In Part I of this series, we laid out what Justice Department data really show about how many foreign-born vs. domestic-born individuals have been convicted of crimes related to international terrorism in the years since Sept. 11, 2001.
Latest in Refugees
In late February, during his address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump claimed that “according to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offense since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.”
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.
Upholding the Revised Refugee Executive Order: A Virginia District Court Clarifies the Establishment Clause Issues
On Friday, Virginia U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga upheld President Trump’s revised Refugee Executive Order (EO), ruling that the EO did not violate the Establishment Clause (see Josh Blackman’s discussion here). The court cited the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Kleindienst v.
It’s been a busy 24 hours in the increasingly fascinating relationship between President Trump and the federal judiciary.
First, a federal district judge in Hawaii entered a nationwide temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the two key provisions of Trump’s revised travel ban executive order.
Today, there is much pondering about the strength or weakness of the courts’ latest rulings on Trump's revised immigration Executive Order and prognosticating about what may happen on appeal or when the issue finally reaches the Supreme Court. There are also complaints from those in Trump’s camp that the courts are unduly tying the Executive’s hands from protecting this country from visa and refugee applicants that pose a potential national security risk.
Today’s Maryland district court decision halting the revised refugee Executive Order (EO) exhibits the same marked lack of deference that undermined Wednesday’s Hawaii decision (see my post here). Judge Theodore D. Chuang, a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lawyer, made two questionable interpretive moves.
Wednesday was an active day in the courts for President Trump’s Refugee Executive Order (EO). A U.S. district court in Hawaii issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the revised EO issued less than two weeks ago. In addition, the Ninth Circuit, with five judges dissenting, declined to order an en banc rehearing on a Seattle district court’s TRO against the original EO.
Among the many legal issues raised by the President’s January 27, 2017 executive order (EO) temporarily halting entry into the United States of citizens from seven primarily Muslim countries, including war-torn Syria, was the status of individuals claiming refugee status. Ostensibly to protect the United States from terrorists posing as refugees, the EO suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for a period of 120 days. Then, on March 6, 2017, the president revoked the original EO, replacing it with a document of narrower scope.
Editor's Note: This post contains the text of a speech that former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson is delivering this hour at the Oxford Union, March 8, 2017.
Thank you for that introduction. And thank you for the opportunity to return to this distinguished place where Presidents, Prime Ministers, scholars and so many great people have spoken. This means a lot to me.
As I did four years ago, I hope to provide remarks relevant to the moment.