Another Court Enjoins Enforcement of Third Travel Ban

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, Oct. 17, 2017), a Maryland federal district court became the second court (see prior posting) to bar enforcement of most of the third version of President Trump's travel ban.  As did the Hawaii federal district court the day before, the Maryland federal court held that the Presidential Proclamation violates provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit denial of immigrant visas on the basis of nationality.  Disagreeing with the Hawaii federal court, it held that the government had made an adequate fining of "detrimental interest" to justify the ban.

Reaching an issue that the Hawaii court had avoided, the Maryland federal court concluded that, like the prior two bans, the third travel ban also violates the Establishment Clause.  It concluded that the third version of the ban is merely "the inextricable re-animation of the twice-enjoined Muslim ban." The court said in part:

... [A] simple check on the demographics of the geographic area affected by the Proclamation, with a combined population that is predominantly Muslim, reveals that its impact closely aligns with religious affiliation....  Likewise, the inclusion of two non-majority Muslim nations, North Korea and Venezuela, does not persuasively show a lack of religious purpose behind the Proclamation. The Venezuela ban is qualitatively different from the others because it extends only to government officials, and the ban on North Korea will, according to Department of State statistics, affect fewer than 100 people....

Thus, while Defendants assert that the Proclamation’s travel ban was arrived at through the routine operations of the government bureaucracy, the public was witness to a different genealogy, one in which the President—speaking “straight to the American people,” ... announced his intention to go back to and get even tougher than in EO-1 and EO-2.... 

The reasonable observer using a “head with common sense” would rely on the statements of the President to discern the purpose of a Presidential Proclamation.... Here, those statements do not offer “persuasive” rejection of the President’s prior calls for a Muslim ban, or his stated intention to use a ban on certain “dangerous territory” to effectuate a Muslim ban, ... nor do they show that the stated intention to impose a Muslim ban has been “repealed or otherwise repudiated” 

The court, while issuing a nationwide injunction, limited its injunction to visa applicants who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, ad defined in prior litigation on the President's travel bans.  It also excluded travelers from Venezuela or North Korea. CNN reports on the decision.

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.

Another Court Bars Enforcement of Trump's Second Travel Ban

As reported by Bloomberg Politics, yesterday a Maryland federal district court became the second court to bar enforcement of part of President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order. In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, March 16, 2017), the court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Second Executive Order. That section imposes a 90-day suspension on entry into the country of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  The court said in part:

The Second Executive Order does not explain specifically why this extraordinary, unprecedented action is the necessary response to the existing risks. But while the travel ban bears no resemblance to any response to a national security risk in recent history, it bears a clear resemblance to the precise action that President Trump described as effectuating his Muslim ban. Thus, it is more likely that the primary purpose of the travel ban was grounded in religion, and even if the Second Executive Order has a national security purpose, it is likely that its primary purpose remains the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban. Accordingly, there is a likelihood that the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause.

Trump Issues New, More Targeted Version of Travel Ban

President Trump yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) (press release) (White House background document) setting out a more targeted version of his travel ban.  The travel restrictions in the prior ban expired yesterday, while the refugee restrictions in the prior ban extend to Oct. 24.  The new ban focuses around a "baseline for the kinds of information required from foreign governments" to allow U.S. vetting of immigrants and non-immigrants. The Administration determined that 7 nations fail to meet these standards: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen, and travel to the U.S. by nationals of those countries is largely banned. (Though restrictions on Venezuela are limited to travel here by government officials.) The Administration also found that Iraq does not meet the baseline standards, but excludes its nationals from new restrictions. A ban is placed on admission of immigrants from Somalia, even though it technically meets the baseline criteria. The Proclamation separately sets out the scope of the restrictions on each of the covered nations, tailoring each to the individual situations. (Fact Sheet; FAQs).

As reported by Reuters, these developments are likely to have an effect on the challenges to the prior travel ban pending in the courts.  The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on those challenges on Oct. 10. (See prior posting.) Yesterday the Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider receiving additional briefs to address the effects of the new Proclamation on the pending cases. Washington Post has additional reporting on the new Presidential Proclamation.

UPDATE: In an Order (full text) dated Sept. 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

The parties are directed to file letter briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the Proclamation issued on September 24, 2017, may render cases No. 16-1436 and 16-1540 moot. The  parties should also address whether, or to what extent, the  scheduled expiration of Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of Executive Order No. 13780 may render those aspects of case No. 16-1540 moot.

4th Circuit En Banc and 9th Circuit Hear Arguments In Challenge To Third Travel Ban

On Wednesday, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in State of Hawaii v. Trump, a challenge to President Trump's third travel ban Proclamation. In the case a Hawaii federal district court-- without reaching the Establishment Clause question-- issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of most portions of this latest, more focused, version of President Trump's travel ban.  The court (See prior posting.)  The Hill reports on the arguments.

Yesterday, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard two hours of arguments (audio of full arguments) in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, another challenge to the same travel ban Proclamation.  In the case, a Maryland federal district court held that the Proclamation violates provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit denial of immigrant visas on the basis of nationality, and that, like the prior two bans, the third travel ban also violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.)  The Hill reports on the arguments.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction while appeals are pending in both cases.  (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges New Version of Trump's Travel Ban As Establishment Clause Violation

Yesterday a lawsuit was filed challenging President Trump's newest iteration of his administration's travel ban.  The complaint (full text) in Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump, (D MD, filed 10/3/2017), contends that the new ban set out in a Presidential Proclamation still targets Muslims in violation of the Establishment Clause, provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and other provisions of the 1st and 5th Amendments.  The complaint alleges in part:

5. In a continuation of his unlawful Muslim ban, on September 24, 2017, President Trump issued the Proclamation, which suspends categorically and indefinitely, without a specified expiration date, the entry into the United States of nationals of five of the six countries included in the Second Executive Order (Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia), as well as yet another Muslim-majority country (Chad). In an effort to disguise the Proclamation’s targeting of Muslims, the Proclamation adds North Korea, even though virtually no North Korean nationals travel to the United States, and adds Venezuela, but then imposes only limited restrictions on the non-immigrant entry of just a small group of Venezuelan government officials and their immediate family members.

6. Despite President Trump’s attempts to cloak this latest iteration of his Muslim ban in religiously neutral garb by invoking a national security review and including North Korea and Venezuela, the purpose and effect of the Proclamation remain unchanged: to keep Muslims from entering the United States.

In a related lawsuit filed this week, plaintiffs sought to enforce a FOIA request for copies of reports submitted to the President by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  The reports are cited in the President's Proclamation as the basis for determining which countries should be covered by the new travel ban.  Here is the complaint in the lawsuit, Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Department of State, (SD NY, filed 10/2/2017).

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.  The press release includes links to other relevant documents as well.

4th Circuit En Banc Says Trump's Third Travel Ban Violates Establishment Clause

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc today, in opinions spanning 285 pages, affirmed a Maryland federal district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the Proclamation setting out the third version of President Trump's travel ban.  In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (4th Cir. en banc, Feb. 15, 2018), the court by a vote of 9-4 held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.  Chief Judge Gregory's majority opinion said in part:

[H]ere the Government’s proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the President himself. Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation’s purpose is driven by anti-Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President. This evidence includes President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this “Muslim” ban by targeting “territories” instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1 and EO-2, addressed only to majority-Muslim nations; and finally the issuance of the Proclamation, which not only closely tracks EO-1 and EO-2, but which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same goal as EO-1 and EO-2.....

While the majority ultimately concluded that it would not rely on President Trump's pre-election statements in reaching its conclusion, it nevertheless indicated that it would have been permissible to do so:

Perhaps in implicit recognition of the rawness of the religious animus in the President’s pre-election statements, the Government urges us to disregard them. This is a difficult argument to make given that the President and his advisors have repeatedly relied on these pre-election statements to explain the President’s post-election actions related to the travel ban....  [I]n McCreary, the Supreme Court reminded us that “the world is not made brand new every morning.” .... Because “reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” these statements certainly provide relevant context when examining the purpose of the Proclamation.

The majority concluded:

In sum, the face of the Proclamation, read in the context of President Trump’s official statements, fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose. To the objective observer, the Proclamation continues to exhibit a primarily religious anti-Muslim objective. Our constitutional system creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for presidential action and we often defer to the political branches on issues related to immigration and national security. But the disposition in this case is compelled by the highly unusual facts here. Plaintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President of the United States has openly and often expressed his desire to ban those of Islamic faith from entering the United States. The Proclamation is thus not only a likely Establishment Clause violation, but also strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on “religious animosity.”

Six of the judges would have also found a likelihood of success on at least some of plaintiffs' statutory challenges to the Proclamation. Four concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions were also filed. Pursuant to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court order, the court stayed the injunction pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on today's decision.

4th Circuit En Banc Hears Oral Arguments On Trump's Second Travel Ban

Today the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of appeals sitting en banc  (13 judges) heard oral arguments (audio of oral arguments from C-Span) in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.  In the case, a Maryland federal district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 2(c) of President Trump's second travel ban executive order. That section of the Executive Order imposes a 90-day suspension on entry into the country of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  The district court concluded that there is a likelihood that the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Washington Post reports on the oral arguments, saying in part:

... [J]udge after judge during an extraordinary two-hour hearing asked Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall about statements during the presidential campaign and afterward in which Trump talked about a Muslim ban.

Wall said the order for a 90-day ban on foreign travelers from certain countries was simply to protect the country by increasing the vetting of those who are potentially dangerous. That is not only within the president’s authority, Wall said, it is his responsibility.

But Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said that could mean a candidate for president could call for a Muslim ban every day for a year, enact a cleverly worded plan that accomplished that on his first day in office, and have courts ignore whether that was his real purpose.

Under intense questioning, Wall acknowledged it could violate the Constitution to single out a religion for adverse treatment, but said Trump’s revised executive order was neutral.

Supreme Court Dismisses One Travel Ban Case As Moot

In an Order (full text) issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as moot Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, the challenge to President Trump's second travel ban. As explained by a USA Today report:

"We express no view on the merits," the justices said in a one-page order.

The decision effectively wipes the record clean in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, one of two federal appeals courts that had struck down major portions of Trump's travel ban. That case began in Maryland.

A separate case from the 9th Circuit, based in California, remains pending because it includes a ban on refugees worldwide that won't expire until later this month. But the Supreme Court is likely to ditch that case, which began in Hawaii, as well....

Justice Sotomayor dissented, saying that instead she would dismiss  the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. This would have maintained the 4th Circuit's opinion as precedent.

Supreme Court Stays Preliminary Injunction Against Trump's 3rd Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted a complete stay of the preliminary injunction that a Hawaii federal district court had issued against President Trump's third travel ban. The 9th Circuit had lifted the ban in part. (See prior posting.)  But today's order (full text) in Trump v. Hawaii (Sup. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017) stays the injunction completely while the case is being appealed to the 9th Circuit and then to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court noted that the 9th Circuit is handling the appeal on an expedited basis.  Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor indicated that they would have denied the stay application.  Washington Post reports on today's ruling by the Supreme Court. [corrected]

UPDATE: Later today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar stay while appeals are pending of a preliminary injunction against the third travel ban that has been issued by a Maryland federal district court. (See prior posting.)  Today's order (full text) comes in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 4, 2017).  Again Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed with the majority.

Update On Third Travel Ban Developoments

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 25 in Trump v. Hawaii, a group of challenges, including an Establishment Clause challenge, to President Trump's third travel ban. (See prior posting.) Over 70 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  Links to them are on SCOTUSblog's case page.  Meanwhile, yesterday the White House announced that the President has signed a Proclamation removing Chad from the list of countries covered by the travel ban, saying in part:

Republic of Chad has improved its identity-management and information sharing practices sufficiently to meet the baseline security standard of the United States.  Chad nationals will therefore again be able to receive visas for travel to the United States.

Court Bars Enforcement of Most of Trump's Third Travel Ban

In State of Hawaii v. Trump,(D HI, Oct. 17, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of most portions of the latest, more focused, version of President Trump's travel ban. (See prior related posting.)  This version, set out in a Presidential Proclamation  and scheduled to take effect today, covers travel to the U.S. by nationals of eight countries.  The court banned enforcement of the Proclamation ("EO-3") against nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia.  Plaintiffs had not sought a ban on enforcing the provisions barring travelers from North Korea and some travelers from Venezuela.  The court summarized:

Ignoring the guidance afforded by the Ninth Circuit that at least this Court is obligated to follow, EO-3 suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” a precondition that the Ninth Circuit determined must be satisfied before the Executive may properly invoke Section 1182(f). Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 774. And EO-3 plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the Ninth Circuit has found antithetical to both Section 1152(a) and the founding principles of this Nation. Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 776–79.

As with the 9th Circuit's earlier decision (see prior posting), this approach allowed the court to avoid reaching plaintiff's argument that the Proclamation amounts to an unconstitutional "Muslim ban."  Anticipating an appeal, the court also ruled that it would not stay its Order pending any appeal.  CNN reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On Oct. 20, the court converted the TRO to a preliminary injunction. (Full text of order.)

Challenge To First Travel Ban Is Settled

A Settlement Agreement (full text) has been reached in Darweesh v. Trump, (ED NY, Aug. 31, 2017), one of the challenges to President Trump's now-superseded first travel ban.  As described by the New York Times:

Under the settlement agreement, the federal government is required to identify and send a letter to every individual who was improperly barred from entering the country under the original travel ban, providing a list of free legal services organizations that can help recipients obtain visas or other entry documents. Approval is not guaranteed, but the government agreed to process their applications in good faith.

Government Seeks Supreme Court Review of Third Travel Ban

The Justice Department last week filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in Trump v. State of Hawaii, a challenge to the President's third travel ban.  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. (See prior posting.)  The 9th Circuit avoided deciding the question of whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUSblog has more on the cert. petition and the background of the case.

