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.
Here is the Winter 2018 Supplement for Bradley & Goldsmith, Foreign Relations Law: Cases and Materials (6th ed. 2017). These materials cover, among many other things, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii (the “travel ban” case), which is excerpted with questions; the Supreme Court’s decision in Jesner v.
Since the initial days of the first travel ban, Lawfare has curated a resource of court documents in the litigation against each iteration of the Trump administration’s executive orders limiting travel into the United States from citizens of largely Muslim-majority countries. The page started with just a handful of court cases; it currently includes over 50. And now, it’s completely up to date.
Trump v. Hawaii is about the constitutional status of pretext: When should we accept a pretext from the president and what does it take to cure or alleviate the taint of bad acts by a president once they have taken place?
The outcome in Trump v. Hawaii should not have been much of a surprise. In December, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the entirety of the travel ban to go into effect temporarily.
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:
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.
On Tuesday, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s September 2017 immigration order restricting entry to the United States by nationals of eight countries, finding that the order did not exceed the president’s authority under Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The full ruling is below.
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