In a pair of unsigned orders, the Supreme Court today allowed the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban to go into complete effect. Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor noted their dissent. While it is risky to read too much into entries on the Court’s so-called “shadow docket,” four issues are worth addressing.
Latest in Travel Ban
Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing the Merits, the Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Maryland federal district court’s injunction against the Sept. 24 immigration order (EO-3) in International Refugee Assistance Program v. Trump and an the identical stay of the injunction in Hawaii v. Trump. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the government’s request for a stay.
On Oct. 17, 2017, Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued an opinion and an order enjoining the implementation of President Trump’s latest travel ban. This round of litigation concerns Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued on Sept.
The White House’s newest proclamation amending the administration’s travel ban now includes North Korea. The proclamation bans entry of persons from specific countries that would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” under the premise of protecting the United States from terrorism and national security threats.
“Regular” is not the first word that comes to mind when I think about the current president. The process that led to the travel ban is a perfect example of why. The original executive order was rushed out in fulfillment of then-candidate Trump’s promised “Muslim ban” (“Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” Dec. 7, 2015), without the regular vetting for such policies.
On Tuesday, the full Supreme Court ordered a stay of part of the Ninth Circuit’s order from last week regarding President Trump’s revised order related to refugees, Executive Order 13780 (EO). The full Court adhered to Monday’s order by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit, that refugees with assurances of sponsorship remained subject to the revised EO.
The Ninth Circuit held in a per curiam order on Thursday (summarized here) that, pending a definitive adjudication on the merits, refugees abroad with sponsorship assurances from U.S. resettlement agencies were not covered by President Trump’s revised executive order (EO) on refugees and could enter the U.S. in the normal course of refugee resettlement.
Yesterday, Hawaii posted a response to the government’s request to the Supreme Court to stay Hawaii District Court Judge Derrick Watson’s injunction regarding President Trump’s Refugee Executive Order (EO). The response argues that Judge Watson was right to hold that the Supreme Court’s “bona fide relationship” standard included U.S.
Late last night, Judge Derrick Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denied Hawaii’s motion for clarification of the scope of the court’s preliminary injunction in the challenge to President Trump’s revised refugee Executive Order (EO).