Don’t look now, but the Justice Department has just responded to key themes Benjamin Wittes and I have been writing about in connection with President Trump’s oath of office.
Latest in Refugees
Upholding the Revised Refugee Executive Order: A Virginia District Court Clarifies the Establishment Clause Issues
An analysis of Virginia U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga's recent decision in Sarsour v. Trump.
Is there an unexpressed legal principle functionally at work in the judicial response to Trump: that the President is a crazy person whose oath of office judges simply don’t trust and to whom, therefore, a whole lot of normal rules of judicial conduct do not apply?
Setting aside pondering over the courts' latest rulings on the Executive Order on immigration and refugees, it is helpful to take a step back and recognize that there was never a need for a travel ban or refugee ban in the first place.
The court decisions in both Maryland and Hawaii moves insufficient heed to the need for a measure of judicial deference to the political branches in navigating the turbulent seas of foreign affairs and immigration policy.
Wednesday was an active day in the courts for President Trump’s Refugee Executive Order (EO), as a U.S. district court in Hawaii issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the revised EO issued less than two weeks ago.
Ongoing developments in Europe provide ample grounds for an interrogation of the conceptual foundations of the current international refugee regime.
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson's speech to the Oxford Union.
With all eyes focused on the new executive order, the Trump Administration may have snuck in the beginnings of another controversial policy shift severely restricting immigration to the United States.
The revised refugee Executive Order (EO) issued today (see revised EO here and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fact sheet here) places the administration in a materially better legal position before the courts.