Donald Trump became President on January 20, 2017
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13769
that placed a limit on the number of refugees to be admitted into the United State in 2017 to 50,00 and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admission Program for 120 days. After 120 days the program would be resumed on a conditional basis for individual countries and prioritize refugees from persecuted minority religions. The order indefinitely suspended admission of nationals with the exception of lawful permanent residents from 7 countries,
Signing this executive order fulfilled one of scores of campaign promises concerning immigrants, Muslims, and refugees. The Trump administration said the order was created to block terrorists, not Muslim though Trump did ask an adviser, Rudy Giuliani,
about the legal way to do a "Muslim ban."
More than 100 travelers were detained or held for hours and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked."
Dozens of protests were held across the country as America's denounced President Trump's immigration executive order
From January 28 to 31 almost 50 lawsuits were filed in federal court
arguing the order violated the U.S. Constitution
and federal statutes.
represented by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson
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 suit asked the court for "declaratory relief" (a declaration that the executive order violates the Constitution), "injunction relief" (to block enforcement of the executive order), and a temporary restraining order for an immediate halt to the executive order's implementation. On February 1, the
State of Minnesota
was added as a plaintiff alleging 10 causes of action.
| No. | Cause of action | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, implementing the United Nations Convention against Torture (ratified by the U.S. in 1994)) | |
| 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 | |
| 9 | That the executive order is a substantive violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. | |
| 10 | That the executive order violates the Tenth Amendment. |
On February 3, 2017 Judge James Robart
issued a temporary restraining order against enforcing the executive order nationwide
and issued a temporary ban regarding immigration restrictions
On February 13, Judge Robart issued an injunction against the executive order.
On February 4, 2017, The United States filed an emergency motion in the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, CA.
stating the judicial branch lacks the authority to review presidential actions over immigration.
The 9th Circuit denied the request for an immediate stay and scheduled oral arguments.
and issued a temporary ban regarding immigration restrictions
On February 13, Judge Robart issued an injunction against the executive order.
On February 4, 2017, The United States filed an emergency motion in the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, CA.
The 9th Circuit denied the request for an immediate stay and scheduled oral arguments.
A three-judge panel
of the Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments on the federal government's motion on February 7.
On February 9, the three judges unanimously denied the request for a stay of the restraining order. They quoted the Supreme Court case Nken v. Holder saying a stay is not a matter of right even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. Because of this the court needed to answer 4 questions:
- whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits
- whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay
- whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure other parties
- where the public interest lies
The court denied the stay as they found the federal government failed to prove the first two questions and the last two were in favor of the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota.
A U.S. Supplemental Brief indicated President Trump will be issuing another executive order legally addressing the issues raised in the original executive order by the 9th Circuit Court on appeal.
On February 5, a group of 97 companies filed a legal brief opposing the executive order.
and
On February 6, 15 states and the District of Columbia filed signed a brief in support of the suit.
On February 7, two more states joined the brief. 59 additional companies joined the industry brief in support of the challenge. The total of companies is now 156.
Also opposing the order was Democratic and Republican members of Congress, universities, business leaders, Catholic bishops, Jewish organization, 1000 U.S. diplomats, United Nation official, a group of 40 Nobel laureates, thousands of academics, and U.S. allies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-will-give-you-everything-here-are-282-of-donald-trumps-campaign-promises/2016/11/24/01160678-b0f9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.61dba06635c5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
.jpg){kind=link}
