You're viewing Docket Item 64 from the case State of Hawaii v. Trump. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:






DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465)
Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i
CLYDE J. WADSWORTH (Bar No. 8495)
Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i
DEIRDRE MARIE-IHA (Bar No. 7923)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 586-1500
Fax: (808) 586-1239
Email: [email protected]
NEAL K. KATYAL*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email:
[email protected]

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice


Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh

(See Next Page For Additional Counsel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I


STATE OF HAWAI‘I and fpjAfi
bipefheI

mlaintiffsI

vK

alkAia gK qorjmI in his official capacity
as mresident of the rnited ptates; rKpK
abmAoqjbkq lc eljbiAka
pbCrofqv; glek cK hbiivI in his official
capacity as pecretary of eomeland pecurity;
rKpK abmAoqjbkq lc pqAqb; obu
qfiiboplkI in his official capacity as
pecretary of ptate; and the rkfqba pqAqbp
lc AjbofCAI

aefendantsK

Civil Action koK NWNTJcvJMMMRMJ
ahtJhgj


pbClka Ajbkaba
CljmiAfkq clo
abCiAoAqlov Aka
fkgrkCqfsb obifbc









































































































































ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

DONNA H. KALAMA (Bar No. 6051)
KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY (Bar No. 7813)
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI (Bar No. 6743)
Deputy Attorneys General
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I
QOR nueen ptreet
eonoluluI ef VSUNP
qelephoneW EUMUF RUSJNRMM
caxW EUMUF RUSJNOPV

Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i
Cliibbk ole pfkwaAhG
MfTCebii m. obfCeG
bifwABbTe eAdboTvG
eldAk ilsbiip rp iim
RRR Thirteenth ptreet kt
tashingtonI aC OMMM4
Telephone: EOMO) SPT-RSMM
cax: EOMO) SPT-R9NM

TelMAp m. pCeMfaTG
eldAk ilsbiip rp iim
UTR Third Avenue
kew vorkI kv NMMOO
Telephone: EONO) 9NU-PMMM
cax: EONO) 9NU-PNMM

pAoA pliltG
AibuAkabo B. BltboMAkG
eldAk ilsbiip rp iim
NUPR Market pt.I O9th cloor
mhiladelphiaI mA N9NMP
Telephone: EOST) STR-4SMM
cax: EOST) STR-4SMN

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh


1
INTRODUCTION
1. The State of Hawai‘i (the “State”) brings this action to protect its
residents, its employers, its educational institutions, and its sovereignty against
illegal actions of President Donald J. Trump and the federal government,
specifically: President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order, “Protecting the
Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Executive
Order”).1 Plaintiff Ismail Elshikh, PhD, the Imam of the Muslim Association of
Hawai‘i, joins the State in its challenge because the Executive Order inflicts a
grave injury on Muslims in Hawai‘i, including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and
members of his Mosque.
2. President Trump’s original Executive Order dated January 27, 2017
blocked the entry into the United States, including Hawai‘i, of any person from
seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and
Yemen.2 His new Executive Order also blocks the entry into the United States,
including Hawai‘i, of nationals from six of the same countries—all except for
Iraq—as long as those individuals do not have a valid U.S. visa as of the effective
date of the Executive Order, or did not have one as of 5:00 p.m. EST on January 27,
2017. In other words, the Executive Order means that no prospective visa holder
from the six designated countries will be able to enter the United States. This
second Executive Order is infected with the same legal problems as the first
Order—undermining bedrock constitutional and statutory guarantees.
3. The Executive Order means that thousands of individuals across the
United States and in Hawai‘i who have immediate family members living in the
1 As of this filing, President Trump’s March 6, 2017 has not yet been published in
the Federal Register. A copy of the Executive Order published on the White
House website is attached as Exhibit 1, and is available at https://goo.gl/rnecqx.
2 See Executive Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017). A copy of
the first Executive Order is attached as Exhibit 2.

2
affected countries will now be unable to receive visits from those persons or to be
reunited with them in the United States. It means that universities, employers, and
other institutions throughout the United States and in Hawai‘i will be unable to
recruit or to welcome qualified individuals from the six designated countries. It
threatens certain non-citizens within the United States and in Hawai‘i with the
possibility that they will be unable to travel abroad and return—for instance,
because their visa only permits them one entry, or because their visa will have
expired during the time the Executive Order is still in place.
4. President Trump’s Executive Order is subjecting a portion of
Hawaii’s population, including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his
Mosque, to discrimination and second-class treatment, in violation of both the
Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Order denies them
their right to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion
and national origin. And it results in their having to live in a country and in a State
where there is the perception that the Government has established a disfavored
religion.
5. The Executive Order bars students, tourists, family members, and
other visitors from the State on grounds that Congress and the Constitution have
expressly prohibited. It is damaging Hawaii’s institutions, harming its economy,
and eroding Hawaii’s sovereign interests in maintaining the separation between
church and state as well as in welcoming persons from all nations around the world
into the fabric of its society.
6. Plaintiffs accordingly seek an Order invalidating the portions of
President Trump’s Executive Order challenged here.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has Federal Question Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because this action arises under the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative

3
Procedure Act (“APA”), the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and other
Federal statutes.
8. The Court is authorized to award the requested declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
and (e)(1). A substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this
District, and each Defendant is an officer of the United States sued in his official
capacity.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiffs are the State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh, PhD.
11. Hawai‘i is the nation’s most ethnically diverse State, and is home to
more than 250,000 foreign-born residents. More than 100,000 of Hawaii’s
foreign-born residents are non-citizens.3
12. Estimates from the Fiscal Policy Institute show that as of 2010,
Hawai‘i had the fifth-highest percentage of foreign-born workers of any State (20%
of the labor force). And 22.5% of Hawai‘i business owners were foreign-born.4
13. Thousands of people living in Hawai‘i obtain lawful permanent
resident status each year, including over 6,500 in 2015.5 That includes numerous
3 United States Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates, available at https://goo.gl/IGwJyf. A collection of the relevant data for
Hawai‘i is attached as Exhibit 3.
4 The Fiscal Policy Institute, Immigrant Small Business Owners, at 24 (June 2012),
available at https://goo.gl/vyNK9W.
5 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Lawful Permanent Residents
Supplemental Table 1: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by
State or Territory of Residence and Region and Country of Birth Fiscal Year 2015,
available at https://goo.gl/ELYIkn. Copies of these tables for fiscal years 2005
through 2015 are attached as Exhibit 4.

4
individuals from the seven countries designated in the original Executive Order.
According to DHS statistics, over 100 Hawai‘i residents from Iran, Iraq, and Syria
have obtained lawful permanent resident status since 2004 (DHS has withheld data
pertaining to additional residents from the seven designated countries).6
14. Hawai‘i is also home to 12,000 foreign students.7 That includes
numerous individuals from the seven originally-designated countries. At the
University of Hawai‘i, there are at least 27 graduate students from the seven
countries studying pursuant to valid visas issued by the U.S. government.
15. In 2016, Hawaii’s foreign students contributed over $400 million to
Hawaii’s economy through the payment of tuition and fees, living expenses, and
other activities. These foreign students supported 7,590 jobs and generated more
than $43 million in state tax revenues.8
16. In 2009, foreign residents (i.e., non-citizens who had not obtained
lawful permanent resident status) made up 42.9% of doctorate students, and 27.7%
of master’s students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(“STEM”) programs in Hawai‘i.9
17. Hawaii’s educational institutions have diverse faculties. At the
University of Hawai‘i, there are approximately 477 international faculty members
legally present in the United States. There are at least 10 faculty members at the
University who are lawful permanent residents from one of the seven designated
6 See Exhibit 4.
7 Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, The
Economic Impact of International Students in Hawaii – 2016 Update, at 8 (June
2016), available at https://goo.gl/mogNMA.
8 The Economic Impact of International Students in Hawaii – 2016 Update, supra,
at 10-11.
9 U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al., Help Wanted: The Role of Foreign Workers in
the Innovation Economy, at 21 (2013), available at https://goo.gl/c3BYBu.

5
countries in the original Executive Order, and 30 visiting faculty members with
valid visas who are from one of the seven designated countries.
18. Tourism is Hawaii’s “lead economic driver.”10 In 2015 alone,
Hawai‘i welcomed 8.7 million visitors accounting for $15 billion in spending.11
19. Hawai‘i is home to several airports, including Honolulu International
Airport and Kona International Airport.
20. David Yutaka Ige is the Governor of Hawai‘i, the chief executive
officer of the State of Hawai‘i. The Governor is responsible for overseeing the
operations of the state government, protecting the welfare of Hawaii’s citizens, and
ensuring that the laws of the State are faithfully executed.
21. Douglas S. Chin is the Attorney General of Hawai‘i, the chief legal
officer of the State. The Attorney General is charged with representing the State in
Federal Court on matters of public concern.
22. The Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i provides that “[n]o law shall
be enacted respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” Haw. Const. art. I, § 4. And the State has declared that the practice of
discrimination “because of race, color, religion, age, sex, including gender identity
or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or
disability” is against public policy. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 381-1; accord id. §§
489-3 & 515-3.
23. The State has an interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare
of its residents and in safeguarding its ability to enforce state law. The State also
has an interest in “assuring that the benefits of the federal system,” including the
10 Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, 2016 Annual Report to the Hawai‘i State
Legislature, at 20, available at https://goo.gl/T8uiWW.
11 Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, 2015 Annual Visitor Research Report, at 2,
available at https://goo.gl/u3RQmX. A copy of the table of contents and executive
summary of this report is attached as Exhibit 5.

6
rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution and Federal
statutes, “are not denied to its general population.” Alfred L. Snapp & Sons, Inc. v.
Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592, 608 (1982). The State’s interests extend to all of the
State’s residents, including individuals who suffer indirect injuries and members of
the general public.
24. Plaintiff Ismail Elshikh, PhD, is an American citizen of Egyptian
descent. He has been a resident of Hawai‘i for over a decade.
25. Dr. Elshikh is the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawai‘i. He is
a leader within Hawaii’s Islamic community.
26. Dr. Elshikh’s wife is of Syrian descent and is also a resident of
Hawai‘i.
27. Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law is a Syrian national, living in Syria. Dr.
Elshikh’s wife filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her mother in
September 2015. The I-130 Petition was approved in February 2016. Dr.
Elshikh’s mother-in-law does not currently hold a visa to enter the United States.
28. Dr. Elshikh and his wife have five children. They are all American
citizens and residents of Hawai‘i.
29. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He
issued both the original January 27, 2017 Executive Order, as well as the new
March 6, 2017 Executive Order that is the subject of this Complaint.
30. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a
federal cabinet agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Executive Order that is the
subject of this Complaint. DHS is a Department of the Executive Branch of the
United States Government, and is an agency within the meaning of 5. U.S.C. §
552(f). United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an Operational
and Support Component agency within DHS, and is responsible for detaining and

7
removing non-citizens from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen who
arrive at air, land, and sea ports across the United States, including Honolulu
International Airport and Kona International Airport.
31. Defendant John F. Kelly is the Secretary of Homeland Security. He is
responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA and the Executive Order that
is the subject of this Complaint, and he oversees CBP. He is sued in his official
capacity.
32. Defendant U.S. Department of State is a federal cabinet agency
responsible for implementing the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and the
Executive Order that is the subject of this Complaint. The Department of State is a
department of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, and is an
agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
33. Defendant Rex Tillerson is the Secretary of State. He oversees the
Department of State’s implementation of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
and the Executive Order that is the subject of this Complaint. The Secretary of
State has authority to determine and implement certain visa procedures for non-
citizens. Secretary Tillerson is sued in his official capacity.
34. Defendant United States of America includes all government agencies
and departments responsible for the implementation of the INA, and for detention
and removal of non-citizens from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen
who arrive at air, land, and sea ports across the United States, including Honolulu
International Airport and Kona International Airport.
ALLEGATIONS
A. President Trump’s Campaign Promises.
35. President Trump repeatedly campaigned on the promise that he would
ban Muslim immigrants and refugees from entering the United States, particularly
from Syria, and maintained the same rhetoric after he was elected.

8
36. On July 11, 2015, Mr. Trump claimed (falsely) that Christian refugees
from Syria are blocked from entering the United States. In a speech in Las Vegas,
Mr. Trump said, “If you’re from Syria and you’re a Christian, you cannot come
into this country, and they’re the ones that are being decimated. If you are
Islamic . . . it’s hard to believe, you can come in so easily.”12
37. On September 30, 2015, while speaking in New Hampshire about the
10,000 Syrian refugees the Obama Administration had accepted for 2016, Mr.
Trump said “if I win, they’re going back!” He said “they could be ISIS,” and
referred to Syrian refugees as a “200,000-man army.”13
38. On December 7, 2015, shortly after the terror attacks in Paris, Mr.
Trump issued a press release entitled: “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing
Muslim Immigration.”14 The press release stated: “Donald J. Trump is calling for
a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States . . . .” The
release asserted that “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of
the Muslim population.” The press release remains accessible on
www.donaldjtrump.com as of this filing.
39. The next day, when questioned about the proposed “shutdown,” Mr.
Trump compared his proposal to President Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of
Japanese Americans during World War II, saying, “[Roosevelt] did the same
12 Louis Jacobson, Donald Trump says if you’re from Syria and a Christian, you
can’t come to the U.S. as a refugee, Politifact (July 20, 2015 10:00 AM ET),
https://goo.gl/fucYZP.
13 Ali Vitali, Donald Trump in New Hampshire: Syrian Refugees Are ‘Going Back,
NBC News (Oct. 1, 2015, 7:33 AM ET), https://goo.gl/4XSeGX.
14 Press Release, Donald J. Trump for President, Donald J. Trump Statement on
Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 2015), available at https://goo.gl/D3OdJJ.
A copy of this press release is attached as Exhibit 6.

