumps January 27,
18
2017 Executive Order (Executive Order.). See Dkt. No. 17. The amicus brief contains factual
19
information that will assist the Court in resolving the parties competing claims on that issue,
20
without duplicating the parties arguments. The brief documents that the impact of the Executive
21
Order on the SEIU and its Washington-resident members is profound, and highlights the States
22
pressing interest in protecting its residents and preserving its tax base by providing real-life
23
examples of the immediate and irreparable harm that will occur if the Executive Order is allowed
24
to stand.
25
26
27
28
1 D. The State of Washington Has Consented To SEIUs Filing An Amicus Brief In This
Case
2
In determining whether to grant leave to file an amicus brief, this Court also takes into
3
account whether the parties object to the filing. See, e.g., Cobell, 246 F. Supp. 2d at 63 (denying
4
leave to file an amicus brief in part because both parties submitted motions in opposition). SEIU
5
satisfies this test at least in part, since the State of Washington has consented to SEIUs filing a
6
brief. Moreover, even where the parties to an action have objected to the participation of an
7
amicuswhich none have herecourts will still evaluate a motion for leave, drawing on the
8
tests set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(b): (1) the movants interest; and (2)
9
the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the
10
disposition of the case. See Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commn, 125 F.3d 1062,
11
10564 (7th Cir. 1997). As the discussion above demonstrates, SEIU satisfies these standards,
12
since it has a strong interest in this case, an amicus brief from SEIU is desirable, and the matters
13
that it asserts in the brief are relevant to the Courts disposition of the issues presented.
14
E. The Amicus Brief Is Timely
15
The filing of this motion with the accompanying brief is timely. Using the Federal Rules
16
of Appellate Procedure as a guide, the brief of an amicus is due no later than seven days after
17
the principal brief of the party being supported is filed. Fed. R. App. P. 29(e); see also
18
Microsoft Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115867, at *27 (In the absence of local rules governing
19
the role of amicus curiae, the court will adhere to the applicable rules found in the Federal Rules
20
of Appellate Procedure.). In this case, the party being supported by SEIU is the State of
21
Washington, and the State of Washington filed its principal brief on Monday, January 30, 2017
22
and its supplemental brief on Wednesday, February 1, 2017. Accordingly, the instant motion and
23
brief are being filed well within the seven day time frame that would apply under the appellate
24
rules. Alternatively, and again drawing on the appellate rules, this Court can exercise its
25
discretion, as it deems necessary and appropriate, and specify a time within which the Plaintiffs
26
may answer the amicus brief from SEIU. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(e).
27
28
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 The Court should therefore exercise its discretion to permit SEIU to file the attached
3 amicus brief. Counsel of record for SEIU is familiar with the scope of the arguments presented
4 by the parties and will not unduly repeat those arguments. Instead, SEIU will draw upon its
5 communications with Washington-resident members and their families affected by the Executive
6 Order to illustrate the profound, widespread, and irreparable harm it has caused and will continue
7 to cause absent Court intervention.
8 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
10
11 By /s/ Steve W. Berman

Steve W. Berman WSBA #12536
Andrew Volk WSBA #27639
Seattle, WA 98101
14 Tel: (206) 623-7292
15 Fax: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
17 Nicole G. Berner, General Counsel

Debbie Smith, Associate General Counsel
18
Trisha Pande, Law Fellow
19 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
20 Washington, DC 20036
21 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Service Employees

International Union
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 following:

19
20 DATED: February 2, 2017 /s/ Steve W. Berman

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AT SEATTLE
8
11 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

SERVICE EMPLOYEES
12 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as INTERNATIONAL UNIONS MOTION
President of the United States; U.S. FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
13 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND CURIAE BRIEF
16
Defendant.
17
18 This matter came before the Court on the Service Employees International Unions
19 (SEIU) Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief. Having been fully informed, the Court
20 hereby GRANTS the SEIUs Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 DATED this ______ day of ___________________________, 2017.
23
24
HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SEIUS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF - 1
Case No. 2:17-CV-00141-JLR 1918 E IGHTH A VENUE , S UITE 3300
1 Presented by:
3
By: /s/ Steve W. Berman
4
5 By: /s/ Andrew M. Volk
Seattle, WA 98101
7 Tel: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
8
steve@hbsslaw.com

11 Trisha Pande, Law Fellow
12 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
14 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Service Employees International Union

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 following:

19

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit A

8 AT SEATTLE
9
10
Plaintiff, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
11
v. BRIEF OF THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES
12 INTERNATIONAL UNION AS AMICUS
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
13 President of the United States; U.S. STATE OF WASHINGTON
17 Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) respectfully submits this amicus
2 curiae brief in support of Plaintiff State of Washingtons Motion for a Temporary Restraining
3 Order (Motion)1 seeking to enjoin portions of President Donald J. Trumps January 27, 2017
4 Executive Order banning entry into the United States of individuals based on national origin
5 (Executive Order).
6 I. INTRODUCTION
7 The profoundly adverse and discriminatory effects of the Executive Order are already
8 wreaking havoc on the State of Washington and its residentsincluding SEIU members.
9 Because the Executive Order bans individuals from seven predominately Muslim countries from
10 entering the United States, and is plainly driven by animus against Muslims, the Executive Order
11 violates the Constitutions ban on discrimination based on national origin and religion. The
12 Executive Order cannot satisfy even the deferential rational basis test, as it does nothing to
13 further its purported goal of protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks. Heavily-vetted children
14 fleeing war-torn countries pose no more threat of terrorism to this country than did Jewish people
15 fleeing Czarist Russia. The Executive Order also violates the Due Process Clause of the
16 Constitution by denying lawful permanent residents and visa-holders the ability to enter
17 Washington without notice and the opportunity to be heard, and others of the statutory right to
18 seek asylum. Finally, the Executive Order violates the Immigration and Nationality Acts
19 prohibition on discrimination in the issuance of visas based on nationality, place of birth, or
20 place of residence.2 Consistent with our nations laws, the Executive Order cannot stand.
21 The SEIU respectfully urges that the Court grant the State of Washingtons Motion in
22 order to prevent the ongoing harm to the State, its businesses, and its citizenry. The SEIU writes
23 to further document the immediate and irreparable harm to its Washington State members and
24 their families and communities. As the illustrative examples demonstrate, the Executive Order
25 (if allowed to stand) will impose immediate and irreparable harm to hard-working Washington
26 residents who have played by the rules and pose no threat to the safety of this countrys citizens.
27 1
ECF No. 3.
28 2
8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A).
BRIEF OF SEIU AS AMICUS CURIAE IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON - 1
1 II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

2 The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is an international labor
3 organization representing approximately two million working men and women in the United
4 States and Canada employed in the private and public sectors. Many of the SEIUs members are
5 foreign-born U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or immigrants authorized to work in the
6 United States. Many of SEIUs members have mixed-status families. SEIU has members who
7 are directly affected by the Executive Order barring entry into the United States based on
8 national origin.
9 III. ARGUMENT
10 The impact of the Executive Order on the SEIU and its members is profound and
11 highlights the States pressing interest in protecting its citizens and preserving its tax base.3 The
12 SEIU has over 118,000 members in Washington State in five local chapters, including the Public
13 School Employees of Washington (representing over 28,600 public school employees); SEIU
14 Healthcare 1199NW (over 29,000 nurses and healthcare workers across the state); SEIU Local
15 775 (over 40,000 long-term care workers providing in-home and nursing home care in
16 Washington and Montana); SEIU Local 6 (over 4,000 janitors, security officers, stadium and
17 airport workers); and SEIU Local 925 (17,000 education, governmental, and non-profit workers).
18 A large percentage of these workers are immigrants. For example, more than 40% of
19 SEIU Local 6s members are immigrants. The Executive Order will accordingly have an
20 enormous impact on them. As the SEIU chapter states on its website: Among the members of
21 SEIU Healthcare 1199NW are countless immigrants and refugees, green card holders and legal
22 permanent residents, who care for our communitys patients and mental health clients every
23 day. [President] Trumps order means these caregivers face travel bans, could be unable to
24 reunite with families, and will face more hate and discrimination in our community.4
25 SEIU members work in industries that touch Washington residents daily lives. They
26 help educate the States children, care for the States elderly and infirm, keep the schools and
27 3
See Plaintiff State of Washingtons Supplemental Brief Regarding Standing (ECF No. 17) (Supp. Brief) at
2-3.
28 4
See http://www.seiu1199nw.org/2017/01/29/standing-up-for-immigrants-and-refugees.
1 buildings clean and secure, andironically enoughfacilitate air travel in and out of the State.
2 The impact on the State from losing these workers is self-evident, and the Executive Order
3 makes the State less secure and less prosperous as long as it stays in effectand the State is
4 obliged to protect the safety and prosperity of its residents. The risk and danger to SEIU
5 members posed by the Executive Order, and the corresponding negative impacts on the State, are
6 concrete and immediate. Many of SEIUs members have recounted their stories to SEIU staff.
7 These individuals are fearful and do not want to reveal their identity. Therefore, the illustrative
8 stories recounted here are verified through the Declaration of Trisha Pande, submitted herewith:
9 1. Sara
10 Sara is a 33-year-old registered nurse and member of SEIU 1199NW. She lives
11 in Seattle with her four children. She came to the U.S. from Somalia when she was 12
12 years old. Both Sara and her parents are U.S. citizens; however, almost all of her
13 extended family lives in Somalia.
14 Sara is adversely impacted by the Executive Order because her legitimate fear
15 prevents her from travelling back to Somalia to visit her family. She has spent most of
16 her life in the U.S. and considers this her home and her country. Sara is now afraid that
17 if she leaves the U.S. she will not be able to get back in. Sara is also worried that her
18 relatives will never be able to come to the U.S. and visit her and her children.
19 Saras father is currently in Somalia visiting her grandmother. Her father is a
20 diabetic and while he was in Somalia developed a bad foot infection. His treatment in
21 Somalia did not go very well and he needs to return to the U.S. for medical treatment.
22 Sara fears that her father, even though a U.S. citizen, will get detained trying to re-enter
23 the U.S. He is a senior citizen and in need of immediate medical attention and will face
24 serious health risks if he is detained.
25 2. Dasin
26 Dasin was born in Iraq and lived there until 2012. He is Muslim. His father and
27 uncle both worked for the U.S. Army in Iraq for about four years. Dasin helped his
28 father and uncle while they were working for the U.S. Army. When the U.S. Army left
1 Iraq it was very dangerous for Dasin and his family. ISIS planted a bomb in front of
2 Dasins home. The bomb exploded, injuring Dasin in the face and neck. After he
3 recovered, Dasin and his family went to Turkey as refugees. Dasin had trouble finding
4 work in Turkey because he was a refugee and faced discrimination.
5 Dasin came to the U.S. in 2013 and now lives in Seattle, Washington with his four
6 siblings and his parents. He went to high school and graduated in 2015. He now works
7 part-time as a dispatcher for a large company and part-time as a drive. Dasin is
8 impacted by the Executive Order because he has many family members in Iraq that he
9 can no longer see. Dasins family hoped to bring over Dasins grandfather,
10 grandmother, and uncle. Dasin fears that if his relatives do not make it to the U.S. they
11 will be killed in Iraq. Dasin also has two close friends, also Iraqi refugees, that he met
12 while living in Turkey. They waited several years before scheduling flights to come to the
13 U.S. this month. However, they had to cancel their flights after the Executive Order.
14 3. Nadia
15 Nadia is 21 years old, and Muslim. She was born in the United States and is a
16 U.S. citizen. Her parents are both U.S. citizens and originally from Somalia. Her mother
17 is a childcare worker and member of the SEIU 925. Nadia is currently studying to
18 become a social worker and working part-time as a caregiver for her grandmother. She
19 lives at home with her two parents and three siblings in Auburn, Washington. Her father
20 is currently in Somalia visiting her extensive family there. She has never visited her
21 family in Somalia because it is too expensive.
22 Nadia is adversely impacted by the Executive Order because she hopes to be
23 married in the U.S. to a Yemeni citizen currently residing in Saudi Arabia. Nadia was
24 introduced to her fianc through her parents. Nadias parents met her fianc while on
25 pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. They thought he would be a good match for Nadia and put
26 them in touch. Nadia and her fianc spoke by phone and video chat for several months
27 before she decided to visit him in Saudi Arabia. Nadia spent more than a month with her
28 fianc. During the time that she spent in Saudi Arabia with her fianc, she became
1 increasingly drawn to his kindness, thoughtfulness, and great personality, and eventually
2 the couple decided to get married. When Nadia returned to the U.S. in March of 2016,
3 she filed an immigration application for her fianc, a K-1 fianc visa. She submitted
4 all the paperwork and her fiancs application was approved pending a final interview at
5 the U.S. Embassy abroad.
6 Nadia is scared for both herself and her fianc. She is scared that [the Executive
7 Order] is something that can happen in this country. Nadia said she is worried she will
8 have to move to Saudi Arabia to be with her fianc, and leave her home in the U.S.
9 because it is too hard to live our lives separately. Nadia has been unable to see her
10 fianc, whom she misses dearly, since she was last in Saudi Arabia because the expense
11 of flying to Saudi Arabia. Nadia and her fianc stay in touch mostly through phone and
12 video chat. Nadias fianc told her he is really scared he will not be able to see her
13 again. He is upset that he is unable to move to the U.S. and start a life with Nadia. Nadia
14 says they both try to stay calm by waiting, praying, and hoping things will work out in the
15 end.
16 4. John
17 John (a pseudonym) lives in a suburb of Seattle with his wife and three children.
18 John came to the United States from Iran in 1978 as a student and was recognized as a
19 religious refugee in 1982. He became a U.S. citizen in 1990.
20 John is adversely impacted by the Executive Order because it affects both his
21 family and his business. John has several relatives living in Iran currently facing
22 religious persecution because they are of the Bahai faith. Johns parents fled Iran in
23 1982 after three of Johns uncles were killed by an Iranian firing squad. John is now
24 worried that his relatives cannot come to the United States or visit him and his family
25 because of the immigration ban. John also has relatives who are Iranian citizens but
26 reside all over the world. He is also worried that they cannot visit him in the United
27 States.
28
1 The Executive Order is also harming Johns business. John and his wife run a
2 small health clinic in Seattle. It is a comprehensive integrative clinic which mixes
3 Western and Eastern medicine. Johns clinic treats about 20 patients from Canada who
4 are Iranian citizens. John sees patients from Canada every Friday at his clinic, and he
5 estimates that those patients comprise about 20 percent of his business. Those patients
6 can no longer come to the clinic from Canada because of the Executive Order. John
7 believes that President Trump put the ban in place hastily. As John stated, everybody
8 has a different story for why they need to come to the U.S . . . it is too simplistic to say
9 that just because you were born in a certain country that you are a terrorist.
10 5. Halima
11 Halima, a Muslim woman, lives in Seattle, Washington with her husband and
12 children. She came to the United States from Somalia in 2001 as a legal resident, and
13 became a U.S. citizen in 2008. Halima is a caregiver for disabled and elderly patients
14 and has been a member of SEIU Local 775 since 2008. Although Halima and two of her
15 children are U.S. citizens, her husband and her other four children are legal residents
16 (green card holders). Her six children range in age from 17 to 24. One child is in
17 school; two of them attend community college; the other three children are working.
18 The Executive Order has made Halima very worried. She worries about her
19 children every minute that they are away from home. She worries that they may be
20 attacked because of the hateful environment that this Executive Order has created.
21 Halimas four daughters all wear a hajib, and she is afraid that people will attack them
22 because of the anti-Muslim feelings the Executive Order has fueled.
23 The husband of one of Halimas friends flew into the Seattle airport on January
24 27, 2017 with an approved visa, but was returned back to Somalia. Her friend, U.S.
25 citizen, was waiting for her husband and couldnt even see him before he was turned
26 around and sent back to Somaliaeven though he was here legally. This incident has
27 terrorized Halimas entire family. As Halima said, [i]f they can treat people with green
28
1 cards and visas the way they treated these people, who knows if they will come after
2 naturalized citizens next? No one is safe.
3 The accounts of these SEIU members demonstrate that the Executive Order has an
4 immediate and concrete impact on the well-being of Washington State citizens and is a matter of
5 State concern.5 The Executive Order is separating families for no justifiable reason, causing
6 many of Washingtons citizensincluding SEIU membersharm and distress when they face
7 the genuine risk that they will be permanently separated from their loved ones. The State has a
8 singular interest in protecting its citizens from precisely this type of irreparable harm from any
9 source, including the federal government.
10 IV. CONCLUSION
11 Woven throughout the accounts set forth above is a deep and genuine connection to this
12 country, and Washington Statea connection based on the opportunities and freedom that our
13 country affords. Recent events have understandably shaken the faith of the aforementioned
14 individuals, their families and their communities in the current Administration. It now falls to
15 the judiciary to ensure that their faith in America was not misplaced, and that this countrys
16 adherence to fairness, due process, and equal treatment under the law shall endure.
17 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
19
20
SHAPIRO LLP
Seattle, WA 98101
24
Tel: (206) 623-7292
25 Fax: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
27
5
See Supp. Brief, at 5 (practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, color, creed,
28 [or] national origin . . . are a matter of state concern) (quoting Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.010).

2 Trisha Pande, Law Fellow
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
3
5 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Service Employees

International Union
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 following:

19

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION for Leave to File Service Employees Internationsl Union's Motion for Leave
// PAGE 23

AT SEATTLE
8
11 v. DECLARATION OF TRISHA PANDE IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF STATE OF
12 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as WASHINGTON
President of the United States, U.S.
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 I, Trisha Pande, declare as follows:
20 1. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge, and am competent to testify
21 to the matters herein.
22 2. I am a law fellow at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
23 3. Since President Trump signed his Executive Order on January 27, 2017, the SEIU
24 has received many communications from members and those in their families and communities
25 who are adversely affected by the Order. These individuals are legitimately afraid of reprisals,
26 and therefore wish their identities to remain confidential.
27 4. The stories of some of these individuals are discussed below.
28
DECLARATION OF TRISHA PANDE - 1
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
1 5. Sara is a 33-year-old registered nurse and member of SEIU 1199NW. She lives in
2 Seattle with her four children. She came to the U.S. from Somalia when she was 12 years old.
3 Both Sara and her parents are U.S. citizens; however, almost all the members of her extended
4 family live in Somalia. Sara is adversely impacted by the Executive Order because her legitimate
5 fear prevents her from travelling back to Somalia to visit her family. She has spent most of her
6 life in the U.S. and considers this her home and her country. Sara is now afraid that if she leaves
7 the U.S. she will not be able to get back in. Sara is also worried that her relatives will never be
8 able to come to the U.S. and visit her and her children. Sara's father is currently in Somalia
9 visiting her grandmother. Her father is a diabetic and while he was in Somalia developed a bad
10 foot infection. His treatment in Somalia did not go very well and he needs to return to the U.S.
11 for medical treatment. Sara fears that her father, even though a U.S. citizen, will get detained
12 trying to re-enter the U.S. He is a senior citizen and in need of immediate medical attention and
13 will face serious health risks if he is detained.
14 6. Dasin was born in Iraq and lived there until 2012. He is Muslim. His father and
15 uncle both worked for the U.S. Army in Iraq for about four years. Dasin often helped them while
16 they were working. When the U.S. Army left Iraq it was very dangerous for Dasin and his
17 family. ISIS planted a bomb in front of Dasins home. The bomb exploded, injuring Dasin in
18 the face and neck. After he recovered, Dasin and his family went to Turkey as refugees. Dasin
19 had trouble finding work in Turkey because he was a refugee and faced discrimination. Dasin
20 came to the U.S. in 2013 and now lives in Seattle, Washington with his four siblings and his
21 parents. He went to high school and graduated in 2015. He now works part-time as a dispatcher
22 for a large company and part-time as a driver. Dasin is impacted by the Executive Order because
23 he has many family members in Iraq that he can no longer see. Dasin's family hoped to bring
24 over Dasin's grandfather, grandmother, and uncle. Dasin fears that if his relatives do not make it
25 to the U.S. they will be killed in Iraq. Dasin also has two close friends, also Iraqi refugees, that
26 he met while living in Turkey. They waited several years before scheduling flights to come to the
27 U.S. this month. However, they had to cancel their flights after the Executive Order.
28
1 7. Nadia is 21 years old, and Muslim. She was born in the United States and is a
2 U.S. citizen. Her parents are both U.S. citizens and originally from Somalia. Her mother is a
3 childcare worker and SEIU member 925. Nadia is currently studying to become a social worker
4 and working part-time as a caregiver for her grandmother. She lives at home with her two
5 parents and three siblings in Auburn, WA. Her father is currently in Somalia visiting her
6 extensive family there. She has never visited her family in Somalia because it is too expensive.
7 Nadia is adversely impacted by the Executive Order because she hopes to be married in the U.S.
8 to a Yemeni citizen currently residing in Saudi Arabia. Nadia was introduced to her fianc
9 through her parents. Nadias parents met her fianc while on pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. Nadias
10 parents thought the man would be a good match for Nadia and put her in touch with him. Nadia
11 and her fianc spoke by phone and video chat for several months before she decided to visit him
12 in Saudi Arabia. Nadia spent more than a month with her fianc. During the time that she spent
13 in Saudi Arabia with her fianc, she became increasingly drawn to his kindness, thoughtfulness,
14 and great personality, and eventually the couple decided to get married. When Nadia returned to
15 the U.S. in March of 2016, she filed an immigration application for her fianc, a K-1 fianc
16 visa. She submitted all the paperwork and her fiancs application was approved pending a final
17 interview at the U.S. Embassy abroad. Nadia is scared for both herself and her fianc. She is
18 scared that [the Executive Order] is something that can happen in this country. Nadia said she
19 is worried she will have to move to Saudi Arabia to be with her fianc, and leave her home in the
20 U.S. because it is too hard to live our lives separately. Nadia has been unable to see her fianc,
21 whom she misses dearly, since she was last in Saudi Arabia because the expense of flying to
22 Saudi Arabia. Nadia and her fianc stay in touch mostly through phone and video chat. Nadias
23 fianc told her he is really scared he will not be able to see her again. He is upset that he is
24 unable to move to the U.S. and start a life with Nadia. Nadia says they both try to stay calm by
25 waiting, praying, and hoping things will work out in the end.
26 8. John lives in a suburb of Seattle with his wife and three children. John came to the
27 United States from Iran in 1978 as a student and was recognized as a religious refugee in 1982.
28 He became a U.S. citizen in 1990. John is adversely impacted by the Executive Order because it
1 affects both his family and his business. John has several relatives living in Iran currently facing
2 religious persecution because they are of the Bahai faith. Johns parents fled Iran in 1982 after
3 three of Johns uncles were killed by an Iranian firing squad. John is now worried that his
4 relatives cannot come to the United States or visit him and his family because of the immigration
5 ban. John also has relatives who are Iranian citizens but reside all over the world. He is also
6 worried that they cannot visit him in the United States. The Executive Order is also harming
7 Johns business. John and his wife run a small health clinic in Seattle. It is a comprehensive
8 integrative clinic which mixes Western and Eastern medicine. Johns clinic treats about 20
9 patients from Canada who are Iranian citizens. John sees patients from Canada every Friday at
10 his clinic, and he estimates that those patients comprise about 20 percent of his business. Those
11 patients can no longer come to the clinic from Canada because of the Executive Order. John
12 believes that President Trump put the ban in place hastily. As John stated, everybody has a
13 different story for why they need to come to the U.S . . . it is too simplistic to say that just
14 because you were born in a certain country that you are a terrorist.
15 9. Halima, a Muslim woman, lives in Seattle, Washington with her husband and
16 children. She came to the United States from Somalia in 2001 as a legal resident, and became a
17 U.S. citizen in 2008. Halima is a caregiver for disabled and elderly patients and has been a
18 member of SEIU Local 775 since 2008. Although Halima and two of children are U.S. citizens,
19 her husband and her other four other children are legal residents (green card holders). Her six
20 children range in age from 17 to 24. One child is in school; two of them attend community
21 college; the other three are working. The Executive Order has made Halima very worried. She
22 worries about her children every minute that they are away from home. She worries that they
23 may be attacked because of the hateful environment that this Executive Order has
24 created. Halima's four daughters all wear a hajib, and she is afraid that people will attack them
25 because of the anti-Muslim feelings the Executive Order has fueled. The husband of one of
26 Halimas friends flew into the Seattle airport on January 27, 2017 with an approved visa, but was
27 returned back to Somalia. Her friend, a U.S. citizen, was waiting for her husband and couldnt
28 even see him before he was turned around and sent back to Somalia even though he was here
4 following:

19

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION of Trisha Pande filed by Amicus Service Employees International Union
// PAGE 7

2

8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
9 )
Plaintiff, )
10 )
v. )
11 ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity )
12 as President of the United States; U.S. ) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) LANE POWELL PC FOR
13 SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official ) PROPOSED AMICI CURIAE NON-
capacity as Secretary of the Department of ) PARTY LAW PROFESSORS
14 Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON, in his )
official capacity as Acting Secretary of State; )
15 and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
16 Defendants. )
)
17
18
19 TO: CLERK OF THE COURT
20 AND TO: All Parties of Record
21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Proposed Amici Curiae non-party professors Todd
22 Aagaard, Robin Kundis Craig, Lincoln L. Davies, Noah Hall, F. Andrew Hessick, Zygmunt J. B.
23 Plater, Alexander T. Skibine, Lisa Grow Sun, Joseph P. Tomain, and Amy J. Wildermuth (the
24 Law Professors), without waiving any defenses or objections, hereby enters their appearance
25 through the undersigned attorneys. You are hereby notified that service of all further pleadings,
26 notices, documents or other papers, exclusive of process, may be had upon them by serving the
27 undersigned attorneys of record at the address stated below.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF LANE POWELL PC FOR PROPOSED LANE POWELL PC
28 AMICI CURIAE NON-PARTY LAW PROFESSORS - 1
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
P.O. BOX 91302
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
333333.0439/6866579.3
1 DATED: February 2, 2017
2 LANE POWELL PC
3
4 By s/Claire Loebs Davis

Claire Loebs Davis, WSBA No. 39812
5 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98111
6 Telephone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
7
8
By s/Tiffany Scott Connors
9 Tiffany Scott Connors, WSBA No. 41740
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 4200
Telephone: 206.223.7000
11 Facsimile: 206.223.7107
12
13 By s/Jessica N. Walder
Jessica N. Walder, WSBA No. 47676
Seattle, WA 98111
15 Telephone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
16
Attorneys for Proposed Amici Curiae Non-Party
17 Law Professors
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF LANE POWELL PC FOR PROPOSED LANE POWELL PC
28 AMICI CURIAE NON-PARTY LAW PROFESSORS - 2
P.O. BOX 91302
Case No. 3:16-CV-05897-BHS SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
333333.0439/6866579.3
2 I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of February 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
3 filing to the following:
4 Robert W. Ferguson Via Electronic Court Filing
Marsha J. Chien
5 Anne E. Egeler
Patricio A. Marquez
6 Colleen M. Melody
Noah Guzzo Purcell
7 WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
8 P.O. Box 40100
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 Argun Garg Via Electronic Court Filing
Michelle R. Bennett
11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
12 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
13 Attorneys for Defendants Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
John F. Kelly, Tom Shannon, and United States of America
14
Angelo J. Calfo Via Electronic Court Filing
15 Kristin W. Silverman
CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY, PLLC
17 Attorneys for Amicus Americans United for Church and State
18 Paul J. Lawrence Via Electronic Court Filing
Kymberly K. Evanson
Attorneys for American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU)
21
Bradley Girard Via Electronic Court Filing
22 Richard B. Katskee
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
23 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200
24 Attorneys for Americans United for Separation of Church and State
25
26
27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LANE POWELL PC
28 Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
P.O. BOX 91302
SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 Steve W. Berman Via Electronic Court Filing

Andrew M. Volk
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
3 Seattle, WA 98101
Attorneys for Service Employees International Union
4
Noah Guzzo Purcell Via Electronic Court Filing
6 P.O. Box 40100
7 Attorneys for State of Minnesota
8 Jacob Campion Via Electronic Court Filing

STATE OF MINNESOTA
9 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, MN 55101
11
12 Signed at Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of February 2017.
13
s/Patti Lane
14 Patti Lane
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
NOTICE of Appearance ; filed by Amicus Law Professors. (Davis, Claire) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
// PAGE 5
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Amicus Law Professors. (Attachments:
// PAGE 1

2

8
9 )
Plaintiff, )
10 ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
v. )
11 ) LAW PROFESSORS MOTION FOR
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity ) LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE
12 as President of the United States; U.S. ) BRIEF ON THE SUBJECT OF
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) STATE STANDING
13 SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official )
capacity as Secretary of the Department of ) NOTE FOR MOTION DATE:
14 Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON, in his ) FEBRUARY 2, 2017
)
16 Defendants. )
)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LAW PROFESSORS MOTION LANE POWELL PC
28 FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Non-party law professors, Todd Aagaard, Robin Kundis Craig, Lincoln L. Davies, Noah
3 Hall, F. Andrew Hessick, Zygmunt J. B. Plater, Alexander T. Skibine, Lisa Grow Sun, Joseph
4 P. Tomain, and Amy J. Wildermuth, (the Law Professors) hereby move for leave to file an
5 amicus curiae brief, and for the Court to consider the Law Professors attached brief on the
6 issue of state standing. See Exhibit A. The Law Professors respectfully request that the Court
7 consider this brief because the Law Professors are scholars on the issue of state standing and
8 hope the Court may benefit from their analysis on this issue. The Law Professors maintain a
9 neutral position on the underlying merits of the case, and are not filing this brief in support of
10 either party. The Law Professors rather seek to offer guidance to the Court to help resolve the
11 issue of state standing consistent with current law.
12
II. INTEREST OF THE LAW PROFESSORS
13
14 The Law Professors are scholars who have spent considerable time studying the
15 question of state standing. As such, the Law Professors have a strong interest in ensuring that
16 the Courts decision on standing is consistent with this complicated, evolving body of law.
17 The Law Professors are professors at law schools across the country who research,
18 teach, and write on constitutional law, federal courts and administrative law. The Law
19 Professors are all particularly interested in questions of state standing, and continue to research,
20 read, and follow this area of the law.
21 Todd Aagaard is the Vice Dean of the Villanova University Charles Widger
22 School of Law. His teaching and research focuses on administrative law,
23 property law, energy law, and environmental law.
24 Robin Kundis Craig is the William H. Leary Professor of Law at the S.J.
25 Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. She researches the law and
26 policy of all things water, including water rights, water pollution, and ocean
27
28 FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF - 1
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 and coastal issues, as well as climate change adaptation and the intersection of
2 constitutional and environmental law.
3 Lincoln L. Davies is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the Hugh B.
4 Brown Professor of Law, and a Presidential Scholar at the University of
5 Utah. His research focuses on administrative law, including standing issues, and
6 on energy and environmental regulation.
7 Noah Hall is a law professor at Wayne State University and Scholarship
8 Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. His research focuses on
9 federalism, state sovereignty, and interstate environmental disputes.
10 F. Andrew Hessick is a Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina
11 School of Law. Professor Hessicks research interests include federal courts,
12 administrative law, remedies, and criminal sentencing.
13 Zygmunt J. B. Plater is a Professor of Law at Boston College Law School,
14 teaching and researching in the areas of environmental, property, land use, and
15 administrative agency law.
16 Alexander T. Skibine is a Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law
17 at the University of Utah. Professor Skibine has published many articles in the
18 area of federal Indian law and he is frequently invited to speak on federal Indian
19 law issues at venues around the country. He teaches administrative law,
20 constitutional law, torts, and federal Indian law.
21 Lisa Grow Sun is an Associate Professor at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at
22 Brigham Young University. She teaches constitutional law, torts, and disaster
23 law, and her research focuses on disaster law.
24 Joseph P. Tomain is Dean Emeritus and the Wilbert and Helen Ziegler Professor
25 of Law at University of Cincinnati College of Law. A highly respected professor
26 and scholar, his teaching and research interests focus in the areas of energy law,
27 land use, regulatory policy, and contracts.

P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 Amy J. Wildermuth is the Associate Vice President for Faculty, Chief
2 Sustainability Officer, and a Professor of Law at the University of Utah. She
3 teaches and writes on civil procedure, administrative law, and U.S. Supreme
4 Court practice.
5
III. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO FILE
6
Although participation as amici curiae is typically associated with appeals, district
7
courts have broad discretion to appoint amici curiae. Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark,
8
No. C13-5071JLR, 2013 WL 5720053, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013) (Robart, J.). As such,
9
[d]istrict courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that have
10
potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique
11
information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the
12
parties are able to provide. Id. (internal citations omitted). Historically, amicus curiae is an
13
impartial individual who suggests the interpretation and status of the law, gives information
14
concerning it, and advises the Court in order that justice may be done, rather than to advocate a
15
point of view so that a cause may be won by one party or another. Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration
16
of Env't (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999) (internal
17
citations omitted). Thus, an amicus brief is designed to supplement and assist in cases of
18
general public interest, supplement the efforts of counsel, and draw the court's attention to law
19
that might otherwise escape consideration. Id.
20
The Law Professors seek leave to file the accompanying memorandum to offer their
21
unique perspective on the underlying standing issue. The Court has ordered further briefing on
22
standing (Dkt. 10), and the Professors believe that their analysis on this issue will provide the
23
Court valuable insight on this question. For example, Professor Wildermuth was counsel of
24
record for several states appearing as amici curiae in Massachusetts v. United States
25
Environmental Protection Agency1 on the issue of state standing and has published law review
26
1
27 Massachusetts v. EPA is one of the seminal cases on the question of state standing.
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 articles on this question. See Amy J. Wildermuth, Why State Standing in Massachusetts v. EPA
2 Matters, 27 J. LAND, RESOURCES, & ENVTL. L. 273 (2007),
3 http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/view/53/46; Kathryn A. Watts & Amy J.
4 Wildermuth, Massachusetts v. EPA: Breaking New Ground on Issues Other Than Global
5 Warming, 102 NW. U. L. REV. 1029 (2008), 102 NW. U. L. REV. COLLOQUY 1 (2007), available
6 at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/Colloquy/2007/17/LRColl2007n17Watts.pdf;
7 Brief of the States of Arizona, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as Amici Curiae in
8 Support of Petitioners, Massachusetts v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 549
9 U.S. 497 (2007) (No. 05-1120), 2006 WL 2563380.
10 There are no rules governing the timeline for submission for amici curiae in district
11 court. Skokomish Indian Tribe, 2013 WL 5720053, at *2. The Federal Rules of Appellate
12 Procedure provide some guidance on timing, but those rules would not apply here in light of
13 the expedited briefing schedule. As such, the Law Professors have endeavored to provide the
14 Court their Memorandum as quickly as possible, and in advance of the February 3, 2017
15 hearing on the State of Washingtons TRO.
16 III. CONCLUSION
17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and should consider the
18 Law Professors brief regarding state standing.
20 LANE POWELL PC
21

Seattle, WA 98111
25 Telephone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
26 Attorneys for Proposed Amici Curiae Law
Professors
27
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
2 I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of February 2017, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the United States District Court ECF system, which will send
3 notification of such filing to the following:
4 Robert W. Ferguson Via Electronic Court Filing
Marsha J. Chien
5 Anne E. Egeler
Patricio A. Marquez
6 Colleen M. Melody
Noah Guzzo Purcell
8 P.O. Box 40100
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 Argun Garg Via Electronic Court Filing
Michelle R. Bennett
11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
12 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
13 Attorneys for Defendants Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
John F. Kelly, Tom Shannon, and United States of America
14
Angelo J. Calfo Via Electronic Court Filing
15 Kristin W. Silverman
CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY, PLLC
17 Attorneys for Amicus Americans United for Church and State
18 Paul J. Lawrence Via Electronic Court Filing
Kymberly K. Evanson
Attorneys for American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU)
21
Bradley Girard Via Electronic Court Filing
22 Richard B. Katskee
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
24 Attorneys for Americans United for Separation of Church and State
25
26
27
28 Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 Steve W. Berman Via Electronic Court Filing

Andrew M. Volk
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
3 Seattle, WA 98101
Attorneys for Service Employees International Union
4
Noah Guzzo Purcell Via Electronic Court Filing
6 P.O. Box 40100
8 Jacob Campion Via Electronic Court Filing

STATE OF MINNESOTA
St. Paul, MN 55101
11
Signed at Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of February, 2017.
12
13 s/Patti Lane
Patti Lane
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
EXHIBIT A

2

8
9 )
Plaintiff, )
10 )
v. )
11 ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity )
12 as President of the United States; U.S. ) PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICUS
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) CURIAE LAW PROFESSORS ON
13 SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official ) THE SUBJECT OF STATE
capacity as Secretary of the Department of ) STANDING
14 Homeland Security; TOM SHANNON, in his )
)
16 Defendants. )
)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LAW PROFESSORS LANE POWELL PC
28 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200
ON THE SUBJECT OF STATE STANDING P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 I. INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE

2 The non-party law professors are Todd Aagaard of Villanova University, Robin Kundis
3
Craig of the University of Utah, Lincoln L. Davies of the University of Utah, Noah Hall of
4
Wayne State University, F. Andrew Hessick of the University of North Carolina, Zygmunt J. B.
5
Plater of Boston College, Alexander T. Skibine of the University of Utah, Lisa Grow Sun of
6
7 Brigham Young University, Joseph P. Tomain of University of Cincinnati, and Amy J.
8 Wildermuth of the University of Utah (the Law Professors). The Law Professors research,
9 teach, and write on federal courts, constitutional law, and administrative law. They are scholars
10 who have spent considerable time studying the question of state standing. As such, the Law
11
Professors have a strong interest in ensuring that the Courts decision on standing is consistent
12
with this complicated, evolving body of law.
13
II. ARGUMENT1
14
A. State Standing Basics
15
Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a federal court must examine whether a
16
plaintiff has standing to bring a case before turning to the merits. In this case, the State of
17
Washington has brought suit against a number of federal officials, a federal agency, and the
18
federal government, asserting claims under the U.S. Constitution as well as several federal
19
statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act. A relevant question in this case is thus
20
whether the State of Washington has Article III standing to sue.
21
Increasingly, courts are faced with the question of whether states have standing to sue
22
the federal government. This question was less common before the advent of the modern
23
24
1
This brief draws from two of the principal drafters articles: Amy J. Wildermuth, Why State Standing in
25 Massachusetts v. EPA Matters, 27 J. LAND, RESOURCES, & ENVTL. L. 273 (2007),
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/view/53/46, and Kathryn A. Watts and Amy J. Wildermuth,
26 Massachusetts v. EPA: Breaking New Ground on Issues Other Than Global Warming, 102 NW. U. L. REV. 1029
(2008), 102 NW. U. L. REV. COLLOQUY 1 (2007), available at
27 http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/Colloquy/2007/17/LRColl2007n17Watts.pdf.
ON THE SUBJECT OF STATE STANDING - 1 P.O. BOX 91302
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 administrative state, but now arises more frequently because, as the relations between states
2 and the federal government have become more intertwined, there are more disagreements
3 between them. See Comment, State Standing To Challenge Federal Administrative Action: A
4 Re-Examination of the Parens Patriae Doctrine, 125 U. PA. L. REV. 1069, 1086 (1977).
5 Moreover, states often have a strong interest in ensuring that the federal government complies
6 with statutory and constitutional mandates, particularly given the overlapping nature of many
7 regulatory burdens. See Jacob E. Gersen, Overlapping and Underlapping Jurisdiction in
8 Administrative Law, 2006 SUP. CT. REV. 201, 203, 20708.
9 The Supreme Court has provided only limited guidance regarding state standing for
10 these cases. The key starting point is Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez,
11 458 U.S. 592 (1982). In Snapp, the question before the Court was whether Puerto Rico had
12 standing to sue a number of Virginia apple growers on behalf of its residents, based on
13 allegations that the growers were discriminating against Puerto Rican migrant workers in favor
14 of foreign workers. Id. at 598. The Court began its state standing discussion by dividing the
15 potential interests of a sovereign into three categories:
16 (1) proprietary interests,
17 (2) quasi-sovereign interests, and
18 (3) sovereign interests.
19 Id. at 60102. The Court then determined that Puerto Ricos interest in the case was properly
20 characterized as a quasi-sovereign interest and concluded that Puerto Rico could bring the suit
21 on that basis. Id. at 60809.
22 What is most important about these three categories of interests is that the standing
23 analysis is quite different for each. It is therefore essential in a case involving state standing
24 that the analysis begin with correctly identifying the type of categories at stake.
25 B. Proprietary Interests
26 Proprietary interests are direct interests, such as ownership of land or participation in a
27 business venture. Id. at 60102. These interests are the same kind of interest that a private party
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 would assert in litigation. Id. As a result, when a state asserts an injury toor interference
2 withthis kind of interest in litigation, the state should be treated just as a private party would
3 when determining whether Article III standing exists. Cf. Snapp, 458 U.S. 592, 611 (1982)
4 (Brennan, J., concurring) (At the very least, the prerogative of a State to bring suits in federal
5 court should be commensurate with the ability of private organizations. A private organization
6 may bring suit to vindicate its own concrete interest in performing those activities for which it
7 was formed.).
8 Courts therefore consistently require that sovereigns asserting a proprietary interest
9 satisfy the well-known requirements of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992): In
10 order to have standing to bring suit in federal court under Article III, a state must show that (1)
11 it has any injury that is actual and concrete, (2) the injury is traceable to the conduct of the
12 defendant, and (3) a favorable decision will likely redress the injury. Id. at 56061.
13 Courts often apply Lujan to determine whether a state has standing when proprietary
14 interests are at stake.2 For example, in Hodges v. Abraham, 300 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2002), the
15 question was whether the governor of South Carolinaacting in his official capacity on behalf
16 of the statehad standing to bring suit against the Department of Energy for allegedly failing
17 to follow the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act when it approved the
18 transfer of surplus plutonium. Id. at 436. After reciting the Lujan requirements, the Fourth
19 Circuit took note that the governors claimed interest was not simply in protecting the well-
20 being of South Carolinians, but rather in preventing injury to the land, streams, and drinking
21 water of South Carolina. Id. at 444. Because it was uncontroverted that at least one state
22 highway runs through [the proposed storage site], and that several streams and wildlife habitats
23 are located near [the proposed storage site], the court concluded that the alleged injury to the
24
2
25 See, e.g., Idaho By and Through Idaho PUC v. ICC, 35 F.3d 585, 59192 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (concluding that the
state had standing because it alleged that proposed salvage activities would pollute land owned by the state);
26 California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dept of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874, 889 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding Lujan
requirements were satisfied where the states injury was to its natural resources and . . . specific lands whose
27 resources would be affected by roadless policies).
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 states proprietary interests was sufficient to establish standing under Lujan. Id. at 445. Courts
2 have also found standing when a federal law forces a state to pay money, United States v.
3 Texas, 809 F.3d 134, 155 (5th Cir. 2015) (cost of issuing driving licenses to undocumented
4 aliens), as well as when a federal law deprives a state of expected revenue, Davis v. EPA, 348
5 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 2003) (loss of federal highway funds).
6 C. Quasi-Sovereign Interests
7 Of the three categories, quasi-sovereign interests are the most difficult to describe. The
8 Court has never precisely defined these interests, leading several scholars to characterize them
9 as admittedly vague. 13A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
10 PROCEDURE JURIS. 2D 3531.11, at 31 (1984).
11 What is clear from Snapp is that when a sovereign brings suit based on quasi-sovereign
12 interests, the State must articulate an interest apart from the interests of particular private
13 parties. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 607. This separate interest is then generally described as the States
14 interest in the well-being of its populace. Id. at 602.
15 In Snapp, the Court gave two examples of quasi-sovereign interests: (1) a sovereigns
16 interest in protecting the health and well-beingboth physical and economicof its citizens
17 from injuries such as transboundary pollution;3 and (2) a sovereigns interest in seeing that its
18 residents are not excluded from the benefits that flow from participation in the federal
19 system, such as when railroads conspire to fix freight rates in a manner that discriminates
20 against a particular states shippers in violation of federal antitrust law. Id. at 60708 (citing,
21 among others, Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945)).
22
23
3
24 See Thomas W. Merrill, Global Warming as a Public Nuisance, 30 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 293, 303 n.44 (2005)
(listing the following transboundary cases that fit this mold: North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365 (1923)
25 (flooding); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921) (water pollution); Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.,
206 U.S. 230 (1907) (air pollution in Georgia caused by discharge of noxious gases from the defendants plant in
26 Tennessee); Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 (1902) (diversion of water), [sic] Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208
(1901) (sought to enjoin defendants from discharging sewage in such a way as to pollute the Mississippi river in
27 Missouri)).
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 According to Snapp, the roots of state quasi-sovereign interests are found in the
2 common-law concept of the royal prerogative, which included the right or responsibility to
3 take care of persons who are legally unable, on account of mental incapacity. Id. at 600
4 (quoting J. CHITTY, PREROGATIVES OF THE CROWN 155 (1820)). As it developed in U.S. law,
5 this prerogative became known as parens patriae standing. If the concept had remained
6 consistent with its common-law roots, the connection to the states residents would be quite
7 easy to understand: Parens patriae suits would be permitted because the individuals are unable
8 to bring suit on their own. Modern parens patriae, however, is no longer consistent with the
9 original common-law concept on which it was based. In fact, as the Supreme Court made clear
10 in Snapp, a state may not bring suit as parens patriae to represent persons who are unable to
11 represent themselves. Id. at 600. Accordingly, it is now understood that a sovereign may bring
12 suit as parens patriae on the basis of an injustice to its populace: It may bring suit either to
13 protect the health and well-being of its populace, or it may bring suit based on the denial of
14 benefits assured to its residents by federal law. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 602, 607.
15 This, however, raises another question: If the federal government has a similar duty to
16 protect those same residents, does a state have the right to sue to protect the well-being of its
17 residents from the federal government? Previously, the decision in Massachusetts v. Mellon,
18 262 U.S. 447 (1923), was understood to have erected a bar to such suits: States could not sue
19 the federal government based on their parens patriae interests unless Congress had waived the
20 restriction. See Maryland Peoples Counsel v. FERC, 760 F.2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
21 (Scalia, J.).
22 In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), however, the Court appeared to lift the
23 bar to a state litigating against the federal government when a quasi-sovereign interest is at
24 stake. In doing so, The Court explained:
25 there is a critical difference between allowing a State to protect her citizens from
the operation of federal statutes (which is what Mellon prohibits) and allowing a
26 State to assert its rights under federal law (which it has standing to do).
Massachusetts does not here dispute that the Clean Air Act applies to its citizens;
27 it rather seeks to assert its rights under the Act.
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 Id. at 520 n.17. Although many commentators have noted that this passage seems to confuse
2 the different interests a state might have, there has never been any further clarification of the
3 point from the Court. As a result, although Massachusetts v. EPA offered little explanation, it
4 appears that a state can assert Article III standing based on a quasi-sovereign interest of
5 ensuring that its citizens are provided the benefits of federal law, such as when the federal
6 government acts or fails to act in a way that violates federal statutory or constitutional law. See,
7 e.g., Bradford Mank, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?:
8 Massachusetts v. EPAs New Standing Test for States, 49 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1701, 176974
9 (2008); Calvin Massey, State Standing After Massachusetts v. EPA, 61 FLA. L. REV. 249, 264
10 66 (2009).
11 Once a state asserts a quasi-sovereign interest, the next issue is what further showing, if
12 any, is required in order to establish standing. The Courts most recent articulation of what is
13 required is found in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court began by reciting the three Lujan
14 factorsinjury-in-fact, causation, and redressabilityand went on to analyze each
15 requirement. As the dissenting opinion was quick to point out, however, the Courts analysis
16 appeared to substantially [r]elax[]Article III standing requirements. Massachusetts, 549 U.S.
17 53637 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). Instead of a more rigid, traditional analysis of the Lujan
18 factors, the Court provided a Lujan-lite analysis, finding that Massachusetts had standing
19 even though its injurythe loss of coastal landswas remote and whether it would be
20 remedied by the proposed regulations was less than certain. The Court partially acknowledged
21 its lite analysis, explaining that states are entitled to special solicitude when they assert
22 quasi-sovereign interests. Id. at 520.
23 Although the Court provided few tips on how lite the analysis should be, it appears
24 that, following Massachusetts v. EPA, some relaxation in application of the Lujan test is in
25 order. In addition, when determining the appropriate injury for this lighter analysis, it seems
26 that either (a) a residents interest or (b) a states proprietary interest may be used (such as the
27 loss of coastal lands in Massachusetts).

