Darweesh v. Trump

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Darweesh v. Trump )

Legal disputes

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 .[1] [2] 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 On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780 , which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries.[3] Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea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.[4]

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.[5] 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.[6] [7] 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."[7] 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."[7] 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.[8]

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.[9]

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"[10] and seventeen states filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge to the order.[11]

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.[12] [13] On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court opinion and upheld Proclamation 9645 in a 5–4 decision.[14]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Main article: Immigration policy of the first Donald Trump administration

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.[15] The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees .[16] [17] [18] 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.[19] The order allows exceptions to these suspensions on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security later exempted U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders).[20]

Section 3 of the order applies to over 218 million people, the total combined population of the seven countries named in the executive order.[21] Fewer than 60,000 visas have been revoked under the travel ban.[22] Section 5 applies to all countries. Over a hundred travelers were detained and held for hours without access to family[23] or legal assistance.[24] In addition, up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked", according to the State Department.[25]

State Department action

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_challenges_to_the_Trump_travel_ban&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: State Department action")
]

State Department provisional revocation of some visas

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.[26] [27] [28] However, the State Department did not release this directive to the public,[28] and it was unclear whether affected visa holders had been notified that their visas had been revoked.[27] The directive did not come to public attention until late on January 31 (through a filing in the Boston legal action).[27] Th

…