Latest in Executive Order
Last month, a ransomware attack—one of the most far-reaching cyberattacks in history—affected thousands of hospitals, corporations, and other institutions in more than 150 countries. As expected, an attack of this magnitude galvanized calls for action to prevent this kind of event in the future.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that relied on statutory grounds in declining to vacate most of the preliminary injunction against President Trump’s revised refugee executive order (EO). While a reliance on statutory instead of constitutional grounds is often a calling card of judicial restraint, the methodical tone of the per curiam opinion by the Ninth Circuit panel (consisting of Judges Hawkins, Gould, and Paez) is deceptive.
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.
This post is the third 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.
This is the second part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed the majority’s assessment of Trump and associates’ pre- and post-inauguration statements. This part will analyze how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning standing, the reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause.
Reading the Fourth Circuit’s en banc opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, one would think the court’s analysis amounts to routine application of well-settled precedent. But a close examination reveals the decision to be anything but.
The Establishment Clause took center stage in Monday’s 10-3 Fourth Circuit decision in International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v. Trump upholding a Maryland district court’s preliminary injunction against President Trump’s revised Refugee EO.
During oral arguments in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, judges attempted to draw analogies between President Trump's travel ban and Korematsu v. United States (1944).
In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last week and the Ninth Circuit yesterday, a new phase of the litigation opened up on President Trump's travel ban. The government’s arguments have become sharper, the judges have become more informed, and the weaknesses of the challengers’ case have been laid bare.
The Ninth Circuit’s argument yesterday on President Trump’s revised Refugee EO in Hawaii v. Trump took a novel turn: Judges Gould, Hawkins, and Paez focused on what the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) actually says. Hearing the government’s appeal of a Hawaii district court’s preliminary injunction against the EO, the panel was thoughtful and discerning on both the INA and the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, the parties’ positions were each too extreme to provide the court with optimal guidance.