Jump to content

Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a03:2267::810:c10c:b565:bb58 (talk) at 09:58, 4 February 2017 (lede too long: Sally Yates paragraph moved as is to relevant section, redundancy needs fixing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Executive Order 13769, signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017,[1] is the subject of multiple ongoing legal challenges in the United States federal courts.[2]

From January 28 to January 31, almost 50 cases challenging the executive order were filed in federal court.[3] Plaintiffs challenging the order argue that it contravenes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. By January 31, at least five federal district judges had granted temporary stays or other preliminary injunctive relief to challengers of the order, blocking various portions of the executive order from going into effect.[4]

The parties challenging the executive order include both private individuals who were blocked from entering the U.S. or detained following the executive order's issuance, and the State of Washington, represented by its state attorney general. Separately, 15 Democratic state attorneys generals (including those from California and New York) released a joint statement calling the executive order unconstitutional and unlawful, and vowing to fight it in the courts.[5]

As of February 3, 2017 60,000 immigration visas had been revoked pursuant to President Donald Trump's executive order.[6][7]

Background

Trump signed Executive Order 13769 on January 27, 2017. The order barred aliens from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days.[8] The order cites the Immigration and Nationality Act as its basis of authority.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in Section 212(f) establishes 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."[9]

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 guarantees 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" 8 U.S.C. §1152(a)(1)(A). The act also ensures that "[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States...irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum..." 8 U.S.C. §1158(a)(1).

Acting Attorney General statement and firing

Main articles: Sally Yates and Monday Night Massacre
White House Press Release regarding Yates

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.[10] Trump responded by firing Yates and publicly denouncing her in a "scorched-earth" statement.[11][12]

On January 30, 2017, acting United States Attorney General Sally Yates told Justice Department lawyers not to defend litigation involving President Trump's immigration order banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world. She stated in a memo on January 30, 2017, she does not believe the order is lawful.[13][14][15][excessive citations]

President Trump subsequenty fired Yates, following her public statements she did not believe the executive order was lawful, accusing her of partisan politics.[16][17][18][19][excessive citations] Later that day, the Trump administration replaced her with Dana Boente, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.[20] In a statement released by the White House, Yates' move was characterized as betraying the Department of Justice and being "weak on borders".[21]

Aziz v. Trump

Aziz v. Trump
CourtUnited 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
CitationNo. 1:17-cv-00116

Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00116 (E.D.Va. 2017), is a case currently pending 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.[22][23][24][excessive citations]

Background

On the day Trump signed the executive order, 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.[24]

Temporary restraining order

TRO in Aziz v. Trump

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.[25][26]

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.[27] 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.[28]

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".[29][28][27][excessive citations]

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.[30]

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.[31]

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.[32]

Darweesh v. Trump

Darweesh v. Trump
CourtUnited 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
CitationNo. 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.[33][34][35][excessive citations] On January 28, 2017, the court granted a temporary emergency stay halting parts of the order.[36] The court has neither let the affected people into the country nor ruled on the constitutionality of the order itself.[36][37][38][excessive citations]

Background

File:DARWEESH V. TRUMP 1- complaint.pdf
Original Complaint

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 and 91st Engineering Unit and as an electrician and contractor.[39]

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 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.[40][41][42]

Class action certification

File:DARWEESH V. TRUMP 4 - motion for class certification.pdf
Class 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. ...".[43][44]

Partial stay of executive order

Stay 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.[45][46][47][48][excessive citations] 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.[49][50][excessive citations] The stay has subsequently been extended until February 21.[51]

In addition to Darweesh, there are fourteen other petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed over the January 28–29 weekend:

E.D.N.Y. Related Lawsuits
Case Number Parties
1:17-cv-00483 Alkanfushe v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00484 Al Saeedi v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00486 Sabounchi v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00487 Alqaissi et al. v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00488 Abushamma v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00489 Rashekhi v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00490 Jalayer v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00492 Narges v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00493 Ahmed v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00494 Emamjomeh et al. v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00495 Hatahet v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00496 Fasihianifard v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00498 Alinejad v. Trump et al.
1:17-cv-00499 Lin v. Kelly et al.

