On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered a decision in State of Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105. The case regarded the U.S. government’s appeal of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against parts of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” In a per curium opinion (meaning that it was not signed by one of the three judges rendering the decision), the Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion for a stay of the TRO pending appeal.
It has been reported that Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza has again fallen ill under very dubious circumstances. The Kara-Murza case, and the cases of other Russian oppositions like him, highlight why President Trump should clarify his recent remarks that indicated the United States is in no position to comment on nefarious deeds by the Russian government.
On February 7, 2017, at 3:00 PM, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will conduct oral arguments in the 17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump. The issue at hand is the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against certain provisions of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order suspending entry for aliens from seven specified countries. For those who are interested, the Ninth Circuit will have a live stream of the oral arguments on its website beginning at 3:00 PM.
In this article, I assess the most contested provisions of President Trump’s Executive Order, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (82 FR 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017)) as a matter of legal soundness and policy. Before reading this article, please see my blog on the controversial provisions of the EO as well as our website’s detailed analysis of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Late in the afternoon on January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order (EO) titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (82 FR 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017)). The two most prominent provisions of the EO – those dealing with suspending refugee admissions and processing for 120 days (and suspending processing from Syria until further notice from the President) and those suspending entry by nationals from seven countries – have become national news. Between the initially muddled implementation of the EO, inaccurate media reports, and the number of provisions of immigration law cited, it can be hard to separate fact from fiction for experts and laymen alike. In this article, I will examine the controversial portions of the EO and explore and their legal basis as written and in the immigration laws. After reading this post, please see my second post on whether the provisions of the EO represent good law and policy.
On February 1, 2017, the Counsel to the President, Donald F. McGahn II, issued a Memorandum to the then-Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security titled “Authoritative Guidance on Executive Order Entitled ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’ (Jan. 27, 2017).” Specifically, the Memorandum clarifies to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security that the Executive Order does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States (LPRs).
As of January 31, 2017, the application of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” to dual nationals who of one of the affected countries and an unaffected country remains unclear. However, there have been several updates on the issue that I thought would be worth sharing.