Executive Order Entry Ban Litigation Updates

September 26, 2017

 

This page provides updates on litigation arising from the 90-day travel ban on certain nationals from the six countries of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, created by Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13780, entitled "Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," that was signed by President Trump on March 6, 2017.

Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13780 established a 90-day ban on entry of certain nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. President Trump asserted INA 212(f) as an underlying basis of the ban. That paragraph of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that, "(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens 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 the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

A number of parties sued the administration over the travel ban, and U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland issued preliminary injunctions that blocked implementation of the ban. The administration appealed those orders, up to the Supreme Court. Principal legal issues are the scope of a president's authority and whether campaign rhetoric and post-campaign statements were properly used as evidence that the order was intended to discriminate against Muslims. In a June 26, 2017 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) partially granted the government's request to stay the Maryland and Hawaii district courts' preliminary injunctions that block the Section 2(c) 90-day entry bar of Executive Order 13780. The SCOTUS decision, however, contains an important exception that upholds the injunction for individuals "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Most students and scholars (and their dependents) therefore continue to be exempt from the 90-day bar. The Supreme Court also granted the government's request for certiorari to consider the case on the merits, combining both the Hawaii (Ninth Circuit) and Maryland (Fourth Circuit) cases. Oral argument had been calendared for October 10, 2017, but on September 25, 2017, the Court issued an order to cancel that oral argument, and directed the parties to file briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the travel ban cases before it have become moot, due to the passage of time as well as the issuance of the September 24, 2017 Proclamation that created a new travel ban. The briefs are due by October 5, 2017. On September 18, 2017, 30 educational associations including NAFSA filed an amicus brief in support of the case before the Supreme Court.

Current Status of the Section 2(c) 90-day Travel Ban: Remains Partially Blocked by Court Order - See NAFSA's Travel Advisory at www.nafsa.org/EOentry for details. By the wording of the executive order and by the language of the June 26, 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision, nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" will remain exempt from the 90-day travel ban. The Executive Order itself contains other, additional exemptions. Someone who is not exempt would have to qualify for a waiver in order to be issued a visa or to enter the United States. An applicant who is neither exempt nor eligible for a waiver is not eligible for a visa or entry to the United States. The 90-day travel ban expired on Sunday, September 24, 2017, but a new Proclamation travel ban may apply to some individuals who had been subject to the 90-day ban. See NAFSA's Advisory on the Section 2(e) Proclamation Travel Ban for details.

Have questions about federal court systems and structures?

Litigation Chronology
The latest ...

42. On September 25, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to remove from its oral argument calendar the hearing that been scheduled for October 10, 2017, and directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the travel ban cases before it have become moot, due to the passage of time as well as the issuance of the September 24, 2017 Proclamation that created a new travel ban. The briefs are due by October 5, 2017.

41. On September 18, 2017, 30 educational associations including NAFSA filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit  against Executive Order 13780's travel ban (see item 35), which is now before the Supreme Court.

40. On September 12, 2017, a September 7, 2017 decision of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel took effect, upholding the Hawaii Court's July 13, 2017 order (see item 37) that expanded its original injunction to add "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States" to the list of close family members already identified by the agencies that are exempt from the 90-day travel ban.

39. On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court denied in part the Justice Department's motion to stay, upholding the Hawaii Court's expanded list of "close family."

38. On July 14, 2017, the Justice Department appealed the Hawaii court's expansion order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify their June 26, 2017 decision and to stay the Hawaii Court's expansion order.

37. July 13, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled that the administration's definition of "close family relationship" was unjustifiably narrow, and modified its injunction to add "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States" to the list of close family members already identified by the agencies that are exempt from the 90-day travel ban.

36. June 29, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Hawaii v. Trump case filed an emergency motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, asking that the scope of the preliminary injunction on the EO 13780 90-day travel ban be clarified to not exclude grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.

35. June 26, 2017. In a June 26, 2017 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) partially granted the government's request to stay the preliminary injunctions that had been issued by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland. The SCOTUS decision, however, contains an important exception that upholds the injunction for individuals "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Most students and scholars (and their dependents), therefore, should continue to be exempt from the 90-day bar. The Executive Order itself contains other, additional exemptions. See NAFSA's Travel Advisory at www.nafsa.org/EOentry for details. The Supreme Court also eventually granted the government's request for certiorari to consider the case on the merits, combining both the Hawaii (Ninth Circuit) and Maryland (Fourth Circuit) cases. Oral argument has been calendared for October 10, 2017.

