Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project
Reference: 16-1436
Issue: Immigration
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argued: Unargued
First order: October 10, 2017
Second order: December 4, 2017


Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project is a case that was docketed for oral argument during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The court consolidated arguments in the case with arguments in Trump v. Hawaii. Arguments in the case were scheduled for October 10, 2017, but on September 25, 2017, the court removed arguments in the case from the court's calendar pending a further order from the court. On October 10, 2017, the court issued a summary disposition in the case in which the court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the matter back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the portion of the case on appeal as moot.

Garrett Epps, writing in The Atlantic magazine, said regarding the travel ban cases that "the Supreme Court could leave a legacy as enduring as Brown v. Board of Education" in its decision. The Washington Post reported in January that President Trump's first travel ban, which was issued in January of 2017, would affect about 90,000 people waiting for entry into the United States. The State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration reported that, of the six countries affected by Trump's March order, from January 1, 2017, to August 1, 2017, "the United States admitted 7,242 refugees from the six countries, less than half (of) the 14,958 who were admitted last year."[1][2][3]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Current status: Pending in the lower courts. On October 10, 2017, the court issued a summary disposition in the case in which the court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the matter back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the portion of the case concerning Trump's March executive order as moot. However, the challenge to Trump's September executive order is still active. On December 4, 2017, the court issued another order, this time concerning Trump's September executive order. The December 4 order overturned the Fourth Circuit's ruling that stayed part of Trump's September executive order from going into effect while the litigation was still pending. The supreme court's December 4 order lifted the stay, allowing all parts of Trump's September executive order to go into effect while the litigation proceeds through the lower courts. On December 8, 2017, the lower court heard arguments on the merits of the case. It is expected to issue a ruling soon thereafter, paving the way for the supreme court to consider hearing arguments in the case before the end of its term.


    • In brief: On March 6, 2017, the president issued a revised executive order, Executive Order 13780 (hereafter, EO-2). Section 2 of the order restricted immigrants from six countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from entering the United States for a period of 90 days. Section 6 of the order further suspended refugee admissions from these countries into the United States for 120 days and reduced the cap on the number of refugees admitted into the United States for fiscal year 2017. A federal district judge prevented government enforcement of Sections 2 and 6 of the order while the case was pending. The government appealed the district court's decision, but the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the district court's injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court initially agreed to hear the case, issuing a per curiam opinion that prevented government enforcement of the order against any foreign national who could credibly establish a bona fide relationship in the United States. Arguments in the case were scheduled for October 10, 2017. On September 25, 2017, the court removed arguments in the case from the court's calendar, and on October 24, 2017, the court issued a summary disposition in which the court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit as to Trump's March executive order on the basis that the executive order had expired and the challenge to it was now moot.

    However, while the case over the March executive order was still pending, on September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a third presidential proclamation outlining new travel restrictions for individuals traveling from eight different countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. According to the proclamation, the restrictions resulted from the national security reviews undertaken by the secretary of homeland security as directed by the March 6 executive order. The types of restrictions and reasons given for the restrictions varied by country, but most were related to either a lack of cooperation with providing information related to identity verification for visa applicants or terrorist threats within the designated country.[4]

    The plaintiffs amended their complaint in federal district court to add a challenge to Trump's September executive order. Although the supreme court's October 24 order effectively dismissed the case as to Trump's March order, the challenge to Trump's September order remained active, and the plaintiffs asked for a temporary injunction to stay the effect of Trump's September executive order while the litigation was pending. On October 17, 2017, the federal district judge ruled in their favor, and the government again appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, 2017, the supreme court stayed the district court's October 17 ruling, allowing the entirety of Trump's September executive order to go into effect while the case is pending.[5]

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[6]


    You can review the federal district judge's opinion on Trump's September executive order and the government's request to the supreme court here.[7]


    Here is our page on the consolidated case: Trump v. Hawaii.

