On September 11, 2019, in a 7 to 2 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively permitted the Trump administration to enforce a ban on Central American asylum-seekers, while an appeal continues in a lower court.
The ruling in William Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant et al, was temporary in nature, as the Court order stated “If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.”
On July 10, 2019, the judges of the fourth circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland in
their lawsuit against Donald Trump for violating the Foreign and Domestic
Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Judges Paul Niemeyer, A. Marvin Quattlebaum, and Dennis Shedd
concluded “the District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments
Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case
readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is
an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and
controversies between the parties” (Opinion, 35-36). The court granted
President Trump’s writ of mandamus, and reversed the District Court’s ruling.
On July 2, 2019, Federal District Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington at Seattle affirmed a preliminary injunction granted in April and modified the injunction “to find that the statutory prohibition at Immigration and Nationality Act § 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) against releasing on bond persons found to have a credible fear of persecution if returned to their country and awaiting a determination of their asylum application violates the U.S. Constitution; the Bond Hearing Class is constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing (under the conditions enumerated above) pending resolution of their asylum applications.”
On June 27, 2019 the Supreme Court of the United States by a vote of 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority decision, ruled the government cannot add the question of citizenship to the U.S. census. The court concluded the current explanation given for the reinstatement of the question is not a “genuine justification,” therefore, it cannot be added to the census unless the government is able to provide legitimate justification. Consequently, the court “affirmed in part and reversed in part” the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
According to the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, the citizenship question was requested to be added on the census by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to enhance the data on “citizen voting-age population for purposes of enforcing the Voting Rights Act”. Unfortunately, out of fear, many noncitizens would not reply to the census if a citizenship question were to be added.
On July 9th, 2019, the U.S Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgement of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in ruling that the president cannot block people from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account. The ruling followed a 2017 lawsuit by the Knight First Amendment Institute against the president, where they alleged that the First Amendment was violated when several plaintiffs were blocked from viewing or responding to @realDonaldTrump’s tweets.
In July of 2017, seven plaintiffs along with the Knight Institute sued President Donald Trump, White House Director of Social Media Daniel Scavino, and two other White House Staff members for blocking their access to what they believed to be a “public forum”.
On June 14, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the District Court’s “preliminary injunction against the government’s blanket denial access to abortion for unaccompanied minors,” with Judge Laurence H. Silberman dissenting. The court “vacate[d] and remand[ed], though, a separate aspect of the district court’s preliminary injunction, which bars disclosure to parents and others of unaccompanied minors’ pregnancies and abortion decisions.”
Over two days in May, federal judges one in Washington D.C. and New York City ruled that U.S. Congressional Committees have the legal authority to subpoena private companies requesting financial records relating to Donald Trump and his business affiliates.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena on April 15 had requested financial records and other documents from Mazars USA LLP, a firm that Donald Trump has used for accounting services, from 2011 to. As a result, Mr. Trump and his business affiliates filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia requesting “the court, among other things, to declare that the Oversight Committee’s subpoena to Mazars ‘is invalid and unenforceable’ and to issue a ‘permanent injunction quashing Chairman Cummings’ subpoena.” (Opinion, 12).
On May 17, 2019, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the Trump administration could not rescind the DACA program protecting young undocumented immigrants from deportation. The ruling, by Judge Robert Bruce King and Judge Albert Diaz states that the government’s removal of protections for immigrants who came to the United States as children violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Judge Julius N. Richardson cast the dissenting vote.
The Trump Administration won a battle in the Ninth Circuit this week, when a three-judge panel permitted a policy that forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their U.S. court cases proceed. On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction that had been issued in April by a California District Court.
The case was initially filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of 11 asylum-seekers from Central America. The complaint alleged that the policy, known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP) was in violation of a bedrock principle of U.S. and international law known as “nonrefoulement,” which means that prospective asylum seekers cannot be returned to places where they may be persecuted. It further argued that the MPP was capricious and arbitrary and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In an April 18 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that nearly all of California’s “sanctuary state” law can remain in effect, dealing a blow to the Trump Department of Justice, which has challenged three of California’s “sanctuary” laws.