9
thing.”15 When asked what the customs process would look like for a Muslim non-
citizen attempting to enter the United States, Mr. Trump said, “[T]hey would say,
are you Muslim?” The interviewer responded: “And if they said ‘yes,’ they would
not be allowed into the country.” Mr. Trump said: “That’s correct.”16
40. During a Republican primary debate in January 2016, Mr. Trump was
asked about how his “comments about banning Muslims from entering the country
created a firestorm,” and whether he wanted to “rethink this position.” He said,
“No.”17
41. A few months later, in March 2016, Mr. Trump said, during an
interview, “I think Islam hates us.” Mr. Trump was asked, “Is there a war between
the West and radical Islam, or between the West and Islam itself?” He replied:
“It’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who.”18
42. Later, as the presumptive Republican nominee, Mr. Trump began
using facially neutral language, at times, to describe the Muslim ban. Following
the mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub in June 2016, Mr. Trump gave a speech
promising to “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.” But he continued to link that idea to the
need to stop “importing radical Islamic terrorism to the West through a failed
15 Jenna Johnson, Donald Trump says he is not bothered by comparisons to Hitler,
The Washington Post (Dec. 8, 2015), https://goo.gl/6G0oH7.
16 Nick Gass, Trump not bothered by comparisons to Hitler, Politico (Dec. 8, 2015
7:51 AM ET), https://goo.gl/IkBzPO.
17 The American Presidency Project, Presidential Candidates Debates: Republican
Candidates Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina (January 14, 2016),
https://goo.gl/se0aCX.
18 Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees: Exclusive Interview With Donald Trump (CNN
television broadcast Mar. 9, 2016, 8:00 PM ET), transcript available at
https://goo.gl/y7s2kQ.

10
immigration system.” He said that “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 he criticized
Hillary Clinton for, as he described it, “her refusal to say the words ‘radical Islam,’”
stating: “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.” Mr. Trump further stated that the Obama administration had “put
political correctness above common sense,” but said that he “refuse[d] to be
politically correct.”
43. Mr. Trump’s June 2016 speech also covered refugees. He said that
“[e]ach 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.”19 He issued a press release
stating: “We have to stop the tremendous flow of Syrian refugees into the United
States.”20
44. Later, on July 24, 2016, Mr. Trump was asked: “The Muslim ban. I
think you’ve pulled back from it, but you tell me.” Mr. Trump responded: “I 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
19 Ryan Teague Beckwith, Read Donald Trump’s Speech on the Orlando Shooting,
Time (June 13, 2016, 4:36 PM ET), https://goo.gl/kgHKrb.
20 Press Release, Donald J. Trump for President, Donald J. Trump Addresses
Terrorism, Immigration, and National Security (June 13, 2016), available at
https://goo.gl/GcrFhw.

11
the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking
territory instead of Muslim.”21
45. During an October 9, 2016 Presidential Debate, Mr. Trump was asked:
“Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position.
Is that correct? And if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?” Mr. Trump
replied: “The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a[n
extreme vetting from certain areas of the world.” When asked to clarify whether
“the Muslim ban still stands,” Mr. Trump said, “It’s called extreme vetting.”22
46. Then, on December 21, 2016, following terror attacks in Berlin, Mr.
Trump was asked whether he had decided “to rethink or re-evaluate [his plans to
create a Muslim registry or ban Muslim immigration to the United States.” Mr.
Trump replied: “You know my plans. All along, I’ve been proven to be right.”23
B. President Trump’s First Executive Order.
47. Within a week of being sworn in, President Trump acted upon his
ominous campaign promises to restrict Muslim immigration, curb refugee
admissions, and prioritize non-Muslim refugees.
48. In an interview on January 25, 2017, Mr. Trump discussed his plans to
implement “extreme vetting” of people seeking entry into the United States. He
remarked: “[N]o, it’s not the Muslim ban. But it’s countries that have tremendous
terror. . . . [I]t’s countries that people are going to come in and cause us
tremendous problems.”24
21 Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast July 24, 2016), transcript available at
https://goo.gl/jHc6aU. A copy of this transcript is attached as Exhibit 7.
22 The American Presidency Project, Presidential Debates: Presidential Debate at
Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri (Oct. 9, 2016), https://goo.gl/iIzf0A.
23 President-Elect Trump Remarks in Palm Beach, Florida, C-SPAN (Dec. 21,
2016), https://goo.gl/JlMCst.
24 Transcript: ABC News Anchor David Muir Interviews President Trump, ABC
News (Jan. 25, 2017, 10:25 PM ET), https://goo.gl/NUzSpq.

12
49. Two days later, on January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an
Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into
the United States.”
50. The first Executive Order was issued without a notice and comment
period and without interagency review. Moreover, the first Executive Order was
issued with little explanation of how it could further its stated objective.
51. When signing the first Executive Order, President Trump read the title,
looked up, and said: “We all know what that means.”25 President Trump said he
was “establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of
the United States of America,” and that: “We don’t want them here.”26
52. Section 3 of the first Executive Order was entitled “Suspension of
Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of
Particular Concern.” Section 3(c) “suspend[ed entry into the United States, as
immigrants and nonimmigrants” of persons from countries referred to in Section
217(a)(12) of the INA [8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12)
,
t
h
a
t
i
s
:
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The majority of the population in each of these seven
countries is Muslim.
53. According to one report, not a single fatal terrorist attack has been
perpetrated in the United States by a national of one of these seven countries since
at least 1975.27 Other countries whose nationals have perpetrated fatal terrorist
25 Trump Signs Executive Orders at Pentagon, ABC News (Jan. 27, 2017),
https://goo.gl/7Jzird.
26 Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Trump signs order limiting refugee entry, says he will
prioritize Christian refugees, The Washington Post (Jan. 27, 2017),
https://goo.gl/WF2hmS.
27 Alex Nowrasteh, Little National Security Benefit to Trump’s Executive Order on
Immigration, Cato Institute Blog (Jan. 25, 2017, 3:31 PM ET),
https://goo.gl/BCv6rQ.

13
attacks in the United States are not part of either the original or the revised
immigration ban.28
54. Section 3(c) of the first Executive Order meant that Lawful Permanent
Residents, foreign students enrolled in U.S. universities (including in Hawai‘i),
individuals employed in the United States on temporary work visas, and others
were to be halted at the border if they arrived in the United States (in Hawai‘i or
elsewhere) from one of the seven designated countries, including if the individual
left the country and tried to return. Section 3(g) of the first Executive Order
allowed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to make exceptions when
they determined that doing so was “in the national interest.”
55. The first Executive Order also provided for an expansion of its
immigration ban to nationals from additional countries in the future. Section 3(d)
directed the Secretary of State to (within about 30 days) “request [that] all foreign
governments” provide the United States with information to determine whether a
person is a security threat. Section 3(e) directed the Secretaries of Homeland
Security and State to “submit to the President a list of countries recommended for
inclusion” in the ban from among any countries that did not provide the
information requested. Section 3(f) of the first Executive Order gave the
Secretaries of State and Homeland Security further authority to “submit to the
President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment”
in the future.
56. Section 5 of the first Executive Order was entitled “Realignment of
the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.” Section 5(a)
directed the Secretary of State to “suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) for 120 days.” Section 5(e) permitted the Secretaries of State and
28 Scott Schane, Immigration Ban Is Unlikely to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts
Say, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2017), https://goo.gl/MBvOTk.

14
Homeland Security to admit individuals as refugees on a case-by-case basis, but
only if they determined that admission of the refugee was in the “national interest,”
including “when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality
facing religious persecution.”
57. Section 5(b) directed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security,
“[u]pon resumption of USRAP admissions,” 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.”
In Section 5(c), President Trump “proclaim[ed that the entry of nationals of Syria
as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend[ed
any such entry” indefinitely.
58. In a January 27, 2017 interview with Christian Broadcasting Network,
President Trump said that persecuted Christians would be given priority under the
first Executive Order. He said (once again, falsely): “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.”29
59. The day after signing the first Executive Order, President Trump’s
advisor, Rudolph Giuliani, explained on television how the Executive Order came
to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He

29 Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be
Given Priority as Refugees, Christian Broadcasting Network (Jan. 27, 2017),
https://goo.gl/2GLB5q.

15
called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do
it legally.’”30
60. The President and his spokespersons defended the rushed nature of
their issuance of the first Executive Order on January 27, 2017, by saying that their
urgency was imperative to stop the inflow of dangerous persons to the United
States. On January 30, 2017, President Trump tweeted: “If the ban were
announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during
that week.”31 In a forum on January 30, 2017 at George Washington University,
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said: “At the end of the day, what was the
other option? To rush it out quickly, telegraph it five days so that people could
rush into this country and undermine the safety of our nation?”32 On February 9,
2017, President Trump claimed he had sought a one-month delay between signing
and implementation, but was told by his advisors that “you can’t do that because
then people are gonna pour in before the toughness.”33
61. On February 24, 2017, a draft report published by the Department of
Homeland Security—and obtained by the Associated Press—concluded that
citizenship was an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats against the United
States. The draft report also found that very few persons from the seven countries
included in President Trump’s first Executive Order had carried out or attempted to
30 Amy B. Wang, Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says – and ordered a
commission to do it ‘legally’, The Washington Post (Jan. 29, 2017),
https://goo.gl/Xog80h. A copy of this article is attached as Exhibit 8.
31 See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Jan. 30, 2017, 5:31 AM
ET), https://goo.gl/FAEDTd.
32 See Videotape: WATCH: White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer joins forum
at George Washington University to discuss the Trump Administration’s “war”
with the media and the access journalists should have covering the White House, at
1:00, Fox 5 DC (Jan. 30, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/cpNUjT.
33 Kevin Liptak, Trump: I wanted month delay before travel ban, was told no,
CNN Politics (Feb. 9, 2017, 6:31 AM ET), https://goo.gl/EOez3k.

16
carry out terrorism activities in the United States since 2011. Specifically, the
DHS report determined that 82 people were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to
carry out or attempt to carry out an attack in the United States. Half were U.S.
citizens born in the United States, and the remaining persons were from 26
countries—with the most individuals originating from Pakistan, followed by
Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Of the seven countries
originally included in the travel ban, only Somalia and Iraq were identified as
being among the “top” countries-of-origin for the terrorists analyzed in the report.34
The draft report related that three offenders (in the time period covered) had been
from Somalia, two were from Iraq, one was from Iran, Sudan, and Yemen, and
none were from Syria or Libya.35 The draft report also found that terrorist groups
in three of the original seven countries posed a threat to the United States (Iraq,
Yemen, and Syria), while groups in the other four named countries in the original
Executive Order were regionally focused.36
C. Implementation and Judicial Enjoinment of the First Executive Order.
62. Upon the issuance of the first Executive Order, Defendants began
detaining people at U.S. airports who, but for the first Executive Order, were
34 Vivian Salama & Alicia A. Caldwell, AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat
from banned nations, Associated Press (Feb. 24, 2017), https://goo.gl/91to90. A
copy of the Associated Press article is attached as Exhibit 9. A copy of the draft
DHS report is available at https://goo.gl/0yfXpZ and attached as Exhibit 10. A
final version of the report, entitled Intelligence Assessment: Most Foreign-born,
US-based Violent Extremists Radicalized after Entering Homeland; Opportunities
for Tailored CVE Programs Exist, was later obtained by CNN, and is attached as
Exhibit 11. See Tammy Kupperman, DHS assessment: Individuals radicalized
once in US, CNN Politics (Mar. 4, 2017, 3:02 PM ET), https://goo.gl/Q6OVTd.
35 Phil Helsel, DHS Draft Report Casts Doubt on Extra Threat from ‘Travel Ban’
Nationals in U.S., NBC News (Feb. 24, 2017, 9:26 PM ET), https://goo.gl/gDHq6i.
A copy of this NBC News article is attached as Exhibit 12.
36 Id.

17
legally entitled to enter the United States. Some were also removed from the
United States. Estimates indicate that over 100 people were detained upon arrival
at U.S. airports.37
63. Among others, Defendants detained and/or removed:
a. Lawful permanent residents, including dozens at Dulles
International Airport in Virginia,38 and others at Los Angeles
International Airport who were pressured to sign Form I-407 to
relinquish their green cards;39
b. People with special immigrant visas, including an Iraqi national
at John F. Kennedy International Airport who worked as an
interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq;40
c. A doctor at the Cleveland Clinic with a valid work visa who
was trying to return home from vacation;41
d. People with valid visas to visit family in the United States,
including a Syrian woman sent to Saudi Arabia after being
convinced by officials at O’Hare International Airport to sign
paperwork cancelling her visa.42
37 Michael D. Shear et al., Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos
and Outcry Worldwide, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2017), https://goo.gl/OrUJEr.
38 See, e.g., Petition ¶ 2, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017).
39 Leslie Berestein Rojas et al., LAX immigration agents asks detainees to sign
away their legal residency status, attorneys say, Southern California Public Radio
News (Jan. 30, 2017), https://goo.gl/v6JoUC; Brenda Gazzar & Cynthia Washicko,
Thousands protest Trump’s immigration order at LAX, Los Angeles Daily News
(Jan. 29, 2017), https://goo.gl/1vA37M.
40 See, e.g., Petition 2, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28,
2017).
41 Jane Morice, Two Cleveland Clinic doctors vacationing in Iran detained in New
York, then released, Cleveland.com (Jan. 29, 2017), https://goo.gl/f0EGV3.
42 John Rogers, Longtime US residents, aspiring citizens caught up in ban,
StarTribune (Jan. 30, 2017, 1:45 AM ET), https://goo.gl/eEPAuE.

