Jockeying In Travel Ban Litigation Continues In Supreme Court

As previously reported, last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in State of Hawaii v. Trump affirmed a district court's decision on the scope of President Trump's second travel ban executive order.  The decision essentially found that the executive branch had read an earlier order by the Supreme Court too narrowly both as to the travelers and refugees who could be excluded under the travel ban pending a Supreme Court decision on the merits. In a filing on Sept. 11, the government asked Justice Kennedy, the Circuit Justice for the 9th Circuit, to stay the portion of the 9th Circuit's mandate dealing with refugees who are still covered by the travel ban. The next day, Justice Kennedy issued an order temporarily staying that portion of the 9th Circuit's mandate. Today, the state of Hawaii filed its response, arguing in part:

The Government has returned to this Court, for the third time, to ask that it superintend the application of the injunction in this case. The first time the Government was here ... this Court set forth the legal standard that governs the injunction of Executive Order 13,780 ...: Any foreign national with a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. entity—that is, a relationship that is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course”—is protected from EO-2’s travel and refugee bans.... The second time, on July 19, 2017, the Court denied the Government’s request to “clarify” that the injunction does not apply to refugees who have received a formal assurance from a refugee resettlement agency, instead directing the Ninth Circuit to resolve the question....

The Ninth Circuit faithfully applied both of those directives. It determined ... that a refugee has a “bona fide” relationship with a resettlement agency that signs a formal, written assurance to provide for her housing, food, and other essentials of life. And the Ninth Circuit rejected the Government’s invitation to treat this Court’s July 19, 2017 stay as the merits decision the Court had declined to issue; instead, it performed the diligent analysis that is expected of an appellate court.

SCOTUSblog reports on developments.

UPDATE: On Sept. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order (full text) staying the 9th Circuit's mandate as it applies to refugees covered by a formal assurance of placement from a resettlement agency.  Refugees from countries covered by the travel ban whose only connection to the United States is such an assurance of placement will be able to be excluded, at least until the Supreme Court decides on the validity of the travel ban on the merits this term.

9th Circuit Affirms Enforceable Scope of Travel Ban

In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (9th Cir., Sept. 7, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court's decision on the scope of President Trump's second travel ban executive order. The court affirmed the lower court's injunction barring enforcement of the Executive Order against

(1) grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; and (2) refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”) through the Lautenberg Amendment.

Honolulu Star Advertiser has more on the decision.

Differential Marriage License Requirement For Foreign Born Held Unconstitutional

In Vo v. Gee, (ED LA, Aug. 8, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court granted a permanent injunction, holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that treats differently applicants for a marriage license who were born outside the United States from those born in the U.S. or one of its territories.  Under the law a birth certificate must be produced in order to obtain a marriage license, but those born in the U.S. may obtain a waiver of the requirement.  Those born elsewhere, such as the Vietnamese refugee who is plaintiff in the case, are not entitled to the same type of waiver and must also provide a passport or visa.  The court concluded that this violates the Equal Protection clause as well as the substantive due process right to marriage, even though a subsequent Louisiana law allows a judicial waiver of the birth certificate requirement.  Washington Post reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Rules Again On Scope of Travel Ban During Appeal

Once again the Supreme Court has found a complicated middle path in the ongoing challenge to President Trump's second Travel Ban Executive Order.  As previously reported, a Hawaii federal district court held that the government too narrowly interpreted the Supreme Court's temporary order that precludes while appeal is pending, enforcement of the ban against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  The government asked the Supreme Court to clarify the matter.  Today in Trump v. Hawaii, (Sup. Ct., July 19, 2017), after receiving briefs on the matter, the Supreme Court refused to stay the portion of the district court's order that allows in otherwise banned foreign nationals from 6 Muslim-majority countries if the travelers have grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, or cousins in the United States. The Supreme Court however suspended, while the government's appeal to the 9th Circuit is pending, the portion of the district court's order that would have allowed entry of refugees who have assurances of placement from a resettlement agency, as well as those entering under the Lautenberg Program.  Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they would have stayed the entire district court order.  SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Christian Refugees To U.S. Outnumber Muslim Refugees So Far In 2017

A Pew Research Center analysis released last week shows that during the first months of the Trump Administration, Christian refugees admitted to the United States outnumber Muslim refugees. This is a change from last year.  During fiscal 2016, of refugees admitted, 46% were Muslim and 44% were Christian. But from Jan. 21 until June 30 of this year, 50% are Christian (9,598), 38% are Muslim (7,250), 11% are other religions and 1% have no religious affiliation.  The difference is in part accounted for by shifts in the countries of origin of admitted refugees.  During the first months of the Trump Administration, the largest number of refugees (3,235) came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

