Following the Hawaiian Judge’s ruling of July 13, 2017 (2017 WL 2989048), the Supreme Court on July 19, 2017 (2017 WL 3045234), has denied a request to clarify its order of June 26, 2017. It noted, however, that it would not disturb the decision of the district court holding that grandparents could not be excluded from the definition of “close family relationship”. The court nevertheless stayed the district court’s order concerning refugee resettlement agencies.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued President Trump, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity and Vice President Michael Pence (who is Chair of the Commission) on July 10th, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs seek two forms of relief: 1) the Plaintiffs ask the court to “compel the Defendants to abide by the Federal Advisory Committee Act” (FACA) and 2) the Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the Defendants violated FACA.
A Federal Judge in Hawaii ruled on Thursday July 13th, 2017 that three categories of individuals are now exempt from the revised travel ban (Executive Order 13780): grandparents; refugees who have a “formal assurance from an agency within the United States that the agency will provide…. placement services;” and refugees in the Refugee Admissions Program through the Lautenberg Program.
On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, granted certiorari in Trump v. State of Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 2017 WL 2722580 (2017) ordering a consolidated oral argument “during the first session of October Term 2017” (id. At *5). The October term commences on October 2. The Court also partially lifted the restrictions of the preliminary injunction on Executive Order 13780. Under this decision, the travel ban is in effect against “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Id. At *5-7.
On June 12, 2017, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the Preliminary Injunction order that had been entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai’i (Hawaii v. Trump, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017)) against the second “Muslim travel ban” Executive Order (E.O. 13780). The Court stated that “immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States, now commonly referred to as the “Foreign Emoluments Clause,” is the subject of three federal lawsuits which challenge President Trump’s alleged receipt of financial benefits from foreign governments and their representatives. The clause states that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.” In a nutshell, Congressional approval is required when a federal officeholder is offered something of value. There is little controversy that the clause applies to the president.
On May 25, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in a 10-3 decision, affirmed the preliminary injunction that had been entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017)) against the second “Muslim travel ban” Executive Order (E.O. 13780).
The Constitutionality of Executive Order 13768 Generally
On April 25, 2017, in County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 2017 WL 1459081 (N.D.Cal., 2017), a district court issued a preliminary nationwide injunction (pdf) against enforcing section 9 of executive order 13768, which seeks to withhold Federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions. The court found that enforcement of section 9 of the order violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements.
Following up on the President’s executive order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” the Trump Administration is targeting jurisdictions which as a policy do not honor ICE detainers. ICE was publishing a weekly list of cities refusing to abide by the ICE detainer request to pressure these jurisdictions into detaining persons at the request of ICE. Recently, ICE suspended this practice after two such reports were issued, reportedly due to “errors” in the reports. The ICE detainers give rise to constitutional concerns.
I was proud to stand with fellow speakers and an audience of 200 people during our Monday 3/20 reading and discussion of the Constitution, our new Declaration of Independence and the 1776 original. Our New York City event was a […]