refugees

Latest in refugees

Travel Ban

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.

Donald Trump

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.

Donald Trump

Hawaii v. Trump: What Would an “Objective Observer” Think of President Trump’s Travel Ban?

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.

Donald Trump

The Ninth Circuit and the Refugee EO: Back to the Statute?

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.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle