Misplaced Pages

Executive Order 13769

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
Executive Order 13769 in the Federal Register
Type	Executive order
Signed by	Donald Trump on January 27, 2017 (2017-01-27)
Federal Register details
Federal Register document number	2017-02281
Publication date	1 February 2017
Document citation	82 FR 8977

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

Legal challenges to these orders were brought almost immediately after their issuance. From January 28 to 31 almost 50 cases were filed in federal courts. The courts granted temporary relief including multiple temporary restraining orders (TRO) that barred the enforcement of major parts of the executive order. The chief TRO was issued by a federal court in the State of Washington and was explicitly nationwide in scope. That TRO specifically blocked the executive branch from enforcing provisions of the executive order that (1) suspend entry into the U.S. for people from seven countries for 90 days and (2) place limitations on the acceptance of refugees including "any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities." The TRO also allowed "people from the seven countries who had been authorized to travel, along with vetted refugees from all nations, to enter the country." The Trump administration appealed the TRO to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against the government and allowed the stay to stand.

The second Executive Order, #13780, removed Iraq from the list of targeted countries and allowed more exemptions. Portions of that order were blocked by a Hawaii federal judge on March 15. On June 26, the Supreme Court partially stayed some of the injunctions that had been put on the order by federal appeals courts earlier, allowing the executive order to mostly go into effect. Oral argument concerning the legality of the order was to be held in October 2017.

The parties challenging the executive orders included both private individuals (some of whom were blocked from entering the U.S. or detained following the executive order's issuance) and the states of Washington and Minnesota represented by their state attorneys general. Other organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also challenged the order in court. Fifteen Democratic state attorneys general released a joint statement calling the executive order "unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful" and seventeen states filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge to the order.

In response to the issuance of Presidential Proclamation 9645, the Supreme Court canceled its scheduled October hearing on the executive order that the proclamation replaced, declining to rule on its merits as it was about to expire. On October 17, a U.S. district judge in Hawaii issued an opinion saying that much of the proclamation is unconstitutional. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court opinion and upheld Proclamation 9645 in a 5–4 decision.

Background

U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769 on January 27, 2017. The order limited the number of refugee arrivals to the U.S. to 50,000 for 2017 and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, after which the program would be conditionally resumed for individual countries while prioritizing refugee claims from persecuted minority religions. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees. Further, the order suspended the entry of alien nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – for 90 days, after which an updated list will be made. The order allows exceptions to these suspensions on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Homeland Security later exempted U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders).

Section 3 of the order applies to over 218 million people, the total combined population of the seven countries named in the executive order. Fewer than 60,000 visas have been revoked under the travel ban. Section 5 applies to all countries. Over a hundred travelers were detained and held for hours without access to family or legal assistance. In addition, up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked", according to the State Department.

State Department action

On January 27, 2017, Edward J. Ramotowski, deputy assistant secretary of state for visa services, signed a one-page directive "provisionally revoking" all visas, except diplomatic visas, issued to nationals of the seven countries listed in the order, subject to "case-by-case exceptions" that may be made. However, the State Department did not release this directive to the public, and it was unclear whether affected visa holders had been notified that their visas had been revoked. The directive did not come to public attention until late on January 31 (through a filing in the Boston legal action). The ACLU of Massachusetts, in a statement through its executive director, called the memorandum "deeply suspicious" and stated: "We find it deeply troubling that – just a few days from the first hearing in the nation on the executive order – the government is claiming to have revoked the visas of thousands of people without whispering a word about it to them, to the courts evaluating the executive order, or to anyone else." Noah Feldman noted that one effect of the State Department revocation could have been that "the Boston court order was in effect nullified even before it was issued" (since "t was lawful to enter the U.S. in Boston if you had a valid visa, but you couldn't have a valid visa because the memo revoked the visas"), but a federal judge in Los Angeles issued an order prohibiting cancellation of valid visas, appearing to negate the State Department order.

Acting Attorney General statement and firing

After the executive order was signed, the acting attorney general of the United States, Sally Yates, directed the U.S. Department of Justice not to present arguments in court in defense of the executive order, writing in a memorandum that she was not convinced that the order was lawful. Trump responded by firing Yates and publicly denouncing her in a "scorched-earth" statement. Later that day, the Trump administration replaced her with Dana Boente, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Legal bases of the challenges

A variety of legal arguments—both constitutional and statutory—have been raised by the challengers to the executive order, including the states of Washington and Minnesota, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Statutory challenges

Statutory challenges are based on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The INA deals with U.S. immigration law, while the APA governs administrative processes and provides, among other things, that actions performed by government agencies cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence.

Trump, in his executive order, relied on a provision established in 1952 under Section 212(f) of the INA, which states that, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." This provision gives broad powers to the President in regards to the entry of aliens. But a different provision enacted under an amendment in 1965 establishes that, "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence" This non-discrimination clause is one basis for the legal challenges under the argument that while the President was given broad powers in 1952, such powers were eventually limited in 1965.

Several experts provided their legal opinions on the INA challenges. David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, wrote that depending on its application, "Trump's new policy would run afoul of at least one if not all three of (the) restrictions -- nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." According to The New York Times, the tension between 1952 law and the 1965 law "has not been definitively resolved by the courts." Two legal scholars, Jennifer Chacon from the University of California, Irvine and Steven J. Mulroy from the University of Memphis, believe that a challenge based on the INA's 1965 non-discrimination provision is the strongest legal argument against the executive order. On the other hand, immigration attorney Nolan Rapaport believes that the order is "perfectly legal." Similarly, Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute, argues in favor of the legality of excluding nationals from specific countries. His first argument is that "the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether" when considering the 1936 Supreme Court ruling of "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." Second, he argues "because of the national-security distinction between Trump's 2017 order and Congress's 1965 objective, it is not necessary to construe them as contradictory", which is because "Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes." Third, he argues that in the case of the 1965 anti-discrimination provision applying, by Trump relying on an Obama-era provision where "Congress expressly authorized discrimination on the basis of national origin when concerns over international terrorism are involved...the 1965 statute must be deemed amended by the much more recent statute."