18
64. People overseas were blocked from boarding flights to the United
States or told they could no longer come here. The State Department released
information verifying that 60,000 visas were revoked between January 27, 2017,
when the first Executive Order was signed, and February 3, 2017.43
65. Confusion, backlash, and habeas corpus litigation arose in the wake of
the first Executive Order, including with regard to whether it applied to lawful
permanent residents. Within the first 72 hours that the first Executive Order was in
effect, Defendants reportedly changed their minds three times about whether it
did.44
66. Hundreds of State Department officials signed a memorandum
circulated through the State Department’s “Dissent Channel” stating that the
Executive Order “runs counter to core American values” including
“nondiscrimination,” and that “[d]espite the Executive Order’s focus on them, a
vanishingly small number of terror attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by
foreign nationals” here on visas.45
67. Likewise, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
stated: “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not
want Muslims coming into our country.”46
43 Adam Kelsey et al., 60,000 Visas Revoked Since Immigration Executive Order
Signed: State Department, ABC News (Feb. 3, 2017, 6:32 PM ET),
https://goo.gl/JwPDEa.
44 Evan Perez et al., Inside the confusion of the Trump executive order and travel
ban, CNN Politics (Jan. 30, 2017 11:29 AM ET), https://goo.gl/Z3kYEC.
45 Jeffrey Gettleman, State Department Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws
1,000 Signatures, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2017), https://goo.gl/svRdIw. A copy of
the Dissent Channel memorandum is attached as Exhibit 13.
46 Press Release, Senator John McCain, Statement By Senators McCain & Graham
On Executive Order On Immigration (Jan. 29, 2017), available at
https://goo.gl/EvHvmc.

19
68. DHS Secretary Kelly issued a press release on Sunday, January 29,
2017, stating that: “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 significant 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.”47
69. Secretary Kelly’s statement thus indicated that the first Executive
Order did apply to lawful permanent residents from the designated countries, and
only the Secretary’s determination under Section 3(g) that admission of lawful
permanent residents, absent certain information reviewed on a case-by-case basis,
is in the national interest, allows them to enter.
70. Then, on February 1, 2017, White House Counsel Donald McGahn
issued a Memorandum taking yet another position on green-card holders, now
purporting to “clarify” that such persons were never covered by Sections 3 and 5 of
the first Executive Order.
71. On February 3, 2017, the District Court for the Western District of
Washington entered a temporary restraining order, enjoining President Trump and
his Administration from enforcing the first Executive Order. On February 9, 2017,
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion denying the
Government’s emergency motion for a stay of the District Court’s order. On
February 16, 2017, the Government filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit advising the
court that “the President intends in the near future to rescind the [first Executive
Order and replace it with a new, substantially revised Executive Order”;
accordingly, the Government requested that the court “hold its consideration of the

47 Press Release, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Statement By Secretary
John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States
(Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/6krafi.

20
case until the President issues the new Order and then vacate the panel’s
preliminary decision.”48 On February 24, 2017, the Government filed another
motion requesting that the Ninth Circuit hold its proceedings in abeyance. On
February 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit panel denied the motion to hold appellate
proceedings in abeyance and set forth a new briefing schedule. Under that
schedule, the Government’s opening brief is due March 10, 2017.
D. President Trump’s New Executive Order.
72. On March 6, 2017—a full month after the District Court for the
Western District of Washington enjoined the first Executive Order—President
Trump issued the new Executive Order that is the subject of this Complaint. The
new Order is entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States.”
73. Also on March 6, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security
published a “Q&A” document with answers to thirty-seven questions about the
new Executive Order.49
74. For several weeks before its release, members of the Administration
had foreshadowed the arrival of the revised Executive Order.
a. On February 21, Senior Advisor to the President, Stephen
Miller, told Fox News that the new travel ban would have the
same effect as the old one. He said: “Fundamentally, you’re
still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the
country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very
technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will
48 Appellants’ Supplemental Brief On En Banc Consideration at 4, Washington v.
Trump, No. 17-35105 (Feb. 16, 2017), ECF No. 154.
49 See Department of Homeland Security, Q&A: Protecting the Nation from
Foreign Terrorist Entry to the United States (March 6, 2017, 11:30 AM ET),
https://goo.gl/zFtFg8. A copy of this Q&A document is attached as Exhibit 14.

21
be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those
basic policies are still going to be in effect.”50
b. The White House originally indicated it would sign the new
Executive Order on Wednesday, March 1, 2017, but then
postponed the announcement. One Administration official told
a news outlet on February 28 that a reason for President
Trump’s delay in signing an updated Executive Order was “the
busy news cycle,” and the desire of the President that the new
order “get plenty of attention.”51
c. A senior Administration official told a different news outlet on
March 1, 2017, that a related reason for the delay in releasing
the updated Executive Order was the “positive reaction” to
President Trump’s “first address to Congress” on the evening of
Tuesday, February 28, 2017. That article reported that
“[s]igning the executive order Wednesday, as originally
indicated by the White House, would have undercut the
favorable coverage,” and the senior Administration official
“didn’t deny the positive reception was part of the
[Administration’s calculus in pushing back the travel ban
announcement.”52
50 Miller: New order will be responsive to the judicial ruling; Rep. Ron DeSantis:
Congress has gotten off to a slow start (Fox News television broadcast Feb. 21,
2017), transcript available at https://goo.gl/wcHvHH.
51 Shane Goldmacher & Nahal Toosi, Trump delays signing new travel ban order,
officials say, Politico (Feb. 28, 2017, 11:51 PM ET), https://goo.gl/5UJIFz.
52 Laura Jarrett et al., Trump delays new travel ban after well-reviewed speech,
CNN Politics (Mar. 1, 2017, 6:01 AM ET), https://goo.gl/McqMm5.

22
75. Section 1 of the new Executive Order states that its purpose is to
“protect [the United States’] citizens from terrorist attacks, including those
committed by foreign nationals.” Section 1(h) identifies two concrete examples of
persons who have committed terrorism-related crimes in the United States, after
either entering the country “legally on visas” or entering “as refugees”: “In
January 2013, two Iraqi nationals admitted to the United States as refugees in 2009
were sentenced to 40 years and to life in prison, respectively, for multiple
terrorism-related offenses. And in October 2014, a native of Somalia who had
been brought to the United States as a child refugee and later became a naturalized
United States citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a
weapon of mass destruction[.]” Iraq is no longer included in the ambit of the travel
ban.
76. Section 2(c) of the new Executive Order suspends the “entry into the
United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen”—six
of the seven countries that were designated in the first Order, with Iraq now
omitted—for a period of “90 days from the effective date of this order.”
77. Section 3 provides for various “exceptions” and potential “waivers” to
Section 2’s travel ban. Under Section 3(a), “the suspension of entry pursuant to
section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated
countries who: (i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order;
(ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 27,
2017; and (iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order.” See
Executive Order § 3(a)(i)-(iii).
78. Section 3(b) lists categorical “exceptions” from Section 2: lawful
permanent residents; foreign nationals who are admitted or paroled into the United
States “on or after the effective date of this order”; foreign nationals with “a
document other than a visa . . . that permits him or her to travel to the United States