Doe v. Trump

Doe v. Trump
CourtUnited States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Full case name John DOE 1, John DOE 2 , Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants
CitationNo. 2:17-cv-00126

Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00126 (W.D.Wash. 2017), is a case which was pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging the validity of the executive order. The suits arose from the detention of individuals from countries listed in the order at the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport in SeaTac, Washington.[52]

Background

Later on the day that Trump signed the executive order, Plaintiffs at Sea-Tac Airport in Washington were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

On January 28, 2017, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, requesting a writ of habeas corpus and declaratory and injunctive relief after being detained at Sea-Tac Airport by Customs Officers. They alleged four causes of action in their original petition, denial of procedural due process, Statutory Violations of The Immigration and Nationality Act, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Equal Protection, and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.[52]

Temporary stay of removal

On January 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a temporary stay of removal directed to Donald Trump, which prohibited removal from the US of any of the Plaintiffs to the action. The stay is set to expire on February 3, 2017. Subsequently, the case was voluntarily dismissed. [53]

Mohammed v. United States

Mohammed v. Trump
CourtUnited States District Court for the Central District of California
Full case name
BADR DHAIFALLAH AHMED MOHAMMED; YOUSEF BADR DHAIFALLAH AHMED MOHAMED; MAHA ABDULHAMEED MOHAMMED ALMAWRI; MURAD KHALED ALI; WALEED MUSAED QASEM MOHAMMED; MAGED WALEED MUSAED QASEM; ANWAR SALEH NAGI; RIFAQ ANWAR SALEH NAGI ALEAZZALI; KHALED ANWAR NAGI ALEAZZALI; ASHAWQ MOHAMMED AYEDH AHMED; SABA ALI ALI SAAED; YOUSEF AHMED MOHAMED SAAD; NAWAR AHMED MOHAMED SAAD; IBRAHIM AHMED MOHAMED SAAD; MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED SAAD; ABDULATEF ABDO MUTHANNA HAILAN; DIYAZAN ALI SAEED; SAHAR SALEM AHMED; NASLAH H A SAEED; ALI MOHSEN SAEED; SAIF DIYAZAN ALI MOHSEN; SARAH FADEL MUTHANA SAIF; OMAR ALI MOHSEN MURSHED; BASSAM ALI MOHSEN MURSHED; NADHRA SALEH ALZEER; MUHRAH MOHSEN SALEH MOQBEL SALEH; QASEM ABDULRAHMAN SALEM AL-HASANI; MUNA O AL SAKKAF, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL; DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; DANA J. BOENTE, in his official capacity as the Acting Attorney General of the United States; JOHN KELLY, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; LORI SCIALABBA, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Defendants.
CitationNo. 2:17-cv-00786

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.[54] This case does not deal with refugees or non-immigrant visas (such as business, tourist, or student visas).[54]

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.[54][55]

Sarsour v. Trump

Sarsour v. Trump
CourtUnited 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
CitationNo. 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.[56][57][58]

Background

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.[59][60]

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.[56][57]

File:CAIR v. Trump Complaint.pdf
CAIR v. Trump Complaint

State of Washington v. Trump

State of Washington v. Trump
CourtUnited States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Full case name State of Washington, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants
CitationNo. 2:17-cv-00141

State of Washington v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00141 (W.D.Wash. 2017), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenges the validity of the order.[61][62] On February 3, Judge James L. Robart issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against certain provisions of the order.[63] 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).[64]

Washington state became the first state to challenge the executive order on travel and immigration, by filing for declaratory & injuctive relief.[65][66] The state's lawsuit was supported by Seattle, Washington-based Amazon.com and Bellevue, Washington-based Expedia, which both filed declarations outlining the negative effect of the immigration and travel bans on their business and their employees.[66][67]

Background

On January 30, 2017, the State of Washington — represented by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, with the support of Governor Jay Inslee,[68] filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, against Trump and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The state's suit asked 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 temporary restraining order, seeking an immediate halt to the executive order's implementation.[62]

Washington v. Trump Order Granting Full Nationwide Stay

Washington state alleges nine causes of action in its original complaint: (1) that the executive order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by denying the equal protection of the laws; (2) that the executive order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by preferring one religion over another; (3) that the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process; (4) that the executive order's discriminatory visa procedures violate the Immigration and Nationality Act; (5) that the denial of asylum and withholding of removal violate the Immigration and Nationality Act; (6) that the executive order violates federal statutory law implementing the United Nations Convention against Torture; (7) that the executive order violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; (8) that the executive order is a procedural violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (9) that the executive order is a substantive violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.[61]

Temporary restraining order

On February 3, 2017, Judge James L. Robart issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the executive order nationwide, and entered a temporary ban regarding immigration restrictions, then directed the parties to the action to file any briefs in support of a preliminary injunction by February 6, 2017. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement "At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The President's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people."[69][70][71][72]

Louhghalam et al v. Trump

Louhghalam et al v. Trump
CourtUnited 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
CitationNo. 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.[73]

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.[74] 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).[74][75] They had flown from Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris back to Massachusetts after finishing a weeklong conference on sustainable engineering held in Marseille.[74] The professors were released after being detained for about three hours.[75]

After being detained, Tootkaboni and Louhghalam, represented by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the ACLU of Massachusetts,[75] 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).[73]

Court orders

The temporary restraining order in Louhghalam v. Trump was issued on January 29, 2017.

On January 29, 2017, U.S. District Judge Allison Dale 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).[76][77]

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."[78]

On February 3, 2017, United States District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton declined to impose any injuctive relief and renew the temporary restraining order which will expire on February 5, 2017.[79][80]

San Francisco v. Trump

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case name City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al., Defendants
CitationNo. 3:17-cv-00485

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump or San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00485 (N.D.Cal. 2017), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges executive order 13768 (Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the Unites States) on the grounds it violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.[81][82][83][excessive citations]

Background

On January 31, 2017 the City and County of San Francisco filed a civil action challenging executive order 13768 on the grounds that it violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution with regard to State Sovereignty. San Francisco sued the Trump administration over the executive order requiring the federal government to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities that protect undocumented immigrants from federal prosecution. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California alleges that Trump’s order violates the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved for the states.[84][85]

The civil suit alleges three causes of action (1) Declaratory Relief – San Francisco complies with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, (2) 10th Amendement – 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) is unconstitutional, and (3) 10th Amendment – Executive Order Section 9(A) enforcement directive is unconstitutional. The suit seeks a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief holding that, (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) is unconstitutional and invalid on its face; (2) Enjoin Defendants from enforcing Section 1373(a) or using it as a condition for receiving federal funds; (3) Declare that Section 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) is invalid as applied to state and local Sanctuary City laws, (4) Enjoin Defendants from enforcing Section 1373(a) against jurisdictions that enact Sanctuary City laws for legitimate local purposes; (5) Declare that San Francisco complies with Section 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (6) Enjoin Defendants from designating San Francisco as a jurisdiction that fails to comply with Section 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (7) Enjoin unconstitutional applications of the Enforcement Directive in Executive Order Section 9(a).[81]

Unlike other suits brought in United States District Courts across the United States challenging the executive order, this suit challenges Executive Order 13768 and is the first one to challenge the executive order on the basis of State's Rights for Sanctuary Cities.[86]

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.[87] 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."[88] 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."[89]

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."[90]

See also

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. ^ 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).
  4. ^ Kate Berry, Immigration Ban Illustrates Vital Role of Courts, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law (January 31, 2017).
  5. ^ Edward Isaac Dovere, Democratic state attorneys general vow action against refugee order, Politico (January 29, 2017).
  6. ^ Williams, Katie Bo (February 3, 2017). "State contradicts DOJ: Fewer than 60K visas revoked".
  7. ^ Immigration, Elise Foley; Reporter, Politics; Post, The Huffington (February 3, 2017). "Trump Order Revoked Tens Of Thousands Of Visas. Here's What That Means".
  8. ^ Trump, Donald (January 27, 2017). "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" (PDF). documentcloud.org. The White House. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  9. ^ 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
  10. ^ Mark Berman & Matt Zapotosky, Acting attorney general declares Justice Department won’t defend Trump's immigration order, Washington Post (January 30, 2017).
  11. ^ Chris Cillizza, Donald Trump firing Sally Yates isn't the big story. How he did it is., Washington Post (January 31, 2017).
  12. ^ Michael D. Shear, Mark Landler, Matt Apuzzo & Eric Lictblau, Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Defied Him, New York Times (January 30, 2017).
  13. ^ "Acting attorney general declares Justice Department won't defend Trump's immigration order".
  14. ^ CNN, Evan Perez and Jeremy Diamond. "First on CNN: Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions". {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  15. ^ "Acting AG tells Justice Department staff not to defend Trump's refugee order". January 30, 2017.
  16. ^ Apuzzo, Mark Landler, Matt; Lichtblau, Eric (January 30, 2017). "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General" – via NYTimes.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ "Trump fires defiant acting attorney general".
  18. ^ "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General For Refusing To Defend Immigration Order".
  19. ^ "White House fires acting attorney general who wouldn't defend Trump's refugee ban" – via LA Times.
  20. ^ "Trump fires acting Attorney General who defied him on immigration".
  21. ^ "Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Refuses to Enforce Trump Refugee EO". Lawfare Blog. January 31, 2017. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  22. ^ "Dulles Temporary Restraining Order Granted".
  23. ^ "Judges Block Parts of Trump's Order on Muslim Nation Immigration". January 29, 2017 – via www.bloomberg.com.
  24. ^ a b 1:17-cv-00116 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
  25. ^ Aziz v. Trump Case No. 1:17-cv-116
  26. ^ 1:17-cv-00116 Temporary Restraining Order
  27. ^ a b Woodruff, Betsy (January 29, 2017). "Trump's Border Patrol Defies Judge, U.S. Senator at Dulles Airport as His First Constitutional Crisis Unfolds".
  28. ^ a b "Despite Court Order, US Officials Won't Allow Lawyers at Dulles to See Detainees". January 29, 2017.
  29. ^ Reporter, Jason Cherkis; Reporter, The Huffington Post Daniel Marans; Post, Huffington (January 29, 2017). "Watch Democratic Congressmen Try To Enforce A Federal Court Order At A D.C. Airport".
  30. ^ http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/VA-Contempt.pdf
  31. ^ "Amended Case No. 1:17-cv-116" (PDF). Legal Access Justice Center. January 30, 2017. Retrieved January 30, 2017.
  32. ^ "Aziz v. Trump CrowdJustice page". CrowdJustice. January 31, 2017. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  33. ^ "Darweesh v. Trump". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  34. ^ Kim, Seung Min (January 28, 2017). "Judge blocks deportation of those detained at U.S. airports after Trump order". POLITICO. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  35. ^ 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.
  36. ^ a b Shear, Michael D.; Feuer, Alan (January 28, 2017). "Judge Blocks Part of Trump's Immigration Order". The New York Times.
  37. ^ Reporter, Cristian Farias Legal Affairs; Post, The Huffington (January 28, 2017). "Court Temporarily Blocks Parts Of Trump's Syrian Refugee And Travel Ban".
  38. ^ Digangi, Diana. "ACLU: Emergency stay has been granted to halt immigration ban". DCW50.com. DCW50. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  39. ^ "Two Iraqis lead legal fight against Trump order blocking entry". January 29, 2017 – via Reuters.
  40. ^ "Darweesh v. Trump: Complaint" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 28, 2017.
  41. ^ Shear, Michael D.; Kulish, Nicholas (January 28, 2017). "Trump's Order Blocks Immigrants at Airports, Stoking Fear Around Globe". The New York Times.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ Motion for Class Certification
  44. ^ "Darweesh v. Trump: Motion for Class-Action" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 28, 2017.
  45. ^ Rosenburg, Mica; McGurty, Frank (January 28, 2017). "Judge allows travelers who landed with visas to stay in country". Reuters. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
  46. ^ 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.
  47. ^ Glovin, David; Van Voris, Bob (January 28, 2017). "Judge Grants Nationwide Stay on Trump's Immigration Order". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 28, 2017.
  48. ^ Mark, Michelle (January 28, 2017). "A federal judge issued a stay on Trump's executive order on immigration". Business Insider. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  49. ^ "Darweesh v. Trump: Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. January 28, 2017. Retrieved January 30, 2017.
  50. ^ Darweesh v. Trump Order Granting Temporary Stay, documentcloud.org; accessed January 30, 2017.
  51. ^ https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3443213/Darweesh-v-Trump-Minute-Order.pdf
  52. ^ a b 2:17-cv-00126 Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
  53. ^ 2:17-cv-00126 Stay of Removal
  54. ^ a b c 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. ^ a b 1:17-cv-00120 Sarsour v. Trump Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
  57. ^ a b "Muslim advocacy group files challenge to Trump immigration order".
  58. ^ "Muslim Civil Rights Group Challenges Trump Travel Ban". ABC News.
  59. ^ Naeem, Nabeelah. "Press Releases".
  60. ^ "Michigan Muslims file suit against Trump order".
  61. ^ a b "2:17-cv-00141 State of Washington v. Donald Trump Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (PDF).
  62. ^ a b "AG Ferguson seeks halt to Trump's immigration Executive Order - Washington State".
  63. ^ "AG FERGUSON OBTAINS COURT ORDER HALTING TRUMP IMMIGRATION ACTION". Washington State Office of the Attorney General. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2017.
  64. ^ "Washington v. Trump, Case No C17-0141JLR Temporary Restraining Order". www.documentcloud.org. February 3, 2017. Retrieved February 4, 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  65. ^ Martha Bellisle. "Washington becomes 1st state to sue Trump over immigration order". Associated Press.
  66. ^ a b Jim Brunner (January 30, 2017). "AG Bob Ferguson files lawsuit — first by any state — to invalidate Trump's order". Seattle Times.
  67. ^ Etherington, Darrell. "Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft to support Washington state lawsuit on Trump immigration order".
  68. ^ Jim Brunner, AG Bob Ferguson files lawsuit — first by any state — to invalidate Trump's order, Seattle Times (January 31, 2017).
  69. ^ CNN, Laura Jarrett, Eli Watkins and Rene Marsh. "Justice Department to challenge judge's halt of travel ban". {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  70. ^ 2:17-cv-00141 Temporary Restraining Order
  71. ^ Matt Zapotosky; Lori Aratani; Justin Jouvenal (February 4, 2017). "Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's entry order nationwide". National Security. The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
  72. ^ Dan Levine; Scott Malone (February 4, 2017). "Seattle judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal". Reuters. Retrieved February 4, 2017. For Trump's order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction."
  73. ^ a b 17-cv-10154 Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
  74. ^ a b c Nestor Ramos, As protests roiled, professors who were detained at Logan airport waited, Boston Globe (January 29, 2017).
  75. ^ a b c Maria Sacchetti & Felicia Gans, Boston judge also puts hold on deportations, Boston Globe (January 29, 2017).
  76. ^ 17-cv-10154 Temporary Restraining Order
  77. ^ Nicole Dungca, Judge who blocked Trump's traveler ban known as 'fearless', Boston Globe (January 30, 2017).
  78. ^ "Federal Judge Orders Nationwide Halt To Deportations Under Trump Order". BuzzFeed. Retrieved January 29, 2017.
  79. ^ "Judge issues broad block against Trump's travel ban".
  80. ^ Lisa Wangsness, Lawyers advise green card holders to fly into Boston, Boston Globe (January 29, 2017).
  81. ^ a b 3:17-cv-00485 Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
  82. ^ Dolan, Maura. "San Francisco sues Trump over executive order targeting sanctuary cities".
  83. ^ "Opinion - San Francisco files suit against Trump's executive order on sanctuary cities".
  84. ^ "San Francisco sues Trump over sanctuary city order".
  85. ^ "San Francisco Sues Feds Over Sanctuary City Ban". February 1, 2017.
  86. ^ Greenwood, Max (January 31, 2017). "San Francisco sues Trump admin. over sanctuary cities order".
  87. ^ U.N. rights chief says Trump's travel ban is illegal, Reuters (January 30, 2017).
  88. ^ Liam Thornton, Does Donald Trump's Immigration Ban Breach International Law?, The Conversation (republished by Newsweek) (January 30, 2017).
  89. ^ Anthony Zurcher, Is Trump's immigration order legal?, BBC News (January 31, 2017).
  90. ^ "DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President's Executive Orders - Homeland Security".
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Court documents related to EO 13769.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban&oldid=763640057"