34. June 14, 2017. Executive Order 13789's Section 2(c) 90-day travel ban on certain nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen was originally set to start on the executive order's effective date, March 16, 2017. This 90-day period would have ended on June 13 or 14, 2017, depending on whether you count the first and last days of the 90-day period. In a June 12, 2017 Presidential Memorandum, President Trump amended Executive Order 13780 so that the Section 2(c) 90-day travel ban would become effective 72 hours after any lifting or stay of the injunctions ordered by the Hawaii and Maryland U.S. District Courts. His decision to take this step may have been motivated in part by a desire to defend against the argument that the 90-day ban would become moot 90 days from the Executive Order's original effective date.

33. June 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the portion of the Hawaii District Court's preliminary injunction that blocks the Section 2(c) 90-day travel ban, but ruled that the District Court erred in blocking all of Section 2.

  • In its decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction on the Section 2(c) 90-day travel ban, but reversed the portion of the injunction that had also blocked the Section 2 study that could lead to an indefinite entry bar for some countries under Section 2(e) of the executive order.
  • See NAFSA's advisory on Section 2(e), which has now been unblocked by the the Ninth Circuit's June 12, 2017 decision.
 

32. June 1, 2017. Maryland and Hawaii lawsuits - On June 1, 2017, the Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to accept its appeal to uphold the travel ban. DOJ also filed an application for a stay of the District Courts' injunctions while the Supreme Court decides whether to grant certiorari to hear the case on the merits. A principal issue is whether campaign rhetoric and post-campaign statements were properly used as evidence that the order was intended to discriminate against Muslims. The administration is asking that the Supreme Court overturn the injunctions issued by both the Maryland and the Hawaii District Courts. The government has filed:

  • A petition for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to accept its appeal of the lower courts' orders and to overturn the injunctions of those courts
  • An application for an emergency stay of the injunctions while the Supreme Court decides whether to grant certiorari; if granted, this would would reinstitute the travel ban immediately.

The Supreme Court will first consider the application for an emergency stay, and could make that decision within about two or three weeks. The Court then will decide whether to hear the government's full appeal. If the Court accepts the full appeal, the administration is asking that it be heard at the start of the Court's next term, which starts in October. The Supreme Court case is Trump, et al. v. International Refugee Assistance Project, et al., docket number 16-1436.

31. May 25, 2017. Maryland lawsuit - On May 25, 2017, the appeals court upheld the district court's preliminary injunction. That same day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would ask the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit's ruling. A May 26, 2017 AP article discusses possible Supreme Court scenarios.

30. May 15, 2017. Hawaii lawsuit - Oral argument on the government's appeal in the Hawaii case was heard by a 3-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle. You can access the Video and Audio Recordings of the May 15 hearing.

29. May 11, 2017. Michigan lawsuit - On May 12, 2017, the court ordered the government to release by May 19, 2017, the so-called Giuliani Memo, a pre-election communication produced by a commission created by former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who had been tasked by candidate Trump to formulate the implementation of a "Muslim ban" that Trump had promised on the campaign trail. Giuliani had publicly stated that Trump had asked him to recommend the "right way to do it legally." The court's May 12, 2017 order also directs the government to produce other related documents by June 2, 2017. Read the court order.

28. May 8, 2017. Maryland lawsuit - On May 8, 2017, the Fourth Circuit a 13-judge panel heard oral argument on the government's appeal of the Maryland District court's preliminary injunction that blocks the section 2(c) 90-day entry ban. The judges grilled both the government and the ACLU lawyers. An MP3 audio file of the entire hearing is available at: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments.The judges did not announce when they would rule on the appeal.

27. April 21, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On April 21, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the State of Hawaii's motion (22) to hold the initial hearing en banc, and set an oral argument date of May 15, 2017 at 9:30 AM Pacific time, before a standard 3-judge panel. The court approved C-Span's request to live broadcast the hearing.

26. April 21, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On April 21, 2017, the State of Hawaii filed an answering brief in opposition to the Government's April 7, 2017 motion (20) for a stay of the Hawaii District Court's preliminary injunction while the appeal is pending in the Fourth Circuit.

25. April 19, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit - On April 19, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Maryland stayed district court proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

24. April 14, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit - On April 14, 2017, the International Refugee Assistance Project filed a brief in response to the Government's March 24, 2017 opening brief, in the Government's appeal to the Fourth Circuit of the Maryland District Court's preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Executive Order 13780 Section 2(c) 90-day travel bar.

23. April 11, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On April 11, 2017, the State of Hawaii filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hold the initial hearing en banc (full court), citing the Fourth Circuit's decision to do so (21) in the appeal pending in that circuit.

22. April 10, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit - On April 10, 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled a May 8, 2017 oral argument en banc (i.e., the full court of appeals, not just a three-judge panel).

21. April 7, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On April 7, 2017 the Government filed a motion for a stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction and the Government's underlying appeal of the injunction,

20. April 3, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On April 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Government's unopposed motion to expedite consideration of the Government's March 31, 2017 motion for a stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction and the Government's underlying appeal of the injunction. The order sets the following schedule for appeal filings:

  • April 7, 2017 - Government must submit its opening brief and motion for a stay pending appeal
  • April 21, 2017 - Hawaii must submit its answering brief and its response to the motion for a stay pending appeal; any amicus briefs are due on this date as well
  • April 28, 2017 - Government's optional reply brief and reply in support of its motion for a stay pending appeal are due
  • May 15, 2017 - The court granted the parties' request for expedited argument, and oral argument will be heard in May 2017
 

19. April 3, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On April 3, 2017, the Hawaii District Court granted a joint motion filed by the parties to stay proceedings at the District Court level while the appeal of the Court's preliminary injunction is pending with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

18. March 31, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On March 31, 2017, the Government filed a motion for the Ninth Circuit to expedite consideration of the Government's motion for a stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction and the Government's underlying appeal of the injunction.

17. March 30, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - On March 30, 2017, the Government appealed the Hawaii District Court's decision to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction.

16. March 30, 2017 - Washington lawsuit - On March 30, 2017, the Government filed a motion to stay proceedings in the Seattle District Court, pending resolution of the appeal in Hawaii v. Trump.

15. March 29, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit - The U.S. District Court in Hawaii converted its March 15, 2017 temporary restraining order (which was valid for a maximum of 14 days), into a preliminary injunction, which will continue to block enforcement of the Section 2(c) 90-day travel bar and the Section 6 120-day refugee admissions bar for the duration of the litigation in the Hawaii District Court. The Hawaii Court also extended the scope of the preliminary injunction to block all of Section 2 of the executive order, which would include the prospective "indefinite" entry bar of Section 2(e) as well. The Government can choose to appeal this court order.

14. March 27, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit - On March 27, 2017, the States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Mississippi filed an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to grant the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal and ultimately reverse the Maryland district court's preliminary injunction that currently prevents the Government from enforcing the 90-day entry bar of Section 29(c) of Executive Order 13780.

13. March 24, 2017 - Virginia lawsuit - The U.S. District Court in Virginia denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order on Executive Order 13780, finding the executive order's entry bars to be within the authority of a president. The orders issued by the Maryland and Hawaii, however, continue to block enforcement nationwide of the section 2(c) 90-day entry bar and the section 6 120-day refugee admissions bar. Read the Virginia court's TRO denial order and memorandum.

12. March 24, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit - On March 24, 2017, the Government filed its opening brief and motion to stay in its appeal to the Fourth Circuit of the Maryland District Court's preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Executive Order 13780 Section 2(c) 90-day travel bar.

11. March 23, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit - Government appeal of preliminary injunction. Responding to the Government's March 22, 2017 motion to expedite appeal and briefing schedules, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a March 23, 2017 order that sets an expedited briefing schedule and oral argument date of May 8, 2017. At that time the Court will consider two aspects of the preliminary injunction on the Section 2(c) travel ban issued on March 16 by the U.S. District Court in Maryland:

  • The Government's opening brief in its appeal of that preliminary injunction, and the State of Maryland's response; and
  • A Government motion to stay the preliminary injunction while the appeal is pending
 

10. March 21, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit. The State of Hawaii has also filed a motion to have the court classify the TRO as a preliminary injunction.

9. March 17, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit. On March 17, 2017, the Government appealed the U.S. District Court of Maryland's March 16 preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, located in Richmond, Virginia.

8. March 17, 2017 - Washington lawsuit. On March 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, denied the States' emergency motion to apply the preliminary injunction issued against the first executive order (EO 13769) to the second executive order (EO 13780). The States also filed a standard (non-emergency) motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin EO 13780, but on March 17, 2016, the Seattle court placed a stay on that TRO motion, pending the outcome of any Government appeal of the TRO issued by the court in Hawaii, as both courts are in the Ninth Circuit.

7. March 16, 2017 - Maryland lawsuit. On March 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, preventing the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13780's 90-day entry bar, which had been scheduled to go into effect on March 16, 2017. Also read the court opinion supporting the preliminary injunction order. This order enjoins enforcement of the Section 2(c) 90-day entry bar, but not the Section 6 bar on refugee admissions. On March 17, 2017, the Government appealed the preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, located in Richmond, Virginia.

6. March 16, 2017 - Michigan lawsuit. On March 16, 2017, the ACLU, the Arab American Civil Rights League, and several other Arab American groups jointly sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Michigan (Detroit) over Executive Order 13780, signed March 6, 2017, which seeks to bar travel by citizens of six Muslim majority countries and to freeze the refugee resettlement program. Read the complaint.

5. March 15, 2017 - Hawaii lawsuit. On March 15, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order, preventing the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13780's Section 2(c) 90-day entry bar and Section 6 120-day refugee entry bar, which had been scheduled to go into effect on March 16, 2017.

4. March 15, 2017 - Washington lawsuit. On March 15, 2017, the State of Washington filed an emergency motion asking the District Court to issue a 14-day temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt enforcement of the travel bar in Executive Order 13780, in the event the Court denies (or intends to defer a ruling until after 12:01am EDT on March 16) the State's March 13 motions. On March 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, denied that emergency motion. The States have also filed a standard motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin EO 13780. That motion is currently pending before the court, and the court will issue a separate order with respect to that motion

3. March 14, 2017 - Washington lawsuit. On March 14, 2017, the Government filed a response to the State of Washington's motions that the preliminary injunction issued on the first executive order be applied to the second executive order. As expected, the Government argues that Executive Order 13780 is "substantially different" than Executive Order 13769, is a valid exercise of presidential authority, and that the District Court should not halt enforcement of the new entry bar scheduled to go into effect on March 16, 2017. The District Court must now rule on the motions and response.

2. March 13, 2017 - Washington lawsuit. On March 13, 2017, the State of Washington filed an emergency motion asking the Seattle District Court to extend the preliminary injunction issued on the first executive order (13769) to the second executive order (13780). If the court does so, enforcement of the 90-day entry ban in the second order would be enjoined as well. Washington State bases its argument on the strong similarity of the two executive orders. Washington also moved for permission to amend the complaint that had been filed on the first executive order, including adding the states of California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon as plaintiffs (the Court subsequently granted Oregon's petition to intervene, but the motion relating to the other states is still pending). The District Court must now consider these motions in the context of any response filed by the Government. In a subsequent order issued the same day, the Court directed the Government to file a response to Washington State's emergency motion, requiring the Government to respond no later than 4:30 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, on March 14, 2017. In its order the Court stated it will defer scheduling a hearing, if any, on the emergency motion until after it has reviewed the Government's response.

1. March 10, 2017 - Washington lawsuit. The Government's March 6, 2017 notice to the District Court of Executive Order 13780 does not constitute a formal motion to modify the preliminary injunction. The States' March 9, 2017 response to that notice constitutes neither a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction nor an amended complaint. And so, on March 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order stating that it will not "resolve the apparent dispute between the parties concerning the applicability of the court's injunctive order to the New Executive Order" until it has received a properly briefed motion from one of the parties, or until it receives an amended complaint from the States. The order notes that the plaintiff States indicated their intention to file an amended complaint with the Court "no later than March 15, 2017."

