On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” . It provides an example of an order that was issued, modified and revoked.
On February 3, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Ninth Circuit issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the President and the other Defendants-Appellants in the case enjoining them from enforcing multiple sections of the Executive Order. Due to the level of interest in this case, the Court created a website to provide access to case information. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined with Attorneys General from other states in filing a Brief by Amici Curiae (Friends of the Court) in the Ninth Circuit Case.
Attorney General Healey joined a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts and private immigration lawyers in the United States District Court of Massachusetts challenging E.O. 13769. She also joined with Attorneys General from other states in filing as Amici Curiae in the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia. Access to all of the documents filed by the Massachusetts A.G.’s office and more is available on the Attorney General’s website.
On Feb. 3, 2017, the State of Hawai’i filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Donald J. Trump et al. in the U.S. District Court for Hawai’i. On Feb. 7, 2017, the Court entered an Order staying proceedings in the case in Hawai’i pending resolution of the proceedings in the case in the Ninth Circuit which had issued a nationwide injunction.
A wikipedia article on Legal Challenges to Executive Order 13769 is fairly comprehensive in setting forth the many challenges to the order, with links to some of the primary source documents.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a second “Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”, E.O. 13780, which states “Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, is revoked as of the effective date of this order. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.”
Meanwhile, on the same day that the second Executive Order was issued, President Trump’s lawyers filed a Notice of Filing of Executive Order in the case in the Court for the District of Hawai’i. This Notice states “The Government is preparing to enforce the provisions of this New Executive Order beginning on its effective date. Counsel for the Government are available to confer with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding appropriate further proceedings before this Court in the event that plaintiffs decide to bring a challenge to this New Executive Order.” Two days later, on March 8, 2017, the State of Hawai’i amended their original complaint to include the second E.O. On March 15, 2017, the day before the effective date of the new Executive Order, the Judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) reading in part “Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation,” presenting his analysis in a 42 page ruling.
Documents in State of Hawai’i and Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KJM, are available to authorized users of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has made some of the documents from this case available online for free.
On March 9, 2017, Attorney General Maura Healey filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice in the case that had been filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts (Case 1:17-cv-10154-NMG). On March 13, 2014, Attorney General Healey joined the State of Washington and other states filing an amended complaint in the original Ninth Circuit case.
University of Michigan Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is monitoring Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Refugee/Visa Order . Their website has a wealth of information on 29 principle cases filed challenging E.O. 13769. “Dozens of cases were filed against the original executive order; many are likely to continue, after amendment, to challenge the new version.” For each of the cases, the Clearinghouse provides a case summary, a list of issues and causes of action, and links to additional resources, many of which are court documents made available by third parties retrieved from the PACER system.
For more on Determining the Status of Presidential Orders, see the previous post “Presidential Executive Orders: Issuing, Modifying and Revoking.”
Presidential Executive Orders: Issuing, Modifying and Revoking posted on Mar 14
“While the President’s ability to use executive orders as a means of implementing presidential power has been established as a matter of law and practice, it is equally well established that the substance of an executive order, including any requirements or prohibitions, may have the …Continue Reading Presidential Executive Orders: Issuing, Modifying and Revoking
US Supreme Court Nominee Process posted on Mar 13
The US Constitution states that the President nominates the judges of the US Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the US Senate (Article 2, section 2, clause 2). After the recent nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court by President Trump, …Continue Reading US Supreme Court Nominee Process
Online information: access and veracity posted on Mar 10
The Massachusetts Library System recently posted an online guide with resources to help citizens evaluate information online and hone media-literacy skills. Included is a popular eight-point informational graphic from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions and is a concise, single-page tipsheet. One of the points is …Continue Reading Online information: access and veracity