51.  On January 27, 2017, Defendant Trump signed the Executive Order entitled,  “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” A copy of this  Executive Order is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.   52.  The Executive Order cites the threat of domestic terrorism committed by foreign  nationals and purports to direct a variety of changes to the manner and extent to which non- citizens may seek and obtain admission to the United States.   53.  Section 3(c) of the Order suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the  country for 90 days for all people from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8  U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), with narrow exceptions not relevant here.  The Executive Order applies  only to nationals of Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.1   A.  President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order   ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT—SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION  (Against all Defendants except Defendant Trump, Asserted by all Plaintiffs)  142.  Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained  in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein  143.  The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2), prohibits federal agency  action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, or contrary to statute.  144.  In implementing Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, Defendants federal  agencies and Defendant secretaries and/or directors of those agencies have taken unconstitutional  and unlawful action, as alleged in this Complaint, in violation of the Administrative Procedures  Act.  145.  In implementing Sections 3 and 5 of the Executive Order, Defendants federal  agencies and Defendant secretaries and/or directors of those agencies have applied provisions of  the Executive Order arbitrarily, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.  146.  Defendants’ actions as set forth above were (A) arbitrary, capricious,  discriminatory, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to  constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction,  authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and (D) without observance of procedure  required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).  FIFTH AMENDMENT – PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS  (Against All Defendants, Asserted by All Plaintiffs)  129.  Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained  in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  130.  Procedural due process requires that the government be constrained before it acts  in a way that deprives individuals of liberty or property interests protected under the Due Process  Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  131.  Defendants’ actions, as described above, have deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty  and/or property interests without notice or opportunity to be heard.    FIRST AMENDMENT – ESTABLISHMENT, FREE EXERCISE, SPEECH AND  ASSEMBLY CLAUSES  (Against All Defendants, Asserted by All Plaintiffs)  116.  Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained  in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  117.  The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion or the prohibition  of the free exercise of religion.  118.  The Executive Order constitutes an unlawful attempt to discriminate against  Muslims and to establish a preference for one religion over another. References in the Executive  Order to the seven Designated Countries are transparently a pretext to establish this preference.  Singling out Muslims for disfavored treatment and granting special preferences to non-Muslims  is neither justified by, nor closely fitted to, any compelling governmental interest.  119.  The Executive Order also violates the rights of Plaintiff the Episcopal Diocese to  receive information and speech from, and to associate freely with, refugees. 