206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 D. Sovereign Interests
2 Sovereign interests sufficient for state standing include a states power to create and
3 enforce a legal code, both civil and criminal, as well as the power to demand recognition
4 from other sovereigns. Snapp, 458 U.S. at 601. These are interests unique to the state, not
5 based on injuries that a private party could suffer (proprietary standing), and not based on
6 injuries to the well-being of a states populace (quasi-sovereign standing). For example, in West
7 Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2004), West Virginia and Illinois sought review of the
8 EPAs rules requiring the states to revise their state implementation plans under the Clean Air
9 Act. Id. at 864. In concluding that there was standing, the D.C. Circuit explained that, because
10 the rules might interfere with the states sovereign interest in creating law, the states were not
11 suing as parens patriae but as states. Id. at 868.
12 III. APPLICATION TO THIS CASE
13 Based on our review of the preliminary record in this case, we want to offer some
14 general ideas about possible applications. In doing so, we note that the State of Washington is
15 the home to two world-class, research-intensive public institutions of higher education, the
16 University of Washington (UW) and Washington State University (WSU). Because we are
17 employed by universities like those, and we believe that these examples best illustrate the
18 standing principles in this case, we offer a few thoughts on the state standing analysis when the
19 states interest is reflected in its institutions of higher education.
20 One straightforward path to finding standing is under a proprietary interest analysis.
21 Much like the coastal land in Massachusetts, the State of Washingtons interest in its
22 institutions of higher education and their functioning is best viewed as proprietary. As an
23 institution and employer, like other institutions in Washington, the state may have lost revenue,
24 both because students can no longer enroll (thus costing institutions tuition dollars) and because
25 of cancelled trips and events of those within the university. As proprietary interests, these
26 injuries should be analyzed under the traditional Lujan framework. Moreover, if there was a
27 showing of actual financial harm to WU or WSU, as arms of the state, such an injury would be
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 sufficient under the traditional Lujan analysis to find standing on the part of the state to bring
2 the case.
3 On the other end of the spectrum, it does not appear on the face of the complaint that
4 the State of Washington has asserted a sovereign interest in this case. That is, there does not
5 appear to us to be any claim of preemption of state law, or an assertion of interference with the
6 creation or enforcement of state law. As such, at this time, this is an unlikely ground on which
7 to find standing.
8 A less certain but perhaps possible path for finding standing is for the state to claim
9 impacts on its residents in an effort to assert a quasi-sovereign interest. This is a more
10 complicated route because, as discussed above, Massachusetts v. EPA appears to change much
11 with little explanation. Building on what the Court did provide, with a particular focus again on
12 the potential impact on institutions of higher education as an example, a few routes to standing
13 may be possible. First, residents of Washington attending UW and WSU may have had their
14 education impacted by the federal governments actions. When the federal government
15 restricted the entry of those from listed countries, it reduced the ability of the institutions to
16 attract and retain students and faculty from certain countries. This in turn diminished and
17 devalued the rich and diverse learning environment that is core to the mission of higher
18 education. As the Court held in Grutter, student body diversity promotes learning outcomes,
19 and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better
20 prepares them as professionals. Grutter v. Gratz, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003) (internal citations
21 omitted). In so holding, the Court noted that it has repeatedly acknowledged the overriding
22 importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to
23 sustaining our political and cultural heritage with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric
24 of society. Id. at 331 (internal citations omitted). Actions that impede a Washington resident
25 students preparation could create standing if they are found to harm the well-being of the
26 states residents.
27
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 Another possibility is the impact on the ability of those residents at the university to do
2 important, often life-saving research. Many researchers must travel to present their work at
3 conferences, which is critical to the progress of research. Even more important, however, is the
4 ability to physically travel to sites where raw data or information is located that is the subject of
5 their research. They also often travel to other labs around the globe to learn new techniques and
6 processes.
7 Any restrictions on travelparticularly this kind of travel, which requires a great deal
8 of advance planningwould slow the progress of research dramatically. While this certainly
9 impacts the world in delaying the progress on life-altering medical research, it directly impacts
10 ones job performance as a faculty member. If a faculty member cannot perform his research,
11 the ability to attract grant funding to support his work is jeopardized. In addition to the
12 potential loss of salary from the loss of grant funding, the inability of a faculty member to
13 perform the research required for their employment could result in lowered earnings in terms of
14 any base salary provided by the university. If the inability to conduct ones research continues
15 for a long period, it might also result in termination. See, e.g., Henry Fountain, Science Will
16 Suffer Under Trumps Travel Ban, Researchers Say, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 30, 2017),
17 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/science/scientists-donald-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0.
18 Both of these examples illustrate possible considerations that a court should analyze as
19 a states quasi-sovereign interests, as they reflect the states interest in the well-being of its
20 residents. In addition, because the suit asserts federal government violations of law,
21 Massachusetts v. EPA suggests that there is no prohibitionno Mellon barto the state
22 bringing the suit against the federal government.
23 As a result, if a state were to assert these injuries and a court accepted them as quasi-
24 sovereign interests, they would be subjected to relaxed requirements with respect to injury-in-
25 fact, causation, and redressability factors under Lujan. And when compared to the standing
26 analysis in Massachusettsan injury to coastal lands many years in the future, a more
27 attenuated causal chain, and unclear redressability in connecting emissions from new motor
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
1 vehicles to solving the global climate change problemthe injuries of the sort described above
2 to a students learning environment and to a researchers ability to do her work would satisfy
3 the special standing requirements for a state asserting quasi-sovereign interests.
4 IV. CONCLUSION
5 Although amici curiae offer no recommendation on the ultimate outcome of this case,
6 we hope the Court will find the foregoing analysis and examples helpful when resolving the
7 issue of state standing.
11 LANE POWELL PC
12

Seattle, WA 98111
16 Telephone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
17 Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae Law
Professors
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Amicus Law Professors. (Attachments:
// PAGE 21
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief, filed by Amicus Washington State Labor Council.
// PAGE 1

7
8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
9 Plaintiff,
M O TION FOR LEAVE TO FIL E
10 v. A M I C US B R I E F B Y
W ASH I N G T O N ST A T E L A B O R
11 C OUNCIL
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as
DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY; JOHN F. Noted for Consideration:
13 KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of February 2, 2017
the Department of Homeland Security; TOM
14 SHANNON, in his official capacity as Acting
15 Secretary of State; and the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 I. I N T R O D U C T I O N & R E L I E F R E Q U EST E D
20 The Washington State Labor Council (WSLC) respectfully requests the Court grant it
21 leave to file the amicus brief attached hereto as E xhibit A.

22
I I. I D E N T I T Y A N D I N T E R EST O F A M I C US C U R I A E
23
The WSLC is a state-wide labor council comprised of more than 600 local unions, and it
24
represents more than 450,000 rank-and-file union members working in Washington State.
25
Declaration of Jeff Johnson (Johnson Dec.), 2. It is widely considered to be the voice of
26
LAW OFFICES OF
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF BY SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
WASHINGTON STATE LABOR COUNCIL - 1 BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR 18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400

(206) 285-2828
1 labor in Washington State. Id. WSLC has a strong interest in advocating for the liberty
2 interests of Washington State workers. Id.

3
The WSLC provides many services to its affiliated unions. Johnson Dec., 3. The
4
Council has a focus on legislative advocacy, political action, communication through its website
5
The Stand, supporting affiliated unions organizing drives by rallying community leaders and
6
elected officials, and programs that provide affiliate and direct worker assistance like dislocated
7
8 worker assistance, increasing student awareness about apprenticeship programs within
9 community and technical colleges, Project Help, education and training for union members, and
10 assistance for unions with contract and economic research. Id.
11
On January 30, 2017, the President of WSLC issued the following statement regarding
12
President Donald Trumps Executive Order that bans all refugees from entering the country for
13
120 days, bans all refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bans immigrants and non-immigrants
14
15 from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days:
16 President Trumps Executive Order on Friday de facto banning Muslims from

certain Middle Eastern countries from entering/re-entering the country for 90 days
17 went beyond the pale of common decency, human dignity, and further fans the
flames of racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism that he thoughtlessly spewed
18 during his campaign. Legal permanent residents, green card holders and vetted
19 refugees from certain Muslim countries only countries where the Trump
Corporation has no business dealings were detained at airports, refused entry,
20 and in some cases, sent back to the country they had just arrived from. This
reckless action further contributes to the rising attacks on Muslims and others in
21 America. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic rise in hate
incidents over the past two years, now at 260,000 hate incidents a year. This
22 hateful and shameful Executive Order was met by thousands protesting at airports
23 across the country as well as an emergency stay against the Executive Order by a
federal judge.
24
As union members and as a labor movement we stand with immigrants and
25 refugees. We cannot and will not allow the president to pick us off one group at a
time. Another leader did this in the 1930s and 1940s with horrific consequences.
26
LAW OFFICES OF

(206) 285-2828
1 America was built by immigrants and refugees and they will continue to play a
part in the values upon which we define America.
2
Johnson Dec., 4.
3
4 Among WSLCs affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity Charter with the
5 WSLC and other labor allies are unions whose members are directly impacted by the Executive
6 Order, because they are immigrants or non-immigrant temporary workers from one of the seven
7
banned countries whose ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited outright or
8
whose inability to re-enter the United States after travelling will put their livelihoods in jeopardy.
9
Johnson Dec., 5. Members are also affected because the ability of their families to travel into
10
the United States is prohibited temporarily or indefinitely, disrupting the members family ties,
11
12 personal freedoms and economic security. Id.
13 Moreover, as a representative of working people, WSLC is keenly aware that the United
14 States has a lamentable history of wrongfully using the nations immigration laws against labor,
15
for political purposes. Perhaps most famously, from February 1917 to November 1919, during
16
the notorious Palmer Raids, federal agents working at the direction of Attorney General A.
17
Mitchell Palmer deported more than 500 foreign citizens, including a number of prominent leftist
18
19 leaders, for reasons that are now generally understood to have been overtly political, i.e., to
20 eliminate (through deportation) the representatives and leaders of movements intended to
21 improve the lives and working conditions of blue-collar workers. See generally The Palmer
22 Raids (Labor Research Association 1948) (Robert W. Dunn, ed.).
23
I I I. A R G U M E N T
24
WSLC seeks leave to file an amicus brief on the impacts of the Executive Order on the
25
members of unions across a wide range of industries and the irreparable harm suffered by those
26
workers in Washington if the Executive Order is not enjoined. The foregoing facts establish the
LAW OFFICES OF

(206) 285-2828
1 interest of the labor community in the outcome of this proceeding. WSLC will offer additional
2 evidence of irreparable harm to individuals working and residing in Washington, further

3
establishing that the elements for temporary injunctive relief are met. WSLC will offer some
4
additional authority supporting, but not duplicating, the arguments made by the State of
5
Washington in support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
6
I V . C O N C L USI O N
7
8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exercise its discretion to grant WSLC leave
9 to file the amicus brief attached hereto as E xhibit A.

11
s/Jennifer Robbins
12 Jennifer Robbins, WSBA No. 40861
s/Dmitri Iglitzin
13 Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673
s/Kathleen Phair Barnard
14 Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. 17896
15 Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Ste 400
16 Seattle, WA 98119-3971
(206) 257-6003
17 robbins@workerlaw.com
iglitzin@workerlaw.com
18 barnard@workerlaw.com
19
Counsel for the Washington State Labor Council
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF

(206) 285-2828
1 D E C L A R A T I O N O F SE R V I C E
2 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that
3
on this 2nd day of February, 2017, I caused the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
4
by Washington State Labor Council to be filed with the Court using the cm/ecf system, which
5
will automatically provide notification of such filing to:
6
Colleen M. Melody
7
Patricio A. Marquez
8 Marsha Chien
Seattle, WA 98104
10
Robert W. Ferguson
11
Anne E. Egeler
12 Noah G. Purcell
13 PO Box 40100
14
15 Jacob Campion
Attorney General of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55101
17
Michelle R. Bennett
18 Arjun Garg
19 U.S. Department of Justice
20 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
21
22
23 Signed in Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of February, 2017.
24
25 Jennifer Woodward, Paralegal

26
LAW OFFICES OF
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 5 SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT, LLP
18 WEST MERCER STREET SUITE 400
(206) 285-2828
Exhibit A

7
9 Plaintiff,
B R I E F O F A M I C US C U R I A E
10 v. W ASH I N G T O N ST A T E L A B O R
C OUNCIL
11
DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY; JOHN F.
13 KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of
OF AMERICA,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 I. I N T R O D U C T I O N & R E L I E F R E Q U EST E D
20 The United States for decades maintained discriminatory immigration laws excluding
21 Chinese laborers and others of Chinese descent; in 2012, the United States House of
22
Representatives passed a resolution acknowledging that the United States was founded on the
23
principle that all persons are created equal and formally expressing the regret of the House of
24
Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Acts. H.R. Res. 683, 112th Cong. (2012).
25
After decades of maintaining discriminatory national origin quotas that disfavored non-
26
European immigrants, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of
LAW OFFICES OF
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE - 1 SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
(206) 285-2828
1 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965), which finally ended strong overtures of an
2 indefensible racial preference in our immigration law. John F. Kennedy, A Nation of

3
Immigrants 77 (1964).
4
Acknowledging the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment
5
of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War
6
II, in 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to offer a formal
7
8 apology, and grant reparations in the amount of $20,000, to each living victim of the Japanese
9 internment resulting from an Executive Order issued in 1942. Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Pub.
10 L. No. 100-383, 102 Stat. 903 (1998). The Act stated that the government actions were carried
11
out without adequate security reasonsand were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime
12
hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. Id.
13
One week after assuming office, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order
14
15 fulfilling his campaign promise to enact a Muslim ban and to subject immigrant applicants to
16 extreme vetting. The Executive Order bans all refugees from entering the country for 120
17 days, bans all refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bans immigrants and non-immigrants from
18 seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
19
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. President Trump defends the Executive Order with rhetoric of
20
national security. Future leaders of our government may well feel compelled to issue formal
21
apologies or statements of regret for this unlawful and discriminatory act.
22
23 The Washington State Labor Council (WSLC) submits this brief in support of the State
24 of Washingtons Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) because the members of its
25 affiliated unions are suffering irreparable harm from the implementation of the Executive Order,
26
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 and those members will continue to suffer irreparable harm until and unless the Executive Order
2 is enjoined.
3
I I. ST A T E M E N T O F F A C TS
4
The WSLC is a state-wide labor council comprised of more than 600 local unions and
5
represents more than 450,000 rank-and-file union members working in Washington State. It is
6
widely considered to be the voice of labor in Washington State. Declaration of Jeff Johnson
7
8 (Johnson Dec.), 2. WSLC has a strong interest in advocating for the liberty interests of
9 Washington State workers. Id. Because of the irreparable harm being done to union members in
10 Washington State, which is set forth in detail below, WSLC and other labor leaders have spoken
11
out vehemently against President Trumps Executive Order. Id., 4 and Ex. A (statements from
12
labor unions regarding the Executive Order). The WSLC submits this brief to support the States
13
efforts to enjoin the unconstitutional, unlawful Executive Order.
14
15 I I I. ARGUM ENT & AUT H ORIT Y
16 The WSLC joins, but will not repeat here, the States meritorious argument that the
17 Executive Order violates both the United States Constitution and various federal statutes. It
18 submits this brief separately to add its voice to the chorus of voices seeking to point out to this
19
Court, as well as to the public at large, the truly appalling consequences this misguided and
20
wrongfully-motivated Executive Order will have if not promptly enjoined. The WSLC also
21
writes to emphasize that careful review of the history of discriminatory immigration rules
22
23 demonstrates the significance of the irreparable harm that is being caused in particular by the
24 fact that this Executive Order violates the Immigration Act of 1965the statute meant to end
25 pernicious discrimination in immigration law.

