The order issued by Judge Robart Friday, telling the government to stop enforcing the visa and refugee bans, was a temporary restraining order - a very preliminary, short-term thing. Does that justify the ban, or does it mean the legal standard should be changed? Photo by David McNew/Getty Images The first phase: deciding whether the government can appeal the temporary freeze Trump’s immigration ban may well fit the legal standard we have right now. At best, the court-imposed freeze will probably be in place for another week or two while Judge Robart decides whether to replace it with an indefinite injunction - an indication that the executive order isn’t likely to pass constitutional muster - or allow the ban to go back into effect.Īs Robart and the Ninth Circuit work through the legal questions in the case, they’ll have to make a choice. It’s extremely unlikely the government will succeed. The federal government is asking the Ninth Circuit to lift the freeze as quickly as possible the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, after its Tuesday hearing, is expected in the next few days. On Friday, federal judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington temporarily froze all enforcement of the order’s key parts: a 90-day ban on all entries to the US from people from seven majority-Muslim countries, and a 120-day ban on nearly all refugees. Practically from the moment the executive order went into effect, federal judges have issued rulings trying to limit its effects. When it comes to Trump’s ban, that hasn’t been the case. That logic has historically given the executive branch a ton of leeway when it comes to immigration policy. When it comes to national security, the courts have often deferred: Judges don’t know the risks the country is facing, the argument goes, so they need to defer to the executive branch when national security is at stake. It’s less extraordinary a claim than it sounds. “Are you arguing,” asked Judge Michelle Friedland, “that the president’s decision is not reviewable?”Įventually, Department of Justice lawyer August Flentje conceded: “Uh, yes.” Participants learned about the legal challenges to the Executive Order and the practical implications stemming from both the Order and the challenges to it.In a Tuesday hearing over whether to reinstate President Trump’s executive order banning people from seven majority-Muslim countries and nearly all refugees from entering the US, the judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were. The event included a question and answer session with the panel, and the opportunity to speak privately with volunteer attorneys. refugee programs, including the Order’s stated intent to permanently stop receiving refugees from Syria. Local families are also concerned about the impact of the Executive Order on U.S. Since the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017, many families, including those who are permanent United States residents or dual citizens, have been concerned about the impacts of this order on their civil rights, including their ability to travel and to pursue their educational and vocational goals. A top agenda item for the panel was the nationwide temporary restraining order entered against the Executive Order by Western District of Washington Judge Robart earlier that day, in response to a joint petition filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. partner Amy Williams-Derry participated in a panel sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations-WA (“CAIR”) at the Muslim Association of Puget Sound (MAPS) in Redmond, Washington to discuss President Trump's Executive Order travel ban. On February 3, 2017, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |