Washington v. Trump was the 2017 federal lawsuit in which the State of Washington, later joined by Minnesota, obtained a nationwide order blocking President Trump’s first travel ban, Executive Order 13769. A federal district judge issued the restraining order on February 3, 2017, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit refused to lift it six days later. The panel held that courts can review presidential immigration orders for constitutional violations, rejecting the government’s argument that such decisions lie beyond judicial reach.
The case never produced a final judgment on the merits. The administration replaced the challenged order a month later, and the Supreme Court eventually upheld a third version of the policy in Trump v. Hawaii. But the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on reviewability, state standing, and due process survived as precedent within the circuit and shaped the litigation over every travel ban that followed.
The Executive Order That Triggered the Suit
President Trump signed Executive Order 13769 on January 27, 2017, one week into his presidency. The order, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” did three things at once.
It suspended entry for 90 days for nationals of seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It halted the entire U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days and suspended Syrian refugee admissions indefinitely, declaring their entry “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”1Federal Register. Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States And it capped refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 at 50,000, down from the Obama administration’s ceiling of 110,000. The President invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which authorizes the President to suspend the entry of any class of aliens he “finds” would be detrimental to U.S. interests.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1182 – Inadmissible Aliens
The order took effect immediately, without advance notice to the agencies that had to carry it out. Travelers already in the air arrived at U.S. airports to find themselves barred from entry or held for questioning. That confusion — and the harm to travelers with valid visas and green cards — set the stage for a fast legal challenge.
How Washington Got Into Court
On January 30, 2017, three days after the order was signed, the State of Washington sued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Minnesota joined two days later. The complaint named the President, the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State, and the United States as defendants, and alleged violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.3United States Courts. State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump
The threshold problem was standing. States do not ordinarily sue the federal government on behalf of their residents’ constitutional rights, and a court cannot hear a case unless the plaintiff shows concrete injury to itself. Washington’s answer was economic. Its public universities depend on international students and faculty, and both are legally arms of the state. Financial harm to those institutions — lost tuition, disrupted research, faculty stranded abroad — counted as harm to the states. The Ninth Circuit accepted the theory, finding that Washington and Minnesota “made a sufficient showing to support standing, at least at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.”4Justia. State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump
That move mattered. Individual travelers challenging the order faced procedural obstacles that a state suing to protect its own institutions did not.
Judge Robart’s Nationwide Restraining Order
On February 3, 2017, U.S. District Judge James Robart heard argument and granted a temporary restraining order from the bench. His order blocked enforcement of the travel ban’s core provisions at “all United States borders and ports of entry.”5United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Washington v. Trump – Temporary Restraining Order
The restraining order reached the 90-day entry ban, the 120-day refugee suspension, the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, and the 50,000-person refugee cap. Within hours, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would stop enforcing the affected sections, and the State Department confirmed that valid visa holders could travel again. The scope of Judge Robart’s order — nationwide, from a single district court — became a flashpoint in the appeal and in later debates over universal injunctions.
The Ninth Circuit Denies the Stay
The government appealed and asked for an emergency stay that would put the travel ban back into effect while the appeal proceeded. The three-judge panel — William Canby (Carter appointee), Richard Clifton (George W. Bush appointee), and Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) — issued a unanimous per curiam opinion on February 9, 2017, denying the stay.3United States Courts. State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump Three parts of the ruling did most of the work.
Courts Can Review the Order
The government’s most sweeping argument was that presidential immigration decisions made on national security grounds under § 1182(f) are not subject to judicial review. The panel flatly rejected that position, holding that courts retain authority to review executive action for constitutional compliance even in the immigration and national security context. That holding was the case’s most important contribution: it foreclosed the argument that the President could shut off judicial scrutiny by invoking § 1182(f).
Due Process for People Already Here
The panel found that lawful permanent residents and valid visa holders had due process rights the government could not override without notice or a hearing. The order had swept them up alongside first-time entrants, and the government’s initial position on whether green card holders were even covered had shifted more than once. On the record before the court at that preliminary stage, the states had shown a likelihood of success on their due process claim.
The Statutory Conflict and the Establishment Clause
The states argued that a ban targeting seven specific countries was nationality-based discrimination barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a), which prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on “race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1152 – Numerical Limitations on Individual Foreign States The government responded that § 1182(f) granted independent suspension authority not limited by that provision. The panel did not resolve the conflict at the preliminary stage.
Washington also argued the order was a pretext for religious discrimination against Muslims, pointing to campaign statements describing the policy as a “Muslim ban.” The panel acknowledged the allegations but declined to rule on the Establishment Clause question, noting the “limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage.” Even so, its willingness to consider evidence outside the four corners of the order was itself significant.
The En Banc Dissent
The government asked the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. That request was denied, but five judges dissented. Judge Jay Bybee wrote the dissent, joined by Judges Alex Kozinski, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea, and Sandra Ikuta. Judge Kozinski argued the panel’s due process analysis was flawed because the “overwhelming majority” of people covered by the order had never entered the United States and had no due process rights under American law. Judge Bea questioned whether states had standing to assert Fifth Amendment rights on behalf of residents or nonresident aliens at all.7The White House. Dissents in State of Washington, et. al., v. Donald J. Trump, et. al. Those arguments would surface again, and eventually prevail, at the Supreme Court.
How the Case Ended
Rather than continue defending EO 13769, the administration issued Executive Order 13780 on March 6, 2017, which revoked and replaced the original.8The White House. Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States The revised order dropped Iraq from the list, exempted lawful permanent residents and existing visa holders, and included a delayed effective date. Each change tracked a vulnerability the courts had identified.
With the original order gone, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion on March 15, 2017, but declined to vacate the panel’s opinion. The reasoning on reviewability, standing, and due process therefore remained on the books as circuit precedent even though the specific order it had addressed no longer existed.
The Supreme Court’s Different Answer in Trump v. Hawaii
The travel ban went through one more revision. In September 2017, the administration issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, which restricted entry from eight countries — Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen — based on a country-by-country review of information-sharing practices. That version reached the Supreme Court.
In Trump v. Hawaii, decided 5-4 in June 2018, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that the President had “lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him” under § 1182(f), and that the statute gave the President the decisions “whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions.”9Justia. Trump v. Hawaii On the § 1182(f)/§ 1152(a) conflict that Washington v. Trump had flagged, the majority held that the nondiscrimination provision applied to visa issuance, not to admissibility determinations. On the Establishment Clause claim, the Court applied rational basis review and found the proclamation was “expressly premised on legitimate purposes and said nothing about religion.”
The result was that a version of the policy Washington had gone to court to stop was ultimately upheld. But the Supreme Court’s decision addressed a different order, one drafted after two rounds of litigation had forced substantial revisions.
Why the Case Still Matters
Washington v. Trump moved from filing to a binding appellate decision in ten days. It established, within the Ninth Circuit, that states can use their proprietary interests — including the operations of their public universities — to challenge federal immigration orders. It rejected the argument that presidential national security determinations under § 1182(f) are unreviewable. And it held, at least at a preliminary stage, that lawful permanent residents and valid visa holders retain due process rights that an executive order cannot strip away without notice.
The Supreme Court’s later ruling in Trump v. Hawaii cut against several of those conclusions on the merits. But the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Washington v. Trump was never vacated, and its analysis remains the starting point for state-led constitutional challenges to executive immigration action in the circuit.