preliminary injunction Archives

June 30, 2025June 30, 2025

NAPABA Statement in Response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc.

For Immediate Release:
Date: June 27, 2025

Contact
Rahat N. Babar, Deputy Executive Director

WASHINGTON – Today, in the cases involving challenges to the executive order that limits birthright citizenship, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the preliminary injunctions that can be available to pause the executive order before a final judgment can be rendered. This discrete, preliminary issue will now return to the district courts for them to craft an injunction that, in the Court’s view, is no “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” The Court did not address the constitutionality of the executive order.

In the meantime, as the parties litigate over the scope of the injunctions, and as three federal courts of appeals evaluate the substantive challenges to the executive order, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) reaffirms the principles that underlie our amicus briefing to the courts that Executive Order 14160 must be set aside.

First, EO 14160 upends the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of an equal claim of citizenship to all persons born in the United States. Under the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment and longstanding historical precedent, EO 14160 is patently unconstitutional.

Second, EO 14160 distorts the holding of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). As we explained in our amicus brief, the Court upheld the conferral of citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The brief underscored the historical significance of this precedent and the role of Asian Americans in shaping our nation’s foundational immigration and civil rights precedents.

Lastly, if EO 14160 is implemented, disproportionate harms would result for Asian American communities. In the United States, 65% of Asian American adults are immigrants. Asian immigrants account for a substantial percentage of the overall immigrant population, with 17% of all undocumented immigrants having Asian ancestry and more than 88% of individuals holding H-1B visas. Under EO 14160, children of these categories of immigrants would be excluded from citizenship, despite being born, raised, and educated in the United States and despite knowing no other country of allegiance.

The question of a child’s citizenship in the United States ought not to be dependent on the stature or circumstances of their parents. Nor should it turn on whether a child is born in one state versus another. For the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to be vindicated, birthright citizenship must apply to all children across the United States.

February 5, 2024February 5, 2024

NAPABA Applauds Eleventh Circuit Ruling Halting Enforcement of Florida’s Discriminatory Alien Land Law

For Immediate Release:
Date: February 2, 2024

Contact: Rahat N. Babar, Deputy Executive Director for Policy

WASHINGTON – In the ongoing litigation against Florida’s discriminatory alien land law (“SB 264”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in favor of two of the plaintiffs and halted enforcement of the law against them. In temporarily blocking SB 264, the court held that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the statute is preempted by federal law and that they have shown an imminent risk that the law would cause them irreparable harm. The plaintiffs, lawfully present Chinese immigrants, first brought the suit because they were stymied in their efforts to purchase homes when the law went into effect.

“We are grateful that the court recognized the real harm that discriminatory statutes such as SB 264 are imposing on the Asian American community,” said Anna Mercado Clark, President of NAPABA. “As litigation continues, NAPABA will continue to oppose alien land laws, whether in the halls of Congress, in statehouses, or in court, until these discriminatory policies return to the dustbin of history, where they belong.”

In a robust concurrence, Judge Nancy Abudu acknowledged that “SB 264 was enacted for the specific purpose of targeting people of Chinese descent.” Judge Abudu concluded that the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood that statute also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. In doing so, Judge Abudu excoriated the District Court’s fraught reliance on the widely discredited century-old Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923), case, determining that it “may have had support in 1923, but it is now 2024” and such laws are now subject to strict scrutiny.

NAPABA, together with its four Florida affiliates, joined an amicus brief before the Eleventh Circuit in the case, continuing our long history for over a decade of leading efforts to overcome the state’s legacy of anti-Asian alien land laws. This includes when Florida became the last state in the United States over five years ago to abolish such discriminatory language from its constitution, only to enact SB 264 last year. Throughout the country, NAPABA and its affiliates continue to fight these discriminatory measures through legislative advocacy and educating lawmakers and the wider public on the painful history and legal implications of wrongfully restricting the property rights of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities.

###

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.

March 30, 2017

Hawai’i v. Trump: Order Granting Motion to Convert TRO to PI

On March 15, 2017, the Court temporarily enjoined Sections 2 and 6 of
Executive Order No. 13,780, entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017). See Order
Granting Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 219 [hereinafter TRO]. Plaintiffs State of
Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh, Ph.D., now move to convert the TRO to a preliminary
injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. to Convert TRO to Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 238 [hereinafter
Motion].
Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, and following a hearing on
March 29, 2017, the Court concludes that, on the record before it, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their
Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is
not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of
granting the requested relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 238) is
GRANTED.

To read the entire opinion follow the link in the title.