Source: https://takecareblog.com/immigration/executive-orders
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:11:34+00:00

Document:
Through infamous and controversial orders, President Trump has sought to ban entrants from selected Muslim-majority nations.
Michael Dorf argued that litigation against the travel ban should be considered a success, regardless of the final result at the Supreme Court. A report shows that Customs and Border Protection repeatedly violated court orders issued during the first week of the travel ban litigation.
A federal court grants an injunction requiring the Trump Administration to resume accepting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals renewal applications.
President Trump's recent tweets may not help the government's defense of the latest iteration of the Travel Ban.
Travel Ban litigation continues: The Trump Administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow the full ban to go into effect while they appeal an earlier injunction. An Inspector General report, currently withheld from publication, indicates that federal agents violated court orders in the rollout of the first travel ban.
President Trump's recent executive actions on immigration and refugees are not based on objective criteria.
The government’s litigation strategy in the travel ban litigation undermines the purported national security rationale for the entry ban.
The real problem is the Trump Administration itself. What feels like damage today is largely the echo of damage that already happened, rather than something new.
Improper Commands from President Trump's Employees?
Key White House personnel might be violating important limits on their lawful authority.
The administration’s policy of forcibly separating children from their parents highlights some of the shortcomings with the legal justifications for the administration’s position in Azar v. Garza, the case in which the administration is refusing to allow undocumented women in its custody to obtain abortions.
The Solicitor General is apparently still trying to figure out why the entry ban is constitutional.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Japanese Internment Cases offers a chilling reminder of why courts cannot close their eyes to clear evidence of bigotry in executive orders supposedly justified by security concerns.
The Supreme Court is now a co-owner and co-author of the travel ban. That grows truer every time it tinkers with minutiae of this cruel, unjustified policy. And with that position comes major institutional risk to the Supreme Court’s public legitimacy.
The Department of Justice has filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit defending President Trump's revised entry ban. This is not an impressive brief: it is rife with misstatements of fact and incorrect legal arguments.
The Trump administration has repeatedly (and incorrectly) argued that a policy does not constitute discrimination unless the policy discriminates against all members of a particular group.
Judge Alex Kozinski, among others, has argued that President Trump's campaign statements are irrelevant to assessing the Muslim Ban. But his argument starts with the wrong question, and inevitably reaches the wrong answer.
It is likely that the Trump administration will simply seize on whatever ambiguity there is in the latest injunction to deny entry to as many people as it can. Why? Because that is the point of the Travel Ban.
DOJ rushed to the Supreme Court to ensure that the government wouldn't have to admit grandparents. Its arguments are silly.
The Comey affair underscores that decisionmakers must look beyond the administration’s “official” documents to determine the administration’s motives.
The future of discrimination law is secure, in short—and securely shut to minority races, ethnicities, and creeds suffering at the hands of a populist majority.
A careful review of Judge Gorsuch's record reveals strong reason to believe that he would vote to uphold President Trump's revised Muslim Ban (and potentially many other executives abuses, too).
En Banc Review? How Can I Say No?
When asked by the Fourth Circuit, the Government said it wanted to have the full court consider its Muslim ban. But the Government probably did not mean it.
A different take on how presidential statements or the possibility of them might affect Trump v. Hawaii (the entry ban case).
In its Muslim Ban brief, DOJ favorably cites Palmer v. Thompson (1971)—which allowed Jackson, Mississippi to close public pools rather than integrate them. The Fourth Circuit should question DOJ about this stunning citation and make clear that Palmer, an odious ruling, has no place in anti-discrimination law today.
Some of the administration’s gaslighting is relatively low stakes. Its gaslighting about DACA is not.
Donald Trump's apparent reasons for (apparently) rescinding DACA make little sense.
The President's words indicate he is open to honoring DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program). But his actions (and inactions) suggest otherwise.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discuss a major new lawsuit that challenges President Trump's announced revocation of the DACA immigration program. Listen now!
The Supreme Court should strike down Trump’s travel ban.
Jane Chong questioned whether the administration's “self-interested [legal] stance" in the cases about the emoluments clauses "is ... fundamentally at odds with the trust that the office [of the President] confers.” It's worth asking the same about the administration's litigating position on the scope of the injunction against the entry ban.
Both the travel ban case and the Texas redistricting litigation raise questions about the staying power of discriminatory intent.
By making fine distinctions between who Trump can or cannot ban from the US, the Supreme Court has opened the door to greater discrimination against Muslims at the border.
The First DACA Rescission Was Arbitrary and Capricious. Will the Next One Also Be?
Should Congress adopt a permanent fix to DACA in the coming days, the preliminary injunction will prove unimportant. But given deep divisions within and among the parties, that is hardly a sure thing. Accordingly, the ruling warrants careful study.
