The Supreme Court issued an order today regarding President Trump’s revised Refugee Executive Order (EO) that provided comfort to both the Administration and Hawaii, which has challenged the EO. The Court left in place the portion of Hawaii U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson’s injunction barring application of the EO to foreign nationals abroad with U.S. relatives such as grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, and cousins.
Latest in Executive Order 13780
The government’s latest filing in Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s revised refugee Executive Order (EO) argues that both U.S. grandparents and approved refugee resettlement agencies lack the “bona fide relationship” with noncitizens contemplated by last week’s per curiam Supreme Court order. On both counts, the government reads the Court’s stay order too narrowly.
Implementing a remedial decree always presents challenges. The Supreme Court’s partial stay of lower court injunctions of President Trump’s revised Refugee Executive Order (EO) is an acute example of this venerable truth. The Court’s effort to do equity provided that to be subject to ordinary visa-processing (not the pause in admission to the U.S. decreed by the EO), a noncitizen abroad had to demonstrate a “credible claim” to a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. person or a U.S. entity.
In IRAP v. Trump, the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the travel ban for “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Court stopped short of defining which types of family relationships are, and are not, bona fide. Instead it gave examples of what would qualify: “A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr.
On Saturday, I sketched out six possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s review of the travel ban cases. The Justices chose door number seven. In an unsigned, per curiam opinion, the Court granted certiorari in both IRAP v. Trump (4th Cir.) and Hawaii v. Trump (9th Cir.), with arguments scheduled for October.
Many are debating the significance of today’s Per Curiam Supreme Court opinion that granted the government’s petitions for certiorari and its stay applications in part. Did the Court signal that it would uphold most elements of the decisions below, as some argued? Did it signal the opposite—that it would reverse most elements of the appellate court rulings? Will the case be moot by the fall?
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed in part a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's revised travel ban issued by a federal district court in Hawaii v. Trump. The decision comes on the heels of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP v.
On Friday, the Department of Justice filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in IRAP v. Trump, asking that the Supreme Court review the decision of the U.S.
Analysis of IRAP v. Trump Part V: Judge Shedd and Judge Agee’s Dissents, and the Government’s Petitions for Certiorari and Applications for Stay
This is the final part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements. Part II analyzed how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning standing, reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause. In Part III, I analyzed the concurring opinions of Judges Keenan, Thacker, and Wynn.
This post is the fourth part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements.