Lee v. Trump

Background

David Lee, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action seeking injunctions and declaratory relief against Donald Trump concerning the coronavirus pandemic. His first set of claims challenged federal travel restrictions involving travel from China, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s refusal to issue waivers to his family members. His second challenge sought to stop Trump from using the phrases “Chinese virus” and “China virus,” which Lee alleged encouraged race-based hatred against Chinese and Asian American people.

Lee alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing certain agency actions, and equal-protection rights under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court had previously denied Lee’s requests for temporary and preliminary injunctions, finding that he was unlikely to succeed on his claims.

Defendant’s Motion

Trump moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns whether the court has authority to hear a claim, while Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Travel-Ban Claims

The court dismissed Lee’s claims challenging the travel restrictions. It agreed that the Administrative Procedure Act did not expressly authorize review of the President’s actions and therefore did not provide a basis for Lee’s claims against the President. The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which requires courts to uphold presidential directives excluding foreign nationals when the policies are facially legitimate and bona fide. The court concluded that Lee’s travel-ban claims were nonjusticiable, meaning courts could not decide them, and failed to state a legally cognizable claim.

Challenge to Trump’s Language

The court also dismissed Lee’s equal-protection challenge to Trump’s use of phrases such as “China virus” and “Chinese virus.” It stated that Lee sought to enjoin the President’s discretionary communications and that offensive or odious language by a public official does not create an equal-protection claim without a direct and immediate effect on the plaintiff. The court further held that the claim was moot because Trump was no longer President and had been banned from Twitter. The court also stated that Lee’s request for a public apology was not a remedy that a court could order.

Disposition

The court granted Trump’s motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 25 and to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.