26
A. A bsent injunctive relief, residents of W ashington will suffer i r repa rable
harm because thei r government, in clea r cont ravention of the Immigration
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 A ct of 1965, has labelled some of them as being less valuable than others, and
as having no rights.
2
The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning immigrants,
3
4 non-immigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or religions reflects the attitudes
5 the government has of its own citizens of those same national origins and religions that they
6 are less valued, less than equal. Such policies cause harm to our unions members that cannot be
7
undone. Johnson Dec. 6.
8
In discussing the Immigration Act of 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk similarly
9
observed that immigration rules have significant domestic, as well as foreign, meaning:
10
[G]iven the fact that we are a country of many races and national origins, that those who
11
built this country and developed it made decisions about opening our doors to the rest of
12 the world; that anything which makes it appear that we, ourselves, are discriminating in
principle about particular national origins, suggests that we think ... less well of our own
13 citizens of those national origins, than of other citizens....1
14 Attorney General Katzenbach accurately assessed the damage done by discriminatory
15
immigration rules that Act was meant to abolish:
16
I do not know how any American could fail to be offended by a system which presumes
17 that some people are inferior to others solely because of their birthplace.... The harm it
does to the United States and to its citizens is incalculable.
18
19 Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Immigration and Naturalization of the Senate
20 Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong. 119 (1965) 9.
21 Through this language, the Congress abolished discrimination long codified in statutory
22 national origin quotas which disfavored non-European immigrants.
23
24
1
Immigration: Hearings Before Subcomm. No. 1 of the Comm. on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H.R.
25 7700 and 55 Identical Bills, 88th Cong. 901-02 (1964), reprinted in 10A Oscar Trelles & James Bailey, Immigration
and Nationality Acts: Legislative Histories and Related Documents, doc. 69A (1979) 390. See also id. at 410
26 (remarks of Attorney General Robert Kennedy) (noting that the bill would remove from our law a discriminatory
system of selecting immigrants that is a standing affront to millions of our citizens).
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27),

1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or
2 priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the
person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
3
4 8 U.S.C. 1152 (enacted by the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, Pub.L.
5 No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965)).
6 Those quotas were introduced into law in 1921, and extended by the Immigration Act of
7
1924, which required a study of the ethnic sources of Americas white population from the
8
origins of settlement; and quotas were derived from the percentages of the U.S. population that
9
were derived from any particular nation. This had the effect of limiting immigration from Asia,
10
and non-Protestant eastern and southern Europe. Pub.L. 67-5; 42 Stat. 5 (1921); Pub.L. 67-5; 42
11
12 Stat. 5 (1924). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163 retained
13 modified quotas that again reflected the existing demographic mix of U.S. inhabitants and had no
14 purpose other than to maintain the existing ethnic and religious composition of the national
15
population. See Mary Jane Lapointe, Discrimination in Asylum Law: The Implications of Jean v.
16
Nelson, 62 Ind. L.J. 127, 149 (1986). That discriminatory purpose became the focal point of
17
intense debate which fueled the impetus for the 1965 Act.
18
19 President Harry Truman opposed the discriminatory quota system and when his veto of
20 the 1952 act was overridden, he denounced the national origins quota system as being contrary to
21 American values because it discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against many of the
22 peoples of the world. The President's Veto Message, June 25, 1952, reprinted in The
23
President s Comm n on Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall Welcome 277. President Trumans
24
Commission on Immigration and National Origin had found that the major disruptive influence
25
in our immigration law is the racism and national discrimination caused by the national origins
26
system, and that the present system should be replaced with a unified quota system, which
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 would allocate visas without regard to national origin, race, creed, or color. The President s
2 Comm n on Imm. and Nat., Whom We Shall Welcome 263 (submitted Jan. 1, 1953).
3
In 1958, then Senator John Kennedy published a broadside against the national origin
4
quota system in which he criticized the system for having strong overtures of an indefensible
5
racial preference. John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants 77 (1964). As President, he
6
introduced legislation to end the quota system. President Lyndon Johnson strongly advocated
7
8 for the bill, which was enacted in 1965, as one of three complimentary bills passed early in
9 Johnson's presidency, the others being the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat.
10 241 (1964) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (1965).2 See
11
Roger Daniels, Coming To America: A History of Immigration And Ethnicity In American Life
12
338 (1990) (observing that the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and Immigration Act
13
represent a kind of high-water mark in a national consensus of egalitarianism); Vernon M.
14
15 Briggs, Jr., Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force 62 (1984) (Just as overt racism
16 could no longer be tolerated in the way citizens treated their fellow citizens, neither could it be
17 sanctioned in the laws that governed the way in which noncitizens were considered for
18 immigrant status.).
19
20
21
2
22 Senator Hiram Fong described the purpose of the Act as seeking an immigration policy reflecting Americas ideal
of the equality of all men without regard to race, color, creed or national origin which he noted reflected the values
23 of the Civil Rights Act:
24 Last year we enacted the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was designed to wipe out the last
vestiges of racial discrimination against our own citizens . . . . As we move to erase racial discrimination
25 against our own citizens, we should also move to erase racial barriers against citizens of other lands in our
immigration laws.
26 Hearings on S. 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th Cong.,
1st Sess. 44-45 (1965).
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 Senator Edward M. Kennedy argued that the national origins quota system was contrary
2 to our basic principles as a nation. 111 Cong.Rec. 24, 225 (1965). Senator Joseph Clark
3
insisted that the national origins quotas and the Asian-Pacific triangle provisions are irrational,
4
arrogantly intolerant, and immoral and that it was unjust that [a] brilliant Korean or Indian
5
scientist is turned away, while the northern European is accepted almost without question. Id.
6
at 24, 501. Representative Paul Krebs stated that immigration rules based on national origin
7
8 were repugnant to our national traditions, and that we must learn to judge each individual by
9 his own worth and by the value he can bring to our Nation. Id. at 21, 778. Representative
10 Dominick Daniels rejected the national origin quotas that racism simply has no place in
11
America in this day and age. Id. at 21, 787. Other senators and officials condemned the
12
national origins quota system as un-American' and totally alien to the spirit of the
13
Constitution,' and praised the new bill for its recognition of individual rights. Hearings on S.
14
15 500 Before the Subcomm. on Imm. and Nat. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, pt. 1, 89th
16 Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1965) (statement of Attorney General Katzenbach), 47 (statement of
17 Secretary of State Dean Rusk), 127 (statement of Senator Hugh Scott), 165 (statement of Senator
18 Paul Douglas) and 217 (statement of Senator Robert Kennedy); see also Hearings Before
19
Subcomm. No. 1 of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 723 (1964), where
20
the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, James B. Carey, quotes the AFL-CIO Declaration in
21
support of the bill).
22
23 The Immigration Act of 1965 repealed a system that, in the words of President Johnson,
24 violated the basic principle of American democracythe principle that values and rewards each
25 man on the basis of his merit . . . . T. Aleinikoff & D. Martin, Immigration Process and Policy
26
55 (1985). The Executive Order at issue here denies Syrian refugees, immigrants and the
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 resident family members of immigrants of the seven excluded nations precisely that - evaluation
2 on individual merit. Instead, the blanket order works precisely as did the repealed quota system
3
by denying liberty to whole classes of people based on their national origin. The Executive
4
Order therefore violates federal law and should be enjoined on that basis.
5
2. Residents of W ashington are also suffering i r reparable ha rm because thei r
6 government has interfered with thei r liberties by limiting their movement,
their ability to associate with their families, and to work.
7
8 Lost opportunities to engage in ones chosen profession, to travel, and to be united or
9 reunited with families and loved ones are all irreparable, because losses of this kind sustained by
10 individuals affected by the Executive Order cannot be remedied by money damages. See, e.g.,
11
Enyart v. Nat l Conf. of Bar Examiners, Inc., cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 366, 181 L.Ed.2d 232
12
(2011); Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition to
13
the irreparable harm set forth in the State of Washingtons Motion for a Temporary Restraining
14
15 Order, individuals who live and work in Washington are being subjected to the irreparable harm
16 described herein.
17 Among WSLCs affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity Charter with the
18 WSLC and other labor allies are unions whose members are directly impacted by the Executive
19
Order, because they are immigrants or non-immigrant temporary workers from one of the seven
20
banned countries whose ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited outright or
21
whose inability to re-enter the United States after travelling will put their livelihoods in jeopardy.
22
23 Johnson Dec., 6. Members are also affected because the ability of their families to travel into
24 the United States is prohibited temporarily or indefinitely, disrupting the members family ties,
25 personal freedoms and economic security. Id. The members of unions affiliated or allied with
26
WSLC affected by the ban include hospitality workers, retail employees, health care industry
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 workers, laborers, factory workers, and state, county and municipal employees among others. Id.
2 These union members are exceptionally diverse, comprised of an array of races, nationalities,
3
and religions. Id. The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning
4
immigrants, non-immigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or religions reflects
5
the attitudes the government has of its own citizens of those same national origins and religions
6
that they are less valued, less than equal. Id. Such policies cause harm to unions members that
7
8 cannot be undone. Id.
9 United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local

10 4121 (UAW 4121) represents academic student employees (ASEs) at the University of
11
Washington (UW). Declaration of David Parsons (Parsons Dec.), 1. Some ASEs are
12
citizens or nationals of one of the seven countries listed in the Executive Order and are present in
13
the U.S. with valid visas. Id., 3. Many have expressed serious concerns about the impact of
14
15 the Executive Order on their work at and for UW. Id. In particular, since the Executive Order
16 has been issued, impacted ASEs from the seven named countries believe they can and should not
17 travel outside the U.S., and have been advised by UW to avoid any international travel. Id. This
18 impacts in numerous ways these ASEs ability to perform research and complete their courses of
19
study. Id. At least one ASE conducts research that requires overseas travel, and therefore may
20
be significantly delayed or lose altogether the work completed pursuant to this project, which has
21
been in process for years and directly impacts degree completion. Id. For some ASEs, any delay
22
23 in completing research and course work could jeopardize funding and employment opportunities.
24 Id. Additionally, ASEs are restricted from visiting close family members or friends outside the
25 U.S., which creates significant emotional hardships. Id.

26
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 UAW 4121 is aware of at least one ASE who is a citizen or national of one of the seven
2 countries, and is outside the U.S. Id., 4. If he or she is unable to re-enter the U.S. as a result of
3
the Executive Order, his/her ability to conduct research for UW related to his/her course of study
4
could be limited, and his/her graduate program training sequence could be disrupted. Id.
5
Service Employees International Union 6 Property Services Northwest (SEIU 6) has
6
historically represented immigrants and refugees employed in the commercial janitorial industry,
7
8 and its membership often reflects the different flows of immigrants and refugees coming into the
9 U.S. workforce. Declaration of Matt Haney (Haney Dec.), 2. The current membership
10 includes over 350 individuals originally from the seven affected countries in the Executive Order
11
travel ban. Id., 3. The majority of these members originated from Somalia. Id. The members
12
from these countries tend to save up their money in order to be able to afford to return to their
13
countries of origin for a month or more. Id.
14
15 Since President Trump issued the Executive Order banning all refugees from entering the
16 country for 120 days, banning all refugees from Syria indefinitely, and banning immigrants and
17 non-immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days, SEIU
18 6 members who have made travel plans to Somalia have been contacting union representatives at
19
SEIU 6 expressing their fears that they may not be able to return to the U.S., to their families and
20
to their jobs, if they travel now. Id., 4. One member who has purchased airfare to Somalia
21
scheduled to leave February 4, 2017, is now apprehensive of leaving due to fears she will not be
22
23 able to return because of her Muslim faith, even though she is a U.S. citizen. Id.
24 Additionally, an SEIU 6 member currently on leave in Somalia has contacted union
25 representatives about fears of losing his job and in turn his health coverage, essential to
26
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 controlling his chronic health condition, because he will not be able to return to the United States
2 by April 15th as was arranged with his employer. Id., 5.

3
All of the foregoing harms are irreparable, as they cannot be remedied by money
4
damages. It cannot be disputed that implementation of the Executive Order is causing
5
irreparable injury to individuals living and working in Washington.
6
IV. C O N C L USI O N
7
8 The harms being suffered as a result of the unlawful and unconstitutional Executive
9 Order are severe, and the need for injunctive relief is urgent. Because each of the elements for
10 injunctive relief are met, the Court should grant the temporary restraining order requested by the
11
State.
12
13
s/Jennifer Robbins
15 s/Dmitri Iglitzin
Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673
16 s/Kathleen Phair Barnard
Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. 17896
17 Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Ste 400
18 Seattle, WA 98119-3971
19 (206) 257-6003
robbins@workerlaw.com
20 iglitzin@workerlaw.com
barnard@workerlaw.com
21
22 Counsel for the Washington State Labor Council

23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
5
7
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR
8
Plaintiff,
9 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
v. THE WASHINGTON STATE
10 LABOR COUNCILS MOTION
DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
11 BRIEF
as President of the United States; U.S.
12 DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY; JOHN F.
KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary
13 of the Department of Homeland Security;
TOM SHANNON, in his official capacity as
16 Defendants.
17
This matter came before the Court on the Washington State Labor Councils Motion
18
19 for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Being fully advised on the matter, and having reviewed the
20 pleadings filed herein,
21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22 1. The Washington State Labor Councils Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief is
23
hereby GRANTED; and
24
2. It is further ordered that:
25
________________________________________________________________
26
LAW OFFICES OF
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF - 1 SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
(206) 285-2828
1 ________________________________________________________________
2 ________________________________________________________________
3
________________________________________________________________
4
________________________________________________________________
5
________________________________________________________________
6
8 ORDERED this _______ day of February, 2017.

11
12
Presented By:
13
14 s/Jennifer Robbins
s/Dmitri Iglitzin
16 Dmitri Iglitzin, WSBA No. 17673
s/Kathleen Phair Barnard
17 Kathleen Phair Barnard, WSBA No. 17896
Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
18 18 West Mercer Street, Ste 400
19 Seattle, WA 98119-3971
(206) 257-6003
20 robbins@workerlaw.com
iglitzin@workerlaw.com
21 barnard@workerlaw.com
22
Counsel for the Washington State Labor Council
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF - 2 SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
(206) 285-2828
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief, filed by Amicus Washington State Labor Council.
// PAGE 26

7
9 Plaintiff,
DE C L ARA TION O F JE F F
10 v. J O H NSO N
11
DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY; JOHN F.
13 KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of
OF AMERICA,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 I, Jeff Johnson, hereby declare as follows based on personal knowledge.
20 1. I am the president of the Washington State Labor Council (WSLC). I have held
21 the position since 2010. Since 1986, I have held other positions with the WSLC, including
22
special assistant to the president, lead lobbyist, research and organizing director, and shop
23
steward for the administrative staff unit. I also sit on the Governors Council of Economic
24
Advisors, the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, the Washington State
25
Apprenticeship Council, the Board of Washington Community Action Network and Alliance for
26
Jobs and Clean Energy, and I serve as Co-Chair of the Washington State Blue Green Alliance.
LAW OFFICES OF
DECLARATION OF JEFF JOHNSON - 1 SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
(206) 285-2828
1 2. The WSLC is comprised of more than 600 local unions and represents more than
2 450,000 rank-and-file union members working in Washington State. It is widely considered to

3
be the voice of labor in Washington State. WSLC has a strong interest in advocating for the
4
liberty interests of Washington State workers.
5
3. The WSLC provides many services to its affiliated unions. The Council has a
6
focus on legislative advocacy, political action, communication through its website The Stand,
7
8 supporting affiliated unions organizing drives by rallying community leaders and elected
9 officials, and programs that provide affiliate and direct worker assistance like dislocated worker
10 assistance, increasing student awareness about apprenticeship programs within community and
11
technical colleges, Project Help, education and training for union members, and assistance for
12
unions with contract and economic research.
13
4. On January 30, 2017, I issued the following statement regarding President Donald
14
15 Trumps Executive Order that bans all refugees from entering the country for 120 days, bans all
16 refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bans immigrants and non-immigrants from seven majority-
17 Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days:

18 President Trumps Executive Order on Friday de facto banning Muslims from
19 certain Middle Eastern countries from entering/re-entering the country for 90 days
went beyond the pale of common decency, human dignity, and further fans the
20 flames of racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism that he thoughtlessly spewed
during his campaign. Legal permanent residents, green card holders and vetted
21 refugees from certain Muslim countries only countries where the Trump
Corporation has no business dealings were detained at airports, refused entry,
22 and in some cases, sent back to the country they had just arrived from. This
23 reckless action further contributes to the rising attacks on Muslims and others in
America. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic rise in hate
24 incidents over the past two years, now at 260,000 hate incidents a year. This
hateful and shameful Executive Order was met by thousands protesting at airports
25 across the country as well as an emergency stay against the Executive Order by a
federal judge.
26
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 As union members and as a labor movement we stand with immigrants and

refugees. We cannot and will not allow the president to pick us off one group at a
2 time. Another leader did this in the 1930s and 1940s with horrific consequences.
3
America was built by immigrants and refugees and they will continue to play a
4 part in the values upon which we define America.
5 6. Among WSLCs affiliated unions, unions who have signed a Solidarity Charter
6 with the WSLC and other labor allies are unions whose members are directly impacted by the
7
Executive Order, because they are immigrants or non-immigrant temporary workers from one of
8
the seven banned countries whose ability to travel into and out of the United States is prohibited
9
outright or whose inability to re-enter the United States after travelling will put their livelihoods
10
in jeopardy. Members are also affected because the ability of their families to travel into the
11
12 United States is prohibited temporarily or indefinitely, disrupting the members family ties,
13 personal freedoms and economic security. The members of unions affiliated or allied with
14 WSLC affected by the ban include hospitality workers, retail employees, health care industry
15
workers, laborers, factory workers, and state, county and municipal employees among others.
16
These union members are exceptionally diverse, comprised of an array of races, nationalities,
17
and religions. The negative policies the United States government establishes concerning
18
19 immigrants, non-immigrant visitors and refugees of certain national origins or religions reflects
20 the attitudes the government has of its own citizens of those same national origins and religions
21 that they are less valued, less than equal. Such policies cause harm to our unions members that
22 cannot be undone.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 7. Recognizing the injustice of President Trumps Executive Order, labor unions
2 have spoken out emphatically against it. Attached hereto as E xhibit A are true and accurate
3
copies of some statements by organized labor, published on their websites in response to the
4
Executive Order.
5
6
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
7
8 foregoing is true and correct.
9 Signed in _Olympia, WA__, Washington, this 2nd day of February, 2017.

10
11
12
13
Jeff Johnson
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
(206) 285-2828
1 D E C L A R A T I O N O F SE R V I C E
2 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that
3
on this 2nd day of February, 2017, I caused the foregoing Declaration of Jeff Johnson to be filed
4
with the Court using the cm/ecf system, which will automatically provide notification of such
5
filing to:
6
7
Colleen M. Melody
8 Patricio A. Marquez
Marsha Chien
11
Robert W. Ferguson
12 Anne E. Egeler
Noah G. Purcell
PO Box 40100
14 Olympia, WA 98504-0100
15
Jacob Campion
16 Attorney General of Minnesota
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
17 St. Paul, MN 55101
18 Michelle R. Bennett
19 Arjun Garg
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
22
23 Signed in Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of February, 2017.
24
25 Jennifer Woodward, Paralegal

26
LAW OFFICES OF
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 5 SCHWERIN CAMPBELL
(206) 285-2828
Exhibit A
(/)
Contact:
Maria Ponce, maria.ponce@seiu.org (mailto:maria.ponce@seiu.org), 202-394-2139
Issued January 27, 2017
SEIUs Senz: Trumps executive actions are an attack on American

values that will hurt immigrant, Muslim and refugee families
WASHINGTON, D.C. In response President Trumps announcement of a series of executive actions on

immigration and refugees, SEIU International Executive Vice President and iAmerica Action President Rocio Senz
issued the following statement:
Another day brings another executive action that attacks immigrants, refugees and their families and
compromises American values. Earlier this week, President Trump followed through on his promise to
create a mass deportation force, turned the vast majority of immigrants into deportation priorities, fast-
tracked their deportation, and made mandatory detention the default for all immigrants, including families
and children eeing persecution. Trumps executive actions today will continue to intensify the
criminalization of immigrants.
America should always be a nation that welcomes immigrant and refugee families and their contributions
to our communities and economy. Restrictions on immigration from predominantly Muslim countries
repudiate our own values and give license to others around the world to do the same or worse. Denying
refuge to persons eeing persecution at a time when they are most in need of safety is morally wrong and
un-American. It undermines our security because it harms the victims of persecution and violates our
international obligations.
SEIU members and our communities will keep standing up for immigrants, refugees and their families,
despite these attacks. Tens of thousands rallied and marched in more than 70 cities throughout America on
Jan. 14, and wewill use our collective power in the days and months ahead to prevent deportations and
protect immigrant families. We will build our movement so we can come back stronger in 2018 and 2020 to
win common sense immigration reform that works for working families.
1800 Massachusetts Ave NW

twitter (https://twitter.com/seiu)
facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/seiu)
youtube
(https://www.youtube.com/user/SEIU/videos)
Privacy (/privacy/) Contact (/about/#contact)
Service Employees International Union
Paid for by SEIU COPE, www.seiu.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Enter e-mail address
News Coverage
Press Releases
Events Calendar
Interactive Event Map
50th Anniversary
Home > News & Events> Press Releases

Tweets by
@UFWupdates Trump refugee ban executive order is appalling, UFW and UFW Foundation say
01/27/2017
United Farm ...
@UFWupdates
The Hill: GOP suspends

rules to push through EPA
Trump refugee ban executive order is
pick despite Dem boycott appalling, UFW and UFW Foundation say
@... fb.me/Vq3BT2uB
UFW Foundation Executive Director and United Farm Workers National Vice President Diana Tellefson
2h Torres issued the following statement from Los Angeles in response to President Trumps executive
orders issued today and aimed at those who seek refuge in the United States:
United Farm
Any type of refugee ban for any period of time is appalling and in direct opposition to long-held
Embed View on Twitter American values. Seeking refuge in the U.S is most often the last resort for those who face genuine
risk of persecution and cant return to their countries from which they led. This ban not only turns
America's back on the worlds most oppressed people, it also undermines our nations founding
principles. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation that has historically offered refuge to the
oppressed. The UFW Foundation and UFW will continue standing irmly with immigrant and
refugee families, and denounces todays executive actions.

For immediate release

January 29, 2017
Annemarie Strassel
astrassel@unitehere.org
Statement by D. Taylor, President of

UNITE HERE, on President Trumps Travel
Ban
<http://unitehere.org/wp-content/uploads/uniteherelogostacked.jpg>With several executive orders this
week, President Trump has brought shame upon the United States and its rich
humanitarian legacy. He has put the lives of refugees, most of them children, fleeing for
their very lives, in danger once again. His orders barring individuals holding green cards
and visas has created a humanitarian crisis and thrown our nations airports into chaos. He
has now established a religious test for our Nation, in spite of his denials of the truth once
again, by ordering that a Christian refugee child is more important than a Muslim refugee child. This is not only obscene, but
must certainly be against the Constitution of the United States which Mr. Trump only one week ago publicly vowed to defend.
Mr. Trump has singled out Muslim-majority countries for this ban ostensibly because they have produced terrorists who have
attacked the United States. Yet he exempts the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from which came the greatest number of these
terrorists, and some other countries, where he owns businesses, in an utter conflict of interest with security of the United
States. Mr. Trumps order betrays those who assisted our Nation in the war on terror sending them back to lands where their
lives are certainly at risk.
Trumps orders are fundamentally inhumane and reckless. They are un-American and unconstitutional. These orders can only
put our Nation, our citizens, and our allies at greater risk.
Mr. Trump has also threatened to cut o federal funding to sanctuary cities, where government o icials are defying the
Presidents anti-immigrant attacks to uphold the Constitution and preserve the peace. But we commend mayors in New York,
Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and beyond, who are declaring their cities sanctuary cities in defiance of Mr. Trumps
unconstitutional and immoral directives. We demand that leaders in other American cities where our members live and work do
the same.
As the Union of hospitality workers, including thousands of workers at airports across the US, we welcome travelers and
refugees from across the globe. We are proud to serve you. For the sake of our families, the people we serve and the values our
nation holds so dear, we will fight President Trumps un-American attacks on travelers from Muslim countries and immigrants of
any ethnicity, race or creed.
In the coming days and months ahead, Maria Elena Durazo, UNITE HEREs General Vice President of Immigration, Civil Rights
and Diversity, will be leading our Unions fight against this illegal and immoral policy.
About UNITE HERE
UNITE HERE is an organization that represents 270,000 working people across North America. Our members in the U.S. and Canada
work in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, transportation, and airport industries.
Our membership is diverse. We are predominantly women and people of color, and we hail from all corners of the planet.
Together, we are building a movement to empower immigrants and all workers across North America to achieve greater equality
and opportunity.
<//www.linksalpha.com/social/mobile?link=http%3a%2f%2funitehere.org%2fpress-releases%2fstatement-by-d-taylor-on-president-trumps-travel-ban%2f>
Campaigns
<http://www.wewantyoutostay.org> <http://unitehere.org/who-we-are/lgbt-
partnerships/>
Where We Are
UNITE HERE represents workers throughout the United States and Canada.
Find a Local by State/ Province

Any
Find Local or City
UNITE HERE Headquarters
275 7th Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10001-6708
Tel. 212-265-7000
UNITE HERE Canada

OFL Building,
15 Gervais Dr. 3rd Floor
Toronto, Ontario M3C 1Y8
Tel. 416-384-0983
Follow Us
Subscribe to Updates
DECLARATION of Jeff Johnson filed by Amicus Washington State Labor Council re 46 MOTION
// PAGE 12
MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Amicus Americans United for
// PAGE 1
1 HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 AT SEATTLE
10 STATE OF WASHINGTON and NO. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR

STATE OF MINNESOTA,
11 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF
Plaintiffs, AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS UNITED
12 FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF
13 v. WASHINGTONS AMENDED MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
14 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as ORDER
15 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official February 2, 2017
17
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH 1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
AND STATE-i TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)
1 Pending before the Court is the State of Washingtons motion for a temporary restraining
2 order to enjoin enforcement of President Trumps Executive Order banning individuals from
3 predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Exec. Order No. 13,769, 82 Fed.
4 Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). Americans United for Separation of Church and State respectfully
5 requests leave to file the accompanying proposed amicus brief in support of the State.
6 Identity and Interest of Amicus Curiae
7 Americans United is a national, nonsectarian public-interest organization. Its mission is
8 twofold: (1) to advance the free-exercise rights of individuals and religious communities to
9 worship as they see fit, and (2) to preserve the separation of church and state as a vital component
10 of democratic government. Americans United represents more than 125,000 members and
11 supporters across the country. Since its founding in 1947, Americans United has regularly
12 participated as a party, as counsel, or as an amicus curiae in leading churchstate cases decided by
13 the United States Supreme Court and by federal and state trial and appellate courts throughout the
14 country, including many cases involving Washington residents.
15 Americans United has long defended the fundamental rights of religious minorities in the
16 United States by, among other things, bringing legal challenges to governmental action that singles
17 out particular religions for favor or disfavor. See, e.g., Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2016 WL 7473962 (U.S.
18 2016) (supporting Muslim petitioners who were detained and tortured after the terror attacks of
19 September 11, 2001); Hassan v. City of New York, 2014 WL 3572027 (3d Cir. 2015) (supporting
20 challenge to New York City Police Departments surveillance of Muslim communities); Awad v.
21 Ziriax, 2011 WL 2118216 (10th Cir. 2012) (supporting challenge to Oklahoma law that singled out
22 Islam for official disfavor). Americans United also advocated for the passage of the Religious
23 Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, and its sister statute, the Religious Land Use and
24 Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., and routinely participates as counsel or
25 as an amicus curiae in cases arising under these statutes. See, e.g., Holt v. Hobbs, 2014 WL
LAW OFFICES
AND STATE-1 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)
1 2361896 (2015). Notably, Americans United filed an amicus brief in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S.
2 709 (2005), proposing the factors for the test of constitutionally permissible religious
3 accommodations under RFRA and RLUIPA that the Supreme Court then adopted.
4 Reasons Why the Motion Should Be Granted
5 This Court has broad discretion to appoint amicus curiae. Skokomish Indian Tribe v.
6 Goldmark, No. C13-5071, 2013 WL 5720053, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013). The district
7 courts regularly consider amicus briefs concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications
8 beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or perspective that
9 can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Id.
10 (quoting NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D.
11 Cal. 2005)).
12 The issues in this case, including those that are the subject of the lending TRO motion,
13 have important ramifications for persons living not only in Washington but across the United
14 States and around the world. If the challenged Executive Order is not enjoined, families who
15 currently find themselves living in different countries will be estranged. People fleeing war-torn
16 regions will be turned away from borders and given no opportunity to seek or obtain refuge from
17 the horrors that they face in their countries of origin. And nothing more than birthplace and
18 religion will determine whether millions of people have access to the opportunities of life in the
19 United States. What is more, it is not only the targeted Muslims who will be affected the
20 implementation of the Executive Order. The seismic shift in this Nations treatment of a religious
21 minority will be felt by neighborhoods, houses of worship, and local businesses, which will suffer
22 the loss of valued members of their communities.
23 The hardships in this country and across the world that will be caused by official
24 discrimination against a single religious group highlight the importance of correctly analyzing and
25 deciding questions of religiousfreedom rightslegal issues that Americans United is uniquely
LAW OFFICES
AND STATE-2 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)
1 positioned to assist this Court in parsing. The proposed amicus brief explains why the
2 Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom
3 Restoration Act both bar enforcement of the anti-Muslim Executive Order. As the brief explains,
4 the government is forbidden to discriminate against Muslims. It is forbidden to endorse any
5 religion over others. And it is forbidden to impose or apply religious tests in making official
6 determinations and taking official actions. The Executive Order does all of this and more.
7 Plaintiffs have consented to this motion and the filing of the accompanying amicus brief.
8 Defendants have informed counsel for the amicus that they take no position on the filing of the
9 brief.
10 If the Court grants the motion, Americans United requests that the brief be considered filed
11 as of the date of this motion.
12 For the Courts benefit, counsel for Americans United will be present in the courtroom for
13 the hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order on February 3, 2017. Should the Court
14 wish, counsel is prepared to speak to the issues in the accompanying brief and to answer any
15 questions that the Court may have.
16 Date: February 2, 2017
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
AND STATE-3 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF

1 CHURCH AND STATE
2
By: s/ Richard B. Katskee
3 Richard B. Katskee, admitted pro hac vice
Eric Rothschild, admitted pro hac vice*
4 Andrew Nellis, admitted pro hac vice**
Bradley Girard, admitted pro hac vice
5 Kelly M. Percival, admitted pro hac vice***
1310 L Street NW, Suite 200
Phone: (202) 466-3234
7
Email: katskee@au.org
8 Email: rothschild@au.org
Email: nellis@au.org
9 Email: girard@au.org
Email: percival@au.org
10
11
By: s/ Angelo J. Calfo
12 By: s/ Kristin W. Silverman
Angelo J. Calfo, WSBA #27079
13
15 Phone: (206) 407-2200
Fax: (206) 407-2224
17
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans United
18
for Separation of Church and State
19
*Admitted only in Pennsylvania. Supervised by
20 Richard B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar.
21 **Admitted only in New York. Supervised by

Richard B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar.
22
***Admitted only in California. Supervised by
24
25
LAW OFFICES
AND STATE-4 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)
2 I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, the foregoing document was electronically filed
3 with the United States District Courts CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
4 to all attorneys of record.
5
Americans United for Separation of Church
6
and State
7
Phone: (202) 466-3234
10 Email: katskee@au.org
11 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans
12 United for Separation of Church and State
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
AND STATE-1 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)

9 AT SEATTLE

STATE OF MINNESOTA,
11 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF
12 AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS UNITED
FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
13 v. STATE IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF
WASHINGTONS AMENDED MOTION
14 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
President of the United States; U.S. ORDER
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
16 February 2, 2017
17
19 Defendants.
20
21 Having considered amicus curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and States
22 motion for leave to file brief, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Court
23 GRANTS Americans United for Separation of Church and State amicus curiae status and
24 GRANTS its request to file a brief in support of the state of Washingtons motion for a temporary
25 restraining order. The Clerk is directed to accept the proposed brief for filing.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

LAW OFFICES
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS UNITED FOR CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
WASHINGTONS AMENDED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
RESTRAINING ORDER
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated: ___________________________ ___________________________
United States District Judge
4
5 Presented by:
6 AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION
OF CHURCH AND STATE
7
9 Andrew Nellis, admitted pro hac vice**
10
Kelly M. Percival, admitted pro hac vice***
12 Phone: (202) 466-3234
13 Email: rothschild@au.org
15
16
17 By: s/ Angelo J. Calfo

By: s/ Kristin W. Silverman
18 Angelo J. Calfo, WSBA #27079
20 Phone: (206) 407-2200
Fax: (206) 407-2224
23 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans United

24
*Admitted only in Pennsylvania. Supervised by
**Admitted only in New York. Supervised by

2
***Admitted only in California. Supervised by
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 with the United States District Court CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
6
7 and State
8 By: s/ Richard B. Katskee

Richard B. Katskee, admitted pro hac vice
10 Phone: (202) 466-3234
11

United for Separation of Church and State
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE LAW OFFICES

TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS 1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
SUPPORT OF STATE OF WASHINGTONS AMENDED
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
-1
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


2

3

4

5

6

7

9 AT SEATTLE

STATE OF MINNESOTA,
11 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS

Plaintiffs, UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH
12 AND STATE IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF
WASHINGTONS AMENDED MOTION FOR
13 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

17

19 Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LAW OFFICES

AND STATE- i TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
3 Argument .........................................................................................................................................1
4 I. The Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause. .......................................................2
5 A. The Executive Order fails the Establishment Clauses Larson Test. ............................3
6 B. The Executive Order fails the Endorsement Test ..........................................................5
7 C. The Executive Order fails all three requirements of the Lemon Test. ...........................8
8 II. The Executive Order violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ...............................11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

AND STATE- 1 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 INTRODUCTION
2 President Donald Trump has spent over a year promising to ban Muslims from entering the
3 country. See, e.g., First Am. Compl. 4261. During that time, he has repeatedly disparaged and
4 attacked an entire religion because he regards it as hard to separate . . . who is who between
5 Muslims and terrorists. Transcripts, Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, CNN (Mar. 9, 2016),
6 http://cnn.it/2jJmaEC. He insisted, for example, that hundreds of thousands of refugees from the
Middle East would attempt to take over and radicalize our children. Donald Trump Remarks
7
in Manchester, New Hampshire, C-SPAN 20:05 (June 13, 2016), http://cs.pn/2k7bHGq. He argued
8
that Syrian refugees would be a better, bigger, more horrible version than the legendary Trojan
9
Horse. Id. And when he talked about the Muslims, he explained his position clearly: we have
10
to have a ban . . . its gotta be a ban. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Town Hall Meeting in
11
Londonderry, New Hampshire, C-SPAN 28:16 (Feb. 8, 2016), http://cs.pn/2kY4f1T.
12
Now, in the face of the clear constitutional and statutory prohibitions against official
13
discrimination on the basis of religion, President Trump insists that Executive Order 13,769 is a
14
security measure aimed merely at specific countries and not at a specific religion. But he
15
telegraphed this very strategy as a candidate: When asked about the constitutionality of banning an
16
entire religion, then-candidate Trump responded [s]o you call it territories. OK? Were gonna do
17 territories. 60 Minutes, The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence, CBS NEWS (July 17, 2016),
18 http://cbsn.ws/29NrLqj. But a Muslim ban by any other name is still a Muslim ban. And as such, it
19 violates the fundamental constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. The gross deprivations, for
20 even a day, would be unfair, unjust, un-American, and just plain cruel.
21 ARGUMENT
22 [T]he First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality with respect to religion.
23 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); accord, e.g., McCreary County, Ky. v. ACLU of
24 Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 (1982). This principle,
25 contained in the First Amendments Religion Clauses and reflected also in the Religious Freedom

AND STATE- 1 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, secures the right to religious freedom by straightforwardly
2 forbidding official discrimination on the basis of religion. Ignoring the clear constitutional
3 command, however, the government has singled out a religious groupMuslimsfor official
4 disfavor and maltreatment. By instituting a wide-ranging, punishing ban on immigrants, the
5 government has run roughshod over core First Amendment protections.
6 Because the Executive Order violates fundamental First Amendment rights, the injuries that
7 it inflicts are irreparable as a matter of law. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). And because
8 the harms are imminent and extraordinary, a temporary restraining order should issue.
9 I. The Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause.
10 Three tests apply in determining whether governmental action like the challenged Executive
11 Order violates the Establishment Clause. First, when the government confers a denominational
12 preference (i.e., when it acts to favor or disfavor one faith or denomination over others), the official
13 action is subject to strict scrutiny and presumptively does not stand. Larson, 456 U.S. at 246. Second,
14 the action is reviewed to determine whether the government is endorsing religion or certain religious
15 beliefs. See, e.g., Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000). And third, the
16 challenged conduct is evaluated under the disjunctive three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.
17 602 (1971), to determine (i) whether the government acted with a religious purpose, (ii) whether the
18 effect of the governments action is to favor or disfavor religion or a particular faith, and (iii) whether
19 the government has entangled itself with religion. It is customary to apply all the tests pertinent to
20 the particular facts. See, e.g., Modrovich. v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397, 40001 (3d Cir. 2004);
21 see also Hernandez v. Commr, 490 U.S. 680, 695 (1989) (courts should apply Larson when relevant
22 before proceeding to Lemon). Failure to satisfy any one testor any one part of the three-part Lemon
23 testinvalidates the challenged action. The Executive Order fails all three.
24 Hence, the Executive Order should be enjoined. And to prevent imminent and extraordinary
25 harm in the meantime, a temporary restraining order should issue immediately.

AND STATE- 2 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 A. The Executive Order fails the Establishment Clauses Larson Test.
2 The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination
3 cannot be officially preferred over another. Larson, 456 U.S. at 244. Thus, when the government
4 designates one denomination for different treatment, whether favorable or unfavorable, its action is
5 subject to strict scrutiny and cannot stand. Id. at 246; see, e.g., Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111,
6 1128 (10th Cir. 2012) (applying strict scrutiny to and invalidating state action that targeted Islam
7 for disfavor). Simply put, the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion
8 over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 875.
9 The challenged Executive Order singles out Muslim-majority countries and subjects those
10 who were born in or come from those countries (principally Muslims) to harsh legal disabilities
11 and punishments, including exclusion, detention, and expulsion, based on their faith. Exec. Order
12 No. 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). At the same time, it affords exemptions and more
13 favorable treatment to religious minorit[ies] in those countriesin other words, non-Muslims.
14 See id. 5(b), (e). Legal U.S. residents from the identified countries are thereby targeted and put at
15 severe risk of detention and deportation because of their officially disfavored Muslim faith, while
16 non-Muslims are free from threats of similar harm.
17 The Executive Order thereby acts in the most personal, palpable terms to disfavor Muslims
18 in Washington and throughout the country. Many Muslims on legal visas for work or education
19 are, at best, trapped in the United States: If they leave, they will not be allowed to return. So they
20 cannot engage in the ordinary activities enjoyed by non-Muslims that may be essential to
21 educational or professional success or to maintenance of family relationships. And even under the
22 governments litigation-inspired change to its actions (see First Am. Compl. Ex. 14)which
23 apparently now exempts permanent residents from the prescribed discriminatory treatment, these
24 individuals, as well as U.S. citizens, will still be deprived of family reunifications through
25 immigration and visits from geographically distant relatives that similarly situated Americans from

AND STATE- 3 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 non-Muslim countries enjoy as a matter of course. The Executive Order thus severely injures
2 Muslims by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, negatively interfering with their
3 professional and personal lives, and quarantining them from the outside world.
4 Therefore, this Court should treat the [Executive Order] as suspect and . . . apply strict
5 scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality: the discriminatory treatment of Muslims must be
6 invalidated unless it is justified by a compelling governmental interest and unless it is closely fitted
7 to further that interest. Larson, 456 U.S. at 24647 (citation omitted).
8 Here, the governments asserted interest is stop[ping] attacks by foreign nationals . . .
9 admitted to the United States. Exec. Order No. 13,769 1. Preventing attacks is a compelling
10 interest; but merely incanting the mantra of terrorism or national security is not enough. The
11 Executive Order must be closely fitted to further the interest. Larson, 456 U.S. at 248. It isnt.
12 National security is not furthered by a policy of suddenly, flatly, and universally excluding
13 Muslims whose entry the government had already approved. Much less is it closely fitted to that
14 end. People from the seven identified countriesIran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and
15 Yemenhave, collectively, killed zero people in terrorist attacks in the United States since 1975.
16 Alex Nowrasteh, Where Do Terrorists Come From? Not the Nations Named in Trump Ban,
17 NEWSWEEK (Jan. 31, 2017), http://bit.ly/2kWoddx.1 The Executive Order does not address the
18 greater terrorist threat posed by domestic extremists who are not Muslims. See, e.g., Ellen
19 Nakashima, Domestic Extremists Have Killed More Americans than Jihadists Since 9/11. How the
20 Government Is Responding, WASH. POST (Oct. 15, 2015), http://wapo.st/1Qh8Kft (noting that since
21 2001, white supremacists and people motivated by racial and religious hatred and anti-government
22 views have killed more Americans than have international terrorists). And even accepting the
23 Trump administrations fixation on terrorist attacks by Muslims, sixty-nine percent of the individuals
24 who have perpetrated such attacks were either natural-born or naturalized U.S. citizens. Who Are the

25 1
The top five countries of origin for foreign-born perpetrators of terrorism in the United States have been Croatia, Cuba,
Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabianot one of which is covered by the Executive Order. See id.

AND STATE- 4 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 Terrorists?, NEW AMERICA, http://bit.ly/2keSmUO (last visited Feb. 2, 2017). As a defense against
2 terrorism, the Executive Order wildly misses the mark. The fit with the defendants asserted interest
3 is not merely loose; it is nonexistent. Strict scrutiny cannot be satisfied, and the Executive Order
4 cannot stand. Hence, it should not be enforced, to the great harm of so many, while the government
5 litigates to try to defend its constitutionally and morally indefensible policy.
6 B. The Executive Order fails the Endorsement Test.
7 Not only is government forbidden to discriminate among persons on the basis of their
8 religious beliefs and practices, but the Establishment Clause prohibits government from
9 appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from making adherence to a
10 religion relevant in any way to a persons standing in the political community. County of
11 Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 590, 594 (1989) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687
12 (1984) (OConnor, J., concurring)). [T]he government may not favor one religion over another
13 by endorsing the one or condemning the other. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 875. Yet the Executive
14 Order does exactly that.
15 The question under the Endorsement Test is whether an objective observer . . . would
16 perceive the government to have placed its stamp of approval or disapproval on religion or on a
17 particular faith. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 76 (1985)
18 (OConnor, J., concurring)). The hypothetical objective observer is presumed to be familiar with
19 the history of the governments actions and competent to learn what history has to show
20 (McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866), which means that the entire history of publicly available information
21 about the genesis and evolution of the challenged policy here speaks directly to whether the
22 Executive Order is an unconstitutional religious endorsement. What is more, even officially
23 repudiated past acts are not dead and buried but remain in the reasonable observers memory,
24 affecting how the finalor in this case evolvinggovernmental action is viewed. Id. at 870. And
25 the Establishment Clause is violated by both perceived and actual endorsement of religion

AND STATE- 5 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 (Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 305), meaning that if a reasonable observer, considering the full history and
2 context of the challenged policy, would perceive governmental endorsement, even if the
3 government did not intend it, the policy cannot stand.
4 Disapproval of Islam and approval of other faiths is apparent even from the bare text of the
5 Executive Order. It singles out for exclusion persons from seven overwhelmingly Muslim nations:
6 Iran (99.5% Muslim), Iraq (99.0% Muslim), Libya (96.6% Muslim), Somalia (99.8% Muslim),
7 Sudan (90.7% Muslim), Syria (92.8% Muslim), and Yemen (99.1% Muslim). Exec. Order No.
8 13,769 3(c); PEW RES. CTR., THE GLOBAL RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE 4550 (2012),
9 http://bit.ly/2k4Us8B.
10 The Executive Order also blocks entry of all refugees temporarily and of Syrian refugees
11 indefinitely (Exec. Order No. 13,769 5(a), (c)), again disproportionately affecting Muslims. As
12 noted, Syria is overwhelmingly Muslim; and Muslims made up a plurality of all refugees resettled
13 in the United States last year, the number of Muslim refugees to the U.S. having increased almost
14 every year over the past decade. Jens Manuel Krogstad & Jynnah Radford, Key Facts About
15 Refugees to the U.S., PEW RES. CTR. (Jan. 30, 2017), http://pewrsr.ch/2kk7ro8. The disfavor of
16 Islam is, once again, compounded by the Executive Orders favoritism toward refugees who
17 belong to minority religions (see Exec. Order No. 13,769 5(b), (e)), as most refugees worldwide
18 today come from Muslim-majority countries (Figures at a Glance, UNHCR, http://bit.ly/2cmTBiF
19 (last visited Feb. 2, 2017)). The intention to target Muslims and only Muslims is pellucid.
20 Though these features of the Executive Order alone suffice to communicate official
21 preference for non-Muslims, the objective observer as a matter of law also knows much more.
22 First, the precursor to the Executive Order was then-candidate Trumps public and repeated
23 promise of a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. First Am.
24 Compl. Ex. 1. Second, candidate Trump renamed and repackaged his Muslim ban only after civil-
25 rights organizations and others decried its illegality, saying Im talking territory instead of

AND STATE- 6 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 Muslim. First Am. Compl. Ex. 4, at 6. Moreover, he publicly described this change not as a pull-
2 back but as an expansion of the ban. First Am. Compl. Ex. 4, at 1 (emphasis added). Third,
3 after the election, President-elect Trump asked Rudy Giuliani (then under consideration for the
4 post of Secretary of State) how the Muslim ban could be implemented legally. First Am.
5 Compl. Ex 17. Fourth, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on January 27,
6 2017, the very day he issued the Executive Order, President Trump declared that his administration
7 would be acting to give priority (i.e., favoritism) to Christian refugees going forward. First Am.
8 Compl. Ex. 8. And fifth, the government has exempted from the ban any person from one of those
9 countries who also holds an Israeli passport (i.e., anyone likely to be Jewish). See Message from
10 U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv Consular Section, U.S. EMBASSY IN ISRAEL, http://bit.ly/2l0KWB8 (last
11 visited Feb. 2, 2017). The objective observer is aware of these public statements by President
12 Trump and others who developed and imposed the Muslim ban and the resulting Executive Order,
13 and is also aware of the broader social context in which the Executive Order and the policy that
14 it embodies arose. See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 734 (M.D.
15 Pa. 2005). And the magnitude of the governments disfavor toward Islam is made vivid to the
16 objective observer by the governments initial attempt, through the Executive Order, to ban even
17 lawful permanent residentsresidents whom the government had already vettedbefore its
18 rushed disavowal of that position in the face of compelling legal challenges (First Am. Compl.
19 Exs. 13, 14), and by the governments mass revocation of all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant
20 visas, with few exceptions, from the seven countries (First Am. Compl. Ex. 10 (emphasis added)).
21 Taking all of that into account, an objective observer could hardly help but perceive
22 governmental condemnation of Islam, as well as governmental endorsement of Christianitymost
23 notably through President Trumps express declaration that his administration would favor
24 Christians over other refugees. The objective observer would thus receive the message that
25 Muslims are outsiders, not full members of the political community and that Christians are

AND STATE- 7 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 insiders, favored members of the political community. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 30910 (quoting
2 Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (OConnor, J., concurring)). Simply put, the Executive Order
3 communicates that Muslims of all different legal statuses are a disfavored caste. That is not a
4 message that the government can or should convey: When the government associates one set of
5 religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the
6 individuals decision about whether and how to worship. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 883 (OConnor,
7 J., concurring). The violation of the Establishment Clause here is forthright and flagrant.
8 C. The Executive Order fails all three requirements of the Lemon Test.
9 The Executive Order also violates the Lemon Test, under which governmental action must
10 (1) have a preeminently secular purpose (McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864), (2) have a principal or
11 primary effect . . . that neither advances nor inhibits religion (Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612), and
12 (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion (id. at 613 (quoting
13 Walz v. Tax Commn, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970))). Failure to satisfy any part constitutes an
14 Establishment Clause violation. See id. at 61213. The Executive Order fails all three.
15 1. The secular-purpose requirement is violated if the governments actual purpose is to
16 endorse or disapprove of religion. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 585 (1987) (quoting
17 Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690 (OConnor, J., concurring)). It is not enough merely to articulate a secular
18 purpose; the secular purpose required has to be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to
19 a religious objective. McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864. As with the Endorsement Test, [t]he eyes that
20 look to purpose belong to an objective observer. Id. at 862 (internal quotation marks omitted)
21 (quoting Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308). And because reasonable observers have reasonable
22 memories, the court must not turn a blind eye to the context but must look to the record of
23 evidence showing the progression leading up to the challenged action. Id. at 866, 868.
24 As explained above, President Trumps clear, unambiguous statements of intent both
25 before and after the election and inauguration, and the rest of the history leading up to the

AND STATE- 8 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 Executive Order, all bespeak the purpose to disfavor Islam and favor Christianity. The President
2 and his campaign surrogates and policy advisers promised a complete and total shutdown of
3 Muslims entering the United States and favoritism toward Christian refugees. First Am. Compl.
4 Exs. 1, 8. They have now acted to deliver on those promises. See Exec. Order No. 13,769 3, 5;
5 see also First Am. Compl. Ex. 17. The invocation of terrorist threats simply does not explain the
6 action actually taken. So it must be deemed either a sham or merely secondary to an
7 impermissible religious purpose (McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864).
8 2. The Executive Order also fails Lemons principal-effect requirement by inhibiting Islam
9 and advancing Christianity. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612. Again, that is partly for the reasons
10 already stated: the effect requirement is violated whenever it would be objectively reasonable for
11 the government action to be construed as sending primarily a message of either endorsement or
12 disapproval of religion. Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).
13 The Executive Order also has the impermissible effect of inhibiting Islam by demonstrably
14 targeting Muslims, singling them out for unfavorable treatment. Muslim refugees desperate to
15 escape the charnel house of Syria and reunite with family members in the State are now forced to
16 renounce or disguise their faith to qualify for the Executive Orders exception affording preferred
17 status to religious minorit[ies]. Exec. Order No. 13,769 5(e). When remaining in Syria may be
18 tantamount to a death sentence, this scenario is hardly implausible. Cf., e.g., The Marranos,
19 JEWISHHISTORY.ORG, http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-marranos/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2017)
20 (describing [t]he forced conversion of a quarter-million Jews in Spain during the Inquisition). It
21 is difficult to imagine a policy that would more greatly inhibit the practice of ones faith than to
22 make religious conversion a life-or-death matter.
23 3. Finally, the Establishment Clause forbids excessive government entanglement with
24 religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 613 (quoting Walz, 397 U.S. at 674). It thus prohibits government
25 from imposing or implementing religious tests or making determinations based on religious

AND STATE- 9 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 doctrine. See, e.g., Presbyterian Church in the U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Meml
2 Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 450 (1969).
3 Among other suspect features, the Executive Order gives priority to certain refugee claims
4 provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individuals country of
5 nationality. Exec. Order No. 13,769 5(b). Yet it does not define the term minority religion,
6 forcing individual government agentsalthough it is yet unclear which agentsto make that
7 determination themselves.
8 The Syrian example demonstrates how fraught judgments about religious-minority status
9 would be. Because Syria is overwhelmingly Muslim, those who profess a faith other than Islam are
10 undoubtedly religious minorities there. But that is just the beginning. Syrias Muslim population is
11 predominantly Sunni. There is also a substantial minority Shiite population that includes
12 significant numbers of Alawites and Ismailis. The World Factbook: Syria, CENT. INTELLIGENCE
13 AGENCY, http://bit.ly/JZ2o63 (last updated Jan. 12, 2017). Although Alawites are a numerical
14 minority, they hold disproportionate governmental power and count Syrian President Bashar al-
15 Assad (himself a leading cause of refugees) among their number. Guide: Syrias Diverse
16 Minorities, BBC NEWS (Dec. 9, 2011), http://bbc.in/2l0Zgd0. Given the demographics and politics,
17 whether a Sunni, a non-Alawite Shiite, or an Alawite would be considered a religious minority
18 when fleeing Sunni-majority but Alawite-controlled Syria is unclear. What is clear is that the
19 Executive Order would require U.S. officials to make religious determinations, apparently on an ad
20 hoc, case-by-case basis, about which branch of Islam each potential refugee is most closely
21 associated with and whether that branch constitutes a religious minorityor else to make the
22 theological determination that the distinct branches of Islam are insufficiently different and
23 therefore that no Muslim refugee will be accepted as a religious minority.
24 If it is unconstitutional for government to decide, for example, how much of a schools
25 expenditure is attributable to religious activity versus secular education (Lemon, 403 U.S. at

AND STATE- 10 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 620) or whether student activity constitutes religious speech (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263,
2 272 n.11 (1981)), it is all the more improper for government to decide whose religion is what and
3 how that relates to other denominations or sects.
4 II. The Executive Order violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
5 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (2015), provides that
6 governmental action cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless it is the least restrictive
7 means of furthering a compelling interestthat is, unless the action survives strict scrutiny. See
8 Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 859 (2015). Here, the Executive Order cannot meet that
9 exceptionally demanding test (see id. at 864).
10 In the first instance, Muslim residents of Washington (or other States) who hold visas and
11 are legally present in the United States cannot make a pilgrimage to Meccaone of the five pillars
12 of Islam and a mandatory religious obligation to be fulfilled at least once in a practicing Muslims
13 lifetime (Diaa Hadid, What Muslims Do on Hajj, and Why, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 8, 2016),
14 http://nyti.ms/2kYGovS). For if they leave the United States and then try to come back, they will
15 be detained and deported. Because coercion to act contrary to [ones] religious beliefs by the
16 threat of civil or criminal sanctions is a substantial burden on religious exercise (Navajo Nation v.
17 U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2008)), no one could seriously dispute that
18 detention and subsequent deportation meet RFRAs threshold.
19 The Executive Order must therefore be the least restrictive means of furthering [a]
20 compelling governmental interest ( 2000bb-1(b)), which, as explained (see supra Section I.A), it
21 is not. A blanket ban on all immigration and visitation from seven overwhelmingly Muslim nations
22 with little to no history of sending terrorists to the United States, and the revocation of visas and
23 the inevitable detention and deportation of people lawfully in the United States and accused of no
24 crime, much less terrorism, are not only far more restrictive than necessary to fight terrorism, but
25 they may not further the governments asserted interest at all. See David Morgan, Former Intel

AND STATE- 11 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


1 Official: Trump Immigration Ban Makes Americans Less Safe, CBS NEWS (Jan. 30, 2017),
2 http://cbsn.ws/2jKLkpK. The Executive Order is thus unlawful under RFRA.
3 What is more, RFRA was enacted to provide greater protection for religious exercise than
4 is available under the First Amendment. Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 859-60. Thus, whatever else RFRA
5 may cover, it certainly encompasses violations of the Free Exercise Clauses core mandate that the
6 government must not single out a particular group for punishment based on religious exercise.
7 Indeed, because [t]he Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which
8 is masked, as well as overt, the singling out of a religious group for punishment is suspect even if
9 done artfully and by subterfuge without making direct, explicit reference to the group or its faith.
10 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993). Such a
11 religious gerrymander presumptively violates the Free Exercise Clauseand thus also RFRA
12 (cf. Fernandez v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 965, 966 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008))unless the government can
13 demonstrate that it is the least restrictive means to serve a compelling governmental interest.
14 Lukumi, 508 U.S at 534, 546. As already explained, it cannot.
15 * * *
16 The Executive Order is exactly what President Trump promised all alonga Muslim
17 ban. No amount of rebranding will change that. People from seven countries are refused entry to
18 the United States for no reason other than their deity and preferred holy book. Beyond failing
19 every applicable legal standard, the Executive Order is an insult to the fundamental principles of
20 our Constitution. It cannot stand. It should not stand even for a day. The temporary restraining
21 order should issue.
22 DATED this 2ND day of February, 2017.

23
24
25

AND STATE- 12 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH

1 AND STATE

2
4 Andrew Nellis, admitted pro hac vice
5 Kelly M. Percival, admitted pro hac vice
Phone: (202) 466-3234
Email: rothschild@au.org
8
10
* Admitted only in Pennsylvania. Supervised by

Admitted only in New York. Supervised by Richard
12
B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar.

13 Admitted only in California. Supervised by Richard
B. Katskee, a member of the D.C. bar.
14
15
By: s/ Angelo J. Calfo
16
19 Phone: (206) 407-2200
Fax: (206) 407-2224
21
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans United
22
23
24
25

AND STATE- 13 TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)


5
6 and State
7
Phone: (202) 466-3234

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

AND STATE- 1
TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR)

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed by Amicus Americans United for
// PAGE 28

9 AT SEATTLE

STATE OF MINNESOTA,
11 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Plaintiffs, OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICANS
12 UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE
13 v.

17
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT- i CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
(Case No. 2:17-cv-00141 JLR) 1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
1 Amicus curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonprofit
2 organization. It has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns any portion of it.
3 No party to the case drafted any portion of the amicus brief, and no one other than amicus, its
4 members, or its counsel paid for the preparation or submission of the brief.
5 Date: February 2, 2017
6 AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF

CHURCH AND STATE
7

9 Eric Rothschild, admitted pro hac vice*
Andrew Nellis, admitted pro hac vice**
10 Bradley Girard, admitted pro hac vice
Kelly Percival, admitted pro hac vice***
12 Phone: (202) 466-3234
13
Email: rothschild@au.org
14 Email: nellis@au.org
Email: girard@au.org
15 Email: percival@au.org
16 CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
17 By: s/ Angelo J. Calfo

19 Kristin W. Silverman, WSBA #49421
20 Seattle, WA 98101-3808
Phone: (206) 407-2200
21 Fax: (206) 407-2224
Email: angeloc@calfoeakes.com
23 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Americans United
24
25 *Admitted only in Pennsylvania. Supervised by

LAW OFFICES
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT- 1 CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC
TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
1 **Admitted only in New York. Supervised by

2
3 ***Admitted only in California. Supervised by

4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
6
7 and State

10 Phone: (202) 466-3234
11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
TEL (206) 407-2200 FAX (206) 407-2224
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Americans
// PAGE 5
RESPONSE, by Defendants John F. Kelly, Tom Shannon, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department
// PAGE 1

2
3
4
5
6
8
10
11 Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO
12 v. PLAINTIFF STATE OF
WASHINGTONS MOTION FOR
13 DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
President of the United States; U.S. ORDER
14
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Noted For Consideration:
16 Homeland Security; REX W. TILLERSON, in February 3, 2017
his official capacity as Secretary of State; 1 and
17 the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State, has been substituted for Tom Shannon pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
28 Procedure 25(d).
DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTONSMOTION FOR Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141 (JLR) Tel: (202) 305-8902
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
3
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 3
4
I. The Immigration and Nationality Act ........................................................................ 3
5
II. Presidential Authority Over Foreign Affairs and National Security .......................... 5
6
III. The Presidents Executive Order of January 27, 2017 ............................................... 6
7
STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 8
8
9 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 9
10 I. The State Lacks Standing to Invoke the Courts Jurisdiction .................................... 9
11 A. The State Lacks Standing on Its Own Behalf ....................................................... 9

12 B. The State Cannot Bring a Parens Patriae Action Here ..................................... 12
13 II. The State Does Not Demonstrate It Is Likely to Prevail on the Merits .................... 14
14
A. The Executive Order Is a Valid Exercise of Congress Broad Delegation
15 of Authority to the President, and His Own Constitutional Powers ................... 14
16 B. This Court Cannot, and Need Not, Review the Presidents National
Security Determinations Underlying the Executive Order ................................. 19
17
C. The States Facial Constitutional Challenges Fail.............................................. 23
18
19 III. The State Has Made No Showing of Irreparable Harm ........................................... 26
20 IV. The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Mandate Against a
Temporary Restraining Order................................................................................... 28
21
V. Any Relief Entered Must Be Limited in Scope to the Plaintiff State and to
22 the Specific Harm Found .......................................................................................... 30
23
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 30
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - i 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
1 INTRODUCTION
2 A provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) titled Suspension of entry or
3
imposition of restrictions by President, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), authorizes the President to suspend
4
the entry of . . . any class of aliens whenever the President determines their entry would be
5
6 detrimental to the interests of the United States[.] Invoking that authority, on January 27, 2017,
7 the President issued an Executive Order titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
8 Entry into the United States. See ECF No. 1-7. The Executive Orders purpose is to protect
9
the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States,
10
id. pmbl., and as pertinent here it directs the following actions:
11
a 90-day suspension of entry for individuals from certain countries, during which time
12
the Secretary of Homeland Security and other officials must review whether the United
13 States has adequate information to determine that an individual seeking an immigration
benefit is not a security or public-safety threat, see id. 3(a), (c);
14
a 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP or refugee
15 program), during which time the Secretary of State and other officials must review the
16 USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures
should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat
17 to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional
procedures, see id. 5(a); and
18
a suspension of entry of Syrian nationals as refugees, until such time as the President
19 determines that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that
20 admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest, see id. 5(c).
21 The Executive Order also contains waiver provisions permitting exceptions from some of these
22 actions. See, e.g., id. 3(g), 5(e).

23
Despite this plain congressional authorization to the President to make determinations
24
regarding national security and the admissibility of aliens, the State of Washington (hereafter,
25
the State) requests entry of a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement nationwide
26
27 of the Presidents Executive Order. See Proposed Order (ECF No. 3-1) at 3 2. The State does
28 so despite the heavy burden it carries to justify such an extraordinary remedy, particularly

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 1 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
1 where the remedy would interfere with Congress determination that it is the President, not a
2 court or a single state, that should make the relevant judgments over national security and foreign
3
affairs. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22, 25-26 (2008).
4
At the outset, the States motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3, hereafter
5
6 TRO Mot.) overlooks whether the State even has standing to pursue its claims. It is well-
7 established that a state cannot sue the Federal Government on a parens patriae theory. And the
8 States attempts to manufacture standing in its own righti.e., through lost tax revenues, or
9
reputational injury to its universitiesare not concrete, particularized harms cognizable under
10
Article III. Many of the States claimed harms, moreover, simply do not exist. Most
11
significantly, the State cannot rely on injuries to lawful permanent residents (LPRs), as it seeks
12
13 to do, in light of guidance from the White House clarifying that the 90-day suspension of entry
14 does not apply to those individuals. 1

15 The States claims likewise fails on the merits. Congress has plenary power over the
16
admission and exclusion of aliens, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 (1972), and here
17
expressly has delegated to the President the broad power to suspend entry of any class of aliens
18
into the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). The Presidents exercise of his Section 1182(f)
19
20 authority is committed to his discretion by law, and thus judicial review is precluded. Moreover,
21 that delegation, combined with the Presidents own Article II powers in this realm, placed the
22 President at the apex of his authority when issuing the Executive Order. Cf. Youngstown Sheet
23
& Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Order was well
24
within the Presidents authority under Congress delegation, particularly in an area, like
25
26 immigration, in which the admission to the United States of foreign aliens is subject to plenary
27
1
See Memorandum from Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President (Feb. 1, 2017) (filed herewith as Exhibit A)
28 (hereafter Feb. 1, 2017 Memorandum).

1 control by the political branches. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (This Court
2 has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and
3
has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is
4
a sovereign prerogative.). In light of these principles, the States claims on the merits cannot
5
6 succeed, for they would force this Court to override the plenary power of the political branches
7 to determine which aliens should be admitted into this Nations borders according to those
8 branches assessments of the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States.
9
Indeed, the States likelihood of success faces a particularly insurmountable barrier
10
because the State is bringing a facial challenge to the Executive Order. To prevail on its facial
11
challenge, the State must prove that the Executive Order is unconstitutional in all (or at least
12
13 most) of its applications. It cannot do so. At a minimum, because there are unquestionably a
14 significant number of lawful applications of the Executive Ordere.g., to non-resident

15 unadmitted aliensthe States facial challenge necessarily must fail.
16
Nor can the State sustain its other burdens. The States claimed irreparable harm is vague
17
and abstract, and certainly not occurring with the immediacy necessary to warrant a temporary
18
restraining order (i.e., within the coming days or weeks). The balance of the equities and the
19
20 public interest also decisively favor the United States, given that the States requested relief
21 would interfere with the Presidents exercise of plenary power delegated by Congress. As these
22 factors, like the merits, weigh squarely against judicial relief, the States motion should be denied.
23
BACKGROUND
24
I. THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
25
26 The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., as
27 amended, provides the legal framework under which Congress has exercised and delegated its
28

1 constitutional authority to determine who is permitted to enter the United States, who is permitted
2 to remain in the United States, and for what reasons persons may be admitted to or removed from
3
the United States. Central to the Courts consideration of the issues before it is Section 212(f) of
4
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which provides broad authority to the President to suspend or
5
6 impose restrictions on the entry of aliens into the United States:
7 (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens
8 into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,
he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend
9
the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or
10 impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. . . .
11 Every President over the last thirty years has invoked this authority to suspend or impose
12 restrictions on the entry of certain aliens or classes of aliens, 2 in some instances including
13
classifications based on nationality. For example, in 1986, President Reagan (through
14
Presidential Proclamation 5517) invoked section 212(f) to suspend entry of Cuban nationals as
15
16 immigrants into the United States, subject to certain exceptions. See Suspension of Cuban
17 Immigration, 1986 WL 796773 (Aug. 22, 1986). In 1996, President Clinton (through
18 Presidential Proclamation 6958) invoked section 212(f) to suspend entry, subject to certain
19
exceptions, of members of the Government of Sudan, officials of that Government, and members
20
of the Sudanese armed forces as immigrants or nonimmigrants into the United States. See
21
Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Are Members or
22
23 Officials of the Sudanese Government or Armed Forces, 1996 WL 33673860 (Nov. 22, 1996).
24
25
2
See, e.g., Presidential Proclamation 5517 (President Reagan); Exec. Order No. 12,324 (President Reagan); Exec.
26 Order No. 12,807 (President George H.W. Bush); Presidential Proclamation 6958 (President Clinton); Presidential
Proclamation 8342 (President George W. Bush); Presidential Proclamation 8693 (President Obama); Exec. Order
27 No. 13,694 (President Obama); Exec. Order No. 13,726 (President Obama). The Department of States maintains a
list of Section 212(f) Presidential Proclamations that currently affect the issuance of United States visas at
28 https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/presidential-proclamations.html.

1 Congress likewise has expressly drawn distinctions based on nationality. For example,
2 in 2015, Congress amended the INA to exclude certain individuals from a visa waiver program
3
(i.e., the ability to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant without a visa) on the basis of
4
nationality. 3 See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242,
5
6 2990 (2015) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)). Congress expressly excluded nationals of Iraq
7 and Syria from the program, see 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(A)(ii), and created a process by which
8 the Secretary of Homeland Security could designate additional Countries or areas of concern,
9
for exclusion of a countrys nationals. See id. 1187(a)(12)(D). As of February 2016, the
10
exclusion applied to nationals of Iraq and Syria (pursuant to the statutes plain text), as well as
11
nationals of Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (pursuant to Executive Branch designations
12
13 under the statutory scheme). See Dept of Homeland Sec., DHS Announces Further Travel
14 Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program (Feb. 18, 2016). 4 These seven countries excluded
15 from the visa waiver program are the same seven countries that are covered by Section 3 of the
16
Presidents January 27, 2017 Executive Order. See Executive Order 3(c) (incorporating by
17
reference countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)).
18
II. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL SECURITY
19
20 These delegations of authority to deny entry to certain classes of aliens, based on the
21 Presidents findings regarding the national interest, fall in the heartland of (and are bolstered by)
22
23
3
The INA sets out several terms of art. An alien is any person who is neither a citizen nor a national of the United
24 States. See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). A nonimmigrant is an alien admitted to the United States on a temporary
basis, with one of the visa categories established for particular purposes under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15). On the other
25 hand, an immigrant is an individual who is permitted to stay in the United States on a permanent basis. Within
the category of immigrant, an individual may be admitted with the privilege of residing permanently in the United
26 States, thereby acquiring LPR status. See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20). LPRs are authorized to work in the United States,
as are some aliens temporarily admitted pursuant to certain nonimmigrant categories. See generally 8 C.F.R.
27 274a.12 (Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment).
28 4
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

1 the Presidents broad authority under Article II relating to foreign affairs and national security.
2 See U.S. Const., art. II, 2 (Commander in Chief power, and authority to make treaties and
3
appoint ambassadors), 3 (power to receive ambassadors). As the Supreme Court
4
repeatedly has held, Article II confers upon the President expansive authority over foreign affairs,
5
6 national security, and immigration. See Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) (The
7 exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty . . . inherent in the executive power to
8 control the foreign affairs of the nation.); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S.
9
304, 320 (1936) (discussing the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as
10
the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relationsa power which
11
does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress).
12
13 III. THE PRESIDENTS EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JANUARY 27, 2017
14 Invoking these constitutional and statutory authorities, on January 27, 2017, the President
15 issued an Executive Order titled: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
16
United States. See ECF No. 1-7, also available at 2017 WL 394075. The Executive Order is
17
intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to
18
the United States. Executive Order 2.
19
20 To accomplish this purpose, the Executive Order directs a number of actions. See id.
21 2-11. First, Section 3 of the Executive Order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (in
22 consultation with other Executive Branch officials) to immediately conduct a review to identify
23
the information needed from any country . . . to determine that [an] individual seeking [an
24
immigration-related] benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-
25
26 safety threat. Id. 3(a). The Secretary must, within 30 days of the Executive Order, submit
27 to the President a report on the results of the review, as well as a list of countries that do not
28

1 provide adequate information[.] Id. 3(b). During the next 60 days, the Executive Order directs
2 a process for requesting necessary information from foreign governments that do not supply such
3
information, and consequences for countries not providing the information. See id. 3(d)-(f).
4
While this review is ongoing, the Executive Order, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA,
5
6 suspends entry for 90 days of aliens from the seven countries covered by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).
7 Id. 3(c). During this period, exceptions may be made (on a case-by-case basis) by the
8 Secretaries of State or Homeland Security. Id. 3(g). The suspension of entry in Section 3(c)
9
does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States. See Feb. 1, 2017
10
Memorandum (Exhibit A).
11
The Executive Order also suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days,
12
13 while the Secretary of State (in conjunction with other Executive Branch officials) reviews the
14 USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be
15 taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and
16
welfare of the United States, and then implement[s] such additional procedures. Executive
17
Order 5(a). Upon resumption of the refugee programi.e., no sooner than 120 days after
18
issuance of the Executive Orderthe Order directs the Secretary of State to make changes, to
19
20 the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of
21 religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in
22 the individuals country of nationality. Id. 5(b). Again, during the 120-day suspension of the
23
refugee program, the Executive Order allows the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to
24
permit entry of individual refugees on a case-by-case basis. Id. 5(e).
25
26 Finally, notwithstanding the general resumption of the refugee program after 120 days,
27 the Executive Order directs, pursuant to Section 212(f), a suspension of entry of nationals of
28

1 Syria as refugees based upon the Presidents finding that such entry is detrimental to the interests
2 of the United States. Id. 5(c). Such suspension will continue until such time as the President
3
determines that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of
4
Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest. Id.
5
6 STANDARD OF REVIEW
7 A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary and drastic remedy[.] Munaf v.
8 Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 (2008). A party seeking such relief must establish that [it] is likely
9
to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
10
relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that [a temporary restraining order] is in
11
the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Further, injunctive relief that would
12
13 deeply intrude[] into the core concerns of the executive branchsuch as foreign affairs and
14 national securitymay be awarded only where the plaintiff make[s] an extraordinarily strong
15 showing as to each element. Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954-55 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see
16
Winter, 555 U.S. at 32-33.
17
The State raises only facial challenges to the Executive Order, which are the most
18
difficult challenge[s] to mount successfully. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).
19
20 To demonstrate that it is likely to prevail on the merits, the State must show more than that the
21 Executive Order might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of

22 circumstances. Id. Instead, the State bears the heavy burden of establish[ing] that no set of
23
circumstances exist under which the [Executive Order] would be valid. Id.; see also Puente
24
Arizona v. Arpaio, 821 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016).
25
26
27
28

1 ARGUMENT
2 I. THE STATE LACKS STANDING TO INVOKE THE COURTS JURISDICTION
3
The State of Washington pursues two theories of standing. First, it purports to sue on its
4
own behalf, alleging various injuries to its proprietary interests. Pl.s Supp. Br. at 2-3 (ECF
5
6 No. 17). Second, it seeks to bring a parens patriae action on behalf of its residents. Id. at 3-5.
7 Neither theory satisfies the States burden to demonstrate standing.
8 A. The State Lacks Standing on Its Own Behalf

9
In some circumstances, a state may have standing to challenge federal action that
10
threatens its own distinct interests. As with any other party, however, the harm to the states
11
interests must be an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized
12
13 and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
14 555, 560-61 (1992). A state suffers a cognizable injury when, for example, its physical territory
15 such as its coastal land is harmed. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 522-23 (2007).
16
A state likewise may challenge a measure commanding the state itself to act, see New York v.
17
United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (standing to challenge federal law requiring State to take title
18
to nuclear waste or enact federally-approved regulations), or that prohibits it from acting, see
19
20 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (standing to challenge federal law barring literacy-test
21 or durational-residency requirements in elections and requiring State to enfranchise 18-year-

22 olds).
23
The States allegations of harm here are insufficient to establish Article III standing.
24
Most fundamentally, the States allegations of standing rely on downstream, incidental effects
25
26 stemming from the Federal Governments regulation of immigration as to third-party aliens. The
27 State has no legally cognizable interest in ensuring that the Federal Government issue any
28

1 particular alien any particular visa or admit any particular alien into the United States. The
2 States conception of standing miscomprehends the Nations constitutional structure: under our
3
federal system of separate sovereigns, a State has no legally protected interest in avoiding indirect
4
and incidental consequences (allegedly) flowing from the United States regulation of
5
6 individuals conduct pursuant to the powers vested in the Federal Government by the
7 Constitution. And it would be especially inconsistent with the constitutional structure to allow
8 such claims to proceed when they involve immigration, which is a subject uniquely committed
9
to the Federal Government, and in which the State has no role. See Arizona v. United States, 132
10
S. Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled.).
11
Thus, the States incidental, indirect injuries from federal immigration policies simply cannot
12
13 establish standing here.
14 Even so, the States alleged harms are neither concrete nor particularized. The State first
15 asserts that it will lose . . . tax revenue from tourists who, absent the Executive Order, would
16
visit the State and purchase goods and services there. Pl.s Supp. Br. at 2; Decl. of Kathy Oline,
17
ECF No. 17-1. But allegations of a reduction in a States tax revenues (particularly where, as
18
here, there is no direct link between the states status as a collector and recipient of revenues
19
20 and the . . . action being challenged) is a generalized grievance about the conduct of
21 government, not the sort of particularized injury necessary to establish standing. Pennsylvania
22 v. Kleppe, 533 F.2d 668, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (rejecting similar allegations by analogy to
23
taxpayer standing cases); see Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 17-18 (1927) (rejecting standing
24
despite Floridas allegation that challenged federal law would induce citizens to remove property
25
26 from the state thereby diminishing the states tax revenues); Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771
27 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir. 1985) (concluding state lacked standing despite claim that challenged
28

1 action would forc[e] unemployment up and state tax revenues down). Were the Court to find
2 standing based on incidental impacts to the States treasury without any direct link to the action
3
challenged, virtually any change in federal policy could prompt an Article III dispute, which is
4
an approach to standing the Supreme Court decisively has rejected. See DaimlerChrysler Corp.
5
6 v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006); Kleppe, 533 F.2d at 672. 5
7 The State next claims that the mission of various state universities and their
8 attractiveness to international students may be damage[d] because some students and faculty
9
members may be prevented from attending the universities or from travelling abroad for research.
10
Pl.s Supp. Br. at 3. This argument fails for two reasons. First, most (if not all) of the students
11
and faculty members the State identifies are not actually prohibited from entering the United
12
13 States, and others alleged difficulties are hypothetical or speculative. 6 That is particularly true
14 given the waiver authority granted to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State under the
15 Executive Order when entry of an alien would be in the national interest. See Executive Order
16
3(g), 5(e). And second, even if the State could piggyback on these individuals to establish an
17
injury to the State itself, the States assertions of injury are too abstract. See Whitmore v.
18
Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). Vague allegations about the universities reputations and
19
20 ability to attract students are not sufficiently concrete to show standing. The States reliance on
21 Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995), see Pl.s Supp. Br. at 3 n.3,
22 is inapposite. The schools injury in that case was that it had been terminated from the
23
24 5
City of Sausalito v. ONeill, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004), see Pl.s Supp. Br. at 2, is not to the contrary. In that
case, there was a direct link between the challenged construction project and the alleged injury to the adjacent Citys
25 natural resources, aesthetic, and economy. See ONeill, 386 F.3d at 1199.
26 6
See, e.g., Second Riedinger Decl. 3-7, ECF No. 17-2 (allegations about lawful permanent residents, who are
not impacted by the Executive Order); Boesenberg Decl. 6, ECF No. 17-3 (same); Second Riedinger Decl. 8
27 (asserting that certain countries may ban . . . U.S. travelers in response to the Executive Order); Second Chaudhry
Decl. 8, ECF No. 17-4 (alleging one faculty member may not be able to return to the university at a future date).
28

1 defendants loan guarantee program, id. at 1483, not that its reputation or attractiveness to
2 students had been incidentally diminished by some action that did not directly affect the school.
3
Additionally, the State asserts that it expects the Executive Order will have effects on
4
its agency recruitment efforts and its child welfare system. Pl.s Supp. Br. at 3 n.4. But the State
5
6 concedes that it cannot identify any State agency employees that are currently affected by the
7 Executive Order, see Schumacher Decl. 7, ECF No. 17-5, nor any specific and actual impact
8 on its child welfare system, see Strus Decl., ECF No. 17-6. Speculation about possible future
9
events does not constitute an injury in fact. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 158.
10
Finally, the State cites no case recognizing the standing of a state government to bring an
11
Establishment Clause challenge, and it is not clear how a state can suffer spiritual or
12
13 psychological harm or have religious beliefs that can be stigmatized. Catholic League for
14 Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2010).
15 B. The State Cannot Bring a Parens Patriae Action Here
16
The State cannot convert its political dispute with the Federal Government into a legal
17
claim through the vehicle of a parens patriae suit brought on behalf of its residents. The Supreme
18
Court made clear more than eighty years ago that a state cannot bring a parens patriae action
19
20 against federal defendants. See Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. at 485-86. In dismissing an
21 action brought by Massachusetts to exempt its citizens from a federal statute designed to protect
22 the health of mothers and infants, the Court explained that the citizens of a state are also citizens
23
of the United States, and therefore [i]t cannot be conceded that a state, as parens patriae, may
24
institute judicial proceedings to protect citizens of the United States from the operation of the
25
26 statutes thereof. Id. at 479, 485. [I]t is no part of [a states] duty or power to enforce [its
27
28

1 citizens] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government; it is the United States,
2 and not the state, which represents [its citizens] as parens patriae. Id. at 485-86. 7
3
Contrary to the States assertion, the special solicitude for states referred to in
4
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007), did not eradicate[] the bar on parens patriae
5
6 actions against the Federal Government, Pl.s Supp. Br. at 4 n.5. Indeed, Massachusetts
7 recognized that Mellon prohibits allowing a state to protect her citizens from the operation
8 of federal statutes. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 520 n.17; see also Del. Dept of Nat. Res. &
9
Envtl. Control v. FERC, 558 F.3d 575, 579 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Massachusetts does not
10
eliminate the state [plaintiffs] obligation to establish a concrete injury, as Justice Stevens
11
opinion amply indicates). The special solicitude afforded in Massachusetts was based on the
12
13 unique circumstances of that case, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dept of Interior, 563
14 F.3d 466, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2009), wherein Massachusetts sought to assert its own rights to ensure
15 the protection of the land and air within its sovereign territory, which was protected by a special
16
procedural right. 549 U.S. at 519-20; see id. at 522-23 (explaining that Massachusetts owns
17
a substantial portion of the states coastal property that was harmed by EPAs inaction). Here,
18
the States interest in protecting its territorial sovereignty is not at issue, and the State has
19
20 identified no other injury to any legally protected rights. Moreover, Congress has not created
21 any protection for states against the incidental impacts asserted by the State here. 8 Because a
22
23 7
The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied this principle since Mellon to dismiss actions brought by a state as
parens patriae against federal defendants. See Florida, 273 U.S. at 18 (relying on Mellon to dismiss Floridas
24 challenge to a federal inheritance tax based on alleged injury to its citizens); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S.
301, 324 (1966) (concluding South Carolina lacked standing as parens patriae to invoke the Due Process Clause or
25 the Bill of Attainder Clause against the Federal Government); see also Snapp, 458 U.S. at 610 n.16 (A State does
not have standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government.).
26
8
The generic cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702, is no substitute for the
27 necessary conditions for standing in Massachusetts. See Pl.s Supp. Br. at 4 n.5. It would have made little sense for
the Supreme Court to attach critical importance to Congresss creation of a particular procedural right,
28 Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 516, if the APA already made that right available generally. The States reliance on the

1 state cannot bring a parens patriae suit against federal defendants, the State lacks standing and
2 thus the Court should deny the States motion for lack of jurisdiction.
3
II. THE STATE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE IT IS LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS
4
The State falls far short of carrying its heavy burden to demonstrate that it is likely to
5
6 prevail on the merits of its facial challenge by establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exist
7 under which the [Executive Order] would be valid. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745. To the contrary,
8 the Executive Order fits within the express delegation of authority in Section 212(f). The States
9
constitutional and statutory claims additionally fail pursuant to their individual elements.
10
A. The Executive Order Is a Valid Exercise of Congress Broad Delegation of
11
Authority to the President, and His Own Constitutional Powers
12
13 The Executive Order was issued pursuant to Congress broad delegation of authority to
14 the President to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or
15 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
16
8 U.S.C. 1182(f). The express delegation from Congress, coupled with the Presidents own
17
Article II powers over foreign affairs and national security, mean that the Presidents authority
18
is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can
19
20 delegate. Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2083-84 (2015) (quoting
21 Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring)).

22 Indeed, in the immigration context specifically, [t]he Supreme Court has long
23
recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised
24
by the Governments political departments largely immune from judicial control. Cardenas v.
25
26 United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792
27
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, also is unavailing, as that statute only provides a cause
28 of action for persons that exercise religion.

1 (1977)). Congress has plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude
2 those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden. Cardenas, 826 F.3d at
3
1169 (quoting Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769 (1972)). When Congress delegates this
4
plenary power to the Executive, the Executives decisions are likewise generally shielded from
5
6 administrative or judicial review. Cardenas, 826 F.3d at 1169. And [i]n the exercise of its
7 broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be
8 unacceptable if applied to citizens. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79-80 (1976). 9
9
Here, the Presidents Executive Order falls squarely within the express delegation of
10
power granted him under Section 212(f) of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). [T]hat
11
statute specifically grants the President, where it is in the national interest to do so, the extreme
12
13 power to prevent the entry of any alien or groups of aliens into this country as well as the lesser
14 power to grant entry to such person or persons with any restriction on their entry as he may deem
15 to be appropriate. Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744 n.9 (9th Cir. 1980); Haitian
16
Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1507 (11th Cir. 1992) (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) clearly
17
grants the President broad discretionary authority to control the entry of aliens into the United
18
States.). 10
19
20 Presidents, moreover, repeatedly have exercised authority under Section 212(f) to
21 suspend entry of certain aliens or classes of aliens, and at least twice have drawn distinctions
22
23
9
As an example of the judicial deference in this area, under the long-established doctrine of consular non-
24 reviewability, a non-resident alien outside the United States has no right to judicial review of a consular officers
denial of a visa. See Capistrano v. Dept of State, 267 F. Appx 593, 594 (9th Cir. 2008) (The doctrine of consular
25 nonreviewability predates the founding of our Republic and prevents [courts] from reviewing decisions reached
by consular officials regarding the entry of visa applicants.).
26
10
In several other statutory provisions, Congress delegated authority to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and
27 State to, in their sole discretion, revoke visas or visa petitions. See 8 U.S.C. 1155, 1201(i); see also Bernardo ex
rel. M & K Engg, Inc. v. Johnson, 814 F.3d 481, 484 (1st Cir. 2016) (describing the unreviewability of such
28 revocations).

1 based on nationality. See Background, Section II.A. For example, in 1986, the President invoked
2 Section 212(f) to suspend entry of Cuban nationals as immigrants into the United States, and in
3
1996, the President did something similar for Sudanese government officials. And with respect
4
to Executive Order 12,807which, among other things, suspended entry of undocumented aliens
5
6 by seathe Supreme Court found [i]t is perfectly clear that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) . . . grants the
7 President ample power to establish a naval blockade that would simply deny illegal Haitian
8 migrants the ability to disembark on our shores. Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S.
9
155, 164 n.13, 187 (1993) (emphasis added). There can be little doubt, therefore, that 8 U.S.C.
10
1182(f) authorizes the President to suspend the entry of classes of immigrants on the basis of
11
nationality where, as here, the President has determined that their entry would be detrimental to
12
13 the interests of the United States. And it is thus untenable for the State to contend that, for
14 countries that present a national-security risk to the United Statesas judged by Congress, the
15 State Department, and DHSthe President lacks the authority to pause the entry of aliens from
16
those countries.
17
Indeed, courts repeatedly have confirmed that [d]istinctions on the basis of nationality
18
may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the Executive. Narenji v. Civiletti,
19
20 617 F.2d 745, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1979). In view of the Supreme Courts repeated emphasis on the
21 concurrent nature of executive and legislative power in this area and the sweeping congressional
22 delegations of discretionary authority to the Executive under the INA, there is little question that
23
the Executive has the power to draw distinctions among aliens on the basis of nationality. Jean
24
v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 978 n.30 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc), affd, 472 U.S. 846 (1985).
25
26 [C]lassifications on the basis of nationality are frequently unavoidable in immigration matters,
27
28

1 including because the very concept of alien is a nationality-based classification. Rajah v.

2 Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 435 (2d Cir. 2008).
3
Despite this wealth of authority, the State asserts that the Presidents authority under
4
Section 212(f) is limited by 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), another provision of the INA stating that,
5
6 with certain exceptions, 11 no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated
7 against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons race, sex, nationality, place
8 of birth, or place of residence. See TRO Mot. at 19-21. The State is wrong. First, as an initial
9
matter, this provisions reach is limited to only the issuance of an immigrant visameaning
10
that it does not apply to nonimmigrant visas or to refugees (who generally do not enter the United
11
States with a visa), and also expressly does not extend to procedures for processing visa
12
13 applications. Indeed, 1152(a)(1)(B) clarifies that subsection (A) is not to be construed to limit
14 the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant
15 visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed. This clarification
16
suggests that the Executive Order, in part or in whole, may not be covered by the restrictions of
17
subsection (A) because the Executive Order governs the procedures for pausing then resuming
18
visa applications. See, e.g., Executive Order 3(a), 5(a). Moreover, this provision does not
19
20 purport to prohibit preference, priority, or discrimination on the basis of religion, so it would
21 provide no benefit to the State here under one of the States theories of the case. See TRO Mot.
22 at 10 (There is little doubt that the Executive Order is prompted by animus to those of the Islamic
23
faith[.]). By the statutes plain terms, then, the provision could have only limited application to
24
the States claims here.
25
26
27
11
These exceptions include most family-based, employment-based, and special immigrant visa categories. 8 U.S.C.
28 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1152(b), 1153.

