Democratic ags mount fight against trump travel ban
You're referring to the legal challenges against the Trump administration's travel ban, also known as Executive Order 13769, which was signed on January 27, 2017. The ban aimed to suspend the entry of citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) into the United States for 90 days.
The Democratic-led states and cities, as well as various advocacy groups, quickly mounted a legal fight against the travel ban, arguing that it was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violated the rights of individuals and families. Here are some key developments in the legal battle:
- Initial lawsuits: Within hours of the travel ban being signed, several states, including Washington, Minnesota, New York, and California, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, arguing that the ban was unconstitutional and violated federal immigration law.
- Federal court injunctions: On February 3, 2017, a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the travel ban, citing the ban's "undue harm" to individuals and families. Similar TROs were issued by federal judges in Boston and Honolulu.
- Appeals and reversals: The Trump administration appealed the TROs, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard the case. On February 9, 2017, the 9th Circuit denied the administration's request to reinstate the travel ban, upholding the TROs.
- Supreme Court intervention: On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision, allowing a limited version of the travel ban to take effect, pending further litigation. The court ruled that the ban could be enforced against individuals who lacked a "bona fide relationship" with a person or entity in the United States.
- New challenges and revisions: In response to the Supreme Court's decision, several states and advocacy groups filed new lawsuits, arguing that the revised travel ban still violated the Constitution and federal law. In September 2017, the Trump administration issued a new executive order, which replaced the original travel ban and expanded the list of countries affected.
- Ongoing litigation: The legal battle continues, with ongoing challenges to the revised travel ban and related policies, such as the "travel ban 3.0" and the "public charge" rule, which aims to restrict immigration based on an individual's potential use of public benefits.
Throughout the legal fight, the Democratic-led states and cities have argued that the travel ban:
- Violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.
- Violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees individuals the right to due process and equal protection under the law.
- Violates federal immigration law, which requires the government to prioritize national security and humanitarian concerns when making immigration decisions.
The legal challenges have been ongoing for over three years, with the Supreme Court's decision in June 2017 being a significant turning point in the case. The ongoing litigation reflects the ongoing controversy and debate surrounding the travel ban and its implications for national security, immigration policy, and individual rights.