The more information there is about the enforcement of the ban in practice – and as immigrant rights activists question the law – the more likely it is that these “additional procedures” will destroy the policy`s defense. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump`s ban on travelers from several predominantly Muslim countries in 2018, the ruling appeared to end legal challenges alleging the policy was based on anti-Muslim bias. Sarsour v. Trump or CAIR v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00120 (E.D.Va. 2017), currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, questions the validity of the order. [114] [115] [116] The latest version of the travel ban, Trump`s third issue, excludes various people from eight countries: Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela.

Six of the countries have a majority Muslim population. On January 28, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court to certify the case as a class action and asking the court to certify class status for all those affected by President Trump`s executive order. The application stated: “. The applicants and the proposed group, through their counsel, respectfully seek an injunction from this court confirming a representative class of applicants under Article Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 1974). The petitioners are asking this court to certify a class composed of all persons whose refugee claims have been approved by the United States citizenship and immigration services within the framework of the United States. Admission program for refugees, holders of valid immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and others from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen who are legally allowed to enter the United States but have been or will be denied entry to the United States under the Executive Order of January 27, 2017. [100] [101] Court challenges are based on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APG). The INA deals with U.S. immigration law, while the APA regulates administrative processes and provides, among other things, that actions taken by government agencies cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or without evidence. In fact, Judge Anthony Kennedy, who provided the fifth deciding vote to uphold Trump`s travel ban, drafted a separate agreement to emphasize that the policy was only valid if it was not a vehicle for religious bigotry.

“The First Amendment. promises the free exercise of religion,” Kennedy wrote. “There is an urgent need for officials to respect these constitutional guarantees. even in the field of foreign affairs,” he said, considering the possibility that “other procedures” could shed light on the issue. On January 19, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the legality of the travel ban 3.0. In the lower courts, legal challenges to the travel ban 3.0 were wide-ranging. The challenges were constitutional and legal. While the Hawaiian court focused on the legal arguments to conclude that the travel ban 3.0 violates immigration law by denying immigrant visas based on nationality, the Maryland court focused on the likelihood that the travel ban 3.0 would violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Thomas goes on to explain why the founding generation viewed justice with suspicion, noting that U.S. courts have traditionally understood the judiciary as the “power to decide individual cases.” (Murphy vs. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.) “As a general rule,” he says, “U.S.

courts have not granted relief beyond the parties to the case. If their injunctions favoured non-parties, this advantage was only a coincidence. Finally, he considered that universal injunctions were “legally and historically dubious”. The second decree, #13780, removed Iraq from the list of target countries and allowed for further exemptions. Parts of that order were blocked by a Hawaiian federal judge on March 15. On June 26, the Supreme Court partially suspended some of the injunctions previously issued by federal appellate courts, allowing the order to take effect for most of it. The hearing on the legality of the decision is expected to take place in October 2017. [9] The order prohibited the detention of those “who, but for the order, would have the lawful authority to enter the United States.” In addition, the judges ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to inform airlines whose flights arrive at Logan Airport of the court order and “that persons on board these flights are not apprehended or returned solely on the basis of the order.” [113] Another way to look at the numbers is to compare countries. When we do this, we find that for the five Muslim countries that have consistently remained on the list of no-travel countries, the number of immigrant visas approved has dropped sharply: a total drop of 81% from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2018, from a 68% drop for Libyans to a 91% drop for Yemenis.

Similarly, the number of temporary nonimmigrant visas from these five countries fell by 78%. On December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court issued orders issued orders by the federal District Courts of Hawaii and Maryland on certain aspects of the Travel Ban 3.0 pending a decision by the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. At the time, the court did not rule on the legality of the ban. This means that the travel ban 3.0 came into full effect on December 4, 2017. Twice last year, the Supreme Court ruled against Muslims who make religious claims, once when judges upheld the travel ban, and last month when they allowed Alabama to execute a Muslim man who had asked his imam to be present on the last day. In addition, the Court concludes that the removal of three Muslim-majority countries (Chad, Iraq and Sudan) from the list, the existence of exceptions for non-immigrants and asylum seekers, and the inclusion of a waiver program add the plausibility of the objectives of the travel ban claimed by the façade. He stressed that, despite the doubts expressed by the plaintiffs and dissenting judges about the “effectiveness and wisdom” of the order, the court “cannot substitute its own judgment for forward-looking executive judgments in these matters,” particularly in the area of national security and foreign policy. [1] *Adapted from an average article by: Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Sirine Shebaya and Abed Ayoub and a fact sheet from the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants` Rights Clinic. This document does not constitute legal advice. It has been updated on 28.01.2019 at 20:30. Groups suing the Trump administration say the 4th District will not be asked to rule on the merits of the legal challenges. They say they are simply asking the Court of Appeals to determine – as is the United States.