    Background

    This page is about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Donald J. Trump et al. v. the International Refugee Assistance Project et al. For a more detailed account of the executive orders issued by the government and challenged by the respondents in this case, please see the following pages:

    On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769, (hereafter, EO-1). EO-1 was entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The order suspended entry into the United States for individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for a period of 90 days. EO-1 also suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days while the process was reviewed for additional national security measures that could be implemented. The admission of Syrian refugees was suspended indefinitely. One week later, on February 4, 2017, a nationwide temporary restraining order was issued by Judge James Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington prohibiting the government from enforcing Section 3 and Section 5 of EO-1. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the government's motion to stay Judge Robart's order pending appeal. The government opted not to challenge Judge Robart's order further and announced that a revised order would be coming from the president.[8]

    On March 6, 2017, the president issued a revised executive order, Executive Order 13780 (hereafter, EO-2). A group of respondents led by the International Refugee Assistance Project filed a lawsuit in federal district court. The respondents alleged that the order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the order "was motivated not by any concerns pertaining to national security, but by animus towards Islam."[8] They also argued the law was in violation of provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. On March 15, 2017, Judge Theodore Chuang issued a nationwide temporary restraining order preventing government enforcement of Section 2(c) of the order. The government appealed Judge Chuang's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.[8]

    On May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the district court's injunction of Section 2(c), the portion of the executive order that would have prevented Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen nationals from entering the country. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the motivation of the executive order was religious in nature and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. In making this determination, the court took into account public statements President Trump made regarding Muslims, both during the 2016 presidential campaign and following his election. The court found that while the reasons for the executive order appeared to be legitimate on its surface (i.e. for national security), they were invoked with bad faith, "as a pretext for its [the order's] religious purpose."[6]

    Supreme Court ruling - June 26, 2017

    On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in which the court issued a partial stay of Judge Chuang's order. The court ruled that Section 2(c), the 90-day ban from six specific countries, could "not be enforced against any foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States ... the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2." However, in the absence of establishing a bona fide relationship, the government was permitted to enforce Sections 2(c) in all other instances.

    The court's order granting a partial stay also served to issue a writ of certiorari to the Fourth Circuit.[8]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the request for certiorari on June 26, 2017, consolidating arguments in the case with arguments in Trump v. Hawaii. Arguments in the case were scheduled for October 10, 2017, but on September 25, 2017, the court removed arguments in the case from the court's calendar pending a further order from the court.[9]

    Third executive order on September 24, 2017

    On September 24, 2017, Trump issued his third executive order on immigration, revising his March order. The plaintiffs in Trump v. Hawaii amended their lawsuit to include a challenge to this third executive order.

    Supreme court order on October 10, 2017

    On October 10, 2017, the court issued a summary disposition in the case in which the court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the matter back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

    Lower courts' intermediate rulings on Trump's September executive order

    The plaintiffs asked for a temporary injunction to stay the effect of Trump's September executive order while the litigation was pending. On October 17, 2017, the federal district judge ruled in their favor, and the government again appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    Supreme court order on December 4, 2017

    On December 4, 2017, the supreme court stayed the district court's October 17 ruling, allowing the entirety of Trump's September executive order to go into effect while the case is pending.[10]

    What's next

    On December 8, 2017, the Fourth Circuit heard arguments on the merits of the plaintiffs' challenge to Trump's September executive order. That court is expected to issue a decision quickly, paving the way for the United States Supreme Court to consider hearing arguments in the case before the end of its term.

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ The Atlantic, "The generational significance of the travel ban cases," July 9, 2017
    2. ↑ The Washington Post, "The number of people affected by Trump's travel ban: about 90,000," January 30, 2017
    3. ↑ NBC News, "Halfway through, Trump coming up empty on travel ban," August 14, 2017
    4. ↑ The White House, "Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats," September 24, 2017
    5. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "International Refugee Assistance Project et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al." December 4 Order, December 4, 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, International Refugee Assistance Project et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. Opinion, May 25, 2017
    7. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "International Refugee Assistance Project et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. Opinion, October 17, 2017
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. International Refugee Assistance Project et al.; Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Hawaii et al., June 26, 2017
    9. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named questions
    10. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "International Refugee Assistance Project et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al." December 4 Order, December 4, 2017
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trump_v._International_Refugee_Assistance_Project&oldid=8904046"