Three Federal District Courts to Hold Hearings in Lawsuits that Seek to Block Implementation of Trump’s Revised Refugee Admissions/Travel Ban Executive Order
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
 | Preliminary rulings could be handed down as soon as this week from any one of three courts that are holding hearings this week on lawsuits that are seeking to block the revised Executive Order on refugee admissions, immigration, and travel to the United States that the President Donald J. Trump signed last week. |
Among other things, the revised order cuts refugee admissions to the United States by 60 percent for the current fiscal year; halts refugee admissions to the United States, altogether, for 120 days while the Administration undertakes a study of the security of the U.S. refugee admissions program (USRAP); bars for 90 days travel to the United States for the passport holders from six predominately-Muslim countries pending a study of security procedures with respect to the admission of nationals from those countries; and implements a yet-to-be-defined regime of “extreme vetting” for all persons seeking entry to the United States.
The new executive order, signed by the President on Monday, March 6, 2017, is scheduled to replace an embattled Order that he signed in late January that immediately become embroiled in litigation in dozens of courts across the country.
The original Order, which the President signed on January 27, 2017, will be revoked, effective at Midnight on Thursday, March 16, 2017, the date on which the new one goes into effect.
Immediately upon being signed by the President, the revised refugee admissions/travel ban executive order became embroiled in litigation:
The original Order, which the President signed on January 27, 2017, will be revoked, effective at Midnight on Thursday, March 16, 2017, the date on which the new one goes into effect.
Immediately upon being signed by the President, the revised refugee admissions/travel ban executive order became embroiled in litigation:
- Ninth Circuit Litigation. Still pending in the Ninth Circuit is the case of the States of Washington and Minnesota v. Donald J. Trump, et al, challenging the original, January 27th refugee admissions/travel ban executive order. The Court there issued a TRO enjoining five key aspects of that order. While the new executive order revokes the original one, effective at midnight on March 16th, the states of Washington and Minnesota have asked the judge handling the case to rule on whether the TRO enjoining the Administration from implementing key aspects of the January 27th executive order should apply to the new executive order. U.S. District Judge James L. Robart has ordered the Department of Justice to submit a brief by 7:30 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, March 14th, on that matter. .A ruling on that request could come at any time.
In the meantime, that same judge has scheduled a hearing for 5:00 pm EDT on Wednesday, March 15th, on a new lawsuit filed by four U.S. citizens or residents who are seeking to block implementation of the new executive order.
A ruling would need to be handed down almost immediately.
- Maryland and Hawaii. Court proceedings relating to the revised executive order also are scheduled for this week in Maryland and Hawaii.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a federal judge set a hearing for Wednesday morning, March 15th,on a lawsuit brought by HIAS and the IRC. refugee aid groups. A hearing on that suit is scheduled for 9:30 am EDT on Wednesday, March 15th.
Another hearing is set to take place in front of a federal judge in Honolulu, Hawaii on a lawsuit brought by the state of Hawaii. A hearing on that suit is scheduled for 3:30 pm EDT on March 15th.
- Limited Court Order. In the meantime, a U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisconsin issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, March 10th blocking the revised executive order’s potential impact on the family of a Syrian refugee living in the United States. The Order was only applicable to the plaintiff in the case, however.
The un-named plaintiff in the case sought the order so that his wife and minor child can follow to join him in the United States, as is provided by law.
In issuing the Order, U.S. District Court Judge William Conley wrote, “The court concludes that plaintiff has presented some likelihood of success on the merits and that he is at great risk of suffering irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order is denied,” Conley wrote. “The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order. ... As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts.”
“Moreover, given the daily threat to the lives to plaintiff’s wife and child remaining in Aleppo, Syria, the court further finds a significant risk of irreparable harm,” the judge wrote.
See Also:
- Trump Signs Revise Refugee/Travel Ban Executive Order
- March 6, 2017, Revised Refugee Admissions/Travel Ban Executive Order
- March 5, 2017, DHS Fact Sheet on the March 6 Executive Order
- March 5, 2017, DHS Q&A Document on March 6 Executive Order
- January 27, 2017, Refugee Admissions/Travel Ban Executive Order