FOIA Lawsuit Seeks Information On Case-By-Case Waiver of Travel Ban

Last week a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit was filed by three advocacy groups-- Muslim Advocates, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Southern Poverty Law Center-- seeking information on the waiver provisions of President Trump's second travel ban executive order.  The complaint (full text) in Muslim Advocates v. U.S. Department of State, (D DC, filed 10/5/2017) reads in part:

On June 27, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request ... seeking specific information related to the waiver provisions of Executive Order 13,780 ... allowing the Commissioner of CBP to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a national from one of the six majority Muslim countries identified in the Second Executive Order may gain entry into the country. These documents and information are critical to Plaintiffs’ ability to assist and advise affected travelers, and to understand the scope of the Second Executive Order’s waiver provision and the extent to which the government has implemented or is implementing its policies in a discriminatory or unconstitutional manner.

President Trump's Sept. 24 Proclamation revising the travel ban contains a similar waiver provision. Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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.

Texas Sues California In Supreme Court Over Travel Ban To States Allowing LGBTQ Discrimination

This week, the state of Texas filed an original suit in the U.S. Supreme Court against the state of California challenging California's ban on the state paying for travel by its employees to other states that allow discrimination against LGBTQ individuals or families. The complaint (full text of complaint and brief in support) in State  of Texas v. State of California, (US Sup. Ct., filed/2/10/2020) reads in part:

California has enacted and is enforcing economic sanctions against Texas, Texas citizens,and Texas businesses. California has targeted Texas and its residents because To Texas protects the religious freedom of faith-based child welfare providers within its borders....

California’s sanctions against Texas and Texans are born of religious animus and violate the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1; Interstate Commerce Clause, id. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; and guarantee of Equal Protection, id. amend. XIV, § 1.

The complaint and brief in support of the state's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint which is attached to the complaint seeks an order forcing California to take down its travel ban or remove Texas from it. Texas Attorney General's office has issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

Another Suit Challenges Trump's Latest Travel Ban Executive Order

Last week, another suit was filed challenging President Trump's latest travel ban Executive Order on, among others, Establishment Clause and equal protection grounds.  The suit was brought by the largest organization of Shi’a Muslims in the United States,as well as by a Yemeni couple living in the United States. The complaint (full text) in Universal Muslim Association of America, Inc. v. Trump, (D DC, filed 3/23/2017), seeks a nationwide injunction barring the government from enforcing the sections of the Executive Order that temporarily bar or make more difficult travel into the U.S. by nationals of certain majority-Muslim nations.  As explained by a press release from Americans United:

There are two sets of plaintiffs in the case. They include the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA), the country’s largest organization of Shi’a Muslims, whose members are being deprived of religious learning, worship and services because their religious scholars almost exclusively hail from Iran, Iraq and Syria.  One of their scholars has already been denied entry under the first Muslim ban executive order, and he and other scholars are likely to be denied entry again.  The second set of plaintiffs are John and Jane Doe -- parents blocked from bringing their children home from Yemen.

Supreme Court Refuses Original Suit By Texas Against California

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. California, (Sup. Ct., April 26, 2021), (SCOTUSblog case page) denied the state of Texas leave to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to file a bill of complaint against the state of California. USA Today described the background:

California passed a law in 2016 prohibiting taxpayer-funded travel – such as for state employees to attend conferences – to any state that doesn’t ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Texas law allows foster-care and adoption agencies to deny same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Texas took California directly to the Supreme Court last year, asserting the travel ban was "born of religious animus" and that it violates the Constitution....

The justices had been considering whether to take the suit for months. The court did not explain its decision not to hear the case.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying in part:

The practice of refusing to permit the filing of a complaint in cases that fall within our original jurisdiction is questionable, and that is especially true when, as in this case, our original jurisdictional is exclusive. As the history recounted above reveals, the Court adopted this practice without ever providing a convincing justification....

Texas raises novel constitutional claims, arguing that California’s travel ban violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art. IV, §2, cl. 1, the Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause, Amdt. 14, §1. I express no view regarding any of those claims, but I respectfully dissent from the Court’s refusal even to permit the filing of Texas’s complaint.

Trump Travel Ban Will Not Apply To Israelis Born in Covered Nations

A refinement was announced yesterday to President Trump's Executive Order on entry into the U.S. of nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries.  The modification, which essentially carves out an exception for Jews from those nations now living in Israel, may strengthen arguments of opponents who contend that the Executive Order operates de facto as a "Muslim ban."  The U.S. Embassy in Israel yesterday announced:

Travelers with an existing valid visa in their Israeli passport may travel to the United States, even if they are also a national of or born in one of the seven restricted countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). Embassy Tel Aviv will continue to process visa applications and issue visas to eligible visa applicants who apply with an Israeli passport, even if born in, or a dual national of, one of the seven restricted countries. Final authorization to enter the United States is always determined at the port of entry.

According to The Forward, some 140,000 Israelis, most older than 65, were born in the 7 countries covered by the travel ban. Around 45,000 were born in Iran and 53,000 were born in Iraq. No doubt almost all of these are Jews who left Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East to move to Israel. (Background.)