1 More fundamentally, however, the State misreads 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) as

2 constraining the broad delegation of authority to the President in Section 212(f) of the Act. [I]t
3
is a well established axiom of statutory construction that, whenever possible, a court should
4
interpret two seemingly inconsistent statutes to avoid a potential conflict. California ex rel.
5
6 Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000).
7 Likewise, it is a well established canon of statutory interpretation . . . that the specific governs
8 the general. RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2070-71 (2012).
9
In light of these principles, Section 212(f) is easily reconciled with 1152(a)(1)(A): the
10
latter sets forth the general default rule that applies in the absence of action by the President,
11
whereas Section 212(f) governs the specific instance in which the President proclaims that entry
12
13 of a class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Here, as the
14 challenged Executive Order involves detrimental findings, Section 212(f) controls. That is
15 precisely why (as discussed above) prior Presidents have drawn nationality-based distinctions
16
when exercising their authority under Section 212(f). And it is likewise why the 2015
17
Amendment to the INA, as implemented by the Executive Branch over the past year, has drawn
18
the exact same nationality-based distinctions as the Executive Order. Indeed, under the States
19
20 view, the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United
21 States is at war. The INA plainly does not require that result.
22 The placement of the anti-discrimination rule within Section 1152 further indicates that
23
the rule is not intended to curb the Presidents authority under Section 212(f) to suspend or
24
impose restrictions upon entry. Section 1152 generally establishes a uniform annual numerical
25
26 limit on immigrant visas for nationals of each foreign country. Had Congress intended to enact
27 a general bar against nationality-based distinctions, it would have enacted such a bar as a general
28

1 provision of the INA, rather than as a subpart of a subsection speaking to the implementation of
2 nationality-based numerical limitations for the issuance of immigrant visas.
3
Finally, the State mischaracterizes the Executive Order as tak[ing] us back to a period
4
in our history when distinctions based on national origin were accepted . . . rather than outlawed.
5
6 TRO Mot. at 20. As an initial matter, the State repeatedly characterizes the Executive Order as
7 discriminating on the basis of national origin. See TRO Mot. at 1, 6. But the Executive Order
8 does not distinguish on the basis of national origin insofar as that term implicates ethnic heritage;
9
rather, discrimination on the basis of nationality implicates whether a person ow[es] permanent
10
allegiance to a state. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) (defining national).
11
In any event, in 2015, Congress amended the INA to single out nationals of Iraq, Syria,
12
13 and other to-be-designated countries for exclusion from the Visa Waiver Program. See
14 Background, Section II.B. It is that same group of countries that is covered by Section 3(c) of
15 the Executive Order, which expressly cross-references 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). And Section 5(c)
16
of the Executive Order applies to nationals of Syria, one of the countries Congress expressly
17
identified. Accordingly, the President has joined with Congress in selecting the seven countries
18
whose nationals warrant different treatment on the basis of national security and foreign policy
19
20 concerns.
21 B. This Court Cannot, and Need Not, Review the Presidents National Security
22 Determinations Underlying the Executive Order
23
The State asks this Court to not only disregard case law, Congress express delegation of
24
authority to the President, and the Presidents own Article II powers, but indeed, to substitute the
25
26 Courts own judgment regarding what is in the national security and foreign policy interests of
27 the United States. See, e.g., TRO Mot. at 8. This Court should soundly reject that invitation, for
28

1 as courts repeatedly have recognized, these areas are within the exclusive domain of the political
2 branches of our government.
3
As a statutory matter, Section 212(f), by its plain terms, vests complete discretion in the
4
President to determine whether the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United
5
6 States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, for the period as he shall deem
7 necessary, and to impose such conditions of entry as he may deem appropriate. 8 U.S.C.
8 1182(f). The statute does not require the President to state any basis for such a finding, nor does
9
it require ratification of such a finding by any other entity. Instead, it reflects Congress
10
considered judgment that these determinations should be vested exclusively in the President.
11
Critically, the State cites no instance where any court has reviewed presidential findings
12
13 under Section 212(f) regarding what is detrimental to the interests of the United States, nor does
14 the State explain how such an inquiry would be judicially manageable. To the contrary, one
15 court analyzing a presidential exercise of authority under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) concluded that
16
because exercise of this discretion is not limited to circumstances defined in the statute, but
17
rather is geared to Executive find[ings] and what is deem[ed] necessary or appropriate, the
18
statute provides no discernable standards by which this court can review the challenged actions
19
20 under the APA. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 789 F. Supp. 1552, 1575-76 (S.D. Fla.
21 1991); see also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 594, 600-01 (1988) (holding that similar statutory
22 language vested the Director of Central Intelligence with complete discretion over employee
23
discharges, and thus judicial review was precluded).
24
The State here asks the Court to evaluate whether the Presidents Executive Order
25
26 achieves its stated purposes. See TRO Mot. at 9 (arguing that the Executive Order is unlawful
27 because there is no fit between the rationales advanced to support the Executive Order and the
28

1 means used to further those rationales). But that would require the Court inappropriately to
2 second-guess the underlying finding that Congress has tasked the President with making, and
3
which lies at the heartland of his constitutional authority regarding foreign affairs, national
4
security, and immigration. See Mandel, 408 U.S. at 765 ([T]he power to exclude aliens is
5
6 inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending
7 the country against foreign encroachments and dangers[.]); see also, e.g., Harisiades v.
8 Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) ([A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately
9
interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war
10
power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government.); Knauff, 338 U.S. at 542;
11
Mow Sun Wong, 626 F.2d at 743. It is thus well-established that courts cannot evaluate the
12
13 Presidents national security and foreign affairs judgments, especially in the immigration context.
14 See Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543 ([I]t is not within the province of any court, unless expressly
15 authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to
16
exclude a given alien.); INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999) ([J]udicial deference
17
to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context where officials
18
exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.);
19
20 see also Dept of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1988); Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc.
21 v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2007).

22 It is simply not possible for the Court here to evaluate the Presidents Executive Order
23
without passing judgment on the Presidents national security and foreign affairs determinations.
24
See, e.g., TRO Mot. at 11 (arguing that the Executive Order is unlawful because there is no basis
25
26 to conclude that existing screening procedures are uniquely failing as to individuals from the
27 listed countries or as to refugees). The Constitution vests the President with the duty of
28

1 protecting our Nations security, and Congress has specifically empowered the President to
2 suspend the entry of categories of aliens if he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the
3
national interest. There is accordingly no basis for the Judiciary to second-guess the Presidents
4
determinations in that regard. See Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Dept of Treasury, 686
5
6 F.3d 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating that the court owe[s] unique deference to the executive
7 branchs determination that we face an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
8 of the United States (quoting an Executive Order)); Harisiades, 342 U.S. at 597 (Frankfurter,
9
J., concurring) (noting that immigration policies have sometimes been departures . . . from the
10
best traditions of this country and may be deemed to offend American traditions, but the
11
place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court).
12
13 Finally, the State also argues that the Presidents stated rationale under Section 212(f)
14 was pretextual and, instead, that the Executive Order was prompted by animus to those of the
15 Islamic faith. TRO Mot. at 10. But any such inquiry would be directly contrary to the Supreme
16
Courts decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 US. 753 (1972), which held that when the
17
Executive exercises its delegated plenary power over immigration on the basis of a facially
18
legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that
19
20 discretion[.] Id. at 770. Here, the Executive Order undeniably states a facially legitimate and
21 bona fide reasonprotecting against terrorismwhich is sufficient to end the matter. Cf. Kerry
22 v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that Mandels reasoning
23
has particular force in the area of national security). Accordingly, the States references to
24
statements outside the four corners of the Executive Order are not legally pertinent. The State,
25
26 moreover, creates a constitutional separation-of-powers problembetween the Judiciary and the
27 President, and between a state and the Federal Governmentto the extent that this Court is being
28

1 urged to allow the State to use Article III judicial process to attempt to divine the Presidents
2 purported subjective motives in issuing the Executive Order. 12 The State cites no precedent for
3
such an inquiry by the Judiciary of the President. Cf. United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367,
4
383-84 (1968) (holding that an inquiry into the subjective motives of members of Congress is a
5
6 hazardous matter and that courts will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on
7 the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive).
8 C. The States Facial Constitutional Challenges Fail

9
Aside from its statutory argument under the INA, the State contends that the Executive
10
Order is facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendments equal protection and procedural
11
due process doctrines, and under the First Amendments Establishment Clause. TRO Mot. at 5-
12
13 19. These claims fail for reasons in addition to those discussed above.
14 1. An overarching and insurmountable hurdle for the States claims of facial

15 unconstitutionality is that the State has the burden to show there is no constitutionally valid
16
application of the Executive Order. See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745; United States v. Mujahid, 799
17
F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 2015). That showing is improbableindeed, impossiblebecause it
18
is clear that valid applications exist, at an absolute minimum as to unadmitted and nonresident
19
20 aliens. See Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762 (It is clear that Mandel personally, as an unadmitted and
21 nonresident alien, had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or

22 otherwise.); Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 32 (This Court has long held that an alien seeking initial
23
admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his
24
application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.); United States
25
26
12
In addition, it is well-settled that courts have no jurisdiction to enjoin the President in the performance of his
27 official duties. Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1866). Accordingly, the President cannot be the subject
of any injunctive order. Id.; see Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 826 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in part
28 and concurring in judgment).

1 v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990) ([W]e have rejected the claim that aliens are
2 entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States.). The
3
State does not dispute that the Executive Order is constitutional as applied to this category of
4
unadmitted and nonresident aliens who have no constitutional right to entry. Whatever claims
5
6 may exist in hypothetical individual cases, therefore, are irrelevant because the State mustbut
7 cannotdemonstrate that all (or even most) applications of the Executive Order are
8 unconstitutional. 13
9
The States arguments rest heavily on the Executive Orders purported application to
10
lawful permanent residents. See, e.g., TRO Mot. at 1 (contending that the Executive Order
11
block[s] longtime legal permanent residents from returning to this country). But as is now
12
13 clear, the Executive Order does not apply to such individuals. See Feb. 1, 2017 Memorandum
14 (Exhibit A).
15 2. A further problem with the States equal protection and procedural due process claims
16
is that they both arise under the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause, but the State is ineligible
17
to assert a Fifth Amendment claim. The Fifth Amendment provides that [n]o person shall . . .
18
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V.
19
20 The word person in the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment cannot . . .
21 be expanded to encompass the States of the Union, and to our knowledge this has never been
22 done by any court. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at 323-24; see also Premo v. Martin, 119 F.3d 764,
23
771 (9th Cir. 1997) (Because the State is not a person for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment,
24
the States reliance on the Due Process Clause was misplaced.). Nor does a State have standing
25
26 as the parent of its citizens to invoke these constitutional provisions against the Federal
27
13
With respect to hypothetical individual cases that may arise, the Executive Order contains an overarching
28 direction that [t]his order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law. Executive Order 11(b).

1 Government, the ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. at
2 324. This defect is also fatal to the States equal protection and due process claims.
3
3. The States claim under the Establishment Clausewhich is limited to Section 5(b)
4
of the Executive Orderis likewise meritless. See TRO Mot. at 12. The State argues that
5
6 Section 5(b) discriminates based on religion, because it give[s] preference to Christian refugees
7 while disadvantaging Muslim refugees. TRO Mot. at 7. That is wrong. Notably, Section 5(b)
8 does not take effect for at least 120 days (i.e., Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions),
9
and thus the State cannot yet know how it will be implemented. The States Establishment Clause
10
claim therefore is not ripe. See Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Assn, 606 F.3d 1174, 1179 (9th
11
Cir. 2010) (A question is fit for decision when it can be decided without considering contingent
12
13 future events that may or may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.). 14
14 Even if the claim were ripe, moreover, Section 5(b) is lawful. That Section applies to all
15 USRAP admissionsnot just admissions for nationals of the seven countries of concernso it
16
does not exclusively tilt the scales in favor of Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims.
17
TRO Mot. at 12. Moreover, Section 5(b) merely provides an accommodation to minority
18
religions within each country participating in the refugee program. That accommodation makes
19
20 eminent sense, because members of minority religions are more likely to face persecution. Such
21 accommodations do not violate the Establishment Clause. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709,
22 713 (2005) ([T]here is room for play in the joints between the Free Exercise and Establishment
23
24
25 14
There is also an interim provision, Section 5(e), which authorizes the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security
to admit refugees on a case-by-case basis, with one factor (of several) being religious persecution as a minority
26 religion. The State does not mention this interim provision in its TRO motion, but its proposed order seeks to enjoin
this section to the extent Section 5(e) purports to prioritize only the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.
27 ECF No. 3-1 at 3, 1(e). Obviously Section 5(e) does not prioritize only claims of religious minorities because that
is only one of several factors expressly listed, and thus, the State does not appear to be meaningfully challenging
28 this provision.

1 Clauses, allowing the government to accommodate religion beyond free exercise requirements,
2 without offense to the Establishment Clause.). Because Section 5(b) is both lawful and not yet
3
subject to challenge, therefore, the State has failed to justify any relieflet alone emergency
4
reliefwith respect to this provision.
5
6 III. THE STATE HAS MADE NO SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE HARM
7 The States motion for a temporary restraining order also should be denied because the
8 State has not demonstrate[d] that it will be immediate[ly] and irreparabl[y] harmed by the
9
Executive Order if this case proceeds in the normal course. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v.
10
Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). The State speculates that its residents might be
11
harmed by the Executive Order, see Pl.s TRO Mot. at 22, but to obtain a temporary restraining
12
13 order, the State must demonstrate irreparable harm to itself, not merely to third parties. Phany
14 Poeng v. United States, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2001); see, e.g., Adams v. Freedom
15 Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 487 (3d Cir. 2000) ([T]he preliminary injunction device should not
16
be exercised unless the moving party shows that it specifically and personally risks irreparable
17
harm.). Because the State has identified no injury to itselfmuch less a likely, immediate, and
18
irreparable injuryit has not met its burden.
19
20 Even if the Court could consider purported harms to non-parties, moreover, the State does
21 no more than speculate that amorphous harms may occur at some point in time to unspecified
22 individuals. The State claims that some workers and students may be harmed economically or
23
psychologically because they will not be able to travel overseas for work or school, and that
24
businesses recruitment efforts may be hampered because they may not be able to hire certain
25
26 aliens. See TRO Mot. at 21. This sort of generalized speculation is a far cry from the concrete
27 evidence of likely immediate and irreparable harm that is necessary to obtain a temporary
28

1 restraining order. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674; cf. Oregon v.
2 Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that the Supreme Court has
3
disapproved of considering abstract questions of wide public significance amounting to
4
generalized grievances).
5
6 The States arguments also fail to acknowledge the limited timeframe relevant to
7 consideration of their request for a temporary restraining order. To obtain such relief, the State
8 must show that irreparable harm will occur in the time prior to a hearing on the preliminary
9
injunction motion. Cf. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers,
10
415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (Ex parte temporary restraining orders . . . should be restricted to
11
serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm
12
13 just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.). Here, even assuming the States
14 harms are both cognizable and irreparable (and they are not), those harms will be suffered over
15 the long-term; there is no showing that harm is imminent within the next days or even weeks.
16
Finally, the restrictions on entry in Sections 3(c) and 5(a) of the Executive Order are both
17
subject to exceptions to be applied by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security on a case-
18
by-case basis. See Executive Order 3(g), 5(e). Therefore, none of the purported harms the
19
20 State identifies will occur unless a particular individual falls within the terms of the Executive
21 Order and cannot obtain an exception under these case-by-case provisions. Because of the
22 availability of this case-by-case review, any allegations of harm to third parties are not irreparable
23
at this time. Cf. Leidseplein Presse, B.V. v. Does, No. C16-5065 (BHS), 2016 WL 337267, at *1
24
(W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2016) (denying temporary restraining order based on lack of irreparable
25
26 harm, because Plaintiff has failed to show that other means of preventing the alleged [harm] are
27
28

1 either unavailable or unavailing and Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence describing efforts
2 made to explore other available means of preventing the alleged harm).
3
IV. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST MANDATE AGAINST A
4
5
6 The State has not demonstrated that any harm to it (and there is none) outweighs the harm
7 that a temporary restraining order would cause the Federal Government, or that an injunction is
8 in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. These two factors merge where, as here, the
9
Federal Government is the opposing party. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). Courts
10
have accorded great weight to considerations of foreign policy and national security when
11
balancing the interests and equities of the parties. Natl Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Pena, 972 F.
12
13 Supp. 9, 20 (D.D.C. 1997); see Winter, 555 U.S. at 24; Comm. for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc.
14 v. Seaborg, 463 F.2d 796, 798 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (Because of assertions of potential harm to
15 national security and foreign policyassertions which [the court] obviously can not appraise
16
and given the meager state of the record before us, we are constrained to refuse an injunction.).
17
Moreover, in assessing the public interest, a court must heed the judgment of Congress,
18
deliberately expressed in legislation, and the balance that Congress has struck. United States
19
20 v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 497 (2001).
21 These final elements weigh heavily in favor of the Federal Government. The State asks
22 the Court to enjoin an Executive Order that suspends the entry of certain aliens into the United
23
States based on the Presidents determination that failing to do so would be detrimental to the
24
interests of the United States, including its national security. The State of Washington disagrees
25
26 with the Presidents determination and believes the Executive Order will harm the interests of
27 residents in that state. The Constitution, however, commits decision-making in the fields of
28

1 foreign policy and national security . . . to the political branches of government, Schneider v.
2 Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 2005), not to the states. And in 8 U.S.C. 1182(f),
3
Congress expressly authorized the President to do what he has done here based upon a finding,
4
which the President has made here, that the entry . . . of any class of aliens into the United States
5
6 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. It undoubtedly would be contrary to
7 the public interest for this Court to ignore Congresss judgment that the President should make
8 such determinations, to second-guess the Presidents determination, or to override the Presidents

9
determination based on purported interests of a single state. See, e.g., Adams, 570 F.2d at 954
10
(vacating preliminary injunction that directed action by the Secretary of State in foreign affairs,
11
which deeply intrude[d] into the core concerns of the executive branch).
12
13 Finally, even if the State satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order, this
14 Court still would retain its equitable discretioni.e., the discretion to refrain from issuing relief
15 that would interfere in the Executive Branchs foreign affairs and national security activities. In
16
an analogous situation, the D.C. Circuit held it would be an abuse of discretion for a court to
17
enter equitable relief against one of the Presidents foreign affairs policies: At least where the
18
authority for our interjection into so sensitive a foreign affairs matter as this are statutes no more
19
20 specifically addressed to such concerns than the Alien Tort Statute and the APA, we think it
21 would be an abuse of our discretion to provide discretionary relief. Sanchez-Espinoza v.

22 Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Similarly here, the Court should not intrude upon
23
the Presidents efforts to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm
24
Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism. Executive Order 1.
25
26
27
28

1 V. ANY RELIEF ENTERED MUST BE LIMITED IN SCOPE TO THE PLAINTIFF STATE AND TO
2 THE SPECIFIC HARM FOUND
3
Even if the Court were to conclude that the State has satisfied the requirements for a
4
temporary restraining order with respect to some or all of its claims, the Court should not enter
5
6 the nationwide injunction the State seeks. TRO Mot. at 23; see Pl.s Proposed TRO, ECF No.
7 3-1, at 3. [A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored to affect only those persons over which it
8 has power, and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than to enjoin
9
all possible breaches of the law. Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).
10
Thus, courts routinely deny requests for nationwide injunctive relief. See Dept of Def. v.
11
Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993) (staying nationwide injunction insofar as it grants relief to
12
13 persons other than named plaintiff); Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105 (9th
14 Cir. 2012) (affirming district courts refusal to grant nationwide relief).

15 CONCLUSION
16
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should deny the State of Washingtons motion
17
for a temporary restraining order.
18
DATED: February 2, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
19
20 CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
21
JOSEPH H. HUNT
22 Director, Federal Programs Branch
23
JOHN R. TYLER
24 Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
25 /s/ Michelle R. Bennett
26 MICHELLE R. BENNETT
ERIC SOSKIN
27 DANIEL SCHWEI
ARJUN GARG
28

1 Trial Attorneys
4 Tel: (202) 305-8902
Fax: (202) 616-8470
6 arjun.garg@usdoj.gov
7 Attorneys for Defendants
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
I hereby certify that on February 2, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Opposition
3
4 to Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order using the Courts CM/ECF system,
5 causing a notice of filing to be served upon all counsel of record.

6
7 Dated: February 2, 2017 /s/ Michelle R. Bennett
MICHELLE R. BENNETT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Exhibit A
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
RESPONSE, by Defendants John F. Kelly, Tom Shannon, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department
// PAGE 38
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Judge James L. Robart. (AD) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
// PAGE 8

Washington v. Trump - Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Washington v. Trump - Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 14

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 6 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 7 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

26 each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

COMPLAINT 8 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

16 each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

18 government from officially preferring one religion over another.

23 I Clause of the First Amendment.

24 52. Defendants' violation causes ongoing harm to Washington residents.

25 VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

COMPLAINT 9 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

15 each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

16 59. The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), prohibits

18 birth, or place of residence.

22 Immigration and Nationality Act.

23 61. Defendants' violation causes ongoing harm to Washington residents.

24 IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

COMPLAINT 10 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

COMPLAINT 11 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

15 each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

22 Procedure Act before taking action impacting these substantive rights.

25 78. Defendants' violation causes ongoing harm to Washington residents.

COMPLAINT 12 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

4 each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

6 action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute.

11 applied provisions arbitrarily, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

12 83. Defendants' violation causes ongoing harm to Washington residents.

13 XIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14 84. Wherefore, the State of Washington prays that the Court:

16 unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United

18 b. Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a)-

20 borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas, pending further

21 orders from this Court;

22 C. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), set an expedited

23 hearing within fourteen (14) days to determine whether the Temporary

24 Restraining Order should be extended; and

25 d. Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

13 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

1 DATED this 30th day of January, 2017.

5 ob Ferguson, WSBA #26004

COMPLAINT 14 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

INSTAGRAM FACEBOOK TWITTER

NE WS G E T IN V O L V ED GALLERY ABOUT US SHOP CO N TRI BU T E

- DECEMBER 07, 2015 - CATEGORIES

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON VIEW ALL

Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Contact The Campaign - Privacy Policy - Tel: 646-736-1779

Donald Trump says he is

Editor's note: This story is from 2015.

Local Politics Alerts

Stephanopoulos responded: "You want to bring back policies like that?"

Read Donald Trump's Speech on the Orlando Shooting

Trump Pushes Muslim Ban After Orlando Shooting

Read Donald Trump's Speech on the Orlando Shooting

Here is a full transcript of his remarks, as given.

http://time.com/4367120/orlando-shooting-donald-trump-transcript/[1/29/2017 7:56:40 PM]

http://time.com/4367120/orlando-shooting-donald-trump-transcript/[1/29/2017 7:56:40 PM]