How Many Injunctions Agains Muslim Ban to Date

What the Federal Courts Said Nearly President Trump'southward Refugee and Muslim Ban 2.0

Last updated APRIL xi, 2017
Notes and citations available in the PDF version.

On March six, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO), "Protecting the Nation from Strange Terrorist Entry into the United States," which replaces his substantially similar and identically titled EO of Jan 27, 2017. Implementation of the Jan. 27 EO had been largely blocked by federal courts around the country.

While the EO of Mar. half dozen was drafted specifically to address some of the legal and constitutional concerns raised by the EO of Jan. 27, the newer EO is nonetheless based on a deeply flawed and prejudicial premise that harms refugees and people who are from sure Muslim-bulk countries. And in three federal lawsuits—filed in Hawaii, Maryland, and the country of Washington—NILC and others have challenged these attacks on our immigrant, refugee, and Muslim communities.

The EO that Trump signed on March 6 was supposed to go into result on March 16, 2017, only it was largely blocked every bit a outcome of legal challenges summarized beneath. The Jan. 27 EO was rescinded past the Mar. half-dozen EO, effective Mar. 16. The data in this document is current as of its publication date and will be updated equally new developments touch implementation of the Mar. 6 EO.

♦ ♦ ♦

If you or someone y'all know has been personally affected by the executive orders of Jan 27 or March 6 , please aid us monitor the situation by completing this short survey:
www.nilc.org/travel-ban-survey*

(*To access the survey form, you must have and be signed in to a Google business relationship.)

♦ ♦ ♦

What did the courtroom in Hawaii say?

On March 15, in the first federal court decision on the Mar. half-dozen EO, a federal commune court in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking key parts of the Mar. half dozen EO.

• The court said that the Mar. 6 EO refugee and Muslim bans are likely to exist plant unconstitutional, and it blocked central parts of the EO—including the provisions that (1) impose a 90-mean solar day ban on the entry into the U.South. of people from six Muslim-majority countries, (ii) halt for 120 days the entire refugee resettlement plan, and (3) slash refugee admissions for the current financial year from 110,000 to 50,000.
• In rejecting the Trump assistants'south merits that there is no discriminatory intent backside this unconstitutional club, the court said:

The illogic of the Government'southward contentions is palpable . The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. […]

 [T]he Court emphasizes that its preliminary assessment rests on the peculiar circumstances and specific historical tape nowadays hither. [It also rests on] "thedearth of show indicating a national security purpose. The show in this record focuses on the president'south statements about a 'Muslim ban'…"

• On Mar. 29, 2017, this TRO was converted into a preliminary injunction, indefinitely blocking sections 2 and half dozen of the Mar. 6 EO. The government has appealed the determination, and oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to take place in Seattle on May xv, 2017.
• On April xi, Hawaii filed a motion requesting that the Ninth Circuit, instead of following the usual procedure of having a three-gauge console hear the appeal initially, go directly to having the appeal heard by an en banc panel of 11 judges. That motility is pending.

What did the court in Maryland say?

NILC, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maryland, had sued in a federal district court in Maryland on behalf of the International Refugee Assistance Project, HIAS, and the Heart East Studies Association, too as individuals, including U.Due south. citizens, afflicted by the bans.

• The court in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction (PI) in this case on March 16. The PI is narrower in scope than the TRO issued by the court in Hawaii, as the guild blocks simply the 90-day ban on the entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries (section 2(c) of the Mar. 6 EO). It is consistent with the Hawaii determination in this respect. The fact that it does non likewise cake other parts of the Mar. 6 EO does not conflict with the Hawaii court's conclusion to cake other provisions of the EO.
• In focusing on the Muslim ban portion of the EO, the court said:

In this highly unique case, the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban. […]

While the travel ban bears no resemblance to any response to a national security risk in recent history, it bears a clear resemblance to the precise action that President Trump described as effectuating his Muslim ban. […]

When government chooses sides among religions, the "inevitable upshot" is "hatred, disrespect, and even contempt" from those who adhere to dissimilar beliefs. Thus, to avert sowing seeds of division in our nation, upholding this fundamental constitutional principle at the core of our Nation'south identity plain serves a meaning public interest.

• The regime appealed this decision to the Quaternary Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral argument earlier the 4th Circuit volition take place in Richmond, VA, on May 8, 2017. In a highly unusual motion, the 4th Excursion ordered that the appeal be heard by the unabridged circuit court sitting en banc —that is, past all the active, nonrecused judges on the court—thus bypassing the normal route of having it considered first by a panel of iii judges. In that location are xv active judges on the Fourth Circuit, although information technology is not yet known whether any will recuse themselves.

What did the court in Washington say?

A federal commune courtroom in Seattle was the first to issue a national temporary restraining order on the commencement (Jan. 27) refugee and Muslim ban EO, which the Ninth Circuit later converted into a preliminary injunction. That PI applies to the Jan. 27 EO and blocked (ane) the 90-day freeze on admitting into the U.S. people from the seven countries designated under the original EO (amid which was Republic of iraq), (2) the 120-solar day ban on all refugees, and (3) the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

• In response to the Mar. 6 EO, the state of Washington filed ii motions with the district court. The first asked the gauge to ostend that his original PI remains in upshot under Refugee and Muslim Ban 2.0. The courtroom denied this request and said it would not apply the prior PI to the Mar. vi EO.
• However, the state of Washington also filed an independent move for a TRO enjoining the Mar. half-dozen EO. That request was put on hold in calorie-free of the Hawaii TRO discussed above.
• Plaintiffs in a separate instance, Ali 5. Trump, which is before the same approximate as Washington's case, also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of the Mar. 6 EO. That motility was also stayed after the Hawai'i court issued its TRO. However, on April 6 the Ali plaintiffs requested that the Ninth Circuit let them arbitrate in the appeal of the Hawai'i PI. If this motion is granted, the Ali plaintiffs would be allowed to join Hawaii in defending the PI it obtained from the district courtroom. That movement remains pending.^[thirteen]

What practise the court decisions mean for the American public?

The courts saw the clear discriminatory intent behind Refugee and Muslim Ban 2.0. The decisions they issued are a victory for the American public and our commonwealth, and a reminder that no one is in a higher place the Constitution.

• We reject the politics of detest. The ban is a clear example of how the Trump administration uses the politics of fear and hate to enact its xenophobic calendar.
• The fight is not over. The Trump administration'due south ban on refugees and Muslims has lost in the courts—again and again—and no amount of tweaking it volition erase the conspicuously discriminatory intent behind these EOs.
• The refugee and Muslim ban is office of Trump's larger agenda to damage immigrants. While Trump's ban has shone a spotlight specifically on the administration's hostility toward refugees and Muslims, Trump's other immigration-related EOs are equally dangerous. They create a blueprint for mass incarceration and displacement of immigrants, flake abroad at the rights of people arriving at our borders seeking humanitarian relief, and attempt to criminalize immigrants. We are fighting dorsum confronting all these harmful attacks.

hargroveauntithe.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/federal-court-rulings-on-refugee-muslim-ban2/

Share this post