District Court Broadens Those Still Allowed Entry Under Trump's Travel Ban [UPDATED]

In State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, July 13, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court held that the government has too narrowly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's order that precludes enforcement of President Trump's second travel ban executive order against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  The district court held that qualifying close familial relationships include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.  It also held that a refugee seeking entry has a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity when a resettlement agency has given the refugee assurance that it will provide, or arrange for, reception and placement services to that refugee.  A similar relationship exists for those in the Lautenberg Program for refugee admissions. New York Times reports on the decision.

UPDATE:  As reported by SCOTUSblog, on July 14, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to clarify that the district court's decision is an incorrect interpretation of the Supreme Court's order.  The Supreme Court ordered plaintiffs in the case to file a response to the government's motion for clarification by noon on July 18.

Supreme Court Grants Review and Partially Lifts Injunctions Against Trump's Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a per curiam opinion in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2017), granted certiorari and partially lifted the outstanding injunctions against enforcement of President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order.  Under the Court's decision, the 90-day ban on entry of nationals from 6 Muslim-majority nations:

may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.

The Court gave illustrations of the line it was drawing:

For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member ... clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The Court similarly partially lifted the injunction against enforcement of the suspension of refugee admissions and the lowering of the cap on refugees, saying:

An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, ... the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.....

.... Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individualseeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000- person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect.

The Court also ordered that oral arguments in the case be heard during the first session of the October term of the Court. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, in a separate opinion dissenting in part said that they would have stayed the preliminary injunctions in full and predicted extensive litigation over what constitutes a bona fide relationship. Washington Post reports on the decision.

Trump Extends Effective Date of Travel Ban To Prevent Case From Becoming Moot

President Trump yesterday issued a Memorandum (full text) designed to prevent a dismissal on mootness grounds of the government's attempt to obtain Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of his second travel ban Executive Order.  The major provisions of the travel ban imposed a 90-day suspension of entry into the country of nationals of six Muslim-majority nations, and a 120-day suspension of the entry of refugees, both to be measured from the March 16, 2017 effective date of the Order.  The new Memorandum issued June 14 provides:

In light of questions in litigation about the effective date of the enjoined provisions and in the interest of clarity, I hereby declare the effective date of each enjoined provision to be the date and time at which the referenced injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.  To the extent it is necessary, this memorandum should be construed to amend the Executive Order.

Lyle Denniston has more on the President's action.

9th Circuit Upholds Most Of Injunction Against Second Travel Ban Without Reaching Establishment Clause Issue

Yesterday in an 86-page per curiam opinion in State of Hawaii v. Trump, (9th Cir., June 12, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the injunction previously issued by an Hawaii federal district court barring enforcement of the major provisions of President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order.  Summarizing its holding the 9th Circuit panel said:

we affirm the injunction as to Section 2(c), suspending entry of nationals from the six designated countries for 90 days; Section 6(a), suspending USRAP for 120 days; and Section 6(b), capping the entry of refugees to 50,000 in the fiscal year 2017.

However the court vacated the injunction to the extent that it prevented the government from conducting inter-agency reviews that do not impact third parties. The court also limited the injunction to government officials other than the President himself.

In its decision, the court did not reach the Establishment Clause arguments. Instead, it relied on statutory grounds:

we conclude that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits at least as to their arguments that EO2 contravenes the INA by exceeding the President’s authority under § 1182(f), discriminating on the basis of nationality, and disregarding the procedures for setting annual admissions of refugees.

The 3 judges deciding the case were all Clinton appointees. The Justice Department previously asked the Supreme Court to suspend the district court's injunction as the case moves through the entire appellate process.

Hawaii Federal District Court Converts TRO Against Travel Ban To Preliminary Injunction

Yesterday a Hawaii federal district court granted the state of Hawaii's motion to convert its prior temporary restraining order against President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order into a temporary injunction. In State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, March 29, 2017), the court concluded that "Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim...."  The court said in part:

The Court determined in its TRO that the preliminary evidence demonstrates the Executive Order’s failure to satisfy Lemon’s first test.... As no new evidence contradicting the purpose identified by the Court has been submitted by the parties since the issuance of the March 15, 2017 TRO, there is no reason to disturb the Court’s prior determination.

