A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction against a Trump administration asylum curb, finding that the measure conflicted with the immigration statute.
Latest in refugees
Turkey will need help protecting refugees during the public health crisis.
Editor’s Note: Even as the Syrian war winds down, the millions of refugees it spawned show little sign of returning. Experts have long feared that these refugees will spread instability and, in poorer countries like Jordan, foster economic resentment. MIT’s Elizabeth Parker-Magyar finds that in Jordan such resentment is limited at best. The refugees remain welcome, and any economic resentment is directed at the government.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on Order from Chaos.
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.
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?
Today the Supreme Court announced in a per curiam decision that it will hear the travel ban cases in October. But its decision granting certiorari and staying the injunctions in part is clearly by itself a major ruling. Here are the key points and some nuances for the perplexed.
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.