Another statute raised by challengers invokes the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This act established that an agency action will be set aside if "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law." A number of executive actions by past presidents of both parties have been invalidated on the basis of the APA. These challenges were included in the Sarsour v. Trump case brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Constitutional challenges

Challengers to Executive Order 13769 also argue that it violates the United States Constitution. Their basis is founded on the constitutional right to procedural due process—the principle that the government may not deprive individuals of a liberty interest without some sort of fair procedure, such as the opportunity for a hearing before a neutral decision maker. Challengers also argue that the order violates the Equal Protection Clause by irrationally discriminating on the basis of national origin. In that respect, legal scholar Ruthann Robson noted that the courts have been critical of "governmental distinctions based on ancestry and race." Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that immigrants—including non-citizens and permanent residents—have rights to due process and equal protection, but only if they are physically present in the United States. This is one reason why several court orders gave relief only to individuals in the U.S. at the time of the court ruling.

Another avenue of constitutional challenge is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This clause bars the government from acting to "disfavor a particular religion." David D. Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center that serves as national legal director for the ACLU, stated that, "The executive order, of course, does not say in express terms that it is favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims. But Trump is the signatory, and he has said so explicitly." According to Steven Mulroy, a law professor in constitutional law at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law, an Establishment Clause theory "may be the most important of the constitutional theories involved in this case because it may have the broadest scope," applying even to persons not already in the United States and prospectively providing an avenue for a court to invalidate the entirety of the executive order.

Overview of cases

State of Washington v. Trump

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump is a suit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the validity of the order. On January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed the civil action against Trump and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, asking the court for declaratory relief (a declaration that the executive order violates the Constitution) and injunctive relief (to block enforcement of the executive order). The state also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking an immediate halt to the executive order's implementation. On February 1, Minnesota was added as a plaintiff alongside Washington. On February 3, Judge James L. Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against certain provisions of the order. The ruling enjoins the government not to enforce sections 3(c), 5(a), and 5(c) of the order, and bars the government from "prioritizing the refugee claims of religious minorities" as described in sections 5(b) and 5(e).

The Department of Justice filed an appeal to the order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 9, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government's request for a stay upholding the temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement. The court's decision was based on several factors. One was that the state of Washington did have standing in the case and therefore, the right to sue. The court also denied that the judiciary should not review the executive order, rejecting the idea that the President of the U.S. has unfettered power. They also stated that there was no immediate need for the ban. The court was also skeptical of both the Trump administration's intent for the ban and questioned the due process of the executive order. Trump responded to the court ruling by tweeting in all caps on February 9, "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

On February 16, the Trump administration asked for a delay in further proceedings because they expected to replace the executive order with a new one the following week. On February 16, 2017, the 9th Circuit issued an order staying the en-banc review of its previous ruling based on the United States Supplemental Brief promising a new executive order.

On March 8, 2017, the United States moved to dismiss the appeal of the injunction related to executive order 13769, and the 9th Circuit Court subsequently dismissed appeal of Case 17–35105.

On March 13, 2017, the Washington State Attorney General filed a second amended complaint addressing executive order 13780 and moved the court to enjoin enforcement of the order under the current preliminary injunction previously issued which barred enforcement of executive order 13769 by filing a motion for emergency enforcement of the preliminary injunction. The State of Washington in their second amended complaint asked the Court to Declare that Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the First Executive Order 13769 are unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the United States should be enjoined from implementing or enforcing Sections 3(c), 5(a)–(c), and 5(e) of the First Executive Order, including at all United States borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas, pending further orders from this Court. The State of Washington also asked the Court to declare that Sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the Second Executive Order 13780 are unauthorized by and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the United States should also be enjoined from implementing or enforcing Sections 2(c) and 6(a) of the Second Executive Order 13780, including at all United States borders, ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas, and enjoin the United States from implementing or enforcing Section 5(d) of the First Executive Order 13769 and enjoin the United States from implementing or enforcing Section 6(b) of the Second Executive Order 13780. The Court subsequently issued an order directing the United States to file a response to the emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction by March 14, 2017.

The U.S. Supreme Court

In a per curiam decision, on June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court reinstated key provisions narrowed to apply only to foreign nationals who have no "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" and set case for final consideration in October. The court also granted certiorari and set oral arguments for the Fall term. In an unsigned statement the Supreme Court stated that denying entry to foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States "does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national."

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito wrote that the preliminary injunction to the executive order by lower courts was incorrect in its entirety.

Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump

Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump
Court	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Full case name	Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Citation	No. 2:17-cv-10310

Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL) v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-10310 (E.D. Mich. 2017), is a case currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It was filed on January 31, 2017, by the Arab American Civil Rights League and seven of its individual members. Judge Victoria A. Roberts is assigned the case. On May 11, 2017, Roberts ordered the Trump administration to turn over a memo by adviser Rudy Giuliani—allegedly written to make the travel order appear that it was not specifically aimed at Muslims—by May 19, 2017.

Aziz v. Trump

Aziz v. Trump
Court	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Full case name	Tareq Aqel Mohammed Aziz, Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, Aqel Muhammad Aziz, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants
Citation	No. 1:17-cv-00116

Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116 (E.D.Va. 2017), was a case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concerning the executive order and the detention of 50–60 individuals at the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia from countries listed in the order. On February 13, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, presiding in Aziz, et al. v. Trump issued a preliminary injunction because the executive order likely discriminates against Muslims, becoming the first court to explicitly find likelihood of success on the merits to the religious discrimination claim.

Background

On the day Trump signed the executive order, January 27, 2017, 50–60 individuals at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They were blocked from meeting with their attorneys or from applying for asylum.

On January 28, 2017, Tareq Aqel Mohammed Aziz, Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, Aqel Muhammad Aziz, and John Does 1-60 filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, requesting a writ of habeas corpus and declaratory and injunctive relief after being detained at Dulles International Airport by Customs Officers. They alleged six causes of action in their original petition, denial of procedural due process, anti-establishment of religion (claims they are being targeted because they are Muslim), The Immigration and Nationality Act, Equal Protection, Administrative Procedure Act, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Temporary restraining order

On January 28, 2017, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order enjoining President Donald Trump and the other respondents from enforcing of parts of Trump's executive order. The Court stated in its order that Customs officials "... shall permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport ..." and that Customs officers "... are forbidden from removing plaintiffs ... lawful permanent residents at Dulles International Airport for a period of 7 days from the issuance of this Order." The court has neither let the affected people into the country nor ruled on the constitutionality of the order itself in its ruling. Subsequently, the restraining order has been extended until February 10, 2017.

Non-compliance with court order

On January 28, 2017, the United States Customs and Border Protection agency ("CBP") and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority ("MWAA") defied a court order issued that evening by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requiring that attorneys be granted access to travelers at Dulles Airport detained by CBP agents. By 10:30 pm that night, CBP and MWAA had copies of the order in hand, and repeatedly refused to comply on orders from the CBP. The MWAA Vice President and Airport Manager for Dulles International and the MWAA Deputy Chief of Police both refused to provide the legally required attorney access, despite confirming that they had the codes necessary to open the doors to the location where CBP was detaining individuals based on President Trump's executive order. At approximately midnight, United States Senator Cory Booker, with a copy of the access Order in hand, was rejected access himself and for any of the attorneys present. As of late Sunday morning, a border agent told lawyers that agents have been instructed not to speak with them. Lawyers at Dulles stated they are currently considering motions to hold the government in contempt and to compel disclosure of any individuals who are being detained.

On January 29, 2017, several members of Congress traveled to Dulles Airport and demanded that Dulles MWAA Police officers allow them to at least speak to customs officials - Democratic Reps. Gerry Connolly (Va.), Don Beyer (Va.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), and John Delaney (Md.). Connolly formally requested access to the detainees from MWAA Police, including Chief Deputy Damsky, and CBP and his request was denied. Connolly reportedly demanded, "Your job is to enforce the law, We have a federal judge who has ruled that anybody being detained is entitled to legal representation. Have they been denied that right or are they in fact getting legal representation?" Connolly was handed a phone with the CBP congressional liaison office on the line during his altercation with Airport Police. Connolly later reported that "he tried to get a straight answer from them but got nowhere".

On February 1, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia moved to intervene in the lawsuit and filed a motion to show cause as to why the respondents should not be held in contempt of court.

Amended complaint and crowdfunding

On January 30, 2017, the Legal Aid Justice Center ("LAJC") filed an amended complaint against Donald Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, John Kelly (Secretary of DHS), Kevin McAleenan (Acting Commissioner of CBP), Wayne Bioni (CBP Port Director of the Area Port of Washington Dulles), and eight unnamed CBP agents at Dulles Airport. The amended complaint further details the circumstances surrounding the Aziz brothers' detainment and treatment and asks for the US Government to allow everyone deported from Dulles as a result of Trump's executive order to return to the US and have their immigration status restored.

In conjunction with the campaign, the LAJC announced the launch of a crowdfunding campaign designed to support the legal expenses related to Aziz v. Trump.

Darweesh v. Trump

Darweesh v. Trump
Court	United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Full case name	Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Defendants, et al.
Citation	No. 1:17-cv-00480

Darweesh v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00480 (E.D.N.Y. 2017), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, challenges the validity of the executive order. On January 28, 2017, the court granted a temporary emergency stay halting parts of the order. The court has neither let the affected people into the country nor ruled on the constitutionality of the order itself.

Background

On the day Trump signed the executive order, Hameed Darweesh and Haider Alshawi landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport and were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They were forbidden from meeting with their attorneys or applying for asylum. Darweesh served in Iraq for over a decade as an interpreter on behalf of the United States Army 101st Airborne Division and as an electrician and contractor.

On January 28, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a civil action against President Trump, alleging that enforcement officials' actions, pursuant to the executive order barring citizens of specific countries from entry into the United States, are in violation of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965; The Convention Against Torture; the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998; and the Administrative Procedure Act by denying foreign nationals who possess validly issued visas the right to enter the United States.

Plaintiffs also allege that the executive order itself "discriminates against Petitioners on the basis of their country of origin and religion, and without sufficient justification, and therefore violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the EO was substantially motivated by animus toward—and has a disparate effect on—Muslims, which also violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment".

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction directed at President Trump, and a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of any person currently detained as a result of President Trump's executive order barring entry into the United States from predominantly Muslim countries.

Class action certification

On January 28, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion asking the US District Court to certify the case as a class action lawsuit and asked the Court to certify class status for all persons affected by President Trump's Executive Order. The motion stated "... Petitioners and the proposed class, by and through their attorneys, hereby respectfully move this Court for an order certifying a representative class of Petitioners, pursuant to United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974). Petitioners ask this Court to certify a class consisting of all individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States, but who have been or will be denied entry to the United States on the basis of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order. ...".

Partial stay of executive order

On January 28, 2017, Ann Donnelly, a Brooklyn federal judge, issued an emergency stay that temporarily blocks the U.S. government from sending people out of the country after they have landed at a U.S. airport with valid visas, refugees with approved applications, and people authorized to enter the United States from the seven nations who are subject to the immigration ban. The stay was granted following the filing of an Emergency Motion to Stay President Trump's Executive Order by the ACLU attorneys who are opposing removal of their clients from the United States. The Court ruled that a stay was warranted since the Plaintiff's habeas petitions were pending review before the Court. The stay has subsequently been extended until February 21.

Department of Homeland Security official statement

The Department of Homeland Security issued the following statement on January 29, 2017:

Upon issuance of the court orders yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immediately began taking steps to comply with the orders. Concurrently, the Department of Homeland Security continues to work with our partners in the Departments of Justice and State to implement President Trump's executive order on protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. We are committed to ensuring that all individuals affected by the executive orders, including those affected by the court orders, are being provided all rights afforded under the law. We are also working closely with airline partners to prevent travelers who would not be granted entry under the executive orders from boarding international flights to the U.S. Therefore, we do not anticipate that further individuals traveling by air to the United States will be affected. As Secretary Kelly previously stated, in applying the provisions of the president's executive order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest. Accordingly, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations. We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. We are and will continue to enforce President Trump's executive order humanely and with professionalism. DHS will continue to protect the homeland.

Louhghalam v. Trump

Louhghalam et al. v. Trump
Court	United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Full case name	Arghavan Louhghalam and Mazdak Pourabdollah Tootkaboni, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants
Decided	February 3, 2017 (declining preliminary injunction)
Citation	No. 17-cv-10154

Louhghalam v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D.Mass. 2017), currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenges the executive order. The suit arose from the detention of individuals at Logan International Airport in Massachusetts from countries listed in the order.

Background

On the day Trump signed the executive order, Plaintiffs at Logan International Airport in Boston were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

On January 28, 2017, Mazdak Pourabdollah Tootkaboni and Arghavan Louhghalam were detained at Logan International Airport by Customs Officers. Tootkaboni and Louhghalam, a married couple, are both engineering professors at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth who hold doctorates from Johns Hopkins University. They are Iranian nationals who are lawful permanent residents of the United States (i.e., Green Card holders). They had flown from Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris back to Massachusetts after finishing a weeklong conference on sustainable engineering held in Marseille. The professors were released after being detained for about three hours.

After being detained, Tootkaboni and Louhghalam, represented by Susan Church Boston judges temporarily block Trump edict on immigration - The Boston Globe of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Matt Segal of the ACLU of Massachusetts, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They raised five causes of action in their original petition: (1) denial of procedural due process; (2) violation of the freedom of religion protections of the First Amendment (Tootkaboni and Louhghalam allege that they were singled out because they are Muslim); (3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause; (4) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (5) violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Court orders

On January 29, 2017, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) directed to defendant Trump, which prohibited removal from the United States of any person with a valid visa, someone awarded refugee status, or lawful permanent residents, and that any secondary screening process must comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(c).

The order barred the detention of those "who, absent the Executive Order, would be legally authorized to enter the United States." Further, the judges ordered the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines with flights arriving at Logan Airport of the court order and "the fact that individuals on these flights will not be detained or returned based solely on the basis of the Executive Order."

On February 3, 2017, United States District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton declined to impose any injunctive relief and declined to renew the temporary restraining order which expired on February 5, 2017.

Mohammed v. United States

Mohammed v. United States, No. 2:17-cv-00786 (C.D. Cal. 2017), is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a group of 28 Yemeni-born people, including both U.S. citizens living in the United States and their family members who were in Yemen, but had secured immigrant visas to come to the United States. This case does not deal with refugees or non-immigrant visas (such as business, tourist, or student visas).

Temporary restraining order

On January 31, 2017, U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. granted a sweeping temporary restraining order, barring U.S. officials "removing, detaining or blocking the entry of plaintiffs or any other person ... with a valid immigrant visa" from one of the seven nations named in Trump's order. The ruling also barred the official defendants from "cancelling validly obtained and issued immigrant visas of plaintiffs." The ruling required defendants to return plaintiffs passports with valid visas.

Sarsour v. Trump

Sarsour v. Trump
Court	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Full case name	LINDA SARSOUR, RASHIDA TLAIB, ZAHRA BILLOO, NIHAD AWAD, COREY SAYLOR, DAWUD WALID, BASIM ELKARRA, HUSSAM AYLOUSH, HASSAN SHIBLY, ALIA SALEM, ADAM SOLTANI, IMRAN SIDDIQI, JULIA SHEARSON, NAMIRA ISLAM, KAREN DABDOUB, JOHN DOE NO. 1-10, JANE DOE NO. 1-2, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants
Citation	No. 1:17-cv-00120

Sarsour v. Trump or CAIR v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00120 (E.D.Va. 2017), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenges the validity of the order.

On January 30, 2017, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, held a news conference in Washington, D.C. and announced the filing of a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of individuals challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's recent executive order. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the executive order is unconstitutional because it targets and is discriminatory towards Muslims.

Linda Sarsour is one of many plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege religious discrimination on basis the executive order targets Muslims. They bring four causes of action in their petition: (1) violation of the Establishment Clause; (2) violation of the Free Exercise Clause; (3) violation of due process rights; and (4) violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the executive order violates the Constitution and an injunction staying its effect.

Judge Trenga refused to use the President's past statements as evidence of the order's discriminatory nature. The case is suspended until resolution of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.

Hawaii v. Trump

On March 7, 2017, the state of Hawaii brought a civil action challenging the executive order, asking for declaratory judgment and an injunction halting the order. The State of Hawaii moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint pertaining to Executive Order 13780. Doug Chin, Hawaii's attorney general, publicly stated, "This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0. Under the pretense of national security, it still targets immigrants and refugees. It leaves the door open for even further restrictions." US appeals court previously pointed out that no citizen from the countries on the list ever committed a terrorist attack in the USA. Hawaii's legal challenge to the revised ban cites top White House advisor Stephen Miller as saying the revised travel ban is meant to achieve the same basic policy outcome as the original.

The Amended Complaint lists eight specific causes of action pertaining to Executive Order 13780:

1. Violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause claiming the travel ban targets Muslims
2. Violation of the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection clause
3. Violation of the Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process clause
4. Violation of the Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process
5. Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a)
6. Violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)
7. Substantive Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act through Violations of the Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act, and Arbitrary and Capricious Action 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C).
8. Procedural Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D), 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), and 5 U.S.C. § 553

On March 15, 2017, United States District Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order preventing sections 2 and 6 of executive order 13780 from going into effect. In his order, Judge Watson ruled that the State of Hawaii showed a strong likelihood of success on their Establishment Clause claim in asserting that Executive Order 13780 was in fact a "Muslim ban".

On March 29, 2017, Judge Watson extended his order blocking the ban for a longer duration. The DOJ appealed this ruling.

On May 15, 2017, a panel of the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on whether to uphold the nationwide injunction. Acting Solicitor General of the United States Jeffrey Wall and Hawaii's attorney, Neal Katyal, appeared before Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Richard Paez for an hour of oral arguments in Seattle's William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse. On June 12, 2017, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit partially upheld Judge Watson's injunction. In its anonymous per curiam decision, the court found President Trump's order violated the relevant statute, and so must be enjoined. However, the court found Judge Watson should have avoided the constitutional question, and that he should not have enjoined the purely internal government vetting review. On June 19, 2017, Judge Watson complied with the decision of the Ninth Circuit and curtailed the injunction such that the injunction would exempt, "internal review procedures that do not burden individuals outside of the executive branch of the federal government."