23
and seek entry or admission, such as an advance parole document”; dual nationals
traveling on passports issued by a non-designated country; foreign nationals
traveling on certain diplomatic visas; and foreign nationals who have been granted
asylum as well as refugees who have been admitted to the United States. Id. at
§ 3(b)(i)-(iv).
79. Section 3(c) provides that “a consular officer, or as appropriate, the
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) . . . may, in the
consular officer’s or the CBP official’s discretion, decide on a case-by-case basis
to authorize the issuance of a visa to, or to permit the entry of, a foreign national
for whom entry is otherwise suspended” if he or she determines that “denying
entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship . . . [and the
individual’s] entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the
national interest.” Id. § 3(c).
80. Like the first Executive Order, the new Executive Order provides for
an expansion of its immigration ban to nationals from additional countries in the
future. Section 2(a) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretary of State as well as the Director of National Intelligence, to
“conduct a worldwide review to identify whether, and if so what, additional
information will be needed from each foreign country to adjudicate an application
by a national of that country for a visa, admission, or other benefit under the
INA . . . to determine that the individual is not a security or public safety threat.”
Id. § 2(a). Those officials are instructed to submit a report on “the results of the
worldwide review” to the President, as well as “a list of countries that do not
provide adequate information,” within 20 days of the effective date of the
Executive Order. Id. § 2(b). The Secretary of State shall then “request that all
foreign governments that do not supply [the necessary
in
fo
rm
at
i
o
n
re
g
ar
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
nationals begin providing it within 50 days of notification.” Id. § 2(d). After that

24
50-day period, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Attorney General, “shall submit to the President a list of
countries recommended for inclusion” in the travel ban. Id. § 2(e). Those officials
are also authorized to “submit to the President,” at “any point after the submission
of the list” of countries recommended for inclusion, “the names of additional
countries recommended for similar treatment.” Id. § 2(f).
81. Section 6 of the Executive Order suspends the “travel” of all refugees
to the United States for a period of 120 days, and suspends all “decisions” by the
Secretary of Homeland Security on applications for refugee status for 120 days. Id.
§ 6(a). After those 120 days are over, “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
resume making decisions on applications for refugee status only for stateless
persons and nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly
determined” that “additional procedures”—identified by those officials as being
necessary “to ensure that individuals seeking admission as refugees do not pose a
threat” to the United States—have been “implemented” and “are adequate to
ensure the security and welfare of the United States.” Id. § 6(a).
82. Under Section 14, the revised Executive Order takes effect on March
16, 2017.
83. In the Department of Homeland Security’s Q&A document about the
Executive Order, DHS relates that nationals from one of the six designated
countries who are presently in the United States, and “in possession of a valid
single entry visa,” will have to obtain “a valid visa or other document permitting
[them] to travel to and seek admission to the United States” in order to leave and
obtain “subsequent entry to the United States.”53
53 See Exhibit 14, at Q4.

25
84. In the Department of Homeland Security’s Q&A document about the
Executive Order, DHS also relates that international students, exchange visitors
and their dependents from the six designated countries—who are in the United
States presently but whose visas “expire[] while the Executive Order is in place”—
will have to “obtain a new, valid visa to return to the United States” if they have to
“depart the country.”54
E. Effects of the New Executive Order on Individual Plaintiff Dr. Elshikh.
85. The new Executive Order will prevent Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law
from obtaining a visa to visit or reunite with her family in Hawai‘i. That is so even
though Dr. Elshikh, his wife, and their children are all American citizens, and even
though Dr. Elshikh’s wife’s I-130 Petition was granted.
86. Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law last visited the family in 2005, when she
stayed for one month. She has not met two of Dr. Elshikh’s children, and only Dr.
Elshikh’s oldest child remembers meeting her grandmother.
87. On January 31, 2017—after the first Executive Order was put in
place—Dr. Elshikh was notified by an individual from the National Visa Center
that his mother-in-law’s application for an immigrant visa had been put on hold.
Then, on March 2, 2017—after the first Executive Order was enjoined—Dr.
Elshikh and his family were notified by the National Visa Center that his mother-
in-law’s visa application had progressed to the next stage of the process and that
her interview would be scheduled at an embassy overseas. Under the new
Executive Order, however, Dr. Elshikh fears that his mother-in-law will, once
again, be unable to “enter” the country under Section 2(c) of the Executive Order.
The family is devastated.
54 See id. at Q25.

26
88. Dr. Elshikh’s children, all twelve years of age or younger, are deeply
affected by the new Executive Order. It conveys to them a message that their own
country would discriminate against individuals who share their ethnicity, including
members of their own family, and who hold the same religious beliefs.
89. Members of Dr. Elshikh’s Mosque are also affected by the new
Executive Order. Muslims in the Hawai‘i Islamic community feel that the new
Executive Order targets Muslim citizens because of their religious views and
national origin. Dr. Elshikh believes that, as a result of the new Executive Order,
he and members of the Mosque will not be able to associate as freely with those of
other faiths.
90. Dr. Elshikh feels that, as a result of the new Executive Order, there is
now a favored and disfavored religion in Hawai‘i and the United States, i.e., that a
religion has been established.
91. Many members of Dr. Elshikh’s Mosque have family and friends
living in the countries listed in the new Executive Order. Because of the new
Executive Order, they live in forced separation from those family and friends.
F. Effects of the New Executive Order on Plaintiff State of Hawai‘i.
92. The new Executive Order also has profound effects on the State as a
whole. It prevents nationals of the six designated countries from relocating to, or
even visiting, Hawai‘i for educational, family, religious, or business reasons.
93. Hawai‘i currently has 27 graduate students, 10 permanent faculty
members, and 30 visiting faculty members from the seven countries originally
designated in the first Executive Order. This demonstrates the extent to which the
University of Hawai‘i draws on talent from around the world, including from
Muslim-majority countries, to enrich its student body and educational environment.
In the wake of the new Executive Order, Hawai‘i will no longer be able to recruit,

27
accept, enroll, or welcome similar individuals from the six countries designated in
the new Executive Order.
94. The University of Hawai‘i and other state learning institutions depend
on the collaborative exchange of ideas, including among people of different
religions and national backgrounds. For this reason, the University of Hawai‘i has
study abroad or exchange programs in over thirty countries, and international
agreements for faculty collaboration with over 350 international institutions
spanning forty different countries. The new Executive Order threatens such
educational collaboration and harms the ability of the University of Hawai‘i to
fulfill its educational mission.
95. Hawai‘i is also home to numerous non-citizens from the six
designated countries—foreign students, persons on exchange, visitors, and
temporary workers—whose lives may be directly affected by the new Executive
Order. Some of these non-citizens may be unable to travel abroad to their home
countries, for fear that they will be unable to return—for instance, if they have only
a single entry visa, or if their visa will expire while the new Executive Order is in
place.
96. In addition, the new Executive Order blocks all of Hawaii’s
residents—including U.S. citizens—from receiving visits from, and/or reunifying
with, their family members who live in these six designated countries. In 2016,
approximately 8% of Hawaii’s visitors (in total) came to visit family and friends,
and approximately 12% of Hawaii’s visitors from the areas of the globe including
the Middle East and Africa came to visit family and friends. Under the new
Executive Order, these individuals, to the extent that they live in the six designated
countries, will no longer be able to travel to Hawai‘i to visit family and friends.
97. More broadly, the new Executive Order means that Hawai‘i will be
unable to honor the commitments to nondiscrimination and diversity embodied in

