Doug Chin, Hawaii's Attorney General, publicly stated, "This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0. The State of Hawaii moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint pertaining to Executive Order 13780. Hawaii brought a civil action challenging the executive order on March 7, asking for declaratory judgment and an injunction halting the order. Of note was a challenge from the State of Hawaii, which formed the basis of the Supreme Court case. It also continued to suspend USRAP for 120 days.Īs with EO 13769, EO 13780 was immediately criticized and was legally challenged in several cases. It did not outright ban travel from citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, but required significant additional scrutiny before they would be able to enter the United States and banned new visas for these countries for 90 days. President Trump then signed Executive Order 13780 (EO 13780) on March 6, 2017, replacing EO 13769 to acknowledge the findings from the Ninth Circuit. Trump, heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a restraining order was placed on enforcement of EO 13769 on February 3, 2017. Several lawsuits were filed to challenge the order, and in Washington v. Because the countries affected have large Muslim populations and Trump repeatedly called for banning Muslim immigration during his Presidential campaign, EO 13769 was commonly referred to as the "Muslim ban", and was heavily criticized by many state legislatures and federal lawmakers. Initially he signed Executive Order 13769 (EO 13769) on January 27, 2017, which among its provisions banned entry to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for a 90-day period regardless of their visa status, and suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. Background Executive Orders 1370 Īs part of his immigration policy, United States President Donald Trump had sought to limit foreigners from certain countries from traveling into the United States. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority." It is not agreed upon among legal scholars as to whether this statement actually overturned Korematsu or was merely a "disapproving dictum" of it. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority's decision "redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one gravely wrong decision with another." Responding to this dissent, Roberts wrote for the majority that " Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. 214 (1944), which had justified the President's powers to establish internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. In addressing the travel ban, the Court also repudiated the infamous decision of Korematsu v. The decision of the Court, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, applied rational basis review and emphasized deference to the executive branch. The court vacated the injunction and remanded the case to lower courts for further proceedings. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 5–4 decision, ruling that plaintiffs did not have "likelihood of success on the merits" on either their INA or their Establishment Clause claims. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the proclamation was likely a violation of INA the court of appeals did not reach the constitutional issue. district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the ban from coming into effect, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their argument that the proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and exceeded the president's powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. _ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |