You're viewing Docket Item 34 from the case Doe, John v. Trump, Donald et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
17-cv-112-wmc
DONALD J. TRUMP, JOHN F. KELLY,
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, LORI SCIALABBA, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, REX W. TILLERSON, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE and THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.


The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s renewed application for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Dkt. #29.) After reviewing plaintiff’s
submissions and conducting a brief hearing with the parties, the court concludes that
plaintiff has presented some likelihood of success on the merits and that he is at great
risk of
suffering irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order is denied. See Am. Civil
Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ezell v. City of
Chi., 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted)).
The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the
original executive order, and the revised executive order issued on March 6, 2017 -- for
example, the government points to a new waiver provision. As the order applies to the
plaintiff here,
however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing
for the reasons articulated by other courts.
See Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105, 2017
WL 526497 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017); Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLR, 2017 WL
462040 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017). Moreover, given the daily threat to the lives of Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 34 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2
plaintiff’s wife and child remaining in Aleppo, Syria, the court further finds a significant
risk of irreparable harm. Finally, while defendants object to the entry of temporary
injunctive relief,
they argue during the hearing that the executive order may not even
apply to plaintiff’s asylee relative petition, thus ameliorating any
harm to the
government, or at least any harm caused by the brief period covered by this temporary
restraining order. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (dkt. #29) is GRANTED IN
PART AND RESERVED IN PART.
The motion for temporary restraining
order is granted, and the motion for preliminary injunction is reserved pending
further briefing and hearing.
2) Defendants are enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 13780 (Mar. 6, 2017) as it pertains to plaintiff and his refugee/asylee relative petitions for his
wife and child.
3) Defendants’ response to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is due on
or before March 16, 2017; plaintiff’s reply is due by noon on March 20, 2017.
4) The court will hold an in person hearing on March 21, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., to
address the merits of the motion for preliminary injunction.
Entered this 10th day of March, 2017.

BY THE COURT:


/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge Case: 3:17-cv-00112-wmc Document #: 34 Filed: 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2