On October 5, 2017 the Trump Administration filed a Brief asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the two cases challenging its March 6, 2017 Executive Order 13780 (Travel Ban II) on the grounds the cases are Moot.
The Plaintiffs in the two cases (Hawaii v. Trump and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump) urged the Court to decide the cases despite the recent changes (September 24, 2017 Proclamation) regarding travel restrictions arguing the cases are not Moot.
On Sunday September 24, 2017, President Trump amended the existing travel ban of March 6, 2017 (Executive Order 13780) by proclamation (titled “Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats”). This version of the travel ban attempts to address many of the issues that the courts had identified in the previous versions. Specifically, this third ban is different in that it (1) sets forth specific reasons for disallowing entry of nationals of certain countries, (2) applies different levels of scrutiny and suspension on entry to different countries, (3) provides mechanisms for countries to be added or removed from the list, (4) is indefinite in duration, (5) adds North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad while removing Sudan, and (6) provides detailed information on persons who are not covered by it, including classes of persons identified by the Supreme Court.
This travel ban version may moot the legal challenge to E.O. 13780. The Supreme Court has already cancelled the scheduled October oral argument and asked the parties to submit briefs by October 5, 2017, addressing “whether or to what extent the proclamation may render the case moot.” The Supreme Court also asked for briefings on the suspension of the nation’s refugee program, which is not addressed in the proclamation and is scheduled to expire in October, as to whether that issue would soon be moot.
On September 12, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which had lifted the travel restrictions on the nation’s refugee program. The Trump administration did not appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision regarding […]
On September 7, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of American residents in the affected countries can enter the USA. State v. Trump, 2017 WL 3911055 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2017). This decision follows the US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hawai’i v. Trump which on June 26, 2017, partially reinstated the “travel ban” executive order.
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.
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.
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).
He issued on March 6, 2017 a second Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” The new EO, among other actions, temporarily suspends from “entry into the United States” certain nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and also temporarily suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
Like the previous EO, the new EO has been challenged in federal court. On March 15, 2017, in State of Hawaii v. Trump, the court issued a nationwide TRO against implementation of the above-described provisions of the new EO, holding that Hawaii was likely to succeed on its claim that the new EO violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. …