Summary litigation timeline until March 10, 2017

Here is a summary of the main litigation points arising out of Executive Orders 13769 (27 Jan 2017) and 13780 (6 Mar 2017), as a point of reference. See the top of this page for more recent updates.

January 27, 2017 – President Trump signs Executive Order 13769. Section 3 establishes a 90-day entry bar on immigrants and nonimmigrants" from 7 countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Sections 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) establish a 120-day suspension of admissions of refugees to the United States. These provisions went into effect on the day and hour the Executive Order 13769 was signed, creating confusion for individuals impacted by the bars.

January 30, 2017 – States of Washington and Minnesota file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle (the "District Court"). The states ask the District Court for a preliminary injunction to prevent continued enforcement of the Section 3(c) 90-day bar and the Section 5 refugee admissions bar. The states also ask the District Court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to immediately halt enforcement of the bars, while the Court considers the request for a preliminary injunction. Read the States' complaint. Read the Government's response to the motion for a TRO.

February 3, 2017 – The District Court grants the States' motion for a TRO, and rules that the TRO must be applied nationwide. Enforcement of the Section 3(c) and Section 5 entry bars is halted. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State instruct their field offices to implement the TRO, and travel and entry rules are temporarily set back to pre-January 27, 2017 status quo. Read the TRO.

February 4, 2017 – The government appeals District Court's TRO to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Franciso (the "Appeals Court"), and asks the Appeals Court to stay the Circuit Court's TRO.

February 9, 2017 – A three-judge panel of the Appeals Court denies the government's request for an immediate administrative stay of the TRO, and then on February 9, 2017, denies the government's emergency motion for a stay.

February 14, 2017 - District Court's temporary restraining order now construed to constitute a preliminary injunction.

February 24, 2017 - The government requests the Appeals Court to "hold all proceedings on appeal in abeyance pending further order of the Court," including briefing deadlines that had been set for the underlying appeal. In its request, the government reasoned that since they are not seeking en banc review due to the planned issuance of a new executive order, the appeals court should likewise put on hold the entire underlying appeal.

February 27, 2017- The Appeals Court denies the Government's motion to hold appeal proceedings and briefing schedules in abeyance due to the government's announcement that a new executive order would soon be issued.

March 3, 2017 – The District Court grants a government motion to extend by two weeks a deadline to respond to the states' motion to certify the District Court suit as a class action.

March 6, 2017 – President Trump signs new Executive Order 13780, that includes a revised entry ban on nationals of 6 countries, rather than 7 (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), and as well as a 120-day bar on refugee admissions. The new order states that it revokes and replaces Executive Order 13769 in its entirety, effective March 16, 2017. The administration hopes that the new order will address the legal challenges that barred enforcement of the prior 90-day entry bar on citizens of the same six countries plus Iraq. The same day, the Government asserts to the District Court that "This Court's injunctive order does not limit the Government's ability to immediately begin enforcing the New Executive Order," on March 16, 2017.

March 8, 2017 – On March 7, 2017, the government moves to withdraw its appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 8, 2017, the Appeals Court grants the government's motion, and dismisses the appeal. The District Court's preliminary injunction continues in effect, and the underlying suit filed in District Court by the States of Washington and Minnesota continues to proceed.

March 9, 2017 – The States of Washington and Minnesota file a response contesting the Government's assertion that it can begin enforcing Executive Order 13780 on March 16, 2017, and asks the court to "confirm that its preliminary injunction continues to restrain Defendants from implementing sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the Second Executive Order, which purport to reinstate provisions of the First Executive Order already enjoined by the Court."

March 10, 2017 - The Government's March 6, 2017 notice to the District Court of Executive Order 13780 does not constitute a formal motion to modify the preliminary injunction. The States' March 9, 2017 response to that notice constitutes neither a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction nor an amended complaint. And so, on March 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order stating that it will not "resolve the apparent dispute between the parties concerning the applicability of the court's injunctive order to the New Executive Order" until it has received a properly briefed motion from one of the parties, or until it receives an amended complaint from the States. The order notes that the plaintiff States indicated their intention to file an amended complaint with the Court "no later than March 15, 2017."