President Donald Trump’s administration faces a flurry of lawsuits challenging his Jan. 27 executive order to bar refugees and citizens of seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. A San Francisco-based appeals court on Feb. 9 rejected the administration’s request to re-instate the restrictions, after they were put on hold by a federal judge in Seattle. Still, the legal battle is only beginning, and differences of opinion are profound. Sally Yates, the acting U.S. attorney general at the time Trump’s order took effect, instructed the Justice Department to refrain from defending it in court, saying she wasn’t convinced it was "consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right." Trump promptly fired her, and her replacement, Dana Boente, ordered Justice employees "to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our president."
1. What does the executive order do?
It bars Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. indefinitely, and all other refugees -- people fleeing their homelands claiming persecution or fear of violence -- for 120 days. It also blocks entry to the U.S. for 90 days to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
2. How many people are affected?
It’s hard to say. About 721 travelers out of 1 million people arriving in the U.S. were affected by Trump’s order in the 72 hours after it was signed, according to Customs and Border Protection data. According to the State Department, the U.S. provisionally revoked about 60,000 visas of people from the seven nations cited by Trump’s order. In its challenge to the order, the state of Washington said its residents include more than 7,000 non-citizen immigrants from the seven countries who would be deported if they traveled abroad and attempted to re-enter the U.S.
3. Why is the ban on hold?
In the most sweeping court action so far, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart in Seattle ruled on Feb. 3 that the states of Washington and Minnesota had met the burden of demonstrating that the order harmed the ability of certain residents to work, attend college, travel and conduct business and family relations. The ruling led to the reopening of U.S. borders to visa holders from the seven countries and spurred the State Department to reverse its cancellation of visas. The court in San Francisco upheld Robart’s ruling on appeal.
4. What’s next?
The administration is likely to ask the Supreme Court to urgently take up the narrow issue of whether the order should be in effect while the case brought by Washington and Minnesota is fully adjudicated. In any event, proceedings in that suit will resume in mid-February. And additional lawsuits have been filed around the country. Courts in Brooklyn, New York, and elsewhere have issued rulings narrower than Robart’s temporarily striking down parts of the order; a judge in Boston refused to extend a temporary hold.
5. What are the administration’s arguments?
Trump administration officials say the executive order protects Americans from potential terrorist attacks by targeting countries with dangerous jihadist movements. In court, they said that the president has “extreme power” over immigration and cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows him to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” if their entry would harm U.S. interests. Courts aren’t allowed to second-guess the president on foreign affairs, national security and immigration, the U.S. argues. It says states can’t sue the U.S. over immigration policy and that foreigners not in America aren’t protected by U.S. law.
6. What do those challenging the order say?
They argue the order is, in effect, a ban on Muslims in violation of American values of religious freedom. In a 1982 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause -- part of the First Amendment -- means "that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another." Complicating matters, Trump told Christian Broadcast News in an interview that he intended to give priority to Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. Some critics of the order have argued that if it were purely motivated by security concerns it would also have targeted Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- the home countries of 9/11 attackers including the plot’s leader, and two countries where Trump has business interests.
7. What is Trump’s response?
Trump says the order isn’t a Muslim ban, because it focuses on geography rather than religion. That assurance was undermined somewhat by one of his chief campaign supporters, Rudy Giuliani, who said Trump was looking for a legal way to enact a "Muslim ban." Plus, Trump himself, as a candidate, called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on."
8. Is Trump’s action unprecedented?
The administration says it’s not. According to the gove
No comments:
Post a Comment