Instead, the Federal Defendants take a different tack. They once more urge the Court not to look beyond the four corners of the Executive Order.... No binding authority, however, has decreed that Establishment Clause jurisprudence ends at the Executive’s door.

Hawaii Federal Court Bars Enforcement of Key Provisions of Second Travel Ban

Today a Hawaii federal district court issued a nationwide temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Section 2  (90 day ban on entry into U.S. of nationals of six Muslim-majority nations) and Section 6 (120 day suspension of entry of refugees) of President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order.  The Executive Order was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. (See prior posting.)  The lawsuit was brought by the state of Hawaii and by the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawai‘i.  In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (D HI, March 15, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court concluded that:

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.

The court explained its conclusion in part as follows:

The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.... The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”... The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.

According to Hawaii News Now,  President Trump reacted to the ruling during a rally in Nashville, saying in part:

This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. This ruling makes us look weak, which by the way, we no longer are, believe me.  We're going to fight this terrible ruling. We're going to fight this case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Washington Post reports on today's decision. Josh Blackman's Blog has a lengthy post reviewing cases on the application of the Establishment Clause to immigration law matters and reaching a different conclusion than did the Hawaii court about the Executive Order's constitutionality..

New Suit Challenges Syrian Refugee Ban In Trump Executive Order; Hawaii Suit Moves Ahead

The portion of President Trump's travel ban Executive Order which suspends entry of refugees from Syria into the United States was challenged in a lawsuit filed on Monday in a Wisconsin federal district court by a Sunni Muslim who was granted asylum status because of torture and religious persecution he had
suffered in Syria.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Trump, (WD WI, filed 2/13/2017), says that the ban prevents plaintiff from bringing his wife and 3-year old daughter to the U.S. from Syria under a derivative asylum petition which is being processed by the government. The Executive Order prevents USCIS from adjudicating the petition and the State Department from issuing visas to his family.  It also contends that the nationwide temporary restraining order issued by a Washington federal district court is not broad enough to cover this situation because the TRO applies only to enforcement at "United States borders and ports of entry." This new suit alleges that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses and various statutory provisions. WRN News reports on the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Hawaii's Attorney General announced yesterday that a federal district judge has partially lifted a stay he imposed last week on Hawaii's suit against the Executive Order. This allows an Hawaii resident to be added as a plaintiff.  The court also allowed Hawaii to file an amended complaint (full text) adding a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. KHON News reports on these developments.

Class Acton Lawsuit Filed Against Travel Ban

On Tuesday, another lawsuit was filed challenging President Trump's so-called travel ban Executive Order.  This suit was brought on behalf of two refugee agencies-- International Refugee Assistance Project and HIAS--and by several individuals.  The complaint (full text) in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, filed 2/7/2017) asks a Maryland federal district court to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all persons in the United States for whom the Executive Order interferes with family reunification or with the ability to travel internationally and return to the U.S.  The complaint includes claims based on the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among others, and contends:

President Trump has repeatedly made clear his intent to enact policies that exclude Muslims from entering the United States and favor Christians seeking to enter the United States.

HIAS issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

More Primary Source Material On Travel Ban Challenge-- Briefs Are In; Oral Arguments Tomorrow

A flurry of filings have been submitted to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. government's attempt to obtain a stay of the temporary restraining order against enforcement of much of President Trump's immigration and refugee executive order. Both sides have filed memoranda supporting their positions.  In addition, eight amicus briefs have been filed.  Links to all the filings are available on the 9th Circuit's website. The court will hear oral arguments by telephone on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. PST and will promptly make recordings publicly available. New York Times reports on developments.

Lawsuit Challenges Trump Executive Order As Establishment Clause Violation

A direct Establishment Clause challenge to President Trump's Executive Order on immigration and refugees was raised in a lawsuit filed Saturday in a California federal district court in a suit brought on behalf of the People of the United States and of California.  The brief complaint (full text) in People of the United States of America and the State of California v. Trump, (ND CA, filed 1/28/2017) contends that the Executive Order violates separation of powers and is facially unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because it bars "entry of persons to the United States based on their adherence to religious beliefs shared in certain countries." Politico reports on the lawsuit.

Trump's Immigration Executive Order Faces 1st Amendment Challenges

As reported by the Washington Post, yesterday President Trump signed an Executive Order (full text) suspending for 90 days immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the U.S. of aliens from seven Muslim-majority countries-- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. (It should be noted that the countries to which the Executive Order is applicable is discoverable only by elaborate cross references in Sec. 3(c) of the Order that ultimately lead to this list developed last year by the Department of Homeland Security under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of travelers not eligible to participate in the visa waiver program). The Executive Order does not apply to those entering under various diplomatic visas.

The Executive Order also suspends admission of all refugees for 120 days, and of Syrian refugees for an indefinite period.  It provides that when refugee admissions are resumed:

the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.

Following up on this provision, Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network that priority will be given to persecuted Christians in the Middle East, particularly Syria. The Legal Director of the ACLU in a post earlier today argued that the Executive Order's targeting of Muslims and favoring of Christians violates the Establishment Clause. Meanwhile CAIR announced that it will be holding a news conference Monday on a lawsuit that it will file in federal district court in Virginia to "challenge the constitutionality of the order because its apparent purpose and underlying motive is to ban people of the Islamic faith from Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States."

3rd Circuit Judge Questions Religious Mix of Syrian Refugees

In Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (7th Cir., Oct. 21, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Freedom of Information Act case upheld the government's refusal to disclose to an advocacy group for asylum seekers the names of so-called "Tier III terrorist organizations." Judge Daniel Manion filed a concurring opinion with extensive dicta questioning the religious mix of Syrian refugees who have been admitted to the country.  He said in part:

I write separately for a second, critical reason, which is my concern about the apparent lack of Syrian Christians as a part of immigrants from that country. It is possible that our case bears a direct link to this enigma.  It is well‐documented that refugees to the United States are not representative of that war‐torn area of the world. Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one‐half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.... To date, there has not been a good explanation for this perplexing discrepancy.

This is not to suggest that any refugee group is more or less welcome: quite the contrary. The good people of this country routinely welcome immigrants from all over the world. But in a democracy, good data is critical to public debate about national immigration policy.

The Daily Signal reports on Manion's opinion.

USCIRF Releases Report On U.S. Treatment of Asylum Seekers

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday released a report titled Barriers to Protection: The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal.  The report is a follow-up to one issued in 2005, and says:

The research revealed that, although DHS had taken some measures in response to the 2005 study, there were continuing and new concerns about the processing and detention of asylum seekers in Expedited Removal, and most of USCIRF’s 2005 recommendations had not been implemented.

The Report focuses on refugee processing generally, and not specifically on those who claim refugee status based on religious persecution.  However the Report gives this example of problems faced by those claiming religious persecution:

A [Border Patrol] supervisor ... expressed skepticism about Chinese claims of religious persecution, telling USCIRF that Chinese individuals often say they are Christian but cannot even name the church they attend; when USCIRF informed him that many Chinese Christians worship in homes, not churches, he seemed surprised.

Provocative Anti-Muslim Rally Planned For Atlanta

According to yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution,  after the Georgia Building Authority rejected a request for a permit to hold a "United against Islam and Islamic immigration refugee rally" at Liberty Plaza across from the state capitol, authorities now expect a non-permitted, anti-Islamic protest on the sidewalks of the Georgia State Capitol on April 18.  The protest's organizer James Stachowiak, founder and editor of Freedom Fighter Radio, said that speakers at the rally will focus on the threat from Islamic immigration and refugees. He added:

We also plan to shred images of Obama, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Muhammad along with the shredding of the Koran. This will be an open carry event with the use of long arms as Georgia law allows.

CAIR-Georgia reacted with a press release stating in part:

We encourage these protesters to put down their guns, cancel their unsanctioned rally, and meet with representatives of our state’s Muslim community for an open and frank discussion of their concerns.

Groups Say Texas Refusal To Accept Syrian Immigrants Infringes Religious Liberty of Resettlement Agencies

In an article yesterday, the New Republic reports that a number of faith-based refugee resettlement groups in Texas believe that the state's Health and Human Services Commission is infringing their religious liberty.  In a Nov. 19 letter, the Commission's Executive Commissioner told resettlement agencies that they should discontinue immediately any plans they have to resettle Syrian refugees in Texas.  This follows a Nov. 16 letter (full text) from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to President Obama telling the President that Texas will not accept any Syrian refugees out of fear that they could be terrorists. Bee Moorhead, executive director of Texas Impact/Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy, criticizes the Governor's position, saying:

Religious freedom is now the rhetorical currency of the right, but it’s turning out to be in implementation that what’s politically expedient for the right is not affirmative of religious freedom.