“Borrowing” liberally from Igualdad, here is the Ruling:
As discussed above, Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment rights under the Constitution. “[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002 (emphasis added)(citing Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373); Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir.2013)
(“[E]nforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 219 Filed 03/15/17 Page 41 of 43 PageID #: 439642interest.” (citing Lamprecht v. FCC, 958 F.2d 382, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1992); G & VLounge v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994).When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at * 10. Nationwide relief is appropriate in light of the likelihood of success on the Establishment Clause claim.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO is hereby GRANTED.TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER It is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED that: Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court. No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 219 Filed 03/15/17 Page 42 of 43 PageID #