The President's statements on the London attacks reveal how the President thinks about his entry ban, and also what he might do if there is ever an attack on the United States.
The Muslim Ban litigation does not involve a "revolt of the judges." As proven by a survey of major and minor cases from the legal canon, this litigation involves only the standard fare of judging.
A quick analysis of the differences between the Hawaii and Maryland district court decisions on the entry restrictions in "EO-3."
Some quick thoughts on the Supreme Court's actions on the travel ban.
The President Resuscitates the Entry Ban: Where Should the Supreme Court Go From Here?
In this post I explain why, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Monday, there’s no good reason for the Supreme Court to grant any of the government’s petitions or applications.
Analysis of the Ninth Circuit's latest travel ban argument (and some personal reflections).
The President’s clarifying memorandum undercuts the legitimate rationale the executive order and DOJ had offered for the entry ban. An amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court explains why that matters.
The AG's comments denigrating Hawaii statehood are objectionable for many reasons. But don't overlook his underlying complaint about national injunctions—which conservatives spent years developing and have suddenly, painfully discovered can be used against them.
An emergency appeal on the Muslim Ban may be both rational and his worst outcome.
The Supreme Court is considering a major constitutional challenge to federal immigration detention policies. Trump’s recent executive orders make that case even more significant.
The President's "clarifying" memorandum undermines the facial legitimacy of the entry ban, and the government's stated purposes for the entry ban.
Take Care hereby presents in a single post all commentary we have rounded up in our daily updates since the site launched on March 16. Together, these articles tell the story of the revised travel ban and offer a diverse set of perspectives on legal issues in the litigation.
In a new op-ed, Erwin Chemerinsky and I argue that the entry ban is unconstitutional because it was driven by animus toward Muslims.
Let's explore the hypothesis that Trump is deliberately sabotaging the already weak case for sustaining the travel ban. This is extremely unlikely. As they say in medical school, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. The most obvious explanation--Trump is an ignorant racist with no impulse control--should dominate more intricate theories.
In its war on information, the Trump administration is not just trying to hide the facts. It’s also trying to misrepresent them.
This decision, however attractive as a matter of policy, strikes me as mistaken under the law. It warrants swift reversal by higher courts.
And now what? We’re condemned to battle the zombie-like remains of this cruel order as it shuffles about the world for just a few more weeks, ruining lives and embarrassing our tradition of religious liberty.
Maybe the whole compelling interest test is misguided in Establishment Clause cases.
The First Amendment makes America great for everyone, not just for citizens.
It is time to ask: Has Trump in effect forfeited some measure of judicial deference across contexts and cases, through his disrespect for the courts and the rule of law and his displays of prejudice and arbitrary decisionmaking? And if he has not yet reached that point, what more would it take?
President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to lift the stay preventing him from implementing his travel ban. Nelson Tebbe, Micah Schwartzman and I, along with a large group of constitutional law scholars, have filed a brief opposing Trump's motion.
Some thoughts on a brief in a case the Court had scheduled to hear today.
By the time you read this, the heart of the so-called 'travel ban' will probably be no more.
Trump's statements about the revised travel ban overwhelmingly evidence a purpose at odds with the Establishment Clause. And few, if any, of those statements evince actual, substantive national security or foreign affairs objectives that explain the bizarre scope of his order.
When future generations judge a particular composition of the Supreme Court, a major failure can become that Court's defining feature, overshadowing substantial contributions to the law.
The Muslim Ban targets Muslims everywhere. The notion that it reflects, at most, animus toward foreign (or non-citizen) Muslims doesn't withstand scrutiny. There can be no doubt that it inflicts severe and continuing injury on the American Muslim Community.
Anti-Muslim animus on the face of the second travel ban requires clear proof that the third one is free of such bigotry.
Jennings v. Rodriguez underscores how prior administrations, with the agreement of the federal courts, argued for expansive authority over immigration and immigration detentions that were ripe for abuse.
Take Care hereby presents in a single, updated post all commentary we have published about the revised travel ban.
The SG's letter of correction to the Supreme Court says more about the kind of misstatements he will tolerate rather than the kind he won't.
The administration has again attempted to push the boundaries to see what it can get away with on the travel ban guidance.
The Trump administration will invoke whatever views of statutes and executive power maximize cruelty towards the foreign nationals he and his supporters most despise.
Sometimes, when an emissary of the President asks courts to “trust us,” things the President does elsewhere can fatally undermine judicial confidence in the President’s respect for rule of law values. We’ve seen it before and we’re about to see it again.
Thanks in part to the President's own recent tweets and public comments, the case for concluding that his revised travel ban is unconstitutional has now become overwhelming.
The Ninth Circuit can give life to one of the challengers' most powerful arguments against Supreme Court review.
Giving President Trump the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Fictionalizing an account of his motive so as to avoid reaching a certain conclusion is something else.
Take Care offers a quick, rough breakdown of the amicus briefs filed last week concerning President Trump's revised executive order.
There are some notable similarities between the President's announcement that transgender individuals would be banned from military service, and the ban(s) on entry from several Muslim majority countries.
On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss recent important cases in the world of immigration, including a new lawsuit contending that the Trump Administration may not pursue its apparent policy of legally separating immigrant children from adults that they enter the country with. Listen now!
Will the President’s own words mean nothing to the Court, even as they mean everything to millions affected by his order?
The President's latest statements on Twitter undermine DOJ's defense of the entry ban, and continue the President's efforts to blame everyone (including DOJ and the courts) but himself.
Preliminary thoughts on the Supreme Court's travel ban order.
It's our first emergency podcast! Right after the full Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in a major case regarding the Muslim Travel Ban, we hopped on the line to do a recap. The podcast includes excerpts from the oral argument audio.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Justice Kennedy tells us a lot about why the Court should reject the government's arguments on the First Amendment claim in the entry ban case.
The government can't act based on animus toward particular religions. But that's exactly what Trump did.
Some commentators are seizing on court orders in the proceedings related to the scope of the injunction against the entry ban as an indication that courts are rethinking their decisions against the entry ban. That's wrong (with a cautionary note about the federal courts).
Litigating the Supreme Court’s Entry Ban Opinion: What’s the Required Connection?
All of the briefs are now in on the government’s motion to the Supreme Court for clarification of its order in Trump v. Hawaii.
The government and the courts have proven that one of the administration’s justifications for the now expired entry ban was a joke.
By Vicki Jackson & Judith Resnik: Upholding the third travel ban out of deference to the President on matters of foreign affairs would be a tragic mistake.
A quick recap of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hawaii v. Trump with thoughts about what it portends for the Supreme Court.
Here I offer three quick reactions to the government’s latest filing in the Ninth Circuit case—the first two on questions concerning what the Court should do now with the government’s applications, and the third with respect to the merits of the statutory ultra vires argument on which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied.
A quick analysis of Judge Watson's order that temporarily restrained the latest set of entry restrictions.
I've argued that the Supreme Court shouldn't grant review of the travel ban case because 33 hours after the Respondents file their response to the petition for certiorari on June 12, the entry ban will no longer be operative. Here I respond to two purportedly “plausible” alternative interpretations of the executive order offered by William Baude.
Misperceptions of the Muslim Ban case abound. One of them is that Trump's animus is evidenced only by his campaign promise to ban Muslims from America. That promise, we demonstrate, must be situated in the context of Trump's sustained and wide-ranging crusade against the American Muslim community.
An analysis of DOJ's latest filing at SCOTUS in the travel ban cases.
A detailed guide to how and when the Muslim Ban might reach the Supreme Court (and why this question really matters).
Perceptions of presidential bad faith have given judges the fortitude to do what the law already demands of them, even though their actions might prompt the President to bash them by name on TV or Twitter.
The President’s litigation positions underscore how he views his office as a license to beat up on persons with less power.
Now that the travel ban is back in the Supreme Court, here are four additional, preliminary thoughts on where things stand.
Analysis of DOJ's filing at SCOTUS today in the travel ban cases.
Seriously? The Court Intended to Exclude Grandmas from the Preliminary Injunctions?
A post on the absurdity of the Administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s modification of the travel-ban/refugee-limit preliminary injunctions.
DOJ can't distinguish a case from 1995 in which it took a diametrically opposed view on the relevance of campaign statements.
In a recent article, I expand on my argument that the Court's reasoning in Masterpiece Cakeshop suggests the Travel Ban violates the First Amendment.
The opinion by then-Justice Rehnquist in Hunter v. Underwood (1985), a case about denying the right to vote for racist reasons, offers thoughtful answers to many of the hardest questions that you might ask about motive and the Muslim Ban.
As reported by the New York Times, the Administration's travel ban guidance shows a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's directive.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha are joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to talk about the Masterpiece Cake Shop oral argument, plus the status of Muslim Ban litigation and the future of Take Care.
The government is arguing it can deprive noncitizens of their legal rights simply by making it too difficult and painful to vindicate those rights.
To the extent that Trump’s statements about the travel ban shed light on why the executive orders were issued—and they surely do—those statements are material to the constitutional analysis.
The Supreme Court’s travel ban order deviates sharply from well-established standards for the granting of a stay. For better or for worse, the spirit of compromise trumped the letter of the law.
