As the litigation over the travel ban has developed, the debate over the legality of the policy increasingly hinges on whether the judiciary can permissibly consider off-the-cuff statements made by Trump and his associates as evidence of religious animus in the drafting of the executive orders.
Latest in IRAP v. Trump
The Justice Department has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, requesting that the Supreme Court review the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upholding the nationwide preliminary injunction against a key section of the travel ban. The petition is available in full below, along with stay applications filed by the government in both IRAP and Hawaii v. Trump, which is currently before the Ninth Circuit.
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.
A Civil War-era decision about military commission trials took center stage in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision last week upholding a district court injunction against President Trump’s second travel ban. The very first sentence of the Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion declares:
Analysis of IRAP v. Trump Part II: The Fourth Circuit’s Misuse of Mandel, Din, Lemon, and Town of Greece
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.
The Fourth Circuit Argument on the Refugee EO: Second-Guessing the President or Safeguarding Individual Rights?
Reading the tea-leaves of appellate argument can be tricky, but skepticism about the legality of President Trump’s revised Executive Order (EO) was a prominent strand in Monday’s Fourth Circuit en banc argument on whether to affirm a Maryland district court’s injunction halting the EO. Of the thirteen judges at the hearing in International Refugee Assistance Project v.
Yesterday afternoon, the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, heard two hours of argument in IRAP v. Trump. At issue was District Judge Theodore Chuang’s nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13,780, President Trump’s revised March 6 travel ban order.