28
the State’s Constitution, laws, and policies. For example, state agencies and
universities cannot accept qualified applicants for open positions if they are
residents of one of the six designated countries. This contravenes policies at the
State’s universities and agencies that are designed to promote diversity and recruit
talent from abroad.55
98. Given that the new Executive Order began life as a “Muslim ban,” its
implementation also means that the State will be forced to tolerate a policy that
disfavors one religion and violates the Establishment Clauses of both the federal
and state constitutions.
99. Beyond these severe intangible harms, the new Executive Order has a
detrimental effect on Hawaii’s economy as a whole. It is not only governmental
entities that are barred from recruiting and/or hiring workers from the six
designated countries. Private employers within the State are similarly burdened.
100. Further, both the first Executive Order and the new Executive Order
have the effect of depressing international travel to and tourism in Hawai‘i. Under
the new Executive Order, Hawai‘i can no longer welcome tourists from the six
designated countries. This directly harms Hawaii’s businesses and, in turn, the
State’s revenue. In 2015 alone, Hawai‘i welcomed over 6,800 visitors from the
Middle East and over 2,000 visitors from Africa. Data from Hawaii’s Tourism
Authority suggests that even during the short period of time that the first Executive
Order was in place, the number of visitors to Hawai‘i from the Middle East
55 See, e.g., State of Hawai‘i, Department of Human Resources Development,
Policy No. 601.001: Discrimination / Harassment-Free Workplace Policy (revised
Nov. 16, 2016), available at https://goo.gl/7q6yzJ; University of Hawai‘i, M?noa,
Policy M1.100: Non-Discrimination and Affirmative Action Policy, available at
https://goo.gl/6YqVl8 (last visited Mar. 7, 2017 8:27 PM ET); see also, e.g.,
Campus Life: Diversity, University of Hawai‘i, M?noa, https://goo.gl/3nF5C9 (last
visited Mar. 7, 2017 8:27 PM ET).

29
(including Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen) fell—namely, Hawai‘i had 278 visitors
from the Middle East in January 2017, compared to 348 visitors from that same
region in January 2016. This depressed effect on travel and tourism from the
Middle East and Africa is likely to continue under the new Executive Order.
101. According to reports from travel companies and research firms, travel
to the United States more broadly “took a nosedive” following President Trump’s
issuance of the first Executive Order.56 For instance, an airfare prediction company
found that flight search demand from 122 countries to the United States dropped
17% between January 26 and February 1, after the first Executive Order was
signed.57
102. Even with respect to countries not currently targeted by the new
Executive Order, there is a likely “chilling effect” on tourism to the United States,
including Hawai‘i. The new Executive Order contemplates an expansion of the
immigration ban and in fact authorizes the Secretaries of State and Homeland
Security to recommend additional countries for inclusion in the near future. This
likely instills fear and a disinclination to travel to the United States among
foreigners in other countries that President Trump has been hostile towards—i.e.,
residents of other Muslims countries, China, and Mexico. The new Executive
Order gives rise to a global perception that the United States is an exclusionary
country, and it dampens the appetite for international travel here generally.
103. A decrease in national and international tourism would have a severe
impact on Hawaii’s economy.
104. The new Executive Order also hinders the efforts of the State and its
residents to resettle and assist refugees. Refugees from numerous countries have

56 Shivani Vora, After Travel Ban, Interest in Trips to U.S. Declines, N.Y. Times
(Feb. 20, 2017), https://goo.gl/Mz9o5T.
57 Id.

30
resettled in Hawai‘i in recent years.58 While the State’s refugee program is small,
it is an important part of the State’s culture, and aiding refugees is central to the
mission of private Hawai‘i organizations like Catholic Charities Hawai‘i and the
Pacific Gateway Center.59 In late 2015, as other States objected to the admission
of Syrian refugees, Governor Ige issued a statement that “slamming the door in
their face would be a betrayal of our values.” Governor Ige explained: “Hawai‘i
and our nation have a long history of welcoming refugees impacted by war and
oppression. Hawai‘i is the Aloha State, known for its tradition of welcoming all
people with tolerance and mutual respect.”60 But as long as the new Executive
Order prohibits refugee admissions, the State and its residents are prevented from
helping refugees resettle in Hawai‘i.
105. President Trump’s new Executive Order is antithetical to Hawaii’s
State identity and spirit. For many in Hawai‘i, including State officials, the
Executive Order conjures up the memory of the Chinese Exclusion Acts and the
imposition of martial law and Japanese internment after the bombing of Pearl
Harbor. As Governor Ige observed two days after President Trump issued the first
Executive Order, “Hawai‘i has a proud history as a place immigrants of diverse
backgrounds can achieve their dreams through hard work. Many of our people
also know all too well the consequences of giving in to fear of newcomers. The
remains of the internment camp at Honouliuli are a sad testament to that fear. We
58 U.S. Department of Health & Human Servs., Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Overseas Refugee Arrival Data: Fiscal Years 2012-2015, available at
https://goo.gl/JcgkDM.
59 See About: Our History, Catholic Charities Hawai‘i, https://goo.gl/deVBla (last
visited Mar. 7, 2017, 11:35 AM ET); About: Mission, Pacific Gateway Center,
https://goo.gl/J8bN5k (last visited Mar. 7, 2017, 11:35 AM ET).
60 Press Release, Governor of the State of Hawai‘i, Governor David Ige’s
Statement On Syrian Refugees (Nov. 16, 2015), available at https://goo.gl/gJcMIv.

31
must remain true to our values and be vigilant where we see the worst part of
history about to be repeated.”61
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
(First Amendment – Establishment Clause)
106. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.
107. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the
Federal Government from officially preferring one religion over another.
108. Sections 2 and 6 of President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order,
as well as Defendants’ statements regarding the Executive Order and their actions
to implement it, are intended to disfavor Islam.
109. Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order, as well as Defendants’
statements regarding the Executive Order and their actions to implement it, have
the effect of disfavoring Islam.
110. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the Establishment Clause. Defendants’ violation inflicts ongoing harm
upon Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his Mosque, as well as other Hawai‘i
residents and the sovereign interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
COUNT II
(Fifth Amendment – Equal Protection)
111. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.

61 Press Release, Governor of the State of Hawai‘i, Statement of Governor David
Ige On Immigration To The United States (Jan. 29, 2017), available at
https://goo.gl/62w1fh.

32
112. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Federal
Government from denying equal protection of the laws, including on the basis of
religion and/or national origin, nationality, or alienage.
113. The March 6, 2017 Executive Order was motivated by animus and a
desire to discriminate on the basis of religion and/or national origin, nationality, or
alienage.
114. The Executive Order differentiates between people based on their
religion and/or national origin, nationality, or alienage and is accordingly subject to
strict scrutiny. It fails that test, because it is over- and under-inclusive in
restricting immigration for security reasons. The statements of President Trump
and his advisors also provide direct evidence of the Executive Order’s
discriminatory motivations.
115. For the same reasons, the Executive Order is not rationally related to a
legitimate government interest.
116. Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order, as well as Defendants’
statements regarding the Executive Order and their actions to implement it,
discriminate against individuals based on their religion and/or national origin,
nationality, or alienage without lawful justification.
117. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the Equal Protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants’
violation inflicts ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his
Mosque, as well as other Hawai‘i residents and the sovereign interests of the State
of Hawai‘i.
COUNT III
(Fifth Amendment – Substantive Due Process)
118. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.

33
119. The right to international travel is protected by the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, citizens may have a constitutionally
protected interest in specific non-citizens’ ability to travel to the United States.
120. The March 6, 2017 Executive Order curtails those rights for numerous
individuals, without any legal justification.
121. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the Substantive Due Process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Defendants’ violation inflicts ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh, his family, and
members of his Mosque, as well as other Hawai‘i residents and the sovereign
interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
COUNT IV
(Fifth Amendment – Procedural Due Process)
122. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.
123. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Federal
Government from depriving individuals of liberty interests without due process of
law.
124. Non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents and non-
immigrants holding valid visas, have a liberty interest in leaving and entering the
country, and in being free from unlawful detention. Moreover, citizens may assert
cognizable liberty interests with respect to noncitizen relatives who are deprived of
due process.
125. The Due Process Clause establishes a minimum level of procedural
protection before those liberty interests can be deprived. A non-citizen must be
given an opportunity to present her case effectively, which includes a hearing and
some consideration of individual circumstances.

34
126. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the Procedural Due Process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Defendants’ violation inflicts ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh, his family, and
members of his Mosque, as well as other Hawai‘i residents and the sovereign
interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
COUNT V
(Immigration and Nationality Act)
127. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.
128. The INA provides that “[e]xcept as specifically provided” in certain
subsections, “no person shall receive any preference or 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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
129. The INA also establishes specific criteria for determining terrorism-
related inadmissibility.
130. Sections 2 and 6 of the March 6, 2017 Executive Order violate the
INA by discriminating on the basis of nationality, ignoring and modifying the
statutory criteria for determining terrorism-related inadmissibility, and exceeding
the President’s authority under the INA, including under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and
1185(a).
131. Defendants’ violation inflicts ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh, his
family, and members of his Mosque, as well as other Hawai‘i residents and the
sovereign interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
COUNT VI
(Religious Freedom Restoration Act)
132. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.

35
133. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-1(a), prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the
exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
134. Section 2 of the March 6, 2017 Executive Order and Defendants’
actions to implement the Executive Order impose a substantial burden on the
exercise of religion.
135. Among other injuries, some non-citizens currently outside the United
States cannot enter the United States to reunite with their families or religious
communities. Religious communities in the United States cannot welcome visitors,
including religious workers, from designated countries. And some non-citizens
currently in the United States may be prevented from travelling abroad on religious
trips, including pilgrimages or trips to attend religious ceremonies overseas, if they
do not have the requisite travel documents or multiple-entry visas.
136. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the RFRA. Defendants’ violation inflicts ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh,
his family, and members of his Mosque, as well as other Hawai‘i residents and the
sovereign interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
COUNT VII
(Substantive Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act through
Violations of the Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act, and
Arbitrary and Capricious Action)
137. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.
138. The APA requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any agency
action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law”; “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or

36
immunity”; or “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short
of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(C).
139. In enacting and implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the March 6, 2017
Executive Order, Defendants have acted contrary to the Establishment Clause and
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
140. In enacting and implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order,
Defendants have acted contrary to the INA and RFRA. Defendants have exceeded
their statutory authority, engaged in nationality- and religion-based discrimination,
and failed to vindicate statutory rights guaranteed by the INA.
141. Further, in enacting and implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the
Executive Order, Defendants have acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Among other
arbitrary actions and omissions, Defendants have not offered a satisfactory
explanation for the countries that are and are not included within the scope of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order purports to protect the country from
terrorism, but sweeps in millions of people who have absolutely no connection to
terrorism. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the substantive requirements of the APA. Defendants’ violation inflicts
ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his Mosque, as well
as other Hawai‘i residents and the sovereign interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
COUNT VIII
(Procedural Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act)
142. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference
herein.
143. The APA requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any agency
action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. §
706(2)(D).

37
144. The Departments of State and Homeland Security are “agencies”
under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1).
145. The APA requires that agencies follow rulemaking procedures before
engaging in action that impacts substantive rights. See 5 U.S.C. § 553.
146. In implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the March 6, 2017 Executive
Order, federal agencies have changed the substantive criteria by which individuals
from the six designated countries may enter the United States. This, among other
actions by Defendants, impacts substantive rights.
147. Defendants did not follow the rulemaking procedures required by the
APA in enacting and implementing the Executive Order.
148. Through their actions described in this Complaint, Defendants have
violated the procedural requirements of the APA. Defendants’ violation inflicts
ongoing harm upon Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his Mosque, as well
as other Hawai‘i residents and the sovereign interests of the State of Hawai‘i.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
149. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
a. Declare that Sections 2 and 6 of President Trump’s Executive
Order of March 6, 2017 are unauthorized by, and contrary to,
the Constitution and laws of the United States;
b. Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Sections 2
and 6 across the nation;
c. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), set an
expedited hearing within fourteen (14) days to determine
whether the Temporary Restraining Order should be extended;
and
d. Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may
require.

38

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 8, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,


DOUGLAS S. CHIN (Bar No. 6465)
Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i
Civab gK tAaptloqe EBar koK UQVRF
Solicitor General of the State of Hawai‘i
abfoaob jAofbJfeA EBar koK TVOPF
alkkA eK hAiAjA EBar koK SMRNF
hfjBboiv qK drfaov EBar koK TUNPF
olBboq qK kAhAqprgf EBar koK STQPF
aeputy Attorneys deneral
abmAoqjbkq lc qeb Aqqlokbv
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I

/s/ Neal K. Katyal

NEAL K. KATYAL*
COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK*
MITCHELL P. REICH*
ELIZABETH HAGERTY*
THOMAS P. SCHMIDT*
SARA SOLOW*
ALEXANDER B. BOWERMAN*
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP



*Admitted Pro Hac Vice


Attorneys for Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i Attorneys for Plaintiffs, State of
Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh