Latest in Travel Ban
The ban caused grievous harm to American Muslims and undermined the United States’s international reputation.
On July 10, Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the government’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint in Arab American Civil Rights League et al. v. Donald Trump et al., in which the petitioners challenge the Trump administration’s travel ban on constitutional grounds. The order is available here and below.
On May 2, Judge Theodore Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the government's motion to dismiss in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, challenging the current iteration of the travel ban. Judge Chuang's opinion is available here and below. Previous documents in the case area available here.
As the chaos unspooled from President Trump’s executive order on family separations, a conventional wisdom quickly emerged: This order was an echo of the very first executive order of Trump’s presidency—the travel ban.
Even before the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s travel ban, trust in law enforcement was eroding—and reaching a nadir—among American Muslims. Many view this administration’s policies as a source of Islamophobia and generalized suspicion of American Muslims.
Hot on the heels of the Kennedy retirement announcement, we’ve got our special Supreme Court finale episode! This is the show for you if you would enjoy detailed and amicable debate and discussion concerning:
When the Supreme Court handed down its decision on the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, the morning unfolded largely as anticipated: By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld the president’s proclamation on relatively narrow statutory grounds and chose to ignore his many expressions of hatred toward Muslims and Islam. There was a sharp dissent—in this case, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And there was, of course, a presidential tweet.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday in Trump v. Hawaii decisively puts to bed the “preliminary injunction” round of litigation over President Trump’s travel ban. In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court issued two core holdings: (a) that the latest ban does not exceed the president’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); and (b) that ban does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
During last Wednesday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that the president’s travel ban excludes nationals of countries that fail to provide a “minimum baseline of information” needed to vet people entering the United States and that “the vast majority of the world” meets this “baseline.” Francisco described “reporting terrorism history information,” “reporting criminal history,” and “cooperat[ing] with us on a real-time basis” as part of that minimum
The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in Hawaii’s challenge to the September 2017 iteration of President Trump’s travel ban (EO-3).