On July 7, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Hawaii's request to clarify Supreme Court's ruling and limit the scope of the Trump's ban to include grandparents and stated that the Court of Appeals does not have the authority to interpret Supreme Courts' ruling now but could in the future issue injunctions but only on individual basis if it believed government's interpretation harmed a particular person.

Supreme Court decision

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld Trump's Presidential Proclamation 9645 in a split 5–4 decision largely on ideological lines. Delivering the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concluded the language of §1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was clear in giving the President broad authority to suspend the entry of non-citizens into the country and Trump's Proclamation 9645 did not exceed any textual limit on the President's authority. Similarly, the majority of the court rejected challenges to §1152(a)(1)(A) which bars discrimination on basis of nationality. According to Roberts, §1182(f) defines the universe of non-citizens and within that universe, §1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination on basis of nationality. Lastly, the Court rejected Hawaii's challenge to the Constitution's establishment clause which prohibits favoring one religion over another. Roberts pointed out that even though five of the seven nations are Muslim Majority, by that fact alone "does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world's Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks." Additionally, three Muslim Majority countries have since been dropped from the original Travel Ban of January 2017. Additionally, there are waiver exemptions such as medical that people from banned nations are eligible for. In conclusion, Roberts says Trump has shown a "sufficient national security justification".

Abandonment

On August 13, 2018, the plaintiffs, State of Hawaii and the Muslim Association of Hawaii, dropped the lawsuit, effectively ending the litigation.

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

On the same date that Judge Watson in Hawaii blocked parts of the order Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District of Maryland, who was formerly Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the revised executive order's section 2(c), which would have banned travel to the U.S. by citizens from six designated countries. The basis of Judge Chuang's order is violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Judge Chuang also noted that the order was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to say "No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence," but only in that it placed a ban on immigrant visa issuance based on nationality. Judge Chuang noted that the statute does not prohibit the President from barring entry into the United States or the issuance of non-immigrant visas on the basis of nationality. The Trump Administration appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which scheduled oral argument for May 8; the Justice Department has said it will file a motion to encourage the court to rule sooner. On March 31, approximately 30 top U.S. universities filed an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit opposing the travel ban.

On May 8, acting Solicitor General of the United States Jeffrey Wall and American Civil Liberties Union attorney Omar Jadwat appeared before the 13-judge en banc Fourth Circuit for two hours of oral arguments in Richmond, Virginia's Lewis F. Powell Jr. United States Courthouse. Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, whose daughter is married to Wall, and Allyson Kay Duncan recused themselves.

On May 25, the Fourth Circuit upheld the March ruling of the Maryland district court, continuing the block of the travel ban by a vote of 10-3 because it violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

The acting Solicitor General next applied for a stay of execution from the Supreme Court of the United States, which then scheduled all briefing to be concluded by June 21, the day before the Court's last conference of the term. Hawaii's outside counsel in a related case, Neal Katyal, told the Court he was "in Utah with very little internet access" for the rest of the week, so it granted him an extra day to file the state's response brief.

Other suits

A variety of other suits challenging the executive order were brought. The bulk of cases filed were habeas corpus petitions arising from persons detained or deported at U.S. airports; many of these cases were voluntarily dismissed, "presumably because the petitioner has since been released." Among these were Fasihianifard v. Trump, Alqaissi v. Trump, Sabounchi v. Trump, Morshed v. Trump, Alinejad v. Trump, Ahmed v. Trump, and Jalayer v. Trump, and Al Saeedi v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Azimi v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Dhaif Allah Ahmed Mohammed v. United States in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Hassanpour v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and Doe v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, all of which were all voluntarily dismissed as other cases proceeded. The last case, Doe, is an example; in that case, two "John Doe" plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint for relief after being detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport in SeaTac, Washington. The district court issued a temporary stay of removal directed to Trump, prohibiting removal from the U.S. of any of the plaintiffs to the action, and the case was voluntarily dismissed.

California v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California—a private attorney general action, not brought by the State of California—was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

International law

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein has expressed the view that the executive order violates international human rights law. Some legal scholars believe that the executive order breaches the United States' obligations as a party to both the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Refugee Convention) and the United Nations Convention against Torture. The latter treaty imposes an absolute duty upon state parties "not to return a person to a state where they may face torture or other serious harms." In a telephone call with Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed the view of the German government that Trump's executive order ran counter to the duties of all signatory states to the Geneva Refugee Convention "to take in war refugees on humanitarian grounds."

See also

• List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump
• Legal challenges to Executive Order 13768
• Chae Chan Ping v. United States, a court case in 1889 of a similar nature (a United States resident of Chinese origin who was not allowed to return due to a law, the Scott Act, forbidding re-entry, that was passed while he was en route)