A diverse group of leading constitutional law scholars—representing many different views about the Establishment Clause—has filed an amicus brief challenging the Muslim Ban. Here's what you need to know.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a recent district court opinion that rejected California's challenge to the Trump Administration's expedited border wall projects in California. Listen now!
A confused and poorly reasoned decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shouldn’t be read to shield agencies from judicial review whenever they happen to be following an executive order.
Last night, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked Trump's revised entry ban. Here is a detailed analysis of its decision and an assessment of what likely will happen next in that litigation.
In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court reminded us that the courts will not be there to save us. It is up to us, instead.
Judge Kozinski thinks that we cannot account for President Trump's campaign statements in the Muslim Ban cases. That is wrong. Courts can, and should, reckon with this history in assessing whether Trump's ban comports with religious neutrality.
Many close observers of the Court are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out just exactly what the Court did yesterday in Trump v. IRAP–and why. With the luxury of a few hours to ponder the mysteries, here are some tentative speculations on the most commonly posed questions.
The Administration's unhurried pace in defending its revised travel ban belies its representations of urgency to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Trump's promise to ban Muslims was no vague, imprecise, or passing comment made on the fly during campaign season. It was a deliberate, carefully considered, and oft-repeated promise that fit perfectly into Trump's broader vision of discrimination against American Muslims.
Justice Jackson's famous separation of powers framework offers no support for President Trump's entry ban. In fact, it's irrelevant.
In the Fourth Circuit argument in IRAP v. Trump, Judge Keenan put her finger on a simple, basic reason why Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13769 is unlawful—and it doesn’t have much to do with the Establishment Clause. Rather, it’s a matter of everyday statutory interpretation, and the fact that President Trump has failed to establish the necessary precondition for the exercise of his statutory authority.
Korematsu holds that in a case like this one the obligation to strictly scrutinize invidiously discriminatory policies remains even when the government asserts a facially plausible national security justification.
An analysis of Judge Bybee's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in Washington v. Trump, and some predictions about the future of President Trump's revised entry ban.
The first legal challenges to the third travel ban were filed, while the parties challenging the second travel ban filed briefs on the mootness of those cases. The Trump administration began its phase-out of DACA.
The revised travel ban expired, potentially rendering legal challenges to it moot, and the President's new ban came into effect. Senate Republicans unveiled their proposed replacement for DACA.
The Trump administration filed a brief arguing that the immigration ban is not a Muslim ban.
The Supreme Court scheduled argument in the travel ban case.
The Supreme Court issued a partial stay of the district court's order granting relief to refugees from the revised travel ban. Reports suggest the President is weighing a new executive order that would expand expedited removal of undocumented immigrants.
The week was rich with analysis at Take Care and beyond of President Trump’s revised entry ban. The Administration has asked the Fourth Circuit to expedite the appeal. In the meantime, diplomatic cables reveal “extreme vetting” policies may be ramping up.
Comparisons between President Trump’s promise to exclude Muslims from the United States and vague off-the-cuff comments during campaign season are inapt.
An amicus brief offered an alternative basis to find the Administration's travel ban unconstitutional.
Federal district court judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked President Trump's revised travel ban, preventing the administration from enforcing key provisions of its policy.
Litigation over President Trump's revised travel ban order continues: a federal judge in Hawaii issued a preliminary injunction against the order, and the Fourth Circuit will take initial en banc review of a similar injunction.
Litigation challenging President Trump's revised immigration order continues in courts. Questions over President Trump's campaign statements and intent continue to linger.
A federal district judge rejected Hawaii's request to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction against the revised travel ban. Commentary continued on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the travel ban case.
President Trump has issued two very controversial executive orders, both banning entrants from selected Muslim-majority nations. Here are some useful analyses of the story thus far.
The en banc Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on the revised travel ban, sparking extensive commentary. An advocacy group filed a FOIA request related to border searches of electronic devices in the possession of individuals covered by the travel ban.
Discussion of the Trump administration's travel ban continued as the administration sought Supreme Court review of a nationwide injunction against the ban.
Hawaii's litigation against the revised travel ban continues. There is uncertainty in the Trump Administration over who controls immigration issues.
The Administration argues in its brief to the Supreme Court for the travel ban that the Court should not second-guess the President's national security judgments.
The Ninth Circuit largely upholds a lower court's injunction of President Trump's revised entry ban; the Administration responds with a request to the Supreme Court for supplemental briefing.
Commentary continued on the Supreme Court's holding on the revised travel ban. The Trump Administration asked the Ninth Circuit to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling narrowly.
This week, Hawaii asked the Ninth Circuit for full court review of the revised entry order. The Fourth Circuit, in an unusual move, agreed to hear the Trump Administration's revised entry order appeal en banc, with oral arguments set for May 8.
President Trump continues to sign executive orders on immigration, and advocates continue to fight them in the courts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.