References

1. Executive Order 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (January 27, 2017).
2. Alexander Burns, Legal Challenges Mount Against Trump's Travel Ban, New York Times (January 30, 2017).
3. Shabad, Rebecca (March 6, 2017). "Trump's new travel ban executive order removes Iraq from list of banned countries". CBS News.
4. "Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats". whitehouse.gov. September 24, 2017. Retrieved September 26, 2017 – via National Archives.
5. Special Collection: Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration/Refugee Orders, University of Michigan Law School's Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (last accessed January 31, 2017).
6. Devlin Barrett & Dan Frosch Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Trump Order on Immigration, Refugees: Ruling applies nationwide to tens of thousands, Wall Street Journal (February 5, 2017).
7. ^ Adam Liptak, Where Trump's Travel Ban Stands, New York Times (February 5, 2017).
8. Adam Liptak, Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss, New York Times (February 9, 2017).
9. Berenson, Tessa (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban to Go Into Effect While It Hears Case". Time. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
10. Edward Isaac Dovere, Democratic state attorneys general vow action against refugee order, Politico (January 29, 2017).
11. • Memorandum of Law of the States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia As Amici Curiae States in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. February 6, 2017).
    • Brief of the States of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia as Amici Curiae States in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. February 7, 2017) (amended amicus brief, adding New Hampshire and North Carolina).
    • Patrick McGreevy, California joins 15 other states going to court to challenge Trump's immigration orders, Los Angeles Times (February 6, 2017).
12. Watson, Derrick K. (17 October 2017). "State of Hawaii, Ismail Elshikh, John Does 1 & 2, and Muslim Association of Hawaii, Inc. vs. Donald J. Trump, et al." United States District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi.
13. de Vogue, Ariane. (17 October 2017). "Hawaii judge blocks Trump's latest travel ban". CNN.
14. de Vogue, Ariane; Stracqualursi, Veronica (June 26, 2018). "Supreme Court upholds travel ban". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
15. Green, Emma (January 27, 2017). "Where Christian Leaders Stand on Trump's Refugee Policy". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 4, 2017. It also allows the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to jointly admit individuals on a case-by-case basis, 'including when the person is a religious minority ... facing religious persecution.'
16. Bulos, Nabi (January 29, 2017). "Trump's refugee policy raises a question: How do you tell a Christian from a Muslim?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 4, 2017. The order notes, however, that the secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly decide to admit some refugees 'including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution.' But in proposing what commentators have called a 'religious test,' Trump has not yet answered one crucial question: Just how does one differentiate between Muslims and Christians?
17. Dewan, Angela; Smith, Emily (January 30, 2017). "What it's like in the 7 countries on Trump's travel ban list". CNN. Turner Broadcasting System. Retrieved February 2, 2017. Life is also grim for many living under ISIS rule.
18. Dearden, Lizzie (January 28, 2017). "Donald Trump immigration ban: Most Isis victims are Muslims despite President's planned exemption for Christians". Independent. Retrieved February 2, 2017.
19. Blaine, Kyle; Horowitz, Julia (January 30, 2017). "How the Trump administration chose the 7 countries in the immigration executive order". CNN.
20. Bierman, Noah (February 1, 2017). "Trump administration further clarifies travel ban, exempting green card holders". Los Angeles Times.
21. Diamond, Jeremy; Almasy, Steve. "Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves". CNN. Retrieved February 2, 2017.
22. Caldwell, Alicia A. (February 3, 2017). "State Says Fewer Than 60,000 Visas Revoked Under Order". ABC News. The Associated Press. Retrieved February 3, 2017.
23. Wadhams, Nick; Sink, Justin; Palmeri, Christopher; Van Voris, Bob (January 29, 2017). "Judges Block Parts of Trump's Order on Muslim Nation Immigration". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
24. St. Clair, Stacy; Wong, Grace (January 29, 2017). "Chicago-area lawyers flock to O'Hare to help travelers held at airport". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 5, 2017.
25. "Over 100,000 visas revoked by immigration ban, government lawyer reveals". nbcnews.com. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
26. State Department notice revoking visas under Trump order released, Politico (February 1, 2017).
27. ^ All Visas Revoked For People From 7 Barred Countries, Per State Dept., WBUR (February 1, 2017).
28. ^ Noah Feldman, There's No Quick Fix to Trump's Immigration Ban, Bloomberg View (February 2, 2017).
29. Mark Berman & Matt Zapotosky, Acting attorney general declares Justice Department won't defend Trump's immigration order, Washington Post (January 30, 2017).
30. Chris Cillizza, Donald Trump firing Sally Yates isn't the big story. How he did it is., Washington Post (January 31, 2017).
31. Michael D. Shear, Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lictblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Defied Him, New York Times (January 30, 2017).
32. "Trump fires acting Attorney General who defied him on immigration". Archived from the original on February 2, 2017. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
33. "AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations". AP News. Retrieved February 24, 2017.
34. ^ Ariane de Vogue, The legal arguments around Trump's travel ban challenges, CNN (February 4, 2017).
35. ^ David Cole, We'll See You in Court: Why Trump's Executive Order on Refugees Violates the Establishment Clause, Just Security (January 28, 2017).
36. ^ Anthony Zurcher, Is Trump's immigration order legal?, BBC News (January 31, 2017).
37. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
38. ^ Jarrett, Laura (January 30, 2017). "How opponents may challenge Trump's order in court". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
39. Kaleem, Jaweed (February 3, 2017). "White House calls court order against its travel ban "outrageous," vows court battle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
40. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a).
41. ^ Adam Liptak, President Trump's Immigration Order, Annotated, New York Times (January 28, 2017).
42. ^ Steven Mulroy, Opponents' Best Legal Arguments Against Trump's Immigration Ban, The Conversation (republished by Newsweek) (February 4, 2017).
43. Rapaport, Nolan (January 30, 2017). "Trump's immigration ban executive order is clumsy, but perfectly legal". The Hill. Retrieved February 5, 2017.
44. McCarthy, Andrew (January 28, 2017). "Trump's Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal". National Review. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
45. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
46. Michael Kranish & Robert Barnes, Scholars: Many more legal challenges likely for Trump's executive order on immigration Archived February 5, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Washington Post (January 29, 2017).
47. See also Anthony Zurcher, Is Trump's immigration order legal?, BBC News (January 31, 2017): "They cite comments by Mr Trump on the campaign trail, and his political surrogates, along with the exemption that the immigration order provides for religious minorities as evidence of discriminatory intent - even though the order did not mention Muslims or Christians by name."
48. "Published Order Denying Stay" (PDF). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. February 9, 2017. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
49. Order, Aziz v. Trump, 1:17-cv-00116-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. February 3, 2017).
50. Josh Gerstein, Federal judge lets Virginia challenge Trump's vetting order, Politico (February 3, 2017).
51. Darweesh v. Trump, American Civil Liberties Union (updated February 2, 2017).
52. ^ Gerstein, Josh; Stokols, Eli (February 3, 2017). "Trump lashes out at judge who put his travel ban on ice". POLITICO.
53. ^ Lisa Wangsness, Lawyers advise green card holders to fly into Boston, Boston Globe (January 29, 2017).
54. ^ Joel Rubin, L.A. federal judge orders a temporary halt to part of Trump's travel ban, Los Angeles Times (February 1, 2017).
55. ^ Temporary Restraining Order, Mohammed v. United States.
56. ^ Naeem, Nabeelah. "Press Releases".
57. ^ Spangler, Todd. "Michigan Muslims file suit against Trump order". Detroit Free Press.
58. "2:17-cv-00141 State of Washington v. Donald Trump Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2017. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
59. ^ "AG Ferguson seeks halt to Trump's immigration Executive Order | Washington State". www.atg.wa.gov.
60. "AG FERGUSON OBTAINS COURT ORDER HALTING TRUMP IMMIGRATION ACTION". Washington State Office of the Attorney General. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2017.
61. "Washington v. Trump, Case No C17-0141JLR Temporary Restraining Order". www.documentcloud.org. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
62. Jarrett, Laura (February 5, 2017). "DOJ appealing travel ban ruling". CNN. Retrieved February 5, 2017.
63. CNBC (February 9, 2017). "US appeals court upholds suspension of Trump travel ban". CNBC.
64. ^ Savage, Charlie (February 9, 2017). "6 Highlights From the Ruling on Trump's Immigration Order". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
65. Ariane de Vogue and Laura Jarrett (February 10, 2017). "Trump furious after court upholds block on travel ban". CNN. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
66. Zapotosky, Matt (February 16, 2017). "Trump says he'll issue a new executive order on immigration by next week". Washington Post. Retrieved February 16, 2017.
67. "Stay Order for En-Banc Review" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
68. "17-35105 Motion to Dismiss Appeal" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
69. "17-35105 Order Dismissing Appeal" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
70. "AG Ferguson seeks travel-ban hearing Tuesday; new court filings | Washington State". www.atg.wa.gov.
71. "Case No. C17-0141JLR Emergency Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 14, 2017. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
72. "Case No. C17-0141JLR Second Amended Complaint" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 14, 2017. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
73. "Case No. C17-0141JLR Order Regarding Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 14, 2017. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
74. "State of Hawaii v. Trump - Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". www.clearinghouse.net. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
75. "Supreme Court Narrows Travel-Ban Injunctions, Puts Case on October Calendar". Retrieved July 15, 2017.
76. Reporter, Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court. "Supreme Court allows parts of travel ban to take effect". CNN. Retrieved 2017-06-26
77. Shear, Michael D.; Liptak, Adam (2017-06-26). "Supreme Court to Hear Travel Ban Case". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-06-26
78. ^ "International Refugee Assistance Project ("IRAP") v. Trump - Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". www.clearinghouse.net. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
79. Mehrotra, Kartikay (May 11, 2017). "Trump Ordered to Turn Over Giuliani Memo in Travel Ban Suit". Bloomberg News. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
80. "Dulles Temporary Restraining Order Granted".
81. "Judges Block Parts of Trump's Order on Muslim Nation Immigration". Bloomberg.com. January 29, 2017 – via www.bloomberg.com.
82. ^ "1:17-cv-00116 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
83. Brinkema, Leonie. "Federal court rules against Trump's immigration order because it discriminates against Muslims". Washington Post.
84. "Aziz v. Trump Case No. 1:17-cv-116" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
85. "1:17-cv-00116 Temporary Restraining Order" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
86. "Order [Extending TRO] | Aziz v. Trump E.D. Va. | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". clearinghouse.net. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
87. ^ Woodruff, Betsy (January 29, 2017). "Trump's Border Patrol Defies Judge, U.S. Senator at Dulles Airport as His First Constitutional Crisis Unfolds". The Daily Beast.
88. ^ "Despite Court Order, US Officials Won't Allow Lawyers at Dulles to See Detainees". January 29, 2017.
89. Court document courthousenews.com
90. "Amended Case No. 1:17-cv-116" (PDF). Legal Access Justice Center. January 30, 2017. Retrieved January 30, 2017.
91. "Aziz v. Trump CrowdJustice page". CrowdJustice. January 31, 2017. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
92. Kim, Seung Min (January 28, 2017). "Judge blocks deportation of those detained at U.S. airports after Trump order". POLITICO. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
93. Schabner, Dean; Hayden, Michael Edison (January 28, 2017). "Federal Judge Grants Stay on Trump Immigration Order for 2 Iraqis". ABC News. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
94. ^ Shear, Michael D.; Feuer, Alan (January 28, 2017). "Judge Blocks Part of Trump's Immigration Order". The New York Times.
95. Digangi, Diana. "ACLU: Emergency stay has been granted to halt immigration ban". DCW50.com. DCW50. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
96. "Two Iraqis lead legal fight against Trump order blocking entry". Reuters. January 29, 2017.
97. "Darweesh v. Trump: Complaint" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 28, 2017.
98. Shear, Michael D.; Kulish, Nicholas (January 28, 2017). "Trump's Order Blocks Immigrants at Airports, Stoking Fear Around Globe". The New York Times.
99. de Vogue, Ariane; Watkins, Eli (January 28, 2017). "2 Iraqis file lawsuit after being detained in NY due to travel ban". CNN. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
100. "Motion for Class Certification" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
101. "Darweesh v. Trump: Motion for Class-Action" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 28, 2017.
102. Rosenburg, Mica; McGurty, Frank (January 28, 2017). "Judge allows travelers who landed with visas to stay in country". Reuters. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
103. Markon, Jerry; Brown, Emma; Nakamura, David (January 28, 2017). "Federal judge stays deportations of detainees after challenge to Trump order". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
104. "Darweesh v. Trump: Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 28, 2017. Retrieved January 30, 2017.
105. Darweesh v. Trump Order Granting Temporary Stay, documentcloud.org; accessed January 30, 2017.
106. Darweesh vs Trump Minute Order documentcloud.org
107. "DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President's Executive Orders". January 30, 2017.
108. ^ "17-cv-10154 Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
109. ^ Nestor Ramos, As protests roiled, professors who were detained at Logan airport waited, Boston Globe (January 29, 2017).
110. ^ Maria Sacchetti & Felicia Gans, Boston judge also puts hold on deportations, Boston Globe (January 29, 2017).
111. "17-cv-10154 Temporary Restraining Order" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
112. Nicole Dungca, Judge who blocked Trump's traveler ban known as 'fearless', Boston Globe (January 30, 2017).
113. "Federal Judge Orders Nationwide Halt To Deportations Under Trump Order". BuzzFeed. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
114. ^ "1:17-cv-00120 Sarsour v. Trump Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
115. ^ Conway, Madeline (January 30, 2017). "Muslim advocacy group files challenge to Trump immigration order". POLITICO.
116. "Muslim Civil Rights Group Challenges Trump Travel Ban". ABC News.
117. "Sarsour v. Trump - Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse". www.clearinghouse.net. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
118. Zapotosky, Matt (March 7, 2017). "Hawaii plans to sue to block new Trump travel ban". The Washington Post.
119. Beech, Eric (March 8, 2017). "State of Hawaii to challenge new Trump order in court – court document". Reuters.
120. "Documents in State of Hawaii et al v. Trump—A Challenge to President Trump's March 6, 2017 Travel Ban". hoganlovells.com. Archived from the original on June 23, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2017.
121. "1:17-cv-00050 Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
122. "1:17-cv-00050 Motion for Leave To File Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief". Retrieved July 15, 2017.
123. "Trump travel ban: Hawaii files first legal challenge". BBC News. March 9, 2017. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
124. Wamsley, Laura (March 8, 2017). "Hawaii Mounts Legal Challenge To President's Revised Travel Ban". NPR (published March 9, 2017).
125. Burns, Alexander; Yee, Vivian (March 8, 2017). "Hawaii Sues to Block Trump Travel Ban; First Challenge to Order". The New York Times.
126. Levine, Dan; Rosenberg, Mica (March 15, 2017). "U.S. judge in Hawaii puts emergency halt on Trump's new travel ban". Reuters.
127. "CV. NO. 17-00050 Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i. March 15, 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 17, 2017.
128. "Hawaii Judge Extends Order Blocking Trump's Travel Ban". The New York Times. Honolulu. March 29, 2017 – via The Associated Press.
129. "Trump travel ban: Administration appeals Hawaii judge's new ruling blocking ban". Fox News. March 30, 2017.
130. Dolan, Maura (April 4, 2017). "9th Circuit Court sets a date for travel ban hearing". The Los Angeles Times.
131. "Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument on Travel Ban". C-SPAN.org. May 15, 2017. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
132. Adam Liptak (May 16, 2017). "3 Judges Weigh Trump's Revised Travel Ban, but Keep Their Poker Faces". The New York Times. p. A16. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
133. Zapotosky, Matt (June 12, 2017). "Federal appeals court upholds freeze on Trump's travel ban". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
134. "State of Hawaii, et al. v. Trump ("Travel Ban") 17-15589". United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. Archived from the original on June 7, 2017. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
135. Shear, Michael D.; Yee, Vivian (June 17, 2017). "'Dreamers' to Stay in U.S. for Now, but Long-Term Fate Is Unclear". The New York Times. p. A17. Retrieved June 18, 2017.
136. Gerstein, Josh (June 19, 2017). "Judge narrows injunction on Trump travel ban". Politico. Retrieved June 20, 2017.
137. "U.S. Appeals Court Denies Hawaii Bid to Narrow Trump Travel Ban". US News & World Report. July 7, 2017. Retrieved June 29, 2023.
138. Higgins, Tucker (June 26, 2018). "Supreme Court rules that Trump's travel ban is constitutional". CNBC. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
139. "Opinion analysis: Divided court upholds Trump travel ban - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. June 26, 2018. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
140. Uram, Zachary (August 15, 2018). "Plaintiffs in travel ban case voluntarily dismiss action". JURIST, Legal and News Research. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved August 16, 2018. Official notice:
141. Burns, Alexander; Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Gately, Gary; Robbins, Liz; Tanabe, Barbara; Chokshi, Niraj (March 15, 2017). "2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump's Latest Travel Ban". The New York Times.
142. ^ Chuang, Theodore D. (March 15, 2017). "Memorandum Opinion". Docket No. 149
143. Bier, David (March 17, 2017). "Court Rules the President Violated the 1965 Law with Executive Order". The Cato Institute.
144. Kaleem, Jaweed (March 23, 2017). "Trump's travel ban could remain blocked for weeks". The Los Angeles Times.
145. Shackner, Bill (March 31, 2017). "CMU among 31 schools filing amicus brief on Trump travel ban". The Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
146. Allen, Evan (April 1, 2017). "Seven Mass. universities join court brief against Trump travel ban". The Boston Globe.
147. Adam Liptak (May 9, 2017). "Judges Weigh Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Remarks at Appeals Court Hearing". The New York Times. p. A15. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
148. "Fourth Circuit Hears Oral Argument on Travel Ban". C-SPAN.org. May 8, 2017. Retrieved May 16, 2017.
149. Laughland, Oliver (May 25, 2017). "Block on Trump travel ban upheld by federal appeals court". The Guardian. Retrieved May 25, 2017.
150. Adam Liptak (May 26, 2017). "Appeals Court Will Not Reinstate Trump's Revised Travel Ban". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
151. Howe, Amy (June 13, 2017). "Government responds to 9th Circuit ruling, asks for more briefing (UPDATED 5:45 p.m.)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 18, 2017.
152. Amanda Bronstad, Beneath the Chaos, Strategies Coalesce in Suits Against Trump, National Law Journal (February 2, 2017).
153. ^ Litigation Documents & Resources Related to Trump Executive Order on Immigration Archived February 3, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Lawfare (last accessed February 7, 2017).
154. "2:17-cv-00126 Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
155. "2:17-cv-00126 Stay of Removal" (PDF). Retrieved July 15, 2017.
156. U.N. rights chief says Trump's travel ban is illegal, Reuters (January 30, 2017).
157. Liam Thornton, Does Donald Trump's Immigration Ban Breach International Law?, The Conversation (republished by Newsweek) (January 30, 2017).

External links

• Special Collection: Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration/Refugee Orders, from the University of Michigan Law School's Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse database. Has extensive direct PDF links to primary sources from the various cases, both from the case dockets as well as from other sources.
• Litigation Documents & Resources Related to Trump Executive Order on Immigration Archived 2017-02-03 at the Wayback Machine, from Lawfare Institute in Cooperation with the Brookings Institution. More restrictive set of primary source documents.
• 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Resource Page for Stay Application from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Louhghalam v. Trump, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order (February 3, 2017).
• Executive Authority to Exclude Aliens: In Brief Congressional Research Service (January 23, 2017)

• 2017 in American law
• Donald Trump litigation
• United States immigration and naturalization case law
• Executive Order 13769
• United States case law lists